Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Son of musician writing eulogic articles

  • user:pjs012915 is the main writer and one of the composer's sons as identified to the editor User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )- who submitted the article for approval as a biography. The article is well researched and documented with ample references to major periodocals and published books. It was written not as a eulogy but as a balanced biographical accounting of the contributons made by the composer to the advancement of both the free bass accordion and the traditional stradella accordion as legitimate concert instruments during the evolution of classical and jazz music at the start of the 20th century in America. It should be of interest to researchers who wish to investigate the development of this neglected and often ridiculed concert instrument in the United States during this period as well as to musicologists and historians in general.

The biographical accounts of this musician's performances as well as his compositions are not presented in a eulogistic fashion and are intended to document the collaborative efforts which Mr. Serry succeeded in formulating with major conductors and professional musicians in the course of advancing the professional acceptance of his instrument. These references also serve to document the willingness of leading musicians of the era to perform with accomplished concert accordionists who demonstrated a higher than average level of performance, musicianship and creative writing. The references to Mr. Serry's unique artistic vision for the accordion as a concert instrument have been independently documented on the liner notes by the producers of his album Squeeze Play as well as in an article published by the composer himself in the indepedent journal Accordion World during the 1950s. Consequently, these references to the composer's artist's artistry cannot be construed as eulogistic or biased and should not be excised. In addition, the major compositions listed in the article have been listed for copyright at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and thoroughly reviewed and archived by a professional archivist/research librarian for research purposes at a major music conservatory (University of Rochester-Eastman School of Music). The Special Collections Archivist/Librarian can be contacted directly for verification of the compositions and their authenticity. In addition, they have been accepted for instructional purposes by faculty members at the university as a reference source within the Piano Department at the Eastman School of Music- Piano Dept. Documented Copyright references have now been added to various compositions within the Unpublished Music section of the article in order to provided independent verification of their existence. In addition, I have removed listings for additional compositions which were not published or copyrighted by the composer. The numerous published compostions listed in the article have been copyrighted by the respective publishers as per contractual arrangements with the composer. Consequently, I am unable to provide accurate Copyright identification numbers for the vast majority of the published works (in so far as the copyrights were obtained at the time of composition by the publishers and/or record producers). Kindly note, however, that a simple Google Search of the name John Serry or John Serry Sr. often results in a listing on E-Bay or Amazon.com of used copies of Mr. Serry's compositions, arrangements and records for auction. This evidence should serve as sufficient verification of the authorship and authenticity of these compositions and/or musical arrangments for general research purposes. With this in mind I have taken the libverty of removing the flags posted on the artcle by 62.147.36.251. The utilization of these flags appears to be somewhat puzzling and inappropriate in nature. Kindly recall that the article was submitted by its author to the Wikipedia editor User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who clearly recognized and documented the relationship of the author to the subject of the article. Mr. Norton was even kind enough to offer to download copies of references from the New York Times to the author for his files and as a rememberance during the course of approving the article for classification as a biography. The article has been successfully categorized as a biography for a considerable period of time without objection from any major contributor . In addition, none of the major facts contained within the article have been challenged or disputed through a documented effort. Evidently, the use of a non-neutral euology flag on this article constitutes a hasty attempt to categorize the article in accordance with a new and as yet unproven categorization methodology which is inconsistent with the accepted standards of a well documented biography. In addition, the application of such a flag on this article by 62.147.36.251 appears to be based upon a cursory, incomplete and limited understanding of the article's subject material(i.e. the struggles encountered by professional accordionists prior to World War II and during the post war period to gain acceptance into professional orchestral ensembles and to present their artistry for the enjoyment of concert audiences within an orchestral setting while overcoming objections raised by symphonic musicians/ publishers/ instrument manufacturers and a skeptical public) as well as the musical history of 1930s-1960s ( when musicians were often required to activley promote their individual artistry in order to educate a public audience which was often musically illiterate). With this in mind, I have taken the liberty of removing the non-neutraility flags. Kindly contact me if I may be of further assistance and Thanks for your consideration pjs012915 March 20, 2009.

I'll give you a tip. Don't put the word "exotic" in the lead of an article unless you can quote the statement from someone else's words. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion should be considered for deletion due to lack of reliable sources that comment on their importance. The musician John Serry, Sr. appears notable though that article needs some cleanup (a complete list of works is not needed). If the cleanup is going to take time to complete, I suggest the article may need to be tagged until that can be taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In reply to the comments by EdJohnston it should be noted that it is not entirely surprising that additional sources have failed to comment upon the importance of the contributions made by Mr. Serry to the advancement of the accordion in the early 20th century. Due to the passage of time since the 1930s-1960s the vast majority of Mr. Serry's colleagues in the music profession (including his associates at the CBS Orchestra at the Columbia Broadcast Network in New York City, the CBS Pan American Orchestra and the Shep Fields Big Band as well as on Broadway) are deceased. Contemporaries such as Charles Magnante are also no longer living. The lack of supporting evidence from sources who are no longer available to provide input should not in an of itself serve as a rational for excising important insights into this unique period in the development of early 20th century music. In addition, it should be kept in mind that attempts by artists such as Mr. Serry to integrate the accordion into major orchestral ensembles during the 1930's through the 1960's were not successful-- as the Wikipedia articles on the Accordion, the free-bass system and their use in classical music clearly illustrate. Consequently, it is not surprising to note that few contemporary experts have provided reliable supporting references--i.e. leading orchestral conductors or musicians who could be expected to possess expert knowledge of these activities are not likely to exist since the efforts of musicians such as Mr. Serry to integrate the instrument into professional ensembles were of limited success over forty years ago. It is illogical to expect confirmation from contemporary leading musical authorities when their conterparts failed to acknowledge the efforts of musicians such as Mr. Serry over 4 decades ago. While photographic evidence of Mr. Serry's performance at CBS and on Broadway can be provided for additional proof, they cannot be displayed on Wikipedia due to copywright protection issues related to the use of the CBS logo and/or the use of signed photographs from leading Broadway stars. It should also be noted that a published photograph of Mr. Serry performing with the CBS Pan American Orchestra has been reference in the article in the citiation for the bookThe Pictorial History of Radiofrom the 1960s. Also kindly note that Mr. Serry's artistry has been documented in writting on the liner notes of his album Squeeze Play (still available on E-Bay) by the noted produced Ben Selvin-- a reference which has been included in the article. In addition, it should be noted for clarity that Mr. Serry's revised American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion have been reviewed for their musical quality and authenticity by a staff of professional archivists at one of the leading music conservatories in the United States and have been accepted for archival research within the university's research library for the benefit of students and musicologists. The acceptance of such works by the Sibley Music Library at the Eastman School of Music (which maintains the largest and most comprehensive music manuscript compilations on the East coast of the United States) should serve as a suitable reference for the accuracy of the articles in question. The Special Archivist and Librarian at the Sibley Library can acknowledge the acceptance of these works by contacting his E-mail address listed in the link to the Sibley Music Library. It should also be kept in mind that these manuscripts have been accepted as reference resource materials within the faculty's departmental library at the Piano Dept. of the Eastman School for use in various courses centered on the development of music in the early 20th century and compositional. It would be surprising indeed for an editor of an respected on-line encyclopedia to recommend the deletion of a series of articles which describes the musical endeavors of a musician whose works are deemed to be of interest to the faculty and students of one of the nation's leading music conservatories. While an editor such as Mr. Johnston may raise doubts as to the significance of Mr. Serry's contributions by citing a lack of references, it is clear that leading educators in the field of music disagree with such an assessment by accepting Mr. Serry's compositions into a permanent research archive--a distinction not easily attained. In addition, it should be noted that contemporary contributors to the article on the free-bass system accordion (Use in Classical Music) have not disputed the contents of the article on Mr. Serry despite major revisions to the article in the months just past. In so far as several musical authorities and editors have contributed to the development of the article about the accordion and the free-bass system and have not objected to the references contained within them to Mr. Serry's contributions, I must question the rational for deleting Mr. Serry's article. In addition, it should be noted that references to Mr. Serry's contributuons as a soloist in the articles on Shep Fields and Alfredo Antonini (two leading musicians of his era) have not been challenged despite editorial reviews and revisions to these articles. With this in mind I respectfully request that any recommendation for deletion be reviewed by an editorial panel which is qualified to judge the historical developments of the period in question with impartiality and a sufficiently high level of professionalism, academic excellence and expertise. Thanks for your consideration pjs012915

