Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 43

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45→Archive 50

New version of article

Hello,

The Pixetell article has carried tags for a number of problems for several months. I have been working on a new draft, attempting to address those issues. I work for the company, but it is not my desire to use Wikipedia inappropriately as a marketing tool; I have read all relevant policies and guidelines, and have consulted with several longtime Wikipedians in the process.

I am hoping someone will review the changes, and make a new determination of whether or not the tag highlighting that an editor with a conflict of interest has worked on the article is still needed. Or if there are still problems with the article, hopefully those here will be able to fix them or offer specific feedback, so that I can make/suggest further improvements.

After some discussion with Wikipedians, I have posted this new version posted this new version. Please take a look at Talk:Pixetell for further background on the development of this new version.

Thanks for any guidance, -Dan Cook 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

  • I've looked through the article and talk page. It certainly is less promotional in tone than previously, and the claims and statements are sourced well now. My personal opinion is that the COI tag is probably no longer needed, but I would like to see the other users who were critical chime in that their concerns have been allayed. The COI tag is not meant to be a Scarlet Letter remaining forever, so once the talk page contributors are good, I'm sure the tag will be removed. ArakunemTalk 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. It means a lot to me. I am waiting for the others to have a chance to comment. One is taking a wiki break. I want to make sure the article is fully evaluated.Dan Cook 16:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

James M. Cahill

James M. Cahill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cahill is mayor of New Brunswick, New Jersey. In recent days a pair of anonymous editors have been removing information they regard as unfavorable from the article. The second editor replaced all the references with a link to the web site for Cahill's election campaign. Additional eyes on the article would be welcome. Dppowell (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't support the re-addition of that material without proper in-line citations. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm leery of allowing the re-additions even with cites. There were refs to support the contentious statements, but those alone made up a substantial portion of the article. This left what can be called a hack-job or an article unduly focusing on a couple of negative events as if (as the IP stated in their edit summary) this man's entire career was defined by these incidents. If a more thorough bio were put forth, then the contentious items may have a place, but in a 5-line article they just swing POV too far, imho. ArakunemTalk 15:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Universal Music Group and 167.167.96.2

167.167.96.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles about Universal Music Group artists. The most recent example was adding YouTube and Facebook links to the Tiffany Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. According to WHOIS results for this IP address, the edits are clearly a conflict of interest. I had already notified the IP about this last month. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I left a COI notification on the IP's page, specifically referencing UMG articles. Watching their edits to see if they get too promotional. Note that they are not prohibited from editing due to COI, but they need to be extremely careful to stay factual and POV. Peacocking and promotion should be reverted and the user warned appropriately. ArakunemTalk 15:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikipandaeng

This account does appear to be engaging in some whitewashing of the Panda article, although some of the contentions material they remove ("The USA subidiary has had five management turnovers since 2007") strikes me as rather "so what" sort of text. The whitewashing in general, especially with a misleading edit summary, though, is a problem. ArakunemTalk 16:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordered subset expectation maximization

Many claims are made, but no precise citations are given. Only one paper is referenced, which is "available on line". The external site seems to be a commercial venture, so this may have the appearance of COI or self-promotion. (An iterative method with that name has been studied by Arkadi Nemiroskii, etc., also; an expansion of the article might be the most constructive way of dealing with the appearance of COI.) Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really seeing anything that links the writers to the commercial site, so a COI claim is a bit tenuous. The article describes what it does, but doesn't emphasize (or even imply) how to buy/get/license this algorithm, which further reduces a COI in my eyes. The linked pages may just be referenced because they link the IEEE paper which may not be otherwise readily available. There are sourcing and citing issues, to be sure, though. It could probably do with an {{Expert-subject}} as well. ArakunemTalk 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Youth with a Mission

Resolved
 – Promo accounts blocked. ArakunemTalk 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Promotional accounts blocked, and the sourced content restored. Nothing left here but sock-watch it appears. ArakunemTalk 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenium88 (talk · contribs)

Xenium88 says on my talk page that he is manager of this institute. I deleted the article as obvious copyvio, he has reinstated it saying on the talk page " this page has been submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for approval of use of copyright materials ". I advised him to ask for its creation, citing COI, but he hasn't done that. I think he needs some advice and help and RL is going to keep me too busy for a while to do this adequately. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My advice got caught up in an edit conflict by sinebot which I hadn't noticed. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oops, left out the name of the article, which is Sun Tzu Art of War Institute and once again deleted, this time as G12 although I believe it was still copyvio (until the editor actually releases his copyright). Xenium88 also created Aventis School of Management, which has been prodded but as I'm writing this I've discovered it's copy & paste from several copyrighted web sites, so I'm about to zap it as as clear G12. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Cattle Dog

Greetings Arakunem,

Herding dogs is one of the areas of my area of expertise. Citations are required to ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable (and a reliable source) and not just an opinion. I could cite any number of books or articles. The book just happens to be a comprehensive study on the work and training of more than 60 different breeds.

It has numerous references to the Australian Cattle Dog as well as pictures of the breed in action. For example, page 7: "At present, Australian Cattle Dogs, Australian Shepherds, Border Collies, English Shepherds, Kelpies and McNabs are still the breeds most frequently found on farms and ranches in North American, but with fewer ranch jobs available for dogs, more herding dogs have found their way into urban and suburban homes. Page 13 includes a picture of an ACD heeling a steer with the caption: "A red Australian Cattle Dog illustrates how the breed gained the nickname "Heeler."

Here is a link to the Table of Contents: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=1

TOC 9 shows the breed is included in the breed profiles: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=11

Book Review from the Border Collie Museum: http://www.gis.net/~shepdog/BC_Museum/Permanent/Bibliography/BC_Bibliography.html

Cheers, Errata addendum (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments Errata Addendum! Wikipedia always benefits from the contributions of Subject Matter Experts. The line between SME and Conflict of Interest can sometimes be blurry though, especially when it comes to citing publication with which the SME may be affiliated (I'm not asking you to confirm or deny that, by the way). The main issue here looks like questions surrounding the reliability of the book as a source. The original poster's concern was that Stockdog Savvy was a: A Self-published source and b:Did not appear to be relevant to the articles to which it was added.
  • Looking at the links you provided, and doing some looking on my own, the book does not appear to be Self-published, as Alpine Publishing doesn't seem to be a vanity publishing house, and the links you provided to contents do show that there is a certain relevancy to the breed pages in question. Still after looking around some, there's not a great deal of critical review of the book, which tends to be the gold standard for a reliable source.
  • And there's also the question of a potential link between yourself and the book, to where listing it as a reference could be seen as promotional. If that is the case here, you should read up on the Conflict of Interest guidelines to ensure that all material added is neutral and verifiable to accepted reliable sources. Again, I'm not asking to confirm or deny this. It is perfectly acceptable to assume that Stockdog Savvy happens to be the book that you're referring to when contributing, just as I have my own stack of books that I refer to when writing. As this is the COI notice board though, I make sure to mention the guidelines wherever an editor expresses that concern.
  • So as things stand now, my only big concern is the overall reliability of the book as a source. Other editors may question its use as well along those grounds, in the absence of some critical peer-review or other professional evaluation. Thanks for your contributions! ArakunemTalk 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

sevan aydinian

can someone please look at Sevan Aydinian

each statement seems to be verified including links to MTV's website and what not. I believe it should be cleared of it's stamps' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this is in relation to Sevan Aydinian which is a BLP that is too much like an essay (but not really bad). The main problem is the weak sources (although I did not check much). It should be improved, but we have worse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:JABEYE

I am a third-party working with the management company. Since Polly Samson now has a Web site, I added it. Then, I noticed a stack of incorrect titles. We are just seeking accuracy. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JABEYE (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi JABEYE! If you haven't already, please read WP:COI, which describes the guidelines that editors with a connection to the topics they edit should follow to stay within Wikipedia policies. So far, I don't see a problem with your edits to the articles in question. A link to a performer's official site is allowed, and the other edits being mainly corrections of style and dates should likewise not be a problem. The fact that you have explicitly mentioned your connection in several locations also strikes me as further evidence of good faith. Be prepared to cite any facts that other editors contest though, if that should happen. ArakunemTalk 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec

Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec:

  1. Zacks Investment Research
  2. Begslist Cyber Begging
Both of these articles were deleted as spam/advertising.

Note also spamming links to external sites. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues and Jacobsen v. Katzer

User:Donald Draper and User:Richie tenenbaum

  • Donald Draper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Richie tenenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- "Donald Draper" is a new user whose contributions have been confined almost exclusively to the products of an obscure and possibly non-notable Swedish technology company, Oxeon and its products. He evidently is employed by Oxeon, judging from the credit line here. He re-created the article after it was speedily deleted[1]. He also re-created Spread Tow after it was deleted, and has repeatedly removed speedy delete tags, maintenance tags and, via the tenenbaum sockpuppet, an AfD tag from articles, and promoted his company's technology aggressively, such as here. User:Richie tenenbaum is obvious sockpuppet, based on contributions such as [2].ScottyBerg (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Watching the AFD's related to the various products listed. DD's talk page is flooded with warnings and bot notices, so I'll hold off on posting the COI notice until and unless the other articles survive AfD. At that point, some COI guidance would be appropriate if he is to keep editing them. My guess on RT is that he's a fellow employee of the company as opposed to a sock. Technically I guess this falls in WP:MEAT territory, but I'm going to AGF that they're just a bit overzealous in wanting their company here, and not tag-teaming to spam us. If the articles survive AfD, I'll post some notes to them about how to stay NPOV and non-promotional. I think those articles are not too far gone to be savable with proper pruning. ArakunemTalk 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I believe that Oxeon is fixable. If you check this citation you'll see that it refers to a number of conference papers by others. If in fact other researchers have discussed the idea of making 'spread tow fabric' from carbon fiber, there may be a way to get this material into encyclopedic form. Since Oxeon's technology is documented as far back as 2005, others could have referred to it in the meantime, and we might be able to find those references. Or the promoter of this article may know of them. I'd like to see evidence that Oxeon has actually gone into production with this material and the names of some customers, from a reliable source. Carbon fiber is literally rocket science, and it shouldn't be hard to establish notability if the facts can be proved. I see one mention of Oxeon in the book "Carbon Fibers and their Composites" by Peter Morgan. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Oxeon was deleted. There are actually three manufacturers of this textile process, and this account has been promoting one, not even mentioning the other two. The notability of the process is highly questionable. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sam Knox

Autobiographical article - speedy delete candidate? - for not terribly notable artist who self-identifies as the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am the author and the subject of the above listed article. I apologise if this has contravened Wikipedias rules. I have tried to make the article completely neutral and impartial, and I also deliberately avoided any spam issues by not linking out to my site or portfolios. If there is no way for me to resolve this conflict of interest issue, then I am happy to go ahead and delete the article.
They aren't concrete rules, more like guidelines. I agree it's OK for neutrality, but it really doesn't demonstrate notability enough; apart from a few pieces in Lynn News about the MIN93 campaign [3] I can't find any of the required third-party coverage about the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gordon, there are plenty of references in the Lynn News and the Watton and Swaffham Times printed editions for my sports photography, and printed examples of quirky news articles in the Stratford Beacon Herald and Stratford Gazette newspapers in Ontario Canada. These examples are printed ones, rather than web based, so I can't provide clickable links to them I'm afraid. However, you can view scanned examples of some of my published work with printed credits referring to me as the photographer here http://www.flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/72157609614342607/
I understand this can't be used as a citeable reference as it links to my own Flickr account, but I felt it was worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PentneySam (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Felt it might also be worth noting that my photography has been used extensively on the Swaffham Rugby Club website, and also by other clubs around the Eastern Counties leagues, as well as in club advertising and promotional campaigns. PentneySam (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It's often quite difficult to write a truly neutral autobiography. Please see the relevant guidelines HERE on those which will give further info on that. When it comes to autobiographies, our usual rule-of-thumb is: If someone warrants a biography enough, someone else will write one eventually. That said, the big problem here is the lack of sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia's definition. They need to be third-party sources, that is: Wikipedia articles contain what others have already said in reliable sources. If you can list the printed newspaper articles as references, that will help to establish notability, depending on how broad the coverage is. Preferably the references will be used to cite specific statements made in the article. When your forthcoming book is published, peer-reviews and critical analysis of it will definitely be plus in the Sourcing department. Hope this helps! (And BTW, your photography is quite stunning!) ArakunemTalk 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Arakunem :-)
I'll get to work this evening on sorting the editions and dates of as much of my published work as I can trace, and get it added to the article as citations.
Many thanks for all feedback and help to you both Gordon and Arakunem. I really do appreciate it.86.138.25.150 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added links and citations to the article now, as well as fixing the disambiguation issue in the first passage. Will continue to add citations as they become known to me.86.138.25.150 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'll say you did! For future reference, you can list the various print articles in the References section, and use the most comprehensive one or two as the inline cites, rather than list all 20 in a row. (I would have mentioned this earlier if I knew there were so many!) You can see that it does break up the article a bit, but not to worry. Thanks for adding those! ArakunemTalk 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll clean them up a bit later this evening so the flow of the article isn't as broken up by them. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, but I thought it would be overkill to list them all, and besides I've only listed the ones who's date of publich I am certain of.
Thanks for all your help, pointers and guidance. This has been a learning process for me.86.138.25.150 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't comment earlier (I've been busy). I was hoping raising it here would jog the the topic toward finding sources. But I think this is missing a major point: it's not sufficient to collect examples of an artist's work. Wikipedia's notability criteria - see WP:CREATIVE - require third-party evidence, things written about the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As it stands, the sources don't appear to establish subject's notability, per WP:RELIABLE, and the presence of photographs in numerous publications does not by itself confer significance--has anything been written about the subject? There's also a conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was going to be my next comment. As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb for Wikipedia articles is: We write them based on what other people have already said about the subject, and not what we may independently know of it. If I write a book, I have to wait until someone else writes about it (a review, etc) before it could have an article, even though I as the author would obviously know more about it than anyone. This is why (again as I mentioned above), it is difficult to write about oneself, for that very reason. Do the references discuss you and your work in detail, or are there others that do? Are any of them available online, where a quick evaluation could put the question to rest quickly? Thanks for bearing with us while we sort through this. ArakunemTalk 14:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

COI: HereMedia, Inc. articles

HereMedia (talk · contribs) was previously blocked due to violating username policy, and made edits in articles about the company and its products/services. MarkUmbach (talk · contribs) has since been editing exclusively in Here Media Inc. related articles, and a simple Google search suggests user is affiliated with company's PR dept. Subst'ed the COI warning to the user talk, alerting admins here in case other action is needed. Thx, Wikignome0530 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Inventor, a/k/a self-described "Physicist and Inventor" Wolfhart Willimczik, wants us to be his webhost

  • Inventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - feels that we should be his webhost, for articles about himself and his inventions in German deleted from the German Wikipedia, for articles about his latest invention to plug the BP oilspill, etc. He blames the Communists for his obscurity, saying they delete his articles in the German Wikipedia; and when his original research and non-notable inventions are deleted as rule violations, he has engaged in highly incivil attacks on other Wikipedia editors, saying we will be to blame if he is unable to publicize his ideas by posting them to Wikipedia, and we'd rather let the oil spill continue. Ignores the "Use English" rule; WP:CIVIL, WP:OR, and WP:NOT#WEBHOST violations abound. Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that by publishing his ideas here, he is essentially giving them away (as long as he gets named as the inventor). Perhaps that fact alone will get him to stop? Looking at the history, seems he wants to use the Google ranking of WP pages to link to him quickly when people search on the BP Spill - cut & dried WP:NOT#WEBHOST however well meaning he may be. (Though I suspect that engineers looking to plug the hole are not Google searching "How do I stop an oil well leaking"...) I see you've blocked him for 31, which regrettably looks like the only viable option right now. Hopefully it will get his attention and further escalation will not be necessary. ArakunemTalk 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Guineveretoo and FDA

Despite warning her on her talk page, Guineveretoo (talk · contribs) continues to edit, almost exclusively in fact, on the FDA, its leaders Jonathan Baume and Elizabeth Symons and controversies regarding them and the organisation, despite being one of its employees and thus in breach of WP:COI. Haldraper (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a continuation of Haldraper's insistence that the FDA is not a trade union, which was resolved some time ago, I thought. My only amendments to Liz Symons page was to reinstate the removal of a statement about her being a trade union leader, which Haldraper removed, and to correct the name of the FDA. I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in doing this, and would be interested to hear how there is a conflict. Guineveretoo (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it covers all your edits to the pages of the organisation that employs you and its leaders. Haldraper (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If Guineveretoo (talk · contribs) is an employee or otherwise affiliated with the subjects of the articles, then a potential COI exists, according to the COI guidelines. Note that this does not eo ipso disqualify Guineveretoo from editing articles in that area, as long as the edits remain neutral, and verifiable. Looking back over Guineveretoo's edits for a few months, most of them are non-controversial copy edits. The one edit that I see as possibly controversial, especially given the reverting thereof, is as stated, whether or not FDA is considered a Trade Union, and extending that to articles where X was "former trade union leader", and so on. This seems to me to be the crux of the issue, and looking through the talk page of FDA, this issue goes back a fair ways.
  • I should note that the COI Guidelines also state: "Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration." I'll let that sit without further comment.
  • I suggest referring this back to the talk page to settle the issue of "FDA is/isn't a Trade union". Remember that we go by the motto of "Verifiable, not Truth". If reliable sources can be found to support either point of view, they should be added accordingly. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page, then the steps outlined in Dispute Resolution should be undertaken. ArakunemTalk 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In fact, this dispute about whether or not FDA is a trade union was resolved some time ago. It is not controversial to state that FDA is a trade union, but merely factual. Guineveretoo (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you point me to the final disposition of that question? I went back through the history and see some discussion over it, but no real consensus that I could see. A citation to an independent reliable source or 2 stating such would also pretty much settle the issue. "X is a former trade union leader <cite> and ....", that sort of thing. ArakunemTalk 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Possibility

