Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37→Archive 40

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

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

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

User:USmarcomm & Mayer Brown

Resolved
 – The editor was indef blocked and the article has been reduced to a stub with reliable sources showing notability. -- Atamachat 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The entire article seems to have been cut-and-pasted from various promotional pages for the law firm; the versions from before the marketer was involved are too out-of-date to be useful. So I've speedy nominated it. I'm wondering if the firm hasn't violated the lawyer-advertising ethics rules by doing this without disclosing its involvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Flash

Resolved
 – User spamnameblocked – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Prometheus Group

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

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

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

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

Well, I can't comment on whether or not you're a sockpuppet. The editing behavior that would be used to indicate that you are would have been on the page that was deleted; however to an ordinary editor like me the history of a deleted page is inaccessible. So whether or not you're a sockpuppet, I can't comment. I will say that it should be the burden of the accuser to show that you are, there currently is no report for either you or the other editor on WP:SPI. As someone not well-informed in the matter of handling sockpuppet accusations, I can only offer the advice given in the WP:SOCK policy:
If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet; even CheckUser cannot give anything beyond a negative confirmation
Regarding the other matter; if you are a part of the Prometheus Group it's not a great idea for you to create an article about your company in the first place. It's a good thing that you're (A) declaring your conflict of interest up-front and (B) wanting to avoid advertising/promotion, but the WP:COI guideline recommends against your direct involvement completely. I recommend trying out WP:AFC, request that an uninvolved editor create the page, declare your COI in the request (to explain why you're not doing it yourself) and then if the page is created restrict your involvement to reverting typos and vandalism and make suggestions on the talk page. That would be my advice. -- Atamachat 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

John E.S. Lawrence

Jeslw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created, and continues to edit John E.S. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about himself, in spite of being warned about WP:COI. The article appears to be based almost entirely on primary sources, and the paragraph on his UN work is becoming an ever-increasingly incomprehensible mess. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

Resolved
 – Split Works speedily deleted as spam; Peter Nathaniel Davis speedily deleted per A7; User:Nancysplitworks spamnameblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Nancysplitworks has created an account and so far only created and edited to add information on a company called 'Split works' which is part of her username. Seems to be blatant advertising, Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User also created related article Peter Nathaniel Davis. Both tagged COI. Rees11 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Attorney pages

While going through newly created User pages, I've noticed the sudden appearance of a batch of pages all advertising different US-based attorneys, all of the form

FIRMNAME is a STATE based firm specializing in ...
...representing injury victims and their families.
...representing brain injury, spinal cord injury and the like
[website URL]
personal injury attorney, accident lawyers, lawyers, personal injury, personal injury cases

with only the firm names, states, and specialties swapped. I suspect a concerted effort to spam Wikipedia. Examples include:

Different law firms, with a many repeat offenders. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: There appear to be 3 7 10 12 main violators, with some one-offs...

  • Bailey & Partners (New York)
  • Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribousk (Massachusetts)
  • Cirignani Heller & Harman LLP (Illinois)
  • Rasmussen & Miner (Utah)
  • Gary Martin Hays & Associates,P.C. (Georgia)
  • Greenberg & Stone, P.A. (Florida)
  • Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & friend (Texas)
  • Walkup, Melodia, Kelly, and Schoenberger (California)
  • Woodruff & Johnson (Illinois)
  • David Littman and Joshua Wohl (Colorado)
  • The Law Office of Brucar & Yetter (Illinois)
  • Jerald Novak & Associates (Illinois)

...who've created a few dozen randomly named Users and their pages/talk pages within the last few days, all of which I've tagged with {{db-spam}}. (URLs available on request.) Is this good enough for a sockpuppet-investigation request? --Calton | Talk 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: I've filed an (accepted) Checkuser request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nakesha7c. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of help you'd need from this noticeboard, it looks like you've done all the work yourself with speedy deletions and Checkuser. All I can say is that's some great sleuthing! -- Atamachat 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is soliciting paid content via Craigslist

Hi, COI sleuths! I came across a most interesting Craigslist ad dated July 16, 2006. It reads in part:

I am looking someone who can setup a Wikipedia page for my client. I am looking for something very similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Guitars . You must have very good knowledge of all the ins and outs of Wikipedia as I do not want the page to be removed. Looking for a flat rate. If successful there could be many more jobs like this....

So someone is looking to pay someone else to write a Wikipedia article. I'm guessing the client will seek favourable coverage, not neutral coverage. I looked at WP:COI, and I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could take the job and remain within the COI policy, unless by writing a new version of the article on the Talk page and requesting an edit by a neutral party to move the text to the main article. I'm going to reply to the advertiser with a pointer to WP:COI.

No immediate action requested from all of you, I just want to give the alert. --Jdlh | Talk 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens. It happens often enough that the COI guidelines specifically mention editors paid to make promotional edits. Replying to the advertiser isn't a bad idea, because generally when these kinds of things are found out the community takes a very dim view. Most likely that person will find himself paying someone to create an article that is either speedily deleted or removed through AfD (depending on the state of the article), and will find his money wasted. -- Atamachat 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

Resolved
 – Closing 80+ kilobyte thread which has dominated this noticeboard for weeks; one hopes the related discussions elsewhere have been more productive. — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello there, I'm a completely uninvolved editor who hasn't had any previous contact with any of the editors involved here (that I can recall, at least recently) and haven't edited in the disputed article. I've read the discussions given on the user talk pages linked above and I think I can understand what the dispute is. Let me first point out that WP:COI is not the same as WP:NPOV; a conflict of interest is noted in Wikipedia because it makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone with a certain point of view has a conflict of interest. It's the same as saying that all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. Having said that, WP:COI is somewhat wishy-washy (by design I suppose) and it even states "there are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists". But it does cite examples to give an idea of what might constitute a COI.
I don't believe a COI exists here. The examples given in the guideline include having a "close relationship" with the article subject (or being involved in a legal dispute with the subject), being paid to edit to promote an organization, self-promotion, editing your own autobiography, or campaigning on behalf of an organization that is trying to advocate a POV regarding the article subject. The "autobiography" and "close relationship" criteria just don't apply to this article because it's neither about a person nor an organization or product, but a medical procedure. I don't see any evidence or even allegations that Jakew is being paid for his edits, that he is trying to promote himself, or that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). He wrote some papers discussing circumcision, but while those papers might reveal a potential POV they don't in any way show a real conflict of interest.
I'll give some examples of where POV doesn't mean a COI. If a person was a dedicated neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean he shouldn't edit on a race relations page, though any POV edits he made could and probably should be reverted. If a person had a userbox on his user page stating that he believes that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to edit articles regarding planetary physics. It's only when a person has a proven connection to a person or organization that is directly related to the article subject that a COI can be established. I really don't see it in Jakew's case.
I know that some editors have wanted to apply a looser interpretation to the COI guideline than what I've given, but I'd like to caution against that. Establishing a COI can be difficult, and generally requires either an admission on the part of the accused editor or some solid evidence. Simply showing that a person has a bias, or that a person has made edits that promote a particular POV are not proving a COI at all. Keep in mind that there is a POV noticeboard that deals directly with POV problems in articles, and if you feel that Jakew or others have added material in violation of WP:NPOV that your report might be better suited there. I'm not an admin, these are only my opinions, so take them or leave them as you wish. -- Atamachat 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts on this matter Atama. The problem for me is that it kinda of looks like " that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). " for all the reasons I've listed on our talk pages. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it. Again, that is what is needed for a COI allegation such as that. Simply stating "this editor looks to have a POV, I bet he's a member of a circumcision group" is insufficient and is definitely not assuming good faith. The COI noticeboard should not be used as a tool to attack an editor without sufficient cause in order to prevent his contributions to an article to settle a content dispute. -- Atamachat 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Well now you are not assuming good faith. I came here for clarity on the COI issue and do appreciate your opinion but to accuse me of using this board to attack another editor is simply unfounded. Your conditions are not listed in WP:COI and it is purposely vague on the definition. I have agreed to not press the issue further as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of attacking, per WP:NPA making accusations about an editor's personal behavior without evidence is considered a personal attack. I don't understand at all when you say "my conditions are not listed in WP:COI", as it should be obvious that when you accuse someone, you should actually back that up with some kind of proof as opposed to saying that it "kinda looks like" he is guilty. I'm relieved that you're not going to press the issue further. -- Atamachat 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't come here and say "Hi I think user Jakew has a COI." The matter had been on our talk pages along with a myriad of reasons which you stated you read. You may disagree with those reasons but that is no excuse for you to say I have used this board to attack said user. This back and forth of AGF and NPA looks silly and childish and I am discontinuing this thread. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Does not want to" = personal attack, as part of a pattern of harassment. I believe I have been just as patient and civil in expressing my interpretation of the guideline (not "explaining" the guideline, a word I find presumptive and belittling in this context) to Avi and Atama. I would not be so rude as to imply that Atama does not "understand there is no difference" or indeed "does not want to." I invite the reader to read the entire discussion there and comment. Blackworm (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
In reply to User:Atama's latest comment in [1], reproduced here:
[Atama:] If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between WP:COI and WP:NPOV? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. -- [signature]
No, whether an edit slanted to a particular POV is evidence of that editor's "campaigning," or merely an unbalanced edit, an edit touched by the editor's inherent bias, or an error, depends on the intention of the editor who made it. CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive. Whether Jakew is campaigning here, or merely repeatedly making non-neutral edits bolstered by the support of other editors bold in reverting and threatening, is a question of WP:AGF -- but my understanding of WP:COI is that if there is reason to think an editor may be campaigning, and that editor definitely campaigns as part of a campaigning group outside Wikipedia, then a COI exists. I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on the subject. Blackworm (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, my understanding of the difference between WP:NPOV and WP:COI is that the former refers strictly to article content, steering entirely clear of issues that necessitate evaluations of editors, especially of editors' off-wiki activities and associations and correlation with their areas of editing and the points of view advanced by those edits. The latter does indeed refer to this evaluation. Blackworm (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What you listed above is evidence of a point-of-view. Looking at Jake and Blackworm's respective history, it seems that Blackworm has been pushing a specific point-of-view much more than Jake, so I am not certain as to why you are not chasing after Blackworm with the same zeal. The fact that Jake happens to be reputable enough to have his work published in peer reviewed journals is a good thing, in that it establishes that he has an expertise in this field that others of us lack. As long as his edits are withing the grounds of NPOV, and I maintain it is easy to see that they are, there is no issue. If Van Howe were to create a wiki id and start editing, should be toss him out because he is the author of strongly anti circumcision papers? I'd hope not, as long as he edited appropriately. All the points you list, Jake's expertise, respectability in the field, and commitment to the article are good things, Gary. As long as the high edit count is of edits that are not POV violations, that is a plus and a benefit to wikipedia. It is only "campaigning" to Blackworm, in my opinion, since Jake's strict adherence to the POV rules prevents Blackworm from skewing the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please provide one diff showing where I "[skew] the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike the above factual error. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thankfully, Jake's adherence to NPOV prevents that. We do know how you feel on the matter. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for making my point with your two (2) Talk diff links from two years ago. As you've said for Jakew, how I feel and how I express it in Talk doesn't harm the article. Jakew's non-neutral edits to the articles, as evidenced by the diff links I provide, hurt the articles. Again, please either provide a diff link to the articles that you believe violates NPOV and which "reflects circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike that unfounded accusation. Blackworm (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[ edit conflict. ]

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

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

Distinct from merely having a POV, Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group, as a means to publish authoritative material, which he appears to admit has a higher proportion of such material supportive of circumcision that the collection of such material: Jakew writes, "It might be more accurate to talk about 'papers that assert a benefit', etc. It's true to say that there are more of these, though, partly because that's true of the literature in general, and partly because of the history of CIRCS."[2] More pro-circumcision material partly because of the history of CIRCS? The explanation for the latter: "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature. It created what I suppose you could call a kind of "information availability bias"[...]".[3] He was countering what was perceived as an unbalanced representation of circumcision by providing an unbalanced representation of circumcision in the other direction, essentially. That interest enough appears incompatible with prolifically editing circumcision (#1 in number of edits). Furthermore, some editors in circumcision are concerned because they feel that Jakew seems to often present a questionable account of a source, or a perfect account of a source putting circumcision in a favourable light, rarely if ever integrating sources putting circumcision in a negative light, and almost invariably fighting against inclusion of the latter. Repairing these issues takes considerable effort, and Jakew defends his edits with long, often tangential discussion, always claiming no consensus against him. Some appear to blindly support Jakew's edits with one-line expressions, and rarely seem to check the sources he brings to make sure Jakew's summary is appropriate. That appears to be the source of the concern. Jakew states that in 2003 he "became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision."[4] I think he openly publishes this as his raison d'être at Wikipedia, as he proudly displays barnstars commending him for "dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists," i.e. referring to certain Wikipedia editors. Can anyone imagine a barnstar commending anyone for "dealing with the onslaught by pro-circumcision activists?" That kind of enthusiasm when supposedly adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines might be considered distasteful, and even bigoted in the case of preventing extreme pro-circumcision editors from editing, as circumcision is a requirement of some religions. As it happens, it is so considered by some; suggestions of the bigotry of those having a different point of view[5] is a recurring theme,[6] having great potential to thwart civil discussion and bias article content. No one likes to be accused of bigotry, few have the personal conviction to continue to argue their points when the accusations are made, and few want to be associated with people who are viewed by powerful administrators to "come off as" bigots, or even be seen supporting them despite the correctness of their interpretations of policy -- especially if they have aspirations of adminship themselves. But I digress.

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

Atama appears to boil down the criteria to a set of specific examples, instead of applying the spirit of the guideline here. I suspect Avraham's biased comments about editors deceptively attacking an editor poisoned this discussion early. I don't blame Atama if he was influenced by Avraham's comments, as Avi is a Wikipedia bureaucrat after all, and greatly respected outside circumcision and related articles, biasing any attacks he makes greatly in his favour. Anyway, Atama said, "you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing over the interests of the project — because it's possible that outside interests and WP would both want the same information included in an article." Yes, we do want some of the same information, but we want it interpreted neutrally. We don't want Jakew to read the following quote in a British Medical Association paper, "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," then edit a circumcision-related article to quote them as saying "medical harms [...] have not been unequivocally proven," (note the intentional redaction of "and benefits") as he did here apparently to create a counterpoint. We don't want to consistently have to have someone, usually me, checking the sources and making sure Jakew's edits are fixed to adhere to the Neutral point of view, which I did when I noticed it four days later. We can't have editors skewing what the British Medical Association says, advancing a proven personal interest. In the dispute over this addition (even properly quoted, its relevance is disputed in a statement on psychological effects), Jakew's defense of his edit rests on the novel assertion that "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects."[7] And no editor apparently has equal time or interest in the topic to verify the sources behind all of Jakew's prolific editing. Sadly, those who evidently have the time to do lots on Wikipedia, but not the inclination to oppose Jakew anytime, instead hound me on my contributions anywhere, on any topic, to the point of RfC'ing them: see here and here. Apparently for some high-level Wikipedia administrators, edits by Jakew are always right and don't need checking, and edits by Blackworm are always wrong and need immediate opposition.