Dana L. French

Article Dana L. French is currently subject to a deletion review. Had previously been deleted as Dana French and got restored out of process by Dana French himself. There is currently an edit-war in which Dana French (as User:Dfrench and IPs beginning 12.) and the main opponent have both violated 3RR, though both have been warned and thus shouldn't be blocked unless they re-offend. It does however need more eyes, which is why I'm bringing it to notice here. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I'm about 1/3 through documenting the defects in the page. More eyes (and fingers) would be useful to get the material to where a deletion review would make sense. Tedickey (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Just delete the page, it is self-promotional uncited un-notable crap. The only references to Dana L French online, are a self submitted resume and the wikipedia page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the DRV was that the article was restored, but anyone who wishes may nominate the article at AfD. If a proper AfD is launched, that would put off for a while the need for any investigation at this noticeboard. I agree that there is a lack of 3rd-party sources that comment on his work. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've put it up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana L. French on grounds of the sheer absence of third-party sources demonstrating notability. Most of the citations are just entries in linkfarm directories.
BTW, we should add
Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Nancykabat

Resolved. User blanked the offending page. -- samj inout 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty blatant advertising attempt here. I had put a notice at WP:UAA and was directed here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User blanked the page so I guess this is fixed already. -- samj inout 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Nasal irrigation

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

This is a long-term, low-key problem centred at a single section of Nasal irrigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User is unwilling to collaborate and often reverts to their own preferred version, in the latest instance undoing removal of a spammy mini-lede to the section, completely irrelevant references and proper reuse of references. (Section was improved by WhatamIdoing, then removed by 67.170.1.167, then reinserted in an old version by Grockl [3].)

User now resorts to meatpuppeting and personal attacks. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive for extensive evidence of the long term problem, and User talk:Grockl#Sockpuppet investigation for today's personal attack. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler is simply trying to own the article. He is neither an expert nor authority on the subject. I have provided many published medical references on the efficacy of nasal irrigation. If you folks want to settle this once and for all simply have an authority review the peer review published medical reports and this can be resolved once and for all by educated well respected medical professionals and not some ego driven academic that is attempting to own an article. I would suggest that this type of practice would be better suited for the communist version of Wikipedia where I am sure censorship is respected. There is no commercial aspect of my posts simply an effort to advise consumers of an alternative more effective method of nasal irrigation much more so than the anecdotal reports on the benefit of neti irrigation which has not changed in 5000 years. I find it ironic that many of the studies referenced under Neti have been sponsored and promoted by physicians and their companies that manufacture and promote neti pots. Others actually used pulsatile irrigation on test subjects in their studies but are being used to promote neti pots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as personal attacks I simply brought up the fact that the poster is a math teacher and an academic which he posts himself and not an MD. I am questioning his role as an academic and his lack of knowledge and authority in this area to unilaterally censor material I posted. Maybe this is the way they conduct themselves in the UK but I am an American and have the right to post relevant informative material every bit as much as Mr. Adler.
As far as using my IP or my login when did that become a requirement? Instead he is looking for red herrings and deception where none exists. Based on some of the comments I have seen it is Mr. Adler and his unilateral censorship that appears to have upset the common folk--Grockl (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Not true. Hans is doing good work here. Grockl's identity is fairly easy to discern. He is the physician that created the product that he persistantly advertises on wikipedia. Look at his edit history and it will become clear. Also do an IP lookup on him and other suspicious posts, and you will notice an interesting trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.1.167 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to say I am not a physician, but my mother would be pleased you think I am. You are ridiculous. I am obviously biased I believe in this but no I am not who you think I am. I thought it was improper to assume someone’s identity on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should sock puppet yourself. To resolve this matter I have requested that a medical authority figure rule on the matter and the relevency of pulsating nasal irrigation within the article on Nasal Irrigation. I will abide by the decision as long as you folks will.--Grockl (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
67.170.1.167: I have told you before not to speculate about the real-life identity of Grockl. There is precedent that it can get you into trouble even in a COI investigation. Grockl: Your long-term obsession with a product that is the object of an astroturfing campaign elsewhere [4] [5] (notice the user id in this case) is so obvious that it is very hard not to make the obvious connection. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Note also that having "a medical authority figure rule on the matter" is not how wikipedia works - you need to get consensus based on information gleaned from reliable sources. -- samj inout 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

employee of car company removing faster cars from the Nurburgring article.

Editor Sauron22 Special:Contributions/Sauron22 has been removing faster cars from the Nürburgring lap times article. Upon looking at his edit history, I noticed that he only edits this article and the Dodge Viper article. (removing the Radical SR8 would make the Dodge Viper the fastest production car around the Nurburgring)

To me that is wrong, it is mildly disruptive - but overall nothing more than an OR and edit dispute..no big problem.

Well it was not a problem until the editor failed to log in and edited the talk page with his IP, instead of his account. Upon running whois on his IP, I found that the IP is registered to Chrysler Motors Corporation, the company that makes the Dodge Viper, the car that he is trying so hard to keep as the fastest on the list. One of the edit summaries used by the IP states # 04:34, 12 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Chrysler Headquarters and Technology Center ‎ (I changed the square footage from 4.4 million square feet to 5.4 million square feet. I work here and its posted everywhere.)