Hi, I have a possible conflict of interest issue and Im wondering what other people think. I placed a link to a company site on the purple martin wiki page, and I guess it could be considered an advertisement. The way I see it, I'm providing a link to purple martin houses for anyone interested in them. But since it is a commercial website, Im wondering if i should take it down and refrain from putting any other links of the same nature. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervatool (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be removed, as it doesn't add anything to the article by its being there, and as you said, could be considered spammy. Best bet is to remove it from the article for now, and start a discussion on the article's Discussion page to see what the main editors of the article think. ArakunemTalk 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RBRBooks

User RBRBooks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created possible COI article Independent Online Booksellers Association (IOBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article was A7'ed and the user was (unfortunately) template bombed. Will see what happens next, if anything. ArakunemTalk 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Martin MacDonald

Macdonald martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - working on his (auto)biography Martin MacDonald per this edit. The existing info may need to be oversighted.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

from macdonald_martin: I did not write the article originally, it was created a couple of years ago by another party. I was hoping to update the information as some of it is now outdated. Please advise.
That's the way biographies are supposed to be written on Wikipedia: Other people write about the subject, using information that has already been written, published, reported on, etc., by reliable sources. As you are the subject of the bio, you are strongly discouraged from writing in your own bio, as it is inherently difficult to write a truly neutral autobiography. If you have changes to make, the best course is to propose and discuss them on the article's Discussion page, and let others actually make the changes. Hope this helps! ArakunemTalk 17:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're free to remove negative unsourced information yourself. If you need help regarding your biography, just post on the article talk page asking if the changes would still maintain a neutral tone. Netalarmtalk 18:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

BMJ marketing editing BMJ journals

I just wanted to call attention people's attention to Lauraeabbott (talk · contribs). She is a single-purpose account editing journals published by the BMJ Group, and a "Laura Abbott" is listed as a marketing contact on their website. Her edits generally appear to be good, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at her. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Handed out the standard COI warning. MER-C 05:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, wanted to check if it ok for me to continue editing/creating articles relevant to the BMJ Group as long as I continue to make them neutral. I wouldn't want to go against any rules or put in time only for the articles to be taken down --Lauraeabbott (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is best if you avoid any artical for which you and / or your employer has an interest in, so no. Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Karen Fredricks ‎

Kfredricks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seemingly sole author of the page Karen Fredricks, now adding links on other pages not to that page but to Amazon book references. Not clear that any of the contributions are valid under WP:EL And WP:Autobiography rules. SteveLoughran (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the links, since they are to the sales page of Amazon. It appears that the author is trying to generate more books sales by linking them throughout Wikipedia. I've issued a COI warning and a link to this discussion. Netalarmtalk 12:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Eflornithine

The-alechmist was paid to write articles

In April a blatantly self-promotional article on someone named David Golshan was AfDed and deleted after being deemed to be non-notable. [4] One of the proponents for keeping the article was The-alechmist (who, incidentally, had to be warned for removing the AfD notice [5]). This week, A. B. discovered something very interesting. Someone (likely David Golshan or his publicist) had placed an ad on Elance.com, soliciting bids for people to write a Wikipedia article on Golshan. [6][7] The winning bidder, who was awarded the job (and paid $55 to write the article) was named “The-Alchemist”. I don’t know if there is a specific policy on this kind of thing, but perhaps this case will set a precedent that will establish such a policy, because I strongly believe that editors bidding to be paid to write articles about third parties for those third parties threatens to undermine the integrity of our project. How can Wikipedia be trusted to have a neutral point of view, or we be able to continue to assume good faith if editors can be paid to write articles to promote people or organizations, and not be sanctioned when they are found out? Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue has been extensively discussed (see WP:PAID for a start). The surreal situation is that there is no policy against paid editing (even blatant cases): the claim is that the infinite supply of quality volunteers will edit problem articles to remove promotions and undue statements, and ensure everything is properly sourced. The principle used is that we are happy to receive quality articles from any source, and the result is judged by the quality of the article rather than the ethics of those involved. Many editors have expressed a contrary view that organized paid advocates would be able to overwhelm volunteers, and that volunteer collaboration would be damaged by open paid editing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm always on the lookout for these as I feel they are an unethical breach of our core values. I used to take them to this board, but if I did that everytime I found a case this board would be swamped with paid editing notices. So now when I confirm paid-editing jobs I skip right to AfD and most of the time the articles are deleted (such as this, this and this).
This particular user appears to be a one-time deal or maybe a throw-away sock of a more experienced account. I doubt he'll be back for a while. The difficult problems occur when established users act on paid-editing jobs, or there are long-term paid-editing only accounts. At least one user has been banned by the community for socking in order to put up paid-editing adverts. While I feel that paid editing is already prohibited by the COI guidelines and WP:NOT, I would nevertheless strongly support making this explicit. ThemFromSpace 06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work. If you ever wanted, it may be appropriate to post a short notice here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I appreciate the insight.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it will come, and the solution will be disclosure.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Food safety risk analysis

Food safety risk analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by JennJifsan (talk · contribs), containing a susbtantial section about JIFSAN (Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition). I removed this as it was a copyvio of http://www.foodrisk.org/about/index.cfm and http://www.jifsan.umd.edu/about/ and was promoting their courses, and gave the user a coi notice with a note about copyright. I reverted an attempt to re-add it and gave a copyvio warning, it's now been added again by JennChetty (talk · contribs). Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagged article with COI, but it needs to be cleaned up. Warned user of COI and gave link to this page. I'll go ahead and clean up/remove the links from the article tomorrow when I have time. Feel free to do it though. Netalarmtalk 23:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was told above that I was feel free to take paid paid editing cases here, so here I am. The majority of this user's editing history appears to be the creation of paid editing articles from her corresponding account on freelancer.com. The paid-for articles and their corresponding freelancer pages are listed below.

I will probably take both to AfD shortly, as I strongly feel that this is an abuse of our editing process and a violation of WP:NOT. I would like to get a consensus here that this type of behaviour is not acceptable and that Missylisa153 should refrain in the future from creating/editing promotional articles and from carrying out jobs on freelancer.com that require her to edit against our guidelines. ThemFromSpace 15:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you might be overreacting, frankly. The articles themselves actually aren't too bad. They could do with some cleaning up but the subjects certainly pass the notability threshold. I don't think taking them to AfD is the answer to this, but by all means advise Missylisa153 of the COI rules (which I see you've done). -- ChrisO (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, they've been puffed up through perhaps every media mention they have recieved. Not only this, but it is our policy that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes, and failing this policy in itself is grounds for deletion. I think of paid-editing as a "shoot on site" deal. Our editors are more than welcome to write an encylopedic presentation of the subjects, but certainly not at the whim of the subjects themselves. ThemFromSpace 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I just AfDed Reed for you, as there was very little independent assertion of notability (almost all refs to Diocese of Boston or his network). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys. Of course, I will concur with ChrisO that I think Themfromspace is overreacting! Does it really matter that I was paid to write the pages? I can see the ethical quaestion - why should I get paid when you guys write for free - but I really don't think that the articles I've created are promotional or biased; just because they are about a company or a company figurehead doesn't automatically make them advertising. In fact, to accept a Wiki article writing job with the aim of promotion or bias would just be stupid as I know how vigilant you guys are! I agree that they may, as ChrisO said, require some cleaning up, but I'll hold my hands up and say that I'm a relatively inexperienced Wiki author, so I welcome constructive comments and guidance from more experienced authors to help me make the pages better rather than an instant slamming. I did wonder if the social media links would be deleted - that's fine. I should point out that I have no relationship or association with either Freelancer.com or Father Reed. Interestingly, you don't say anything about the other two Wikipedia articles I have authored, George Bornemissza and the Australian Dung Beetle Project- which I was also paid for. Is there a problem with Freelancer, rather than paid Wiki authoring? I know that Freelancer.com doesn't have a great rep. Missylisa153 (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:WKTU

Discussion continued from here

If User talk:WKTU was truly concerned about correct sources, you have to wonder why he deleted a source which says 75% here and changed it to a source which says 90%.

He has been a hampering my efforts to get FA status for Islam page and you can see our discussions here. Its almost certain he's a Sunni as you can see he is also boosting Sunni Islam proportions while deleting well sourced material. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

  • In April 2010, a now banned editor User:Jigglyfidders changed the original 85% to 70% [8] and then I came and began correcting these specific numbers [9] but Iwanttoeditthissh thinks I'm boosting Sunni proportions.
  • A demographic study conducted by the Pew Research Center (an American think tank organization based in Washington, D.C.) in October 2009 determined that Sunnis are 87-90% [10]
  • This information is backed by the Encyclopædia Britannica which states that Sunnis are nine-tenth (90%) of all the Muslims. [11]
  • The University of Oxford (or The Oxford Dictionary of Islam) claims that Sunnis are at least 85%.[12]
  • The CIA World Factbook states that Sunnis are over 75%. [13]
  • Islam#Demographics mentions that Sunnis are 87-90% so why should another section in the same article give 70% for Sunnis? You expect this article to get FA status with such a major contradiction?

There are many more sources that agree with the 87-90% PRC figure and if you believe this is wrong it's your duty to provide a reliable source that is more stronger than PRC and Britannica. I'm being fair like a judge here, and I personally like to insert Sunnis 85-90% but that will create conflict with the PRC source and editors will constantly try to change it or edit-war over it. These are all realistic guesses and not the precise numbers. Please don't label me as a Sunni or anything else, and don't get personal with me.--WKTU (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


I am quite positive User:WKTU is a Sunni who is overrepresenting unfairly and unproportionately in favor of boosting figures for his own denomination, for example ;

- He has boosted Sunni proportions on the Sunni Islam article here with obviously bizarre figures where he bundled Shia, Ibadi, and Ahmadiyya altogether make up 10% and Sunni are 90%. (without such reference)
- Here is another instance where he boosts figures for Sunnis while simultaneously DELETING reliable sources giving lower stats.
- User:WKTU this time undermines a wellsourced Shia source here in order to undermine non-Sunni sects.
- He doesn't even leave the map comments alone here and again mentions the superiority of Sunnis with the term 'overwhelming'
- In this edit User:WKTU is showing obvious signs of emotion (with an exclamation mark), whilst falsely proclaiming there are only 2 denominations within Islam in the edit summary.
- Despite the fact this user makes controversial edits, in the edit summary he says here that there is no need for consensus (in his case), even though here he's asking me to do exactly that 1 day later.

Islam is undergoing article review for FA status and i'm contributing. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Iwanttoeditthissh is unable to refute my sources but instead calling me names and other nonsense, and I think now it's getting cleared that he is a Shia. I have been watching many Shia editors go around falsifying Wikipedia information, especially relating to Islam. This is why I decided to edit the Islam page, to fix the falsification that was made by a banned editor User:Jigglyfidders who lowered the Sunni numbers [14], and after he was blocked the next day Iwanttoeditthissh created an account and is editing the same articles where Jigglyfidders left off with the same POV.--WKTU (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • First, please stop slinging accusations at each other. I know articles on religion can be the most conducive to heated discussion, but this issue can be solved if everyone stays calm. It appears that both sides here have a reliable source to back their edits, but those sources disagree, or at best are too vague ("over 75%" could be 76% or 99%, for example). Why not add them both for now, and seek some other opinions on how to handle the disagreeing sources. The article could say in the meantime something like "Sunnis make up between 75% (cite 1) and 87-90% (cite 2)". That will bring peace to the article for now, and then you can seek further editor assistance from areas such as Third Opinions, a Request for Comments, or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
  • But please don't go into those venues with a combative tone. Go in as 2 editors having a disagreement and who both are genuinely interested in making the article as accurate as possible, whatever the outcome may be. ArakunemTalk 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • After spending some time digging deeper, the preponderance of sources do support the number near 90%. The confusing nature of the CIA factbook's "over 75%" seems to be an outlier when compared to many other sources. Just my $0.02. ArakunemTalk 01:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What you recommended has been done but was reverted, and I guess putting "Sunnis make up between 75% (cite 1) and 87-90% (cite 2)" is confusing because the CIA says over 75% and that is just their way of trying to stay on the safe side. I've done alot of reading concerning the numbers of each side and noticed that PRC crew are trying to determine this specific figure using all sources, including the CIA. In their site it says they will come up with 2010 figure soon "These findings on the world Muslim population lay the foundation for a forthcoming study by the Pew Forum, scheduled to be released in 2010...". I think everyone will agree that we follow what they tell us, unless there is a better source.--WKTU (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That certainly seems a reasonable approach. The CIA's number just seems too vague and out of sync with numerous other reliable sources. ArakunemTalk 15:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way is this a COI issue? Hundreds of millions of people (and probably a fair share of Wikipedians) are Sunnis, and belonging to a certain religious community cannot be grounds from hindering people to edit of COI grounds. By that logic Christians shouldn't be allowed to edit Christianity related articles, Jews not allowed to edit Judaism-related article, etc.. --Soman (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Also a valid name for a radio station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Katy Butler

It appears that journalist Katy Butler (offered to compensate another user, who has exercised the right to vanish - edited by Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)) to edit Wikipedia for her. Could some folks here please keep an eye on things? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Not good.... Its not just a paid article, but an article to be used in support of an upcoming NY Times article. Need eyes on this to keep it fully BLP/NPOV/V compliant. This could have some implications for Wikipedia if a published article is saying something along the lines of "Look what her Wikipedia article says..." ArakunemTalk 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be unreasonable to aggressively remove all unsourced content? I suspect that if she is planning to use us to support her story, she may be falsifying its content. SPS shouldn't be trusted for this article. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Katybutler9 has edited the article herself. Netalarmtalk 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the following actions as a courtesy: The user who created the article has exercised his/her right to vanish. The account has been renamed and will not be used again. User states that the job posting was for another person (her web designer) who built and updated her website, not for the Wikipedia article. Vanished User was not paid to edit the Wikipedia article, s/he did it as a courtesy for a colleague before being informed of the website's standards. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

User PATdiane

PATdiane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a an employee of Bill Moyers and she had been making mostly noncontroversial edits to the Bill Moyers article. Yesterday, she made an edit [15] which casts an opponent of Moyers, Kenneth Tomlinson, in a worse light and omits his side of the story. I reverted the edits, but Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted me, ignoring the obvious conflict of interest in this situation. Please revert the edits, warn PATdiane (she has already been warned about making COI edits on her user Talk page), and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers. Drrll (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion on the same editor here.
I'd like to see PATdiane be less bold with her editing to articles, and instead use article talk pages much, much more. That said, I'm unclear if there are any problems with the content added.
"and require her to disclose whether she is performing such edits directly at the behest of Bill Moyers" I'm unaware of any justification for such action. Seems like it would violate WP:AGF, WP:HARASS, and WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
That would likely fall under WP:OUTING which trumps WP:COI. We can't force the issue of real-world relationships beyond what is voluntarily offered on-wiki. In this case, that relationship isn't really relevant as these edits are to a BLP, and so must conform to those standards regardless of who is making the edits or why. My feeling on the specific edit in question is that the addition doesn't really seem to fit where it is in the article, except to take a jab at someone who criticized Moyers. It essentially says "This person criticized him for a long time about x and y, but then it was revealed that he violated X laws himself." There's no relationship between the 2 items, and it appears to me to only be there to vilify an opponent. I would lean towards removal of that bit per BLP in context to Tomlinson. In any case the applicable part of COI here is that someone with a COI (an admitted connection in this case) should not be making controversial edits in the COI area. That her edits were reverted and then re-reverted, to me, indicates this edit falls under the Controversial Edits clause. ArakunemTalk 17:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Her specific relationship with Moyers is not the issue here. What matters in my view is that the COI would be more egregious if Moyers himself was directing such changes to his own BLP. Drrll (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but we're simply not allowed to force that issue. ArakunemTalk 17:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Most editors appear to agree that the edits improve the article. There is no COI problem. TFD (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Since when has questions about COI been determined by whether editors like the COI edits? Drrll (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Besides the violation of the COI guideline against making edits of controversial material, there is a violation of the COI guidelines that states "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests." Clearly, the edits are designed to promote her own interests (Bill Moyers) in denigrating an opponent of Moyers (Kenneth Tomlinson). Drrll (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Would an admin please look over this section? Drrll (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29

Prohibited activities...

  • An editor advertises article creation or maintenance of articles about a corporation for a fee, even if disclosure of this arrangement is made and no guarantee of outcomes is made.
  • An editor is obliged to make edits in the article namespace on behalf of his or her employer as part of his or her job description or duties.
  • An editor responds to a freelance jobs board posting to write and submit content on Wikipedia.
  • A political consulting firm hires an editor to edit Wikipedia articles to promote a particular point of view.