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

[This comment split my prior comment in two, so I moved it out. -Blackworm] Funny you bring that one up; firstly we ended up agreeing on the matter. Secondly, it may pay to see who devoted significantly more time to bring that article up to wikipedia standards. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Please point to the diff where we ended up agreeing on the matter. We apparently implicitly agreed only that Jakew's redaction of "and benefits," apparently to avoid any unfavourable light cast on circumcision by his invalid counter-point, was in violation of WP:NPOV and inappropriate (though not you, Jakew, nor Coppertwig has ever commented on the redaction itself). Whether that article is "up to wikipedia standards" seems in dispute, so your second sentence is nonsensical. A nice clean, referenced pro-circumcision pamphlet isn't any improvement from a dirty mess of OR, or indeed a blank page. Blackworm (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Here you are. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm so glad I asked; I assumed you were referring to the "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" as a concocted counter-point to a statement on psychological effects. In the case you provide, you argued back and forth for at least four posts, posted an RfC, and only changed your mind after unanimous support for my position from others in the RfC. I'm glad you avoided appearing as the lone dissenter in a dispute -- it's quite marginalizing and no one wants to experience that. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll also note that your first edit to that article came 17 minutes after my first edit to the article,[8] strongly suggesting that you watched my contributions and followed me to that article. You claimed that this odd case of countering me to an article unrelated to the topic of any of our previous interactions was due to our "overlapping interests;" that "we have many of the same pages watchlisted."[9] Since your first edit to the article came after mine, I praise you for your claim of watchlisting pages you've never edited, despite your already huge workload. Do you watch and read every edit to those articles, or just those by editors you claim "don't like" you?[10] Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I believe Blackworm has mischaracterized what Jakew said. Blackworm said (in a comment above of 02:35, 16 July) "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." I don't think Jakew said that. Blackworm, you may paraphrase what another editor said and introduce your paraphrase with "As I interpret it" or "My paraphrase is", etc., or you may say what the person actually said (same verb, same phrases etc) and introduce it with "as stated by" etc., or you may state that someone said something and provide words that would be acknowledged by the person themself, or by typical uninvolved Wikipedians, to be an accurate representation of what they said (though I don't recommend attempting this when discussing someone with a different POV; it's too difficult to get it right) but please don't do what I think you've done here: present your own paraphrase after "as stated by", as if that was what he had said. Since the option of verbatim quoting is always available, there is no excuse for mischaracterizing what Jake has said. If uninvolved editors make comments here based on such statements (which I believe to be incorrect), those comments may be invalid. Blackworm, your sentence may be ambiguous and confusing because it's not clear how much of the sentence is supposed to be described by "as stated by"; would Jake really state that he would counter "websites providing authoritative material", or would the "authoritative" part be your own description, rather than "as stated by" Jake? Please try to avoid writing sentences with those sorts of ambiguities. I'm not aware of Jake having made any statement about the purpose of CIRCS in which he called another website "deceptive". If Jake did say that, please provide a quote and link or citation.
I believe Blackworm is also mischaracterizing what Jakew said in this comment: "Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group": I'm not aware of Jakew having stated that he founded an organization or group. I believe he has a website where he himself posts material, not an organization or group as far as I'm aware. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Before you accuse me of mischaracterization, perhaps you should (a) note that Jake refers to himself as the "founder" of CIRCS,[11], and that (b) the "contact" link on www.circs.org has a page which says, "To contact us, please email [address]."[12][emphasis mine] The latter implies a group, not just Jake, unless Jake is using the "royal we." Also note the CIRCS contains both reproductions of sources, and original material putting circumcision in the best light: for example, "Anti-circumcision groups claim significant detrimental effects, though offer only anecdotal evidence."[13] The site refers to this original material penned by Jakew as "unbiased reviews of the literature."[14] One of the references he cites here (presumably part of what Jakew considers "the literature") suggests, "THE ONE AND ONLY LINK! "The Vacuum Pumpers Site."[15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackworm (talk • contribs) 01:15, July 21, 2009
Just to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding, Blackworm, CIRCS is indeed a website. I suppose you could call it an "organisation of one", if you really wanted, but I think it would obscure the point somewhat. Currently I am the only person responsible for the site, but it's always possible that someone might volunteer to help me in future. I don't believe that owning a website ordinarily constitutes a conflict of interest, except where that website is actually used or discussed in Wikipedia (and to my knowledge nobody has complained about my approach to that). Jakew (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
In partial reply to Blackworm's question: SlimVirgin was asked to comment here by Garycompugeek [16] as a result of SlimVirgin having posted at the ANI thread; I don't know who had asked SlimVirgin to comment at the ANI thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Who asked SlimVirgin to comment on the topic first, which you say you don't know, is the relevant question. Is someone in a position to inform us who it was? I appreciate the disclosure that one was asked to join a discussion, but it seems incomplete without saying by whom it was, and what prior work if any was done with that editor. Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE WITH BIGGER AND BOLDER LETTERS: I believe Coppertwig is misrepresenting what I said. (For disclosure: User:Avraham works closely with Coppertwig and nominated Coppertwig for administrator here.) I said, "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." Jakew said "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature."[17] Is this "one-sidedness" of CIRP, while seeming "superficially to be so comprehensive," evidence of "deceptive activities?" If CIRP is "presenting such a distorted selection of the literature," is CIRP engaged in "deceptive activities?" I don't think it's any stretch to label what Jakew said about CIRP an accusation of deceptive activities. I believe your verbose comment above may be diverting attention away from the real issues. Please comment on Jakew's redaction of "and benefits" from a BMA quote put into the article, referred to above, instead.
Is CIRCS a group, or just Jakew? Does anyone else help run the website or does he do it all himself? Unknown to me. I admit I assumed it was a group or organization. As it turns out, it doesn't matter. Whether it's an interest of an organization, a group, or a personal interest taking precedence over Wikipedia's interest, it's a COI, per WP:COI. Maybe Jakew's personal interest stops at using his own resources to create a website and publish selected authoritative material in order to counter real or perceived anti-circumcision bias in other online sources: he wrote, "So I decided to focus, in general, on papers that were not available at CIRP, the idea being that for any given subject, the index pages for CIRP + CIRCS should be complete (or if not complete then at least not leave out too many important papers)."[18] The importance of the papers "completing" the online sources, of course, being judged by Jakew. But how is Jakew's judgment?
We recall the BMA quote redacted above as evidence of what Jakew considers important and unimportant. As you also may recall, Jakew states for example, while arguing an edit, "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept that very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to."[19] In contrast, the British Medical Association states, "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks."[20] User:Avraham deleted the latter BMA quote when it was referenced in the article, pointing to Jakew's argument, which boils down to "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects."[21]. That novel assertion is the basis for the current disputed article content. Apparently, if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point (in which Jakew just happened to redact the words "and benefits," avoiding the BMA stating that medical benefits have also not been proven, and getting in the way of his created counter-point), Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether. I personally don't believe either of them should be judging what is appropriate for any circumcision-related articles, based on these proven failures of neutral presentation. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Bigger and bolder letters , you do make me chuckle, Blackworm. Nice attempt at argumentum ad hominem above. And yes, it was primarily Coppertwig's demonstration of the patience of Job when dealing with you that convinced me of Coppertwig's appropriateness as a sysop; and I'd be honored to renominate whenever Coppertwig wants. I recall that you yourself supported Coppertwig, praising an "outstanding neutrality." Have you changed your mind? -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have. And by the way your trademarked one-line dismissal suffers from the usual complete lack of substance -- it's not at all ad hominem, and the diff links above prove it, to any editor who hasn't already assumed that you must be right since you're a wiki-bureaucrat. The patience of dealing with me? On the contrary, Coppertwig helped me defend myself from the very similar accusations of inappropriate behaviour levelled at me by a novice editor in female genital cutting, who was attempting to edit Wikipedia in violation of core policies. He chose to instead aid the attack against me when yourself and User:Jayjg, two senior administrators, were the ones accusing me of inappropriate behaviour while themselves editting Wikipedia in violation of core policies. That was a sad day indeed. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
And yes, the point of "bigger, bolder note" was to show how Coppertwig's prior "Note" at the start of his post in bold, apparently says to the reader, "this is more important than what was previously said, so read this first." I did not appreciate it. There is no reason for the reader to particularly "note" Coppertwig's comment, which further as I show above seems tangential and irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
So now you are saying that when someone prefaces their comments with a header saying NOTE that it calls into askance what came before? Thank you for once again demonstrating that you prefer to deal in semantics as opposed to content. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that, I said it served to draw undue attention to one's comment. Why does Coppertwig believe we should particularly note his disagreement? It's not that big an issue, however. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Blackworm, someone e-mailed me initially to draw my attention to the issue. I believe they wanted someone uninvolved to look at it. I can assure you that I believe I can see both sides of the issue here. I'm not at all educated about circumcision, but I feel I do know enough about the COI guideline. Can you say more about what Jake is doing exactly in real life that you feel gives rise to a COI? (But please only post information that you know Jake is comfortable with having revealed; otherwise, please e-mail it to me.) As things stand, there really is no evidence that Jake is putting his own interests above those of Wikipedia. I agree that the edit you linked to above is not ideal—I can't find it now, but it's the one where an ellipsis was used to replace a relevant word—but it's the kind of error that anyone can make. You'd need to show a series of such edits before it would be fair to call it anything but an error, and even then, you wouldn't necessarily have shown a COI. POV can exist without a COI, and COI without a POV. It seems that your main beef here is non-neutral editing, and (not commenting on whether it's an accurate allegation) it might be better to address that through mediation. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Who was it that e-mailed you? What is your prior relationship to them, if any? I've already detailed Jakew's conflicting interests above, as I said the first time you asked the question, and so I'm hard pressed to understand why you are asking the question a second time after it was answered. Blackworm (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

What actually happened was that an edit war took place between 20:18, May 24, 2009 and 05:55, May 25, 2009, involving Blackworm, Avraham, and an IP.[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] In essence, the dispute was over (initially) Blackworm's addition of an selected quote from the BMA, which Avraham reverted, arguing that "quoting one part of the BMA and not the other is improper". Meanwhile, a discussion was taking place (at, oddly, Talk:Circumcision). The relevance of the "medical harms or benefits" sentence seems to have first been mentioned in talk at 20:47, May 24, 2009, but this was also mentioned in an edit summary at 20:46, May 26, 2009 20:46, May 24, 2009 (fixed 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)). My first involvement with this dispute was at 08:57, May 25, 2009. Here I made the edit Blackworm mentions, hoping to find a compromise between the two extremes. My edit summary reads: "let's quote both parts, shall we?" Shortly after, at 09:42, May 25, 2009, I also made my first comment on the issue. Blackworm later edited to (among other things) replace the ellipsis with the full quotation at 09:13, May 29, 2009.

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

A 3K response, and you still haven't enlightened us as to why you read a major source saying "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" and chose to quote them as saying "medical harms [...] have not been proven." I think there's a simple answer, that is that you believe that "The medical benefits of circumcision include [list of benefits]",[27], in contrast to the BMA's position. Seem logical. Your POV is better represented than major medical organizations' views throughout the articles, through carefully chosen misrepresentations of this sort. The "compromise" "between the two extremes" seems to be between your POV on what the BMA should be saying, and what the BMA actually said. The edit, along with many others like it, shows POV editing; your outside one-sided circumcision-related lobbying shows there is a COI between your personal interests and Wikipedia's.
Nothing above shows anything misleading on my part. I pointed incorrectly to your argument (and not the link you included after "According to Blackworm" -- talk about misleading). Fact is it was Avi's own argument, which you then defended saying "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects," which is the novel interpretation you use to concoct the counter-point you both felt was necessary. I'll amend my previous statement to say, "if Avraham was not able to make this concocted counter-point, Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether."
"An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious. Your edit served precisely one side of the edit war: Avi's side. I don't remember in the hundreds of edits both of you have made to circumcision, a single disagreement between you, or a single case where one did not express complete support for the other when any of your edits were disputed. You are the #1 and #2 editors of the circumcision article, unanimous on all edits, including massively non-neutral ones like this. Your argument is Avi's argument and vice-versa; they are invariably interchangeable as you invariably defend each others' contested edits and tag team the opposition. But you are right, Avi did not point to your argument; he pointed to his own flawed argument that you defended with a nonsensical assertion about psychological effects being medical effects. Not really a relevant difference.
There was no need to "discuss" that edit as it was clearly a massive NPOV violation that Avraham was not going to correct (thus not an isolated "error"). The only need was to fix your misrepresentation of the BMA's position immediately. Secondary, there exists a less immediate need to remove your and Avi's counter-point, premised on WP:OR ("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) that is quite easily shown to be false (as I showed using reliable sources).
And to you, Avi, the only thing creating an image of conspiracy is the refusal of SlimVirgin to say who directed SlimVirgin to this dispute, combined with your indignant attitude toward the mere asking of the question. My experience is that in 95% of cases, when one editor asks another editor to comment on a dispute, having a prior relationship with that editor, the second editor will agree completely with the first. I thus tend to consider such references as "involved" rather than "uninvolved." Is that the case here? Perhaps we'll never know. Blackworm (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded. I didn't claim you are Jake, I said your argument is Jakew's argument, in the general case. You have been vocally unanimous for years (along with User:Jayjg, who I've not seen around recently), both about content and the claimed misdeeds of editors, always or virtually always, in a milieu with lots of controversy otherwise. If "no one else has," what is the mistake the other two editors claiming a COI are making? Has Garycompugeek not responded here as well? Is he part of the "all other editors" you are referring to? Why do you often claim I'm alone in my view when it's documented to be false? Blackworm (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am glad you seem to agree that Jakew edits the articles to reflect his (and your) POV, however. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

There's another, related issue that I'd appreciate outside opinions on here: repeated accusations of COI.
It's one thing if the Wikipedian community decides that someone has a COI and, on that basis, decides to ask them respectfully to follow certain specified restrictions. It's another thing entirely if an individual editor decides that someone they're in a content dispute with has a COI, and, on that basis, decides to post a comment to the article talk page speculating on the person's inability to see an alleged imbalance (for example here; a ridiculous comment, in my opinion, given Jake's egregious outstanding(00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)) (in my opinion) intelligence and detachment; and tantamount to impugning his ability to think clearly).
As I explained at ANI, I don't think there's a problem with COI, but I think there's a serious problem at the circumcision pages with repeated accusations of COI.
Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming to experts, but instead of a pleasant working environment, Jake has been subjected to a long series of comments and insinuations, for several years, about his alleged motives, alleged POV, alleged COI and now alleged inability to see imbalance. He has already at one point been driven away from the project for about two or three months [28] by such comments. Given Jake's extremely detailed knowledge of the scientific literature about circumcision, the extensive work that still remains to be done writing the circumcision subarticles, and also Jake's contributions in other areas of the project, it would be a significant loss for Wikipedia if Jake were to leave. I've been trying to encourage editors to comment on content, not on the contributor; WP:COI says "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."; I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors as to the application of this principle in this situation.
To save space here, I've posted responses to some comments by Blackworm and Avi on my own talk page. [29] By the way, if Jake has a COI, in my opinion several other editors of the page have even more of a COI, judging by apparent extremity of POV, dedication to their POV, and tendency for their POV, rather than solely information solidly based on sources, to be evident in their article edits Re Gary's comment: Jake doesn't consider "pro circ" an accurate label for himself [30] and I don't consider it an accurate label for myself. (I am an involved editor. Avi, Blackworm, Garycompugeek, Jakew, Tremello22 and myself are regular editors of the Circumcision page.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Coppertwig is misrepresenting the situation. I do not have a content dispute with Jake and have not started this thread over a content dispute. Yet another attempt to discredit the facts with lies. I welcome an investigation into my behavior Coppertwig. You may try to turn my concern for the project into some kind of vendetta against Jake but its unfounded and unwelcome. I am involved any many facets of this project and was drawn to circumcision by NPOV concerns. Over the years some comments that other editors have made have made me curious about Jake activities outside wikipedia. I have attempted to be civil and discuss my concerns in a gentlemanly manner. I do not wish Jake to leave the project but to recognize a possible COI that creates NPOV in circumcision and related articles. Just as you have applauded Jakes efforts there are many editors who do not and have come to the talk pages calling for his banishment. I am not one of those but the rosy picture you have tried to paint of Jake is also not true. Lastly trying to have me blocked and banned because of my COI concerns project and trying to get more than 2 uninvolved editors to comment is ludicrous. I apologize for any discomfort this might be causing Jake and will readily abide by whatever the community decides. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Blackworm and Gary: see reply on my talk page [31] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested comment Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Request input on possible COI. Note I have said as little as possible to be as fair as possible. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Break for ease of editing

A question for Gary and Blackworm: do you accept that having a POV and having a COI are two separate issues? If you do, I can't understand what benefit there is in accusing Jake of COI. Even he has a COI, he wouldn't be prevented from editing the article, just as he wouldn't be prevented if he has a POV. There is therefore no point in additionally accusing him of COI.

