Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Peteymills (talk | contribs)
Line 298: Line 298:
::::::(B) Even though I participated in a discussion not mentioned above, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteymills&diff=605288150&oldid=605280379 suggesting your criticisms are best at article talk or AFD], you didn't ping ''me''. At the risk of someone saying I'm violating AGF, it feels kinda like a stealth [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. Why is this relevant? Because if you're going to attack an editor instead of his edits, you really ought to have [[Clean hands]] to avoid the [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerangs]].
::::::(B) Even though I participated in a discussion not mentioned above, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peteymills&diff=605288150&oldid=605280379 suggesting your criticisms are best at article talk or AFD], you didn't ping ''me''. At the risk of someone saying I'm violating AGF, it feels kinda like a stealth [[WP:FORUMSHOP]]. Why is this relevant? Because if you're going to attack an editor instead of his edits, you really ought to have [[Clean hands]] to avoid the [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerangs]].
::::::(C) All that said, I'm only in this because Prokaryotes' contribs make clear he's a passionate climate change editor, and that's my primary area also. I'm participating to try to address process issues as they arise, to try to help smooth the future waters to produce a graceful compliance with [[WP:ARBCC]]. It is quite possible all the listed articles should be deleted. I'm not qualified to render an opinion on those technical subjects' articles. I just think we should be talking about the edits, rather than the editor. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::(C) All that said, I'm only in this because Prokaryotes' contribs make clear he's a passionate climate change editor, and that's my primary area also. I'm participating to try to address process issues as they arise, to try to help smooth the future waters to produce a graceful compliance with [[WP:ARBCC]]. It is quite possible all the listed articles should be deleted. I'm not qualified to render an opinion on those technical subjects' articles. I just think we should be talking about the edits, rather than the editor. [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
::::::: NewsAndEventsGuy, i brought attention to the articles and the specific content parts. I've no idea what all the rules are for you just posted, but to my understanding is your question and everything you posted here so far, irrelevant. Shall we discuss the specific "potentially promotional content" now?? And to answer you qestion, No i did not thought the input from other editors from these various articles, since in my opinion it is pretty obvious that there is a COI issue here. [[User:Prokaryotes|prokaryotes]] ([[User talk:Prokaryotes|talk]]) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:57, 24 April 2014

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

    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:

    Dawoodi Bohra

    [1]:

    ‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

    ' Comment:'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The user user:Summichum as per above, has gone up to the extent of making allegation on community invention and recognition. This fellow is attacking on faith of a community,and joined Wiki after the declaration of claim by Khuzaima Qutbuddin. This editor is only editing article related with dawoodi Bohra especially where claim of Mufaddal Saifuddin is described. He wants to forcefully add his favourable material and delete unfavourable material he can.

    This editor was blocked recently twice in this period for disrupting the editing. This is clear-cut case of conflict of interest and strong action requested to control the editor.--Md iet (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • this is a bad faith view , M_iet himself has conflict of interest and I had already reported him for COI noticeboard with detailed proofs that he belongs to the dawoodi bohra group and is using wikipedia to advertise some members of that group using highly unreliable sources and self published sources or even original research without any citations. This user had been pushing unsubstantiated POV and a closely knit group of people from that group were pushing their agenda and got me blocked after as I only reverted unsubstantiated claims , hence I even sought the help of third party experienced wikipedians User:Anupmehraand admin User:Crisco 1449to check their their behaviour and they agreed to it and reverted all the uncited claims and false statements added by the above user. You can check Mufaddal Saifuddin how these users (including rukn) had added false statements which were reverted , the talk page has all the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Md iet You can verify from history about his edits. And also from his article 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra).Rukn950 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    On the basis of a chat platform [2], where anybody can say anything, all fatwa and whatever anybody likes are discussed, is the source selected by Summichum for making blatant allegation that 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims'. This is not just a original research but clear cut violations of all the limits anyone can think off. When Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline., this fellow has crossed all the limits, harassing complete community, declared them a non Muslim and made allegation of inventing a new religion. DB are on real sunnat of Muhammad and follow the deeds of their Imams as principles of working, on the basis of Al-Qadi al-Nu'man's most prominent work, the Daim al-Islam[3].--Md iet (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look into the case [4], where Summichum has tried to force his POV and deleted the administrator decision itself. I don't want to give notices for every thing, please take action accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please look at [5], this user is repeatedly adding material even after decision of removal by admin twice.
    • The user is reverting the language at [6] to suit his POV. The fact is that Khuzaima has not claimed for his right in last 2-3 years after the demise of late Syedna, when he was alive. At that time late Syedna could have easily clarified ,who is the successor, as he was the appointer. After matter was public for Mufaddal to be successor 3 years ago, there was no point in making his claim secret and there was ample time that mass Bohra public or media/authority would have made the case clear to the extent possible. Now Khuzaima is making claim that he had kept it secret as he had promised to late Syedna and was abiding his oath. The fact about report of Hindustan Times on former chief justice of India, make the things clear that Khuzaima family approached CJI well before Late Syedna Daith, hence keeping thing secret was just an scapegoat.

    This User want to put the report in such a way that the thing is not explicit and don't clash with his POV. We don't want to add any original research, but put forth this important information in such a way that fact is directly clear in addition of quoted statemnent.


    • As per WP:BLPFIGHT, More generally, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all. I am not supposed to disclose other person identity, but in present case it is a persistent and rigorous amendment done by the user; using all the means he can; devoting his full time in the activity; searching all the possible sources; rigourously searching all the Wiki rules; not bothered even blocked twice; Joined specifically after this incident of succession and doing editing only on this specific topics and raised the issue on basic principles/faith of Dawoodi Bohra. The user is claiming as a third party, neither from community nor born into it. It means he is not likely to be from independent group like Progressive Bohra who are born in Dawoodi Bohra. As reported above his statement 'DB invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims' make this thing further clear that he can’t be from any Bohra or Fatimid subsect or a Shia even as he has questioned even Ali’s nass . This means it can be a very serious case of “editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article” and not at all considered as third neutral party and doing deliberate editing to defame community as whole. May please examine the case keeping this in mind.
    • Myself and Rukn has already accepted that we belong to DB, we are regular editor from last 7-8 years. We are fan of wiki and respect Wiki regulation and try to abide and learn as much as we can. Respect fellow editors. Myself was doing more good faith editing, supposing that truth and facts will be accepted and prevail and improvement can be done as reliable sources are available. But while facing this succession case, I learnt many lesson any how the original research even if true and fact, can be contested like anything if they clash with other party interest. And as agreed by me above, I have restrained myself of doing any further edit in sensitive articles, if it is undone by anybody and not complying Wiki rules even though it is true and fact. Although I have some bias toward DB, as every human have some bias, but never tried to oppose fair criticism or well sourced , encyclopedic material.--Md iet (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    • This is false accusation , the user Md iet has himself changed my edit war request which i newly made with more diffs. May be he was confused as i made a new edit war request adding more diffs or he did that purposely. He did it purposely as he copy pasted the old request contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 06:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't try to be smart Mr. Sumchum, If you wanted to have new edit war request, why you have deleted old decision of administrator[7]. You will do whatever you want and nobody can reinstate the factual things. I did it purposely to show your way of thinking to hide the facts.

