Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 58

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60→Archive 65

Duplicate on website marketing 1,750.00$ trumpets

I initially saw Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets and started trying to improve the article adding copy and refs (which I have now removed), and initiating a RM to a WP:COMMONNAME, but then a duplicate of the article on a private website http://kehuna.org/silver-trumpets/ with accompanying advert appeared:http://kehuna.org/trumpet-order-page/ "The price of the trum­pet is 1,750.00$ (sub­ject to change), and requires 2 weeks for deliv­ery (US orders)." etc. ...

A COI is not itself a suitable argument for deletion. AfD is used to determine if an article should be deleted because the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Issues that result from a COI can certainly be cause for concern but usually other policies are guidelines would be used to delete an article (namely WP:N for WP:A7, WP:ADVERT or maybe WP:NPOV for WP:G11, and WP:COPYVIO for WP:G12).
In this case, the article appears to be a copyright violation and qualifies for WP:G12 speedy deletion as it's a copy of this article posted 15 days before the WP article was created. I have marked it for G12 deletion. We'll see what happens but in any case, the article should be watchlisted and the editor informed of our relevant policies and guidelines (I'll do both). OlYeller21Talktome 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, if you notice that text is taken directly from another website as you did in this case, please either mark the text for deletion or let someone know so that it doesn't slip through the cracks. You can always report it Wikipedia:Copyright problems or I can help if you're not sure. OlYeller21Talktome 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
OlYeller, Thanks for sorting that out In ictu oculi (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominatrix

User MJDS has made a few edits now to Dominatrix page promoting her own services as a professional dominatrix, which I have reverted. She is also now using her own user space as an advert, and I fear may resume editing in article space. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I feel like this may have been reported in the past. I'll take a look at it today. OlYeller21Talktome 14:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Imagini

I discovered this article (as I often find potential COI issues) at the copyright problems board. The copyright issues I detected have been removed and revdeleted, but I noticed what looks like an awful lot of puffery (one issue corrected; one noted at the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imagini). I'm trying to knock out some of the nearly 40 day backlog at CP and don't have time to look. I know that no one here may want to take this up, but just in case I thought I'd drop it off. :) It could use an experienced eye! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it today. Thanks, Moon. OlYeller21Talktome 14:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

João Gilberto

Gil Lopes is the principle of www.showbras.com.br. He is claiming (quite likely correctly) that João Gilberto has been under showbras's representation (or something like that) for a quarter century. While this may be true, Mr. Lopes hasn't provided any WP:RS about this, and I'm having trouble getting him to understand why we need more that just his say-so along with pages on his website. Could I have a hand with this please? --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll say more about what is happening. For 25 years my company Showbras, cared for the management of the artist Joao Gilberto. This is public knowledge, we were quoted by major newspapers, trade worldwide and signed all the albums recorded by the artist during this period, as producer or executive producer. In the data sheet of the disks is referred to management. In addition to posters of important presentations are published on the company website. The site of the artist, the artist's most complete site with bio, photos and press material, including major newspapers published the world's environment is Showbras, for obvious reasons. I presume that before all this would be natural that the information in the Encyclopedia of the artist could use as a reference we have. I could not take pictures and publish contracts on Wikipedia, I can do is bring the information to cite a source here and the site of the artist, the most complete site, repeat. I do not suppose there is a conflict of interest in being myself the owner of Showbras simply because Showbras is a company with more than 30 years and several important Brazilian artists in its cast as it is easy to check the website of ShowBras. What I present is the reference site of Joao Gilberto, not the site of Showbras.

Anyway, until this is understood, I did not tell the Showbras or me in the article. --Gil Lopes (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then how do I do? I have to sell Showbras that my contributions are allowed on Joao Gilberto? Should I ask someone I know to go on Wikipedia and write the truth? My testimony to the Wikipedia is censored by the fact that I have participated in the story? My company is perceived as being my own person and therefore can not be cited as actually accomplished? I think the rules are being read and interpreted the wrong way . And please, i would like you consider your own rules: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies, particularly WP:SELFPUB. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion. In any case, citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work, giving proper due to the work of others as in a review article". That is it! We are talking about exactly these, so...--Gil Lopes (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Gil; Bem vindo. I don't write Portugese well but I can read it and I had a look at the Showbras site and at your user page on pt.wikipedia and I see that the Conflict of Interest rules and guidelines have been discussed there at length. I assure you that the rules here on en.WP are just as strict. This is not because we think you are lieing. On the contrary, as the agent for these great artists you know more about them than anyone here, however your job is to act for them, to support them, to make them look good. Over the years we have found that people in your position have great difficulty in writing from a neutral point of view and so we ask you to present your information on the Talk page for other users to consider and add to the topic page.
You have already done the most important thing - you have created a page for Joao Gilberto on your own site. His WP page already references this as his official web page. If there is something you want to add to the WP page make sure it is covered on his official page on your site first then drop a note on his WP talk page telling us there is some new info there and what it is. You could even mark the page on your site as licensed under CC-BY-SA so we have the right to copy stuff verbatim if we want to, without having to rewrite it in our own words. If you don't get a response on the talk page then after a few days create a new item here on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (WP:COIN in wikispeak) and that should bring someone to check it out.
A note on your site is useful to verify basic facts - what year records were issued and how you spell their titles etc. For bigger claims - like his invention of bossa nova - or for stuff about showbras itself we will be asking for independent sources.
Another thing you can do is put more information about yourself on your own user page. Tell people who you work for, list the artists you represent. Don't make it an advertisement for your company but a useful reference page so people know to come and ask questions. If you have references to portugese language sources and other editors have problems with them then feel free to contact me on my user_talk page and I'll see if I can help. It might take me a few days to get back to you though - I've been busy lately. Hope this helps filceolaire (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear sir, thank you for your interest in the subject, I did more than I should, I occupied my time on improving the information in Wikipedia in Portuguese and in English, the result is a big hassle. First the disrespectful treatment that Wikipedia has me down, the violent way in which it cuts and especially the insistence on ignoring the issue and treat it in a way so vile. We're simply talking about the greatest Brazilian artist. I too have to prove what is in the public domain, I think too much fiddling with pages created in the environment ShowBras, think over what they are asking me. I have fulfilled all the requirements when I spoke in cnflito tried to join a series of citations, doubted unjustly, unfairly cut. I'll put an end, do what you want, do not go Criative Commons, I do not agree with it, I realize that this is actually an option from the Wikipedia. Manifest myself in other forums on the subject. But thank you very much.--189.60.189.35 (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

hot dog cart

This IP address has inserted external references to an ebook guide published by convicted criminal Perry Belcher and has deleted the record of Belchers conviction for a laundry list of health-related fraud from the entry on Belchers criminal enterprise [[1]] - as noted on the talk page [page] there is a sustained pattern of deletions to hide Belchers criminal past and current, ongoing probation for Internet-related fraud and there also appears to be a general pattern of inserting links to external commercial sites owned or controlled by Belcher from several IP adresses going back to 2008 when Perry Belcher was editing the Wiki articles on himself 80.202.234.120 (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Suzzy Roche

Today a new editor, who says that she is the article's subject, has arrived. First she made a total overhaul to a version that was very much like a personal web page. When that was reverted she blanked the page a couple of times. I semi-protected for a week to bring a halt to this without needing to actually block her. She has since expressed on her talk page a desire to clean up the page about herself.

I wrote a fairly long personal welcome, hopefully explaining a bit the situation. I'm hoping that she comes back with a willingness to work with Wikipedia, instead of working against us. To this end, assuming that she is willing to take things slower, could I get a person or two willing to assist her in improving the article within Wikipedia's needs? - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the page on my watchlist. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. She referred to my comments as "condescending". Sigh. Between you and another editor who has chimed in on her talk page, I'll let you guys handle this moving forward. I've unprotected the page, and I'll bow out of the situation for now. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Suzzy seems to have figured it out; we'll be able to work with her just fine. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Relativity Media

The IP editing claims to be (on the talk page) a VP of this company correcting "inaccuracies". His edits were unsourced and he removed sourced information, so I have been reverting him. However, I don't really know anything about this matter and now he has posted some sources on the talk page. Some of his changes may therefore actually be justified, but I don't feel competent to judge for myself. I had previous posted a note on the talkpage of the Film WikiProject, but have gotten no response. Perhaps someone here can have a look at this situation. Thanks. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the identity claim. OlYeller21Talktome 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
User:209.66.115.190 notes: "My name is Greg Longstreet. I am the Interim VP of Corporate Communications at Relativity Media. On 7/12/12 I deleted a section of our company profile that was added without our consent that did not accurately reflect our company (Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover)."[2]. The Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover material was removed by:
It's not clear which of the user accounts removing the content belong to Greg Longstreet. I think the removal was justified, but since User:Guillaume2303 and User:Jprg1966 restored it, I'll leave it to another editor to review. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the removal is justified, don't worry about reverting me. As I wrote above, I don't know much of these things (and really don't have time to delve deeper into this). I reverted the IPs and Keen.adam because their edits seemed POV (and from the talk page they have a COI). There are references for the different executives leaving the company, but I have no clue whether these are reliable sources or not. My sole purpose in posting here was getting one or two knowledgeable editors to look at this article and then remove it from my watchlist. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
By the way, Adam Keen is exec VP of worldwide publicity at this company. --jpgordon::==( o ) 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I reviewed the material again. Weak sources, biased due to segregrating the history. It appears that something negative is going on with the company and the material probably makes it look worse than it is. OTOH, its mostly about a corporation rather than raising BLP issues. I couldn't merely delete the material. More effort would be needed in reviewing what's going and reviewing the references. I don't think COIN needs to stop the COIs from removing the negative info or help ensure it stays in. At the moment, the back and forth between the editors may move the content towards a more neutral tone while still conveying the information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Turzai

Name suggests account has COI. Only edits besides those to Mike Turzai (the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House) are to Jim Christiana (another Republican Pennsylvania House member). Three edits to Mike Turzai [6] [7] [8] sought to remove a reliable source describing the remarks and add an ex post facto unsourced explanation to Turzai's remarks on Voter ID. In fact, Turzai's remarks have been described as a "smoking gun" in several sources (see [9], [10]). Additionally, it might be worth taking a look at whether this account is in violation of WP:ROLE. Because I don't know who is editing with the account, I can't say for sure whether this is an impermissible shared account. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A politician for 11 years and a lawyer before that and Wikipedia summaries all Turzai has said in public into a quote from June 23, 2012. Seems POV to keep the voter id law statement in that very short biography. The "smoking gun" description by the several sources are more relevant to the articles on the several sources than to the Mike Turzai article since they are not desribing some life event of Mike Turzai but instead are describing their own thoughts. PAHouse's edits seem more about having a focused interest than a conflict of interest. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Boxbe

User has declared their connection to the company that is the subject of the article. User was warned in April about the COI guidelines, but continues their pattern of removing anything resembling criticism in the article and rewritting it to resemble an advert. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this statement is a connection to the company or a wannabe. Either way, it does seem to support the idea that the account is a WP:ROLE account. There's a negative Guam article from 2009 on the company.Beware of Boxbe However, edatasource just bought them,[11] so there must be some value in the company. Nikboxbe has left a lot of negative items in the article. The lead says, "Boxbe is a free service that purports to screen spam in personal email." Boxbe doesn't screen spam in personal email? or do we merely want to imply that to the reader. The topic is notable, so AfD is out. The article could use clean up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Bilau

Editor stated in a now deleted edit (here's a copy), "I am the creator of the deleted article and Senior Writer for IAPMO, the organization that publishes the Uniform Solar Energy Code. All information in the Wikipedia entry is accurate." That was in response to an article I marked for G12 deletion (a copyvio).

The understandable lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines has most likely popped up in the rest of their edits and I need help sifting through the edits, created articles, and uploaded files. There's only 76 in total (not included the deleted ones) so it should be too bad. I'm rather busy at work today and won't have time to go through them all right now. OlYeller21Talktome 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sk8terguy27 created and edited Tom Rice for promotional purposes

I've got a user Sk8terguy27 who's created and edited Tom Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) primarily, if not solely, for promotional purposes. The article has been tagged CSD G11, and I think the user needs to be blocked. Can someone take action on this user and article? DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The speedy was declined by another admin user. Anyways, this belongs at the COI noticeboard. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved section from AN/I. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not an administrator. I removed the G11 because the article isn't unambiguous advertising. Also, as far as I can tell there's no clear signs of COI. Upon closer inspection it seems that the 'Issues' section does raise some questions over COI. -CTS talk 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly some of the prose in this article does seem to have been written by someone favourable to the subject. I removed this section for example. This article does need more eyes on it, especially in election season. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the original post: while there are some issues with the page and the intentions of the editor, I don't think that it is a blockable offence. -CTS talk 11:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
From what I can tell, there was an edit war and apparent 3RR violations by both parties involved. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Reboot (fiction)

The situation isn't incredibly problematic, but is worth keeping an eye on in terms of balance and bias. An external link was added by an anonymous user, with a glowing edit summary about its author. The JPStalk to me 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew

Nathana has created a draft submission (submitted while I was typing) at AfC of an article that they obviously have a connection with per their username. Based on the evidence, it appears that this user is a representative of this musician or might be the musician himself. On to the article itself: it's not a blatant violations of policies, however it has no references and doesn't really appear to be written following the manual of style (I know that none of these are extremely bad issues, I though I would just summarize the condition of the sub). I'd like to know what action to take on the now-on-hold submission. Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

/me faceplams. I didn't thing about the BLP policy, your right! That would be pretty bad. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:AFC is project namespace (that's why it has the WP before it) and Articles for creation is a WikiProject. As for the article, there were no referrences and a quick search didn't turn up any, so I don't see how there could have been a basis to move the article to article space. The page could have been listed at MfD to handle any COI issues. As a twist, the page was speedy deleted(?) under BLP(?). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is being closed by Orange Mike, an uninvolved admin.

It is impossible to escape the conclusion that User:Abhayakara has a conflict of interest, albeit a non-fiduciary one. On the other hand, it is impossible to miss that both Abhayakara and Vritti have much more serious problems with maintaining a neutral point of view in this biography of a living person; and it seems to me that Uzma Gamal has almost as strong a problem with NPOV. I am closing this with the advice that both Abhayakara and Vritti cease editing this article directly, bringing any proposed edits to the talk page of the article, and if necessary to the BLP noticeboard; and a very strong request that Uzma do the same. (Vritti, I'd also suggest you look at our rules about original research and synthesis: what seems to you the only clear interpretation of your sacred texts and traditions, may seem less clearcut to another person.) --Orange Mike | Talk