If Jake were employed by a pro-circumcision organization, I'd agree with you that he has a COI. But if he has himself set up a circumcision information service of some kind, and seems to be operating it alone (which is my understanding of what you wrote), that in itself is not grounds to accuse him of COI. Take myself and my interest in animal rights as an example. I've been editing AR articles on Wikipedia for a few years. I'm frequently concerned about the lack of knowledge people have of it, which is largely a result of the media misrepresenting it (in my view). Suppose I were today to set up an AR website devoted to posting information to help people form a less aggressive view of AR. Would I have a COI a few minutes after setting up that website that I didn't have before I set it up, in your view? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a potential COI, you'd be expected to declare it. My point of view on circumcision is declared, to say the least. I honestly believe, however, that I bend over backwards to make sure I'm not injecting my own bias into the articles. I get no thanks. No barnstars, no kudos. Nothing but abuse. Jakew, in contrast, maintains that he is not "pro-circumcision." I invite you to carefully read this pamphlet he co-wrote, and tell me what you think of that assertion. Read what WP:COI says about an editor adequately declaring his interests, and taking great care to avoid controversial edits, in the context of that full colour pamphlet he wrote. Look at the history of Talk:Circumcision. Look at the reams and reams of argument. Remember, Jakew resents the "pro-circumcision" label, claiming to be inaccurate. Read the colour pamphlet he wrote one more time in that context. Is this honesty? Is this discloure? Let's read more:
  • "If you were expecting a son (for all I know, perhaps you are), and you asked me whether I thought you should have your son circumcised, I wouldn't say "yes", nor would I say 'no.' [...] I hope that this also explains why I find it offensive to be described as an 'advocate': I make a deliberate choice not to advocate."" User:Jakew [emphasis mine] Diff: [32]
  • "Risks from circumcision: These are virtually all quite minor and very easily treated. [...] In conclusion: Circumcision of the male partner confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman. A circumcised male reduces her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death. If she is the care giver, as wife or mother, a woman will quite likely need to deal with problems in the uncircumcised male, 1 in 3 of whom develop a condition requiring medical attention at some time during their life." PDF brochure
  • "The text of this brochure has received consensus support from the following circumcision experts (listed alphabetically), who contributed to its formulation: [...] Jake Waskett (Manchester, UK) [...]" [The same PDF brochure
  • "There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." - The British Medical Association
When you're prolifically editing a topic because your personal interests are the publication of one-sided fringe material on that topic, you're in a COI with Wikipedia's goals. When you further make wildly unbalanced edits and misrepresentations of the views of major organizations, which are then not corrected by those administrators watching the article (even when they are involved in discussion of the particular sentence -- but who somehow do have the time to "correct" edits made in unrelated articles by editors they hold in low esteem 17 minutes after they are made), then it shows not only a COI, not only a POV, but a way more serious problem involving more than one person. I hope it gets addressed. Jakew wouldn't be a problem if someone neutral were watching. Instead, the ones mandated with watching Jakew are blindly supporting everything he does -- with ample evidence, some presented above and lots more hidden in the history. User:Jayjg is now apparently no longer editing, as so one major supporter isn't here anymore. And now the formerly good cop in that good cop/bad cop duo, User:Avraham, seems to be behaving like Jayjg did in order for this blind acceptance of Jakew's "expertise" and domination of all circumcision-related articles to continue. Maybe User:Coppertwig will take the good cop role from now on, who knows; he seems suited for it. In any case, it doesn't look good on Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the pamphlet you posted a link to is pro-circumcision, though in fairness there's no sign that Jake wrote it; it simply lists him as one of the people supporting it. I still say there's no evidence of COI in the sense it's used on Wikipedia. You're not in a COI either just because you're anti-circumcision. COI kicks in only when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing outside interests over the interests of Wikipedia. It would make more sense to request mediation, or file a request for comment on the article, asking for fresh eyes on it, and it may be worth asking Jake here to make an extra effort to edit from both perspectives, or a disinterested one, to avoid even the appearance of COI. If you do the same, and if both of you stick very closely to the content policies, the editing atmosphere there should improve. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
You obviously missed "who contributed to its formulation." Co-wrote it, sorry. COI also kicks in when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing personal interests over the interests of Wikipedia (see WP:COI), a fact you still have not commented on despite my mentioning it long ago. I have reason to believe that is what is happening. My explanation is detailed at length above. Ultimately, the true damage is only done because of those who enable Jakew to pursue his outside, personal advocacy interests here. There's not much else to say about it; either the community agrees, or it doesn't. Blackworm (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To save you from having to guess, Blackworm, I was sent a draft of the brochure, and I sent some comments about it by email. It's possible that another pair of emails followed (comments on my comments, etc); I'd have to check my email archives to be sure. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
And by the way, why won't you say who e-mailed you to join discussion of this topic? Remember: disclosure and honesty go a long way. Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to add my input. I think Jake's conflict of interest is specifically about the medical aspects of circumcision. He has a great interest in the supposed benefits of the procedure. Consequently, the historical and social aspects of circumcision are not been given a fair hearing. I agree with slimvirgin, a fresh perspective on the article would be welcomed. As for Jake's behaviour, it is hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced editing circumcision related articles how difficult he makes things. Often an edit which improves the article, he reverts in order to discuss it ad nauseum on the talk page. I feel this is not for the good of the article but just to make things as hard as possible to change the article. From his point of view he benfits from having 2 pro-circ admins (one orthodox Jewish:User:Jayjg, one Muslim:User:Avi) who back him on nearly every occasion. It isn't unusual to have religious editors on a topic that is part of their religion. Obviously there are some negative aspects of circumcision but I feel their religious views may be stopping them from allowing the article to reflect a NPOV. I haven't worked out user:coppertwig, but he obviously thinks Jake can do no wrong; so in effect Jake has 3 "votes" on his side whenever things get moved to the talkpage.
It may surprise you to know that Jake seems to be refreshing his watchpage nearly 24 hours a day, only resting for a few hours in the early hours to get some sleep. For someone to watch the article so meticulously is kind of strange in my opinion. It makes you wonder if he has too much invested in the topic. This is what I think Blackworm and Gary are getting at - maybe not COI, but too much invested, which causes the articles to suffer. I realise he works from a computer, but still, it doesn't exactly make for a collaborative effort (which I thought was what wikipedia was all about). See here for a prime example of discussion of an edit which improved the article but was vetoed for the wrong reasons:Talk:Circumcision#Structure_of_article. As to why things have been stuck for so long I think Jake's behavior has played a part in this. Most editors are put off as Jake uses: Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system and Wikilawyering. He tries to make out his reverts were for the good of the article and that he is just following the rules, however he constantly stretches these rules and applies them when they aren't applicable. To an inexperienced editor , they are quickly put off from editing again. What is worse, even experienced editors do not realise he is doing this or choose not to bring him up on it because they share Jakew's point of view on circumcision (usually the edit reverted casts circumcision in a bad light). Tremello22 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Break #2

We see above how User:Blackworm, User:Tremello22, and User:Garycompugeek will approcah this; it seems to be a direct outgrowth of their views on circumcision. However, that is not the matter under discussion here. It is, simply, is there a conflict of interest vis-a-vis wikipedia guidelines? According to the wikipedia definition, at least to me, there is not. POV, yes, but a brief perusal of Tremollo22 and Blackworm's edit will demonstrate just as strong a POV as well. Personally, I find Tremollo's accusations that the religious beliefs of others renders them incapable of editing the article neutrally to be insulting, but it isn;y the first time I've been insulted in that way on the article (I think there were about five times that accusation was rendered). Tremollo's entitled to his opinion, no matter how off-base that may be, as long as it does not interfere with editing the encyclopedia according to its guidelines.

In a nutshell, I think that everyone here needs to step back from the pro- and con- circumcision aspects and approach the question purely Is there any evidence that there has been editing of wikipedia to promoting outside interests over and above that of wikipedia? Yes or no? Simple. I think the answer is clearly no, but I've said that already. -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I didn't say you weren't capable, I said you haven't shown yourself to be capable. There is a difference. I was talking about you specifically too rather than in general. Tremello22 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Blackworm, re the BMA quote: in my opinion, replacing "and benefits" with an ellipsis was quite a reasonable edit in the specific context of the quote. [33] This is not the place for content disputes, so if anyone would like me to explain why, feel free to ask me on my talk page or (if still relevant) on the article talk page. If that's the worst allegedly POV edit of Jake's that you can find ...
By the way, Blackworm, I've put some more replies to some of your above comments on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I've put a proposal on the talk page about how to eventually close this thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I've put a further reply to Garycompugeek on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to address the possible conflict of interest notice. I think in such disputes it's often helpful to have comments from an outside editor who's unfamiliar with the parties involved and unfamiliar with the article/subject at hand. Hopefully taking a step back and providing a wider perspective will be helpful. I've reviewed the discussions here, on the users' talk pages, and on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Based on all the material reviewed, the core of the conflict is over article neutrality with the editors alleging that personal point of views have affected the neutrality of articles. However, I do not see any evidence of a conflict of interest.

If an editor holds certain personal opinions or beliefs and is a member or supporter of organizations that further those beliefs, making NPOV edits to an article would not constitute a conflict of interest. (For example, if a Christian, who belongs to an evangelical group, writes biased NPOV claims in the article on Jesus, this would not constitute a conflict of interest. It would only be a violation of WP:NPOV.) The issue at hand here is a question of NPOV, not conflict of interest. A resolution needs to be reached regarding the NPOV disagreement, and there are proper avenues for dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). However, as there's no conflict of interest in this case, it does not belong on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I hope this disagreement can be resolved quickly, and I think that dispute resolution is probably your best path forward.Dgf32 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What is an NPOV edit? I've shown what I believe to be non-NPOV edits, and non-NPOV edits that in my opinion could only be discovered through a careful re-examination of the source and an appropriate response by someone given the community's nod to maintain a sense a balance in that area. In my opinion, I've consistently made a distinction between personal opinions or beliefs, and personal interests; and given confirmed examples demonstrating the latter in Jakew's case. As yet, no one has addressed these outside interests, preferring to repeat faulty analogies not indicating the appropriate levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint (pro-circumcision at the levels evident from the pamphlet, and evident from the substance of Jakew's other Internet publication outside Wikipedia, being a minority opinion, as the mainstream sources clearly indicate) demonstrated here. If personal interests regarding the promotion of views are not part of the domain of WP:COI guideline, I suggest removing the phrase "personal interests" from WP:COI. Alternately, please provide examples of strictly personal interest not involving material gain nor recognition that would be the subject of this guideline. I'd be glad to simply remove references to personal interests, and/or adding a phrase similar to "for material gain or recognition" if that is the preferred option. Alternately, there is discussion for suggestions on a better resolution. But clearly the letter of the guideline diverges from the defenses raised here, thus my involvement in Jakew's case is at an end, shifting to the guideline itself. The plurality of opinion dismissing this case seems to indicate that the guideline needs to better express its spirit, as its letter seems rejected and/or ignored. The combination of a dismissal of Jakew's conflict of interest and the status quo on the text of the guideline certainly does not seem a logical conclusion. However, it is one I'm prepared to accept if that is the community's wish. Blackworm (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, "personal interests" can be understood in the sense of obtaining a personal advantage, such as promoting one's own fame: not just being interested in a topic. The categories later in the guideline expand and clarify the meaning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
They are not described as categories, they are described as examples. I presume that means it's not an exhaustive list; but the point seems moot, as one of those examples states, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."WP:COI Note again that the "in a nutshell" doesn't just say organizations, it says "[...] your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers [...]." You don't even need an organization or even a loose association to engage in advocacy in an area. It indeed clarifies the meaning, but not in a way that reflects your position in my opinion. Blackworm (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're interpreting "interests" in a much broader sense than that which is intended. I don't think it is intended to be so broad as to encompass a point of view about a given subject, but is rather intended to mean "personal gain". I think that the examples help to illustrate the intended scope.
Furthermore, your claims about "levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint" are contrived to the point of absurdity, and aren't even accurate, being based upon little more than misrepresentations. First, my "level of interest" in the pamphlet to which you refer involved replying to an email, giving my feedback on a draft of the text. Second, you haven't supported your claim of a "minority viewpoint" (and, since this isn't a content discussion, you haven't established why it would be relevant). You have only quoted from a single major source (the BMA), and while it is certainly a major viewpoint, it is erroneous to claim that it is a majority position. (Had you selected, say, the World Health Organisation, or the American Academy of Pediatrics, you would have found a completely different "majority" viewpoint. Perhaps selective quoting isn't the best way to find majority viewpoints?) Let me finish by summarising your claim, in my own words. I replied to an email, giving my comments about a draft pamphlet that expresses a point of view (which it does, though not quite my own point of view nor how I would personally express it) that arguably disagrees with the view of a single, selected medical association. Are you seriously suggesting that this is what is contemplated by the conflict of interest guideline? For goodness sake, this is nothing more than an elaborate personal attack, thinly disguised as a COI accusation. And it's time for this nonsense to stop. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This is not the proper venue for this discussion. This disagreement is, at its core, over article subject matter. The debate needs to return to those differences in opinions. While disagreements over deeply held beliefs can easily lead to interpersonal disputes, all this time and effort would better be spent resolving the issue at hand. I'd even be willing to help moderate any discussion on article content if any one thought that it might be helpful. While I'm sure that you will continue to disagree on this issue, hopefully you can come with some kind of working solution that everyone can at least tolerate. Dgf32 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest and offer tho help in this matter dgf32. I feel COI guideline's are left purposely vague and this leads to interpretation. I have tried to lay out my concerns in a logical fashion. If the community rejects them so be it. Jake I apologize for any discomfort this has caused you but I still do not feel you are being completely candid with us. In my dealings with you, you have shown yourself to be the staunchest supporter of circumcision I have yet to come across. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've requested here for someone to close this thread with a resolution or summary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DIMA285

Resolved
 – Editor was indef blocked for "disruptive editing". -- Atamachat 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

DIMA285 (talk · contribs) Presumably Dmitri Bulykin? Is taking ownership of the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He continues to edit despite four warning on his talk page. I don't have any interest in working on this article but did revert his latest edit. Maybe a short block is in order. Rees11 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maurício Dottori

I've proposed the article for deletion. If someone other than the author contests the deletion I'd ask them how the article subject satisfies WP:N and if I don't feel satisfied with the answer I'll bring to AfD. So far I haven't seen much to suggest he would. If I do feel satisfied it should be monitored to be sure that the author doesn't continue to influence article content as it has clearly been promotional. -- Atamachat 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Deyber

Written by User:Robertdeyber, the whole thing reads like a promotional piece. Example: "Robert Deyber has given surrealism his own modern twist, complete with Facebook and Twitter pages to prove it. As he exploits literal interpretations of the English language, Deyber’s surprising and comically visual approach to common phrases makes viewers of his paintings think twice about expressions they routinely use."--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a little and chopped out most of the artyfartyspeak and promotional stuff. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen songs

I specify genres of songs by Queen from rock to progressive rock, heavy metal etc. but some users reverted my edits without comments and don't contact me. What I can do?--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked the article's talk page (and archives, if any) to see whether consensus has already been reached as to the appropriate genre? – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
In no way does this problem have anything to do with the conflict of interest guidelines. -- Atamachat 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Joe12811 and Bob and Penny Lord/Journeys of Faith

*I guess I did not understand about linking a book reference.

These are books available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon and ebay If this is a conflict of interest no problem Just let me know and I will forget about it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe12811 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

SAP AG

Could use some attention, a number of recent edits have been by accounts whose usernames are associated with the product. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Sapecohub was blocked for spamming, I don't know if that solves the problem but it should help. -- Atamachat 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Games Convention Asia

I've edited the Games Convention Asia article as per the suggestions on the talk page and included new information for this year's convention. Could anyone help me see if it's neutral now? S7r4t4 (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between the time that the article creator last edited the article and now. It's essentially a different article. There is still a lot of work to be done but I'll remove the COI tag. I'm however putting a primary sources tag on the article, as most of the article's references are to the GC-Asia web page. -- Atamachat 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please watchlist Brooke Fraser if you can

I was wondering if more eyes could go on Brooke Fraser due to ongoing BLP issues. If you have the time, please watchlist this article, and perhaps review it for any BLP problems. Thanks!-Andrew c [talk] 14:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify why this is a potential COI problem, Scottligertwood is apparently Scott Ligertwood, Brooke's husband. He has made some recent (controversial) edits to the page. -- Atamachat 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Large Self referential original research issue

A recent edit to the Korean cuisine article by Stephane mot (talk · contribs) had me curious as to the page she sourced her information from, so I did some research. Looking at the source page, seoulvillage.blogspot.com, I found out it was a blog written by her. After looking at her editing history and comparing that to her blog, almost every addition she has made is self referential pointing back to her own page. I have warned her, but this is a pattern of edits that go way beyond a simple warning. I need an admin to figure out the next step. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would give the user a final spam warning (because it clearly is spamming) - if the user continues, report to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Railway Museum

Resolved
 – Per Sswonk below. -- Atamachat 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Railway Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

3RR conflict: [34]

User claims to be a long time employee of the article subject and has edit warred over infobox content, specifically the use of a reporting mark on rail equipment owned by the museum. Appears to have a WP:POV contrary to standards established over time in the {{Infobox rail}} field "marks=" and has begun to challenge the supporting reporting mark article merely to make his infobox edits seem justified. Please take a look. Sswonk (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat was admonished for edit-warring (as was the other party in the dispute), and was warned by an admin not to work on the article (at the least the admin suggested that they stay away due to a COI). I can't tell what in the article is unduly promotional. I've considered adding a COI tag to the page but I'm not sure what would have to be cleaned up. -- Atamachat 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure anything needs cleanup either, more concerned about the spillover into other articles where the COI may not be obvious. Wuhwuzdat has commented on my talk page, appears to have issues with the other party in the 3RR dispute. Maybe for now just look at my talk to see if you think the editor will completely refrain from editing that article, in his remark judging by the tone it appears his involvement is more than a casual gnoming presence. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that he does intend to continue editing the article. WP:COI is a guideline and in the short time I've been involved with this board I haven't seen an editor blocked or sanctioned simply because of their conflict of interest with a subject. I've seen that COI exacerbate other issues, for example a person placing a spam link on an article is more likely to lead to a quick indef block if they are clearly affiliated with the group they are spamming about. When WuhWuzDat engages in behavior such as 3RR, I think that any reviewing administrators (or arbitrators) would take the COI into account when determining punishment. Certainly a topic ban on the article in question would be likely in their case, assuming they continue other behavior that violates Wikipedia policy. I don't think the COI alone means that they can't edit the article any longer as long as they behave themselves in the process. -- Atamachat 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm interpreting your response to mean we'll just need to watch what happens. I don't think I have anything further at this time if you want to archive this thread or place a {{Resolved}} on it – thank you for your input. Sswonk (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean, if they try to own the article or edit war any more, or do anything else against policy then I'd expect a slightly harsher response than an editor without a COI would receive. But until then just see what they do. -- Atamachat 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a potential COI

Hi there. I am a curator at the Imperial War Museum. Anyone who looks at that article's revision history will see that I have made extensive additions to it. Mindful that I might be accused of a WP:COI, I have endeavoured to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and to stick to facts sourced from WP:RS.