It would appear that number three above prohibits Missylisa153 from editing. TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You've missed the fact that it's only a proposed policy (see the header at the top). It has no force. It seems to be stalled, as it hasn't moved forward since November 2009. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we get a discussion going on paid editing again? I believe we need a policy (or at least a guideline) for paid editing, as such issues are becoming more prevalent. Netalarmtalk 11:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that Missylisa153 should be prohibited from editing, but I do think that she should stop doing paid editing. I would be happy for her to continue as a volunteer editing on the same unpaid basis as any other wikipedian. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • An RFC on Paid Editing was run last summer. The responses were vocal and ran the gamut of opinions on the topic. There was no consensus on how Paid Editing should be handled/allowed/banned. I suspect restarting a discussion would end up with similar results. ArakunemTalk 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's because there are too many differing views toward paid editing. The RfC had several good reasons on why paid editing should and should not be allowed, but that doesn't help editors respond to incidents to paid editing. Maybe we can look at this issue when it gets more serious... -.- Netalarmtalk 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

First party sources at AFD

Bsanders246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has been vehemently pushing that press-releases and PR material from PRISM (Project Management Software) and Megafoo qualify as independent coverage. When attempts are made to show him established Wikipedia policies stating that this type of coverage does not satisfy WP:N, he gets very defensive (and in one case accused me of sock-puppetry and threatened to request a checkuser). Not sure whether we're dealing with a conflict of interest, paid editing, a difficult contributor or a combination of the three, but this should be monitored, .02 from a neutral third party would also be helpful. 2 says you, says two 04:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LarkinToad2010

User:Sstoltz

I think your spam link warning and COI warning are sufficient at this point. I agree that the user probably has a COI with the topic, so I'll watch the user. Netalarmtalk 21:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basically, this user is flouting our policy in attempting to whitewash the acupuncture page of any points that might cost him clientele or legitimacy in his acupuncture practice.

While it is true that professionals in a subject are not necessarily acting inappropriately according to WP:COI, unequivocally this is what is going on here with his single-purpose account campaign. His User page proudly proclaims,

People who make those accusations probably haven't read this, from WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." So, STFU about COI.

Shall I ask for a ban of this individual from acupuncture pages? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Here we have more of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT violations from User:ScienceApologist (block log) that have gotten him banned, blocked and otherwise censured ad nauseum for several years. I see no reason to dignify his childish behavior with a response. The only question I have is for other Wikipedians: why do we continue to put up with this editor's puerile disruption? --Middle 8 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Harassment & WP:OUTING: ScienceApologist crossed a line when he posted what he believed to be a link to my personal webpage(see first link in list; I've removed it from this page). My WP account is pseudonymous, and I've been very clear that I want it to remain that way. I ask for oversight of the above diff and that ScienceApologist be sanctioned for this childish harassment as per WP:OUTING. If an admin here cannot handle an outing complaint, I'd be grateful if someone could point me to the proper venue. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much to VSmith for oversighting the edits in question. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I've filed a notice regarding what I consider to be ScienceApologist's harassment at WP:AN (diff; link to subheader). --Middle 8 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support such a ban. This editor is clearly here to promote acupuncture, and does have a conflict of interest. A topic ban from the area from some time would stop the immediate problems and should hopefully cause the editor to realise this isn't acceptable in future. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

  • "Note that all his contributions of late are to acupuncture." Wrong. [16]
  • "Claims that COI doesn't apply to him again." It doesn't, unless you want to ban oncologists from editing Chemotherapy or Christian ministers from editing Christ myth theory.
  • "Accuses, hypocritically, me of edit warring." How dare he.
  • "Claims protection for acupuncture under the umbrella of psychoanalysis." A perfect analogy.
  • "Denies the sources that have been provided showing the general consensus skepticism toward qi fantasies." Just find the sources.
What a foolish waste of time this is. Anthony (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
We, being members of the project, would ban oncologists from the oncology articles if they were promoting fringe theories or otherwise harming the good of the project. Verbal chat
Except I'm not promoting fringe anything -- only challenging attempts to portray aspects of acupuncture as more fringe than sources indicate. The sin I committed was to ask for sources supporting its alleged fringe-ness[17], and that pissed ScienceApologist off since he has no adequate answer. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"We? On whose behalf are you speaking? Anthony (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Verbal, don't change your statements after others have commented on them without making it clear in the text. [18] It makes the thread unintelligible. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Calmness, people, please. Looking at the Acupuncture article, which appears to have kicked this off, I see a lot of reverting in the last few days over "there is/is-no reviewed science", but shockingly little discussion on the talk page regarding that subject. Then SA posts here, M8 posts on ANI, both argue about just those postings on user-talk and article talk. Here's an idea: Everyone go out and have a Sunday picnic, then come back calmly and discuss what appears to be a controversial piece of text on the article's talk page. That is, and should be, the way we solve disputes like this, and not run posting accusations and attacks everywhere. ArakunemTalk 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • @Verbal: at the moment I've got a grand total of 7 article namespace edits in the last two months, all to acupuncture. One of which was a reference tweak (subtract 1) and the other of which was a self-revert (so subtract another 2). That leaves 4 edits today as my entire contribution to a low-level edit war on that page, in which you and others have also participated (and I am not alone on the talk page; see Anthony's comment, for example. It's pretty disingenuous to make a big deal, or even any kind of deal at all, out of my recent edits. And similarly with my earlier ones. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)I see much discussion over the Pseudoscience infobox. I also see that such discussion has not prevented it from being added then reverted, both sides claiming consensus/no-consensus to add/remove. I see no discussion over the "there is/is-no reviewed science" add/revert/revert/revert war. That seems to be separate from the infobox issue, so should be discussed separately.
  • You are correct that the COI policy does not prohibit Subject Matter Experts, or even those with acknowledged COIs (or suspected COIs as seems to be the inference from ANI.... not asking to confirm that; I don't want to know) from editing in the conflicted area. However, the COI policy also says that a COI-affected editor should always discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. To me undo's and reverts fall into that category.
  • And per the discussion above, the Outing question is being handled at ANI (and curses for making me go there again :P ). I am hesitant to discuss a topic ban for either side here, as in general I am in favor of SMEs editing based from their expertise. Controversial or contentious edits must be thoroughly discussed, though, before going live. ArakunemTalk 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the edits I have made have not been about the infobox, and Middle8 is going against the discussion and RS in that case. Verbal chat 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • @Verbal - that's just not true. As I explained, we need a source meeting WP:RS#Academic_consensus, such as a statement from a mainstream scientific body. I've asked for one for acupuncture, but ScienceApologist prefers to just cite Discover Magazine, bypass the RS issue, and use magic bullets like "COI" to justify bypassing any substantive debate[19]. I think my position is more encyclopedic, and with only 4 edits in the last two months reverting others, I don't believe I've been unduly contentious in expressing my views in mainspace edits. All of this just supports what I said initially about this case being WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT nonsense. You don't flatter yourself by supporting SA and mischaracterizing my edits. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has made it clear on his personal website what his opinions are. They are decidedly slanted towards accepting acupuncture theorizing and taking at face-value the pseudoscientific claims of his "profession". If Middle 8 were a snake oil salesman deleting critical material from snake oil, that would essentially be the same thing. His protestations to the contrary are made based on some perceived protection for his chosen line of work that he just doesn't get to claim. Acupuncture is an alternative medicine field that has been heavily criticized as being based on superstition, shoddy post-hoc theorizing, and an almost complete lack of honesty within the field. We have impeccable sources to that effect, but this editor who makes his living off of doing the very things being criticized in the sourced text he continually attacks and tries to downplay. Eventually the single-purpose nature of his campaign to paint acupuncture as legitimized needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. I have no problem with him being part of the discussion, but the heavy-handed manner in which he is censoring material at acupuncture needs to be dealt with promptly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Utterly misleading, and my personal website isn't the issue: conduct on this site is. The large majority of editors who have dealt with me, except you and your acolytes, have found me to be reasonable (see old talk page, as a mediocre but accessible example). I "write for the enemy"; I add systematic reviews no matter what their conclusions are. I was the original author of the "Criticisms" section, at acupuncture, much of which has remained stable over several years. You, on the other hand, add mediocre sources (Discover Magazine doesn't quite meet WP:MEDRS or RS#Academic_consensus). You focus mainly on hot-button, WP:POINT-y issues like whether to plaster a PSEUDOSCIENCE infobox all over the article[20][21]. Your M.O. is to create heat, not light, and to pester and harass your opponents rather than engage anything resembling WP:DR. There's a reason why our respectives block logs looks a lot different. Admins, I mention all this simply to illustrate that ScienceApologist's complaints are meritless wikidrama, not to mention a stunning case of WP:KETTLE. --Middle 8 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Your personal website indicates that you take a lot of pseudoscience as truth, and your actions on this wiki show that you want to censor attempts to clearly explain that certain aspects of acupuncture, to which we can verify from your personal website that you are an adherent, are pseudoscientific. You can continue to praise yourself, but the fact of the matter is you are a single-purpose account who advocates almost exclusively for your profession to be treated differently than other pseudosciences. You reject extremely good sources for showing the pseudoscientific nature of your discipline and then want sources that are heavily criticized by relevant scientists and medical professionals to be treated as gold-standards. And you make money off this quackery. Enough is enough. The arbitration committee banned Dana Ullman for the same sort of behavior. You have been given a wide berth to show that you can abide by our policies and guidelines with respect to pseudoscience, but you continue to act in ways that prevent neutral editors from moving forward in explaining basic facts about your chosen profession. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Your obsession with my life off-wiki is getting creepy. As I said, it's my edits and not my website that matter. But let's look at the supposed COI here. The idea is that I stand to make money because of a Wikipedia article about my profession. This greatly overestimates WP's importance. WP been widely mocked in the media for pervasive errors and lack of oversight; Colbert summed it up perfectly with "wikiality", and then there are self-inflicted problems like Essjay. Anyone dumb enough to rely solely on WP is likely to accept any advertising claim uncritically, and deserves a Darwin award when they're hospitalized after trying colon cleansing with laundry balls.
But for the sake of argument, let's accept your premise on COI. Any healthcare practitioners editing acupuncture also need to declare a potential COI, since casting acupuncture in a poor light might send patients to them, to their financial benefit. And the same goes for any scientist supported by grants, since grant money is scarce and skewing the article for/against acupuncture might influence some grant evaluator, somewhere, maybe. And librarians, too, since including references to texts you carry will help keep your employer open. Yes, there's no doubt: practically anyone editing this article should get hung up on bullshit COI issues as opposed to spending time on substantial matters. Reductio ad absurdum much? Gosh, WP:COI really should clarify this point. Oh, wait, it already did: what part of "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest" (link) don't you understand? --Middle 8 (talk) 08:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the promotional nature of your edits and advocacy, tied in with your COI, and partly your previous account making scrutiny difficult, that cause this problem. Trying to hide your COI by saying everyone has one doesn't help. Verbal chat 08:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
@ Verbal - this would be the third time on this page that you've made sweeping, pejorative generalizations without evidence. [22] [23] Same applies to this case in general and ScienceApologist's comments: long on accusation, short on diffs. I think the situation speaks for itself -- this case is just harassment, with the small caveat that SA can produce no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Every last one of your previous 50 contributions to talk space (do a special filter) seems to me to indicate a distinct POV-pushing mentality where you adopt a new stricture for sources, attempt to excise text which disagrees with your perspective, and generally attack any editor who dares to question your ownership of the acupuncture article. You are a hardline promoter of acupuncture which probably is good for business but is bad for Wikipedia. Your protestations that you include studies regardless of their results strikes me as disingenuous at best. Any attempt to summarize the facts regarding the pseudoscientific nature of qi and meridians is meant with outright indignation. You tend to knee-jerk revert and have yet to engage with the fundamental issues WLU and I are hashing out on the talkpage. Again, I ask, if this isn't evidence for a COI in the sense of Dana Ullman, what would be evidence? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Middle 8 doesn't think it's a problem that he derives an income from promoting himself in ways that are contradicted by a variety of sources that he impugns while keeping text based on those sources out of Wikipedia. If this isn't a conflict-of-interest, what is? The "in itself" rejoinder in the Middle 8's favorite sentence of COI seems to him to excuse his behavior in entirety. "Oh, I'm only acting in the sense of being a professional or having academic expertise," he seems to be saying. "I can't possibly have a conflict of interest with regards to critiques of my pet subject being included in Wikipedia. Oh yeah, and that's also the only thing I'm really interested in keeping an eye on here, by the way." ScienceApologist (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know. Why don't you try winning some arguments instead of destroying your opponents? Anthony (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:COI exists for a reason. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but as a matter of record, we should note that WP:HARASS should be given priority over WP:COI. As the lead section of the latter says: "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest." That said, I now doubt that SA meant to harass or "out" me by posting the aforesaid personal information, and indeed he has made a good-faith offer which I've accepted to help keep the material off WP. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What's the point of COI then? Should it be marked "historical"? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Repeating what I said at WP:AN (for the record), COI has its purpose, but it is (very obviously, per above) subservient to WP:HARASS. This is analogous to the way that WP:BLP trumps other policies. I agree with II that COI is a poor way to pursue a content dispute, and the evidence is thin anyway -- why don't you pull the case if we're now in good-faith mode? I really don't think it's going anywhere, but if you want to see what they say, fine. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - I won't be on wiki for a few days but can be reached via email if anyone needs to ask me a question. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on COI as it pertains to myself and others, pasted in by Middle 8

Since this case is still open, I am adding some comments from an old page version of WP:AN that are directly germaine. They may be unnecessary, but because I want to get a fair shake, I believe they should be considered here if anyone still believes my editing has been inappropriate. (The AN case was amicably resolved between myself and ScienceApologist.) These comments are specifically about COI and, in part, whether it exists in my case.

(begin comments from WP:AN)

  • I'm reluctant to comment because I don't want to stir a pot which has already settled, but I do agree with Hans Adler completely, and I just wanted to say that particularly because several people expressed the opinion that Middle 8 is the problem. Middle 8 is polite, reasonable, well-educated, and was originally forthright enough to edit under his name. His greatest fault is that his posts are not as concise as they could be. Is there any evidence of him adding unreliable sources to promote acupuncture? The current content dispute is over whether acupuncture can be added to the pseudoscience category, despite current reviews which find it to be efficacious for certain conditions. As far as WP:COI and outing, the guideline says:

    Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this...

    Clearly, the guideline says the right thing. I think the best practice is to pretend there's no conflict of interest. So rather than jumping to the personal attack of WP:COI/N, try WP:NPOV/N or WP:RS/N. Conflict of interests and ad hominen attacks are a dirty way to engage in a content dispute. It's also helpful that Middle 8's COI is relatively narrow; we have an editor who suspiciously deletes scholarly material from Western academics if it is critical to China (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/PCPP), which spans hundreds or even thousands of articles, yet he got a pass on the RfC/U. II | (t - c) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
@SA: To clarify, it's merely about one policy taking priority over another. The lead section of WP:COI says:
"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest."
So what II is pointing out is a simple matter of priority, as with WP:BLP's taking precedence over certain other policies. That said, I now doubt that SA meant to harass or "out" me by posting the aforesaid personal information, and indeed he has made a good-faith offer which I've accepted to help keep the material off WP. Bottom line, as far as I am concerned, this case needs no admin action and I look forward to SA and I "turning a new page" in our editing. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
On the question of whether COI is historical, I don't think so. COI is a legitimate thing to keep in mind, but I would parallel it to an aggravating circumstance. You can't build a case around it but its existence in a case could be relevant. SA can perhaps understand - if SA was a tendentious, uncivil pseudoscience promoter rather than a pseudoscience critic, he would likely have been treated more harshly. Since he's critical of pseudoscience, he is probably treated more gently - it's an mitigating circumstance. Basically, if you want to pursue something against Middle 8, build the case around something substantive and then cite the conflict of interest as evidence that there's no hope for the future. Incidentally, I tend to hold rational people to a higher standard of understanding policy, using high-quality sources, and writing neutrally since I expect more of smart people. Meaning that I have a habit of treating intelligence as an aggravating circumstance. II | (t - c) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(end comments from old page version of WP:AN)

thanks, Middle 8 (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest the following as a ruling:

A conflict-of-interest may exist when a user is editing in an area in Wikipedia of significant personal interest to the user. The existence of a conflict-of-interest need not disqualify a user from discussing or editing Wikipedia content, but in conjunction with other problematic behavior can be used as evidence that the user is being inappropriately disruptive.

This should be added to COI.

Middle 8 has a potential conflict-of-interest. I think he should acknowledge this or at least acknowledge that others feel this is a strong possibility considering his chosen profession and the field itself. I'm not sure whether COI/N should exist anymore. Perhaps DE/N should exist instead.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SA, your wording is fine but it adds nothing to WP:COI's lead section.
Yes, I have a potential COI in the same sense that I have a potential DUI, but as long as I edit neutrally and drive while sober, I won't have an actual version of either.
Have you seen my user page? I edited and expanded my comments about COI there several days ago, and even created a specific subsection User:Middle_8#About_me_and_Wikipedia.27s_conflict_of_interest_guideline.
If others believe that there "is a strong possibility" I have COI, that's their issue; it's not my responsibility to cover their views on my user page. Rather, such editors should follow WP:DR, i.e. first discuss substantively with me rather than issue a couple of threats and then head to this noticeboard.
The key point is whether or not my edits to acupuncture and related articles are within the spectrum of mainstream views, and thus within the range of NPOV. There will always be content disputes whether I edit that article or not, and just because I don't take the "acupuncture is pseudoscience and quackery! so let's unambiguously depict it as such with category:pseudoscience!" side doesn't mean I'm POV-pushing, let alone in violation of COI.
What would be refreshing is seeing other editors not pushing wedge issues that are then used as fodder for WP:COI or other editorial conduct guidelines and policies. I believe this has has happened in the past; I trust it won't in a more AGF-type future. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
An acknowledgment that your POV may have something to do with your chosen profession would be nice. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, please check my userpage and the particular section where I note that I have "professional or academic expertise" in acupuncture, explain that this in itself isn't a COI, note that I strive to edit neutrally (thereby avoiding COI), and invite any editor who has concerns to the first step of WP:DR: discussing with me. All that is straight from what WP:COI recommends. I can't reasonably be expected to do more than that -- e.g., I'm not going to frame it in exactly the way you might want it, any more than you should be expected to edit your user page to put a spin on it that I might prefer. I think we'll have to be satisfied with (a) my transparent disclosure (within the bounds of pseudonymity) and (b) perhaps agreeing to disagree on how I frame the issue. --Middle 8 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Suhas Gopinath

User talk:Globals media

According to the file permissions page for the picture on the above article, this user is the subject of the article. The history shows they have added unreferenced content to the article in the past. I have left a COI notice on their talkpage.
This user has been blocked as a promotional only account. The image still exists though. Netalarmtalk 13:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Naveenk1

This user has in three years of being a Wikipedian edited only this article, and the deleted article School Management System - which according to Google is marketed by a company set up in 2000 by the subject of this article. An analysis of Image:Passport pic.jpg may help in establishing the possibility of COI. I have left a COI template on their talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

British Museum partnership

 Done

There is an interesting partnership developing with the British Museum at Wikipedia:GLAM/BM. It would be appreciated if uninvolved eyes from this page were to have a look and comment - whether to reassure us at Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/BM#COI_/_paid_editing that we are on the right lines or suggest any additional safeguards that might be needed. ϢereSpielChequers 11:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. ϢereSpielChequers 14:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak

File:Escutcheon of Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png
File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png
Known coat of arms on the left. Disputed image on the right.
File:Escutcheon of the O'Neills, Princes and Counts of Clanaboy by Alexander Liptak.png
File:Escutcheon of the O'Neills of Tyrone, The O'Neills by Alexander Liptak.png
Known coats of arms.