This editor acknowledges COI with respect to this article as a devotee of Michael Roach -- see e.g. his user page. The difficulty however is that acknowledging the COI has not led to any restraint on his part in editing the article, sometimes aggressively. That's one element of the behavioral aspect of things that I'd like assistance with; another is his habit of describing me as "not neutral" (because I don't agree with the way he wants to edit the article) -- examples here. FTR, I do not have a COi w/rt Roach -- I had never heard of him before the article was brought up on BLPN a couple of months ago. Given the mode in which this article is being edited, one would think that the COI guideline doesn't exist at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've read the COI guidelines and done my best to follow them. The problem here is that there are no disinterested parties editing the Michael Roach page; if I just leave it alone, it will contain lots of non-encyclopedic and non-biographical information. You can see my comments about this on the current talk page; unfortunately, when I try to engage User:Nomoskedasticity in debate about what is in the article, he doesn't respond by justifying his own positions; rather, he simply dismisses my position as irrelevant due to WP:COI. You can see his POV simply by reading his criticism of me above: he refers to me as a "devotee." Where have I ever said I was a "devotee?" This is a really slanted term. I'm a student of Geshe Michael, and have known him for over a decade, but I live in Vermont, see Geshe Michael about once a year, and have a pretty busy life that has nothing to do with Geshe Michael other than that I try to follow his advice in how I live it, with which I will not bore you here. I would really welcome some careful, NPOV editing of the Michael Roach article; unfortunately, for whatever reason, User:Nomoskedasticity doesn't seem to be able to do that. I've looked through his contrib history, and he does seem to me to have a pretty clear POV, which as I say you can see reflected in his description of me. Editing Geshe Michael's article is a bit frustrating because most of the information about him that's been published is in books, and not linkable. I can cite it, but the exciting and gossipy news articles that people find tend to reflect a pretty negative view of him, and so if you only read those articles, you will have an understandably negative view as well. Abhayakara (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I had offered assistance weeks ago with this article and was bullied by User:Nomoskedasticity as well. He ignored my suggested changes and just continued to unilaterally edit the article against consensus on the talk page and the BLP notice board. I had better things to do so just gave up on it. I still have it on my watch list and have a good laugh at all the antics and time wasting there. I think both of these editors should be told to leave the article alone and ask a third party to edit the article. You may wish to read my talk page, the other editors' talk pages, the BLP entries on it as well as the article's page histories. This may take a few days to filter out all the BS first though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to start a discussion about me is quite welcome to do so -- but it wouldn't be COI, so perhaps here let's stick to what's relevant. As for Abhayakara's post -- "devotee" comes from unfailing use of "geshe". I continue to be fascinated by the notion that he wants to tag me as "not disinterested", on the basis of doing edits that he disagrees with; that's not the sort of judgement best made by someone who himself has a clear interest (i.e., COI). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So if I were to consistently refer to Robert Thurman as Dr. Thurman, that would make me a devotee of Dr. Thurman, right? And if I refer to Barack Obama as President Obama, I'm a devotee of Barack Obama? I guess there is an inconsistency here in that I don't refer to him as "Geshe Roach," and that is because it feels stilted to me, where "President Obama" or "Dr. Thurman" seems perfectly normal. But to go from there to "devotee" still reveals a pretty strong POV. I've known Geshe Michael since 1998—is it surprising that I use a different title when referring to him? Abhayakara (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, not to belabor the point, but User:Nomoskedasticity, you have accused me of COI here, so your own POV and your behavior toward other editors is definitely relevant. I have tried at length to engage you in discussions about the content of the article; your assertion that you are willing to have discussions is not supported by your actual behavior as an editor of the article in question. Abhayakara (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Abhayakara. Having a bias does not mean you also have a COI. Also, having a bias does not mean you lose the right of receiving assumption good faith from others. For example, many editors in WikiProject Scouting are in scouting themselves, but do a great job in editing scouting related articles. If your only connection to Geshe Michael Roach is that you've known him for over a decade, you see him about once a year, and try to follow his advice in how I live it, I don't think that amounts to a COI. I looked at your user page and see the links, but I'm not seeing a COI. Do you work for Geshe Michael Roach? Are you on his board of directors? -- 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Uzma Gamal (talk)
Uzma-Gamal, Abhayakara's user page also indicates that he runs the academic web site for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center. I'll be surprised to learn that others share your view that there's no COI here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
They have me listed as director of IT because I run the web site that contains recordings of the teachings. And I am a student. I certainly don't have a monetary COI, but I am involved in the group and am a long-time student of Geshe Michael, so I think it would be disingenuous to claim that I have no COI at all. From my perspective, the right thing for me to do seems to be to follow the guidelines for COI editors, rather than claim that I don't have a COI and not follow them. If editors feel that I have failed to follow those guidelines, I would really appreciate hearing about it (not just that I did, but in what way, of course!). Abhayakara (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara, if COIN declares you to have a COI, you become subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The effect of that is, if Nomoskedasticity disputes one of your edits and changes it, his view would take precedent because you would have a declared COI on the topic and he does not and you could not change the article back on that point without violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you dispute one of Nomoskedasticity's edits, Nomoskedasticity's view would take precedent because you have a COI on the topic and he does not and you could not change the article on that point without violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In either case, you instead would have to solicit the assistance of another editor who does not have a declared COI to review Nomoskedasticity's edits and change them if needed. Nomoskedasticity has not yet provided sufficient diffs of your connections to Michael Roach outside of Wikipedia to establish a COI. Since you think it would be disingenuous to claim that you do not have a COI at all, I'm finding it hard to continue to back you on this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm. I really don't know what to say about this. I don't have COI in the sense of a financial interest in promoting Geshe Michael or making his article look good. The DM technical director position is basically a puffy way of saying that I maintain their teaching site, which is something that I rarely have time for, and the quality is evident. I don't get paid for this, nor for any other involvement with DM—in general, it costs me money to be associated with DM. I used to maintain the WiFi in the temple when I was on site, but I don't anymore. But DM isn't Geshe Michael, so I don't think this is relevant anyway.
The COI guideline that I might fall under is the "close relationship" guideline. He is my main Buddhist teacher. What I know about Buddhism, I largely know because he taught me, although I also have had teachings from his teacher, from the Dalai Lama, and from Lama Zopa, plus a number of less well-known teachers. Sorry for all the detail, but I'm trying to provide the information you might need to form an opinion about this.
In general, I'd be happiest if I could have a relationship with the editors of the Michael Roach web page where I could reasonably expect that if I proposed an NPOV edit, they'd agree with me. However, as you can see from this discussion, nobody editing the page has NPOV. So in order for what you propose to work, some actually neutral editor would have to become involved. But when I ask for help on WP:BLPN or WP:3, nothing happens except that the various POV editors of the Michael Roach article sharpen their arguments and add copious notes to the talk page.
So I guess the bottom line here is that in the interests of honesty, which is very important to me, I have to allow for the possibility that I have a COI, but I don't agree that I ought to be treated in the way that you describe, because I think I am doing a very careful job of being neutral—of trying not to delete opposing views, of trying to do neutral edits, of assuming good faith, and of trying to engage participants in discussions to form consensus. The thing that triggered this COI accusation was my removal of some text from the page that I think is a clear violation of the WP:BPL policies; rather than engaging in a discussion about this, User:Nomoskedasticity simply accused me of COI.
The bottom line is that I'm going to claim at this point that in the sense of WP:COI, I do not have a conflict of interest—I'm not close enough to Geshe Michael to sustain a claim like this. I think that there's the potential for non-NPOV edits if I am not careful, and this is why I generally ask for feedback when I make edits, but I think that operating under the COI restrictions you've described above is neither practical nor justified. However, this is my opinion. I would like to hear yours. What I would really like is some neutral oversight of the article so that I can focus on more useful activities, like the three IETF drafts I'm supposed to have edited by tomorrow afternoon. Abhayakara (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: X2. This is the same crap carried on from the article and talk page. All of these editors should drop it and let those that are not COI look at the article and fix it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I have no COI on this article, I see no reason why I should drop it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Others may look at your time and bytes on that article/talk page and see things differently. I myself would not continue wasting my time on one minor article. This is just my HO though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Abhayakara is a clear and undisputed COI editor. As stated on his user page and in his edit history his name is Ted Lemon. He is the Technology Director for Diamond Mountain and the administrator of record for its website. He is a student of Michael Roach. For over 6 years he has whitewashed the Michael Roach page. Check his edit history under Abhayakara and Ted Lemon. He knows that the controversy section on the subject is about the Vinaya vows a Gelugpa monk takes. He knows that Michael Roach broke these vows by engaging in marriage to a "consort" and making the relationship public, wearing his hair long and wearing jewelry, all the while refusing to remove his robes. Abhayakara removes all reference to this point and asserts a strange POV argument for doing so. He never gives up and no normal editor has the time or motivation to properly correct the article he is protecting. He should be banned from editing the Michael Roach article. Kindly check his edit history which is fixated on the Michael Roach page since 2006. Vritti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, this is precisely how I feel: I don't have anywhere near the amount of time required to keep removing un-sourced accusations from the wiki article. The article currently contains a fairly accurate description of the controversy, and cites a fairly recent book by the Dalai Lama explaining the controversial point. What the Dalai Lama says directly contradicts what User:Vritti says above. So if my POV is that I think the Dalai Lama is a reliable source, then yes, I have a POV. Viewpoint pushers who believe Geshe Michael is a bad guy have added lots of text to the article that's not supported by a citation of a reliable source, and I have removed such text. I've also asked for neutral review of the article, and asked for help numerous times on WP:BLPN. And I've left stuff in the article that I think doesn't belong there, because other editors consider it important; where what they've said has been inaccurate, rather than removing it I've added reference material and detail so that the reader will not have to read between the lines. I do, however, believe that the accusations made against Geshe Michael by the family of Ian Thorson are not notable, and amount to coatracking—the accusations are perfectly understandable under the circumstances, but the anger of a distraught parent looking for someone to blame for a child's untimely death is neither surprising nor notable. When I raised this on WP:BLPN, one editor agreed with me. However, there is no consensus on this point, so the text is still in the article. I have indeed removed this text several times, based on the response on WP:BLPN. User:Nomoskedasticity has, however, reverted my most recent edit without engaging in discussion on the talk page; removing the text again seems futile under the circumstances. I would be curious to know if any disinterested editors consider this edit "whitewashing," and if so, why. Abhayakara (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Abhayakara (talk, Thanks for your comments which are a fine example supporting my negative assertions about your editing of the Michael Roach article. To begin with, this isn't the talk page of the subject in question, but since you can't restrain yourself ... You well know or should know that the brief comment of the Dalai Lama you keep referring to does not rewrite the Vinaya. You should also know that the comment of the Dalai Lama does not apply to Michael Roach since he didn't keep the relationship or practice secret. This is all explained to you in the talk pages of the article now archived. It is more than odd that you fail to respect these facts raised by other editors or even Robert Thurman who was a Gelugpa monk and currently a distinguished professor of Buddhist studies at a duly accredited institution. Vritti (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We're going to wind up this conversation one way or another. This noticeboard is not a forum to continue disparaging Abhayakara. The only thing COIN cares about right now is whether to declare that Abhayakara has a COI with the Michael Roach topic. That's it and all your comments need to address only that. Bias/POV issues belong at WP:NPOVN. BLP issues belong at WP:BLPN. Sockpuppet issues belong at WP:SPI. Reliable source issues belong at WP:RSN. The rest of the assertions need to be restraint per WP:AFG. Abhayakara's connection to Geshe Michael Roach is that he's known him for over a decade, sees him about once a year, and tries to follow his advice in how he lives it do not add up to a COI. I haven't close this discussion because of the assertion that Abhayakara runs the academic web site for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center as the Technology Director for Diamond Mountain and is the administrator of record for its website. The discussion needs to provide more details on this -- what it means in the context of COI -- and Abhayakara's other activities outside of Wikipedia and relate those outside Wikipedia details to the Michael Roach topic. If Abhayakara has a COI with the Michael Roach topic, then COIN will declare that Abhayakara has such a COI and is subject to WP:COI. If Abhayakara does not has a COI with the Michael Roach topic, then editors will need to stop asserting that he does. Let's focus the conversation on COI and wind this discussion up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Uzma Gamal, this is a strange direction to take this discussion. Abhayakara himself recognizes that he has a COI on this article, as in the post that you respond to above. I do however think that your response is very much on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Abhayakara is keeping the article from becoming more of a BLP problem than it already is. Abhayakara's belief that he has a COI on this article seems to be intertwined with his belief that he has a bias on the topic, so it's not yet clear that he has a COI. COIN declaring Abhayakara has a COI doesn't mean your edits are valid, it just limits how Abhayakara personally can respond to them. So far, we don't have a consensus one way or another. You may want to post more facts with diffs directed towards COI to encourage OlYeller21, Orangemike, Atama, EdJohnston, Smartse, or some of the other regulars to offer their opinion/conclusion. Without more participation, the discussion may end up archived without a resolution. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewind

Uzma Gamal suggests, quite sensibly, that what this thread needs is additional views about whether Abhayakara has a COI on this article. I think it's obvious that he does, not least because he recognizes himself that he does, as here where he notes that he is the IT director for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center and identifies Roach as his "main teacher", having known him for more than a decade. I'd be grateful if other editors (regulars here, especially) can offer their views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "they have me listed as director of IT because I run their academic web site." I explained this in more detail in my response to User:Uzma Gamal above, but in fact I just went and checked on the DM web site, and they don't list me anymore. I don't know when they stopped listing me—I don't operate the www.diamondmountain.org web site, just the www.dmes.org web site. My wife is the domain owner of record, but she doesn't edit the site either—the DM board of directors is responsible for the content there, and neither one of us is (or wants to be!) on the board of directors. Abhayakara (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
So to be clear, the close connection here is that Abhayakara hosts the website of a center/company owned by Roach and he's a student of Roach's teachings? If that's exactly the case, I feel that it may constitute a COI if that connection has been leading Abhayakara to edit in a way that's contrary to our policies and guidelines.
I find these cases difficult to deal with as determining whether or not a COI exists is dependent on a content dispute. I feel that a person can have a close connection and be involved in a legitimate content dispute without actually exercising a COI. It's very rare but possible and requires that a person with a close connection be involved in a content dispute while exercising a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines.
I'm going through Abhayakara's edits made to the article here. These edits ([12][13][14][15][16][17]) are concerning. I believe that they're the reason for concern here and seems to be encompass a few specific topics so I'll go through them.
  • The word "cult" being used is backed up with sources but the sources themselves cite "some" and "people" which is shotty journalism at best. I wouldn't call the entire source unreliable, though. I wouldn't include it unless someone can produce a reliable source that calls it a cult and not a mention of some ambiguous source that calls it a cult.
  • The inclusion of the event that lead to a man's death is another issue. Ultimately, the connection of the story with Roach himself is weak. He had been married to the woman involved and the two were kicked out of his retreat center due to reports of mutual abuse. His ex-wife was also appointed by Roach to be the director of the retreat center. They reportedly decided, after being kicked out, to continue on their own and contracted some mysterious illness that kept them from being able to collect water which resulted in the death of one man and the near death of Roach's ex-wife. Inclusion would be more clearly warranted if Roach had instructed them go to out into the dessert. I can't decide if the content should be included or not. It seems like it should be included in an article about Roach's ex-wife or about the retreat center but its connection here is strained.
  • The last issue seems to be with Roach's marriage which is apparently controversial given his religion and position (I won't pretend to understand that issue). Abhayakara seems to have slimmed down the mention but has never fully removed it, from what I can find.
Ultimately, I think Abhayakara's actions regarding content can be justified as they're based on reasonable interpretations of our guidelines. I didn't say "are justified" because it's dependent on your interpretation of guidelines. I can find no indication that Abhayakara's intent is to skew the content of the article but fully admit that I haven't read through the volumes of discussions on various talk pages.
Unless someone can prove a dubious motive without pointing at what I consider a reasonable interpretations of guidelines (unless I missed an edit where he shows an unreasonable interpretation of guidelines), I feel that this is a content dispute that should be taken to WP:NPOVN. That doesn't mean that this issue shouldn't be brought up here again or that Abhayakara's close connection won't skew his editing in the future. OlYeller21Talktome 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
He's not just a student of Roach's teachings -- he's a student of Roach himself. He does work for the center Roach runs. It's an obvious connection, in my view. I agree that this doesn't inevitably make his edits incorrect -- but if you look at his entire edit history you'll see that Roach is most of what he cares about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a close connection but a close connection alone doesn't mean that his edits are inherently skewed, as you're aware. I'm not arguing that there's a connection and don't think he is either. When I look at cases here at COIN, I look for two things: a close connection and edits that show that the editor is either unaware of policies/guidelines or intentionally going against them to some ends. There's a close connection but I'm not seeing that Abhayakara is breaking policies or guidelines with his editing, even if he focuses on one subject. Ultimately, we want editors who improve the encyclopedia based on our policies and guidelines and it seems that he's doing that unless I've missed something, which is possible.
I do have a question for you though, why do you believe the incident that resulted in a man's death should be in this article? Did my summary miss any important points? OlYeller21Talktome 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be there because coverage of Roach in reliable sources in recent years overwhelmingly relates to this issue. I genuinely believe it poses a problem re NPOV to omit it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
To reword that so that we can be clear if I understand, you're saying that most of the articles written about Roach mention this incident? In other words, his notability is majorly dependent on this event? If that's true, which it may be hard to prove (we'd have to look at all the articles written about him), then I agree that it should be included. OlYeller21Talktome 21:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm saying -- with the caveat that it's not all articles, rather it refers to a recent period, the last few years. The list of references in the article itself gives a good indication. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
To be clear here, most of the articles that mention Ian's death also mention Geshe Michael. The articles are about Ian, not about Geshe Michael. Geshe Michael has been notable for a long time, and is mentioned in lots of books about Buddhism, going back at least to the nineties. Several of these books are used as references in the article. He's also the author of a number of books on Buddhism and related topics, published by major publishing houses like Harper Collins, and if you google "Geshe Michael 18 courses" you will see that a lot of sites reference these courses because the courses are taught at a lot of Dharma centers in his lineage. Doesn't mean he is or is not a great guy, or beloved by Buddhists everywhere, but his notability long predates Ian's death. Abhayakara (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot of information on Roach going back to the 1990s, well beyond his ex wife and the death of Ian Thorson. Regarding Ian Thorson, he was the husband of Roach's former wife Christie McNally. Thorson and McNally went on a hike and Thorson died after the "two made a "conscious decision," to stop trying to get food because they were worried they might not be able to climb back up the embankment." There was no indication of foul play.[18] In a Michael Roach article that was a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (which this article is not), I could see the article containing a sentence or two on the incident. Roach's former wife Christie McNally played a significant roll in Roach's career/life. It's POV to isolate negative information into a separate subsection because that takes the information out of context to put a spotlight on it. It would help if that roll were place in context rather than as a separate element of his life. It also is POV if the negative information in the Wikipedia article has more text relative to the remaining Wikipedia article than it's proportional coverage in reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please make a decision