    You were already added your material, why didn't you waited for administrator reply? You could have raised new edit war request, just below it, instead you have tried to overrule and hide the previous judgment. Don't try to make fools of other and desist from poking your nose in others matter, if you don't like it. Behave in Wikipedian manner, it is just a request pl and Sorry for using harsh words.--Md iet (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Summichum has not desisted of his COI activities. As per advice of admin at [8] some material which was removed from Mufaddal Saifuddin article was added at controversy article[9]. Rather amending, this fellow is reverted the complete material twice, just on one of his plea and stopped only after my warning for avoiding block for 3rd consecutive revert.--Md iet (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    SherborneArchives (talk · contribs) is a new "corporate identity" page, which has just started putting in numerous links, some malformed, to local information regarding topics of Sherborne interest. Choor monster (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Choor monster - perhaps you could direct them to get in touch with Wikimedia UK? I work for them in my day job and we would be able to offer advice on how best to go about helping Wikipedia without breaking rules/policies etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Better you than me! I tend towards blunt and gruff, and I figured there would be people here who can do it right. Choor monster (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The explaination above is a bit confusing. SherborneArchives seems to be link spamming, but much of what they're doing relates to edits made last year by Sherborne Archivist (talk · contribs). See [10][11]. The links they are adding are mostly changes from a dead link to the archives of Sherborne School to a site run by alumni which does mention the archives, although it doesn't have them on line. What they're doing seems well-intentioned, although not well done. The school itself, a very old-line British boarding school founded in 1550, is clearly notable. The school has its own article, Sherborne School, which reads like a brochure. I suggest engaging the editor involved on talk.
    There's a more serious problem. Most of Sherborne School is a copyvio from [12]. That copyvio was introduced by SherborneSchool (talk · contribs) [13]. The effect was to replace some negative information about the school's illegal involvment with a price-fixing cartel. The replacement was a cut and paste from the school's own brochure. That edit, made last year, was the only edit, ever, by that user. John Nagle (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to see what's going on. There's some disagreement over what the article should contain. The school itself is trying to present a more modern image; their current web site says "A unique education, in a unique location. That’s what it takes to produce men of distinction, ready to live in the complex world of the twenty-first century." The "old boys" have a site of their own, [14], all about the Good Old Days. There may be a very slow motion edit war going on. Anyway, all those account names beginning with Sherborne violate Wikipedia user name policy WP:ISU. John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lokalkosmopolit and far-right, racist groups

    The following discussion 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:Lokalkosmopolit has engaged in various edits relating to controversial political matters. At Rotherham sex grooming case he altered the source, the BBC, from Asian to Muslim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotherham_sex_grooming_case&diff=604256660&oldid=603344659 despite the fact the BBC and an British Asian MP described the perpetrators as 'Asian', not 'Muslim'. Yet on his userpage, he has a box stating 'This user supports the EDL (links to English Defense League, ironically spelt in American English) in their fight for human rights and against islamization of Britain.'

    This user supports the EDL in their fight for human rights and against islamization of Britain.

    He has also spoken against Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Centre) - again he appears to be letting his views get in the way. The EDL is described on Wikipedia as 'Islamaphobic', 'Far-right', 'Anti-Muslim' as is associated with violence. LordFixit (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now discovered further evidence of a serious conflict of interest. User:Lokalkosmopolit removed an academically sourced statement from UK Independence Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Independence_Party&diff=603466978&oldid=603449249 and posted on the talkpage: 'I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right'. This is marginal minority view and does not belong in the infobox. The idea that a libertarian (!) party could also be 'far-right' just reveals how insane the PC mafia have gone in their hopeless defense of Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF (Unite Against Fascism, not a communist group, supported by Conservative Party Leader) and the holy Sharia.

    According to their logic every individual who does not preach white guilt, does not hate their own fatherland and does not promote the idea that the hideous cult that calls for death to apostates, 'adulterous' women and homosexuals is the height of progress - that he is 'far-right' for opposing all that - well, that view does not belong in an encyclopedia'. The user also posted 'Long story short: typical Wikipedia 'progressive'/PC/far-left agenda pushing as we see it everywhere.' and again accused people of acting in bad faith. LordFixit (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence of Islam related bias

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Lucas&diff=603437816&oldid=599783858

    • Changed 'Asian' men to 'Muslim' men at another article concerning sex grooming

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Cryer&diff=prev&oldid=603356969 LordFixit (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Short answer: I have no conflict of interest. I'm not a Brit, I'm not a EDL member, never even been to the UK. So, no. As for the content disputed here: ″Asian″ to refer to 100% Muslim perpetrators is unacceptable, it smears Hindus and Sikhs, as explained by their representatives: [15]. I quote from the very article:

    Hindu and Sikh groups have objected to media use of "Asian" description saying that the culprits were "almost always of Pakistani origin" and Muslim. They contend that clouding the issue by calling them "Asians" is unfair towards other Asians and is detrimental to a frank discussion