Given Wikipedia's definition of CoI, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia I do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article. For comparison version prior to my first edit and current version. Thank you for reading. IxK85 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me, consider nominating the article for review, it probably deserves Good Article status. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest declaring your COI on your user page by saying that you are a curator at the museum. You don't have to disclose your real-life identity (in fact I suggest that you don't) but by being up-front about your connection to the museum you'll be more likely to find that others assume good faith in your edits. I'll second what Irbisgreif has said, the article looks great and I'd say that your edits speak for themselves; there shouldn't be any need for you to avoid editing the article despite your connection to it. I think this is why WP:COI is a guideline rather than a policy, there are good editors like you who can contribute positively to an article despite the COI. Both WP:WikiProject London and WP:WikiProject Museums have assessed the article in the past, and you might want to drop a note at the talk page of each Wikiproject to ask them to reassess the article (it's certainly past "Start Class" at this point). -- Atamachat 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox IP editing patterns

216.205.232.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP address owned by Fox. They are adding defamatory information to competitors pages (see [[35]], [[36]] but the real COIN comes from the edits to Fox TV series, in particular House [37]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor can hardly be viewed as acting in good faith, I suggest letting an admin know. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor crusading on the part of a religion

User:HappyInGeneral is an adherent of Falun Gong and pushing the titleing and wording of Persecution of Falun Gong in Mainland China to a more and more POV position. To quote him "I can assure you this page will be renamed The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC, when I'll find enough reliable sources." Yes, he is searching for reliable sources, but his adherence to this faith and the fact that it is only he and User:Asdfg12345 who strongly support the extreme POV over the objections of User:Simonm223, User:PCPP, User:Dilip rajeev, User:Bobby fletcher, User:Ohconfucius, and now myself, including threatening RfC's for good-faith edits and attempts to maintain NPOV in the article gives me strong reason to suspect him of a severe CoI. There is much discussion on the NPOV noticeboard and talk page already, but the CoI needs to be explored and dealt with. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that he prominently displays this quote on his page: "I agree with Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crises maintain neutrality, there comes a time when silence is betrayal." I think it's clear that the CoI in this case has overridden the NPOV policy in the mind of this editor. I consider it unfortunate that I can't bring myself to assume good faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to oppose WP:NPOV policy, I guess you could do it in a worse way than quoting MLK, Jr. :) But I don't think that WP:COI applies. COI is based on a person's affiliations. For a COI to apply, HIG would have to be attempting to promote themselves, an organization they belong to, or someone else they are closely related to. Simply being a believer of Falun Gong is not sufficient. Other examples of when a COI doesn't apply: a neo-Nazi editing a page on racism, a person of Catholic faith editing an article about the Pope, or a member of the Harry Potter Fan Club editing the J.K. Rowlings article. Just because you have an interest in a subject that doesn't mean you have a COI. Now, if HIG wrote a book about Falun Gong and wanted to mention that book in the article, that's a COI. If HIG was a member of a pro-Falun Gong organization and wanted to add their web site as a reference, that's a COI. Otherwise there is only an NPOV problem, and you've mentioned that the NPOV issues are being addressed elsewhere. I hope that this clarifies things, sometimes what is and isn't a COI can be difficult to distinguish (see the exhaustive circumcision debate at the top of this noticeboard for a particularly apt example). -- Atamachat 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciated some advice on how to deal with these articles. They are mainly created and maintained by the various per-incarnations and re-incarnations of User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who administers a website biased strongly against the BKWSU, and as a result the articles have substantial POV issues.

I also have a COI issue which I admit I have previously handled badly and have been "strongly discouraged" from editing according to the article arbitration ruling a couple of years ago. I took about a year and a half away and now I want to take another shot at resolving the issues with the article but this time do everything the "right" way.

The problem I have is that there is quite a lot of work to clean up these articles. They appear well referenced but a lot of the references are cherry-picked to sound shocking, unsuitable sources, used out of context or even completely concocted by Wikipedia editors with an axe to grind. I have started to document the problems I see with the article here and here. Would appreciate comments on the following options...

  1. I continue to document the issues with the article and then put a COI edit request on the article talk page when I have a substantial number of edits to suggest.
  2. I edit the article(s) directly myself but with permission/oversight granted via this noticeboard and after proposing the changes on the article talk page.
  3. Someone kindly volunteers to go through the article(s) with a fine-tooth comb and remove the POV, UNDUE issues.
  4. Revert the article to a version previously achieved by working with the consensus of other editors before User:Lucyintheskywithdada eventually overpowered us again with his various user accounts.
  5. Revert as above as a starting point to immediately solve the article issues then re-introduce any new material from the present article that may still be useful.

In the short term I would appreciate that the article is tagged as having multiple issues as described and also tagged as being a WP:COI article.

The main related articles I can see are List of Brahma Kumaris, Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Dada Lekhraj, Living Values, Values education, Dadi Janki, Brahma Kumaris Beliefs. More may be found here.

Thanks & Regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You username suggests that you are connected with the subject matter. If that is the case, you also have a conflict and should read WP:COI yourself. Please do not edit the article yourself but discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you think ought to be made, doing so in a neutral manner and with reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll just reiterate what Ukexpat has said, you'd be better off with suggestion #1 (make requests on the talk page(s) when you propose changes) and suggestion #3 (ask a third-part to fix problems). I don't know if there are any Wikiprojects that would be interested... -- Atamachat 22:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi ukexpat. Thanks for the advice. If it's OK with you I would first like to understand where you are coming from a bit better. Yes, I am connected to the subject matter and have declared as much clearly in my previous post and on my user page. That's why I'm posting here. Would I be correct in interpreting what you say as meaning that you don't believe any BK should edit the BKWSU article?
Also, I'm not clear why you believe I may not have read WP:COI. As I understand it, all the options I suggest, including the ones in which I edit myself, are possible if they are made as non-controversial edits, which would mean only making edits that, "have been agreed to on the talk page". That's what initially lead me to believe that it might be OK for me to edit the article as long as took reasonable steps to obtain agreement from non-involved editors, in particular, editors with expertise in COI issues.
Why would I want to edit the article myself? Because the amount of work involved is substantial and I may find that no one else is prepared to do all that. I recently had some success using the COI edit request system for some basic changes to related articles, and I am most grateful to Themfromspace for helping me with that, but I'm not sure how it would scale up to dealing with the main article.
In response to Atama, I believe the appropriate wikiproject would be WikiProject_Spirituality. A quick look at the discussion page and I see lots of old posts that seem to have been left unanswered. Also, I previously tried involving other editors familiar with NRM's but who had no connection with the BKWSU. What happened was that we all got accused of being meat puppets because we appeared to act in concert against one highly disruptive editor who has since been indef blocked for upsetting other editors on other subjects. This time round I would prefer involving editors who are not even connected to any NRM or even spirituality. Then there can't be any pro/anti NRM politics and we can concentrate on the article content and policy.
If options (1) and (3) are the only options available, though, then I will give it a shot. I would be grateful if you could look at the article version I proposed and let me know if you think it would be an improvement on the current article. I just want to get a feel for whether or not this would fly as an edit request. If not, then I will continue with plan (1) and document each and every problem I can find with the present article.
Thanks & Regards Bksimonb (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
My comments were based solely on your post here. I was merely stating the usual advice for editors who wish to edit articles where they have a COI. Talk page discussion is the best approach because it leads to consensus, rather than plunging in and editing the article, which may tick off other editors. Even if your edits are constructive, the very fact that you have a COI may cause others to hit the revert button hastily and cause further frustration. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. I will try proposing the revert to the non-hatchet-job version on the article talk page and flag it as a COI edit request. It may be refused on the grounds that it's too extensive but I guess it's worth a try. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jason Allentoff

Resolved
 – Article was speedily deleted under G-4. -- Atamachat 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that "Jerseyshorewatch" is Jason. In any case this is a clear vanity article, and the subject seems to fail notability requirements. I'm going to propose the article for deletion through AfD (it seems too controversial for a prod due to Jersheyshorewatch's actions). -- Atamachat 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute... In setting up the AfD, I found that the article had already been created before, and deleted through AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Allentoff. I'll put a speedy deletion tag instead. -- Atamachat 16:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The previous AFD is four years old. You might want to do another one; I'm not sure a G4 is the right way to go for an article deleted four years ago. (Though the information presented does seem to be relatively similar.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've got it on watch, you might be right and the CSD will be rejected. If so I'll definitely bring to AfD. Thanks for the advice! -- Atamachat 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NederlanderWorld

Resolved
 – user indef blocked as group account Rees11 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

User name suggests a COI, possibly promotional too. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Meets CSD A7. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I reported to WP:UAA, we'll see if they get blocked for having a promotional username as well. -- Atamachat 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I had to PROD, SD was denied. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the fast action on this. Rees11 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't believe it's going to AfD, but okay. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Port of St. Helens: group account? Definite COI.

Possible group account ("Port of St. Helens"), being used to edit and create COI pages (1, 2). WP:UAA said to bring it over here. Not sure if anything needs to be done, though I'll use {{welcome-coi}}. tedder (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's more to be done. As I've stated on the talk page of the article, it's clearly going to be a notable subject so the article's existence is justified, I just wish it wasn't a COI account that created it. Either way, no real harm done, the COI account should avoid editing the article in the future and hopefully other editors will expand it properly without bias. -- Atamachat 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Atama, thanks for looking at it as an uninvolved third party. Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic resonance neurography

Based on the infomercial shown in YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kAZr6BUc0), I believe one of the editors, Afiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Afiller), of this wikipage has direct financial interest in promoting Neurography through this wikipage on Magnetic resonance neurography. CogitoErgoSum101 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On Afiller's talk page, there is a discussion already regarding this matter. In that discussion his COI was presented to him, and he stated,
"I wrote an extensive review of the history of computed radiology. I am a neurosurgeon. I then cited the review when I added to history sections in this field. In any case, I have no interest in violating any guidelines. Please feel free to remove all of my contributions. I teach and write books (e.g. "Do You Really Need Back Surgery" for Oxford University Press) to inform the general public. However, fortunately, Wikipedia has a wealth of knowledgeable contributors (many of whom conceal who they are). I guess I'd better stick to academics. However, it was my impression that this issue was raised when I first started doing contributions. These were reviewed and approved by other editors and appreciation expressed. There was no warning that I was violating some rule and needed to stop writing. I think you are mis-stating the policy, but as I said, please feel free to remove everything I have written if that is what your fellow editors think is appropriate."
He seemed somewhat upset about the COI accusation, and this is really a touchy subject. On the one hand, Afiller is Aaron Filler, the same person quoted a number of times in the article and the same person who wrote or co-wrote a number of the sources used as references in the article. On the other hand, he is very up-front about who he is and has added a wealth of knowledge to MRI-related articles (and I presume others as well). I have to think that WP:IAR trumps WP:COI in this area, where losing Afiller's help is more damaging than a potential COI problem. (I myself am 99% of the time against the whole WP:IAR policy, even though it's considered the "first rule" of Wikipedia, but once in a blue moon I actually think it should apply.)
In any case, Afiller doesn't seem to have been disruptive, and Wikipedia never has enough experts. I would suggest that no action needs to be taken against him. I doubt very much that he has "direct financial interest" in Wikipedia, I can't imagine him editing MRI articles to make a buck considering his credentials. As long as he doesn't violate WP:NPOV or other such policies his editing should be not only allowed, but appreciated. -- Atamachat 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the following was the initial assessment on the Neurography page it appears on the discussion for that page :Afiller (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

I was asked to take a look at this because it's possible that one of the inventors of the technique may be involved in writing the article <edit: this is not a problem in and of itself, but it is good to be aware of the guideline on writing about subjects you're involved in>. I read it and made a few minor tweaks. Overall I thought it was very good, and well referenced. You can tell it's written by a professional. I marked one spot I thought needed a reference, and one I thought needed explanation in layperson's terms. Ideas for improvement include adding explanations in layperson's terms and using more scientific review articles, which are preferred over primary literature in Wikipedia. If the technique has disadvantages compared to standard MRI, they should be included per the very fundamental neutrality policy. Thanks for the great work on the article so far, I look forward to seeing more from these contributors. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I will leave a note on wikiproject medicine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC) From reading this article, I have no idea how widely or where it is practised. A google search lists the Neurography Institute as the exclusive provider (on google description but not the page), which gives me concerns about notability. Now this article needs to mention this material in a neutral fashion. also needs some criticism - is it widely taken up? If not , why not? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


CogitoErgoSum, Atama - Thanks. As I have pointed out in other areas, there are many conflicts that are not disclosed that are harmful. For instance, most academics depend on grants and academic promotion so they always promote their work. This is generally clear to all who read. Wikipedia poses a special problem because it is often anonymous and there is no formal process to document conflicts. I have posted information on the inventions in the articles and on my userpage. In the Diffusion MRI page, we had the conflict of editors supporting a scientist who heads up grant committees at NIH. If you are applying for a grant in your field, it is great to support the NIH section chief over a competing scientist -but that presents a conflict - often undeclared. I have also encountered very upsetting conflicts of interest with regard to teaching and training. Spine surgeons don't want patients to know about piriformis syndromes or neurography because it may provide an alternative diagnosis so they don't get spine surgery. I once organized a co-conference for the Cedars Sinai spine institute along with their spine instrumentation course and had prominent speakers from around the country coming. The spine surgeons forced us to cancel because the instrument manufacturers did not want spine surgeons learning about alternatives. Now how do we disclose to patients the training bias of the surgeons who were prevented from learning about new diagnostic methods that might reduce the frequency of inappropriate spine surgery. In any case, in academia, we don't try to prevent publication from anyone whose job depends on their work or there would be no one left to publish. Similarly, we don't automatically prevent publication by people who are being paid unearned money by some corporation as long as it is disclosed. We don't want to criminalize inventing things. I developed MR Neurography because there was no method to image nerve reliably and I perceived that people were suffering unnecessarily because of this. I spent years of work successfully figuring out how to do this and I have then spent years doing careful formal large scale outcome trials - as have also been done by others who I have never met - all of the studies from the various groups are finding similar accuracy and efficacy rates so my own work is demonstrably accurate. There are those that feel that patents are bad and inventors are bad people. However, time and again, it seems to turn out that intellectual property rights are beneficial to society and inventing new solutions is helpful to society. We can also look into excluding any expert from writing in an encyclopedia - relying only on non-specialists. This has some supporters but has many obvious problems as well. I feel that a person should disclose who they are so conflicts can be clear. The citations on the Neurography page leave no doubt about my interest in this area. I am glad that so many thousands of people have been relieved of pain and suffering because of this invention and the work done to verify its clinical efficacy. I do want more people to know about it and understand how it can help them get the best care and that is certainly my bias. Multiple providers are noted on the page.Afiller (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CogitoErgoSum and Atama - I have also added a conflict of interest statement to the MR Neurography and Diffusion MRI articles with a full formal conflict of interest statement on my user page.Afiller (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, your edits have been very constructive. We just like to take a close look at possible CoI's to make sure nothing violating other rules has taken place. Those who don't hide CoI's and make constructive edits should feel free to continue editing, but be aware that people will take a closer look than they might otherwise. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's give this a day or two and if nobody else has any strong objections it would be best to remove the banners on the pages. -- Atamachat 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, Irbisgreif - Thanks for the explanation and the positive words. I see that Ibisgrief has already removed the banner. I also did a drawing, references and a "How it Works" section on the Spin Echo article - just to be cautious - because it relates to MRI, I will put the COI notice on that page as well.Afiller (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Afiller, put the COI on the page's talk page, not the main page. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wannamaker Agency

WAgency234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Created The Wannamaker Agency and own userpage with spam advertising said agency. Tckma (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD it all and request an admin look into the account. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Both ads have been deleted via CSD already. Tckma (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I requested an admin to look into the account at ANI. Tckma (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Not much to worry about here on CoI then. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copernic

Paul-Michel (talk · contribs)
Copernic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mycopernic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Copernic Desktop Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Copernic Agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Paul-Michel self-identifies as the web marketing agent for Copernic. (See Talk:Copernic Agent). He is creating articles about Copernic's products. While technically not speedyable, it's obviously using Wikipedia for promotion. --B (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a COI notice on their user talk page. -- Atamachat 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a potential COI

I find a curator of a museum putting a notice above, written in polite and businesslike language, saying he could be regarded as potentially conflicted, but that "I do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article".

I could also write something like that about something I did a couple of years ago. I've done more than an eighth-of-a-million edits to Wikipedia in the course of almost seven years, not one of them by any automated or partially automated means (bots or whatever), including creation of a fairly large number of new articles (would you believe Wikipedia actually had no article on Cavalieri's principle until this year?!) (see the partial list on my user page). Two people whose identities I don't recall have added links to papers I wrote that were published in scholarly journals. (I think one of them was an anonymous user identified only by an internet protocal number belonging to a machine somewhere in Britain. That proves that at least one person noticed my paper. Who'd 'a' thunk it?) And I have added one myself—maybe two or three years ago. These were in three separate articles.

I also "do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article". I could point out exactly which article it was. But today I am not feeling very benevolently disposed toward Wikiepedia's COI community, in part because I believe them to be guilty of systematically violating Wikipedia's assume-good-faith policy. I wish I could think that the polite and businesslike tone above is how the COI community typically works. But it is not so. So I'll phrase it a different way: See if you can guess which article.