The IP in question is Special:Contributions/129.9.163.106 and the whois result is here [6]

I am not suggesting that there are any sock puppet/IP issues, there have been no attempts to use the IP to get around editing restrictions, form false consensus etc, however there is a clear conflict of interest and seeing that the Sauron account has only made edits to this article and the article of the Dodge Viper it is clearly a single purpose account with a clear agenda and an equally clear conflict of interest.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Steintrikes

Resolved
 – Steintrikes article was deleted by WP:PROD. EdJohnston (talk)

Resolved
 – None of the three accounts listed below has edited since 25 March, so maybe the campaign for the addition of the links is over. EdJohnston (talk)

At the above article and others (including Website), this editor has been adding links to this page; while it has information regarding the concept of homeowners' associations, it gets into homeowners' association websites. It's hosted by AtHomeNet, which produces... homeowners' association websites, among other things. It's clearly spammy, but the editor insists that it's a useful reference for inclusion in a number of articles. Interestingly, this diff from 2007, posted during a period when the editor in question was contesting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet, uses the wording "our CEO" - which suggests to me a serious COI issue. This fact has yet to be replied to in the editor's voluminous responses at Talk:Homeowners' association. I'd appreciate additional discussion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Previous editors had suggested how to add information if you were questionable for a COI, and the wikipedia guidlines outline a number of ways to do this. The idea that you had a past relationship or a present relationship to a company in a manner where you are not working for them persay, should not prohibit you from recommending a page as a resource if it meets the guidelines. BAsed on the feedback I have received from a variety of sources, I can see more clearly now where the lines are drawn. you have to understand though, if a user like me surfs wikipedia looking at pages and seeing so many external links that house advertising (including some under references on the homeowners association page in question) as well as examples like the comcast one i brought up, if leaves the inexperienced editor with the impression that nothing is black and white across the board, and rules seem to only be applied or enforced on topics where a lot fo attention is suddenly focused. Now I realize wikipedia is huge, and you all don't have 24 hours a day to police everyone on every page, but something needs to be said about the larger concept of consistency as well as this whole argument about notability of a company and what it is allowed to advertise once it meets that standard. Most of us are professionals in some industry, and we have knowledge and or resrouces related to our field, which will inevitably lead to us recommending those sources unless it is brought to our attention this does not meet the guidelines. Instead of simply accepting that, I applied my example to other examples to compare and contrast, and attempted to get an idea of how better to keep the good information in the page while pushing them to remove the bad. The larger concept is, just because a website sells products, if they have a page of facts about a product they happen to sell, as long as the page contains no links or portals to the fact they sell the product, should it be automatically excluded? I don't think that is what the wikipedia policies are stating, and if it is, please disucss further. I hope I addressed the issue in question here. I also think it is reasonable to assume a person who is affiliated with the hoa industry is probably a good expert on the subject. That being said, I suggested earlier that some of the information on the external link page in question, be absolved into a new wikipedia page specifically about homeowners association websites....that way the information is still there for all readers without any questions of advertising. I am still fielding responses to this idea, though I have not gotten much commentary on it.Edenrage (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Edenrage (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Also, I have repeatedly said that adding the link to the other related topics pages such as website, and virtual community, was clearly a mistake...and I have not tried to place them back nor encourage any other editor to place them back. I am only lobbying for the external link to hoa & hoa websites central and it's inclusion under the one page for homeowners associations. This debate should remain focused on that page, and the link content's relevance to that topic.Edenrage (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The debate should be focused on whether or not you work for AtHomeNet, the company that the page you're trying to insert is promoting. There are a number of links that run off of the page you're trying to point to, all of which go to AtHomeNet's HOA website service sales page. The more I look at it, the more it becomes obvious this is a marketing attempt. As for the creation of a page on HOA websites, I highly doubt that enough independent references could be found to make that viable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The points you bring up are the reason I specifically addressed those links, stating that if the hosting website removed all the links to said services...(as if you check in the beginning, the page actually had menu links and a logo, as obviously the designers of Homeowners association websites central were trying in good faith to provide a page of information. Other wise, they would have simply stuck the page in the midst of their normal sales stuff. When I brought it to their attention that I thought the link was good info, but it contained too many sales links, (they are aware that I inserted the page as an external link) the company removed the menu items and their logo (you can see this if you check the early comments and history of the ads, as I believe they want the page to be an industry resource as well. Whether or not they would agree with stripping out all external links on the page...I don't know, but I can say as someone who works (for myself and my own business I might add) in the HOA industry that the info on this page could help educate people on what happens on HOA sites, and what they usually contribute to communities, without endorsing any particular provider or seller of them. I add again, I inserted other external links to CAI as well, and if editors had contested those, I would have argued in favor of their inclusion as well...even though CAI does contain sponsored links as well on their site. If you look at the changes being made to the page to not only comply with wikipedia's guidelines, but also general guidelines for a website being considered a neutral authority of information...I can only assume that the site owners are trying to make the site more universal and less of a sales tool, which is the only reason I have been rallying for it's inclusion, or at least the inclusion of the information. I think there are a lot of sources on HOA websites out there floating around as well. Definitely plenty of articles written by nuetral sources, another reason I think having an independent page in wikipedia would be a good thing.Edenrage (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Edenrage. Please note the 200-word limit for posts which is mentioned at the top of this noticeboard. It is possible that posts of more than 200 words will be placed in archive boxes to save space. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, there is so much to say about these multiple issues involved...I didn't direct this conversation here, we were actually having it on the homeowners association page, but it was redirected here for a seperate discussion by an editor. I will try to keep it brief though... thanks.

I added Community association to the header of this report, since a link to athomenet.com was being added there, plus the names of two other accounts that have also added the link. Edenrage added the link at Homeowners' association five times, the last on 19 March, but has indicated to me that he has stopped. We appreciate his cooperation. The IP which I added above is registered to AtHomeNet Inc., according to Whois. The IP has broadcast a request for help to nine different user talk pages. Since admin Fabrictramp spent a lot of time reasoning with Edenrage at User talk:Fabrictramp#Commercial links..., I trust that Edenrage now understands our policy and we can look forward to the end of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved to whether links to cidgab.com, purported to be a useful community forum, etc. for community associations to make use of, are appropriate in the Community association article. The domain is registered to AtHomeNet, there is little information to be used on the page, it has banner ads to corporate "sponsors" including AtHomeNet, and an Amazon affiliate store arranged by AtHomeNet is featured prominently. Edenrage has stated on Talk:Community association that his intent is to continue to work towards inclusion of that link. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tim5046 apparently a/k/a User:67.131.131.131

Resolved
 – No edits since 23 March. This behavior is blockable if it resumes. EdJohnston (talk)

Query

I note COI is usually considered as a COI in favor of the subject of an article, -- but dpes COI apply for an editor who owns a .org website which is directly antithetical to the interests of the subjects of the articles he edits almost exclusively ? The .org's only ad is for Amazon.com -- is that sufficient to make it "commercial" in any sense? Sort of iterating -- is there such a thing asn an anti-COI? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

COI doesnt apply just to the articles subject it can also apply to anyone that benefits from the existance of the article. IF as an example a museum has an article then employees of the museum have a COI. Like wise if an organisation is funded by the museum then the organisation also has a COI as does anyone who represents the organisation. COI doesnt necessarily mean a positive spin the family of a murder victim would have a COI if they were to edit the article about the person convicted of the murder. Bank manager Mr Xyz would have a COI if he edited article about competitors, so yes anyone can have a COI because they gain from the article content whether its positive or negative is just perspective. Gnangarra 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Would an SPA from an owner of a site which is specifically anti "cult" be a COI if he writes (usually in a negative vein) on every religious figure he has edited on, and has written for various ezines (including ones which are specifically anti "biblical America")(though they do not indicate whether he has been paid as such). He was able to get two editors booted for less of a COI than this may be if what you say is true. Whois is a wonder -- he also owns one of the ezines -- the one which is specificlly against "biblical America". A double COI? Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds more like POV-pushing (see WP:NOTCOI) -- samj inout 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually on further review both site and ezine could be considered organisations... I figure that when you add organisation to an interest conflicts start to arise. -- samj inout 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Various competing softwares