    It's an example of PC going mad, where innocent minority groups get smeared for what they didn't do. We must be very sensitive in such matters.
    As for UKIP, then this says it all: a small group of ideologically minded agitators (I'm calling them the 'PC mafia') is out to smear any group that remotely criticizes political correctness, Islamization or mass immigration. Some other groups they smear on Wikipedia, such as Party for Freedom or English Defense League may be more controversial, however, the attempt to slander even UKIP as 'far-right' (basically Nazi association), just reveals who has an agenda other than NPOV here. Not surprising that at least this battle of the long PC crusade received a decisive response from a wide range of users ([16]). As you see from the title, it connects me with 'far-right and racist groups' and the editor brings up UKIP later (ergo: UKIP is 'far-right racist'). Really telling. Lokalkosmopolit (talk)
    You are an open supporter of the English Defence League a violent, racist group widely condemned and disliked in the UK. (74% believe it is racist, 85% would never join:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/sunder-katwala/what-do-british-people-think-of-english-defence-league and 61% believe it stirs up hatred and increases risk of violence and terror attacks) Just because you have never been to the United Kingdom does not mean you don't have a conflict of interest. What about your vandalism of Caroline Lucas? The sources described the men as 'Asian' (Pakistan is in Asia!) - you altered the source. UKIP was not being 'slandered' - several reliable, academic sources describe UKIP as being a far-right party. Certainly not libertarian given its political positions on LGBT rights, drugs, banning the Burqa, etc. LordFixit (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Some smear the EDL as far-right or even racist, others like the atheist activist Pat Condell deny this: Not a whiff of racism or fascism and not a whiff of far right politics of any kind.
    They are clearly not PC, that's true, but “Have the EDL ever crashed planes into buildings? Have they bombed trains and busses in London? Did they try to behead a young man in the street for wearing a shirt supporting help for injured servicemen? Have they groomed young girls en masse?″ (quote of one EDL supporter). As for UKIP and their position on LGBT issues, I'm a member of the LGBT community myself and see no threat from UKIP on this matter, at least not anything remotely as serious as from the sharia law groups of Britain. You must really have a terrible mess in your thoughts if you think that UKIP dangers your rights as a homosexual man whilst islamic hate preachers of the UAF are paragons of tolerance to homosexuals. Think about it, mate. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about my personal views about Islam or UKIP. It is about reliable sources and conflicts of interests. You have removed several sourced pieces of text with reliable academic sources to suit your own personal viewpoints, which you are certainly entitled to and which are perfectly legitimate and understandable. The point is separating your personal views from Wikipedia articles about things that you feel passionate about LordFixit (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit confusing because of indents but I will point out that when Lokalkosmopolit quote " the atheist activist Pat Condell" as denying the EDL is racist that is at best disingenuous at best - either Lokalkosmopolit knows nothing about Condell or he is portraying this right wing racist in a very false light. Our article on Condell doesn't completely ignore his politics but confines itself to statements such as "Condell has spoken favourably of Geert Wilders. I don't think that Lokalkosmopolit has a COI, but I do think that at best he struggles with editing in an NPOV fashion and has frequently let his politics get in the way of his editing. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors, please remember that wp:BLP applies to talk pages! not just articlespace. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Calling Pat Condell a 'racist' is a BLP violation. No serious sources describe him as such. He is not known for writing on topics such as ethnicities or races. He is best known as an atheist activist, just like I described him. He's anti-Catholic and he's anti-Islam. This doesn't make him a racist. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point, clearly. You just described him in terms that still violate BLP. What you, I, or anyone else here thinks of him is irrelevant. Any such statement must be accurately and directly attributed to a published reliable source. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "I don't think that Lokalkosmopolit has a COI, but I do think that at best he struggles with editing in an NPOV fashion and has frequently let his politics get in the way of his editing." Dougweller hits the nail on the head. This is not remotely a COI issue. There may be conduct issues with the editor, the editor may have strong opinions that hinder being able to edit neutrally, but that is not a conflict of interest as our guideline defines it. This isn't an issue for this noticeboard. -- Atama 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been blocked indefinitely, although of course he plans to appeal. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    ADC Bioscientific

    I am concerned about the editing by IPs/accounts associated with the company ADC Bioscientific. The editing focus of the IP address 213.123.202.173 (talk · contribs) which is registered to ADC Bioscientific and several accounts including Steveadcuk (talk · contribs), Quantify Stress (talk · contribs), and Zoe Stanyon (talk · contribs), involves adding content related to ADC products and their use. Articles involved are Photorespiration, Integrated fluorometer, Plant stress measurement, ‎Plant tissue test, ‎Soil respiration, Chlorophyll fluorescence, Chlorophyll, Fertilizer, Integrated Carbon Observation System, Carbon cycle, ADC Bioscientific, and perhaps others. This has been ongoing for many years. A few warnings related to the promotion and COI have been left for these users, but the activity has been going on unabated for so long at so many articles that I think it will take a number of editors to sort this out. Any help would be appreciated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some overlap between images uploaded by Stevedcuk (talk · contribs) and promotional material from ADC. Compare File:SRS1000 being used to measure soil respiration in the field..jpg with page 16 of [17]. The Wikipedia image is listed as taken by the uploader, and the image in the brocure is from ADC. But this may well be legitimate. The general edit pattern seems to be to add pictures of ADC instruments to relevant articles. This is kind of promotional, but then, it's hard to get someone to go out and photograph an integrated fluorometer and give the picture to Wikipedia. (I've been trying to get someone to photograph a common industrial 3-phase synchronous motor, to replace the century-old public domain image we have now.) Over at Plant_tissue_test, though, promotional links for ADC instruments were inserted. They're not the only manufacturer. See, for example, [18], a lower-cost alternative. So I put in references to three brands. Someone else might want to take a look at the other articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that this has been going on for a long time. I came across Zoe Stanyon (talk · contribs) back in 2011 and hoped that they were editing in good faith, but the continued edits by employees of the company suggests a purposeful intention to spam WP articles. Judging by this most of the links have already been removed, but I think it's time that we added the site to a blacklist to stop future attempts. I haven't had time to look at all the articles in detail, but the content of plant tissue test is worrying as it strongly advocates the use on non-destructive tests of crops (i.e. supporting the use of their products). Articles such as these shouldn't be linking to any product websites and instead need text book references about what the products do and when they should be used. I'd be inclined to remove anything unsourced that these accounts added and examine closely whether anything sourced is given due weight. The photos however are good and so long as the caption is neutral they help readers understand the topics without being overly promotional. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point. I don't know enough about agriculture to deal with the question of whether non-destructive testing of leaves is useful to farmers. There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture, but they're not very active. However, we do know that ADC has two or three competitors for most of their instruments, so any article that mentions only ADC should be broadened. John Nagle (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note that Steveadcuk's COI seems to be declared in his username: Steve ADC UK. It's obvious but I thought it's worth pointing out. -- Atama 17:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Character_theory_(Media)