It's been a week since this accusation was raised. User:Nomoskedasticity continues to use my alleged COI as an excuse not to engage in constructive debate about what should appear on the Michael Roach article, and as a result the article contains a clearly libelous implication. I have assiduously followed the guidelines here. I have been careful not to remove viewpoints from the article that are supported by references. I have asked for and gotten review of the article on WP:BLPN, WP:3 and somewhat tangentially here on WP:COIN. All of this review has come out against User:Nomoskedasticity's POV. Yet he still persists in editing as if he is neutral and I am editing with POV, because of this COI accusation. If you really think that I am editing with COI, say so, and I'll go away. If not, please put this dog to bed. Abhayakara (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I perceive Abhayakara's description as significantly askew in several respects -- exactly the sort of thing one would expect from a COI editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to keep trying to help here but my time is very limited today. If I had to make a decision right this minute, I think a sentence about Ian is warranted immediately after the mention of the controvery surrounding Roach's marriage. I'll look at the body of sources written about Roach but it's going to take a lot of time to do that and I don't have that time today and maybe not this week.
I can't decide if I think Abhayakara's close connection is causing issues and should subsequently stick to the talk page. Maybe another regular here has an opinion on that. OlYeller21Talktome 18:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Another angle here: Abhayakara has 425 edits on Wikipedia since starting in 2008. Of those, at least 233 are about Roach (determined using a find-and-replace function in a word-processor); I say "at least" because there are others related to Roach that don't have the word Roach in the contribution line (e.g. [19]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. The article was protected for a long time, because so many Buddhists from other sects like to push their sects' POV on the page. But then a couple of years ago someone unprotected it, and now it's back to being a battleground. Your theory seems to be that I'm the one starting the battles, but that's not the case. People add WP:BLP-violating stuff to the article time and time again, and nobody who's a NPOV wikipedia editor is interested in monitoring the article. So that leaves me. As far as I can tell, you're the first conflict junkie to alight on the article—everybody else has at least been well-meaning—but you probably won't be the last. If it were up to me, the article would be deleted, and then we could stop worrying about POV there. Abhayakara (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I just took a trip down memory lane looking at my contributions, and what you see is a lot of edits to Michael Roach or Talk:Michael Roach or various dispute resolution pages, interspersed with edits to other pages. What characterizes the edits to other pages is this: they are not disputed. Because they are not disputed, there are no long conversations about them, and so each edit is much more effective. This is a feature, not a bug—it would be a shame if every contribution I made to Wikipedia were as hard-fought as the ones I make to the Michael Roach article. If my experience on the Michael Roach article is typical, it's no wonder Wikipedia is having trouble attracting editors.
BTW, OlYeller21, you really don't need to read all the sources you mention. Just read the text that's been added to the Michael Roach article about Ian. Does it look like it belongs in the article as written? Whether you believe a discussion about what happened to Ian is off-topic or not, can you not see the problem with what's currently in the article? Abhayakara (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara (talk) remains a problem. His COI causes him to protect the article along the lines of his extreme minority POV. The second paragraph of the marriage and controversy section falsely characterizes the controversy as being about a Buddhist practice involving sexual contact. The controversy is in fact about the behavior of Michael Roach ie ... an ordained Gelugpa monk who legally married a woman and openly introduced her as his "tantric consort" I have asked Abhayakara for a reference to prove that this is normal behavior for a monk or even a single instance of this being done by any Gelugpa monk or nun without first removing their robes. There is no such reference because in fact, if a monk or nun decides to engage in that practice, they remove their robes, first. The article does not reflect this because Abhayakara doesn't want this in the article and no normal editor has the time to make the edits stick. Despite all the discussions on the talk page he will change the article to only reflect his minority POV. Revert him, he will revert you back. I am simply asking that some mechanism be put into place so that he might be restrained some how in his many year 24 hour a day vigil in protecting the subject from NPOV treatment Vritti (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Like User:Vritti, I would like to see this resolved, although obviously I do not agree with his position. I have tried to make sure that the article captures Vritti's concerns, and we've had some good discussion about this on the talk page, so I'm sorry to hear that we are still approaching this in such an adversarial way. I certainly agree that it is not ordinary for monks to openly practice with partners or appear with partners, and in fact the article does quote the Dalai Lama's office saying that such behavior is not condoned. What I asked Vritti to provide was a reference saying that monks practicing with a consort can't marry her, which I think doesn't exist because, as Vritti implies, nobody's ever tried to do it before. I think it would be very interesting to cover this question in more depth, but we are somewhat hamstrung by the lack of useful references in Buddhist literature—the best we have is His Holiness saying that the consort practice is permitted, and the New York Times quoting the Dalai Lama's office saying that appearing in public with the consort is not in keeping with tradition, and Robert Thurman questioning whether Geshe Michael is qualified to do the practice. I've asked Vritti for more references to cite, and he hasn't offered any. Abhayakara (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
From The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama pg. 82 "All schools of Buddhism agree that if you are a practitioner of Yoga with a female consort, you must not claim to be celibate". pg. 81 ... "Tibetan Buddhists who practice sexual yoga literally rather than as ritual metaphors do so in strict secrecy". In other words, they don't tell the world about the practice or relationship. If they do, they would be required to remove their robes. This is the normal and majority view on the matter. In my honest opinion, the marriage question is a bit of a canard since we are talking about a monk. Vritti (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"If they do, they would be required to remove their robes" is the thing I'm asking you to provide a reference for. I agree with you about the marriage issue—it's secondary to the secrecy issue, particularly since the source says the marriage was done in secret. Having said that, this is completely the wrong place to be having this conversation—if you really think this needs to be raised as a dispute, the place to raise it is WP:NPOVN. Abhayakara (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Abhayakara's close connection is not causing issues and Abhayakara should not stick to the talk page even if COIN declares a conflict of interest. In other word, even if COIN declared that Abhayakara has a conflict of interest with the Michael Roach topic, it still would take a neutral editor to review any edits Abhayakara made to the Michael Roach article to determine whether they violate the COI policy. In this case, determining that Abhayakara violates the COI policy is more form over substance since the substance issue is keeping that article from convening BLP problems about a living person, which is a real, current ongoing problem. Either BLPN and/or Abhayakara will be addressing Nomoskedasticity and other editor's POV contributions to the article. Abhayakara is preferred because the last (12 July 2012) BLPN request[20] didn't receive much feedback from BLPN, Abhayakara has a desire to keep the article free from BLPN problems, and has done a good job so far. COIN should not tie Abhayakara's hands to then allow other biased, but non-COI editors free reign over adding BLP problem language to the article. Since Abhayakara will be able to remove BLP problem text from the article whether he has a declared COI or not, there's no point in COIN declaring a conflict of interest at this time. I'll request an admin to close this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Any admin closing this discussion is requested to consider the nature of Uzma Gamal's thinking here: an editor with an acknowledged COI is being set up as the person to make judgments about the neutrality of other editors who do not have a COI. That's preposterous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You're obviously confusing a close connection with an obviously problematic COI or assuming that a conflict of interests means that all edits made by that person are inherently skewed. Personally, I think it's obvious that you have some sort of personal feelings about the subject of this article and even though you have no connection, your personal feelings may (or may not) be skewing your vision. I haven't/don't have the time to read through the volumes of discussion and plethora of media coverage of Roach to determine how the content should be handled but I'm seeing Abhayakara make a concerted effort to apply a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines and policies. I think this case should be handled at WP:BLPN and/or WP:NPOVN as I haven't seen a reason to bar Abhayakara from editing the page or keeping solely to the talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 18:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You're mistaken about my having personal feelings regarding this person. I first encountered this article via a previous discussion at BLPN. You are assuming that I am not editing in good faith, and there are no grounds for that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a crock. I have stated before that I offered to help and User:Nomoskedasticity basically told me to get stuffed and leave. If you look at many of his 'arguments' will notice they are pointed at other editors and not sources. Also as stated before, I feel both should be blocked from editing the article and a neutral editor should go though it. I have seen this beaten for weeks now in dispute forums all over wp. Would you like to go over to commons and beat it there as well? It just wastes time and space of others every time you two bring it up.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not getting sucked into this. Good luck to everyone involved. I feel that my time is much better spent elsewhere. OlYeller21Talktome 18:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, and best wishes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Life Time Fitness

A contributor perhaps associated with Life Time Fitness has been contributing mightily but the long lists of all the locations looks like advertising.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The user appears to be attempting to insert this version of that article that they created in their sandbox. The only major difference is some non-existent categories and a large list of locations and when they opened for business. The list of locations isn't needed - at all. I removed the red categories from the article as well.
Hopefully the editor responds here regarding their connection with the company so that we can discuss the issues with them. Until then, I'll watchlist the page and help steer it clear of advertising. OlYeller21Talktome 14:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The photos[21][22][23] seem professional. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The editor hasn't edited for over a week and the article appears to be in good shape besides some possibly copyvio photos. I'll keep the article on my watchlist but I consider this to be a stale case at the moment. OlYeller21Talktome 18:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
User Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest with the God helmet topic. I posted a request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Please follow up there. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a Conflict of Interest case with respect to Famousdog, and his edits on the God helmet" page. I have tried to resolve conflicts with this user before, and have even raised a Conflict of Interest on the relevant talk page, as indicated on the wiki page giving guidelines for handling these issues.

This content was removed on the grounds that it could "out" Famousdog’s personal identity. I assure you that this was not malicious, but simply a mistake. I have read that in order for a Conflict of Interest to be filed, one has to demonstrate that the user has such an interest. I have ample evidence to demonstrate Famousdog’s conflicting interest, but posting it openly would violate Famousdog's privacy - and the Wikipedia rules. One exception is a talk page where Famousdog openly states the belief that Dr. Persinger, the inventor of the God Helmet: "... is a misguided and a poor scientist" Here is the link to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun&oldid=47806805

On that page, Famousdog states their position, and they have been editing to keep the God Helmet page in agreement with his perspective since November of 2010.

I am not interested in "outing" anyone, especially if there is a chance that their professional reputation is compromised. I prefer to handle these situations through co-operation. However, Famousdog has consistently negated any such attempt, even leaving misleading information in place after a correct quotation was shown. One of Famousdog's edits said that a commercial device was tested for God Helmet effects, when it was actually tested to see if it changed emotional responses to graphic images, a study that has never been done with the God Helmet, nor have any such effects ever been claimed for it. This appears to be a piece of data fakery, from the library instead of the lab, though both kinds are equally unethical.

A quick inspection of the history of the page, including the relevant Talk Page, should make Famousdog’s hostility towards the God Helmet obvious, and raise a suspicion of a conflict of interest in any unbiased editor. Famousdog consistently uses judgmental terms which bias the content negatively, such as the word 'claimed', which is specifically noted as a word to avoid on the POV page. Presumably, this is done to further their POV. My every attempt at making the page less biased has met with quick reversion of the content. I prefer to avoid an edit war, but it seems impossible without allowing Famousdog’s perspective to dominate, and Famousdog’s irrelevant and sometimes distorted information to remain in place. Both options seem equally inappropriate.

In addition, Famousdog has little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page. Famousdog consistently adds information that is incorrect or simply not relevant. In addition, any information that corrects Famousdog's interpretations are removed, in one case because Famousdog thought the editorial team of the source (a reputable journal) to be a "quack company". Famousdog appears to avail himself of any excuse to revert changes they doesn't agree with.

Any subject which has been the subject of an academic debate (such as this) should have both sides considered equally. However, when the content of the page is predicated on the belief that the God Helmet inventor's work is 'poor' and 'misguided' science, there is clearly a conflict of interest and individuals who rely upon Wikipedia as a reference are seriously misinformed. Because of Famousdog’s limited knowledge on the subject matter, Famousdog's efforts, even if they are well-intentioned, do exactly that. Famousdog’s low opinion of the God Helmet experiements, together with their dominance of the page through these long efforts (93 edits over 21 months, at last count) make the page more than a little biased. I have not added the Biased tag, because the last time it was in place for this page, Famousdog replaced it the same day one editor removed it.

I would also like to add that this same editor has also edited the pages for neurotheology and the page for Dr. Persinger, also introducing bias into them.

I have asked for third-party comments on the Talk Page, but I have not received any. Therefore I request that an administrator review the page and consider Famousdog's activity. My hope is that they will be able to end the consistent hostility the page shows towards it's subject, and help return the page to an unbiased position. Finally, I would like to know, as I said above, how I present evidence of a Conflict of Interest involving personal information about an editor without violating the Wiki rules. For the record, this is a conflict of interest action. Thank you. Ksirok (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading the above statement you would think that Ksirok had been subjected to months and months of suppression by myself. To set the record straight, Ksirok is a single-minded individual (editing only neurotheology-related articles) who is clearly very new to Wikipedia (first edit 3rd May this year). The reverted edits that Ksirok is complaining about have invariably been his/her removal of sourced material (and here and here) the justification for such edits being simply assertions presented in the edit summary and claims that I have "little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page" (above comment) . They have already attempted to discredit me, out me (an action for which they apologised after the damage had already been done) and now they claim I have a conflict of interest. This is tantamount to Wikistalking and is making me seriously consider retiring from Wikipedia. Furthermore, Ksirok's assertion that I have a conflict of interest seems to be based simply on my holding a certain opinion of the individuals/labs involved in this research. I happily confess to this, but holding an opinion is not a conflict of interest and my edits are (hopefully) always backed up by reliable sources not just assertions of opinion. Famousdog (c) 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have recently made some changes to address some of the legitimate issues raised by Ksirok. Simply claiming that this material shouldn't be discussed on the page because it isn't specifically about the God helmet is a fig leaf designed to censor material critical of Persinger's work generally. Famousdog (c) 09:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If the many sources are critical of a topic then the article is expected to reflect that per WP:VALID. Thinking something is nonsense is not a conflict of interest. Hence why editors can edit Flat Earth Society even though knowing it is silly. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, I request users outside the Rational Skepticism group to comment on this particular conflict. Thankyou Ksirok (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any COI on Famousdog's part. Believing that a suggestion is nonsense is no more of a COI than, say, another editor who repeatedly pushes the same suggestion. Let's stick to what relevant, reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Note that most wikiprojects are fairly loosely organized and not really groups (and open invite too), i.e I have pretty much never interacted with FamousDog. I don't see why you would want someone outside a particular wikiproject to comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Ksirok. I regularly work at this COIN board. Even if Famousdog has a bias or grudge against the God helmet, Stanley Koren, Michael Persinger, etc., or is editing in a biased way, that does not also create a conflict of interest. If he previously had a connection outside Wikipedia to the God helmet but severed it, that would sever any COI within Wikipedia. Bias issues are addressed at WP:NPOV. As for COIN issues, is Famousdog now on the board of directors for God helmet, run a website on behalf of the God helmet, etc.? I agree you cannot out someone with private knowledge that is not publically available. Look over the list at What is a conflict of interest?. If you believe one of those applies, please post. Otherwise, I do not see any evidence that Famousdog has a COI with the God helmet topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ksirok,

I haven't been a very active Wikipedia editor lately and I came to this page because of my interest in the subject. It looks like Famousdog does not have a conflict of interest under the Wikipedia rules. It does look like he has a strong bias. His edits do make the page biased. That kind of editing is not appropriate for Wikipedia. After reading what others have said here, I agree that you should carry on providing facts and references about the God Helmet. The negative information all derives from the study in Sweden, news reports about it and a review article by Aaen-Stockdale. It seems that the Aaen-stockdale article has a misquote about a study of responses to photos(I looked it up). Because of this, the Aaen-Stockdale article isn't really a reliable source. It may be published in a worthwhile magazine, but the Aaen-Stockdale article obviously has one or more mistakes in it. The God Helmet page should have the mistaken quote from Aaen-Stockdale removed and the quote from Gendle and McGrath used instead. Just because Aaen-Stodale got it wrong doesn't mean Wikipedia has to also. In fact, replacing a mistaken quotation with an accurate one would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia no matter what page we're talking about. Improving Wikipedia is everyone's goal, and accuracy is the first order of business. If a source has a mistake, it shouldn't be used. Famousdog's reverts (or is it edit warring?) of the corrected quotation show a strong bias. You should continue editing to keep the page accurate. However, bias is not the same thing as conflict of interest, although I can see how they might look the same in this case. If Famousdog persists, you might consider mediation, as that appears to be the recommended process for Wikipedia. Do carry on if you are sure of your facts, but this is probably not a conflict of interest as defined by Wikipedia rules. I think you should add the biased and/or NPOV tag (but NOT the COI tag) to the page, as it is biased editing. If I have time, I may do a little editing of this or related pages myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.181.216 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Ivan Massow/User:LisaThorne

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion closed by User:Fayedizard 11:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe the user LisaThorne has a conflict of interest with respect to their editing of the article Ivan Massow. LisaThorne may also edit from the IP 81.137.239.209, who on 19th July systematically removed several edits by Welsh-marches. The material which was removed included information from reliable sources that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject, for example here. I reverted these removals, then shortly afterwards LisaThorne removed great chunks of sourced information here. Again, all the material that was removed could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject. I reverted, LisaThorne reverted back. I reverted again (3rd time), this time leaving not only an explicit edit summary (again) but also advice and a warning on LisaThorne's talk page. This has been ignored and I was reverted again. Not only does LisaThorne systematically remove from the article any information that could be said to be not flattering to the article's subject (regardless of whether or not it comes from a reliable source), they also add information which presents the opposite (positive) view, such as here, and add links direct to the article subject's own business webpages, such as here and here. Additionally, LisaThorne's talk page has several notices informing them of speedy deletion proposals relating to articles which are all the names of Ivan Massow's businesses. LisaThorne has also displayed similar editing further back in the Ivan Massow article's history, specifically on the 3rd and 4th of September 2011, where the pattern of reverting edits by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is similar to the recent activity. I shall inform LisaThorne that I have started this thread. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