(Well, actually, I don't think there should be any difficulty......) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think this is a bit of a publicity stunt on your part, consider taking off the spiderman costume? Irbisgreif (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "spiderman" item you've linked to says:
Sometimes even the most saintly of Wikipedia editors become involved in disputes over content.
So at least you've succeeded in recognizing that I am among the most saintly of Wikipedians. Congratulations. Oh, and I see that I will be able to edit again some time after the heat-death of the universe (if not immediately after).
Something really needs to be done about the guilty-until-proven-innocent nature of some of the practices of the COI community, including some of the boilerplate templates they use.
(In one case several years ago, a person of perhaps marginal notability named Harry Binswanger edited the article about himself, deleting an erroneous assertion that he had taught courses at Duke University, and, I think also deleting an erroneous statement that he was the editor of a scholarly journal. All he did was delete claims that he had accomplished things that he had not. But it got him a warning about COI. More recently I've observed someone getting boilerplate warnings that he shouldn't do advertising or promotion, before anyone adduced any evidence that he had done so, or for that matter even asserted it. Guilty until proven innocent.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
My experience here has been that CoI's are only problems in conjunction with other problematic editing. I can't speak for too far in the past, I only decided to dive into the backend of wikipedia recently. With the exception of a misunderstanding I've apologized for, I've allways assumed good faith here. Perhaps if you feel things are too heavy handed, you'd like to get involved and help out, giving advice and reminding people to remember to assume goodwill? Irbisgreif (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ouch, I think something sharp nicked me. Seriously, WP:COI is a guideline only and if nobody is misbehaving nothing really happens from a COI notice. The COI templates can be used to post inappropriately rude things on a person's talk page, but so can the templates at WP:SPAM and WP:VAN and any number of places. -- Atamachat 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, the talk page is that way. The noticeboard isn't a place to talk about COI guidelines or conduct of the noticeboard, it's to request assistance in COI matters. I suggest moving this discussion there. -- Atamachat 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I was not attempting to publicize a cause; I was just more-or-less reflexively expressing how I felt about recent occurrences. I had just found out that COI has its own notice board and is a community.

Standard COI templates violate the assume-good-faith rule in a very emphatic and unqualified way. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, and I've said as much here where the discussion probably belongs. It's not a bad idea to have a discussion on the COIN talk page also, about courtesy in warning editors about a COI. But that discussion probably shouldn't be here on this page itself. -- Atamachat 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Get involved now

I made some comments here. The only person who replied agreed with me. I forbid those who don't get involved with this to complain to me about my construing their silence as consent. So wake up, if you haven't already. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

.......oh, and can someone here help with this? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sam Chupp

Entry was created by the subject, and the majority of edits appear to be either by him or by his wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.32.12 (talk • contribs)

Not exactly fresh, last edit of Sam Chupp by Sambearpoet was March 2007. Article is a stub, contains exactly four sentences. Without a reference to backup that Origins award, you might even be able to get it through an AfD.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI/self-editing by subject of article

EdBedden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be the subject of the article Marc Leepson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the subject passes WP notability test, it appears he is self-editing, and with all the links to personal pages on Facebook etc, the article is bordering on a vanity page. 98.169.235.230 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The personal links are gone, I just cut two biographical links in the article that don't add anything of importance. I did leave the link to his personal web site, because that's a standard external link to have. EdBedden hasn't responded to any queries about COI but I'm pretty sure you're correct, the language on their user page matches the biography of Marc Leepson much too closely to be a coincidence. -- Atamachat 21:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Siemens PLM Software

The talk page comment on this was raised as a concern. Further checking quickly showed the article was apparently the writing of an individual at the company itself [38].

None of this means the article is an automatic delete, but given one user has critiqued it very strongly and the COI issue, can the article be reviewed to see if it is overly promotional, non-encyclopedic, or meets WP:CORP?

FT2 (Talk | email) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It clearly meets WP:CORP but could really do with some more reliable sourcing. The IP has edited other pages with which they have a COI: Special:Contributions/146.122.204.33. Smartse (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Internet advertising bureau

Resolved
 – Article speedily deleted Smartse (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)



--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been deleted and Stuart2009 is both up-front about the COI declaration and expresses a willingness to follow Wikipedia's policies, so I don't think there's a problem right now. -- Atamachat 21:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Devendra Banhart

This editor, who previously worked on the article evidently as an IP editor, claims to work for the management of this individual and is removing sourced information based, evidently, on personal knowledge that the Rolling Stone source is wrong. I have issued a 3RR notice but am backing off now to avoid stepping over any such lines myself. I would appreciate other input. I'll get back to my copyright work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am happy to discuss this more. I am merely trying to make this page more accurate. Please remove the conflict banner at the top of this page. I respect the process and realize you are all just looking out for the process and truth. I apologize for any missteps with this process as it is new to me and am happy to discuss this further. Thank you. Lktmgmt (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've offered advice to Lktmgmt in helping understand WP:V policy. -- Atamachat 16:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This IP has been reverting too. I left a 3RR notice. Rees11 (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ebiglione and HACER

Ebiglione (talk · contribs) has started placing inappropriate external links to hacer.org in a lot of articles. This user also created and did much of the editing to Hispanic American Center for Economic Research. I requested that the user not spam up the EL sections.[39] I tagged issues at the HACER article as well. NJGW (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User did not reply and has ignored my request to not spam articles.[40] I expect they will start using IPs if pushed too much. NJGW (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- NJGW (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see a COI issue, unless I missed some clue that they are directly connected to HACER itself. You can spam something without being connected to the organization you are promoting. On the other hand that editor's contributions to this encyclopedia are almost exclusively spam, so I'd suggest using some aggressive templates and if they are ignored report them to WP:AIV to be blocked. If you suspect that they are trying to use IPs to disguise their actions (or to get around a block later) go ahead and start a report at WP:SPI. -- Atamachat 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Charity:_water editing article Charity:_water

Full disclosure: I tagged the article Charity:_water with {{nofootnotes|date=July 2009}} in July and as an article for deletion yesterday.

User:Charity:_water has made but two contributions yesterday to Wikipedia, both on Charity:_water. The user was swiftly tagged with {{uw-coi}} by User:98.248.32.178. No edits have One edit was made before the COI tag was placed on user's talkpage, one has been made since. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article has a snowball's chance of being deleted (and yes I voted to keep it). That being said, it does need improvement. The most perplexing thing for me, though, is that the COI editor is actually removing POV material from the article. They're actually making good edits from what I can tell. The WP:COI guidelines don't specifically prevent an editor from contributing to any article, they only suggest the most appropriate way for an editor with a COI to contribute to an article. An editor who is editing in a disruptive manner who also has a COI would expect to have their actions judged more harshly than an editor who doesn't have a COI. But in this case the editor actually seems to be doing good, and if they continue in that manner there shouldn't be a problem. -- Atamachat 17:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I forgot to add, the editor was reported to WP:UAA because the username is definitely not appropriate. -- Atamachat 17:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That was me, and it wasn't meant to reflect on the edits in question. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Potential COI

Yes, this is the wrong place to report this, but it's no problem. A conflict of interest arises when an editor makes edits to an article when they have a strong connection to the subject, and could personally benefit in some way from those edits. An editor who hasn't even made any edits yet wouldn't fall under that criteria. You might want to try reporting to WP:UAA which is where username policy violations are reported. -- Atamachat 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Norvall Jerome Pickett

Resolved
 – Article deleted Smartse (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Norvall Jerome Pickett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Extended content

Having never run into any real COI problems before, I'm not sure if I'm jumping the gun here, but I thought I'd be cautious and see what some other people think.

The subject of the linked article has a son whose name matches the username of the article's main author. The article has plenty of citations, but none of them are actually to material that substantiates the article's claims. Rather they are typically just links to the homepage of any of the various organizations that the article's author has been associated with, containing no mention of the article's subject himself. I took the links out to prevent linkspamming and to make clear that the information in the article was not yet verified.

Since then, the original author has restored them with what seems to me like an unfounded rationale. I'm coming here because the author has what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest, but I'm also reticent to address it straight out because of the outing rules, which I suppose could be strictly construed to ban this. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in this area can offer some guidance. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The outing rules don't apply to information that an editor voluntarily provides. When the editor chose to use his real name as his username (assuming it is) he gave that information freely. Inquiring about any possible real-life connection to the article subject based on what they've done or said in Wikipedia isn't a violation of their privacy. Now, if you had done some off-wiki sleuthing and came across info, and then brought it here and confronted him, that would be a different story. -- Atamachat 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. No Inspector Gadgetry here; the username just was a clear match to the name in the article, and I've since discovered that he outs himself on his userpage. The userpage also shows that his edits, which are numerous, are primarily limited to topics with which a COI would be likely. Again, I'm not sure if just stating that possibility on your own userpage is enough to notify people of the conflict, or if the editor should be making those notifications at each article's talk page, or if he should just be staying away from the article altogether. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
There are no set rules. Stating the COI on his own page I would think is sufficient declaration, it's certainly a sign that he's not trying to sneak in anything under the radar. You've addressed your concerns in a civil manner both on the talk page of the article and the editor's talk page, and I think the AfD is also appropriate, you've handled everything properly in my opinion. -- Atamachat 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough. Thanks for the guidance. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I might as well weigh in on this. I am an inclusionist and see no problem with including minor notables, persons known in their communities and circles but not to the greater world. Its not like a few KB of memory is expensive. I also can't quite get my head around the conflict-of-interest controversy. Direct promotional articles, or articles defaming persons should, of course, be limited. However I can't see Joe Blogs from Florida being interested in writing an article about California pizzas. Certainly article creators have some interest in the subjects they write about. Otherwise there is no reason a person would write about someone. I personally knew George Swain, a person with numerous articles written about him, so he is notable. But he was what would be considered, to anyone who saw him, to be a desert tramp. Who else in the world would know enough ABOUT him or cared enough, or had the knowledge about writing Wikipedia articles, to write an article for inclusion? Who else has the intimate knowledge of the History of a subject to include the necessary details? You won't find those details in newspaper articles. I know it is not Wiki policy but there is a need and a place for Eyewitnesses to History. It is something sorely lacking in Wikipedia. When I wrote the article about Norvall Jerome Pickett I tried very hard to use a NPOV. I wasn't hiding my identity behind a made up user name as many do (see above). He had a place in the History of the towns and communities where he served. He was well known, to almost everybody in those locations. Many of the references I included because there is no article about those subjects in Wikipedia, articles that NEED to be written as they are institutions that are notable. I think it is time to expand our horizons in Wikipedia, or else there needs to be something created that will allow for this to happen. DavidPickett (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry but you want to fundamentally change what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia not a place for first-hand accounts or personal research. You can't provide information provided by yourself. This just isn't that kind of a web site. Wikipedia only contains information that is backed up by sources found in other places. It's how the whole site functions. And by the way, the encyclopedia gets by just fine when Joe Blogs from Florida writes about California pizza, because he'll just include information found in the California Pizza Weekly magazine.
Now, if I may make a suggestion (and please don't take this the wrong way), but if this is your only interest then Wikipedia might not be the place for you. I'm not saying you don't belong, every person who wants to contribute positively is welcome and you've definitely done nothing wrong that would mean you shouldn't edit anymore. But if you find Wikipedia's policies too restrictive for what you want to do, there are other places you can go. There is a list of wikis maintained on Wikipedia that you can look over to see if perhaps a different wiki would be a better place for the info about your father. WikiIndex is another place to find other wikis that's located on a different site. Or, you can check for other places that aren't wikis at all that you can post the info. But honestly, you're not going to be able to publish original research on Wikipedia, that's never going to happen. -- Atamachat 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You might want to check out new projects on Meta, some might fit what you're thinking of. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That is very sad for Wikipedia in that it becomes only as good as the news articles that are out there, which are usually biased, one sided, or do not give the whole story. To get the "Whole story" you need people who are not influenced by the Editorial slant of the newspaper or magazine which has the "Original" "Research". You need people who lived it. DavidPickett (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a completely legitimate criticism. When you consider that Wikipedia is based on "verifiability, not truth", it might lead you to wonder, "Why isn't the truth more important?" Unfortunately I think that while that would be a wonderful goal, it won't be achieved in a collaborative project like Wikipedia because different people will have their own idea of what is and isn't the truth. That's why we have to fall back onto news articles, books, and other sources outside of Wikipedia itself, because we can be more objective that way. It can lead to a situation where you read an article that has information that you know to be false, that you've seen with your own eyes that it's false, but if some newspaper story cited in the article says otherwise there's nothing you can do (at least no here on Wikipedia). -- Atamachat 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for listening to my concerns anyway. Glad to know someone understands Wikipedia's shortcomings. If I were to be quoted or have a column weekly in some local rag I could be "notable", but someone such as Jean-Philippe Susilovic who is never written about but appears weekly on TV is not notable! Thanks anyway! DavidPickett (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article for Jean-Philippe states that the notability isn't established, and obviously it isn't in that article (there's almost nothing in the article). But just a quick search on Google News shows plenty of mentions. That's an example of an article that needs improvement, not deletion, because reliable sources can be found. A bit off-topic but I thought I should respond. :) -- Atamachat 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

User:OMC TeamObaidullah

Resolved
 – Thanks for letting us know Smartse (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Role account: "Joint account for use by the attorneys detailed by the Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions, in support of U.S. v Obaidullah. -- I blocked as spamusername, but thought I should let folks know. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Lewin Group and Coverups

206.65.37.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP who traces back to a domain called "Lewin-VHI" over the last few days they have been making edits that relate directly the the current Lewin Group controversy, if you don't know what that is basically the GOP is citing the Lewin group as an independent health care policy analysis outfit when the Lewin group is owned by UHC one of the countries biggest health insurance companies.

That is all background and outside the scope of wikipedia, what we need to do is make sure the Lewin Group doesn't whitewash their wikipedia page or related wikipedia pages, see the edits [41], the damning edit [42], and another cover up [43]. We can't stand for that sort of conflict of interest whitewashing here on wikipedia, can we get some blocks and page protections then whatever other actions need to be taken? TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ick, definitely not good. If this is persistent you might be better off at WP:ANI, it looks more serious than the usual COI stuff. -- Atamachat 04:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea, not good but fortunately pretty easy to notice. They haven't edited in almost two weeks however so hopefully this should be the end of it. I've left them a note on their talk page (surprised no-one had already) alerting them to this and giving a link to WP:COI. Smartse (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've left them a note on their talk page. The sheer number of links, the clear lack of discretion in adding them (see the edits to Cowboy and Abolotionism for example) and the apparent conflict of interest add up to behavior that should at least be moderated. I avoided a boilerplate, I didn't want to give them any indication that they were "in trouble", because as you said the links appear to be in good faith. -- Atamachat 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Question Having come across this issue, as one of the articles edited by PMMP NPS is on my watchlist. I noted it was reverted to my last edit, to remove the NPS link, by Orangemike, who has also blocked the editor indefinitely for spamming. Having then checked the contributions by PMMP NPS I note that some, but not all, of the articles he placed links on have also been reverted by Orangemike to remove the NPS links. If the inserted links are considered to be spam, sufficently enough to have the editor blocked, then should'nt they equally be removed from the remaining articles he edited under the same criteria? Richard Harvey (talk) 10:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I would ask Orangemike directly. Personally, I thought the warnings were sufficient, esp as PMMP NPS had not edited since they were left. However, Orangemike does have a point with the username problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

YourTravelBiz.com CoI

YourTravelBiz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had written on the YTB talk page about some edits that need to be done. I also stated that I have an affiliation with the company and requested someone look at the edits, as well as the undue weight being given to articles about the California Attorney General's lawsuit. Essentially, it seems to be a nice article filled with facts, but the facts are incorrect in many cases (as stated in the talk page) and the links that back the information are purposefully picked to link back to completely negative articles about YTB. The lawsuit is settled, yet those news stories are completely about the lawsuit. Further, there is a statement about YTB being investigated in RI... All agencies were investigated there. Also, this article is written by someone interviewing a person who is blaintly anti-YTB. I have listed these changes on the talk page, yet nothing seems to get done. One lawsuit is settled, another thrown out of court, yet the first paragraph is half about lawsuits... and they have their own section!