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. There is a discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms where he is arguing for the inclusion of a fictional (as it bears no resemblance to any known coat of arms) image (File:Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone by Alexander Liptak.png). Note the image includes his name, and his easily found website (as it has his name) shows he sells images such as these. My concern is that he has no interest in producing accurate depictions of the actual coats of arms (accurate ones can be see at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms) only producing highly jazzed up ones that bear little resemblance to the actual coats of arms in order to promote himself. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources which show the coat of arms needs to be a left hand are here, here and at Baronet#The_left_hand. Also, please note that the article O'Neill dynasty uses the image concerned in the article's lead. This image is new, but replaces an older image in the lead I likewise also produced; it was was approved by those editors concerned with the O'Neill dynasty article and accepted as correct based on sources. Also, the images he directs you to at O'Neill dynasty#Coats of Arms are also produced by me. This user is unfamiliar with heraldry, clearly by his statements, and he is making the common mistake of associating a single coat of arms to a surname, and that it is the shield shape that is most important to a coat of arms and not its symbols. These are grossly erroneous, and if this is brought up at WikiProject Heraldry, which I have tried twice for the user to do already, it will be seen that I am correct on this matter. As for my name in images, I require attribution to my work because it does take quite a bit of time to complete them; placing my name in the file name ensures that there will be no error in attribution. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Please everyone look at the O'Neill images on this page and this page (and ignore this irrelevant link also provided) and see how little resemblance those images have to the image linked in my post. The image is a purposefully jazzed up version that bears little resemblance to the actual coats of arms used by sources, and is designed solely for self-promotion in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That "irrelevant link" shows that a red right hand is the coat of arms of the City of Ulster, not the arms of O'Neill. That is why it is an important link, it clearly tells that changing something as small as left or right hand alters the arms drastically, form being the arms of a city to being the arms of a royal family.
And, you do realize you are trying to refute my claims by claiming me an expert? And if I am correct those three other times, wouldn't it be safe to assume I am correct this fourth time, too? Before you argue against that, please note you did cite me as your source for correct heraldic practice three times now. :-P [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
For the eighteenth time the left hand and right hand are irrelevant, it is a red herring you keep going on about as you cannot refute any of my points. The history of the article shows I did not revert to the existing image once it was shown to be incorrect, I removed it entirely. That is wholly irrelevant to your proposed replacement bearing no resemblance to the images used by reliable sources. O Fenian (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
A herring gules? That would be even more incorrect a blazon than a dexter hand gules couped at the wrist. :-D Ya know, this would be amusing to you if you knew anything about blazon. Alas, my humour is lost on you. Which would be an abatement, not that you'd laugh at that either. :-( [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Humour is not appropriate here, and showing off your knowledge of heraldry isn't either. The question being asked is whether the placing of a fanciful coat of arms designed and drawn by you on pages where they do not belong is self-promotion and therefore conflict of interest. You are using technical jargon to avoid answering that question. Scolaire (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. I may bring up the original research and/or verifiability issues at the relevant noticeboard tomorrow, since this post implies that he can draw whatever the coat of arms any way he likes providing he sticks to the basic design, this seems completely at odds with policy to me. O Fenian (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
From Escutcheon (heraldry), which shows the many different shapes that a shield has been represented. Escutcheon is the proper term for the shield, derived from French. Shield shapes were dictated by both region and time period, and one coat of arms would be seen on numerous different styles of shield over the centuries.
A 19th century drawing of the arms of Tyrol, by Hugo Gerhard Ströhl. Note the excessive amount of ornature, but that the central design is still the time-old crowned red eagle.
The modern depiction of the arms of Tyrol. See how the modern depiction dropped the ornature for simplicity, yet kept the crowned red eagle? That is because that is the coat of arms and must remain the same, despite whatever style it is depicted in.

Scolaire, If you read my posts, you will notice I answered the questions already. How many times must I show the O'Neills need to have a left hand, and the City of Ulster uses a right? How is me showing my knowledge of heraldry a ill placed here? This is a heraldry question, after all. And yes, as long as the symbols and colours on the shield are set to the basic design, you can make the shield any shape you wish; in fact, that is the whole idea behind heraldry. :-O You may use a lozenge, cartouche, heater shield, horse-headed shield, buckler, Norman shield and so forth.

And why can't I have humour in this all? This is insane. O Fenian wanted people to look at O'Neill dynasty to see the expert arms there, which I made. The disputed image is also there, shown in the lead. My work has been used for almost a year on that page because no editor familiar with the O'Neills can find fault. And, somehow, O Fenian thought this expertise on three images could be used as evidence against me concerning the lead image. So his argument is something like, "See how right he is? He must be wrong." That is hilarious. :-D

Hmm, original research notice board, despite my showing you numerous sources? Interesting plan; throw any and everything at me and hope that there are enough people online at a given time that don't know about heraldry that will err on your side to be safe? I mean, eventually you will find a notice board for that purpose, right? It is statistics, just you need persistent patience to pull it off. You could always go to the appropriate WikiProject and ask those familiar on the subject. The WikiProject Heraldry, I mean, that is why is exists. For these issues. But you won't, because you are aware I am active there. Not only active, you probably see that I am knowledgeable there, and have conversations about minute details there and might actually know what I am talking about. That other editors there are as knowledgeable as me, and will know I am correct, as well. That I actually get approached to create coats of arms, and I answer requests for new creations, because I am both knowledgeable and capable. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on WikiProject Heraldry, as you suggest. Please do not replace the image on any page until you get a consensus there. Also, please remove the plethora of images that are cluttering up this section and the one below. Scolaire (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Mtbrown8

I'm not sure what to do with this. I stumbled across User:Mtbrown8 who has been editing Emergy and Emergy synthesis. It appears to be a conflict of interest because Mtrown8 recently completely rewrote Emergy synthesis including reference to a researcher named M. T. Brown. The userpage may be inappropriate too. Can someone else please take a look? Peacock (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'll leave him a message but my first impression is that he is editing in good faith. His edits to Emergy Synthesis actually removed the prose related to M T Brown and how he is "among the most notable" which helped improve NPOV. There remains the cite to his article in Energy Encyclopedia which is only in support of Emergy Synthesis as a new term. If he coined it, then we'd need other sources to show it is the mainstream term. ArakunemTalk 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As for his userpage, it seems to be a version of the Emergy article, which is being actively edited in parallel with the mainspace article. I'll mention this as well... ArakunemTalk 13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jazz

The user RepublicanJacobite is reverting my edits to the article. My edits are referenced from a reputable source and provide a lot more detail; clearly written, and without writing a large paragraph. Including that jazz originated from the "melting pot" of Louisiana's numerous ethnic groups living in close proximity, and not the "African American communities" of "Southern United States". Which is highly contentious and not referenced. The information I added is what is taught in universities and music colleges.

The article itself is quite prejudice, and lacks a lot of details on the other ethnic groups that created jazz. To the point, where it seems like the article is trying to remove these people from jazz history, and trying to state that jazz is a creation of "African-American" people. I added a small paragraph with two references about Papa Jack Laine, who is one of the most important figures in jazz development. As it didn't appear to even be in the article! and it provides some detail on the other ethnic groups who contributed to jazz formation. This was also removed by the same user.

RepublicanJacobite has provided no valid reason for the removal of my edits; claiming I have "muddled" it up and that it was better before. Then claiming I have not made an improvement to the article, and that "I am no position to talk". The users talk page is semi-protected, but I don't have a lot of time to sit around discussing concerns on the wikepedia. I am not sure if the "noticeboard" is the correct place to find help in resolving this matter, but it would be appreciated. As I do not believe I am in the wrong, and that removing a citation from a government sourced reference in favor of a personal statement is wrong!

I was going to report this matter to the 3RR board, however after creating a new topic, I learnt this required 4 reverts to be considered. Thus I came to this board, as it looked like the next best thing. The user recently warned me on my talk page, claiming I am edit warring, and that I should discuss the matter first because it is controversial. Even though the information I am replacing is not referenced, and that the information I am providing is almost the same, just referenced from a reputable source and in more detail. I don't see that is a valid remark given that users reasons for removal of the content, especially when I stated in the revision log that he/she should use the talk page before removing cited material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.46.229 (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for posting. Unfortunately, this isn't really the right spot for this either. This board deals primarily with Conflicts of Interest, that is, when an editor may have a real-world interest (financial, self-promotional, etc) in an article appearing a certain way. Your disagreement with this user is what we term a Content Dispute. if you click HERE it will link you to the page that outlines the usual steps to be taken in a content dispute, how to bring in other opinions, and so on. Hope this helps! ArakunemTalk 13:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:DVilla21

DVilla21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) only seems to edit the David Villa article and information related to that individual in other Football related articles (namely where David Villa is mentioned in FIFA and Spanish National team articles). When I tagged the David Villa article with COI, due to my concerns, the user removed it stating that they are not that individual[24]. However given the extremely limited scope of the users' edits, as well as the appearance of WP:OWN [25] in some of their edit summaries, I am having difficulty accepting Good Faith that this individual is not David Villa and does not have a COI. Given the nature of the situation, I was not sure where I should bring this up -- or even if I should bring this up somewhere. While it is entirely possible that the editor is indeed just a big fan of David Villa and only is interested in editing articles related to him, there is a very strong appearance of COI. Since WP:BLP applies in this situation, I'm even more concerned about the appearance of COI edits. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 18:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see absolutely nothing in the contributions of this editor to suggest that he is anything other than an ordinary editor with an interest in Villa and Spain. This is an entirely frivolous request. Scolaire (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it would have been polite to inform the user on his talk page that you were bringing this here. Scolaire (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, since BLP comes into play, I do not think this is a "frivolous" report. That is why I posted it here, as I had concerns that I wanted admins to look at. "Frivolous" would suggest I was wanting to create "trouble" or "drama", which if you look at my long edit history and very little involvement in this article, is clearly not the case. The editor in question was also notifed here --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 19:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, nine minutes after I said it would be polite to do so. All credit to you for acting promptly. Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well, I don't think its fair to call it a frivolous request. Seeing a user named "DVilla21" editing an article about a D. Villa, it is not surprising that one's attention would be grabbed in good faith with COI concerns. That said, his recent edits seem uncontroversial enough, even if he were Villa/a relative/friend/manager. That edit summary was rather blunt, but since no real discussion happened on the talk page or his user-talk, WP:OWN might be a bit premature. The big danger with COI editing is loss of a NPOV tone. As this article is a GA, it is unlikely that such edits would be allowed to stay long, no matter who made them. Lastly, if hypothetically he IS Villa and doesn't admit to it, we're not allowed to force the issue anyway. As long as his edits stay within the pillars though, it doesn't matter either. ArakunemTalk 19:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh for f*** sake. I only found interest in editing David Villa because no one else really took interest in editing his page, so I named my account after him - and he is an important footballer too. Seriously, David Villa is in SOUTH AFRICA preparing for stressful matches at the WORLD CUP, you think he can speak English this well? and has the time to edit here?
And who's to say DVilla21 isn't my name and age? what if my name is Diego Villa García and my age is 21? I'm just trying to improve David Villa's page and help Wikipedia. DVilla21 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
My intent in opening this was not to criticize you or your edits, but open discussion on what might have the appearance, to the casual user, of COI. I did not request any action be taken against you, I only asked for admins to look at things from an outside perspective...since Wikipedia is viewed by millions world wide on a daily basis. Perhaps a username change might help or maybe no action is needed. Who knows? Like I said, my only intent was to open discussion. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 21:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
When you put it like that, it makes you sound a lot more fair and makes your point seem a lot more valid. I guess the username and the page of choice to edit may cause a bit of a controversy, but the case is, I never hype up the guy, I simply update his latest accomplishments and statistics, and if I ever use any sort of method to hype him up, it is always a quote from a public figure, such as retired footballers or acclaimed journalists. I understand your point now, I just think that the idea of David Villa editing his own article in English is ridiculous, especially when you look at how crap his Wiki article on the Spanish Wikipedia is. DVilla21 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Gniniv

Resolved
 – This is not a COI issue. Perhaps WP:DIS? It's disruptive editing, but there is no indication of a WP:COI problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Gniniv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is editing numerous articles, predominantly Objections to evolution by making POV changes from the perspective of a young earth creationist. This has been going on since May. Furthermore, he is monopolizing talk pages with off-topic content related discussion which violates WP:NOTFORUM. No matter how often he's reminded of this policy, asked for sources to back up his POV claims, or asked to follow basic WP etiquette, he ignores responses without reading or understanding them and continues to make article changes and post inappropriate discussion. Talk:Objections to evolution is a good example of this behavior, noting that the majority of discussion with him on that page has already been archived, since his discussion had made the page unmanageable. Any help dealing with this matter would be appreciated. Jess talk cs 06:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate noticeboard for this issue. If there is a more appropriate place for dealing with disruptive editing, please let me know. Thanks. Jess talk cs 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I am going to cease editing this article until the dispute is resolved by the administrators (My defense is that the article in question is protected from alternative arguments being inserted alongside the major perspective)...--Gniniv (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
@Gniniv, the 'major perspective' is the ONLY perspective which is reasonable to include into a Wikipedia article. Cease your editing entirely, your additions are not acceptable according to Wikipedia standards, regardless of what you think. MitchincredibleII (talk) 09:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rev. Stuart Campbell

Editor is - according to his own comments - the subject of the article Stuart Campbell (journalist). Editor is repeatedly trying to make disputed claims about himself in the article. [26] [27]

--88.105.252.76 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell

Johnadonovan, who according to his user page is "a long term critic of senior management of the Royal Dutch Shell Group" made two edits to the above article here and here. I reverted the edits on both occasions because I feel they fail WP:UNDUE as I do not feel the "indecent" is a Controversy.

There has been some discussion on the talk page and on my talk page about it, the upshot being that Johnadonovan feels he would like an admin to look at it.

So hence the post here.

Codf1977 (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
:Replied on article talk page. Yes this is a conflict of interest, but the addition is in line with the other entries on the main page. Netalarmtalk 23:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Said user is a major contributor to the article, so the article itself would need to be examined. Right now I'd suggest leaving the entry out until more discussions establish a consensus. Netalarmtalk 23:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree the whole page needs to be assessed. Codf1977 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It may help to set out the issues.

1. Should there be an article of this kind focusing on controversies surrounding RDS?
2. If the answer is yes, was the section I added appropriate for inclusion in the article?
3. If the answer is yes, was the content in line with Wikipedia requirements in terms of impartiality and being sourced from verifiable, independent, reputable publishers?
4. Being an openly declared critic of Shell management from the outset, should I be banned or restricted from making any contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to RDS?

The only article authored by me which was deleted after referral here, was on the grounds that it was impartial in favour of RDS. I originated the article in response to a request from another contributor for a "positives" article. I did so in good faith because I could see the merit in a counter-balancing article. The collective view was that this was inappropriate, which I accept.

If Wikipedia bans or restricts contributions from individuals who openly declare their background and abide by Wikipedia requirements, this will encourage those wishing to conceal their identities and any conflicts of interest. Is it in the public interest to know as much about the track record of companies like Shell and BP as possible, provided the information is accurate and impartial? Oil exploration is an extremely risky enterprise as has become very clear.

RDS does closely monitor at the highest level my contributions to Wikipedia articles relating to the company. I know this because I have under a Subject Access Request, obtained Shell internal documents and communications over a number of years covering the matter. Shell carefully considered if it could surreptitiously edit the information, but was concerned about being caught doing so. Wikiscanners did discover editing of the RDS related articles from Shell offices. --Johnadonovan (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

My issue with you editing ANY Shell related artical (or non-Shell article on a matter relating to Shell) is one of appearance, you have been involved in a legal dispute with Shell, and run a website dedicated to reporting on Shell issues, the majority of them reflect badly on them. You have a classic conflict of interest in relation to this company. (For the record, my only connection to the company is from time to time I fill my car at a Shell petrol station.)
As for the section in question, I have seen nothing to suggest that the issue is a controversy - please not WP is not here to report on every little bit of news but only items that are significant, this is just not one of any significance.
In answer to your questions -
1. No, bescase WP is not here to host attack pages, however I think consensus is probably not with me on this so will let it slide to Yes.
2. No as it has not been shown that the issue is of any real significance.
3. n/a (answer to 2 is NO).
4. Banned - no, restricted - Yes. I think you should list all proposed Shell related edits on the respective Talk pages and wait till a consensus has developed before making them.
Codf1977 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not for one moment accept your description of "attack pages". Someone else, not me, devised the heading "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell. If I recall correctly, it was agreed on a consensus basis. Since then, I have added content appropriate to this heading. All factually based, unbiased and supported by verifiable independent reputable sources. The weight of such content must be distressing to Shell PR, but the events and related information have been generated by Shell's actions, not by me. The content is highly informative for the public, researchers, the media and investors, providing numerous links to supporting detailed evidence.