A Lisa Thorne has worked with Massow for over 20 years and is currently his Head of Operations. I think it's safe to assume that it's her. Have you actually made contact with her or has she only editing articles? Hopefully she can comment here and help us understand what her goal is and maybe we can help her, assuming her goals don't conflict with Wikipedia's.
I can think of specific admins who would block her outright for what's gone on so far but maybe we can make this a win-win. OlYeller21Talktome 22:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only tried to make contact with her via her talk page, but she has not responded. I have informed her there of this thread. Judging by her editing, her goal appears to be to shape the Ivan Massow article so that it reflects well on Ivan Massow, and as such I believe her goal is in conflict with Wikipedia's. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's obvious that's you're probably correct but I try to play things out a little more. It will either help inform someone that they can't whitewash here, help them understand how to contribute withing our policies and guidelines (if they care to do that), or conclusively rid WP of someone who will never productively contribute to the encyclopedia. I don't want you to think I'm dense or that your assumptions are off-base. I just try to make it work until it's totally obvious that it won't. OlYeller21Talktome 22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand. However it has been rather frustrating dealing with LisaThorne, seeing as she has ignored several edit summaries of mine, plus a message on her talk page, and at the moment the Ivan Massow article is effectively an advert for his businesses. In my view LisaThorne's approach doesn't reflect very well on the company she works for, assuming it is the same LisaThorne. Adding to the frustration is the fact that I can't revert her again or I'll break 3RR. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I wandered past and did something of a clear-up - the previous version wasn't ideal either - there was a sense of a hatchet job...Fayedizard (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That didn't last long... was insta-reverted...Fayedizard (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
She has already broken 3RR. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I also spotted this on new pages patrol. I reverted and was reverted back by LisaThorne. As her talk page is already littered with warnings I've reported her for 3RR violation. I count at least 6 reverts today there alone. Valenciano (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
My apologies about the alcoholism - it kept coming back yesterday - i mistakenly thought it was you. I am not an employee of Ivan and haven't been for a few years. He's a friend and I know he is finding some of the comment and private details very hurtful. Many of his charitable entries are totally wrong. He never sponsored the Stonewall equality dinner for example (that was his ex-company after he left). Many of the roles he has been attributed are inaccurate - we're trying to clean those up.
Similarly, one years business losses are being used to tarnish his name and long business career which include many successes (non mentioned) but the reality is that even this loss was a planned loss: He raised venture capital a year earlier specifically to invest in new infrastructure and of course that shows as a loss during the early stages. ALSO- His salary wasn't a salary as such - it was tax payment due on incorporation which needed to be paid as part of the VC deal - it was planned and accounted for - the money never touched Ivan's bank account. But the article suggests he was sunning himself while the business made losses- it is simply not true. The editors also won't let me add his new ventures, his current position in politics and his current charity projects - it is as if someone wants his career to stop in the late 90s+ I haven't been whitewashing - we just gave up trying to edit when it looks as if someone with an axe to grind has spent a lot of time subtly re-writing Ivan history to damage his career. he has been a controversial figure but usually in the name of change and equality. There are bound to be nasty articles in the press but these have been highlighted and the vast majority which are positive (thousands) ignored. As a balance doesn't seem possible - all I am trying to do is reduce it to hard facts and dates without any positive or negative fluff. -- LisaThorne (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Why does "without any positive or negative fluff" entail adding direct links in the article to Massow's business webpages, including a link direct from his name at the beginning, and repeatedly putting his latest ventures at the top of the page? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
One second here Pale - this is nice progress. As it happens I took the alcoholism stuff out this morning when I rebuilt the article - that part felt like a hatchet job. I think we've reached a point now where we can take this conversation to the article's talk page. The COI is obvious, the article is now on a number of watch lists and under hair-trigger revert for POV stuff. The last edit to the article was me with the edit summary. "ell you what - you seam to have a bit of free time - pop over to the talk page and give us some examples of the incorrect things and we can investigate - I'm happy to leave the unsourced version up for a couple of hours while we go though it..." and I'm happy to walk though the article statement by statement with Lisa to make sure everything is sourced. On the other hand if we don't make any progress we can go down the block/nasty business route - everyone happy with this? Fayedizard (talk) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds good. I agree that parts of the article did feel like a hatchet job - I had planned to look into it in detail, but then all the reverting put a stop to being able to do any work on the article. I've got to go to work now, but I'm glad someone is prepared to make sure everything is sourced. Of course, some of the less flattering info may still deserve to be there, albeit maybe in reduced and more neutrally worded form. Thanks for your input. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the message on Fayedizard's talk page, Lisa Thorne is now ready to discuss so I've asked for my 3RR report to be closed without any action taken as blocks are preventative rather than punitive and the user has suggested a willingness to change. I agree with Fayedizard, there's no harm in working constructively with this editor for a while if they're willing to cooperate. Valenciano (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay - so are there any objections to closing this conversation and sorting the article issues out on it's talk page? I think all the objecting stakeholders are happy this has been actioned and we can always reopen later... Fayedizard (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am happy to remove business links - I thought they were required to substantiate claims. I am not trying to promote his businesses just put more meat on the bones. He no longer owns some of the business and many of the links are to charities. I apologise if this is not allowed - we have nothing to gain by linking to them. It's just a fact that these organisations have web-sites. -- LisaThorne (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sicap

Sicap is a probably not notable technology company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicap). All or most edits by Katestoney seem to have the purpose of promoting this company throughout Wikipedia by means of external or internal links (e.g., [24], to take one edit at random), and most of these changes appear highly questionable in view of WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV, among other relevant policies. I am considering rolling back these edits and blocking the account. What do others think?  Sandstein  09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a straightforward COI given [25]. I'm not experienced at all at AfD, but would the easiest thing to do just be to wait out the AfD and then look again at the this if it survives? Fayedizard (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Letting the AfD conclude is usually the best way to go in this situation, in my opinion. I think the article could have been deleted per WP:A7. Iosif Szenasi, the page's creator has some association with Sicap as every page on their website has "Gazduit de Iosif Szenasi" written at the bottom. I can't seem to find out what "Gazduit de" means. Katestoney, assumably Kate Stoney, is the communications manager for Sicap. As for notability, I haven't gone through the list of articles but a Google News search and a Google News Archive search produces many hits. Many of them seem to be press releases and non-English articles. I'm also not sure if searching the word "Sicap" would return articles about subjects not related to the Sicap of the article in question.
The article looks fine right now so there don't appear to be any fires to fight. I've issued both users our COI template to help direct them to helpful reading. If there's any change, one of us should report the change here. OlYeller21Talktome 19:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Bedfordshire

Just noticed some recent edits to the article University of Bedfordshire by a new user, Webteambeds (talk · contribs). Mostly the edits look valuable, constructive and informative, but I did notice the user has "updated" the reputation section, with some older critical material now removed. So I thought it might be worth an experienced WP:COI specialist just having a quick look, and perhaps gently introducing the new user to our COI policy. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I rang the University Web team just now and spoke to a friendly guy - I've alerted them to this page and to some of the wikipedia policies that they need to be thinking about (sourcing, removal of negative sourced material, copyvio being the major ones). The might potter along here shortly but if they don't I'll do a cleanup on the page in the next little while. Fayedizard (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There have been further edits which are very similar from a new account User:FryerPaul. This name is very similar to the name of an employee of the university (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-fryer/4/743/436). I have added them to this discussion and will inform them of the discussion. In general these edits remove what might be seen as negative publicity for the institution (the 2004 controversies) and, along with the addition of some no doubt valid and sourced information, there is a lot of irrelevant, unsourced information that looks like marketing (e.g. "The University of Bedfordshire offers the opportunity to study part-time for full degrees in the evenings at both our Luton and Bedford campuses" - is not suitable to my mind). My reading of WP:COI indicates that they should not be editing this article in this way and the changes should probably be reverted until this can be sorted out.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out your concerns. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original login was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Fayedizard (talk)have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don’t do.

We have been overhauling and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken links and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.

Before making changes we looked at many other University entries and have adapted the format and structure they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:

We can understand the concerns that you have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable – however I’d ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is readily available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul and update our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.

I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we’d like to keep that in please.

We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which has been removed – we will reinstate this today. However as it relates to Luton University, a former incarnation of this institution, and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is today.

Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution but the people who study, teach and work there?

Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.

Thanks again for your help.(If someone can get rid of the extra bulletpoint that keeps appearing in our bullet lists that would very useful - especially if they can let us know how to do it!)


FryerPaul (talk) 9:20 20 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FryerPaul (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So this is good - the criticism section is back and the university is engaging - lots of progress. However, the editors involved are (obviously and understandably) inexperienced and the article has puffery issues - anyone want to volunteer to take a section and pare it down? Fayedizard (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi FryerPaul. Wikipedia articles should reflect what others say about a topic, not what a topic says about itself. That helps keeps the length of an article on the topic in check and is what makes Wikipedia stand out from the rest of the internet. I suggest removing any information in the Wikipedia University of Bedfordshire article that comes from sources that are not independent of the subject. For example, remove all material from the University of Bedfordshire article that is sourced to http://www.beds.ac.uk . -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The "criticism" section may be back, but it was not really a criticism, but the beginning of the reputation section. It is now in a different context that demotes its significance. It should really go back where it was at the start of the reputation section.--SabreBD (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I took a crack at it, and it looks like at least one other editor is working at it as well. As near as I can tell, this has adequate attention and is being resolved, with nothing much more to do at the noticeboard level at this time. VQuakr (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for your hard work on this VQuakr. I think most of the issues are resolved at the moment. As long as the relevant editors follow the guidelines they have been pointed to this should be fine.--SabreBD (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:FredLipman

I'm not sure how to handle this, so I'm just leaving a note here for editors more experienced in this area. All of the contributions from FredLipman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appear to be sourced to and promoting books by Frederick D. Lipman, so there appears to be a conflict of interest related to this promotion. Deli nk (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep losing whole edits. I need to get this fixed.
He cites his book and the URL in the citation leads to Amazon, on several occasions. I don't want to get the diffs again only to lose them but he's only got 20-something edits so it won't be hard to find.
I'll be back once I figure out why I'm losing 20% of my edits when I hit save. It's incredibly frustrating. OlYeller21Talktome 17:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
They're on L3 WP:EL warning and seem to be starting to understand the problem and backtracking. I'll keep an eye out and report back if I feel it's needed. OlYeller21Talktome 02:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Toodst1

Obvious troll is obvious. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed by OlYeller21. Unverified and unverifiable claim and legal threat with no understandable requested action. Ending this here. OlYeller21Talktome 21:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The wiki foundation has been notified of a civil (and possible) criminal lawsuit against the user Toodst1 for his conduct and his editing of topics which he/she/it has a clear conflict of interest. Wiki has notified my lawfirm that they have informed Toddst1 via email of the formal charges. As such, it is in the best interest that Toddst1 cease editing and acting as an admin until this matter is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to assume in this case that since you have provided no evidence of these claims that they are unverified. I have to imagine that the WMF, if they're a defendant which you have not specified, would take action where they see fit.
The biggest problem here is that the editor you mentioned, Toodst1, doesn't and never has existed. I can also find no similar username on the only other article that you have created.
I would be happy to review the edits of an editor whose conduct is apparently so devious that a criminal/civil case be brought against them but at this point, you've given us nothing to go on.
Unless you can provide proof of discussion between you and WMF as well as a user that has actually damaged you or someone you represent, I consider this case closed. OlYeller21Talktome 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing this is in reference to Toddst1. I've asked him to comment here so that we can get this claim taken care of as soon as possible. As a side note, I have no idea how WP:NLT applies in this case. OlYeller21Talktome 21:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the Wiki Foundation has acted by deleting the users account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)
DNFTT. WP:NLT block in order. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, not TODDST1. Wiki Foundation has already acted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.87 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sebastiano Venturi

An Italian researcher on iodine is a problem in my mind, and I think this is the best place to bring it up. Sebastiano Venturi does work on iodine, and has two bad habits - inserting his own work into various articles (somewhat appropriate articles, but in tenuous ways) and creating multiple accounts. To date I have found the following:

His work seems to be tenuous and speculative; for instance, the following text [26] is based on this source from Bentham Science Publishers, who apparently have a pretty terrible reputation for being a scientific journal equivalent to vanity press pay-to-publish. It's not pubmed indexed and the page itself has numerous adds on it (which might not be terrible, but is suspect). I'm going to alert some other editors who have noted similar stuff in the past and start removing what I consider suspect. Any suggestions or comments would be welcome. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've removed links, citations and statements sourced to Venturi from about 20 articles; most of them were verbatim repetition of the same statements and links, much of it about the evolution of iodine in animals 500M years ago. Seemed suspect, seemed like spam, couldn't find supporting references outside of Venturi and when I looked, generally it was one of these four accounts adding the links and information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The COI would come from inserting his own work into various articles if it were primarily to promote his own work. See WP:SELFCITING. If it is secondarily to promote his own work, and primarily to convey information about the topic, then that may only be a bias issue for WP:NPOV rather than a COIN issue. There's a May 2010 report at Fringe theory asserting that Sebastiano venturi appears "to aim to make his own research about iodine, lipids and evolution feature as prominently as possible in Wikipedia. There are some indications that the whole thing may be fringe science, such as a low number of Google hits for "iodolipids", and most content about this topic being associated with Venturi himself." So it seems the issues are over a longer period of time. As a first step, you may want to post a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations to help address the multiple account issue. I think if we get a handle on the multiple account issue first, that will help reduce the remaining issue workload. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not expert, but I noticed that he is persistent and it seems that he is often (maybe always) citing himself. User:Sbharris is someone who has dealt with him and is more expert than I am. I am sort of an expert on organoiodine and selenium chemistry, which are related to his apparent areas of expertise, and have never seen any broadly constructive edits that do not end up citing his papers. My guess is that he is trying ineptly to build a reputation through Wikipedia or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokefoot (talk • contribs) 11:10, July 21, 2012‎
Thanks for the suggestion, done. Should I alert the four accounts or is the pointer to this section adequate?
It looks like the edits are pretty strongly promoting, it's always the same small set of papers, pubmed searches and (admittedly brief) checks on emedicine and similar links didn't turn up support for iodine and stomach cancer or breast cancer as a current point of interest. I left a small number of citations on a couple pages when it didn't look egregiously self-promoting and wasn't claiming anything ground-breaking. I've alerted a wide variety of other editors who have scrutinized Venturi's edits in the past as well (Sbharris was one), I'm hoping they will have sufficient expertise to indicate whether individual edits might be more solid (it would take me days to figure this out given the number of claims). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a good start. A main goal is to first try to contain the situation (perferably via the cooperation of the COI editor) and then work on the clean up. This situation is complex because of the multiple user names, multiple articles, the expertise needed to address the topics, the length of time over which these edits have been posted, the issue of whether a particular use of a cite is primarily to promote his own work or primarily to convey information and, if primarily to convey information, whether that information is biased or neutral. Hopefully, Sebastiano venturi will post in this thread. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Checkuser has come back and turned up nothing but those four [27]. At this point the only thing I see as necessary is blocks of three of the accounts with redirects to the most recently used one, and if possible have someone with the appropriate expertise review the additions. That's probably not me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Ventur-sebastiano is the only account that's been recently active. If we can't get any response to the talk page notices, a two-week block of this account may be the best way to begin. He has never left a comment on user talk or article talk, but did respond once to a copyright complaint back in 2008. Lack of talk comments may sometimes be due to not being comfortable in English. If we can't locate any generally-useful article contributions that don't cite his work, rolling back all of his changes may be the simplest approach to take. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a difficult case, as Venturi is treading in waters which are speculative both because they make hypotheses about the evolution of biochemistry 500 million years ago (which needless to say, hasn't left us too many fossils-- see evolution of dietary antioxidants), PLUS a foray into an area of biochemistry that isn't well-worked out even today (see iodine in biology. To wit-- what is most of (i.e., more than half) of the iodine in our bodies doing?? (in males, about 1/3 of 14 mg total body iodine is not in the thyroid. [28]; in women, it's more). What is its function? The body carefully hoards and stores it, but not for making thyroxine. Clearly some is being stored by the breast for secretion into milk so babies are not iodine deficient. But men store a lot of iodine outside their thyroid glands also. Perhaps mammals secrete iodine in all of our sweat and salivary glands, just to make sure that women secrete it in milk (soft of like man have nipples but don't use them). I dunno. It is indeed true that only half or less of the body's iodine is in the thyroid, being used to make and store thryoid hormones. We haven't a clue as to what the rest does. There have been persistant suggestions (based on growth of thyrectomized animals when fed iodide) that perhaps other cells in the body can make their own thyroxine. This was never proven in the 60's and people seem to have lost interest. [29]