Please take a look at this as I have done everything I can at this point. I had someone log the following on my talk page: "I think you may have a point about undue weight. I need to review the sources and get back into editing the article. I don't want anyone getting scammed by this company, but I appreciate that people depend on it for their livelihoods. I look forward to working with you to produce an even-handed article" But that was July 19th and I have messaged back since then.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please refer to the YTB talk page for more details on the information. Zulualpha (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken some time to perform a reorganization and add additional information to make it conform better to other corporations. I agree that there appears to be WP:COI involved. I believe the edits made today will help clear up the issue, and have addressed some of your concerns. Also, feel free to use the WP:BOLD process. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Miranda Grell

Miranda Grell is a former Labour party politician and councillor for the London Borough of Waltham Forest, and the first person to be found guilty of making false statements under the Representation of the People Act 1983. As such, this is a controversial article, and we've had edits that one might consider to be pushing a particular point of view by editors one might consider to have a COI before (User:Fys, another London Labour Party councillor, in 2007; and User:Justiceforleytonward, named after a group campaigning in support of Grell, in 2007/8). We now have a SPA editor in User:Grellfamily, again who one might consider to be pushing a particular point of view and with a user name that implies a COI. There hasn't been any big edit conflict so far, but I tweaked Grellfamily's edit of 2 Aug, got reverted by Grellfamily yesterday, and have just reverted back. I would appreciate any input/help here. Bondegezou (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For one thing, two of those accounts should have been reported to WP:UAA. I've done so. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Grellfamily has said on their talk page that they are the subject of the article. I've left a message and will point them to this discussion as well. Smartse (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Christos Kedras

This article appears to have been written by the individual concerned (User:Kedras), and is written very much like a vanity page. My instinctive reaction would be to go to AfD, but, since the article asserts some notability, I'd like to know if it is salvageable. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

See:- Conflict of Interest - Autobiography. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the guideline, but it is addressed to the editors with COI (and they rarely bother to check it), and thus not very helpful for other editors in deciding what to do with these articles, i.e., copyedit to the bare essentials, or go to AfD? Constantine ✍ 16:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
As per the Conflict of Interest - Autobiography guidline advice of:- "In these cases, the article is normally moved into the user namespace rather than deleted". So do that, using that link as the reason in the edit summary. Then redirect the article page to the editors user page. Place a message on the users talk page as to why the article was moved to his user page and advise him to read the Autobiography guidlines, specifically Autobiography, Creating an article about yourself. Richard Harvey (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
To save work I have done this already. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Constantine ✍ 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged the original page with G6 CSD, since it's a cross namespace redirect. Netalarmtalk 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I encountered this page while new page patrolling and thought it smelled kind of funky. I was actually on my way to AFD it, since an hour spent trying to establish notability turned up nothing. Nosleep break my slumber 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clive Fiske Harrison

Clive Fiske Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This has been flagged as autobiography. It is not, as is clear, he is my father. However, I am aware there is a conflict of interest, so having sourced the material, I leave it to other editors to change it should they find it lacks neutrality.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That still counts as an ‘autobiography’. I would also question notability here. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Technically not - an autobiography is a biography written by the subject himself (see auto- on Wiktionary), but it is a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was: This is still covered by the autobiography tag. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Is it a COI? I doubt he's being paid. Not disagreeing necessarily, just wondering where we should draw the line. Rees11 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Getting paid isn't the only Conflict of Interest that can exist. I would love for a WP article to exist about my father, but to create one myself would be CoI. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I don't think it is - I have tried to be fair to the sources used, NOT to my own view of the man. However, I felt duty bound to put it up here myself, which is not to say it actually deserves to be here. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The part of WP:COI that applies here is in the close relationships section where it states, "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest." Later in that section it states, "The definition of 'too close' in this context is governed by common sense." That's why the COI doesn't automatically apply, for example, for a person editing an article about a religion they follow, or someone who's a fan of a rock star editing that person's page. Someone who is the subject's son would be considered "too close", I would think. -- Atamachat 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Having put this up here myself, and had it moved to AfD - which has been closed - I think we can now close this. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better if the article had been written by someone else but as it's survived AfD I think that this is now resolved. Smartse (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RESOLVED Hi, as the person who put this here, and with the blessing of all involved in the subsequent AfD, I think this is done now. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Israel Project

There have been three sets of edits so far by different IP addresses claiming to be the "web director of The Israel Project".[44][45][46]. All are deletions which include properly cited sources. The thrust of the edits is to remove criticism of The Israel Project. Sources removed include Newsweek, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and J Street. It seems that The Israel Project had an embarrassing leak, Newsweek picked it up, it appeared elsewhere in the press, the info was cited in Wikipedia, and The Israel Project doesn't like it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I added a level 3 warning (blanking) to the latest IP to blank content. I've also added a more strongly worded note to the user, stating that the content will stay on Wikipedia, but if they find a reason to prove that it is inaccurate, we'll remove it accordingly. A person that claims (or is) affliated with the project attempting to hide negative aspects of their organization... I think we should keep an eye on this. Netalarmtalk 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
94.188.130.146 and 84.228.211.216 are both from Amsterdam, and I'm sure are the same person. -- Atamachat 03:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, those IP addresses aren't from Amsterdam. They're both from Israel. The IP address space was acquired from RIPE in Amsterdam, but a traceroute shows that 94.188.130.146 routes through "ce-int-V-side.qos.net.il" and 84.228.211.216 routes to "IGLD-84-228-211-216.inter.net.il". --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
94.188.130.146 traces to Tel Aviv and 84.228.211.216 traces to Nazareth in Israel. No attempts to hide any content have been made since the report, but I think we'll continue to watch this page just to make sure. The user seems to have understood the messages we gave. Netalarmtalk 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
See also 66.208.24.163 (talk · contribs), especially this section blanking. There's also a new named editor, Freebloggers (talk · contribs), who seems to edit only Israel Project. No user page, no talk page, no edit comments, no citations, somewhat POV edits. --John Nagle (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I have given Freebloggers (talk · contribs) three warnings now (and by the time I get back it may be time for UW-4) for uncited / improperly cited / removed cite edits. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure enough, final warning given for making factual changes and self-cites. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is "Rightweb" considered a reliable source? -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is a wreck; some sources did not link to the sites they claimed with which to link, citations do not support text, some of the sources my not meet our standards, ouch. I am going off line for a while now, but this article needs serious work. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The substantive issues are being discussed on talk. Avraham (talk · contribs) is making useful contributions. The substantive issues revolve around the criticism section in the lede. The blanking issues revolve around other material which leaked to Newsweek. The Israel Project would like to make it disappear, a futile exercise since it's all over the mainstream press now. --John Nagle (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Fixed one of links that didn't link to the source to which it claimed to link. That was due to an edit by Freebloggers (talk · contribs) which changed a link from a story in The Forward to The Israel Project's home page: [47]. Are there any other bad links? --John Nagle (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Khokhar which has WP:OWN and WP:COI by Khokhar

Hi I have tried to make Good Faith additions to this article from verifiable sources. See here:

The sources I have used are:

He deleted them.

There also seems to be some WP:CANVASS Going on against Indian Administrators and Editors as in Here:

He has WP:GAME the system here:

before I could repost him

Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN.

Thanks --Sikh-History 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


This is part of a wider problem involving User:information-Line making vandal edits to all articles related to Sikhs, this was taken on ANI and is part of a wider Wikipedia:Canvassing with user:Sikh-history, evidence can be found in this extract from ANI:

Moving here from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts, the above user has continued to make disruptive edits of the exact same nature even after the above comments.. and user was blocked for 48 hours for the same disruptive and 'vandal' edits in another article [52] but now another user Sikh-history, who is very active on User:Information-Line personal talk pages and was requested to intervene by said user here [53] and had already made 'threats' on the other user's talk pages (mentioned in previous link) here [54] before starting to make disruptive edits on an article I have been maintaining, about the clan called Khokhar, clearly to aid User:Information-Line and be a nuisance.


And the only racist/extreme views were made by User:Information-Line, who was Wikipedia:Canvassing with User: Sikh-history, on my talk page here [55] and are cleary Islamophibic and hostile towards the muslim population.


The reason for the initial issues were due to User:Information-Line vandalsising all articles that related to Sikhs, such as inflating Sikh numbers in the punjab article from 15% of the population to 45% and he also tried the same in the Chandigarh article but was reported and got a 48 Hour block.. I was actively reverteing his vandalism.. then he approached User:Sikh-history, as you can see we have a 'Sikh' link here and the two users are very active on each others talk page(evidence is avilable above).


Here's a full version of the initial ANI report concerning the above two users[56]:


The above user has constantly made disruptive POV edits to the punjabi people article, made numerous reverts despite edits being explained, taken part in constant edit warring with other editors, and clearly has a bias and wants to push a pov which said user knows to violate the NPOV rules and make blatantly false edits, such as here [57] and here [58], which user has repeatedly reverted here [59], here [60], and here [61], the only obvious reason being that he belongs to the minority Sikh Punjabi community and user feels the need to inflate numbers, user has been warned on numerous occasions here [62], here [63] and here [64] but has instead decided to be confrontational here [65] and here [66]


Khokhar (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There is obviously a dispute but I can't see what the COI issue is, I don't think this noticeboard is the best place to discuss this personally. Perhaps you should try dispute resolution? Smartse (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, not clearly COI, try WP:DR Tiggerjay (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Two Issues That Make it WP:COI

Note from the warnings I have issued, I have warned User:Information-Line on several occaision about making disruptive edits. The issue is not User:Information-Line and Khokhar. Check User:Information-Line page history, so there clearly is no WP:CANV going on. I am concerned about the WP:COI on article Khokhar by a person named Khokhar. The user seems to WP:OWN, the article and does not allow any other good faith edits on the page. By assuming that I am colluding with another user Khokhar has not assumed good faith. In my mind there are two issues:
  1. Should a user with a surname Khokhar be assuming to be an authority on an article Khokhar. Is this promoting self interest? WP:COI is "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests". Indeliberately leaving out Arains and Churahs, the editor is promoting self interest, and does not wish to see Khokhar be associated with so called "lower castes". For another example, that occured similar to this, see article Khaira where User:Information-Line (who has surname Khaira and was known as this user), did exactly the same thing and therefore there was WP:COI. In both instances they seem not to want anything negative (or what they percieve) portrayed about these clans (despite sources being there)
  2. As a result of this WP:COI from the same surnames there is WP:OWN of the article.

Hope that has clarified what I wrote.--Sikh-History 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess user:Sikh-history should not do any work on artices that Include the word Sikh.. or even history for that matter... also the only warnings user:Information-Line got were the type that come with animated stars including one for anti-vandalism...Khokhar (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested that Sikh-History bring the incident to the attention of the COI noticeboard, based on what was posted here, but I admit I didn't look into it very deeply. I thought that a COI was being claimed because of the statement, "Also there maybe an issue of WP:NPOV because the article is titled Khokhar and the user is a Khokhar, hence again, WP:OWN." That is why I made the recommendation.
It's clear looking at the additional information presented that this isn't the case. K.Kokhar took the words right out of my mouth, that if they have a COI at the Khokar article because they are a Khokar, then Sikh-History would have a similar COI at any Sikh-related article (and I know that Sikh-History does edit such pages, understandably). A person's religion, beliefs, or ethnic background should not preclude them from editing an article. Perhaps if K.Khokar were a member of a particular pro-Khokar organization and was trying to promote that organization that would be one thing, but this subject is too broad for COI to apply.
So, I apologize for my mistake, I should have looked into this further before making the suggestion to Sikh-History. The WP:NPOV noticeboard might be a better place for this info. I realize that this is the second time I've asked Sikh-History to repost the info elsewhere, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Perhaps another editor who hasn't already screwed up has a better idea where you can turn. -- Atamachat 00:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Biggs editing her entry (again)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise the issue of an editor making dubious edits to an article about themselves, and self-promoting in what seems an exagerating manner? If that constitutes a conflict of interests I would ask someone to intervene in the Barbara Biggs article. If this is not the correct place, would someone with more knowledge please pass this to someone who can look into it?

Biggs has removed an Original Research tag [67] which was placed in the article at the place where Biggs herself makes a claim, without a citation, about parents being "ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". There is absolutely no verification for this claim about the Family Court and I suggest it is original research by Biggs (like several other comments she has placed in her entry). I note that Biggs has placed a link [68] at the end of this same section leading to a government document which says ZILCH to confirm Biggs claim that "parents ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". Therefore I suggest the Original Research tag be replaced or better still, the entire OR sentence deleted or reworded to make clear it is her own unscientific belief.

I note also that Biggs herself writes "Regarding abuse victims, Biggs writes and speaks about the much-misunderstood phenomenon of emotional attachment to the abuser". Is this Biggs, the novelist, claiming to speak on behalf of herself, or is she speaking (as appears) in the guise of a psychology academic on behalf of victims plural? Might I remind that biggs is not an academic, her credentials coming down purely to her own personal experiences.

Finally, the openly anti-father group 'Anonymums' with whom Biggs is affiliated has placed the following menacing threat [69] in the talk section on behalf of Barbara Biggs:

"Response from Anonymums
What a load of rubbish!... Expect that you will no longer are able to continue your propaganda and whilst Barbara and other advocates have been incredibly polite and considerate of your needs and thoughts - We are not! Lies and propaganda will NOT be tolerated. You have been warned. Expect us"

Biggs has been asked previously to not edit her own article [70]Don't edit your own article. Perhaps she needs reminding again? 123.211.186.53 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If that truly is Biggs then clearly it's a COI. I looked at the article and it's a mess. There is some clear POV in the advocacy section and lots of peacock words and other things that need to be cleared out. -- Atamachat 21:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User: Abmuse and Ali Bongo Ondimba

We'll just keep that content off Wikipedia until the user can provide reliable sources that prove otherwise. If he does get married to her, there should be enough sources to prove it. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll continue to watch that page too. Netalarmtalk 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rd232

I've been accused, at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl) by an admin (User:Dbachmann) of having a WP:COI (diff). This finally explains his repeated re-adding of a {{COI}} tag to the article, when the obvious COI target (David Rohl / User:David Rohl) had agreed not to make any controversial edits. So, erm, I'd like some help/advice with my COI problem which is apparently so terrible - "an obviously fraudulent attempt to present this theory as having credibility", no less! (Talk:New Chronology (Rohl)#Merge) - that it merits a COI tag. Thanks! Rd232 talk 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think it merits a COI tag as Rohl is editing it, whether or not his edits are considered controversial. It's confusing as he edits for some things and for other things requests someone else to do it. How much editing can an author or subject do to warrant a coi tag? Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
If he starts doing a lot of edits that get reverted, I'd say. Rd232 talk 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The COI tag literally states that there is content that was added by an editor with a COI, and may need to be checked for neutrality. So, if there is content in the article that the COI editor added, check it out and clean it up if needed, then remove the tag and put a note on the talk page that you cleaned up the article. If the editor with a COI is editing the article and nobody has an issue with the edits then the COI tag is redundant. -- Atamachat 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Generally such tags should be associated with a clear talk page description of the problem, so that there's a chance to try and solve it. There hasn't been one here. Rd232 talk 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

so rd232 came here to inquire what it is the "COI" tag is saying or what? We have had several editors clearly in support of this theory editing the article, removing criticism and edit-warring over content warning tags. They are trying to present this "theory" as a bona fide academic suggestion, purely based on the primary publications of the proponent (Rohl). It has transpired that there is literally zero debate on this in scholarly literature, such few experts as commented on it dismissing it out of hand. rd232 & friends still insist on presenting this stuff as if it was academic, never mind that they have nothing to back it up because, hey, it was on Channel 4. When told that this is in violation of policy, they begin waving their hands and make excused along the line of WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTPERFECT. As if Wikipedia being eternally unfinished was some sort of excuse for blatantly ignoring policy and when challenged revert-war over article tags. If the "interst" of rd232 is anything beyond touting this fringe theory beyond anything permissible within WP:DUE he certainly is hiding his agenda masterfully.

Now seeing we're already forum shopping over this, could as many editors as possible please go over to the article and see to it that policy is upheld and the topic is critically assessed within WP:NOTE and WP:DUE and above all solidly based on third party WP:RS, cutting all the WP:SYNTH chaff that has grown around the actual topic to make it appear more legit. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH applies to Wikipedia editors. Reporting research by external sources, whether that research is widely accepted or not, cannot be WP:SYNTH. OK, there's a complication when the external source is also active on WP, but everyone's aware of the issue and seemed to be dealing with it quite well. Then dab charged in like a bull in a china shop and destroyed an incipient productive collaborative atmosphere which was (as a reading of the talk page will attest) well aware of the policy issues involved. And by the by, treating an admin of 4 years starting with little prior involvement with the topic as an WP:SPA is rude at best. Rd232 talk 08:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Curtin Business School

Talk:Curtin Business School - Requested article but acknowledging COI CbsExternalRelations (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied on user's talk page, stating that Curtin Business School must be notable by itself. Netalarmtalk 14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I did a Google on the subject, but could not find any sources indicating its independent notability. Also, the requesting user has been indefinitely blocked due to a username violation. I'd say this is just another case of an organization attempting to promote themselves on Wikipedia (but using COI for some reason). Netalarmtalk 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Littleolive_oil

Editor warned by Admin following lengthy discussion on COIN to abide by COI rules re all TM-related articles,[71] continually ignores the warning, insists that unless editing restriction is place on by arbitration, she is not bound by WP:COI.[72] and threatens Admin if he enforces using Admin tools.[73] Fladrif (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that WillBeBack, an administrator, lead the COI discussions referenced above, on the notice board and on Little Olive Oil's user page. Since WillBeBack has been an active editor on the Transcendental Meditation page during all of this time, that would seem to also be a COI. Maybe a new administrator, could evaluate the situation and give a fresh perspective. Just a suggestion.--Kbob (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Little Olive Oil is correct, actually. I see that you've warned them that they are not following "COI rules", when in reality there aren't any. WP:COI is a guideline meant to suggest ways for an editor with a COI to contribute to Wikipedia without disruption. They aren't preventative in any way. An editor is only expressly forbidden from editing a page where a COI applies if a topic ban has been placed on them. Such bans do come from ArbCom, but I believe that the community can decide a topic ban (just as they can declare a more general ban against an editor). I've seen such proposals on the WP:ANI board. I recommend that you try WP:RFC/U if you truly believe that Little Olive Oil needs such a sanction. Just keep in mind the Plaxico Effect; if you want to escalate the dispute that far you might bring scrutiny on yourself as well. If you're not confident enough for that, I suggest keeping the discussion either at the TM talk page, or going through the usual dispute resolution channels for article content. -- Atamachat 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No. This is the right place for this dispute. Specific sanctions including topic and other blocks are frequently implemented through this Project Page. Look at any one of the archives for this project. Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a community-sanctioned ban could happen anywhere, I just don't think this board gets enough attention for that. I haven't seen anything like that before. If you know of one I'd be interested to see. It's not that I don't believe you, I just don't want to go through all the archives searching and it sounds like you have an idea of where to look.
I see that from the old discussion you linked, the only decision that Will Beback made was that Little Olive Oil wasn't bound by WP:COI not to edit. I don't see anything saying they weren't allowed to edit TM articles. -- Atamachat 18:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That is incorrect. Will told olive that she was not to edit the TM-related articles directly, and to instead confine herself to the Talk pages.
  1. Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected. Will Beback talk 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles. Will Beback talk 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway. Will Beback talk 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Fladrif (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Since Will is participating in this discussion I'll leave it up to him to say what he meant, and to give any further judgement on the matter. But what you said above is false. Nowhere in any of the information that you quoted did Will state that Olive was not allowed to edit those articles any longer. Will said that he was going to suggest that they refrain from doing so, but that's it. In any case, Will cannot topic-ban Olive. It's not in his authority to. See WP:BAN, he can certainly block her for misbehavior but only Arbcom or a community consensus can declare a ban. You seem to be working under the false assumption that Will somehow unilaterally banned her already. -- Atamachat 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Will most definitely had the power to impose a Topic Ban on olive without Arbitration, per Wikipedia:BAN#Administrator_topic_bansFladrif (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What you linked says that an administrator can enforce sanctions listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions, and that's it. Do you see Transcendental Meditation in that list? -- Atamachat 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've made few edits to Transcendental Meditation, most fairly trivial, and my involvement in that topic is largely an outgrowth of getting involved in the previous discussion here. Since the user has redacted information from her talk page about the nature of her involvement with the topic, it would be difficult to do a fresh evaluation of the matter without compromising the editor's wishes. I think the discussion held in February is still relevant, and I don't believe any of the facts have changed.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Will is right. Things haven't changed much. This same editor started a COI in February. There were no COI edits found in February, and I continue to edit as a neutral editor now as I did then. In addition since there are concerns with behaviour, I'll mention editing on this article had become increasingly difficult as an editor employed sock puppets to control the discussion, and low level but relatively constant incivilities were ongoing.