I have not been involved in any litigation with Shell for over a decade. No litigation is pending. I am a Shell shareholder and have been so for many years. I campaign for Shell management to uphold and abide with Shell's much proclaimed ethical code, the Statement of General Business Principles. Does that make me anti-Shell? Is it proper for all individuals openly campaigning for companies or organisations to act in accordance with legal statutes and their own advertised principles to be restricted from adding content to Wikipedia when done so openly and in accordance with Wikipedia requirements mentioned above. Others less scrupulous - I am not referring to you - will continue to make contributions without declaring an interest, hiding behind an alias which allows them to be rude, blatantly biased, make false allegations and be generally unpleasant to those who are completely open. If they attract too much attention, they can simply start again under a new alias. Returning to where this started, the Tony Blair letter, I think your position is completely wrong and indefensible. You claim that the matter is not controversial. Why then did The Times and The Daily Mail newspapers both publish major articles on the subject, both supplied as verifiable evidence in the section you deleted? I think your bias is showing.

With regard to your suggestion that I should list all proposed edits on the talk page, I did exactly that on the article Royaldutchshellplc.com. They remain waiting approval nearly a year later. There is a conflict of interest in respect of that article because it is about our website and my father and me. The Royal Dutch Shell articles are not about us or our website and I should have as much right as anyone else to edit providing I do so within Wikipedia rules. Please point out any example of my editing on the article in question, which displayed an anti-Shell bias on my part?--Johnadonovan (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not dispute the items listed happened, my dispute is with this item and it's encyclopaedic relevance. I have no wish to get into a point-counter-point debate, however I do not know why the papers published the reports, I can make a good guess but that would be speculation, what is clear is that it did not turn into a controversy, it was a news item for one day. You have a Conflict of interest with relation to Shell, and I think it is best that you avoid editing articles on matters regarding Shell that you should do as you do with Royaldutchshellplc.com that is post in the talk page and obtain a consensus about each and every edit, remember WP is not working to a deadline and if takes a while for other editors to come to a consensus then you can always post a request here for advice. Codf1977 (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
So you do not dispute that the other items listed within the article "happened". This item happened as well and has not been denied by Shell or Tony Blair. The journalists involved clearly considered the matter to be sufficiently controversial to write major articles. Their editors self-evidently took the same view. I strongly recommend that you read the item and relevant cited newspaper articles again. The content and issues could hardly be more controversial. For you to take such an unfounded view and escalate it in the way you have, suggests that you are biased in favour of Shell and/or against me. I accept and understand the restrictions in relation to an article about me and my activities. I do not accept that I should be restricted in my editing of articles relating to Royal Dutch Shell which are not about me or anything to do with me. This is an important issue because it potentially affects a large number of other Wikipedia contributors who are completely open, abide by requirements and will probably not want to be treated as second class contributors by people who hide their identities, and possible conflicts of interest, and are in a position to get up to all kinds of tricks to meet undisclosed objectives. Again this is a general comment and not directed at you. If what you are proposing is adopted, it will encourage more people to enjoy the freedom of being anonymous, when aliases can be ditched and new ones adopted overnight. Personally, I would like to see the privilege of editing restricted solely to individuals who are prepared to edit under their real names and openly declare any possible conflict of interest. That would result in a more honest, trustworthy and polite Wikipedia community. --Johnadonovan (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have never disputed it happened - but just becasuse something happens does not mean a WP artical should mention it, if, as is in this case it was a one day story - I think that you only have to consider the timing of the stories, the papers they were published in to see other possible reasons for publication. The story is not notable.
I disagree with the picture you paint about my suggestion - I avoid editing subjects relating to my profession and other subjects I have a very close interest in, so do the vast majority of WP editors. You have a very close interest in Shell and should avoid editing in that field. Codf1977 (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Trying to discredit the articles in the Daily Mail and The Times, under cover of your alias, you cast further aspersions on the relevant publishing companies. Just how far will you go to censor the inclusion of legitimate information within the controversies section? The Daily Mail article was a follow-up to a previous Daily Mail article entitled: "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son". There are numerous reports on the Internet of the Shell/Blair/Gaddafi connection. Do I need to supply more articles? I have them available from multiple sources including BBC News in an article published in 2004. You really ought to agree in the light of the overall facts, that the section should be reinstated, and without the need for overkill on verification sources. Turning to your insistence that I must restrict my editing because of a "very close interest in Shell", it follows that you are saying that anyone with a very close interest in Shell, over 177,000 employees of Shell and associated companies, plus a huge number of Shell shareholders around the globe dependent on the company for income, are all restricted on the same basis. Unlike those parties, I have no financial interest in Shell other than owning the minimum number of shares needed to gain entry to the AGM. I have never banked the dividends accruing from the shares. I still have all of the cheques. In the absence of any consensus view to the contrary, I will continue on the current basis openly adding content to RDS articles in line with Wikipedia requirements and subject to scrutiny and editing as always. --Johnadonovan (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to discredit anyone - I am not trying to censor anyone - you have long standing issues with Shell and appear to be using WP as a soap box to continue your campaign towards shell. If, as you seem you are, intent on continuing to edit on matters relating to Shell then I think the least you should use the {{Request edit}} template on the talk page of the page you wish to edit as a sign of your good faith intentions. I would welcome other editors input in this discussion as it seems it is only me and John Donovan at this time, which makes it hard to reach a consensus. Codf1977 (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I note that you are no longer commenting on the matter on which you started this discussion. I refer to your removal of the Tony Blair/Shell/Gaddafi section in its initial form and subsequently minutes later after it was expanded. I have answered and hopefully satisfied you on the points you raised on that matter. Yet you have not reinstated the section. With regard to the soapbox allegation, I have carefully researched and assembled evidence of matters relating to RDS which I believe is informative for anyone else interested in Shell, a potentially large audience. I have posted it all on Wikipedia, positive and negative. I have always been mindful of Wikipedia requirements on impartiality and providing verifiable evidence from independent reputable publishers. It was decided that putting all of the positive information together in one article "Royal Dutch Shell initiatives" was inappropriate and the article was deleted. That is the only article originated by me on Wikipedia that has been deleted. I accept that I should not edit any article focused on me or my website. If I ever have cause to add information to an RDS article in which my website or my father and I are involved in any way, then I will post it on the discussion page and seek review on the draft. Can we agree that this is a constructive and fair way forward? In view of the calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, surely more, not less publicly accessible reference information about the business practices and ethical track record of multinational energy companies engaged in such risky exploration should be encouraged, particular from those most closely interested and in a position to contribute.
For your information, we do bend over backwards on our own website to be fair to Shell. Any insider information or related Shell documents supplied to us are routinely put to Shell before publication. If Shell categorically states that any stated fact is inaccurate, we remove that information from the draft. We invite Shell to supply for publication alongside any such article, comment for publication on an unedited basis. Shell has taken up this invitation on a number of occasions over the years. If Shell says that a document is not authentic, we accept that this is the case and do not use that material. When Michiel Brandjes, RDS Plc Company Secretary, asked us because of special circumstances not to publish a legitimate well-founded news article, we immediately agreed. A few months ago, Richard Wiseman, the Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of RDS asked me not to publish a Shell Global Address Book leaked to me, containing names and contact information, company and private, for over 177,000 Shell employees and contractors. Mr Wiseman expressed a proper concern over employee safety, particularly in Nigeria. He thanked me for agreeing to his request and said that I had acted responsibly. I doubt if any other publisher of information about Shell goes to the same lengths as we do to be fair, accurate and accommodating. Yes, we do upset Shell management when we publish information which is accurate, newsworthy and embarrassing to the company. But we do so on a responsible ethical basis. --Johnadonovan (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not commented on the "Tony Blair/Shell/Gaddafi" section as my issue has always been that it was not a controversy, I have asked you to to provide sources indicating it is, and none have been forth coming.

You mention "If I ever have cause to add information to an RDS article in which my website or my father and I are involved in any way, then I will post it on the discussion page and seek review on the draft" well I would contend that this is the case here, you have written about this on your website and as such you should follow the COI procedure and list it on the talk page before publishing it, you will also notice that Netalarm said on the talk page "Regarding the new addition, I think it would require more discussion among editors to establish a consensus as to whether it is added or not" so that should make it clear that at the moment there is NO consensus for it to be added. No amount of words from you can hide your conflict of interest in relation to Shell and you should understand that and follow the advice offered on the WP:COI page and use {{Request edit}} template wherever you wish to edit on matters relating to Shell.Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have previously pointed out, you are applying a test under which no other section within "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell" would survive. An impartial person only has to read the Tony Blair/Shell/Gaddafi section and cited source articles to recognise the degree of controversy involved. I am not going to spell it out because it is so obvious. The fact that you refuse to accept this even in the light of additional reference sources stretching back to 2004 and ignore all constructive proposals, suggests that for some undeclared reason, you are biased in favour of Shell and against me. My identity and background circumstances have always been openly declared. I believe that contributors who operate on this basis deserve some respect and recognition of their voluntary transparency from people who deliberately choose not to disclose their identity and background. You are blocking a perfectly valid contribution on grounds which do not stand up to scrutiny. It is an act of censorship on your part. --Johnadonovan (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't feel that WP should call something a controversy unless it is clear from significant coverage from reliable sources that others are either calling or treating it as such. Codf1977 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As we would both welcome views on the suitibilty of the item in question for inclusion within "Controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell", I have printed it below, so there is no need even to click on a link. Other supporting verification evidence from daily newspaper articles is available if deemed necessary. I took the view that two were enough.
On 27 April, 2010, The Times newspaper reported[1] that when he was Prime Minister, Tony Blair "lobbied Colonel Muammar Gaddafi on behalf of Shell in a letter written for him in draft form by the oil company, documents obtained by The Times reveal." The article pointed out that while it is not unusual for government ministers to promote British interests abroad, Shell's draft revealed a confidence in being able to "dictate" Blair's discussion with Gaddafi. The purpose of the letter was to clinch a $500 million Shell deal with Libya. In the draft letter, Shell asked Blair to discuss "positive" progress on weapons of mass destruction and the investigation into the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher which took place in 1984 outside the Libyan Embassy in London. The article also raised the issue of the release of Al-Megrahi, who killed 270 people on board Pan Am flight 103 in 1988. It said: "There was speculation that his release was part of a deal struck between Britain and Libya to improve diplomatic ties between the countries." According to the article: "Shell declined to comment but sources familiar with the company’s lobbying operation said that it was not unusual for large businesses to discuss diplomatic support with the Government." The Daily Mail also published an article[2] on the same subject under the headline: "Shell wrote letter Tony Blair used in £325m Libyan oil deal". --Johnadonovan (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)--Johnadonovan (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Not Notiable - I do not see how this is a controversy, it was only reported on one day by two papers, in the middle of the election; as the article concedes it is not unusual for "government ministers to promote British interests abroad" and there is no suggestion that this action was in any way unusual. The link to al-Megrahi is only one of timing in that "Both letters were released after a lengthy Freedom of Information process. The Times first asked for them after al-Megrahi was released last August...." and to try and link Shell to that through the Times article is wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Codf1977 was not prepared to leave people to read the piece in question without restating his case, I have added working links to the two cited articles. I would also draw attention to a selection of other related articles about the alleged non controversy involving Blair, oil, BP, Shell, Gaddafi and state sponsored terrorist acts.

The Huffington Post 26 June 2010: BP, Gadhafi, and Britain's Oil Comeuppance

REUTERS 27 April 2010: SHELL DICTATED BLAIR'S LETTER TO GADDAFI

The Observer 30 August 2009: "Revealed: how Shell won the fight for Libyan gas and oil"

The Times: 25 March, 2004: "Gaddafi welcomes Blair with handshake"

BBC News 25 March 2004: "Blair hails new Libyan relations"

Daily Mail 05 June 2010: "Tony Blair our very special adviser by dictator Gaddafi's son" 44 comments.

Kuwait Observer 27 April 2010: "Blair lobbies Gaddafi for Shell"

theage.com.au: Reuters report 26 March 2004: Blair, Gaddafi make history

London Evening Standard 28 August 2009: Tories renew attack on PM for ‘secret Libya deal’

Daily Mail 20 August 2009: "Blair, 'blood money' and a Lockerbie deal: Talks with Gaddafi hours before BP agreement"; 118 Comments.

The Sun 29 August 2009: Gaddafi: Prisoner deal was for oil

Daily Telegraph 30 May 2007: "Blair, Gaddafi and the BP oil deal"

There are many more articles. Surely they are not needed to prove beyond doubt the controversy surrounding this matter? --Johnadonovan (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hang on most of this is before the Shell letter was released so how can that demonstrate the Shell letter was a controversy ? the only two that mention the letter are just re-running the Times article, the more I read on this the more I think this was a case of trying to find a story where none really existed. I accept that there was a controversy relating to the release of the Lockerbie bomber but trying to link the two is just plain old fashioned OR. Your desire to find something here just goes to further reinforce my feeling that you should not edit on matters relating to Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
You suggested this was a one day event. That is not the case. It is a controversy which built over some time and it involves Shell in a major way, shown to be dictating and directing events from behind the scenes. This did not become clear until after the relevant letter involving highly controversial matters was obtained by The Times. It is astonishing that you cannot or will not acknowledge this when the evidence is clear and is not anything to do with me, but due to the diligence of the press. --Johnadonovan (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Your comment that I should be restricted from editing RDS articles is the height of hypocrisy coming from someone who hides their identity and background. You want to be in a position to edit without restriction on RDS articles and have done so, yet are campaigning for someone who has always edited openly, using their own name and declaring their background, to be restricted and potentially put off making contributions. Who should be most trusted with the privilege of editing? The person who is completely open, or the person about whom nothing whatsoever is known, who hides their identity and motives. Why would you spend such a great deal of time on this matter unless you have an undeclared interest in RDS? --Johnadonovan (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
WP affords me the RIGHT to anonymity - I have, as I have said no connection to Shell, my interest here is one of what I see that damages the reputation of WP, in that it is being used to continue someone's campaign. (as another example of this see Talk:Kingston University) I have made my points clearly, I will leave it up to others to comment now. Codf1977 (talk) 07:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, some people abuse that right by making personal comments and casting aspersions on the bone fides of those who choose to be completely open. I put the best interests of Wikipedia first when contributing and the records show that I have posted more information about the good works of RDS and its employees than anyone else who contributes to RDS articles. I too will now leave it to others to comment. --Johnadonovan (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Help still needed

I think I have done as much as I can to help on this despite the attacks on me by Johnadonovan, it is now over to other editiors to help please visit the Talk page. I know this is not an easy one to deal with. Codf1977 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that despite saying that he would leave it to others to comment, Codf1977 has failed to do so. I believe it is correct to say that I have added more positive content to Wikipedia about the good works of Shell and its employees than all other contributors combined. Naturally I am offended when contributors under cover of aliases bring my father into these acrimonious discussions, even though I have stated that he has never contributed to Wikipedia. Please stick to the original issue. Does the Blair/Shell/Gaddafi/Oil affair culminating in a Blair letter to Gaddafi drafted by Shell, reported in multiple news articles, belong in the Controversies section? --Johnadonovan (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Movieworld

Movieworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User Movieworld is a SPA that edits virtually nothing except articles, lists and templates dealing with Universal Studios, its movies and theme parks. User seems to be an agent of the company tasked with promoting its properties on Wikipedia. CliffC (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left another warning regarding the username. Does seem like a clear case of COI however I wouldn't want the user to not continue actively improving Wikipedia. I'd recommend a username softblock to force a change of username but allow them to continue editing. -- Ϫ 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I do not have any affiliations with Universal Studios or any other company, organisation or group. I simply have a keen interest in amusement parks. I have decided to change my username in an attempt to resolve this problem. Movieworld / Themeparkgc (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

GroupLens Research

This article was driver-by tagged with {{coi}} in April and no other action has been taken. Being a member of the research lab itself, I'm very cautious to take any action on the matter. Could someone review the article's content to see if the tag should be removed or changes should be made? --EpochFail(talk|work) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you have already declared your COI on the article's talk page and are committed to editing within the guidelines, I don't see a need for further notice to readers of possible COI and have removed the tag. -- Ϫ 23:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Jason Leopold

Resolved
 – at AN/I ArakunemTalk
This was also posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_issue_that_needs_intervention_at_Jason_Leopold and has since been marked resolved. Smartse (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Melissa Seay Harshaw

Autobio. I'm out of touch with regards to how we deal with these; could someone please look into it? J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find much in the way of Reliable Sources, so I tagged it as G11, Promotional. YMMV. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Celia Wade-Brown

A Wellington politician who is running for mayor. The page is being edited by a User:Celia WB. Have given her a COI warning. Mattlore (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nisa-Today's et al

NTScun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has only created or made several edits to articles related to the Nisa-Today's group. The user name may be an abbreviation of Nisa-Today's Scunthorpe which indicates a possible COI. The user has been warned on their talk page about possible COI WhaleyTim (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a coi-username message on their talk page. Probably worth keeping an eye on their edits and hopefully they will change their username. Verbal chat 12:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Leastway and Qtrax