    I went to the disputed article today to look up my own character theory and saw it was removed on 10 March 2014. I believe the edit to be in bad faith. I feel it best to report in here to avoid an edit war and conflict of interest. The user who removed the article says it should be removed because it was in not from a peer reviewed source. In fact it has been published in numerous sources, including the Statute Law review, which is a 4* to 5* journal. Another character theory on the page - by Richard Bartle - is not from a peer reviewed source, which makes it appear even more so a bad faith edit. As a former politician and prospective parliamentary candidate and the fact this person from their past edits seems to have different political priorities to me, this may reflect their attitude towards me. Would I be able to edit the article to revert the edit that removed it and provide an additional citations to the character theory? --Jonathan Bishop (talk)

    You of have a genuine conflict of interest when it comes to adding or restoring material to an article that propogates your own theories. As such, the more appropriate thing to do is for you to post your suggested additions/restorations to the talk page of the article, and leave it to other editors to judge whether the content is appropriate for the page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Banc De Binary

    It appears that this user has a bias against Banc DeBinary and is using Wikipedia as an outlet to bash the company.

    Parts of the article are referenced with unreliable sources (sources which are affiliated with the company's competition), and on the article's talk page, the user seems incredibly hostile.

    List of difs / statements:

    • [19] - Dif of talk page where the user begins to make false allegations
    • [20] User's contribution log which is focsed soley around Banc De Binary
    • [21] Dif where user first attempts to introduce NADEX into the page about Banc De Binary

    There are many more examples, but in my opinion this user is an agent of a competing company attempting to do some very "dirty" marketing via Wikipedia.

    BDBJack (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The SEC issued a statement reading "The SEC alleges that Banc de Binary Ltd. has been offering and selling binary options to investors across the U.S. without first registering the securities as required under the federal securities laws. The company has broadly solicited U.S customers by advertising through YouTube videos, spam e-mails, and other Internet-based advertising."[22]. Then the SEC followed up with a lawsuit.[23]. This is a scam. A negative article is appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A section explaining the case with the SEC would suffice, but a "negative" article doesn't seem in line with the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Broad statements such as "this is a scam" also seem rather out of character with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. BDBJack (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also shut them down in the US.[24] John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that relevant to the fact that the article is written from a non-neutral point of view? It's like saying that because the CEO of NADEX is the chief witness in the CFTC's case against Banc De Binary, we should start writing negative content about NADEX too!

    BDBJack (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    BDBJack (presumably Banc du Binary Jack) is merely the latest in a series of single-purpose accounts dedicated to whitewashing this Israeli company masquerading as a multinational, and hiding behind a Cypriot flag of convenience. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike:, yes I am an employee of Banc De Binary as noted on my user page and in my user name, however I fail to see how this is relevant to the request to investigate the COI of user HistorianofRecenttimes.BDBJack (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @BDBJack: A few points:
    • No evidence has been presented that even suggests that HistorianofRecenttimes (HoRT) has a COI of any kind. Jack, you may feel that HoRT is biased against the company, but a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it is when an editor has a real-life connection to an article subject (positive or negative). You'd have to show that HoRT is working for a competitor, or is a member of an activist group against BDB, or was personally hurt by the bank and wants retribution, or something along those lines. That information has to come from self-disclosure by HoRT, or through an evaluation of the editor's statements and actions, digging up information outside of Wikipedia or speculating on their real-life identity violates WP:OUTING. A bias may lead to violations of WP:NPOV but isn't a COI.
    • You yourself clearly have a COI. This isn't a slam against you, you're very open about it (even your username shows it) which is commendable. But it does mean that you're going to have a pro-BDB bias. That is going to hurt your argument, thought it doesn't invalidate it. A person with a COI making a valid claim of disruption isn't going to be ignored, even if removing the disruption is in favor of your POV.
    • Our neutrality policy does not dictate that every article has to present an article subject neutrally (in that it includes nothing that reflects negatively or positively on the subject, or perfectly balances such information). That's not what its purpose is. We write articles from a neutral point of view. We don't insert our own analysis, we don't try to make judgments as editors. We neutrally present the facts as we can ascertain them from reliable secondary sources. If those facts end up reflecting negatively on the article subject, then the article as a whole may appear to be negative. But it's not our place to try to omit anything that reflects negatively or positively on an article subject, or to try to come up with a balance between negative and positive information. We present what we can verify through sources regardless of how it reflects on the subject. I hope that makes sense. -- Atama 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atama: Thank you for taking the time to give me a clear and concise explanation about the differences between bias and COI. While I still believe that the user does have a COI due to being from a competing company, I have neither the evidence nor the tools to prove it at this time.BDBJack (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More on Banc de Binary at [25] Banc de Binary is an "associate" of Spot Option Exchange. There are many other "associates" (Banc de Swiss, etc.), about 20 of them. Their sites all look very similar, because Spot Option Exchange runs them as part of their hosted service. Reliable sources for Spot Option Exchange other than its own site are hard to find, and there's not enough info for a Spot Option Exchange article. Yet that would be the right article to have; their associates/brands/domains/etc properly should be sections in the Spot Options article. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Windows Media


    This is a request for assistance with a user that seems intent on Wikipedia:Gaming the system having name calling and creating personal attacks as a normal part of the users editing technique. The user seems to follow the edits of Codename Lisa As shown here User_talk:Codename_Lisa#This_one_is_fun.21 Codename Lisa clearly is aware of the harassing manner that FleetCommand undertakes.

    In most of the tech space the users FleetCommand & Codename Lisa seem to dominate the space, in a manner that leads people into thinking that these two are in some way providing some sort of oversight to these sections of Wikipedia. In the above mentioned article I had inserted some data that I felt was relevant and would improve the wiki, yet it was simply shut down, with nonsense frankly speaking as Codename Lisa claimed that my addition (User_talk:Codename_Lisa#Windows_Media_Guide Windows Media Guide) was a 404 error and made a rude comment in the edit summary. It was totally incorrect I did bring it to the users attention after a bashing and a series of rude and crass interactions with FleetCommand, Codename Lisa deleted the other users comments, relied rationally and the user was in some regard consolatory but the unsavory interaction just pushed me away from editing in that space.

    A week or 2 later I posted for consideration a comment to the effect of the fact that Windows Media was a programming group at Microsoft that created the Windows Media products (It really evolved from Netshow) but within 24 hours of my posting the "thought, observation" I was challenged by Codename Lisa who escalated it directly to the request for a 3rd party opinion board. Both users refuse to talk cohesively on the user talk pages, it is more like a HIT and run, each will insult and run.