The very editor (not the same editor who is described above in sock case) who is again bringing up a COI issue as he did in February, is the same editor who repeatedly attempted to remove well sourced content despite requests for discussion, active and suggested compromises from editors, and was finally at 3RR last night. It concerns me that when attempts to control the article don't work, attempts are made to undermine the editing capabilities of the editors. I find the attack of another editor extremely distasteful, and is not how I try to work on Wikipedia, but feel forced to defend myself once again.(olive (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Indeed, nothing much has changed. I won't dignify with a response the false claim that no COI edits were found in February. Olive continues to directly edit the TM-related articles though she has been directed by an Admin not to to so. And, her edits include the deletion of reliably-sourced material adverse to her employer's interests without discussion. Here's just one recent example in the Transcendental Meditation article. [74]. Here's another at the TM-Sidhi article. [75]Fladrif (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As I remember, your first diff refers to a very large non consensus addition which I moved to a talk page for discussion. This is a contentious article. The second removal was described in the edit summary as "bold" and was synthesis and OR in my opinion, and I carried on a long a careful explanation of what I thought the concerns were [76]. Neither are COI edits but definitely indicate concerns with process and policies on the articles.(olive (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

User: Fladrif--Disruptive Behavior on Transcendental Meditation topic

This post attempts to document a pattern of disruptive behavior consisting of personal attacks, removal of sourced content, edit warring, misrepresentation of sources and disrespect for editorial process.

Warning and Block History

  • 1/19/09 Blocked, Outing, [[77]]
  • 2/18/09 Warning, NPA, Dreadstar, [[78]]
  • 3/9/09 Final Warning, NPA, JGHowes, [[79]]
  • 8/8/09 Warning, NPA, Rlevse, [[80]]

Edit Warring

  • He deleted 6 times over 3 days a large section of text with 10 citations (all peer-reviewed research sources), despite strong opposition from multiple editors and offers and attempts to compromise.See Talk Page: Removal of “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation”. [[81]]

Diffs for deletions and reverts mentioned above:[[82]] [[83]][[84]][[85]][[86]][[87]]

Lack of Respect for Other Editors

  • “Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned” [[88]]
  • “I don't know anything about any of the editors other than what they say about themselves in their profiles and posts, buy as everybody knows, every single person who posts on the internet is a pimply 13-year old boy, so what's to distinguish one editor from another.”[[89]]

Violation of NPOV

  • Fladrif has condensed a large section called “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation” into 2 sentences describing the one adverse study and providing no text for the 9 beneficial studies. He does this as a justification for his deletion and edit warring. However his condensed version is grossly inadequate and skewed towards his POV as described above. See Talk Page: Removal of “Effects of the TM technique compared to Relaxation. [[90]]

Misrepresentation of Sources and Violation of NPOV

  • Fladrif writes: “and TM is regarded as being outside the mainstream of health system and mental health practice.” [[91]] Cotton, Dorothy H.G., Stress Management: An Integrated Approach to Therapy Psychology Press, 1990
  • Fladrif does not cite a page number but I found the following text on page 138 of the book he cites: “Interestingly, in spite of TM’s status outside the mainstream of the health system and mental health practice, it has been subject to a significant amount of empirical evaluation, much of which has in fact supported its claims of effectiveness in countering the physiological effects of stress.” So one sees that Fladrif has taken a small part of a sentence, out of context, to create a negative POV.

2nd Example: Misrepresentation of Sources and Violation of WP:MEDRS

  • The following copy was added to the article by Fladrif on 8/4/09 [[92]]
  • “Some researchers of TM effects subsequently retracted the conclusions of their earlier studies on meditation effects, acknowledging methodological weaknesses and bias, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology was rife with methodological weaknesses, and that those studies with proper controls showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.”

Two sources were given and neither source in any way supported the above text. These sources are: 1. Time, Mind Over Drugs, 10/25/1971 [[93]] 2. Eugene Register, Meditators, 1/8/1977 [[94]]

Kbob deleted the sentence(s) [[95]] citing WP:MEDRS “Popular Press” section

Fladrif reverted Kbob’s deletion [[96]]

Kbob made talk page entries citing MEDRS and poor sources, and asked for comments from other editors. See Talk: Removal of Text from Research: Effect on the Physiology for full discussion[[97]] [[98]]

Kbob gave specific reasons why this particular sentence had invalid sources.[[99]]

  • See Talk: The First Sentence for full discussion[[100]]

Fladrif refused to remove the invalid citations. See Talk: The First Sentence for full discussion [[101]]

The sentence remains, today, in the article (see below). The first three citations do not verify any of the content of the sentence. The fourth citation is inconclusive and the only mention of Benson is: “Herbet Bensons’ opinion its that TM is, ‘a hypometabolic state (…) that may well be induced by other techniques (…) and various religious prayers. TM therefore, is one method for eliciting the relaxation response’.” pp 11-12

Fladrif has turned this one quote of Benson’s into the following POV sentence:

  • “Benson acknowledged methodological weaknesses and bias in the study he co-authored with Wallace, and other researchers concluded that the literature on meditation and physiology done in the 1970s had methodological weaknesses, and that early studies using control groups showed that TM had no different effect than other self-regulation strategies, such as rest.
  • [[102]]

"Mind over drugs" Time (October 25, 1971)

Wagstaff, Beverly, "Meditators", Eugene Register-Guard (January 8, 1977) p B1

  • [[104]] "The TM craze: 40 minutes to bliss", Time (October 13, 1975)
  • [[105]] Phelan, Michael, "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion / La Méditation Transcendantale, une revivification de la religion civile américaine" Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions Vol 48-1 (1979)pp 5-20

Summary: Fladrif has engaged in a continued pattern of disruptive behavior. Through personal attacks and edit wars he has created a battleground environment which is counter productive to the article. In addition he has misrepresented sources and created content to support his POV. This has damaged the credibility of the article and obstructed the ability of other editors to make corrections, add content and move the article forward in a neutral and balanced way.--Kbob (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely not the board for this kind of thing. This board is for discussing conflicts of interest, not improper conduct unrelated to a COI. Maybe WP:ANI would be better, or WP:RFC/U. -- Atamachat 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
And, this involves WP:COI how, exactly? Fladrif (talk)

COI + WP:OWN issues on Queensland University

Various editors have been ignoring my calls for a clean up and have reverted my attempts to tone down the article in order to make it more encyclopaedic rather than being an advertisement. Instead, information of a more "promotional" nature have been added. Need help with some sort of arbitration. Messages, and attempts to discuss the matter have been ignored. It is clear that the editors are either attending or is associated with the university in some way. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and do a major clean up on this article starting now and probably lasting for a day or two. I'll remove any promotional content that is uncited too. Thanks. Netalarm 04:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the main problem with the article is the pervasive use of peacock terms and the overall tone. Thanks for the help! -Reconsider the static (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Would other editors like to help out? Some contributors to this article have little understanding of our policies, which is making this a bit harder. I'm almost done with WP:ABUSE so I'll get to this soon. Netalarm 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's looking better now, a number of editors have swooped down on the article to trim the nasty parts away and flesh it out with some real sources and neutral language. -- Atamachat 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I've notified Selwin wu about this thread. They've been having some real problems with copyright violations, and though recently they've responded to them by trying to make some differences between material on the article and material on the university's web page, the differences are very minor. I've raised a concern on the article's talk page about this. -- Atamachat 18:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Selwin is a sock. Notice how he starts editing again once the article is protected. It is pretty obvious that he was in control of the other two IPs. -Reconsider the static (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Looking at the history of the page, you see 116.15.38.240 editing at the same time as Selwin wu, see here and here. I find it implausible for Selwin wu to make dozens of edits over a period of hours, then suddenly switch to an IP to make a few changes for 10 minutes, then switch back to a logged-in account to make a few more edits for another 10 minutes, then switch back to an IP, then back to a logged-in account... Why? It's possible that 116.15.38.240 is a meatpuppet helping Selwin but I doubt very much they're the same person. The other IP, 219.75.84.153 might be Selwin but that was only a few edits done over the course of a couple of hours and might have been Selwin either forgetting to log in or not bothering to do so, I don't see it as a deliberate evasion of any kind. -- Atamachat 00:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that a sign of sockpuppetry though? The editing style of Selwin and the other IPs meets several of the points stated in WP:SIGNS, ie "single purpose account" and "editing identical articles. Also there is evidence of "chronology of edits" which is not definite proof, but it certainly raises suspicion. Also note how they make very similar edit summaries -Reconsider the static (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
It still doesn't make logical sense to me. I can only think of 3 scenarios in which a person was editing as a registered user and an IP at almost the same time, switching back and forth. The first scenario is that Selwin is crafty and trying to throw people off but I don't see it, they don't seem very knowledgeable about Wikipedia based on the way they've edited, also they were editing in that fashion before any warnings were issues about copyrights, COI, or anything else. The second scenario is that they were using 2 different computers and going back and forth between them, and were logged in on one and not the other. The last scenario is that it's a shared account and one of the two people weren't logged in, but again that's more along the lines of meatpuppetry because again we're talking about more than one person getting involved.
If you're this sure about it, just bring it up at WP:SPI and submit your case. I think that WP:AGF doesn't really apply because Selwin has never been communicative. In almost a week, they haven't made a single attempt to communicate with another editor, not on any article or user talk page, not even their own. Amid the warnings and questions and reverting and everything else going on they've bulled their way through. So go ahead with it. -- Atamachat 06:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
While you're at it, see if User:Munrostreet is another sock. -- Atamachat 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The IP numbers are both registered in the same area, suggesting they may be related somehow. I'll go ahead and clean up a bit, but something needs to be done with the problem editors. Selwin (very possibly) has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Netalarm 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Does anyone think the Research institutes and Centres section should be removed? I've checked the articles on other universities, and they don't have this section. Furthermore, there's no citation for the information and could be considered promotional in this case. Netalarm 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the usual WP:NPOV and WP:V concerns we also should be concerned about style. What does the article look like with that text in there? Previously, I moved long lists of alumni and faculty to a previously-created spin-off article that contained that same info just to trim down the length of the article. If the text is unsourced and doesn't look to provide anything of importance to the article and it's ugly then by all means delete it. -- Atamachat 22:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I just took a look and the "Organisational structure" section looks worse. It's nothing but a long list and it's not encyclopedic at all, more like something you'd expect to see in a student guide than something giving important info about the school. -- Atamachat 23:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should keep the "research centres" section, as there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Of a greater concern is the "University-based organisations and companies" section. It may constitute as spam. -Reconsider the static (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Lovely, now Selwin is edit-warring with insulting edit summaries.[106] They're ignoring requests for 3rd-party references. -- Atamachat 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we must be naive for not recognising the pure brilliance of UQ, as it is obviously the best university in the world. Selwin has been given plenty of opportunities to cooperate but has refused, perhaps it is time for a block. Where should I report? -Reconsider the static (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not that easy. I don't think there's a clear blockable offense at this point. If Selwin reverts 2 more times in the same day (24 hours since their first revert here) then they are in violation of WP:3RR. It's appropriate to warn them after the 3rd revert (there have been 2 in the same day so far). At that point you can report to WP:AN3 and they will probably be blocked for 24 hours. The thing is, when that block is in place if they edit with IPs then that's a clear violation of WP:SOCK and a report at WP:SPI would lead to an indefinite block if it came back positive. Using sockpuppets to get around a block is basically a one strike and you're out violation. If they don't use IPs or alternate accounts and wait out the block, and edit-war some more then a longer block would result, and the cycle continues. If they keep it up it could lead to a block that lasts months, or indefinitely.
There's also the possibility that they'll stop with this kind of behavior and actually come to the talk page for a compromise. But that seems unlikely. We'll see. Until then I'm not going to revert that page anymore. I've reverted twice in the same day which is already more of an edit-war that I prefer to engage in. -- Atamachat 06:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove the University-based organisations and companies and Organisational structure sections because they do not add anything to the article, and make the article look quite messy (also unsourced). Besides, other schools do not have long lists of there colleges listed directly inside the main article. Netalarmtalk 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the block, I think that there is enough disruption (OWN, copyvio etc) to warrant one. According to 3RR "Administrators can and will still take action on disruptive editors for edit warring even if it does not violate 3RR". -Reconsider the static (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In my experience, while admins can take action if you report someone at WP:AN3 and they haven't technically reverted more than 3 times in a 24 hour period they'll close the report without a second thought. Not long ago I was involved at the iPhone article where an editor was going against the opinion of 8 other editors and inserting a controversies section to the article over and over. That editor was the clearest example of WP:TE I have ever seen. When they had reached 3 reverts I reported to the board, including all of the crazy, drawn-out drama they had started, their inability to listen to anyone else, and the fact that they had been edit-warring for days on the article though not technically going past 3RR. The result was that they blocked a different editor who had been reverting vandalism from IPs in the article, an administrator who was the most productive person working on that article. So frankly, I don't trust the judgement of that noticeboard anymore, if I don't have anything but a clear-cut 3RR I'm not going to bother. Honestly that noticeboard can probably be replaced by a bot. -- Atamachat 17:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Selwin wu

Archived extended content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary: User and his sock indefinitely blocked. Nja247 07:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This single purpose account is entitled to their own sub-section. I've blocked them today for 24-hours for continuous copyright violations, and I went through and deleted a few more of their uploads marked as their own work that I found clearly on UQ's website with matching resolutions, etc. Check my deletion log for details on the images I'm speaking of if you're curious.