It appears to me that Leastway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to push away a good amount of info at Qtrax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and replacing it with typical corporate talk. The original try was [28] and at the same time created Qtrax Midem 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note the 'we' in one of the edits), which I PRODed shortly after creation, but after the Qtrax article was reverted by User:Agadant. The article was changed again by Leastway which I reverted, then almost the same thing was done by assumed sockpuppet Ccyypp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which I also reverted. Not wanting to get into 3rr, I dropped a note on the talk page [29], and now Leastway changed the Qtrax article again. I apologize if this should probably be on some other board, but it seems to be a COI so I added it here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The connection to the company is pretty well established. Ccyypp self-identified as "The Qtrax Team" on User talk:Ale jrb (promptly getting an NLT block, since unblocked after retraction). There's been a lot of back-and-forth editing between several accounts which appear related (Socky or Meaty) and other accounts pumping up the negative aspects. There sure seems a COI here but the bigger problem is keeping things NPOV from both sides. There are now quite a few eyes on the article, and I'll add mine as well. Meanwhile it looks like Ale Jrb has given the COI account(s) some education on how to stay within the pillars, so I'll hold off on template-bombing them, unless they continue with a POV. ArakunemTalk 14:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Officiallyconnected and Connected Boy Band

Resolved
 – Article deleted, will see how they proceed. ArakunemTalk 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Officiallyconnected (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be "connected" (sorry!) to Connected Boy Band. Directed here from WP:UAA. TFOWR 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Article has since been deleted, so I can't judge the tone of the user's edits, but the dots are fairly simple to "connect" (sorry too!). We'll see what if anything happens next. ArakunemTalk 14:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I suspect they will never be heard of again (and I'll resist to temptation to make jokes about the band at this point...) ;-) TFOWR 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ScottSherrinFoundation

Resolved
 – Editor has now been blocked.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ScottSherrinFoundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this editor has serious ownership issues and blatantly told another user that the edits they made to Scott Sherrin were in fact illegal and to stop editing the article.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Regatta dog

Regatta dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Regatta dog is an SPA who edits the Reid Stowe article. He contributed to a tabloid article via interview and was named as a source by journalist Adam Nichols in his article. [30] Soon after, Nichols published a related article which included unmistakable material that had been published 9 days earlier by Regatta dog on his blog. [31] (The blog is blacklisted - unable to link) Regatta dog then inserted material from both tabloid articles into the Wikipedia Reid Stowe article [32] [[33]] and repeatedly inserted links to those articles and material from them into the discussion pages [[34]] [[35]] [[36]] [[37]] [[38]] stating that he hopes readers will "trip over this Wiki discussion page" [[39]] Other problems include edit waring. The article is now locked as a result. --Zanthorp (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the article discussion page [[40]] for more detail. --Zanthorp (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any connection between a blog and the article written by the NY Daily News about the subject's back child support. The article in the NY Daily News was well sourced and contained quotes from a NY official and a member of the subject's support team. I have never inserted any information into the article of which I was the source. A number of editors are trying very hard to prevent a balanced BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The disruption from this single purpose editors has been endless, please see his edit history. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of child benefit non payment claim and a drug conviction from over ten years ago. This editor has been involved in the propagation of these claims at other locations of wiki and has also been involved in interviews that he has attempted to insert into the article, constant disruption of a BLP and when the article is locked as a result of the edit pattern then the disruption moves terminally to the talkpage. I would request some kind of resolution and end this disruption, please look at the users edit history which alone imo rings all the bells needed. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have made a blatantly false statement - I have never tried to insert any interview I had into the article. Multiple discussions have resulted in the rejection of overdue child support claims and drug conviction by a few editors. Other editors have supported it's inclusion. A couple editors who oppose inclusion have done so based on what they consider to be unreliable source, particularly the NY Daily News. However, these same editors are completely content to leave NY Daily News content in the article as long as it places the subject of the BLP in a positive light.
I would suggest that without vigilant monitoring of all editing of this article, it is likely to become even more of a marketing tool for the subject than it already is. I believe that a number of editors of the article are more interested in promoting the subject than creating a neutral article. I support balance and the truth. Regatta dog (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already discussed the direct personal connections between Regatta Dog and the sources he has tried to insert into the Reid Stowe article: please see Talk Pages at [41] and at [42].

Regatta Dog uses the same handle wherever he posts on the internet, which is not a secret. The following posts show his strong bias against Reid Stowe.
Postings of Regatta Dog:
1. [43] Cruisers Forum
2. [44] Sailing Anarchy Forum (starting in Oct. 2008)
3. [45] Weekend America (Oct. 25, 2008; Comments Section)
4. ...1000daysreality.blogspot.com
Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check (blog run by Regatta Dog)
5. ...1000daysofhell.blogspot.com
1000 Days of Hell website (blog run by Regatta Dog; parody of Reid Stowe)

A recent article by Charles Doane of "Sail" magazine includes a telling portrait of this self-avowed critic of Reid Stowe, namely Regatta Dog, not to be confused with a different alias on Sailing Anarchy by the name of "regattadog"... COMPREHENDING REID STOWE: Crucified on the Internet

Regatta Dog has shown clear intent to harm the reputation of Reid Stowe, spreading falsehoods and defamatory remarks about Reid Stowe, using tainted sources as references in Wikipedia. He has a clear Conflict of Interest. Skol fir (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

When an editor contributes (via interview) to a press article, then adds material from that article to the related Wikipedia article and cites the press article as a source, they are, in effect, citing themselves. In this case, after citing themselves (in effect) the same editor used Wikipedia talk pages to promote the original press article, and a related article by the same journalist. Clearly, a conflict of interest has been demonstrated. --Zanthorp (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Zanthrop, they are not citing themselves unless they cite themselves. I appreciate your using the term (in effect). You have negated your own claim. There is no clear conflict of interest.

Very telling that in the Doane article cited above, the reporter unequivocally confirms the claims about the subject of the article's drug conviction and back child support with the word - "True".

I am very tired of unsubstantiated claims about me. I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor. This is outrageous and insulting.

The Doane article vindicates me and confirms what I have presented as facts. I'd be interested to know what handles the other editors here use when they post on line about Reid Stowe. Regatta dog (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is not Doane or his article. It is your COI. Myself and two other editors agree that a COI exists. We have expressed our opinions; you have expressed yours. --Zanthorp (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


We editors here at Wikipedia do not appreciate editors who are closely associated with the subject of an article editing said article. The COI rules are very clear on that. Simply claiming no association, while at the same time sharing intimate knowledge of the subject of the BLP and a blatant bias towards him, is the kind of COI that the COI rules were written for. Please re-read the COI section again, tone down the rhetoric, and avoid any attempts to edit this article in a a non-neutral way. Your COI will be noted again in your attempts to aggrandize the subject of this BLP. Regatta dog (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I only got a chuckle out of that. Can't you come up with some sanctimonious bunkum that's really good for a laugh? --Zanthorp (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, Zanthrop, you failed to address the key issues here, which I asked for above and will repeat here -- I would like you to cite, specifically, anywhere where I have spread a single falsehood about Reid Stowe or made defamatory remarks. On the contrary, I have been an advocate for the truth about the subject and have put to rest many unsubstantiated rumors. When you respond please keep to the true definition of "defamatory" and not drag in opinions I may have posted - they are hugely different. I eagerly await either the proof to back up your statements or your apology for making completely unfounded accusations about another Wiki editor.

You've had 10 days since the original request. If you are going to make accusations, please be prepared to back them up with cites/references. Otherwise, you are making "defamatory statements" about another editor. Regatta dog (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there administrators that look and opine on reports here? If there are could one have a look at this report and please comment. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob and I are in full agreement here. I'd appreciate an admin getting involved and dismiss the unsubstantiated claims made against an editor. 76.24.226.181 (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The claims are not unsubstantiated, as spelled out clearly in the extensive discussions at Talk:Reid Stowe, and described in detail above by at least three editors. Also, it should be noted that the remark above from the IP address 76.24.226.181, is actually from Regatta Dog, who is deliberately hiding behind an anonymous address. See Response of Regatta Dog, which was made 4 minutes earlier, and has the exact same IP address 76.24.226.181 (talk). He tried to cover his tracks less than an hour later, as seen here. Furthermore, Regatta Dog has posted defamatory information about Reid Stowe on another website, which he has failed to correct on his blog, even after being contradicted in the archived and current discussions. This in itself shows this editor's unwillingness to state the truth. Rather, he wishes to distort any facts to put the subject in the worst possible light, and therefore shows his bias against the subject.
--Skol fir (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Skol, sometimes people get logged out automatically and forget to log back in before editing, its common. The edit history of 76.24.226.181 doesn't show sock-puppetry, just the opposite really as he tried to fix his signed name. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Skol fir. As has been shown here and elsewhere on the internet, I never try to cover my tracks. I simply forgot to enter my signature above. Your trying to make that oversight some kind of conspiracy is humorous. I repeat once again - your claims I have made defamatory and false statements is not supported anywhere. A couple of editors, who appear to be very close to the subject of the BLP and who don't appreciate an editor trying to add balance to the article, have tossed out unsubstantiated claims about another editor. I will ask you again for specific examples where I have made defamatory comments or false statements. Specifics please. Why is that such a difficult task? Perhaps it is because defamatory statements and falsehoods are non-existent. I'm still waiting for specific examples to back up your claims. Regatta dog (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Regatta dog, who do you think is "very close" to Reid Stowe? Green Cardamom (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Green Cardamom - I have my suspicions, but sticking to my philosophy not to make accusations without proof, I won't go there. I invite you to read all the discussion pages - including those archived. There are some telling signs to be found there. Besides, this is about a COI accusation against me.

I find it telling that after more than 10 days, Skol Fir is unable to provide evidence to back up his claim that I have made defamatory comments or false statements, the basis of his COI challenge. The same editor who cries "defamation" against Reid Stowe whenever well sourced drug or child support claims are raised, appears to be very comfortable defaming another editor. What could possibly be the motivation for such hypocrisy? Regatta dog (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I am so tired of this user Regatta dog attacking of the living person Reid Stowe, have a look at his edit history, all this single purpose account has done at wikipedia is add anything negative he can find about the subject. He is at the same thing at other locations on thew web as well, his severe dilike of the subject is tenable , he is riddled with COI. Constant and continuous circular pushing his dislike. Repeatedly trying to insert links to interviews in which he is interviewed and attempting to insert his attack blog. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you back up these claims you've made, or are these just more unfounded accusations like the ones made by Skol Fir? Where are the attacks? Are less than flattering facts about the subject's life considered attacks? The one thing this article doesn't need is another "impartial" editor adding more gratuitous content. The article needs balance and accuracy. This is what I am trying to do. Wikipedia should not be used as a free internet billboard promoting a sanitized picture of a person.
This is a biography, not an article about an event. Let me put it into perspective for you. The subject spent 5 months on his Antarctic trip. He spent 6 1/2 months on the voyage of the Sea Turtle. He spent 9 months in prison on a drug charge. The first two events are presented as highly noteworthy. The prison time is to be simply erased from his past without even a brief mention? That makes no sense to me.
Please see the discussion pages and you will notice that I have been a stickler for details and accuracy. I have not indiscriminately tried to keep positive information out of the article. In fact I was the first to propose neutral wording to cover his return to port.
If you want to focus on COI, I suggest you carefully review the "View History" for the article. You will notice a great deal of editing by "Mdougan 1000". I assume that this is the same Mr. Dougan who is a key member of the Reid Stowe's support team. "Mdougan 1000" disappeared from Wiki back in January of this year. Skol Fir made his first appearance just one week later to pick up the torch and Zanthrop wasn't too far behind. I could have simply come up with a new identity, done a bit of work on a couple other Wiki articles to establish credibility, and then just stumbled onto this one and gotten involved, but I don't play deceptive games like that. Besides, my in-depth knowledge of the subject matter might have given me away (wink).
Without oversight, this article would likely contain references to Reid turning completely over at Cape Horn and doing yoga with Moitessier.
On a side note - I do not have a "severe dislike" of the subject. I have never met the man. He sounds like a fascinating individual and from what I've read and from speaking to a number of his friends, he seems quite personable. Regatta dog (talk) 15:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. Regatta dog (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


For the first time, I actually went through Skol Fir's links of evidence. This one, if you have the patience to read through, is quite telling of my supposed COI -- Weekend America. I will let other readers here make their own decision if Skol Fir is involved in the comments under a different name. PLEASE pay attention to what I wrote and let me know if I was libelous, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods.

This is almost comical. A bunch of "neutral" editors call me on COI and can't back up their accusations. Should Wikipedia allow proponents of the subject to hijacking an article? I don't think so.

BTW - I would be more than happy to out myself with a truly neutral editor and lay on the line who I am, if Skol Fir and Zanthrop would be willing to do the same. Take up the challenge? I don't think it will happen.

Still waiting on evidence of accusations about me. Regatta dog (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claims against Stowe, were libelous precisely because you falsified his misdemeanors beyond what the documents actually show. In the above COI submission, I linked to the discussion pages where I explained your factual errors. You pretend we have not backed up our claims against you. Obviously you have not bothered to read the sections I presented as evidence for your false statements. Maybe you can't read English. That is too bad, if you need me, a lowly Canadian, to correct and educate you. If you think that there are any reliable sources on Reid Stowe's ancient misdoings, you kid yourself. You were the source of the original documents, and you never updated your misinterpretation of those documents, despite being informed of your errors in these Talk Pages and in commentary from others. As any other reference to Reid Stowe's legal problems go back to you as the primary source (no one else has obtained those original court and state documents), any mention of these charges are unusable, due to your conflict of interest in blackening a fellow's name. I have lost any respect for you and your ilk who continue this harmful campaign with no regard for a person's basic rights.
As for the Weekend America comment section, I did not even know about Reid Stowe until Sept. 2007, and the last comment on that page was dated 05/17/2009. I started learning more about Reid Stowe, the more I researched and not until April of 2010 did I feel knowledgeable enough to contribute to the article here.
--Skol fir (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Skol Fir - You have spent a lot of time typing, but no time whatever backing up your claims that I "have made defamatory comments or false statements" (and now add to the mix "libelous") about the subject of the article. Please, Skol Fir - evidence in the form of links where I was the source of "original" documents. Not court documents, mind you, but original documents created by me. The only "original" documents I have seen in the article come from the subject's own web site. The most egregious of these that you argue endlessly for is called a "Fact Sheet", which you assert is a reliable source. At the same time you claim the New York Daily News is not credible? If you do not know the subject of the article, I suggest you call his PR firm. They will probably compensate you for your efforts on their behalf. Regatta dog (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Plain and simple, court documents are primary sources and the interpretation of those documents by an editor here is "original research", both of which are prohibited by Wikipedia as the sole source of an allegation against a subject, or of any other information that is not backed up by a reliable secondary source. I have already talked about original research at Talk:Reid_Stowe#COI_notice. Also, Gosgood once explained these policies to you back in October, 2007, at Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_2#Prison. Wikipedia policy on original documents is at Wikipedia:No original research.
Your own personal blogs, Regatta Dog, which have both been banned from Wikipedia, have "original research" written all over them. Not that I should have to point that out to you, who knows as well as anybody where the false allegations about Reid Stowe had their sorry origins. 1) He was sentenced to one year, but served only 9 mos., for conspiracy to import marijuana, not as you alleged, smuggling marijuana. There is a big difference there. 2) He was never labeled as a "dead-beat dad" by any court documents or by court officials (those were your own words). No tax-payers were footing his bill for child support. He could not pay the legally required child support until he was able to raise enough money, but no one seems to have suffered, especially his daughter, who was the child in question. 3) He was never caught dumping sewage into any river. Just because he was cited for not having a holding tank in the schooner, does not mean he actually dumped raw sewage into the Hudson. These are three obvious examples where Regatta Dog made patently false allegations in his blogs and then perpetuated them in comments he posted elsewhere on other websites. I never saw any attempt by Regatta Dog to correct his erroneous charges against Reid Stowe in his own blogs, or elsewhere. Obviously, he does not intend to do so, because then his jig would be up.--Skol fir (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your points above -

1) "Smuggling" was sourced to Gothamist and, more recently, can also be sourced to Charles Doane. The "served only 9 mos for conspiracy to import marijuana" has not been covered by any reputable source, to my knowledge. "Importing" illegal substances into the United States is smuggling, so I think Gothamist and Doane got it right.

No they did not get it right. Reid Stowe was convicted of "conspiracy to import marijuana," which means there was never any evidence that he actually smuggled marijuana. The court went with a lesser charge of "conspiracy," i.e. involvement in the scheme, but not proven to have actually smuggled anything himself. Got it, Mr. Legal Expert? --Skol fir (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

2) "Deadbeat Dad" was sourced to the NY Daily News. It is also a generally accepted term for a parent who does not meet his/her child support obligation. I invite you to type the term into the Wiki search box and hit enter, or simply visit an article devoted to the subject/term here - Deadbeat Parent. You will note that on the blog you reference, once his back child support had been satisfied, that was duly and promptly noted. Whether the courts did or did not use that label is irrelevant. Can you source your claims that no tax payers were footing the bill for child support, that he didn't pay because he wasn't able to raise the money and that no one suffered as a result? You are either making assumptions or know more about this than is available in the press.