Resolved
 – Crammage was deleted at AfD, Anki's AfD is running, and SuperMemo remains unchallenged. Nothing more to do here. The war of the flashcard programs is over. EdJohnston (talk)

I've just issued a (I hope, preventitive) warning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crammage. Observe the edit histories of the mentioned articles. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There seem be a bunch of IPs doing things like removing AfD banners and dissing the rival products in their edit summaries. I don't see any evidence of grown-up behavior by any of these IPs, nor any respect for Wikipedia's deletion policy. The place where the trouble is happening is in Category:Flash cards software. How about semiprotecting Crammage, SuperMemo and any other rival products until Crammage's AfD is over? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There has been a fair bit of SPA activity on Crammage and Anki, specifically by Homeboyfrisco, Thomasjnewsome and Chrisseckhorn, who could well be socks. IPs 76.14.82.5 and 64.81.244.24 have both been editing associated articles in an attempt to promote Crammage. The former IP seems fairly reasoned in his edits, whereas the latter exhibits the lack of grown-up behaviour describing by Ed above; vandalising my userpage once I'd !voted at the AFD, then removing the AFD notice from the Crammage article and adding it to Anki... all of which got him reported to AIV and blocked.
There have been accusations that editors are biased towards and even employed by Anki, but I think that (judging by the SPAs and the style of edits) the culprits are likely those behind Crammage, annoyed at the AFD. There has been a lull in the aggressive editing on all associated articles and the AFD continues unabated (and undisturbed for now) but I think a semi-protect may be a good idea, just in case it all kicks off again. onebravemonkey 09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott

Resolved
 – Policy has been explained, and the editor is now working to improve the article in user space. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the only reliable source I could find is a bad review. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A bad review, which was so tastefully rebutted by the playwright herself in the comment just below it, with remarks about the critic's hormones and lack of judgment. I have notified Gillhiscott of this dicussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys listen There is some confusion over things I said. Of the two articles only the latter was written by myself in an attempt to rectified a nonconforming article. And most of the things that I have done on wikipaedia have happened from lack of knowledge of the system and I apologise if anyone was upset. In fact the administrator who blocked me has been very helpful and recreated the article on a userpage Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott which I am editing and I would be grateful for anyone's comments, help etc. If it never goes up again, so be it As the article was deleted I am simply trying to put things right and create an article which meets standards rather than have a log which is not defended. And surely I am the one with the best knowledge of citations about myself. As you have already noted I am quite defensive of my work. It is a pity you picked up on the only bad review - but the reviewer was mainly criticising the direction and acting - but in fact she had commented that the writer had "picked up the key scenes" of the original, and I was not so much defending myself as the director. In fact in fact the Camden New Journal review on the same play is still around on the net and perhaps you would like to read that one. Reviewers are an odd conflicting race of people. I think it was Tom Stoppard whose first plays was completely slammed by the critics. I find Wikipaedia an ironic site - so stringent on citations etc. but dissallowed as an unreleable source by univerisities (British ones anyhow). At least that is my experience. Does anyone know of a university which allows Wikipaedia to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry another mistake - forgot to sign it - now attempting to (User talk:Gillhiscott/talk} —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

  • I have been working with this editor to produce a sourced, NPOV article. The userfy'd (?) version now being worked upon in the editors space indicates good claim to notability, with references in hand. I can also confirm that a lot of the earlier seeming non optimum behaviour is mostly down to unfamiliarity with the WP environment. This is also being worked upon (by example, chiefly). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

COI edits on Minnesota congressman's article (John Lesch)

User:Johnlesch has made numerous edits to the article John Lesch. Probably a COI by him or one of his representatives. The article was a stub, so not all they have added is unconstructive. I haven't been reverting it, but I'm keeping an eye on it for a while. I haven't dealt much in this area; can someone more experienced handle it? ~SunDragon34 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user on his talk page. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've trimmed back several of the sections, and prettied it up a little. User hasn't edited the article since notification. If you can, please keep an eye on it to make sure the promotional bits don't start leaking back in. -Atmoz (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

grovemarketing's (Grove Group)

Resolved
 – User name blocked. If the user comes back with a new ID, we can reopen this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Grove Group

Good Day My page have been identified as a COI page. If you can give me some direct critisism i will change it accordingly. I have checked the reasons for COI, but my article seems solid in my eyes. This is however one of my first articles. Please advise.

Kind Regards Grove Marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grovemarketing (talk • contribs) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This account has been blocked for having a promotional user name. If he returns here later with a new ID, we can reopen the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Paul Herzberg

Paul Herzberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The last 10-15 edits to the article were by a user with the same name. Call me cycnical, but I suspect a connection. Doc Tropics 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Compulsive_overeating article inaccuracies