The "alternative medicine" view of iodine is that (as iodide, and even as elemental iodine) it's a rather ancient reductant which absorbs free radicals, rather like the bromine in fire retardants. If this was iodide's first function in life, it might well make sense that it went on to become a cofactor-like molecule that did what the parent element did, but better (you see that in molybdenum, selenium, t-RNA and a lot of places in biochem). And the selenoenzyme's functions in modulating iodine metabolism might make more sense if one antioxidant system was handing this job off to another, evolutionarily. However, we can't be sure. So far as I can find, Venturi is the only person who has written extensively about it, although all the alternative medicine sources go back to him in their suggestions that healthy people might need more iodine than just what it takes to make thyroid hormones. [30]. In the end, I hate to see Venturi either surpressed or encouraged. He can't be written out entirely, as he has published on non-thyroid functions of iodine in at least one peer-reviewed source The Breast (journal). On that topic, if we won't let him quote himself, I'll be glad to cite him as a review of ideas there. On the other hand, he has few supporters on the evolutionary side (not because anybody thinks he's wrong, but it's just too long ago-- you know, there was a fire in the evolutionary records office), and he hasn't exactly gotten into the major evolution journals and most of his iodine biochem stuff is speculative. But so is all the stuff in WP's articles on Abiogenesis! It may fail WP:MEDMOS as a treatment for breast diseases, but may not fail WP:RS for speculation on evolution, as the standards are lower ;). My behavior in the past is to try to keep this stuff from swamping major articles like iodine, and letting it have a bit more free-reign in Iodine in biology and even more in Evolution of dietary antioxidants. Perhaps some of the last violates WP:MEDMOS, but I"m haunted by the idea that these ideas should at leats be mentioned as hypotheses (where they can be cited), in case they turn out to be "right" (or garner a lot more support in coming years). Iodine might be just the thing for fibrocystic breast disease, even if evolutinarily, it didn't get into thyroxine in any of the ways Venturi thinks it did. These are separate issues. As is WP:SELFCITING. Should we not give WP:SELFCITERS more rope, if nobody else is available who has a better idea? I can't think of any better evolutionary explanation for what iodine is doing in today's organisms, and apparently neither can anybody else. It seems to me that the major harm self-citers do, is in crowding out other people's alternative ideas, in fertile fields. This one isn't a fertile field, so the damage is small. And again, it's not off-the-wall-non-scientific craziness. SBHarris 00:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sebastiano venturi appears to be publicizing his in Wikipedia efforts off Wikipedia.[31] I posted a request at Italian Wikipedia for assistance.[32] Sbharris, what ever you decide is fine with me. Per your post above, it seems that the info can be located in some articles. Conveying the information from whatever source takes precedent over sebastiano's thoughts on the information (e.g., no sebastiano quotes) or support of that information from his source material (info should be from multiple sources, not just one). Maybe pursuing the matter at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard might be more productive. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be much more comfortable with Sbharris re-adding the information he thinks is worth including. I do have a couple comments though - if nobody but Venturi is publishing in the area, it does seem somewhere between fringe and low-end science. If his ideas have not been grasped and extrapolated on by others, that suggests it's not convincing or interesting for most science, and per WP:UNDUE we should be very cautious to avoid soapboxing it out of proportion to its weight in the field. Regarding the comparison to abiogenesis, even if it's as speculative as Venturi's work with iodine it's at least well-debated speculation involving a large field of scientists who discuss (and criticize) each others' work. Our threshold isn't how speculative something is, it's impact on a field. If alternative medicine is seizing it, that almost certainly means it is being oversold as magic. If it's not used as a treatment for breast diseases, that would be the place where I would be least comfortable involving, or even mentioning, his work. I think my preference would be leaving it out of most parent articles, and including it in child articles with "it has been suggested that iodine might..." with a (relatively arbitrary) two sentence maximum, using one of his most recent publications and leave it out of medical treatment articles completely.
But mostly I would like to say thanks to Sbharris for taking the time to respond as thoughtfully as he did. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


Dear Wikipedia,

regarding le article "ANTIOXIDANT: History" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antioxidant&action=history

I permit to report that in the

=Line 15=:

"As part of their adaptation from marine life, terrestrial plants began producing non-marine antioxidants such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), polyphenols and tocopherols. The evolution of angiosperm plants between 50 and 200 million years ago resulted in the development of many antioxidant pigments – particularly during the Jurassic period – as chemical defences against reactive oxygen species that are byproducts of photosynthesis."


the above sentence is derived from my paper ( Venturi Sebastiano: "Evolutionary significance of iodine" published in Current Chemical Biology: Volume 5, 3 Issues, 2011, and in: "Evolution of dietary antioxidant defences". European Epi-Marker_ Vol. 11, No. 3 :1-12. July 2007

and not in paper of Benzie where only the evolution of antioxidants in human diet is reported.

Thanks

Yours

venturi-sebastiano (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Sebastiano venturiventuri-sebastiano (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


_____ You can see below my paragraph:

_____ ... When about 400-300 Mya some living plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life (Venturi, 2000). In marine-fishes, plants and animals the terrestrial diet became deficient in many essential marine trace elements, including iodine, selenium etc. Terrestrial plants, in replacement of marine antioxidants, slowly optimized the production of other endogenous antioxidants such as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids, tocoferols etc., some of which became essential “vitamins” in the diet of terrestrial animals (vitamins C, A, E, etc.). ... When about 500 million years ago plants and animals began to transfer from the sea to rivers and land, environmental iodine-deficiency was a challenge to the evolution of terrestrial life. New endogenous antioxidants appeared in plants as ascorbic acid, polyfenols, carotenoids, flavonoids. A few of these appeared recently, about 200-50 million years ago in fruits and flowers of angiosperm plants... ____

Volume!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Close: Zamuse has a conflict of interest with the Volume! topic. I posted {{subst:uw-coi}} to Zamuse's talk page. The Volume! article now is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volume!. If the article survives XfD, feel free to repost at COIN if there is an issue of whether an edit by the COI editor (Zamuse) does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of interest guideline. NAC close by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is being heavily edited by an obvious COI editor (see talk: "our editorial board", for example), but I'm really getting tired of this article, so I have removed it from my watchlist. Perhaps somebody else would like to take over. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh. PROD-ded it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the PRODding in principle, but in practice there's rarely much to be gained from PRODding an article which already has an active editor-in-residence - they'll just remove it and continue their usual editing. bobrayner (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
You're probably right, but then removing the PROD without a fix-up may attract the eyes of admins with greater editing authority. Let's see what happens.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't qualify for PROD because it failed a PROD a year ago. Can we get a/some diffs that prove a connection between the editor in question and the subject they're editing? Also, if they haven't been alerted of this discussion, that needs to be done. We may be able to talk this out. OlYeller21Talktome 18:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, we made need to start an SPI as Vvolume was indefinitely blocked for spamming and three days later, Zamuse is created and begins editing the same page. This would absolutely qualify for a checkuser with a few diffs but even if the user is blocked, the problem itself will not have been solved. OlYeller21Talktome 18:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it was NOT BLOCKED for spamming, but for its name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vvolume : "As TParis stated below, and per your block notice above, you are only blocked because of your user name", "You have not been blocked for vandalism. You've been blocked because your name suggests you edit on behalf of a group, organization, company, or otherwise more than one person". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not say the article "failed" the PROD -- rather, one contributor removed the PROD notice without really addressing the concerns, that's all. If that happens again, I can get in touch with admins who can do an AfD. Plus I put a note on the talk page of Volume! about this discussion. Agree about need for further investigation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:PROD, "An article may not be proposed for deletion ("PRODed") if it has been PRODed before". It gives no stipulations on whether or not the PROD's concern statement was addressed or not. You don't need an admin to initiate an AfD, either. You can either wait until the PROD is declined in a week, as it doesn't qualify, or replace the PROD with an AfD and suggest that the article would need a fundamental rewrite to remove all of the spam. Even if there's no usable version in the history, it will most likely be stubbed and not deleted, if the subject is believed to be notable. I only see a deletion occurring if it's determined that the subject isn't notable which is uncommon for publications (a hole in WP:N, in my opinion).
I'm going to give Zamuse time to respond here but of course, I can't stop anyone else from taking action. In my opinion, at least attempting to talk this out is the best plan for everyone involved. OlYeller21Talktome 19:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I had not known about the rule prohibiting PRODs for previously PROD-ded articles; so I will remove the PROD and replace it with an AfD. If it gets stubbed then that might be acceptable too I suppose.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but did you not read the dozens of refs I gave about this journal (I do, of course, participate in)?
You mention conflicts of interest, but I reference everything (not THAT MUCH) I add to this page. I'm not promoting the journal in a blatant way - just adding facts when there are new facts to add, every now and then… I don't understand why, when this has already been discussed, and the article indeed has already been "PRODed", you can just decide that you were not convinced…
Here, there is a list of references from journals, websites, institutions, that authentify our journal and its notoriety (France24 never quotes scholarly journals, by the way): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volume! Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for responding here.
A conflict of interest can affect the article, even if content is sourced. Not that your case is anywhere near this drastic but as an example, if WP's climate control articles are completely soured by studies that show that global warming is going to raise ocean levels by 3 feet in the next 200 years, the article has a bias because undue weight is being given to that point of view when there are other POVs out there.
The PROD was placed with regards to the article's notability. Personally, I'm not sure if the subject of the article is notable or not but I'm concerned that you may be evading a block you previously earned for editing the same article under the account Vvolume. Can you clarify whether or not that was your account? Please keep in mind that this information can be determined by means available to a Checkuser but I'd rather ask you than start an WP:SPI. OlYeller21Talktome 12:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Of course we were vvolume - we clearly wanted to indicate that we were the ones creating the page and adding info to it; a matter, in fact, of transparency… That account was blocked because of its name, bot because of spam: "As TParis stated below, and per your block notice above, you are only blocked because of your user name".
What I want to know is how, after all the justifications we gave before, we're back in this situation where people who have little knowledge of the field of popular music studies come here and question the notability of our journal… It's tough to convince people who look into France24 for references to scholarly journals on popular music, but don't know who Simon Frith, Andy Bennett, Sheila Whiteley, Ian Inglis etc. are… I don't mean to offend, but there is something absurd in such a conversation. Zamuse (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
You're correct, Zamuse. I apologize. I misread the block rationale. I should point out though that multiple people shouldn't use one account per WP:USERNAME but I'd rather not go down that road at the moment.
I'm sorry that you're frustrated. I think we can work together to make this issue clearer for those involved and as notability "doesn't go away", if we can all come to a consensus that the subject is notable, you won't have to deal with the issue of notability again.
As you pointed out, most if not all of us are laypeople when it comes to music studies in the same way that you are a layperson regarding some of our policies and guidelines. Both instances are, in my opinion, understandable and don't mean that we can't come up with a solution.
As for your close connection, it constitutes a conflict of interest meaning that your edits could skew the way you edit and synthesis and/or undue weight may be present in the article but I think that determining that is secondary to determining notability. If we get to that point, we do have several experts on the subject that I can ask to work with you on the contents of the article. Ultimately, I don't see that the contents of the article should be highly contentious as the article should be about the journal itself and not about music studies but I certainly understand that there will be some overlap.
From what I've seen, an issue causing problems here is that you feel that showing a list of references proves notability. There are some (few) exceptions but those references will need to be independent from Volume! (not articles printed in the journal, press releases, etc.) and from reliable sources which is defined here and WP:RS. In short, pasting a large list of references in the AfD in no way proves notability as defined here.
Will you agree to discuss the notability of the journal in the discussion that was started here? OlYeller21Talktome 13:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, but I don't see how that's important at this point, as the article in in AfD.
I think it's wise to see how the AfD goes before we address the COI. The COI is noted and can be discussed in the AfD if needed but as the AfD is a ticking clock on the largest issue, I think that addressing the COI would be a waste of time until after the AfD closes, unless it affects the AfD itself. OlYeller21Talktome 14:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
From what I can see from the above, none of that helps meet the general notability requirements WP:GNG. If anything gives significant coverage in a reliable independent source; please show that source. I don't need a wall of links, just two or three of the best you have is sufficient. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, first of all, we are on Revues.org and Cairn.info - these are the equivalents in France and Belgium of Jstor, Muse and co. Revues.org is funded by the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, the EHESS, the Université de Provence and the Université d'Avignon. Cairn.info by major publishers: La Découverte, Belin, de Boeck, Erès. To be on such portals means a committee of scientific experts looked at our journal, its history, its publications, its editorial process, the authors published etc. to judge whether it was worthy enough to be part of these portals. These two portals host most of the online versions of major, historical French academic journals, such as Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, the Revue Française de Sociologie, Ethnologie Française, Terrain, Gradhiva etc. Volume! would never be on these two portals if it did not comply with the highest academic standards and requirements (peer-review process, international editorial board, major contributors, quality/originality of content etc.). We are thus also indexed on Isidore, the main French index for online academic articles, journals and so forth. This alone is enough to prove we are, at least in the eyes of French academic institutions, a notable academic journal.
The list of authors who published articles in the journal, which is on the revues.org website, includes major, prominent popular music studies scholars, from all over the world. Please have a specialist judge this. Among them, just to name a few:
and so on… The list is here: http://volume.revues.org/33?lang=en
Our next two issues on countercultures will be edited by Prof. Sheila Whiteley - http://www.sheilawhiteley.co.uk/Sheila_Whiteley/Home.html, with articles by prominent popular music scholars: Prof. Andy Bennett - http://www.griffith.edu.au/humanities-languages/school-humanities/staff/prof-andy-bennett, Simon Warner (Lecturer at the University of Leeds) - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/music/staff/srw/, Senior Lecturer Benjamin Halligan - http://www.smmp.salford.ac.uk/page/benjamin-halligan… Our issue on listening will be edited by Professor Antoine Hennion, head of research at the Ecole des Mines - http://www.mines-paristech.fr/cgi-bin/whoswho?Qid=683. The one on nostalgia will be co-edited by Senior Lecturer Hugh Dauncey (Newcastle University) - http://www.ncl.ac.uk/sml/staff/profile/hugh.dauncey/ and Chris Tinker, Reader in French at Heriot Watt University - http://www.sml.hw.ac.uk/staff-directory/chris-tinker.htm. The links to the CFPs are above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
And I won't mention, again, the names we have in our editorial board, since, for some odd reason, it seems irrelevant…
We are now not only organizing conferences in universities (such as the Bordeaux one with Philip Tagg, or a forthcoming one in Strasbourg, with German partners and the French branch of the IASPM), but also events (conferences) with major institutions, such as the Musée du Quai Branly, the Cité de la Musique, the Bibliothèque Publique d'Information of the Georges Pompidou Center. Cf. the links above. We will be publishing the proceedings of a conference that was held by the Cité de la Musique on the question of the cultural heritage of rock'n'roll. We published the proceedings of the Bordeaux conference, which dealt with Philip Tagg's theorization of Black music, in our issue n°8-1.
The journal and the publishing association is supported by the Centre National du Livre, the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. The links to the documents attesting this are on the wiki page.
We work with the French-speaking branch of the IASPM (the international association dedicated to popular music studies): we publish the winner of their annual prize : http://iaspmfrancophone.online.fr/PrixJeuneChercheur/.
Three papers mention Volume! as a leader in the development of popular music studies in France:
  • Cécile Prévost-Thomas (2010), "Note de synthèse bibliographique: les nouvelles perspectives en sociologie de la musique", L'Année sociologique n°60, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France: 403-417. Her quote: " En dehors des nombreuses thèses et ouvrages dédiés à cette branche de la sociologie et des articles publiés dans des revues spécialisées […] notons qu’entre 1998 et 2008, plus de quinze numéros de revues scientifiques relevant du domaine des sciences humaines et dédiant chacun un dossier spécifique à la question musicale, ont tous inclus une ou plusieurs contributions de sociologues de la musique. Plus encore, d’autres revues centrées sur l’objet musical, telles Musurgia, ou Copyright Volume ! ont largement favorisé la publication d’écrits sociologiques sur la même période."
  • Philippe Le Guern (2007), "En arrière la musique! Sociologies des musiques populaires en France. La genèse d’un champ", Réseaux n°141, Paris: Hermès Éditions: 15-45. His quote: "A seulement quelques années de distance, les progrès accomplis dans ce domaine d’étude sont évidents : de nouvelles revues ont réussi à voir le jour et constituent des lieux d’expression appréciables, notamment pour les jeunes chercheurs qui peuvent y faire leurs premières armes, ou pour des auteurs étrangers peu ou mal connus en France - Footnote: On pense notamment à la revue Volume dont le premier numéro voit le jour en 2002 et qui a su accompagner la diversification des musiques actuelles."
  • Emmanuel Brandl (2006), "À propos des musiques populaires : le rock", Mouvements n° 47-48, 2006/5-6. His quote: "C’est donc à une nouvelle génération d’universitaires français que l’on doit aujourd’hui un effort de production et de publication de travaux de recherches en sciences sociales concernant ces musiques. Un certain nombre d’entre eux, regroupés autour des éditions Mélanie Séteun ont déjà assuré la publication d’une demi-douzaine d’ouvrages avec le soutien de l’IRMA et, depuis 2002, d’une revue biannuelle, Volume !".
This article of Le Mouvement Social (2011/3, n° 236, Paris, La Découverte) mentions Volume as a "pioneer" in research on popular music in France. The quote: "La précédente livraison du Mouvement social avait salué la naissance d’un séminaire interdisciplinaire consacré à l’histoire sociale du rock, signe d’un intérêt croissant de la recherche universitaire française pour un genre musical dont l’importance et l’impact au cours du dernier demi-siècle ne sauraient être sous-estimés. Volume  ! La revue des musiques populaires , revue semestrielle de recherche fondée il y a une dizaine d’années, et qui a joué un rôle pionnier dans cette reconnaissance, prépare, dans une perspective proche, un numéro consacré au rock des sixties…"
Here are links to a few articles that quote Volume (or Copyright Volume, former title) articles, in the text, bibliography etc.:

2009/1-2 (n° 193-194), Paris, EHESS.