    Having already experienced each of these users enough to see that each of them are clearly Wikipedia:Gaming the system, the use of rude condescending language is in complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Etiquette and if you review the edits of these users it looks like both users seem to enjoy the same rude and demeaning tone, talking down to other users that to a new user would give the impression of authority and domination over edits upon the TECH spaces. FleetCommand has gone as far as to assert WP:OWN that he should be asked before edits are made as he has been here for so long. Yet the user refuses to respond to communication on talk and has digressed to schoolyard name calling "pilot boy" in his posts on public talk pages and restores defamatory statements if removed, yet user hides behind a "I am retired" posted on his pages, as he continues to harass other users. The name calling serves no function and IMHO is simply designed to frustrate others from editing in this area. Even the last post on Codename Lisa Talk Page from FleetCommand seems to confirm that WP:Harassment the users FleetCommand's, main objective. That is a clear conflict of interest with the main objective of Wikipedia.talk→ WPPilot  03:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi.
    This is Codename Lisa. Almost half of what WPPilot says is true. On 14 April 2014, he asked whether it is okay to add something to Windows Media. I replied with ""Hi. Preliminary check: What sources do you have? And does it have an article on Wikipedia?". He replied with a message about COI and how I love to be in control, etc. Well, you know that there no redeeming such discussion after that. I tried to crack a joke to lighten the atmosphere but it only got worse. He eventually ended up hiding my message.
    He is also telling the truth about two weeks before. He came to my talk page, asking why I reverted his edit and said it looked like a non-constructive edit; and I tried to show him that unfortunately, it indeed did look like non-constructive edit. Judge for yourself: Compare the Windows Media edit with an edit in Microsoft Cortana article. See how similar in nature they are? The guy who made the Cortana edit is now blocked for posting fake malware websites.
    How all this point to COI? I don't know!
    As for User:FleetCommand, his long-time colleague User:Jasper Deng has once said that FleetCommand can be both heaven and hell. (Well, he didn't exactly say these words.) But I think WPPilot would have hurt far less if he has spent his time discussing the topic instead of leveling COI, rudeness, OWN and everything else all at once.
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While the partial admissions from Codename Lisa do demonstrate my point, the user seems to conveniently leave out a great deal, and is not in the comparison comparing apples to apples "Microsoft Cortana" was edited by a IP number, that any user can with the click of a mouse see the contributions of. I am not a IP user, I have years of productive and highly valuable photographic contributions and any normal person that edits here would look to at least research the user before calling them a name, ("inventive nonsense without an article. Is this vandalism") as Codename Lisa did in the summary of her first edit, reverting my posting of a Microsoft company website on the page. Codename Lisa claimed that the site I had posted (www.windowsmedia.com) returned a 404 error, that was incorrect, and in fact it now rolls to a MSN site. [26] It is registered to Microsoft. It contains a Microsoft copyright, and if pinged it resolves to, yup Microsoft. After the initial confrontation over that edit, I provided detailed info to source the link and user Codename Lisa told me that I would experience resistance, should I try to make a page about the Windows Media Guide as in the users comments "it is just a TV guide". My personal experience in this space, I felt was valuable.
    I did not expect my first interaction with this user, Codename Lisa to be attached to a rather rude comment. 11:19, 27 March 2014‎ Codename Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,302 bytes) (-230)‎ . ("‎Other: rm. inventive nonsense without an article. Is this vandalism?") inline in the articles history. When confronted the user then commenced by talking down to me, by asserting the phrase WE WIKIPEDIAN'S over and over, posing as "All of Wikipedia" and asserting in the tone of comments that Codename Lisa is in somehow in control of editorial content on Wikipedia. I did check user rights and user is not a Admin.
    The Windows Media Guide was in fact a part of the Netshow player when it was released. Many ISP, worked hard for many years to be featured in the guide and from the perspective of someone that was a part of the creation of that technology, or for the function of making the Wiki about Windows media correct, it should reflect that. Both Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand have, via insults, & condescending language made it clear that editing in that space will only be under there authority. WP:OWN
    Other users have also experienced this same conduct from them;
    • (Tapered (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)): You and Codename Lisa both offer to instruct me in editing, taking a tone of authority. from the history in Fleetcommands talk space. XP Security Issue.
    • Are you working in cahoots with Codename Lisa, as from your history you seem to ignore other users completely in your reversions and meaningless comments that are not even factually correct! Jimthing (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    • (cur | prev) 15:16, 17 April 2014‎ Codename Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ . ‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by WPPilot (talk): Hello, Kettle. This is WPPilot. You are black!)
    • If anyone has to ask for permission from anyone, it is you and Codename Lisa who must ask for my permission, "pilot boy". Fleetcommand. Talk:Windows Media 22:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    Condescending language, served directly or via line notes in the edit summary comments is in complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Refusal to remove and the subsequent restoration of comments designed to inflame other users is WP:Harassment. Dominating article space (taking a tone of authority), WP:OWN serves no valuable function and would discourage newer users from editing in any space that these users seem to desire to control. If you do detailed reviews of the talk page histories of each user, this is a pattern and it is a pattern that provides a clear conflict of interest WP:COI, to the basic function of Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Gaming the system. talk→ WPPilot  14:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a proverb in my culture: To call the doctor beforehand, lest not get sick. It means a person starts a large-scale effort to frame someone for something before it is revealed that it is in fact himself who had committed said sin. WPPilot is calling the doctor beforehand, lest not get sick.
    To make my argument short: All I did was saying "It does not have due weight." WPPilot did not try even one of the avenues of WP:DR. Instead, he just went WP:ALLSOCKS! Fleet Command (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I made every effort to resolve, with the user my personal issues, but, upon review it was clear that a pattern of conduct that was described above has become commonplace with the two users in question. Every interaction with Fleetcommander is packed with insults and I am clearly not alone in my observation. Calling someone a childish name is inexcusable, and to do it as part of your editorial style, as mentioned before only serves to dissuade other users from editing. This user uses a hit and run, plus hides behind "I AM RETIRED" yet demands publicly that he has some right to control these sections of Wikipedia and be offensive to other users as part of his contributions here. talk→ WPPilot  22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @WPPilot: Just to let you know, a conflict of interest by Wikipedia's definition (in its guideline that you linked to earlier) is identified when an editor's has a real life connection to an article subject, or to something else they are editing about. An editor linking to a personal web site they own has a COI, or an editor who is editing an article about themselves, a friend, or a relative may have a COI. A COI may be identified if someone is editing an article about their employer, or a competitor. And so on. I think what you're trying to establish is what Wikipedia calls disruptive editing, which is a catch-all term for a pattern of behavior that makes it difficult for other editors to contribute to Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But nothing that you've said here even comes close to a COI, and this board isn't the place for this discussion.
    However, I won't just say "this isn't COI, go away". I'll try to address this here anyway. To begin with, while Codename Lisa's initial revert at the Windows Media article did not have the best edit summary (hinting that a person's edit was vandalism is a borderline personal attack, though I will say it's borderline at the very worst) it wasn't incorrect. The "see also" section of an article should only contain links to other Wikipedia articles, so you shouldn't have included it there. It may have perhaps gone into an external links section, though that would be a debate to have with other editors if they objected, where you'd need to show how it's relevant to the article. I also don't see the problematic behavior that you're suggesting, with ownership and editors tag-teaming.
    Honestly, the most problematic behavior I see here is from you. I'm not trying to attack you here, I've spoken to you before at this noticeboard and at other venues and I believe you mean well, and I know you've made valuable contributions here. But this is what I see... You make an addition to an article, and you're reverted (in a somewhat rude, but not awfully rude manner). You start a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting back, which is good, you're choosing not to edit-war and you're choosing to instead discuss the issue, which I wish more editors would do. But when Codename Lisa asked you a reasonable question (whether there is an article on Wikipedia that can be linked to in the "see also" section, and whether you have sources to back up your assertions) you took on a tone of authority. (I find it odd that you claim that the other editors did so, I mostly see that from you.) You establish your own conflict of interest (an actual COI as Wikipedia defines it) by stating that you worked directly with the Windows Media Group, that you were the best man at the wedding of one of the lead programmers, etc. And you also launched into an attack on Codename Lisa, claiming that she was exhibiting ownership of the article by disagreeing with you, when she was asking perfectly reasonable questions. When TransporterMan refused to give a third opinion because there was no legitimate discussion, since the discussion to that point was "almost entirely about conduct, not content", that was accurate. I've seen you do this before, you have an unfortunate tendency to escalate very quickly what should be a simple discussion about content, and turn it into an indictment about the person(s) you're debating with.
    The bottom line is, I think that you were in the wrong here, WPPilot. You're not a bad editor, and I'm not giving you a warning, but I really wish you would not do this in your interactions with others. You're not doing yourself any good. You have to not assume the worst of people. I see Codename Lisa trying to keep things light so as not to escalate matters too far, you seem to have taken it as flippancy which further upset you. You can't do that, you're communicating with people through text only, you can't see their faces to see their intent, which is why we have a guideline to assume that someone means well until you have very solid evidence they don't. I really hope you can take this to heart. -- Atama 23:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, This is an anonymous uninvolved observer who was bitten by Codename Lisa some time ago. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have observed this pair of users behaving in a similar fashion. Please see the entire sections of the discussions where these users participated on the following pages:

    96.253.76.142 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I see nothing beyond some mild rudeness in those diffs. This board isn't the place to discuss this anyway, this is for conflicts of interest, not requests for people to be more civil. -- Atama 02:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The perceived COI is FC posing as a third opinion to forge consensus when the user has a close connection to CL even if the intent is harassment of CL and others. 96.253.76.142 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @96.253.76.14: That has nothing to do with our WP:COI guideline. I suggest you read it, because Wikipedia does not define conflicts of interest in the way you think. -- Atama 13:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Whac-A-Mole" "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility" - To simply look at the public interactions you see now is to overlook the historical manner that FC uses to harass people and keep them from editing in a area of Wikipedia that needs editors. Both of these editors carefully maintain there talk pages to remove comments that would more adequately provide for review of these users regular conduct. Atama, you are correct that I disclosed FULLY my Conflict of Interest as suggested by WP:COI. I tried to use the talk page to address what I felt needed to be addressed. My experience, as you had pointed out in the past should be considered under WP:EXPERT in this space as you have brought to the boards attention previously. How do you forge a consensus when, as the IP user 96.253.76.142 mentions, these users dominate a space with disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system to keep others from contributing. I was perhaps a bit short with Codename lisa in the last interaction on the WM talk but for the user to escalate it to the 3rd party opinion board, 23 hours after I posted the question, sure looks like that user trying to control the article, and keep my contributions away from it. My comment came after a detailed review of prior edit interactions these two users have had in a rather short time frame with a lot of other contributors, to address this request, based upon my interactions alone, would be an incorrect interpretation of the request. I could care less about the name calling, that's just childish, my concern is the inability to obtain a genuine consensus to contribute valid data to the Tech space in general, or do you propose that we allow them to control that space and continue to drive others away with the condescending, insult filled "Whac A Mole" tag team, editing technique? talk→ WPPilot  04:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @WPPilot: You're wrong. Codename Lisa was properly following our guideline at WP:DR. You two were in a dispute, and she sought an independent third opinion (as opposed to, say, having FleetCommand back her up). The 3rd opinion request failed because you were refusing to even attempt to come to a consensus, you were attacking her. You did the exact wrong thing here. You are supposed to focus on content, not contributors. Why did you bother to make a "detailed review of prior edit interactions" rather than just calmly try to justify the edit you wanted to make? You were the one who had no interest in forming a consensus, again all you did was dig up dirt on the other person and then go on the offensive. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. I've tried to be patient with you, and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've been showing time and again that you have a battleground mentality antithetical to this project. Again, please stop this behavior, or your editing privileges can be revoked. -- Atama 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atama:, @WPPilot: I think both of you might find this soothing: Remember how I compared WPPilot's edit to that of the blocked user in Microsoft Cortana? Well, in Cortana case I gained a little experience that I didn't have back then. So, I present to you: Whois report on WindowsMedia.com Unlike, microsoft-cortana.com, this website is not fake.
    Okay, I don't know how would it impact the discussion in Talk:Windows Media because I had requested proof of significance, which is needed anyway and would resolve the genuineness issue as well. But... I thought you might find it soothing. Look, I am sorry if WPPilot took "is this vandalism?" as a rhetorical question. But in my defense it was not a revert; I will never accuse a registered user with vandalism while reverting. (Doing this is always wrong.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    battleground mentality??? You have to be kidding me, most the time I just stop editing in the area of friction. I will do that again and I will simply not contribute to Tech related Wiki's, controlled by the two users mentioned and I will try to simply resort to childish name calling, in the future, Atama. Q: Why did you bother to make a "detailed review of prior edit interactions", I did this after seeing over and over again that the two users like to insult and use abusive language in there dealings with me and other users. Codename Lisa had already made it clear that, if I was to edit this space I would encounter friction. The moment I stepped back, the user followed though on the threat. You have been successful in Driving me away from editing this area. Good Job & Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Be Happy Now: http://vimeo.com/92345954
    So I ask you not to attack other editors, but to instead calmly discuss the content issues, and then Codename Lisa even tries to extend an olive branch by conceding that the web site you tried to link to was a valid Microsoft site and apologized for suggesting vandalism on your part. And you instead declare that you've been "driven away". This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about. You can't act this way on Wikipedia, you have to make an effort to collaborate with other editors. -- Atama 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have NEVER attacked any editor, Atama. If I have been short forgive me. I edit here to relax, this is not relaxing. talk→ WPPilot  18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not true that you've never attacked another editor, I've seen you do so. But specifically in this case, I mean that you've chosen to discredit the editor and try to bring some sort of sanction against them (a ban, a block) rather than discussing the validity of your edit. This is a pattern of behavior for you. Here are previous examples:
    • 3RR Noticeboard in August 2013: You reported someone for 3RR when nothing of the sort had happened. The discussion here was proceeding normally until you exploded on Paul 012 the exact same way you did on Codename Lisa, making the same ownership accusations and taking a simple dispute personally. You also declared here that Paul had "petty control issues".
    • Admins' Incidents Noticeboard in March of this year: That thread included you accusing Beyond My Ken and alf laylah wa laylah of being sockpuppets, just because they both disagreed with you. BMK did call you an "ass" which was clearly a personal attack and an insult, but this response was way out of proportion, and this legal threat was clearly hyperbolic. That dispute did eventually settle down but your responses inflamed things unnecessarily before it ended.
    • Admins' Incidents Noticeboard again in March: That thread shows you directly attacking another editor per our harassment policy, calling them an asshole which also involved an inappropriate removal of that editor's talk page comments per WP:TPO. By the time I intervened in that incident, you'd withdrawn before anything was settled (just as you've done in this most recent incident). I know that your actions in this incident contributed to driving an editor away from Wikipedia in the midst of legal threats that you'd sent, they haven't edited Wikipedia since.
    As I said, this is a pattern with you. You do this over and over again. I've also seen you make positive contributions but the fact is that when you get into a dispute, even a simple one, you can overreact to the extent that discussion is impossible. That is unacceptable behavior. -- Atama 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Atama, as I said I will simply not edit in the space controlled by the users in question. It' sailings sailing season so I will find something else to do with my time. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  22:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "PLEASE Be Happy Now": http://vimeo.com/92345954