Resolved
 – No remaining issues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Compulsive_overeating - The article on compulsive overeating is very weak - badly written, full of inaccuracies, and incomplete. I tried to edit the article, but all my changes were removed because I work in this area. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and added links to my own site. Sorry. But why then didn't the editor just remove the link to my site rather than reversing all my changes? The conflict-of-interest rule creates a problem. Anyone with in-depth expertise on a topic probably works in that area, and then they are automatically disqualified from writing about it. How is this article supposed to be fixed if you won't let someone who knows what they're talking about edit it? Even the external link I added to the Overeaters Anonymous Web site was removed. Will you please allow me to fix this? Scanter (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm the other editor here. I reverted Scanter's edits as they all included links and citations to her website (which is defined as such on her user page). One of them added one of her books to the "further reading" section of an article. I left Scanter several messages about dealing with a conflict of interest and finally told her to post here. It is my opinion that she could help out the articles a lot but she has to refrain from promoting her particular website or any books that she has written or points of view she has that aren't backed up by reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 19:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that I can edit the article as long as I make no mention of my own work? There's a link to my site on another Wikipedia Web page added by some unknown person - not me. Normal Eating is a recognized approach to compulsive overeating - useful and of interest to many people. Not everything on my site requires payment. There are many free articles and a free newsletter with an archive - all free. Tell me what I can and cannot do in editing articles, and that's what I'll do. It's very aggravating to spend time editing something and then have it all deleted. Scanter (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed you towards the guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest before. You should read over this page to see what is considered inappropriate editing. Building up the article from neutral, reliable sources is more than welcome. The problem starts when every edit you make contains links to your own website. Claims like "Compulsive overeaters see the problem as their body size, but actually the obsession itself is a major component of the problem" appear to be of a particular point of view, especially when your personal website is used to make the citation. ThemFromSpace 19:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, you are exaggerating. It is not true that "every edit you make contains links to your own website". You're just trying to justify removing every change I made instead of just the one reference to my own site. You wasted my time by doing this, and you didn't help Wikipedia, either. Second, every compulsive eater in the universe sees being fat as the problem. You don't believe me? Take a survey. The fact that I say this on my Web site doesn't make it any less true. It's such an obvious "duh" that no reference was necessary - I should have left it out. I don't want to waste time updating this article just to have someone without knowledge or judgement reverse my work. I need have some assurance that there is sanity and intelligence here, or I won't even bother. Scanter (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Your changes appear to violate WP:Conflict of interest. I recommend you wait until someone else decides to add the links to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding links to one's own website is not a good plan, and this in not a place for the publication of original research; for example, we can't take surveys, and despite any 'doh' factor you may feel, we much prefer to have everything included here to be verified from reliable sources. As others have said reading the guidelines for editing with a conflict of interest would likely help you a lot too. Having said that, I'm not sure why all your changes have been reverted, as some were not promotional, did not include your website and seem to be helpful improvements to the article. Since I am sure that you have a lot to add, and could be very helpful on the articles concerned, I would encourage you to keep at it. Your edits to Intuitive eating look very excellent, and if you keep up in that vein that would be wonderful. I'm certain that if you can cite the information you add (using books, newspapers, journal articles etc as sources) and avoid promoting your website and your specific ideas about the disorder, you should find your editing course quite smooth. --Slp1 (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I certainly agree that it was not necessary to revert all my edits to Compulsive Overeating. I spent a lot of time correcting and improving that article. The link to my site was one tiny piece that easily could have been removed while retaining the rest of it. Instead, the editor turned my efforts into a total waste of my time. As for what's so obvious that it needs no reference... Have you actually read that article? It's horrible. It's full of nonsense like, for example, "compulsive eaters...secretly plan or fantasize about eating alone". Oh yeah? Every single compulsive eater shares this fantasy? That's ridiculous. And yet the editor who removed my improvements thinks that such a silly statement is acceptable, whereas my saying that compulsive eaters want to lose weight is not. That's just my "unconfirmed opinion". If you don't think compulsive eaters want to lose weight, then you are comotose. Turn on the television - read a magazine. The media is saturated with ways to control compulsive overeating. The obsession of compulsive eaters with weight loss is an obvious fact. Inner fantasies, on the other hand, vary by individual and a blanket statement like the one in the article is ridiculous. And how about that absurd and unreferenced statistic about "80% recovery"? Where does that come from?? Last I heard, 95-99% of dieters fail, and most of these are compulsive overeaters. I don't want to spend another two hours fixing an article I already fixed. Maybe someone can restore what I wrote and just take out the link to my site is that's so objectionable. Scanter (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Scanter, I recieved your borderline-hostile email and I'll reply to it here. First of all, you are permitted and encouraged to edit that article. Go ahead and rewrite it, but make sure everything is properly sourced using reliable sources and that you don't violate NPOV. Also, don't include links to websites which you are personally affiliated with. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle of promotion or adverstising. If I see you continue to add your own links in I will remove them per WP:COI. For good references try the search engine Google Scholar. You claim that there's popular agreement about the things on your site so it shouldn't be hard to find good references to back it up. ThemFromSpace 03:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend more time on it. You can restore my original edits and remove the link to my site - or not. And my email to you wasn't "borderline" anything - it was outright angry. I spent an hour or two figuring out how to edit a Wikipedia article and then editing it, and you deleted all my work and made it a total waste of my time. You used poor judgement in tossing everything I did rather than just removing the link. Now I'm not willing to devote more time to it, so you and Wikipedia users lose. Who wrote that crappy article, anyway? You? Scanter (talk) 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Fugsawugsa

Resolved
 – Fugsawugsa has not edited since 26 March. Any further reverts of the same kind, without discussion, may lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk)

I do not know Fugsawugsa's interest in the Armand Rousso article, but he does seem at best to be the most SPA or COI account I have ever seen. [7] shows 20 of his total 22 edits being removal of the same stuff over and over from the article, even after the AfD had rewriting done. He has been told to make his issues known in Talk, but so far he has done absolutely nothing else. In the past when I have seen such singe-mindedness, a COI was generally the cause. Might someone else look into this? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:Articles for deletion/Armand Rousso (closed with keep), and a recent edit by Fugsawugsa with this summary, Mr. Rousso has help our charity and numerious other but I see your point though would be nice to be able to move on with ones life. Does this edit meet your standards?). I have added 207.237.153.210 to this report; may be the same person as Fugsawugsa. The article was nominated for deletion by an OTRS volunteer:

This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

However, a majority of participants in the AfD were satisfied that the New York Times coverage made him notable. DGG suggested improving the article to include more of the man's career: try for a more complete article. His earlier career is merely alluded to, but there seem to be sources for it.
I will notify Fugsawugsa of this discussion. His removals of material from the article are getting close to vandalism, and since he does not appear to be the article subject *he* cannot argue a BLP defence. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
His "response" I suppose is [8] once more. Collect (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
And another two times since. Collect (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Harpreet Rehal

Resolved
 – User was notified of our policies, but has not edited since March 26. If problems continue, please reopen this complaint. EdJohnston (talk)

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

Edits BMJ-related pages. Listed here, as a BMJ marketing contact.

←Spidern→ 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Harland_Williams

  • I don't know if this belongs here or at a BLP board. Or, even if it's important at all. [[9]], Special:Contributions/Mollyjelly claims to be the subject of the article and expresses distress over inaccuracies. The user has made several edits to the article this month. The article sourcing is not what I'd call extensive, so it's difficult to judge the facts. Thanks Tiderolls 17:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Everything that was removed was unreferenced. And I have no problems with anyone deleting unsourced material from BLPs, even if they have a potential COI. I've notified User:Mollyjelly of this discussion. -Atmoz (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gtylax

Gtylax (talk · contribs) was declined at WP:UAA. However, they created the page Gloucester Township Youth Lacrosse. Additionally, they removed the speedy tag I placed on the page. KuroiShiroi (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Update re: Medianyc

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30#User:Medianyc, which is now in the archives. The editor, Medianyc, added the following note:

Please excuse my delayed response. I am an intern for the New York Observer and believed my edits to be fair game. I have nothing to hide about that. I do not believe I have violated the SPAM policies. I have not added any content whatsoever, and am only providing factual citations. I am only adding citations to things that were uncited before and I am only verfying and providing factual claims to existing points in the articles, thereby adding value to them. Would you plese explain how my citation of previously uncited information jeopardizes the validity of the articles? I am not a robot, I am a human adding only citations where there were none before. If information is not cited in an article and I provide these citations, whether or not you think it's the most important point in a given article, I do not see a conflict. If you do read the articles you would see that each point that I added a citation to is in fact in the article, whether or not the title says so. Moving forward, I will make an effort to be more precise in my citations. Medianyc (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Due to a mixup, he restored an old version of WP:COIN and I extracted this item from his last edit. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Thlgnosis