As for the implausibility of socking because of edits that are roughly within the same period of time, rest assured legit seasoned socks can and have edited at exactly the same time via two computers so as to later use that as evidence that they didn't sock when it comes around to SPI. So whilst we should AGF, definately give determined socks the credit they deserve. As for this case, if it's only one IP it is possible it's Selwin wu and they simply forgot to log in. It's an issue when they use the IP to get around the 3RR, to vote stack, or evade blocks. If that's the case take it over to WP:SPI or show me the evidence and I'll do the honors if it's obvious enough without the need for checkuser. Also please do not hesitate to let me know if they resume copyvio's after the block. Cheers, Nja247 14:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come around and I'm convinced that they are using socks. What is interesting is that you see Selwin wu editing almost constantly for about 4 days, then the moment that the COI tag appears on the article they stop. The IPs continue to edit the page after that point. Then the article is semi-protected, and Selwin wu begins to edit again. It gives the appearance of using IPs in an attempt to hide the COI then using the registered account to edit through semi-protection. -- Atamachat 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Almost sounds like a case for WP:SPI. Filed. Nja247 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've been trying to tell you! Well at least he is blocked now. Plus the new protection thing should help stabilise the article.-Reconsider the static (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:David Rohl

  • ((userlinks|David Rohl}} - user in question

I see Dab has removed the merge and notability tags. But this edit by David Rohl, with the edit summary ") (Reinstated proper academic source and removed creationist literature who's author has no specialism in the subject and no sources for the statement made in that literature.)" is the sort of edit that I think warrants a COI tag. The wording makes it clear the Rohl is disputing something, and he should have used the talk page for that, not edited the article - isn't that correct? I'm still not convinced he doesn't see BLP as a sort of 'Get out of jail free' card. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The wording makes it clear the Rohl is disputing something, and he should have used the talk page for that, not edited the article - isn't that correct?" According to WP:COI he should, but it doesn't say that he must do it, because it is only a guideline. There is no policy that prevents him from editing the article as long as his edits are positive. If he edits to add POV, delete cited sources, add uncited controversial material, or against a greater consensus then the usual Wikipedia policies apply.
Looking at User talk:David Rohl, it's clear that Rohl has had a history of problematic editing. He's been blocked more than once. I see that Rohl is participating on Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), so if you have problems with his edits discuss them there. If he becomes tedentious and refuses to compromise or edits against consensus I would recommend bringing this to WP:ANI. The community might consider a topic ban for editing article space in articles related to him. He has been warned already that it would be a possibility and that so far he hasn't been restricted in such a way yet. -- Atamachat 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
And looking at his talk page, he is struggling to understand the limits of COI as modified by our BLP policy. I am trying to stay uninvolved. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Adding a new section heading as I've realised that this is no longer about the editor who added the original section on the article. Rohl clearly does need help, and this edit [107] is I think over the line, he is now arguing his case by bringing in references from other sources that don't mention him. But I could be wrong, hence bringing it up here rather than elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Coreymesler and Corey Mesler autobiography

While the article is currently unsourced, a quick Gnews search shows enough coverage to establish notability, both as an author and as owner of Burke's Book Store. I see that he has been already notified of COI guidelines. -- Atamachat 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he just meets WP:N. I've found sources for most of the info and have therefore removed a WP:PROD notice. It could do with more work however. Smartse (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Onlineshoes.com and User:Onlineshoes com

Resolved
 – Article speedily deleted G3 (blatant advertising). -- Atamachat 05:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is promotional in nature, but does cite some sources. Might tag with PROD, or do a major clean up. Netalarmtalk 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything specifically notable about this company, I'll PROD:CORP it. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Reported the user for a username violation at WP:UAA. -- Atamachat 04:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alex's Lemonade Stand

I'd like some more eyes on this article. There seem to be ip-hopping users adding crufty details and links, but never reliable sources. I know, nobody wants to "pick on" people trying to fight pediatric cancer, but we have to be fair and impartial with all articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article copyedited, with wikilinks and references. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't allow promotion whatever the cause. I'm sympathetic too but this isn't the way to get the word out. I looked at the history of the page but I don't think WP:RFPP is going to help because they will usually only semi-protect a page if it is getting multiple vandalism edits a day from IPs, also the edits on the page aren't purely vandalism. This is definitely a tough case. -- Atamachat 22:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Gregory, Focus Lighting, Inc. and User:Ariel.wilchek

User:Ariel.wilchek has been editing the listed pages, adding mainly promotional content. It's obvious that the user has a conflict of interest with the subjects, as the user is a single purpose account that only promotes the subjects. I'm not sure if Paul Gregory would fall under PROD, but I'm thinking it does at this point. Netalarmtalk 02:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

See here, they probably shouldn't be deleted but instead sourced properly with all the promotional stuff cleaned out. If anyone doubts that Ariel Wilchek has a COI, this should remove any doubts. -- Atamachat 04:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article

IP editor Special:Contributions/76.76.232.130;Special:Contributions/76.76.232.41;Special:Contributions/76.76.232.83;Special:Contributions/76.76.233.169 (edit contents suggest a single editor, not multiple editors) whose IP address resolves to Fairfield, Iowa, home of Maharishi University of Management, and world headquarters of TM Org's "Global Country of World Peace" appears in last week, dozens of edits without discussion pushing pro TM POV, edits suggest detailed knowledge of arcane pro-TM research. Probable TM Org employee. Also probable Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet, evidenced by talk page "friendly warning" an another editor's talk page about 3RR - not something a novice editor would be likely to know or do.Fladrif (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll let the IP further respond and more specifically with diffs as it sees fit, but as a general background on this issue, Fladrif is involved in an edit discussion and war on the Transcendental Meditation article in which he removed 71/2 paragraphs of well sourced material and that he summarized in two sentences despite the request of other editors to look at a compromised version,(discussion here)[108] and efforts of the IP to reduce the content size. The IP's edits would seem to be accurate reading of the research, and to suggest that the research is arcane is absurd and unfounded and suggests an agenda since TM research consists of about 330-350 peer reviewed studies, and includes NIH grants. I advised Fladrif he was at 3RR as a courtesy as he attempted to force the deletion despite requests for further discussion. I am at 2RR on this issue don't like to edit war so will stop there, but the issue is larger than an edit war.(olive (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
I welcome anyone to look at my edits. Note, for example, the edit where I removed a statement in the article that said two subjects in a study on TM attempted suicide shortly after learning TM.[109] I checked the study and it said no such thing. Why do people who oppose TM put these kinds of things in the article? This is not an isolated instance. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Edits like these?
  1. Deleting reliably sourced paragraph on adverse effects of TM in article from peer-reviewed journal.[110]
  2. Adding 71/2 paragraphs to article on pro-TM research on "TM vs Rest", none of it available online (at least not for free), with no pior discussion. [111]
  3. Removing another reliably sourced paragraph on adverse effects of TM from a peer-reviewed journal.[112]
The level of familarity which this editor has with research that is indeed arcane, suggests strongly that the editor has to be an employee or MUM or the TM Org in Fairfield, likely either involved in the TM research directly or in the PR department of the TM Org something that the editor does not deny. Fladrif (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have proof? Absent an admission or some kind of "gotcha" there's not really any way to show a COI. Having a pro-TM POV doesn't mean there's a COI. Being from the same town as a TM center doesn't mean there's a COI. Seeming to have knowledge of TM doesn't mean a COI. And, honestly, even if the IP admitted to be from that center, there's still no clear COI unless they are editing to promote that center specifically. A COI applies when a person might directly benefit from their edits, either financially or through promotion. If the IP is involved with a TM organization and wants to slant the TM article in a positive way, that's still just an NPOV issue. You're just bringing a lot of suspicions with no way to back them up. -- Atamachat 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
COI is an indicator of likely problems, but it is not an automatic problem of its own. In this case it'd be better to address the behavior than the presumed COI. An overall problem with the TM articles is that there appear to be a number of users who have similar views and who may be overriding NPOV. But that problem can't be directly traced to any individual editor, as it's a factor of the dynamics of the group. There's never been an adequate solution to tag team editing, thought if it gets bad enough there is an option of widespread banning, as was done in the Scientology case. That would require an RfAR.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'ld like to address Fladrif's diffs. # 1 and 3 clearly violate WP:MEDRS. They are case studies, which fall below the threshold for inclusion. And Fladrif is faulting me for inserting peer-reviewed research into the article? He's the one who used popular media as sources in violation of WP:MEDRS to support the claim that TM is no different from rest. So I put in peer reviewed research that presents the other point of view. And he has done everything he can to try to suppress that from inclusion, first deleting it outright a couple times and then condensing it by deleting all the detail that didn't support his point of view. 76.76.232.130 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This IP geolocates to the HQ of TM in the US. Could you clarify what your relationship is to the movement? Are you employed by any of the entities whose trademarks are owned by MVEDC?   Will Beback  talk  19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Will has addressed behavioral concerns, I will add that yes, there have been serious concerns that have disrupted the work on the TM article.[113] with discussion here [114], and also [115],[116].(olive (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Will, are you requiring me to reveal personal information? 76.76.232.130 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
If you have a conflict of interest then it is your responsibility to disclose it. If you don't feel comfortable doing so then you should probably avoid editng the TM-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia. WP:COI
So, I take it that the answer to Will's question is "Yes", which in fact discloses no personal information. Fladrif (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it also states on WP:COI that the conflict of interest guidelines take a back seat to harrassment policies. So the answer is actually "no", but the IP is definitely encouraged to disclose their affiliation. You don't even have to say "I work for so-and-so", just to say "yes I'm affiliated with them" will be a disclosure of the COI that doesn't reveal much personal info at all. Also note that an IP address registration is publicly available and does not apply to WP:OUTING, so information revealed in this thread so far has not been a violation. An editor who doesn't want to reveal that kind of information should register before editing, in reality an "anonymous IP" is less anonymous than most registered editors. -- Atamachat 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that we're in agreement here. The answer to 76.76's question is "No, you're not required to disclose personal information." But, I infer from 76.76's evasive "answer a question with a question" that the answer to Will's question is "Yes, I'm employed by one of the TM Org entities."Fladrif (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that had gone right over my head. You're right, I think that the evasion to the answer could be considered a "yes". The IP is free to deny it but in lieu of doing so I think it's safe to assume that they are affiliated. The question I suppose is, have their edits directly promoted the organization? Are they linking to their literature, for example? If so, that's a clear COI. If not, that's a bit weaker. But as Will said before, actions speak for themselves, and COI or not if the IP is editing disruptively then some response is due. -- Atamachat 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What? A user is guilty of COI if they don't want to give personal info? I know you are both familiar with Assume Good Faith and Privacy guidelines on Wiki, so I don't get this line of thinking.--Kbob (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be in favour of giving the IP a chance to answer before we all jump to conclusions, and second rather than infer that a non answer means the IP is guilty of something that we infer the IP may not want to disclose personal information which it certainly doesn't have to. I have already experienced off Wiki harassment so know no one should have to divulge anything. Its just not healthy sorry to say. The IP has been completely open about the edits, so effort should be made to look there for COI and disruption as is appropriate.(olive (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

Per this and this, User:Bigweeboy is also in Fairfield and is a very similar IP (76.76.232.130 and 76.76.228.104). They might even be the same person. That's why all this cloak-and-dagger stuff is unsettling. Maybe WP:SPI is in order. -- Atamachat 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps 76.76 could say whether he has registered an account or edited previously.   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, this noticeboard exists to call attention to disruptive editing by conflicted editors. If the disruption is obvious, then the person is blocked. If the situation is more complex, then an RfC on user behavior or ArbCom is the next step. So far, all the evidence presented is weighted toward disruptive editing by Fladrif, with Will's tacit support. No one has shown any evidence that my editing is not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:MEDRS could hardly be more clear that case studies don't meet the minimum threshold for inclusion. So how is it disruptive that I followed the guideline and deleted those two case studies? And how is it disruptive that I added controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals? These studies were added to balance a claim put into the article by Fladrif that TM is no different from rest. Doesn't WP:NPOV require that both points of view be presented? If Fladrif thought that what I added was too lengthy, it would have been fine to shorten it. Instead, he simply deleted it. When various editors didn't agree and put it back in, Fladrif then came up with a revised version in which he deleted all detail related to the 9 studies which don't support his point of view and left in detail from the 1 study which does. Further, he deleted a citation to a meta-analysis of 70 studies which showed a difference between TM and relaxation and deleted a citation to EEG research that also shows a difference between TM and rest. These last two were deleted without comment. I looked at the earlier COIN discussion and noted that Will said that if no clear evidence of disruption can be shown, then it's simply a matter of harrassment. I think it's clear that it is. Fladrif is editing Wikipedia disruptively and using COIN to harass editors who try to bring the article into conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I had no intention to edit the article, but I just kept noticing errors and obvious violations of guidelines and policies. Serious problems remain. For example, the article mentions Fenwick's observation that TM research has documented EEG coherence during TM and that such coherence has been found in unrelated research to be associated with seizures, yet the article never presents any context of the TM research on EEG coherence, explaining what it is and what has been found. Nor does the article include the research which shows that TM has been effectively used to treat epilepsy. Is it in accord with NPOV to mention this negative and weak association of TM and epilepsy and not mention scientific research that says the opposite? Or in this context to ignore the review by Anderson that says that no randomized controlled trials have found any evidence of seizures associated with TM? Who's going to address this? Will? Fladrif? You can bet they won't. And if I do, Fladrif will delete it and give it as evidence of disruptive editing. And I see now that Fladrif has put the Lazarus case study back in. 76.76.232.41 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any answers to my two questions: 1) Are you employed by any of the entities whose trademarks are owned by MVEDC? 2) Have you edited Wikipedia before with a registered account? Rather than answering those you appear to be attacking other editors and even me. That avoidance doesn't help to resolve this matter any faster, and tends to make folks wonder what's going on.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Will, what needs to be resolved? My editing hasn't been disruptive. If you can't show disruptive editing, then this is, in your own words, harassment. I've done nothing but delete errors and make the article more in compliance. I frankly don't care whether I'm blocked. But I do want to be clear that in the absence of clear evidence of disruptive editing, this is harassment — and exactly what COI policy says to avoid. 76.76.232.41 (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I live in the south-east region of the country, but while visiting Fairfield, IA in July, I made comments on the TM article discussion page without being logged in. --BwB (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP on this. COI is fundamentally about disruption as "When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violations of policies," and is also "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia and the aims of an individual editor." The IP has now addressed editing concerns, and further, no other editor has shown any clear evidence of disruptive practices by this IP. A close look at the IP's edits indicate only improvement to the article, and no one has shown otherwise.
Will, you are heavily involved on the discussion pages of the TM article and in the direction the article is taking. You do not have a neutral position here. You are also aware that I was harassed off Wikipedia, and so that there are times when personal information must be protected. There is no good reason to continue to ask this IP for personal information. Nothing on Wikipedia requires this kind information be made public, nor can not making this information public be construed by WP:AGF as anything but a need to protect an identity for reasons unknown to us. I would assume that no editor here wants to harass another editor, but the continued efforts to get this information may be approaching that, so I would suggest we all back off.(olive (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
I think that what's needed here is dispute resolution. I haven't seen evidence on the article's talk page that this has occurred. I don't see any blatant conduct problems aside from some ill-will between editors with different points of view on the article. At the heart of this conflict is a content dispute, and COI complaints have been lobbied against a few people with a pro-TM POV, and not without some justification in my eyes. But Olive and Will have both stated that simply having a COI doesn't necessarily post a problem as long as an editor's contributions are proper.
I think that if dispute resolution is carried out, then uninvolved editors can evaluate the neutrality of the article and how appropriate the sources are. I have some concerns about MUM, for example, being sourced in an article where people who might be associated with the organization are editing. This might qualify as promotion and is one of the reasons why Wikipedia does pay attention to conflicts of interest. I also worry that someone may take such a pretext as an excuse to remove reliably sourced materials that expand the article.
Again, I see this as mostly a content dispute, and I think that if the article were given an independent evaluation most problems would be resolved. I've always felt that it is actually healthy for people with opposing POVs to work on an article, as long as they are willing to collaborate constructively. -- Atamachat 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Atama for your measured responses. In fact, informal mediation is underway. PhilKnight\Informal Mediation has been monitoring the page. I would agree that there are content disputes. I'm not aware of MUM being used as a source, although there have been comments about the reliability of research that may have been done by MUM faculty. Peer review and quality of publication is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia and is the accepted and standard control for quality and unbiased research. Although mistakes are possible in any system this is the standard for Wikipedia. There have been very serious behavioral concerns on the article, serious enough to warrant an indefinite block. So both content and behaviour have been issues. Disputes for both concerns can be helped by having outside eyes view the situation and should things not improve over there, I have no doubt we'll ask for more outside help. Thanks.(olive (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC))
That's good to know, clearly I missed that mediation was happening on the talk page. If the informal mediation goes nowhere, I think you're left with formal mediation and then if that fails, arbitration. Assuming that ArbCom takes the case, the results of that would be binding and could result in topic bans or blocks for people involved in the dispute. Somebody would be unhappy if that happened so it would be best if it was avoided, but if nothing else will settle the dispute, so be it. -- Atamachat 22:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
i would like to add concern regarding certin admins involvement in this article also. One can make as one will of the following information:
The following claimed sock [[117], banned within minutes of making a far from un-constructive comment here [118].Right or wrong, they were banned by this admin within minutes [119] [Dreadstar]. however, this admin seems to have a close realtioship with the main Tm users as can be seen in the unusual steps taken here [120]. and also here [121]. there are a number of people and IPs that should be banned from this page. At the very minimum it needs an edit block. At the moment it is a disgrace to everything that wiki is supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.180.131 (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not a "claimed sock". That is a sock. A checkuser was performed, and verified. As to the allegations that the users had a "close relationship" because of the "unusual steps taken", that's absurd. A couple of editors asked for help in routine matters an admin would do, and Dreadstar helped out. I know that I'm speaking to a wall here, because I know that you are in fact another sock. Your IP address is in the same range that is indicated here. Don't think we're clueless enough to miss that. -- Atamachat 01:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it isn't absurd, notwithstanding the merits of that particular kerfluffle. Dreadstar does indeed have an unusually close relationship to the TM Cabal, and has used threats and Admin tools for years to do their dirty work, clearly following off-Wiki communication from olive, timidguy and others, to try to stifle editing by neutral editors on multiple occasions. I'd put together a list of diffs, but it would be a waste of time, I'm sure, and besides, this isn't the board for it.Fladrif (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the diffs that The7thdr provided sure don't prove it (or even suggest it, to me). You're correct that this isn't the place for that discussion. -- Atamachat 15:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One could also speculate that Fladrif and 7th have some kind of alliance with WillBeBack (who is also regular on the TM talk page). One could look at WillBeBack's User Page and see pleas from 7th and Fladrif for Will's special assistance when they are being disciplined by other administrators. Or one could note that WillBeBack tolerates Fladrif's personal attacks on other editors on the TM talk page and waits for other Administrators to warn and block Fladrif instead of doing it himself. Yes one could speculate and make conjectures about a relationship between those three. But it is just speculation, nothing more. It is not grounded in any facts whatsoever, and so, just like Dreadstar, its a waste of time for anyone to bring it up. It's better if we just edit the articles and leave the mystery and drama to Hollywood.--Kbob (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_35&oldid=1240697083"