Let's play Monopoly, shall we? That seems to be more at your level. 1) Go to "Lawyershop.com". 2) Do not collect $200.00. 3) Spend a little of your precious time reading the following:
"The amount of child support varies considerably both from state to state and from case to case. Some of the factors considered when deciding how much the supporting parent will pay include:
* How much the parent with custody makes, has, and needs
* How much the parent without custody can afford to pay
* The children’s educational, health, and other needs
* What the children’s standard of living was before the divorce
The law takes child support payments seriously. If a parent fails to pay court-ordered child support, several different enforcement acts can be used to compel him or her to pay. In cases where the owing parent refuses to pay, he or she may face time in jail.
Child support must be paid until one of the following conditions is met:
* The child reaches the age of 18 or 21 (depending on the state)
* The child is legally emancipated
* The child goes on active military duty
Support may be required longer if the child is in college or if he or she has special needs."
4) Now be a good boy and smell the roses. I already stated in Archive #1 of Talk:Reid Stowe that "the so-called "child" involved, according to my calculations, turned 21 in 1999." Since that time, nothing more was owed, only the required payments before 1999. Obviously, neither the State nor the ex-wife chose to pursue the debtor, between 1999 and 2008 (they sat on it for 9 years), as Stowe did not go to jail for that reason. Then, in 2008 you and your henchmen decided to take this issue to the tabloids. Nice going, Mr. Meddler. Are you suddenly the conscience of the nation?
--Skol fir (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No one in the press has denied the age of his daughter at the time of his departure. Bakc "child support" is back child support. If it is owed when a child reaches the age a majority, the amount owed does not simply become "back adult support". I would agree that since the age of majority no additional money's would have been owed, but the outstanding debt is not simply erased. I have no idea what the specifics of the situation are here with regard to when the back support accumulated, what the father's financial situation was, or if the state might have been involved to collect public assistance that might have been extended to his daughter when he failed to pay, which is sometimes the case. Unlike a number of editors here, I'm not willing to speculate and simply dismiss the issue based on speculation that is not adequately sourced.

I repeat my concern with your personal slights. They have no place here. Regatta dog (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Using the term "Dead-beat dad" is clearly an attempt by you or anyone else to sensationalize what is purely a private matter between an ex-husband and his ex-wife. It would never be used in official documents. You have no business meddling in other people's personal affairs. Have you no shame? --Skol fir (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

3) I never claimed anywhere that he was caught dumping anything into the river.

So again, I ask you, where have I made any false accusations? Please?

I quote from your blog, Reid Stowe and 1000 Days at Sea - Reality Check: "Reid Stowe dumped over 800 pounds of solid human waste and over 4,000 gallons (roughly 33,000 pounds) of liquid human waste directly into the Hudson." Try to deny that false accusation. It is there for all to see (unless you quickly remove it before someone else gets a chance). --Skol fir (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that original research has no place here at Wiki, which is why I have avoided the use of it. I would argue that citing the subject of the article's own web site and "Fact Sheet" are citing original research. Unfortunately, a number of editors don't agree with my assessment.

How many times do I have to reiterate that material from the subject's own personal website has special privilege in regards to original documents? Anything from the subject's own website is allowed in a biography at Wikipedia, because it is information that the subject has vetted. The reason for caution with original research from other websites (besides the subject's own) is to protect the subject from defamation. This is precisely the reason for not allowing wild speculation and false accusations about a BLP subject to be permitted in his article. Plain and simple (if that gets through to you). --Skol fir (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your out of hand accusations are very troubling. Regatta dog (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Skol Fir for the specifics above and your apparent attempt to exonerate me from the accusations you yourself made about me.

1) It is not our job, as editors, to do the fact checking. Our job is to gather information from reliable sources. I've cited 2 sources that use the term "smuggling". Again, this is a minor issue of semantics, as "importing marijuana" is actually smuggling, but I have no problem with your wording. If you can find a reliable source that asserts "conspiracy to import marijuana", then present it here. You personal digs are just as tedious as they were a month ago. You have not shown where I have been libelous, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods. I have no problem including the statement that Reid Stowe was convicted of "conspiracy to import marijuana" in the article, if it can be reliably sourced.
Your arguments are vacuous. The first source used your blog as a source... hence the words "caught smuggling" came from your own blog title "Reid is a Convicted Drug Smuggler"- where else do you think this falsehood originated? The second source does not back his statement with any source, so it is unusable. --Skol fir (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Importing marijuana is drug smuggling, is it not? Whatever reliable sources call it is beyond my control. I believe this "falsehood" originated when Reid was arrested, plead guilty, was convicted and served time. Regatta dog (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

2)Using the term "Deadbeat Dad" is an accurate description of a father who is behind on his child support payments (see link above to Wiki article devoted specifically to the terminology). It is not a private matter when the state is involved in an attempt to collect the past due amount. I suppose the state of NY has no business "meddling" in personal affairs? I suppose the official quoted in the NYDN article should be admonished for "meddling" in Reid's personal affairs? Again Skol Fir - you have failed to show that I was libelous, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods.
Your initial meddling in a person's private affairs was the only reason that anyone else used the derogatory phrase "dead-beat dad." --Skol fir (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof of that Skol Fir? The NYDN writer interviewed an official representative of the NY agency responsible for collecting overdue support, not me. Regatta dog (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

3) Nice job at editing the quote above. You conveniently left out the beginning of the sentence which reads - "Assuming these heads were utilized,". And nice back peddling on the claim that I said Reid was caught dumping raw sewage into the Hudson.
The cardinal rule when accusing people of something is never to go on any assumption. Period. How else can you even state, "Reid Stowe dumped..." unless he was caught doing it? It's like saying, "Joe ran a red light, because he had the opportunity to do so, although no one ever saw him do it." Interesting logic there. --Skol fir (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The cardinal rule when accusing people of something like lying and defamation is to be able to cite specific examples, which you have yet to do. Regatta dog (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific examples were cited by me, and you even responded to them one by one. What do you mean by "you have yet to do?" From my own reading of the above, I have done everything possible to answer your concerns with specifics. You just don't like my examples, because they show you for who you are, a self-avowed Reid Stowe basher. --Skol fir (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to identify a single defamatory statement or lie. Further personal insults directed against me? I'm not surprised. 76.24.226.181 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I can say what I said because I clearly prefaced it with an assumption. It is not as if I claimed Reid Stowe turned 180 degrees off of Cape Horn. That would have been a stretch. Regatta dog (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

How many attempts have you made now to justify your outrageous claims against me? You still haven't shown that I defamed or lied about the subject. Regatta dog (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You were the one asking for specifics, not I. ...and if you care to read my submissions to this section, instead of just mindlessly repeating your tiresome arguments like a broken record, you might understand where you have erred. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." That is so true. --Skol fir (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess you buy into the concept that if you repeat a lie often enough, people accept it as truth. Keep lying about me, Skol Fir. Thank goodness you can't erase your ramblings here. You mentioned earlier on the Reid Stowe talk page that 4 out of 6 editors don't want any mention of his drug conviction/child support. I invite you to read up on Wiki rules. 1/3 is not a "tiny minority". Coverage in the mainstream press, including links on the subject's own website, call in to play his past transgressions. They deserve a mention. Maybe not their own section, but definitely a mention -- in a neutral way. Your wording above is acceptable using the phrase "importing marijuana" instead of "smuggling" is good by me. I also have no problem with "owed back child support" with the amount owed upon his departure instead of "deadbeat dad". Are we in agreement on the terminology? Seems like a pretty good compromise to me. Regatta dog (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


As for the special privilege regarding information from the subject's own website, I have counter argued that the information is unreliable and self serving. Perhaps you can send an e-mail to the website and ask them to post a disclaimer to the effect that Reid Stowe never owed any back child support and that he was never involved in any illegal drug activity and never spent a day in prison. If he puts that on his website, all of this will simply evaporate, because any claims he makes on his website are to be taken as gospel, according to you.
You are still making false accusations about me, Skol Fir. In each of the three situations above, you have failed miserably in showing that I have made any libelous statements, defamed Reid Stowe in any way, or put forth any falsehoods. I look forward to your apology. Regatta dog (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we have some Administrator action as regards this issue, the constant negative portrayal of the living subject of our BLP by this User is continuing without end on the talkpage, please can we have a decision as regards this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob and I are in full agreement here. I'd also like to see Skol Fir admonished for personal attacks and making false accusations. I disagree that I am involved in a negative portrayal of a BLP. I have challenged proposed edits based on facts available through reliable sources, challenged the reliability of some sources (blogs and the users own self promotional website), pointed out major inconsistencies and introduced information that would be of interest to wiki readers. I have relied on credible sources. I am simply trying to balance to article.Regatta dog (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • That is a complete falsehood from this User regatta dog. The only person that is disruptive and is continually and without end negatively portraying this living subject when he has also an attack blog against the subject and has given negative interviews about the subject is User:Regatta dog. Look at his edit history, read his contributions, can we please have some admin comment as regards this issue, it is unending. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the attempt of editors who appear to blindly support the subject of the article and turn the article into a promotional billboard is also unending. The credibility of Wiki suffers in the absence of balance. So refusing to toe the "Stowe is the greatest" line is disruptive? Regatta dog (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but your edit history does not reflect that you care about anything apart from your efforts to portray this living person as negatively as possible. Your a single purpose editor to this single BLP over a period of more than a year, you have a tenable dislike of the living person of the only article you edit here, you follow this crusade for whatever your personal conflicts on and off wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me in part, though I'm not sure if the "yes" is referring to the problem with blind support, the wiki credibility issue or both. I have not tried to keep anything positive out of the article if it was presented in a neutral manner, was non-promotional and could be backed up by reliable sources. The same can not be said about the information which you and others consider "negative" but which meets the criteria above. I have no dislike of the subject, having never met him. My crusade is a crusade for truth and balance and the only personal conflict I have with the subject and article is the conflict between what people are trying to portray him and is mission and reality -- on and off Wikipedia. Regatta dog (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Defending a person's right to privacy and dignity, as I have done, is not synonymous with your imaginary phrase "Stowe is the greatest." No one else has ever used that expression here to refer to Stowe, and no one has ever inferred that. Maybe you are secretly fond of him and jealous of his personal freedom? Or is it just plain envy? I have never been biased in favor of Reid Stowe. I treat him with respect, that is all, something you obviously lack, which suggests that he rankles you in some way. I find this disposition of yours very unhealthy and disturbing. --Skol fir (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


A person's right to privacy is not a valid argument, when a guy thrives on POSITIVE media attention as Stowe has done and continues to do. The subject's "dignity" is in his own hands and words.

Much like the debate here - "Stowe positive" is the rule, dictated by a couple editors and how dare anyone challenge him as "hero adventurer". IMO, when a person seeks the spotlight for 20 years promoting his own ambitions and tries to solicit funds so that he can take a scientific journey of a "Mars Analogous" bent, and then, after receiving donor money based on the premise of "scientific research" changes his mind (because the media doesn't care [see link above]) turns the research voyage into a "love voyage". It's kind of like happily paying your tax dollars for NASA for a Mars mission, only to find out you were actually buying group hugs for some folks in Ecuador. Not a bad thing, but not what one signed up for.

Your insinuation that I am "secretly fond of him" is so out of control and scary; and shows your own lack of impartiality. Quite frankly, it is sick, in a reverse-Freudian kind of way. That you would try to intimidate me through psychology, because you appear to lack skills in Aristotelian logic....or any other form of logic, is telling. I've suffered that accusation on blogs from people similar to you, but it has no room here on Wikipedia -- Unless we want to quote Reid Stowe in an interview where he says about people of my ilk -

"I feel sorry for them because they didn't get the love they needed when they were forming as children."

My Mom might have a problem with that. Don't buy the subject's line and he's going to toss me and my parents under the bus? This is your guy, Skol Fir, Off2riorob, and Zanthrop. What does this guy know about children? Well here you go 22:15 into this video--

"As a parent, I am sort of responsible for my daughter. I should have been more responsible to her. Because what I thought I was doing was great, I thought that was a benefit to her. What she really wanted was a dad to be there for her. The insecurity that I put in her caused her to be a lawyer.
I gave up everything for 25 years. Nothing was more important. No girl, no daughter, no mom and dad, everyone who I loved. Nothing was more important than to do the 1000 days voyage."

Let's put that in the article. Then we'll debate whether the child support is an issue. Who's up for that?

Jealous of his personal freedom? No way. I'm very happy spending time with my kids, my friends and sailing... with the sails up.

BTW - What is up with this comment about me? -- "you are secretly fond of him and jealous of his personal freedom"

COI? Please, someone rescue me from this guy. That's just some very, very scary stuff.Regatta dog (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

New Comments cutting to the chase here, if I may. The root issue here is whether Stowe's past legal and criminal history is relevant to the article. (I have read all of the above over much coffee.) Past discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have tended to establish NYDN as a reliable source, and the "Deadbeat" article there did base its information on an interview with a state official (though his choice of article title was rather sensationalist). That he did time in Texas is also fairly well established. So the question is one of what weight, if any, to give these events, bearing in mind that the end goal is a comprehensive biography of the man, while respecting the BLP requirements of the encyclopedia, and the subject's right to privacy.
Unfortunately, this is not likely to be solved here, and frankly, throwing accusations and speculations as to each others' motives is just making the job harder. Stowe's article has been brought up twice at WP:BLPN, and got no real help either time. I suggest opening an RFC on the root issue here, have everyone state their opinions (leaving out the accusations of COI, personal vendettas, vicarious living, straw men, and so on), and see what uninvolved editors have to say. I myself have formed an opinion on how this should be handled, but COIN is not the right venue for this. ArakunemTalk 14:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I already suggested the same solution over a month ago. See Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_2#Balancing_the_article, wherefrom I quote:
I still insist that the best approach is to concentrate on what rules have been broken by insertion of defamatory statements (with very little supporting sources besides "own research" and a newspaper article that has conflict-of-interest written all over it). Furthermore, these harmful statements are irrelevant to the biography, besides amounting to an invasion of privacy, as they are of no concern to the public, i.e., the readers of Wikipedia. I will familiarize myself with the procedure for submitting a request for mediation, and go that route.
Skol fir (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Over the last month, we concentrated on the COI with respect to attempted insertion of dubious references harmful to the subject. It seems that COI is only part of the problem with Regatta Dog and at least one other editor here. The other issue is lack of respect for the personal privacy protection of a BLP. I second the motion to proceed with an RFC. Who do you suggest should submit that RFC?
--Skol fir (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Arakunem - I appreciate you taking the time and effort to review the material and for helping point us in the right direction. I also support moving discussion of these content issues to a forum where they can be discussed rationally without ad hominem attacks. I am not familiar with RFC. Can you please provide a link? Any additional guidance would also be appreciated. Thanks again. Regatta dog (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

  • WP:RFC - Request For Comments. This is the next step in dispute resolution, following Talkpage discussion, and noticeboard discussion. It is a system whereby all sides in a dispute state their case in separate sections, and uninvolved parties review and offer their opinions. The disputing parties then factor in those comments and try to arrive at a consensus or compromise. There are couple of things to bear in mind with RFC's though. First of all, it is not laid out like a typical discussion page. Each editor comments in a separate section, and you're not supposed to answer or comment in another editor's section. The best way to format it is to just state your case, and answer third-party questions in your own section, but not continue the back-and-forth between the disputing parties. And secondly, RFC won't work unless all parties go in with a willingness to listen to, and seriously consider, all viewpoints including ones that go against their case. If at the end, any side will say "well the consensus here seems to be against me, but I still say they're all wrong", then the whole exercise will be wasting everyone's time. ArakunemTalk 13:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be away for the weekend, so my last thoughts on this for now are: If you all do agree to start an RFC, I recommend removing the disputed text if it has not already been, and suspending any further additions of it, until the matter is settled to everyone's satisfaction. With a BLP it is always better to err on the side of not including something while it is under dispute, until that dispute is settled. ArakunemTalk 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I commend Arak for cutting through the muck, pointing out the editors' misstatements in the above, and providing a path forward -- with which I concur.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Abigail Williams

76.89.233.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been editing the article to conform to his own POV and removing cited material, and it's clear that he's either the singer of the band or connected with the band and is editing for him.