Hope this helps… Thanks Zamuse (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment You really don't want to adapt to WP, but WP has to adapt to you, eh? All those links to homepages of researchers are irrelevant for the notability of this journal. You don't need tons of references, just a few good ones. And to understand what "good" means here, you really will have to get familiar with our policies/guidelines. If I would want to publish in your journal, I would have to adapt to your instructions for authors, too, wouldn't I? So just see WP's policies and guidelines as our "instructions for authors". --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Listen, Guillaume, I really don't understand WHY you adopt this tone with me. I'm answering questions, giving links to the academic pages of people who published articles in Volume. This IS a proof of our notoriety. These scholars would not have submitted articles to Volume had they not considered it a serious journal in their field of research. A journal's notoriety is also determined by the content, who published articles in it. I do not see how this cannot be considered as relevant, when it comes to assessing the value of our journal. You were fed up with following this conversation: I'd appreciate it if you followed your instincts and let others deal with this issue. Best, Zamuse (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yup, it adds perhaps to the journal's notoriety, but not to its notability in the WP sense, which is something completely different. Read the policies and guidelines. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I highly recommend that Zamuse should listen to Guillaume and the others here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Just added links to mentions of Volume in scholarly journals. Will listen to whoever gives good, courteous advice. Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Seems like Guillaume's advice is courteous and respectful and, more important, correct. Guillaume is trying to help save the Volume! article; at present, Zamuse, it seems like you are doing everything you can to hurt your article's chances for staying in Wikipedia. Can't you see this?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Guillaume is not being courteous (eh ? yup ? - very obnoxious), plus he selects the elements he wants to criticize, and just neglects all the other ones. I have added a good number of links to articles that mention Volume - three of them actually talk about the journal itself, the other ones refer to articles published in it… This should, I believe, help assess the journal's notability, no? Best, Zamuse (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Guillaume understands the rules. You don't. He has been trying hard to tell you this. You don't seem to listen. Your addition of links has not been helping your cause. If you'd like the article Volume! to stay in Wikipedia, I urge you to listen carefully to what Guillaume is trying to tell you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok I will, and have: I just added the quotes of the articles mentioned earlier. Please explain why this is not considered as relevant. Thank you Zamuse (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Zamuse, you did not listen. You add quotes and then you demand that we explain to you why those would not be sufficient. That's not the way it works. What you need to do is tell us which evidence among the big wall of text that you dumped here satisfies the notability requirements of [|[WP:NJournals]] or WP:GNG and why. Just two good independent reliable sources should be enough. quotes or a few citations to articles that appeared in the journal won't do it. And given the type quotes you just now added, you apparently still have not read any of the policies and guidelines that have been recommended to you. Apparently, you still think that "notability" is a synonym for "good", "valuable", "worthwhile", "important", etc. It is not. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"You dumped here" - I mean, if that is not arrogant, if that does not explicitly show the contempt you have, a priori, for whatever evidence I have to propose…
1. I have quoted articles that speak about the state of popular music studies in France - that is their topic. And they do indeed mention Volume as one of the agents that developed popular music studies in France. They "address, directly, in detail" the subject of popular music studies in France: their current state, how they developed, where they come from. If you expect to find many online articles that are solely focused on one academic journal, good look to you.
2. They are reliable: published in other peer-reviewed journals, by "independent" authors not affiliated with Volume (one is, in fact, a member of the editorial board, but then again, that does not mean the author is biased, or involved in any "conflict of interest" when he decides to mention Volume in an article).
3. They are "secondary sources": they do not come from our website. I really have, I admit, a hard time understanding how these references are not notable, given they tackle the question at stake, they are reliable, independent, secondary sources…
On the "Notability (academic journals)", here are the criteria:
  • The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. I have given references assessing that.
  • The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Maybe not as frequently as 30 year-old academic journals, ok, but we're getting there.
  • The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history. Yes: there is no other academic journal, since "Vibrations", in France, exclusively dedicated to popular music studies. We offer a space for researchers to publish new, interesting articles on popular music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I also gave links to articles in newspapers that talk about various issues of our journal - how are they not reliable or independent? Le Monde diplomatique, Ouest France are important French newspapers. How do these elements not comply with WP requirements? You haven't explained that - it seems you are blind to these references. I feel like my arguments bounce against hostile wall… Please take each example and criticize it, that's the only way I will be able to understand. But then again, the fact that the equivalent, for example, of the Nation (le Monde Diplomatique) in France does not impress you is understandable: but I cannot invent English sources. Please forgive the fact that the journal, for the moment, only gets attention from French national media… If you type "melanie seteun" (the publishing association) or "copyright volume" (former title of the journal), you get hundreds of responses on Google scholar… "Volume la revue des musiques populaires" gets 1200 answers on Google scholar. I do not believe in google scholar, but since you wanted some kind of an international index (such indexes are important in the Anglo-Saxon world, they do not really exist in the French-speaking one).
If you feel like deleting, in the end, be my guest. I will hardly find anything better than, yes, the prestige of our authors, of our editorial board, of scholarly articles that assess Volume's role in developing popular music studies in France, of the newspapers that reviewed recent issues of our journal, of the major online academic portals that decided we were an asset for them, of the major institutions that call us to organize conferences, debates on popular culture, rock'n'roll, Black music and so forth.
I work benevolently for this journal, it's not always easy, and yet it is getting growing interest in the English-speaking world and beyond (things I cannot prove on WP - the amount of proposals we receive in answer to our calls for papers, the prestige of the scholars who submit papers, who want to edit issues, who accept to review submissions, who contact us to organize international events). If WP accepts dozens of articles on tabloids and pokemons, but not a journal like Volume, that's fine. I really sense incredible hostility in the overly zealous scrutiny you impose upon a page that does not even say that much about the journal - nothing too laudatory, no unverifiable facts, no ambiguous falsifications… And still, I get "uh", "yup", "you dumped here", all these petty signs of contempt, when all I'm trying to do, is offer a young and long-lasting, independent, "do it yourself" and yet serious, scholarly initiative, a little more presence on the WWW.
Anyway, we're doing ok without WP, there's nothing dramatic. Thanks for the experience Zamuse (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Elements

  • In the editorial board, which is online and in every single issue (18 of them up to now) of the paper version of the journal, there are scholars such as H. Becker, Simon Frith, A. Bennett, T. Gracyk, S. Whiteley, I. Inglis, B. Lebrun, S. Lacasse, A. Hennion, B. Péquignot… : these are major popular music studies scholars. Prof. Lebrun directed an issue f Volume ! on French Popular music. Prof. Sheila Whiteley, leading British scholar on the sixties, will be directing an issue on music and countercultures - the CFP is online all over the place. In France, Philippe Le Guern directed an issue, and he published a book with Simon Frith, one of the founders of PMS. We published a comparative sociology of popular music in France and Britain, which was published by Ashgate in England, by Hugh Dauncey and Ph. Le Guern. These are serious academics, who support the journal, some have directed issues, others have published articles in it, all have accepted to figure in our journal as members of the editorial board. It is not known enough, yet, in the US and the UK, because we are based in France and publish mainly in French.
  • We are referenced on ISIDORE, the main French-speaking humanities indexing portal: http://www.rechercheisidore.fr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamuse (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please check the list of articles published in English, here: http://volume.revues.org/2135
  • We work with the Cité de la Musique in Paris : http://www.citedelamusique.fr/francais/evenement.aspx?id=12751
  • Organized a conference at the Musée du Quai Branly : http://www.quaibranly.fr/fr/actualites/actualites-par-rubriques/actualites.html?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3501
  • We organized a conference in Bordeaux (cf. here: http://www.ades.cnrs.fr/IMG/pdf. Link to the ADES laboratory page mentioning the 2009 Bordeaux conference co-organized by Volume ! - another one here mentioning the round table with Philip Tagg the day before the conference./Appel_journee_d_etude_musiques_noires.pdf, or here: http://www.cean.sciencespobordeaux.fr/lettre52.pdf).
  • Our publications are announced on the websites of the IASPM international, Canada (http://iaspm.ca/2010/08/volume-la-revue-des-musiques-populaires-la-reprise-covers/), France obviously (we publish articles they reward).
  • The CFP is also on the IASPM site: http://www.iaspm.net/?p=486. Our Nostalgia cfp is quoted on many popular music studies site, such as the IASPM
  • HNET is an important online source (based at Michigan State University) for scholarly calls for papers, academic announcements etc. "H-Net is an international interdisciplinary organization of scholars and teachers dedicated to developing the enormous educational potential of the Internet and the World Wide Web" (cf. here: http://www.h-net.org/) - this means that to publish information on their site, you submit for instance a CFP, they judge if it is relevant and so forth, then publish it.
  • On this specific page, the "metal studies bibliography" was actually done by K. Kahn-Harris and French scholar Fabien Hein, and first published in Volume ! n°5-2 (on metal music). If you follow the link, we are quoted on his site : http://www.keithkahnharris.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/metalstudies.htm ("I am indebted to Fabien Hein for alerting me to a number of these items. Together we published a version of this bibliography in Hein, F. and Kahn-Harris K. ‘Études Metal: Metal Studies: Une Bibliographe’ in Copyright Volume! 5/2 2006 19-32") - Copyright Volume ! being the first title of the publication, before it became simply "Volume !" in 2010 (issue n°7-1).
  • And we are on Philip Tagg's database (just type "volume !" in the research bar) - we actually published a new translation of an important letter he wrote, organized a conference about that letter, and just published the selected papers of the conference in our 8-1 issue on "Black Music". :Cf. here: http://www.mollat.com/rendez-vous/en_presence_de_philip_tagg_et_denis_constant_martin-37124.html, here: http://calenda.revues.org/nouvelle12949.html, or here http://www.sudouest.fr/2010/04/13/musiques-de-couleur-64504-2780.php)
  • We have been accepted by two major French and Belgian online portals: Revues.org (http://www.openedition.org/9173) and Cairn.info (they work together). This means a committee of experts looked at the journal, asked specialists to judge its quality etc. before accepting it on the portals. Articles are online since September. These are two major portals of the French-speaking world - and it's too bad the American databases don't even consider anything in any other language than English as important.
  • Here is one current news item (July11, 2011) in "Le Devoir" [33].
  • The professional activities of Gérôme Guibert
  • Place des Revues
  • Volume! French Wikipedia Article
  • IF Journals
  • Copyright Volume! Contemporary music and visual problems
  • Overview of the journal in an interview with Emmanuel Parent.
  • IASPM website announcing our listening CFP.
  • Leeds Popular Cultures Research Network newsletter mentioning the countercultures CFP.
  • Neosphères site reviewing the latest issues of Volume. This site is edited by Eric Deshayes, a rock critic, who published several books on rock, the underground in France.
  • Place des revues the main French online catalogue of academic journals, summarizes our editorial process etc.
  • Volume on Open Edition the site which hosts Revues.org
  • A link on the Music and Politics online academic journal.
  • A review on the Monde Diplomatique website. Prominent monthly newspaper on geopolitics. Belongs to the group Le Monde.
  • Philippe Le Guern's CV mentioning the Volume ! issues he edited etc.
  • RAMA presentation of Volume ! The RAMA is a regional network dedicated to promoting popular music in Aquitaine. It supports Volume ! and the Ed. Mélanie Seteun.

Zamuse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Given that the conflict of interest is admitted -- and obvious -- the proper place for this discussion is the AfD. I cannot see what is gained by repeating it all here. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with DGG. I don't see that there's anything to be gained by having a conversation here and at the AfD and I think it's more productive to have the conversation there. OlYeller21Talktome 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles about the Melbourne tram system.

Hi all,

I have a conflict of interest as I'm involved with a tramway preservation group in Victoria, Australia (I'm a member of the TMSV board), I have declared my COI on my userpage, and have tried to avoid editing the page about the organisation I'm part of, but have edited twice, in good faith, to fix errors (I hope this is ok, and am happy for them to be reviewed by another editor, and reverted if found to be a breach of policy).

My main question relates to my editing of articles about the Melbourne tram system, I have on a number of occasions used our publication (Running Journal) as citations on pages such as Trams in Melbourne, is this acceptable behaviour, or should I not use these articles as sources? For some context, the articles in question were written in the 1960's and 1970's on historical matters, they can be viewed here and here, feedback is greatly appreciated so I can continue working on pages related to Melbourne's trams, I have also posted my COI on the Trams in Melbourne talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

My view. You should be careful - as you are being - when editing TMSV. Use of the journal sounds appropriate, given the specialist nature of the subject. I tend to think you've done everything you can with respect to COI, and should continue on as you are. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be making a good effort to edit in the face of your COI. To help you out further, in any Wikipedia article, to help stay out of trouble given your COI, you should only use reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. In other words, if Running Journal is connected to the topic in which the Running Journal reference appears, it should be removed. You might be able to use info in Running Journal in articles not related to Running Journal. Given your COI, you might want to post a request at WP:RSN to get a ruling on whether Running Journal is a reliable source and what articles you should not use it as a source. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'm trying to be conscious of potential errors, and avoid them. I understand and agree with what Wiki is; an encyclopedia, not a platform for promoting self interest. However, editing a topic that one is close to makes this line somewhat ambiguous at times, and this is where I'm having a slight problem. The articles I'm linking to are historic articles about Melbourne's tram system, I have not used articles to promote or source info about either the TMSV or Running Journal, I feel that although the info would be useful (being primary source and recording the history of the organisation), it could be contentious and it's best left for other editors to make those changes, or for me to write proposed text to be added, and place it on the talk page for the consideration of others (in accordance with COI guidelines on the subject).
The main question I'm after clarification on is whether the use of Running Journal for sources fits under WP:SELFCITE or WP:LINKSPAM. There are four citations (13, 22, 23 and 28) and a link to the "Reflections" section of our website in the "External Links" section, which lists (only) historic articles, that have been reprinted on the website in HTML rather than scanned PDF's. A second question is whether my COI should preclude me from writing/improving articles about other tramway preservation groups in Victoria? Thank you for helping me out with this. Liamdavies (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Your TMSV board position means you have a COI with the Tramway Museum Society of Victoria topic. It does not mean you have a COI with the Trams in Melbourne topic or any other tramway preservation groups in Victoria. You might have a bias on the Trams in Melbourne topic -- I'm going out on a limb and assuming that you think trams in Melbourne are a good thing -- but I don't see how any bias on your part would amount to a concern from another editor in your editing the Trams in Melbourne article. Rather, your expert knowledge on the topic would be a welcome contribution to that article. Take a look at Wikipedia:Expert editors. In any event, bias issues are dealt with at WP:NPOVN, not at COIN. Running Journal is the journal of TMSV, not Trams in Melbourne, so I don't think using Running Journal in the Trams in Melbourne article is WP:SELFCITE. WP:LINKSPAM is for links listed under the "External Link" subsection, not footnotes. There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia articles to promote or source info about either the TMSV or Running Journal as a secondary effect so long as your primary effort is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Footnotes are a great way to get external links into an article. If people we not motivated by some self interest, many of Wikipedia's articles wouldn't have been written. So long as the end product is a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia article, secondary promotion effects are not that much of a concern. I think you are stressing too much over this. Relax, edit away, and enjoy yourself. If someone is hassling you, feel free to post back at COIN. In the mean time, consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria, where you can find other Wikipedia's with interests similar to yours. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Institute of Recruiters