    Cdrtools

    Schily has been making controversial edits to the Cdrtools article for a long time. He has repeatedly self-identified as the author of that software package (here for example -"on my request"-, but see the whole Talk:Cdrtools), and has been including unsourced personal opinion as references, failing to assume good faith by accusing editors of wanting to attack his software, and otherwise unwilling to work towards consensus. He was blocked recently at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring.

    I have repeatedly asked him to avoid making edits to the article directly and to discuss everything at the talk page, but today he has just added this unreferenced content after this conversation at my talk page. I would like that Schily is given a formal warning to make him aware of what WP:COI entails, so that he will avoid making controversial edits to the article. Diego (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry to see that User:Diego Moya did not follow the rules that we introduced for the cdrtools article and instead made own highly controversional edits that have not been agreed before. He even treated me, see: this edit. Please encourage [[User:Diego] Moya] to first discuss planned edits on the talk page and not to make controversional edits. Collaborative work is only possible if all involved people follow the rules. Schily (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have stated what I require in order to make agreements: that you provide links to references that support your claims. You have provided none, so there's no way to reach any agreement. Diego (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What "rules" were "introduced for the cdrtools article"?! Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Unless some exception (like discretionary sanctions) has been set up by the arbitration committee that refers to an article (or more commonly an article topic), all articles follow the same guidelines and policies. One of the most important is verifiability. I see that much of these problems have been discussed publicly here. I'll point out that in that discussion, Diego was one of your biggest defenders. Yet a week later, here you are. -- Atama 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the cdrtools article has several authors with COI, we agreed on not to make edits that are not in a consensus in order to avoid future conflicts. Unfortunately User:Diego Moya recently made edits without previously asking whether the related edit could be seen as neutral statement. Several of his edits would have no problems to get an approval, but there also have been edits from him that will not get an approval for being neutral. The problem is that the Cdrtools article is an article that needs to mention that there have been some conflicts caused by Debian in 2004 and following. This is why the article has a high conflict potential. I see no other way than to agree on a collaborative way of editing. For this reason, I made the proposal that other people may make proposals (and thus keep the privilege to control the wording) if they do not edit the article unless thare was an approval before. If there was only User:Diego Moya, I am sure that there was a way to get to an agreement in a simpler way but there are other authors with a high level of COI that usually only make biased edits. The problem in the article is that there are a lot of claims that are not correctly verified because they have pointers to unrelated "proving". The best way to deal with this problem seems to be a common agreement that nobody is allowed to make changes without previously discussing the intended text. Schily (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory most contested edits require consensus to settle any disputes. So in principle what you're saying isn't unreasonable. But it's also true that unverified information in an article that is contested should not be in the article. So there is also that. I'm concerned with your approach at the article. I understand that you are an expert, heck you WROTE the software. But that naturally gives you cause to try to edit the article with original research, because of what you personally know (not what you believe, or what you think, but what you know to be true). Unfortunately Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. That's for a number of reasons, one of which is that it helps objectivity when we are restricted to writing only about what information we can accumulate from reliable sources. But another, more important reason, is that Wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and any information is only as good as its sources. That's what I tell people who use Wikipedia for knowledge, especially for research; don't go by what's in our articles, go to whatever we're using as sources and use that. When we write articles based on our own research and knowledge, people can't do that.
    There have been suggestions that you be banned from editing cdtools and related articles, at least from editing the article text directly. Given that you're not the only person with a conflict of interest, I don't think that's fair. But I do think it would be fair if such articles (especially cdtools itself) had an article space ban against all editors with conflicts of interest, both positive and negative. I don't often make such suggestions, I've been an advocate for allowing COI editing in most situations (as long as the editor avoids disruption) but I think that it would ease the situation here greatly. Identifying who should be included in such a ban may be difficult, determining the scope of the ban could also be difficult (just the cdtools article space?), and I don't think this board is the best place to initiate such a ban. It can be, it has been done here before, but I'd suggest WP:AN might be a better venue to get a wider community input. This is just a suggestion from me, it's not something I plan to implement yet. -- Atama 15:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    People who write scientific papers avoid using secondary sources and prefer primary sources. This is in conflict with the WP rules that disallow primary sources, so information on Wikipedia in the first attempt is information from hearsay. Using only primary sources is of course not a good idea either - you should rather only use information that can also be verified independently. I am a primary source in the case of cdrtools (and in many cases that are e.g. related to the UNIX history). This frequently causes disputes when people compare my statements with statements from unreliable second level sources. This is why I avoid to make edits that are only reproducable from my memory. In a recent case, I could e.g. correct a false claim from a Siemens Web site related to the first telephone system in Germany, but in this case I have been lucky and could present a copy from a book from 1882 that verifies that there have been more than ten-thousand of telephone exchanges in Germany before Siemens believed that the first exchange was installed. There are other cases where I cannot disclose my sources to the public because of Copyright problems (but I of course have the proof that I could present people in a private meeting) and there are cases where it is not possible to present a single pointer to verify a claim. I can e.g. definitely prove that the claims from Debian related to cdrtools are wrong, but this can only be done by checking many unfakable time stamps in order to verify that what Debian claimes to be cause and reaction is wrong as the so called reaction from Debian happened before what Debian declared to be the cause. As you see, with the current rules from WP, it may be easier in some cases to deliver something that can be seen as a verification than to prove the same claim to be false (where the latter would be the truth).