Here is a screencap of his Facebook profile where he asks if anybody is a moderator on Wikipedia. This proves that he's either editing the article himself or is having somebody edit it for him. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a389/dieglamourous/coiproof.jpg rzrscm (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  • The IP user does have issues with unsourced material and a POV slant. COI is a bit tenuous as this could just be an overzealous fan who is responding to the Facebook appeal. But whatever the motive, the edits themselves are the main focus here. I'll add an extra set of eyes to the ones there already. Your insistence on holding them to reliable sources is spot-on correct as well. ArakunemTalk 13:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam Green / User:Ariescope

User identifies himself as director Adam Green in his first edit summary. His entire contribution history is exclusively repeatedly conflict-of-interest violations. What brought this to my attention was watching Spiral, checking out the film's article, and noticing that the critical reception section sounded like advertising copy. A quick Google search revealed that the copy was pulled from Green's own website, and further investigation revealed that Green replaced the previously standardized NPOV section with the advertising copy. Nearly all of his contributions are in need of reversal, but I have no desire to get into an edit war with this user without pre-emptive administrator assistance. Although the whole contribution history as a package needs reversion, other particularly egregious COI edits of note that stood out to me during a quick review include this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Shame that he's pulling this kind of stunt, since I actually liked the film. Also, since Ariescope is the name of his company, I also gave WP:UAA a heads-up. Finally, if anyone wants to add the affected articles to their watchlist, I'd appreciate having another pair of eyes on the situation -- since life has been exceptionally crazy for me lately and holds the potential of getting crazier over the weeks to come, if he tries this again under a new account, I may not catch it. WCityMike 03:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed most of the WP:AUTOBIO material as it was unsourced and written like an interview one-sheet. The username has been softblocked as a username concern. Watching the article now as well. ArakunemTalk 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Leland Yee

This article already has been known for conflicts of interests issues. This is typical editing (removing all the controversies section), but two new editors concern me. First, there's User:Hookahsmoker who remove one controversy in favor of a list of current Senate committee and keeps a cleaner version for his user page. Second, you have User:Salerachel who's first edits were quite sophisticated inclusion of Lee's "legislative accomplishments" and then edit Hookahsmoker's user page here. Seems like the attempts at discussion last year weren't effective. I'm close to blocking both editors and locking the article up for a long time but other suggestions would be appreciated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We should also note 68.171.233.134 (talk · contribs) and 32.173.148.164 (talk · contribs), who have both protested this very COIN thread. Socks? Meatpuppets? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The 68.. account is from Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and the 32.. account is from Los Angeles. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MC Delite

Recent page creation of semi-notable rapper by User_talk:Lemusique who states in their original edit summary that they are a PR person for the subject. [46]. Left a warning on their talk page, but continues to edit. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Article appears to have been deleted. Possibly speedily, though the reason given ("WP:OR") is unclear as to the criteria... ArakunemTalk 18:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter von Puttkamer

Peter von Puttkamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--I have reason to believe that the creator of this page, User:Ssmediaco, is the company who designed the website for Puttkamer's production company, and that much of the information in the article was taken directly from the website--see that "About Us" section. The user has already been banned for advertising, and I wonder if this page qualifies as well. I also notice SSMediaCo is also the only editor to contribute any actual content to the page--all the other edits were copyediting, etc. Should this page be deleted? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I pruned the copyvio material from the article. Note the user in question last edited this page almost 3 years ago. The sources given don't seem to establish notability. The NY Times and Coast-to-Coast-AM links are dead and redirect to those sites' current pages. If some RS can be found, the article would just need some copy editing for style and tone. In absence of sourcing though, a prod or AfD is logical. ArakunemTalk 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Physfac

Physfac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor submitted this article to the AFC team but it reads like an advertisement (and so it was declined for that reason). I thought about reporting the editor to the UAA board, but decided this might be the better place for it. I have also placed the {{uw-coi}} notice on their talk page.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Annie Lobert

I hope I am formatting this correctly, please forgive me if not. Annie Lobert is an article authored primarily by an editor named Cindamuse who currently identifies herself as Cindy Crawford Nelson on her user page, where she also provides a link to her Facebook page. There have been issues concerning the neutrality of these articles; much of the text appearing in them is used as copy at the Hookers For Jesus website, which is primarily a fundraising tool for Annie Lobert's organization.

Cindamuse has presented herself as a disinterested party, but in January of this year she made a Facebook posting announcing the publication of the Hookers For Jesus Annual Report, and soliciting donations. I have posted an image of this Facebook posting on the Hookers For Jesus Talk page.

There seems to be more than one party attempting to game the system and use the Wiki to support fundraising efforts for their "good cause." Unfortunately, the COI is quite clear. Folks are circling the wagons, though, ans some experienced hands are needed to manage this issue. Thanks in Advance Bustter (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I really could use some help on this, I am being attacked by others because I found the evidence of COI -- I can't deal with it. I will leave them to their use of Wikipedia to draw donations for Jesus, but if anyone else cares, please look into this. Bustter (talk)

Cindamuse (talk · contribs) has self-disclosed that she is a former officer of Hookers for Jesus. I advised her that she has a COI and should not be editing the article. I'll leave it to an admin to determine if anything else is needed. GregJackP Boomer! 10:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Bustter is providing inaccurate information above. The current controversy is based on previously addressed edits. There are no current issues, but rather rehashing of old issues that were addressed over a year ago. The continued harassment and lack of civility exhibited by Bustter is contrary to the standards established by Wikipedia.
The post that is referenced from Facebook was contributed to Facebook not in January, but over two years ago, prior to creating the initial article for Annie Lobert. Much of the text from the initial article, which was created over two years ago, was duplicated on the organizational Web site. Much of the initial article was deleted, as was appropriate, due to accurately being identified as lacking a NPOV. The text on the current Wikipedia article is very different and has been revised by a variety of editors. Again, much of the article has been written and edited by a variety of editors.
I have made notations on the article where citations are needed. Lobert's husband attempted to remove the notifications, claiming ownership of the article. He was flagged by Wikipedia, staff from the Wikimedia Foundation became involved and Lobert's husband was temporarily blocked for his actions, which included making legal threats. By requesting citations and insisting on addressing inaccuracies within the article, my edits have been neutral to fault.
My involvement in editing this article has been addressed through the Wikimedia Foundation. Please refer to WP:COI for conditions under which edits are allowed. As such, my participation in editing this article is permitted, when additions are presented and backed up with reliable citations based on secondary sources. As is the standard for all editors.
My previous business relationship with Annie Lobert and Hookers for Jesus was disclosed over two years ago. I have not been involved with her organization for over a year. I am in no way promoting Lobert or her organization, but rather editing articles according to standards established and approved by Wikipedia. The COI/NPOV issues are old news. My only interest in this article is regarding its inclusion and compliance within the guidelines established by Wikipedia. Cindamuse (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Given the private exchanges I've had with Cindamuse outside of the wiki, I am surprised that she shares the feelings expressed by another editor that I have been harassing and uncivil.
The facts regarding my behavior are easily found on the Talk Page. I don't doubt that the issues I've raised have been raised and dismissed previously; however any evidemce of this was archived some time ago. Cindamuse remains an active editor of the article, and an active participant in Hookers For Jesus. In a recent post she made to the Talk page, she states that she "is not an involved party," and this is the main reason that I was shocked by her relatively recent fundraising activity on behalf of Hookers For Jesus.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Annie Lobert has rescued any young woman from the flesh trade, but she does solicit contributions for this purpose. If Lobert's "rescued women" are a fiction, as I feel may be possible, the Annie Lobert article, created and maintained by Cindamuse, a party directly involved in fundraising efforts for Lobert supports that fiction. I know this is a matter of concern for any editor familiar with COI issues. Bustter (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicholas Pandolfi

Nicholas Pandolfi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs to be looked at.

Thundergusty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims with this edit summary [47] to be the person that the article is about. Especially questionable is line of praise that keeps being added to the references section. It has several problems including POV, sourcing and notablity. If those of you who oversee these things find the article and editor to be okay then that is okay with me, I just thought it should be checked out. Thank you for taking the time to double check this. MarnetteD | Talk 14:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is ok, but they should stop editing it themselves. I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it remains neutral and verifiable. I noticed that Rickyburke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come along and started editing 13 minutes after Thundergusty - not the most subtle piece of sock/meatpuppetry I've ever seen. Thanks for posting here so we can keep an eye on it. Smartse (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Bunch and Center for Women's Global Leadership

Charlotte Bunch had an autobiography and COI tag placed on a couple years ago. User 732 has come along and removed them [48]. In researching the history, it is not entirely clear while why the tags were there to begin with... so I let them stay down for now.

Anyway, the article is very promotional, user732 and IPs have been aggressively editing it with praise. It has been cleaned up a bit. Another flag is that IP 204.52.215.7 has also recently done some aggressive editing, and a quick whois search shows it is coming from Rutgers University - where Ms. Bunch currently teaches. The related Center for Women's Global Leadership has also updated by both editors as well.

Thank you for your time. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the articles slightly, they bear some classic COI signs IMO - e.g. unsourced biographical sections like this and the huge logo in this version. user732 is a single purpose account which always raises my suspicions. The articles are currently too reliant on sources written by the CWGL, and the CWGL article is too much like a website - I don't think it should have sections like this, and I'm not sure about the list here either. Whilst the article has >50 references, few are actually talking about the CWGL directly as far as I can tell and they are more about projects that it runs. No one had notified user732 of this discussion but I have just done so. Smartse (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me that my integrity has been questioned. I'm sorry that it seems I am so single-minded with regard to my editing, but I'm interesed in the work the Center for Women's Global Leadership does and wanted to update both its page and the page of its founder to be accurate and up-to-date. I can understand that you are concerned about there being a conflict of interest, especially in light of the Rutgers IP, but I have never met Charlotte Bunch and am only interested in her work and the Center's work. That being said, feel free to 'clean' as you see fit. I just get disappointed when substantive, informative content is deleted, for example the progammatic campaigns, such as this, which was questioned above. These campaigns are the Center's work, and I don't see why they shouldn't be included on its Wikipedia page. I do recognize that many of the references link to the CWGL official website, and in the process of editing I will continue to look for other sources. But I don't think this page should be discounted, and I also don't think that references to external sites that host information about CWGL programs or campaigns should be discounted. I look forward to continuing this conversation. User732 (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a dicussion, apologies for accusing you of having a COI, but when someone is a SPA and adds content like "In the spirit of Bunch’s exceptional leadership and her invaluable contributions to the glbbal women’s human rights movement" without citing a source it tends to make people suspicious, often with good reason. The most important things to remember when you're writing the articles are that they are WP:NPOV and built on reliable third party sources. Regarding the section you've linked, whilst I don't dispute that this is true information, I believe that the CWGL website is a better place to have that information. If it's been mentioned in a newspaper then we can include it. I also spotted this in the CB article "Charlotte Bunch introduced a new concept into the global women’s rights movement, arguing for a human rights approach to women’s rights. CWGL was created around this innovative theoretical and activist paradigm, with a particular focus on violence against women as one of the most pervasive manifestations of women’s marginalized status around the world." again this is unsourced, when making such a claim it must be sourced. Although a paper has been linked, as the original piece of research it can't back up that it created a new paradigm. Let me know if you have any questions, I'll leave the articles alone for a while to see if you can improve them yourself. It might be better if further discussion takes place on the talk pages of the articles. Smartse (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

173.162.192.81, Ford.joe.j

173.162.192.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Ford.joe.j (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be two SPAs intent on adding the same links to HR related articles, and to two three new articles that looks like neologisms, two of which are identical.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wialon

urusHyby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be connected with and is promoting Wialon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not only through text in the article itself, but also by inserting screenshots from this product in GPS-related articles. The COI notice on his talk page has not been heeded. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there does seem to have some COI with Wialon, whilst they aren't a SPA, their edits are almost all related to GPS. They identify as being Belarusian and the fact that Wialon is a Belarusian GPS system makes it seem pretty likely they are affiliated to the company. I've removed some of the more blatant advert like material (e.g. free trials are available from the website) but the article could really do with more references to demonstrate that it is notable. I've had a look, there are 7 articles on google news but they are all in Russian so it's hard to work out what they say. Smartse (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The original author, Dkyopwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has now added a features section, I've removed it per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Looking at their commons page they also seem to have a COI with Wialon. Smartse (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dears,
I've been working on many GPS and GLONASS articles because most of them are of really low quality. I work in a company that uses Wialon for GPS tracking purposes, and yes, we are happy with it. That's why i know that market well enough. But that's not COI case, and Wialon article is far from advertising. Like, it's OK to have Features section in Adobe Photoshop, Notepad++ or Skype articles, but it's not ok for Wialon. Is it fair to apply different policies to different articles? In Wialon there are no Statements of opinion or materials challenged or likely to be challenged...
Just check some other articles i have in my list: Vehicle tracking system, Fleet tracking, Automatic vehicle location, Fleet telematics system, GPS tracking unit, Fleet controlling. Most of them have Refimprove, are outdated and not well structured.
GPS tracking is a big market that develops really fast but Unfortunately in Wikipedia there are not so many people who are working on articles about it. And that would be great if you'd put some more attention to developing of Wiki, rather than to cutting it down. Wialon article, the screenshots i'm uploading are intended to improve it. If you feel that other software should be used for that purposes - please add it. Thank you. UrusHyby (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, while Adobe Photoshop, Notepad++ and Skype do have feature sections, they are generally well sourced. As I said above, I'm not even sure if Wialon meets WP:CORP, I looked for sources but couldn't find many. I can't see what the state of other articles has to do with this - we're trying to establish whether you have a COI with Wialon. If you wanted to improve the GPS articles, wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on them, rather than a small company making some GPS software? If you do decide to carry on working on Wialon, and you understand Russian, I suggest you use the articles in the link above, rather than your personal experiences of the software. Are you and Dkyopwa the same person by the way? Smartse (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith too ("that would be great if you'd put some more attention to developing of Wiki, rather than to cutting it down") and see User:Smartse/articles or my contributions. Smartse (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As i've said earlier, Yes my company uses Wialon to offer gps tracking services on daily basis. Consider it COI or not.. not sure. i've tried to start GPS tracking, without much success thoug. That's why i'm working on Wialon, as it's less global issue and i can work on it easier, and moreover that's the topic i'm quite good in. I'm trying to contribute to those articles i've listed, but i'm not a native English speaker so it's hard for me to rewrite them, even though it's really needed. And you probably know yourself how hard it is to get into a large article, created by someone else. I feel that i know enough to contribute here., Thank you for your advices on using those articles in Russian, i'll check them as well. Yes, i do use my personal experience, same way as people who write about Skype or Photoshop, but i try my best to keep Wialon neutral, and i believe it is. Sorry for not AGF. :)
If your advise here would be to leave Wialon artikle - i would leave it. And for sure i'm not Dkyopwa. My username is too symbolic for me to use other names UrusHyby (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had numerous links to recipes that I added deleted by another editor that I feel were incorrectly deleted. Their stated reason for the deletion was that the links violated the COI policy, as the links were to a blog posting of a recipe. Links to non-commercial sites from a cuisine page does nothing but enhance the article, and I wanted to know the feeling of others when it comes to adding non-copyrighted, non-commercial links directly going to recipes relevant to the article. There are MANY other cuisine related articles that are linked to "personal" websites, and they also do not appear to be either commercial or causing any conflict of interest. Aktormedic (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at User_talk:Ronz#Deletion_of_external_link_from_Carbonade_flamande and the disputed links. You should read Wikipedia:COI#Self-promotion, quoting from it "Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion including .... personal website links". The carbonade flamande already has many more reliable (no offence) recipes used as references so a link to your site is unnecessary. It's a bit different for shirred eggs as there ‎ are no references, I'm not sure adding a link to your site is the solution to that though. In this case I think we can meet halfway though: You could add the recipe to Wikibooks' cookbook and then add a link using {{wikibooks}}. It's a bit of a silly way to do things, but ultimately it would mean that there is always going to be a recipe for making Mexican shilled eggs, even if you stop maintaining your site. Smartse (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed then to link from Wikibooks without violating anything? Can I cite my own blog as a source for the recipe? My biggest gripe with all of this is the fact that most of the cuisine articles have links to commercial sites or bogs that are no more or less relevant than my own, but their links remain. Inconsistency drives me crazy. Aktormedic (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can link from wikibooks without violating anything. I'm not familiar with wikibooks so I don't know if you can cite your blog there. The argument you're using is like WP:OTHERSTUFF, if you see links that shouldn't be there according to WP:ELNO, you should remove them. Smartse (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
However, don't just remove links because yours got removed. See WP:POINT. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard Miniter

I don't know whether this is the right place to bring this, but I'm concerned about several recent edits made to the above article concerning an ongoing legal case against the subject. It was brought to my attention with this posting. I was not aware of the individual at the time, so had not edited the page. Referenced information has been removed several times by the same ip, with virtually all edits from the ip concerning this issue. Not sure what the correct procedure with this should be but after reading the guidelines I thought I should open a discussion here to gauge the opinion of other editors. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The content that has been repeatedly removed is suitably sourced, and the text in the article makes it clear that it is an allegation rather than a conviction. The repeated removal by one IP does make it a possibility that the IP is the subject of the article. The use of "No ruling has been handed down" in an edit summary does make it appear as though the IP has some knowledge that cannot be found in sources, which is suggestive of a COI. As it's been a slow edit war over several weeks, if it continues I suggest we request the page is semi-protected. Smartse (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooyala

Resolved
 – Article deleted via CSD G11 Smartse (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooyala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Last revision of 373485274

This page reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. There are no references. The page describes the company and product with numerous superlatives, but there is no evidence listed to support its claims.

The page was created and subsequently edited several times since by the same user, "parghandi." The user appears to have a conflict of interest. It would take significant work to achieve neutrality, so the page should be rewritten or removed. Tjbron (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(Re-added this section on behalf of Tjbron who inadvertently blanked the rest of the page) ArakunemTalk 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ericnvh

Grizzlyadamsmichelle.tv

Editor's only edits have been to an article about a film produced by the same fellow who would later produce the TV show The Life and Times of Grizzly Adams. Given a COI warning. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WindarProd

What are the chances of two brand new users turning up just after an apparent role account is blocked, and working on exactly the same article - at more than one title? It's things like this that make me the cynic I am. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Ah, forget it, I just noticed that WindarProd requested unblocking to change username to Brion Hambel, was declined due to spamming, so the SPA Bhambel is the same user block evading. That's enough for me. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Jones (politician)

Andrew Jones (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - three successive edits on 22 July by an unregistered user at 194.60.38.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which turns out to be from within the Houses of Parliament. The additions read like an advert, so I have tagged the article with {{neutrality}} and {{coi}}. It may be appropriate to revert these additions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not like British politicians or their staff editing their own articles is anything new. AniMate 06:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that it's happened before don't make it a good thing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger Christian (filmmaker)

Sent him a hand-written note, for what it's worth. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Robertson, David (2010-04-27). "Shell drafted letter Tony Blair sent to Gaddafi while Prime Minister". The Times. Retrieved 2010-06-22.
  2. ^ Bentley, Paul (2010-04-27). "Shell wrote letter Tony Blair used in £325m Libyan oil deal". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 2010-06-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43&oldid=1148049091"