I'm coming here for some advice. I recently became involved with two other editors in reverting edits on Human Resources and Recruitment which appeared to be aimed at positioning promotional information about an organisation called the Institute of Recruiters(IOR). The edits were undertaken by User talk:78.148.26.156 and User talk:Azmatmohammed both of whom appeared to be solely involved in editing these pages with content relating to the Institute of Recruiters. It was then drawn to my attention by another editor that the user name 'Azmatmohammed' happens to be identical to the name of the Director General as advised on the IOR website[34] and that there might be a conflict of interest issue with the article Institute of Recruiters which was created and has been maintained solely by User talk:Azmatmohammed the anon IP referred to above and another anon editor with a similar IP address. I have recently posted a polite message on User talk:Azmatmohammed with a {{Uw-coi}} template seeking clarification as to whether there is a connection. In any case the content of this page is largely promotional with no reliable sources cited and would need to be overhauled almost 100% if it were to be retained. There is also a question over the notability of the subject as the importance of the organisation has clearly been puffed up by suggesting it has international or even global status when in fact it appears only to be operational in the UK. I am not in a hurry at this stage to proceed but what is the suggested next step to handle this having allowed a few more days to elapse? Thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tmol42 You seem to keep deleting information from a legitimate British Institute from Wikipedia pages. The Institute of Recruiters in an official British Institute governed by the UK Secretary of State and given rights to use the word 'Institute' in its title. Your blatant deletion of its entries into Wikipedia are no more than mindless vandalism. Under what knowledge authority are you deleting entries form a British HR and Recruitment Institute. The details of the founders are irrelevant, it remains a British Institute and you are destroying accurate Wikipedia pages because of your ignorance. See http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/hro/news/1073846/institute-recruiters-institute-training-occipational-learning-join-forces-provide-qualification-hr-pros http://www.personneltoday.com/blogs/hire-escape/2011/06/institute-of-recruiters-opens-its-doors.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azmatmohammed (talk • contribs) 16:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Institute of Recruit seems to meet WP:GNG. I removed {{notability|Companies|date=July 2012}} from the article. User:Azmatmohammed appears to have a conflict of interest with the Institute of Recruiters[35]. If the user is not the Director General, that raises WP:IMPERSONATE issues. Azmatmohammed, please comment on whether you are Azmat Mohammed, Director General of Institute of Recruiters. Thank you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Growmore

Growmore Biotech (http://www.growmorebiotech.com) is propogating Beema Bamboo. All of the user Growmore's edits involve or promote beema and lack supporting citations. The user name is against WP policy, as this using WP to promote. The user has not acknowledge repeated warnings, though there may be a language barrier. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. E8 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Orangemike has already blocked the user for a WP:USERNAME violation. They once requested account confirmation so that they could upload a file that they owned the copyright of but they never uploaded a file (didn't out themselves). It does appear that the user's sole purpose, at least up until the block, was to promote a Growmore product called "Beema Bamboo". We should watchlist Biomass, Bamboo, Beema Bamboo (failed AfC) in case they come back with the same purpose. OlYeller21Talktome 20:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
There's about fifty Beema Bamboo news articles. However, most of them are press releases to Business Line, Market News Publishing, Market Wire, M2 Presswire, etc. There's a few legit reliable source articles, but some of those probably are press release inspired. Even for editors who know how to write a Wikipedia article, it would be difficult to wade through the published info about Beema Bamboo to put together a Beema Bamboo article that meets WP:GNG. Growmore Biotech appears to have a better chance of getting past WP:GNG and info about Beema Bamboo feedstock probably could be put in there. I'll suggest that on User Growmore's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A new user named Shamil developer is editing Bamboo. I'm not sure if they're linked or what their intentions are at this time. I'll monitor and report back if needed. OlYeller21Talktome 13:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Shamil developer is back at it, attempting to promote Beema bamboo. OlYeller21Talktome 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent vehicle technologies

User has asserted ownership over the page and of the trademarked phrase "Intelligent Vehicle Technologies", presumably as owner of the company. The article appears to be about the concept, not the company (not lowercased phrase in article title, general content is 80% about the concept). This has led to ownership of the article and weird discussions on the talk page. Some help sorting it out would be appreciated. tedder (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This and this were the first two comments I read and in my opinion, are cause for alarm. The editor obviously has a misunderstanding of Fair Use so I have explained it and warned them on the talk page. They've made borderline legal threats and seem to think that owning IP entitles them control over all mentions of that IP. I've given them a way out so that we can work together on an article so I think we should see how it goes. OlYeller21Talktome 02:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, here's where Lperez2029 "allows" WP to keep the article and identifies himself as "Luis Perez" who is the owner of the technology and plays some role in the company that goes by the same name. This, along with their actions constitutes what is in my opinion, a very strong COI. Like I mentioned above, I'm trying to write the ship but I sense that a topic ban man be needed and may also lead to a legal threat and indefinite block from editing per WP:NLT. OlYeller21Talktome 02:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
He has deemed that my comment was "unintelligible" and that I may be a sock puppet. I've asked him to attempt to reread my comment.
Anyone else have an opinion here? I'm thinking that if this doesn't turn around in the next comment, I'm thinking the only next step is a block. OlYeller21Talktome
Article appears to be a content fork of Intelligent_transportation_system - I'd be willing to nominate for deletion on that basis...Fayedizard (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should probably address the COI first then determine the individual notability of the concept and the company. If they're both notable, split the two with a disambiguation (apparently that's a word). If one is and one isn't, merge content into one article with a mention of the non-notable subject. If both aren't notable, delete all of the content entirely. But like I said, notability will be easier to deal with once we deal with Lperez2029. OlYeller21Talktome 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A Luis A. Perez owns a Intelligent vehicle technologies US trademark. If the intelligent vehicle technologies article is limited to WP:RS coverage of Intelligent vehicle technologies as it relates to that trademark, then the topic probably does not meet WP:GNG. If the intelligent vehicle technologies article includes WP:RS coverage beyond that covered by the trademark, and there is no reason why it should not since Wikipedia coverage is all countries (not just the U.S.), then the reliable source links in the article (not the article name) could point competitors towards evidence of a failure to control the use of the trademark outside Wikipedia. Even including WP:RS coverage beyond that covered by the trademark in the intelligent vehicle technologies article, I don't see it passing WP:GNG. As for the COI issue, I'm not seeing much cooperation from Lperez2029 and instead am seeing things move in the opposite direction. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The US Government[36] and Ford[37] were using 'intelligent vehicle technologies' descriptive before that trademark holder's 2004-05-17 usage, so I'm not getting the hostile WP:OWN replies. Others noted way back in 1994 that the smart road between Blacksburg and Interstate 81 north of Christiansburg was going to be a test site for intelligent vehicle technologies. The term intelligent vehicle technologies seems notable as a descriptive term, but not as a trademark. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this user probably has an issue with admitting he's wrong. Outside of his interactions at this article, I found these edits concerning: [38][39][40][41] (pointing out that he had broken WP:3RR at Independence Day (United States)). I didn't dig very hard for those. His latest response, in my opinion, is his defensive way of admitting defeat. I have zero tolerance for this user at this point. I'll be watching him closely and reporting him to the appropriate noticeboard if he should run afoul of any of our policies or guidelines. OlYeller21Talktome 02:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I did a quick search on the term "Intelligent vehicle technologies" and found about 80+ articles using that term (none in relation to a trademark). Over time, the Intelligent vehicle technologies article eventually will reflect a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. That means Intelligent vehicle technologies being a descriptive term, rather than a distinctive term. You can trademark a distinctive term, but can't trademark a descriptive term. If this guy keeps acting hostile to you, someone eventually may rewrite that Intelligent vehicle technologies article to bring out its descriptiveness, which won't bode well for his ability to enforce his trademark. Then he would be stuck. The Wikipedia article wouldn't be deleted at AfD and it couldn't be changes without additional reliable sources showing a more predominate meaning than how the US government and Ford used that term. -- Uzma Gamal (talk)
Not surprisingly, Lperez2029 has been indefinitely blocked for violating WP:NLT. The article in question has been greatly improved but I think we need to asses the notability of each topic and move forward accordingly. I'll read through the articles today and see what still needs to be done but obviously, everyone else is invited to do the same. I think the best place to discuss this from now on is on the talk pages of the articles themselves (Intelligent transportation system & Intelligent vehicle technologies). OlYeller21Talktome 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Brookfield Asset Management

Resolved
 – No COI, user has been instructed to suggest changes on the article's talk page. Gold Standard 18:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This user has a potential COI regarding a legal case. The user has denied the COI,[42] but I still want to submit this to make sure, since COI edits regarding legal cases can have real world consequences. The user's additions are located here. Gold Standard 21:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I added Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit above since that more likely is where any COI resides. When it comes to lawsuits, you generally need a judge's ruling before anything either party writes makes its way into Wikipedia since the point of both sides is to be biased and provide their 1/2 of the truth. This removal seems reasonable even without there being a COI. Seems unlikely that the current lawsuit could be more than a footnote in the article, given that companies' 1899 beginnings. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit is not an article in the article space, it was the user's article at AfC. I suggested initially that it be merged with Brookfield Asset Management. Gold Standard 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I added the link in this thread in case the Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit artice gets recreated again. Editors can look at what links here and find this discussion. Hammerstone2012 might have a COI with Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit, but, unless Hammerstone2012 works for Brookfield Asset Management or has some other connection, Hammerstone2012 probably doesn't have a COI with the Brookfield Asset Management. Hammerstone2012 denied the COI so, without more, Wikipedia:Assume good faith indicates that he doesn't have a COI. If Hammerstone2012 is suing Brookfield Asset Management, then he probably has a bias, and bias is dealt with at WP:NPOVN. I don't think the issue has risen to a need to post at another noticeboard. Talk:Brookfield Asset Management is the place to deal with whether info on Brookfield Class Action Lawsuit should be added to Brookfield Asset Management article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
How do you think we should close this? What should I tell Hammerstone2012? Should I tell him to start a new section at the article's talk page, just go ahead and add the info, or wait for a judge's ruling? Gold Standard 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no COI, so this thread can be closed. My personal view is that the editors of the article should wait for a judge's ruling in the case to determine whether that information is part of a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature to add it to the article. The article is about a corporate entity with assets valued at over $150 billion, not some person. Brookfield Asset Management probably is sued and sues others all the time and probably have at least twelve significant lawsuits going on at any one time (any many more if you count low value injury lawsuits on their properties). It seems best to determine whether to add that info to the article on the article talk page rather than a notice board. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Like other COI editors, paid editors should adjust to meet the requirements of WP:COI rather than the other way around. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally feel that ideally, COI editors learn our policies and guidelines and should be held to the same standards of editing (following all policies and guidelines) as any other editor. That being said, ideals don't solve every problem. I'm interested in learning more about any potential solutions. I'll head over there and make myself familiar with the proposal before commenting. OlYeller21Talktome 18:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI - a couple of us also put together some improved templates for {{request edits}} to make them easier to review with an AfC-like template process.

  • {{request edit | A}} = answered
  • {{request edit | R}} = proposed re-write or substantial changes
  • {{request edit | P | My reason}} = partially implemented
  • {{request edit | D |ADV}} = declined for promotionalism
  • {{request edit | D | D}} = declined - discuss with interested editors first
  • {{request edit | D | V}} = declined for sourcing issues
  • {{request edit | D | O}} = declined, well-written but one-sided or has omissions
  • {{request edit | D | R}} = suggested changes removes sourced content
  • {{request edit | D | S}} = not specific enough
  • {{request edit | D | T}} = declined for editorial reasons not specific to a content guideline
  • {{request edit | D | C}} = declined, no consensus was reached

This should make it easier to provide a COI with quick feedback, but put the burden on the COI to improve the content, instead of enslaving the volunteer to help them. You can see what the templates look like here. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Durham Musician

Bobby Durhams biography is intentionally written to omit historically correct facts pertaining to my involvement in his carrer as part of THE DURHAM BROTHERS duo. I have in good faith made corrections to reflect that the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act actually belong to our joined efforts and work as a duo. Musical recordings presented to be solo work such as DO YOU STILL DRINK MARGARITAS and others misrepresented as his solo work. This practice is misleading, inaccurate and unfair not only to the readers but to myself as a recording artist and performer. My respectful edits are consistently taken out and replaced with the same misinformation mentioned above. A gold record is mentioned that never took place, this items bring to question the validity and accuracy of Wikepedia as a reliable medium. What can be done to promote and maintain accuracy in this bio. Respectfully, Wayne Durham THE SIDEMAN --The Sideman (Talk) 23:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Provide verifiable citations of published information in reliable sources which contradict the current content of the article. If there is nothing published which supports your version of the story, there is nothing we can do. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't find any news articles mentioning "Do You Still Drink Margaritas." Google books[43] didn't return any results as well. You note, "the musical credits he clams to have earned as a solo act." Is your brother Bobby editing the Bobby Durham (country musician) article? Who is Maria durham? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sister Roma

I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC) They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians. Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for problems caused by editors with a conflict of interest. There seems no indication that here, only a simple content dispute, which should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page or, if that fails, by WP:Dispute resolution. See WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

These three people are accusing everyone who touches the article as working for Sister Roma, the tags were removed but the deletions and bullying continue. " I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved." Isn't that sweet? Panther Pink (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The behavior of these editors does seem bullying and meatpuppetish, but it's not COI, so this is the wrong place to be discussing it. There are more eyes on the article now as a result of this notice; with any luck, the situation will improve; if not, there are better ways to deal with it than continuing to bring it up here. Abhayakara (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
THEY were the ones accusing everyone else of COI. The tags are not being re-added every time and I thank you for trying to make them defend their sweeping deletions. Panther Pink (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Panther Pink is almost certainly Sister Roma or one of her mates from the "order." The article was started by Benjamin Hohlman (User:Benjiboi) a paid editing advocate and pornography promoter who is a friend of sister roma's (and a fellow member of their group the sisters of perpetual indulgence, an activist organization). The article has been groomed by a succession of Benjiboi's socks over the years (he is now banned from wikipedia; like "sister roma" benjiboi's socks likewise had a habit of attacking his critics as having COIs while he was busy stuffing wikipedia full of promotional articles on himself, his friends, and pornography studios he was involved with). Sister Roma is a very minor drag queen and the article continues to be filled with promotional and fawning language, often relying on poor sources. Yes, there's a conflict of interest here. But is has nothing to do with whomever "Panther Pink" is complaining about. Aint wikipedia grand?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Bali ultimate, if you are making a COI accusation, you should do it here, but you should do it properly. If you are not making such an accusation, discussing the article here is not appropriate—discuss it on the talk page. User:Panther Pink, you should do the same—it just isn't going to help matters for you to continue this discussion here. Abhayakara (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
What are you on about? "Properly?" I most certainly am making an allegation of conflict of interest. I am asserting that Panther Pink is either Benjiboi (of the 100+ socks and the long and poisonous career of using identical tactics to those being used by "Panther Pinks"), Michael Williams (AKA "Sister Roma", a close friend of Benjiboi Hohlman) or one of the other socks that have trolled wikipedia from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for quite some time. The fact that the vast majority of their edits are self-promotional is a problem. That they scream harassment (accusations of criminal activity were benjibois favorite smokescreen for his lying) and all the rest is just sauce for the goose.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
"Properly" means you need to say who you are referring to, and what their conflict of interest is, and give evidence to support your allegations. Evidence of the form "because the editor is adding text to the article that I disagree with" does not support a COI assertion—you should read WP:COI for a list of valid COI assertions. If User:Panther Pink is in fact the same person as Benjiboi and is sockpuppeting, or was previously found to have COI, and is pretending to be someone else to escape the COI label, then you would have a point, but you should be able to provide evidence that this is the case, not just a wild accusation. Similarly, if Panther Pink is Michael Williams, you should be able to demonstrate that this is the case. Abhayakara (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good evening everyone. I see from looking here that, following the COI template, an editor experienced in COI has already given some sensible advice - including the word 'evidence'. Everyone posting to this thread appears to be rehashing previous augments from that one, so I believe it might be sensible for this to stablise on the talk page and not here. Lastly... Panther pink, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, and express my regret that nobody appears to have done so yet. I'm hoping you've survived your baptism of fire and you're happy to keep improving wikipedia, although I suspect you might find it easier to learn your craft in some of the less controversial areas of wiki first and then come back to the article. I'd like to see this thread closed off personally - if someone comes back with a set of diffs and a username then it might be best to start a new thread. How do others feel and closing? Fayedizard (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. Abhayakara (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I for one would like to hear from Pink Panther if the account is not controlled by Sister Roma or User:Benjiboi or User:Sfdrag (one of benji's confirmed socks) which have both edited the article (it's a near certainty that other benji socks also edited the article) or another of the members of their so-called "order." Here's his ban discussion for those interested in his M/O. [44]. And here's the SPI archive case page (minimum 50 socks confirmed and many more IPs) [45] and here's a link explaining his involvement with self promotion and connection to the sisters of perpetual indulgence and sister roma (Benji created not one, but two autobios on himself under the "names" DJ Pusspuss and "Sister Kitty Catalyst; he was asked about his connection to self-promotion and "the order" as far back as 2008 and lied about it all the way til the point he was finally banned). [46] Bali ultimate (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this editor has a severe hangup on either Sister Roma or someone they assume is working for her. As I said before my extent is that I saw her interview on TV and thought she was fascinating. To the same degree i am working for Madonna, David Beckham and Justin Bieber! This should also be noted as the reason this IS a COI issue in that they accuse everyone who tries to improve the article as being her employees or coworkers, etc. So the improving of the article is prevented solely on the COI accusations of suspicion. Panther Pink (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Pew Research Center

This is a weird one. I am Canadian so I may be wrong. The list may be long if I am not. It wikilinks to many articles but only has 120 employees in the infobox. Notability, RS, COI, spam, merge to The Pew Charitable Trusts etc. I thought I would post here for thoughts as well. Feel free to {not done} {resolve} if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning Cross posted. I started at help desk and then pump/tech to see if they can database search a few users for the wikilinks.(leave at bottom?)