I would like to bring Thlgnosis to attention. This user has created three articles which look to me like they have big WP:COI problems. (Research_Centre_GNOSIS, Lars-Henrik_Schmidt and The_social-analytical_perspective. All three articles are completely unreferenced. I have added COI template and started a discussion on each talk page. So far the author has commented at Talk:The_social-analytical_perspective. Could some editors please check these articles and discussions out and provide their comments or perform the necessary actions to ensure these articles are not in violation of WP:COI and WP:BLP. Thanks. 193.244.33.47 (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I've taken a look at all three articles and have also seen Thlgnosis' less than satisfactory response with regards to COI. Refusing to explain his/her own personal connection to the subject matter makes it likely that they are connected in some way. However... the page on The_social-analytical_perspective has been blanked, so I've listed it for speedy deletion and the first thing that came to mind regarding the other two articles was WP:NOTE. What is notable at all about either of the other two articles? Howie ☎ 08:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for following up and marking the blanked article for speedy deletion. From the edit summary that Thlgnosis provided when he blanked the article I am assuming he is creating the Social Analytics article right now, so I'm keeping an eye on his contribs. On the point of WP:NOTE: I have avoided challenging the notability of all three articles because I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter so I can not challenge their notability. I'm also afraid that applying WP:NOTE warnings to the article it would fall into that spiral of subjectivity where people discuss the notability back and forth. There are much more blatant violations going on here. Most obvious to me are the violations of WP:COI and WP:BLP. Maybe even WP:AB is applicable, but only if the user is the person described in Lars-Henrik_Schmidt, which seems very likely to me when reading his refusal to elaborate on his personal connection to Lars-Henrik_Schmidt. That would also imply WP:OR. In my opinion all three articles qualify as WP:SPAM but I'm not sure how to proceed, that's why I came here for help. 193.244.33.47 (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree there is an issue here, and until Thlgnosis states if he/she is the subject of the articles (making it ALB), it makes it slightly difficult. I think COI and BLP would certainly apply. The lack of sources also makes me agree with you on OR. I'm going to invite Thlgnosis to contribute here, and I think I will try to assume good faith until an answer is forthcoming or five days have passed - whichever comes first. Howie ☎ 09:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not the subject of any of the three articles in question. I just have an academic interest in the matter. Therefore no COI. There are references in all three articles. Although the subject may be rather unknown internationally I find the matter important and I have the knowledge and schooling to judge its importance. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thlgnosis (talk • contribs) 10:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thlgnosis has deleted your proposed deletion template and my COI template. You have reinstated the COI template but forgot to put the proposed deletion template back. Just letting you know I'm going to revert back to before he deleted them. :) Also, should we move his response which he made in a new section on this page (see below) to this section? Or can we leave it seperately? 193.244.33.47 (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Reinserting the PROD template was wrong; the rules for it specifically state that anyone can validly stop the prod process simply by removing the template. They do not even have to give a reason. An article from which a prod template has ever been deleted (perhaps excluding valdals blanking the entire page) can never be re-prodded. If it is to be deleted it will have to be through AfD or for one of the speedy deletion reasons. –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I've added his reply into the discussion. S/He states that s/he is not the subject of any of the articles and we should assume good faith unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I still believe there are notability concerns. I see you've invited the philosophy wikiproject to look into the subject matter, which is the best thing to do.
Thlgnosis - while there are references, these need to be greatly expanded and not just links to the subject's own websites. You need to now explain within the article why the subjects are notable. Howie ☎ 10:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I will proceed according to your directives of further referencing. Also the notability of subjects, and not just the existence, should become apparent once the articles are expanded. I am new to the practise of wiki-authorship, and have only just started the articles in question. I wellcome directives and the invitation of philosophy project.--Thlgnosis (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stumbled across quite a collection of articles with a COI problem. These have been on Wikipedia for some time. User:Wolfboy21 (User talk:Wolfboy21) created Xenos Books on April 29, 2004 and has been hard at work adding articles for their titles. By his own words on Talk:Addictive_Aversions, there is a COI problem, and possibly just plain spam. ("What is the problem with this article? I am one of the editors at Xenos Books and have used our catalog description for the book. Please advise. [email protected]") This editing doesn't seem to have been done in bad faith, but I need help on how to proceed with clearing this up. This editor doesn't appear to be a very active, but I've added a note to his talk page. --Martinship (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the article on Xenos Books lacks any reliable sources, consider nominating it for deletion. Google comes up with little or nothing about this company, which does not appear to meet WP:CORP. If an AfD ends with deletion, then one might follow up with a combined AfD on several of their publications (see most of the blue links in Xenos Books). These articles also lack references, and they are unlikely to meet WP:BK. Wikipedia is not a publisher's catalog. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Does the article Xenos Books specifically fall under CSD A7 and would that be appropriate? --Martinship (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Trying to do away with these articles by speedy deletion would be at least slightly controversial. A PROD is safer, and since Wolfboy21 has not been active recently, if he is the only one who cares about them the PRODs might go through. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

See WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18#Coalition to Stop Gun Violence from 2007, and current ANI discussion.

Beginnning with this edit on March 27. CSGV got into what looks to be an edit war with regular editors. Someone on the other side was reverting 'per WP:COI'. Then User:Bastique objected that COI is only a guideline, and 'per COI' is not a reason for reverting under our policy. It is still fair to notice that this was a violation of WP:3RR. Meanwhile, CSGV got blocked for having a spam user name. The adventures continue. Let's wait and see how the editors at WP:ANI leave the issue and see what remains for us to address here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The ANI discussion, now archived here, closed with no definite result. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Rice University residential colleges

List_of_Rice_University_residential_colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Following a dispute over the notability of individual articles for residential colleges at Rice University, several editors exhibiting characteristics of WP:OWN and WP:COI have created a Facebook group to rally support to their side rather than engaging in consensus formation such as commenting on the RFC.

List of articles affected:

Other editors involved:

Facebook rallying support:

I'm obviously not opposed to these articles being improved, but I frankly am at wit's end with how to deal with editors who have no interest in having meaningful consensus-formation and view this as a cause. I don't know if page protection is in order until the RFC closes or what, but I need other editors' advice and assistance in dealing with this escalating issue. This was also cross-posted at WP:EAR. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why was I listed on this incident report? I don't even have an account on Facebook. Madcoverboy, you have made an accusation with no proof or evidence - a direct violation of WP:NPA. I have participated in the discussion just as you and the other editors there. Please remove me from this incident report. Postoak (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Shivam Parikh

Shivam_Parikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - It seems that both Shivam Parikh and Keyur Parikh are vanity wikis created by Indiahn. When I began fixing the Shivam Parikh wiki to mirror the more prominent Shivam Parikh (from New Jersey), I got a reversal and was marked as "vandalism" as Indiahn. It doesn't seem that the Shivam Parikh from India is actually prominent at all. Should be marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danyeo (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your changes at Shivam Parikh have the air of being joke vandalism. Please respect our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Xeround, Database Virtualization, Intelligent Data Grid

Xeround and Database Virtualization both have serious COI issues in that user:Jtrembley is the main contributor and also the "Vice President of Product Management & Marketing" of Xeround. [10] Should "spam" be added or speedy delete?

I also suspect user:Technologytalk is a sockpuppet being the creator of Intelligent_Data_Grid™ and the only other editor of Xeround. user:Technologytalk has also removed the COI tag I added to Xeround. [11]

What should be done? Thanks. Smartse (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • This is puzzling. Database Virtualization may eventually be notable, and the companies might be serious, but the documentation is well below our standards. I suggest proposing everything for deletion using WP:PROD. I've alerted Technologytalk to this discussion. Maybe somebody will show up here and we can help them revise the articles. (Or, a regular editor might take an interest and contribute). If not, the articles should go, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Ross

Wayne Ross has been appointed attorney general of Alaska, but there is no article about him. As he's my former co-counsel in a brief I filed before the Alaska Supreme Court, it's probably best that I not be the one to do it. Reliable sources can be found at [12], [13], and [14], inter alia. THF (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started it but it needs work. Not sure if this was the right place to ask btw. Smartse (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
"COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes." THF (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Article on Kyra Phillips; actions by CNN employee