    I don't believe that a bann is the right way to go unless you have people that deny a fact based discussion. WP needs people that write the articles and if we woud have such a bann, the result would be that the current unbalanced state of the article would stay until forever. I hope that it is possible to find a way where interested people all follow the proposed rules. I however fear that it will be the same as it was the last time: people wait for some time and do nothing and then one of the users again starts with edits that have not been discussed before.
    What should be taken into account is that we have a person in the list of recent editors, that is related to my question here. I am not shure whether there is an easy way to deal with this problem. Schily (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Schily, I have repeatedly asked that you provide those links to public repositories so that we can evaluate them for ourselves. Maybe we could include one or two of them in the article, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Or you could compile all those links and publish them on your own blog, together with your conclusions about them, and maybe we could link to that, thanks to our neutrality policy; your conflict of interest prevents you from changing the article, but also gives you a unique spot in it as a primary source for your point of view on the subject.
    But for reasons which entirely escape me, you refuse to provide us with those links, fighting every attempt we make to improve the article according to our own criteria, and insist in injecting your conclusions directly in the article as facts, which is forbidden.
    Why do you insist in breaking our standards of quality at every step, and will only agree to solve the problem in the exact way that you like? Does everything have to be "your way or the highway"? Why can't you agree to collaborate and follow the rules that other find acceptable, and compromise a little in order to gain a lot? We have rules in place that would allow for a neutral and balanced account of the facts; if you are unwilling to follow those rules, don't blame them for arriving to an article that you don't like. Diego (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you verify that you are interested to follow the rules I am happy to help you. So let us remove the biased text from the article and when you make a proposal for text you wish to add (including a link to prove the correctness) I'll tell you whether your proposed text is OK. Please note that your recent edits verified that you also have a conflict of interest and for this reason are not allowed to edit the article. Please understand that you don't have more rights than others and that you also need to follow rules. Schily (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Various article (science)

    Editor creates secondary (niche) articles to promote own work. Articles always include what appears to be some snippets from his own work, but presented as the standard method or even suggested as the better solution (ie. "While Cox and Weeks[8] assume thermal equilibrium, Tanboe[9] uses a more sophisticated thermodynamic model based on numerical solution of the heat equation." link - Tanboe is the paper he is part with). Often references are weak. Work appears to be non significant or average/standard (Not from the experts on the field). Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. I'm not sure about the motives here but the editor should stop promoting his own research and some articles could be deleted, especially in the case of sea ice which has to much articles. I had a discussion recently with him. prokaryotes (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously, this charge deserves a more detailed response, but in the only example you cite by sophisticated, I mean complex (actually I've just changed it). There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and I even state when the more complex approach is advantageous. Peteymills (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There are even more articles he created and subsequently added his references, see user page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    However, the other articles appear to be either merged or without added references, directly attributed to him, but some at least to team member G. Heygster. prokaryotes (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be clear that articles mentioned here are used to promote own work and that this isn't an isolated case. Also i noticed that you recently begun to follow my edits, and that by your own admission, you do not intend to read up on particular topics discussed here. Therefore i suggest you start looking into the science at hand or focus on something else. prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the question I politely asked? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. Some articles do not have a talk page. I don't see how your question is relevant to the report here. As pointed out, the articles are mostly edited by Peteymills. prokaryotes (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (A) It's a simple question, why can't you just say "No" and then explain as you see it?
    (B) Even though I participated in a discussion not mentioned above, suggesting your criticisms are best at article talk or AFD, you didn't ping me. At the risk of someone saying I'm violating AGF, it feels kinda like a stealth WP:FORUMSHOP. Why is this relevant? Because if you're going to attack an editor instead of his edits, you really ought to have Clean hands to avoid the boomerangs.
    (C) All that said, I'm only in this because Prokaryotes' contribs make clear he's a passionate climate change editor, and that's my primary area also. I'm participating to try to address process issues as they arise, to try to help smooth the future waters to produce a graceful compliance with WP:ARBCC. It is quite possible all the listed articles should be deleted. I'm not qualified to render an opinion on those technical subjects' articles. I just think we should be talking about the edits, rather than the editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NewsAndEventsGuy, i brought attention to the articles and the specific content parts. I've no idea what all the rules are for you just posted, but to my understanding is your question and everything you posted here so far, irrelevant. Shall we discuss the specific "potentially promotional content" now?? And to answer you qestion, No i did not thought the input from other editors from these various articles, since in my opinion it is pretty obvious that there is a COI issue here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]