This is a widely-cited organization in U.S. politics, on opinion polls and analysis. Dru of Id (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Widely cited, but I am curious about their Survey methodology. They don't list the sample numbers on their site. Gallup and Angus Reid claim 1000 calls a day. I am wondering if they just call 50 or so and sell their numbers for less. That is why they are cited so much. They make WP:NOT easily I guess so RS and COI probably aren't an issue then. Feel free to close this section as goose chase unless someone else wants to kick it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Fred Lipman

I warned User:FredLipman that Wikipedia discourages self-promotion,book/link canvassing, etc. In the case, the user claims to be a well-published authority on some topics. Wikipedia:COI#Citing_oneself says this may be appropriate in some circumstances as long as it's not excessive. See talk page discussion here OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I added links above. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

'Create artist wikipedia'

Claims to be a fanatic of a person named "Nikki Xhin". The page mentioned above (since PRODed by me due to WP:N/WP:NONSENSE/WP:COI) tells the reader to find the person in question and that User:Nikxhinfanatics will write/wrote articles for her. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted, for too many reasons to list. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It does not solve user's issue, however. Needs to be blocked. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 08:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't edits made to the article but it doesn't look like you've ever spoken with them on their talk page. They should have at least been warned about the discussion here. There's no way a block is coming unless the now-deleted edits were incredibly egregious. OlYeller21Talktome 12:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The article was run-of-the-mill for non-notable people wanting to be discovered. Similar articles get created and speedy deleted all the time when they're written about friends from school, siblings, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Moons

Articles linked in the Schnitzel Records article. May be related to Schnitzel Records. Strike out the ones reviewed.

Most of this feud is taking place at The Moons where an edit war is taking place with several meat or sock puppets. Mrrooftop has been blocked but Anna Sbr quickly took their place. Now the listed IPs are reverting my edits and the edits of DMacks. Bengordelier, Jeb123abc, and Lois Moon are WP:SPAs who have been making edits here and there. Ben Gordelier is a band member and "Lois Moon" may or may not be related to the band but their unreferenced edits suggest some personal knowledge of the band.

I'm usually able to handle these situations myself but this crew is particularly persistent and I don't like dancing around WP:3RR.

This is the edit that's getting tossed back and forth right now. It's, "Full of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." and they've ignored all attempts at discussion. I'm not as concerned about that as I am the rest of the content of the article and all of the article for bands signed to Schnitzel Records Ltd. and all of the numerous files uploaded about The Moons, Schnitzel Records Ltd., and the bands it has signed. I've only turned over a few rocks but this appears to be a very widespread issue. OlYeller21Talktome 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I modified your listing by adding the pages in the collapse boxes. I listed Schnitzel Records at AfD. The Schnitzel Records article has been around since December 2009‎, not sure what prompted the recent flare up of SPAs, IPs, edit wars, etc. There's a lot of non-free images that have been uploaded, which needs to be reviewed. "The Moons" appears to meet WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes [47], [48], [49], [50] with filler [51], [52], [53]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I just added another WP:SPA to the list (Max Fis (talk · contribs)). I've been fighting a fire at work the past two days so I haven't been able to do anything besides revert and warn. I may have more time after 2pm EST today but I don't want anyone to think that I've taken care of this yet. OlYeller21Talktome 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time to start an SPI and roll out some blocks. I'll work on the SPI but I've got a really super fun meeting in an hour that will hopefully not last more than 5 hours. I'm not going to cry if someone beats me to it. OlYeller21Talktome 13:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
OlYeller and I had a lengthy conversation on this case within the broader context of converting covert COIs to less disruptive and potentially even helpful above-board COIs and how the first step of any conversion is convincing the COI to disclose.
This isn't an ideal example, as ideally conversion attempts would made at the first couple edits, rather than when an organization is in this deep, but I offered the accounts an "invitation to disclose" (call it an experiment). Just an idea I'm toying with, but I think a lot of COI problems would be resolved easier if the COI was informed of the benefits of disclosure and asked to do so if they have one in plain-english. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Mrrooftop (talk) blocked a week, as he went straight back to edit-warring after his first short block. King 4057, sorry if that conflicts with your attempt to engage them, but Mrrooftop had a notice of this discussion, he didn't come here, he just re-inserted (for the ninth time, if I counted right) what DMacks well described as "a mess of uncited opinions, motivations, and fawning praise." JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I mentioned to OlYeller that converting a COI means you are AGFing. I wasn't AGFing the case or at least didn't think it was salvageable. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

List of video game developers

This editor is pretty obviously the same ESPRIS video game developer suggested by his name, which he is attempting to insert into List of video game developers. MirMahna is the name of his game. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

MirMahna is mentioned in Hindustan Times July 13, 2011 and World News Connection August 13, 2011. When spelled differently as Mir Mahna or Mir-Mahna, the topic actually might be WP:GNG notable. See, for example, "Iran unveils national herotic computer game". Iran Daily. February 28, 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2012. If you figure on there being Iranian source material, that with about fifteen English sources may make the topic notable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Leefodi


While I think the edits have been made in good faith (the editor has not set out to vandalise), I suspect the following account was established by an author for the purposes of promoting a series of books. The name of the author and the username are the same (Lee Fodi) and every edit so far (5 in total, 3 substantive) has been to include details of that author's book series in various articles. I suspect it's a matter of not knowing the rules rather than purposefully breaking them. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Lee Edward Fodi is an Canadian children's book illustrator and writer and his books got some good press: "Lee Edward Fodi's drawings are divine" 2005,[54] editor's choice 2006,[55] Most of the press is about his appearances or his book, not him. I didn't find any source information about peryton or puddleglum related to Fodi. I'll post a note on his talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jsteininger

Issue has been reported here several times ([56][57]). To sum up the issue, a person using accounts that appear to be the subject of the article keep changing the date of birth listed in the article[58] which is currently backed up by reliable sources. I've attempted to start a discussion with the editor several times on their talk page but they continue to cite themselves in their edit summaries, claiming to be the subject of the article. They've passed an L4 warning. I don't see any other way to address this than with a block. Any admins around that can assist? OlYeller21Talktome 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the November 15 date. The dispute is whether he was born in 1985 or 1987. This article says he was 22 years old on the date November 21, 2008. If he was born November 15, 1985, he would be 23? Of course, the article could have been written before November 15, 2008 and only published on November 21, 2008. He was 20 on the date May 22, 2007.[59] He was 21 on the date May 24, 2007.[60] Another article says he was 21 on the date November 2, 2007. He was 23 on the date December 8, 2010.[61] He was 23 on the date December 9, 2010.[62] Not sure if this helps but another article says "Jeffree Star started off as a make-up artist at the age of 15." At around age 18, Star put a couple of videos online for fun.[63] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Some of the info for case numbers 20235CM, CY298836, CM46498PEA, and 46563KH at https://ocapps.occourts.org/CourtIndex/ is available. His birth date is 11/15/1985 per the court records. Then there's this, which also shows a birth date of 11/15/1985, but that could have been added by someone. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we are *not* allowed to use public documents or court records to support a date of birth. If otherwise reliable sources differ, both dates can be quoted if it seems significant. One of the two can be chosen for the official DOB and the other mentioned in the text as a conflicting report. EdJohnston (talk) 06:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any source with the specific birth date of November 15 or even the birth year. There might already be links in the article to support the birth date. The public documents/records establish that Jsteininger is wrong about the year being 1987, so it seems reasonable to exclude 1987 as being the birth year from the article, particularly when there is no source to support 1987 as the birth year. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If so, what wording do you actually want to put in the article? Just omit mention of his date of birth? EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think omiting his date of birth at this point is the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions on what to do with the user (presumably the subject of the article)? Their intent seems to be to list the date that they feel is or know to be correct. I'm not suggesting that we go with their self-citation but I'm not sure they're going to be happy with that solution. I'd suggest we discuss it with them at this point but they've avoided all attempts to discuss. Perhaps it would be best to remove the date, see if they attempt to change it again, then block if they do? OlYeller21Talktome 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble started when the date of birth was added to the article. I think if we remove the date entirely (since no reliable source and it is contentious material, that may calm things down. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cape Henry Collegiate School

This editor, with a COI username, has added massive amounts of copy/paste material to the article. I stumbled upon an incipient edit war just now and reverted everything since it all came straight from the school's website. I put some of the urls in my edit summaries before I realized that the whole article was copied and just rolled it back. I will notify the other editors involved now. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the COI is pretty obvious - but also User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah has got a good hold on the article - I'm not sure this needs much more action, unless we think CapeHenry is a violation of WP:USERNAME? Fayedizard (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn

The article Greg Quinn has been created and lightly amended over several years by User:Currantman. The article is quite laudatory of Quinn and contained multiple links to his commercial currant growing concerns, I wonder if it is mr Quinn himself? There are few sources. I'm not sure what (if anything) should be done, could the experts here offer some advice? rgds 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Greg Quinn owns the ELECTRIC CURRANT trademark[64] and a bunch of other CURRANT related trademarks.[65] The article's boast about Quinn's currant efforts seem true.[66] There are at least ten to fifteen news articles on Quinn and the currant. The biography article could be better written to be directed more towards Quinn and not the mighty currant. I'll put a note on Currantman's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like he last edited on 9 February 2012.[67] Hopefully, he gets the message. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I did a bit of a pass at this today - much of the content is already in the Blackcurrant article (and also cited there) and it made sense to me to avoid Wikipedia:Coatrack issues. This has left the article effectively stubed though - so I'd be happy if people wanted to revert and do a more delicate approach (a bunch of the paraphrasing was a touch too close for me also) Fayedizard (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Pantheism

Editor User:Naturalistic has identified himself as author Paul Harrison (pantheist). He wrote the book Elements of Panthism (1999, Element Books). Some editors (perhaps including himself?) have mentioned that book (and its sales website http://www.pantheism.net ) in two articles: Pantheism and Naturalistic pantheism. This led to a Dispute resolution case at WP:DRN. It would be great if some COI experts could provide some insight at that DRN discussion page. Thanks. Noleander (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam Kluger

User appears not to be currently active, but is the creator of the three articles listed - all of which were originally blatant advertisements for Kluger, who was the subject of this controversy wikinews:Accidental email brings product placement agency under fire for attempting to solicit product placement of Double Happiness Jeans in a Pussycat Dolls song's lyrics. I'd tagged Adam Kluger for proposed deletion, but now see that this page (created 4 may 2009) is a re-creation of a previously-deleted article in December 2008 per User talk:Keywordrenewals#Notability of Adam Kluger. I've reinstated any mention of the controversy at Product placement#Music and recording industries and The Kluger Agency (these were being replaced with Kluger self-promotion, although I haven't reviewed the full history to see if there are other WP:COI accounts behind these edits) but it may be worth keeping an eye on the affected pages (if they're salvageable) or speedying them (if they're advertising). 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Texas, 2012

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Photo is back in and nothing heard from any of the involved editors...

The user, User:Johnjaymyers, is a candidate for United States Senate in Texas, under the Libertarian Party. He is attempting to promote his candidacy by adding himself to the main infobox of the article United States Senate election in Texas, 2012, which is traditionally only allowed if the third party candidate is polling higher than 5%. This is evidenced by this edit, and his only edits appear to be in promotion of his own candidacy. Please address this obvious conflict of interest. Thank you. Gage (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just rang up to speak to John - nice sounding fella, it's definitely him so the COI is confirmed - I've directed him to this board as a first point of contact (should probably be the article talk page but I was in a bit of a hurry). I've also put the {{subst:coin-notice}} tag on his talk page as per usual. Gage - I'm not familiar with any the guidelines for politics on wikipedia - do we have policy that we can point at for the 5% figure? Fayedizard (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued

Today we posted a picture and information for John Jay Myers who is running for United States Senate in Texas. This picture was removed from the top right corner, which gives the impression to the average voter that there are only two candidates in this race. What purpose does it serve to do this? This is an encyclopedia site, that should present fair and balanced information, obviously we can no longer get that from major media outlets, but the people should be able to come here, see accurate non bias information and make their decisions.

The fact that I (John Jay Myers) added the information makes no difference, because there is nothing untrue in the article and nothing is a matter of opinion.

I am one of three people on the General Election ballot, and I deserve to be displayed fairly. How would anyone suggest anyone Poll higher... considering their name has never been listed on a poll, and you can't even get your information listed correctly on what is supposed to be an non bias media like wikipedia?

This is not an effort to promote my candidacy it is an effort to put up relevant information on a wikipedia page in the same manner as has been put up by/for the other candidates.

Johnjaymyers (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We've not had any response from Gage - does anyone else know where we might find a policy for this 5% figure? Fayedizard (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit, and I can't seem to find one right now. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt for now; if evidence of the cited policy does turn up, we can always pull the information back down again. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That's my instinct as well - but I'd like to double check, I've posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#polling_5.25.3F in the hope that one of the editors there can give us some direction.Fayedizard (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right-wing authoritarianism

There has been an ongoing conflict in social conservatism over an apparent academic/psycho-political trope of painting conservatives as "authoritarians". Our article on the primary thesis is right-wing authoritarianism and it does have a criticism section, which however is dismissive of contrary views. The more-or-less current form of that section was added in this edit by User:Jcbutler, who left about a year ago. J. Corey Butler is in fact a social psychology researcher. The problem perhaps is that he publishes on this particular topic; for example, I was quickly led to this paper. Therefore, in dismissing critical responses, he is defending his own research. I appreciate that credentials matter, but this seems to me to be crossing a line. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of one's own writings in Wikipedia is generally considered a mortal sin for editors. Collect (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think he ever used one of his own papers as a source. It's quite apparent, though, that as far as a criticism section in the article in question is concerned, he would be one of those criticized. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

BeijingWest Industries

Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

It's a single purpose account - but it hasn't edited for over a year - I popped a note on their talk to alert them to this post just in case they are lurking.Fayedizard (talk)
Doh! Fayedizard (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Banks (Falklands Veteran and Entrepreneur)

The user's edits appear to be almost entirely BLP articles (with the exception of Livemusic, a company), and primarily consist of positive POV articles created and edited by said user. Unfortunately, the seemingly SPA nature of the account leads me to suspect that this may be a case of paid editing. Zaldax (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zaldax, thanks for bringing this here :) I'll admit I'm struggling to find much evidence of a COI - 78 edits spread among half a dosen different articles doesn't appear to me to show much of an agenda... Am I missing something?Fayedizard (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, not a problem! When I observed the editors contributions, it seemed suspicious to me that all of their contributions related to the creation of BLPs (with the exception of one company), and quite positive ones at that. One item which alerted me was the heavy editing of Andro Linklater, and then the addition of one of his books to the Spencer Perceval article. Furthermore, the very positive article written about Tony Banks set off a few alarm bells; particularly the page title, promotional-esque language, and the heavy use of primary sources. I'll admit that there is a good chance this is entirely coincidental, but I saw enough of a pattern that I became suspicious enough about the editor's motives to overcome my initial assumption of good faith. If, however, GH - AC comes forth with a satisfying explanation, and it does turn out to be coincidental, then I'd be happy to welcome them to Wikipedia, and work with he or she to avoid any such misunderstandings in the future. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that there's a case to answer - looks like a fairly normal editing pattern to me... asking the editor to come here and explain themselves feels a touch bitey... :( Fayedizard (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I personally struggle to understand a circumstance like this morally. I note that Jonathan Yeo has a fairly balanced "critical reception" section. The articles appear only slightly promotional, but are basically ok (they passed NPP). GH has not taken ownership of the articles and has allowed others to improve them. As of today, disclosure is merely "advice."
The legal department of any major corporation will tell you that any online communication done without disclosing your affiliation with the company is not kosher, but Wikipedia specifically doesn't seem to have any rules against covert behavior that doesn't significantly undermine its neutrality or openness, which in all honesty is a much easier way for a COI to proceed. If (a) GH-AC is a paid editor (b) there are no NPOV or OWN violations, but we still (c) feel he/she did something wrong, this seems like validation for a discussion on making a disclosure policy.
I may be mistaken, but it seems under our current rules, all there is to do is notify them that if they are paid, it would be a best practice to disclose. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cash Cash

Looks like Cash Cash's management team has found this article. They've been bombing it with promotional material and selective rewriting of the musical group's own history. Attempts to initiate discussion with the IP failed, but they've registered an obvious COI account and continued. Chubbles (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I poked the article a bit - do we have any evidence that this is a conflict of interest (rather than say, a fan in new york whose expressing themselves though wikipedia)? Fayedizard (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all circumstantial, but the IP and account have added a promotional photo, written the text in an adverty style, noted things like minor international successes that few domestic fans would be aware of (airplay on a Dutch radio station?), inserted the name of the band's management group, and added a huge laundry list of "clients" of the band's "professional production team". WP:DUCK. Chubbles (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
If it is a real up-and-coming band, there should be plenty of good material in the news media about it; in the meantime, it should remain a stub until contributors know how to add to it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The IP, and now the account, have been very persistent in reverting everyone's attempts to excise the promotional material. Should I request a block? Chubbles (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought I had [68], but it appears to have vanished in a confusing way- it's my first request, can anyone tell me what happened? Fayedizard (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The user has now been blocked. Fayedizard (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_58&oldid=1257424835"