Kyra Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Over the last month several single-article editors and anons have deleted entire sections of "unfavorable" information about Kyra Phillips from the article and replaced it with the canned bio from CNN's website. The editor or editors do not discuss or take issue with specific details, but rather continually delete entire sections. It is probable that some of these editors (if not all) are one in the same. Two of the editors have been sufficiently warned, but the warnings have gone unheeded. The sections being deleted are well cited by multiple reliable sources, especially the sections regarding on-air mishap and a controversial interview. One of the editors admitted to being a "manager at CNN" (see here). ++Arx Fortis (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the COI, but I have greater BLP concerns about this article as half of it is nothing but criticisms and adverse remarks with loaded words (like "rant"). I have raised notice of this issue at BLP/N since I believe resolving that will resolve any COI as well. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Both Britannica411 and Fivhorizon have received final warnings. Fivhorizon got a {{uw-coi}} notice as well. Britannica411 is the one who has edited most recently. Askari Mark has posted about possible BLP violations in this article over at WP:BLPN though there isn't any new information there yet. Some of the joky or embarrassing moments in Phillips' article seem to be mostly documented from blogs. I'd welcome a more careful study of how each episode was verified. We can't criticize COI-affected editors for removing well-sourced criticism unless it is actually well-sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Noodle snacks is a page to sell his photographs

Resolved
 – The page is apparently not intended to sell the photographs, but to discuss various kinds of reuse in other media. Orangemike does not object. EdJohnston (talk)
Agreed. It should be deleted. As should his user page User:Noodle snacks/gallery. nominate both pages for deletion.Startstop123 (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think if the first paragraph is deleted, then there's no more problem. Having a central place to store his images, many of which are Featured Images on WP, doesn't strike me as a problem, as long as the promotional piece is removed. The images are used in articles as well, so it's not being used as a webhost per-se. ArakunemTalk 16:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Firstly, a deletion is being completely over the top. The maximum action that needs to be taken would be a modification of text, as Arakunem states. I think that we all agree Wikipedia:UP#NOT is really the relevant policy here. Galleries of free images are acceptable according to policy, and are mostly used to keep track of my own images, particularly since there is often identification delay between upload and article placement. I'm guessing that "Please send me an email if you wish to negotiate for higher resolution copies, prints or less restrictive licensing" is the issue here. I don't state anywhere that images are for sale, or otherwise advertise a business. The website linked doesn't sell anything either. I've had pHD students, and a few non-profit or charity organizations contact me for higher resolution images. In all cases I have provided the images for free. Most people send me messages, rather than email me, and in any case user talk content (here and commons) would provide a representative sample of the image requests I am getting. I even explicitly state that commercial use is allowed, though in most cases that I've found, the images (and often article content) are treated as public domain works,. In any case, the removal of one sentence makes the user page compliant, and commons policy explicitly allows advertisement on each individual image if I really wanted to. Compared to User:Orangemike's myspace page, there is a minimal amount of cruft present. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
If your intention is to offer the higher resolution photos for free, then the paragraph could easily be made non-commercial by an appropriate change of wording. The phrase 'negotiate for higher resolution' may suggest to the reader that money is involved. If copies are provided free on request, why is there any need for a negotiation? EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to retain control over the full resolution copies of my work. If I didn't want that control then I'd just upload the full size copies. I say "negotiation" because I make a choice depending on who is asking, and what the image is wanted for. I'd put sell if that was my specific intention, and I wouldn't shoot myself in the foot by saying that commercial use with the WP image is possible. If I wanted to make an effort to sell stuff, I'd setup my website to do so, and advertise on each image individually (commons allows this). Either way I rather suspect that stock photography would be a more profitable way to go about things. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You've addressed my concerns. I think we can mark this one resolved. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems perfectly reasonable. Many users have links to their websites and hundreds have user galleries. If a user wants to have a gallery of the many photos he has uploaded and then notes that he has higher resolution copies avaliable —more for others benefit than his, it would appear—, what is the problem? Icewedge (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that the uploaded images are of high quality and the versions uploaded aren't exactly postage stamps (but they are CC-BY-SA/GFDL licensed which can be a problem for some uses). I would suggest wording like "If the resolution or licensing is not suitable for your purposes please contact the user". This is something that we could capture in a template that others could use on their user pages and/or image pages - the result being that it would encourage the uploading of works with a free license that would otherwise not appear on Wikipedia. -- samj inout 06:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Goodness, one look at all the Featured Pictures that Noodle snacks has provided is enough to tell you that he's here to improve Wikipedia. His photos are a treasure trove for all of us at the plants and birds WikiProjects. To say that his userpage "is being used as a marketing tool to sell licenses for his images" is quite an assumption of bad faith. The information on his userpage is both helpful and informative for people wanting to know more about using his photos, and to see his extraordinary body of Wikipedia work. Leave him be. Better yet, give him a bunch of barnstars. First Light (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Advice for Updating EERE?

Hello, everyone! Could I ask for some advice? I've been asked to update the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy article here. (Thus why I'm posting here. The story is on my user page.) I'm working on a new EERE draft in my userspace over here.

I've asked for input from the United States Government Wikiproject and the United States Wikiproject and have left a note on the EERE talk page, but response has been limited--one person gave me some advice, added some links and said that after that, in his opinion, the draft was ready for the mainspace. But otherwise I've not heard much.

Is there anything else I can do? Should I get more input? And (if I'm at that point) who could I ask to move the article to the mainspace? Any help and advice is welcome! Elispen (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find any reliable sources that have commented on EERE? Newspapers, magazines, books? Nearly all the references are to government web sites. This runs the risk of giving only the insider perspective. Most organizations have a tendency to believe that everything they do is the right thing to do. Unlikely to find any criticism or any rating of EERE's performance without going outside. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. Is the article unbalanced right now, then? I could certainly go looking for outside perspectives. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of things that popped up in the news last year (although I don't know if they were covered by anything but blogs) but I can see what I can find. Elispen (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is well-written, not too promotional, and reasonably brief. But if nobody in the news media has noticed anything this Office has done, what should we conclude :-) EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, thank you! :) I'll see what I can find from outside EERE, then. At the very least, I'll be shocked if no one has had anything to say about the $16 billion the office just got from the Recovery Act. By the way, what should I do once I think it's "done"? Should I come back here? Should I ask somewhere else? I don't think I should really be copying anything into mainspace. Elispen (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why not ask any experienced contributor for their opinion on whether the article is ready for prime time. If you are told it's OK, then check in your version to the existing article. (Leave a note on the EERE article's Talk page to explain the situation). Let me know if you need any help with that process. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Power-Plate

This article seems a fighting ground between promoters of the brand and people who have an agenda against it. Not sure whether it should be deleted right out, since it's the name of a brand. However, the brand has become so much a synonym with the industry it spawned, that it would be the right encyclopedic thing to do to improve the article, mentioning just facts, and then referring all details to whole body vibration. I started making some corrections, but it's a project that needs more editors. As a corollary, whole body vibration should be hyphenated to whole-body vibration; it should mention the disease or syndrome connotations as well as the occupational disorders associated with it to be complete. This is a re-posting from the Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Posted by User:Gciriani

What is the COI on this article? It's not even tagged as such. Smartse (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The article has some POV issues, to be sure, but I can't see an obvious COI... (An editor who works for a manufacturer of these products, for example). Just being a proponent does not constitute a COI. ArakunemTalk 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the article before I edited it, you can clearly see that there is a turf war between proponents of PowerPlate (Power-Plate is a piece of exercise equipment common in many gyms.) and people intent on disparaging it (This machine is made of plastic and does not produces a 100% vertical vibration.) Both factions interfere with what an encyclopedic article should be. If either of these facts are true they should be supported by some reference. For this reason I added many citation-needed tags. Another indication of bias is the commercial website listed at the bottom of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but this still does not seem to involve a COI, unless one of the proponents or critics has a real-world advantage to having the article read one way vs. another. Just being a fan or a critic does not by itself constitute COI, though that often leads to POV-pushing, as you have rightly identified in the article. Removal of the commercial links, leaving the Guardian and Daily Mail articles was quite correct as well. I think the use of so many fact tags might be a little much... usually in that case it is better to tag the article or section as a whole, rather than 2 tags per sentence. I think the {{refimprove}} tag pretty much covers the article as a whole. ArakunemTalk 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fredhutter again

To recap, Fredhutter (talk · contribs) was discussed on this board earlier in the month because he was over-linking his trendlines.ca website and being generally uncivil. He has returned and created a page about himself (Freddy Hutter), as well as attempted to (quite uncivilly) change the very definition of oil depletion to fit with the definition he uses on his website.[15][16] Help in keeping this user within reasonable check is appreciated. NJGW (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The previous COIN about trendlines.ca is now archived. No decision has yet been reached on what to do about the 37 links to his personal website, trendlines.ca. If editors agree that the links are not appropriate, we could just let him know that and begin the removal. His recent edits at oil depletion are worrisome. From his March 31 edit summaries: As a neophyte, your actions border on vandalism., and Why do we let high school kids edit here? EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Searching for sites that link TO the trendlines.ca site does not return much to suggest that it is covered by the "established expert" exemption to WP:SPS. As such, I am inclined to remove them. I agree that the edit summaries are rather patronizing as well, and fall inline with comments on the Oil Depletion talk. Hopefully my subtle admonishment for civility on that talk page will be taken to heart. We'll see how that particular issue plays out. ArakunemTalk 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I deleted some (rather old!) links to his website from a number of articles where his page had barely even a mention of the articles' topics, let alone substantial information about those topics to supplement the articles. And of course, being self-citing, his pages aren't really third-party WP:reliable sources anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Remaining links:
trendlines.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
ArakunemTalk 14:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Spring12

User:Spring12 created the article Sheree Silver on 8 Feb 09 and has since made more than 150 edits to the article which have consistently tried to puff up the importance of the subject. All of Spring's edits have almost exclusively been linked to the Sheree Silver article or associated, linked articles. I asked on User:Spring12's talk page whether he/she has a COI and the response was "I've been helped in the field, but I'd rather not disclose a lot of information in regards to Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information." I believe a topic ban is warranted, regardless of the outcome of the article's current AfD (its 2nd). Furthermore, to see the extent Spring12 goes to push pov, he/she has made seven edits to the Afd page. Check it out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheree Silver (2nd nomination).Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have remained neutral in the article itself, and have made sure all statements are well sourced, as outlined in WP:COI. For the AFD discussion I've just been trying to explain the disagreement between Kaiwhakahaere and I, which we are engaged in an RfC in, see here: Talk:Sheree_Silver. Whatever the community decides in this specific discussion here, I'll abide by the decision, but I don't think I've violated any rules in this regard. Is there something wrong with editing an article to make it better? Sheree Silver is also not the only one I've participated in, look back through Special:Contributions/Spring12; I'm just trying to find which topic to jump into. Spring12 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you see unusual activity, you may suspect an ulterior motive. It's then your job to look for evidence elsewhere for that ulterior motive. But until you find any such evidence, please refrain from alleging such a motive. If you think that an editor is pushing a POV, then tackle that POV-pushing, not the editor. -- Hoary (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:SCSRdotorg

While the rest of this user's contribs date back to last September, I feel obligated to report here, anyway. Username seems to be operated by the Society for Cincinnati Sports Research ([17]). User created an article just now: East End Park (Cincinnati). While the article is OK, there is a clear COI present. MuZemike 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

YourTravelBiz.com and user Copstead

Copstead is a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest, as declared a few days ago on Nihiltres' talk page (diff) and today on my talk page (diff). The coi spa's concerns are:

  • (1) which page should be the main article (Copstead's preference) and which pages should redirect to it, and
  • (2) the content of the main article, which was (version link) referenced to independent sources before Copstead's recent edits.

He was warned earlier this week but nevertheless resumed today. — Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours with explanation that the end of the block is to see no direct editing of the articles they have a COI over. Will watch after block ends. Continued editing of the articles with no engagement in discussion will merit an indef. Mfield (Oi!) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Johan Bäckman

Resolved
 – The possible COI has been handled by semiprotection. The issues have been discussed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk)

The IP, who probably has a COI here and is likely to be Bäckman himself, is messing up the aricle, removing sourced content and critical commentaries. In addition, keep in mind that the subject of the article is quite litiguous, according to the sources. The situation is difficult to fix, given the controversies surrounding the subject and the pace of editing by the IP. Please help. Colchicum (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

He has removed a couple of sourced items, though for the most part his edits seem ok. I'll drop him a note to discuss removal of sourced content before doing so. ArakunemTalk 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Update - This is at AN/I now. With no evidence to suggest that the IP is Bäckman, and ANI addressing the POV and civility issues, I think we can close out the COI report, in the interest of centralized discussion. ArakunemTalk 14:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is the link to the ANI discussion. It makes sense to wait and see if the ANI thread will arrive at a decision. The discussion at Talk:Johan Bäckman is somewhat constructive. See also the second AfD which was closed today with Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Time to close? User:William M. Connolley has semiprotected Bäckman's article. This complaint was opened up with the argument that the IP had a COI. I don't see anything more for us to do here, since the IP can't make further changes. There is an active discussion at Talk:Johan Bäckman that includes some people who know the local languages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:FabulosWorld

Resolved
 – User indef blocked for sockpuppetry Mfield (Oi!) 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User:FabulosWorld is a single-purpose account that is used solely to advance the business of CallWave, Inc. This user has created, updated, and recreated — following several successful AfDs and substantial editorial criticism — the CallWave, Inc. and FUZE Meeting articles. The CallWave page is now in its 5th AfD, having been deleted 4 times before. Its sole external link is to CallWave's commercial website; no notability is asserted or implied in the article.

This user has claimed to have no affiliation with the company (here and here), though his or her narrow actions on Wikipedia suggest that this assertion is fallacious. Moreover, User:FabulosWorld elects to question other editors' integrity (here and here) when taken to task about recreating deleted articles or faced with a new PROD or Speedy.

Wikipedia's interests might be well-served by some administrator-level attention to this COI issue, lest it never end. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on his contribution history, User:FabulosWorld has at most one degree of separation with User:Vchaudhary. Consequently, some lightweight Google searching raises further doubt about User:FabulosWorld's assertions of no affiliation with CallWave. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 23:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:RolandR on Gilad Atzmon article

However, because RolandR largely has supported policy on the talk page and in the article, we have so far not brought this issue here. This week he inserted this attack on the subject of the BLP from the personal blog of an individual, including much of the attack in the footnote, even though this is clearly against Wikipedia:BLP#Sources. He put back that text after another editor removed it from the footnote. When I brought this to Reliable Sources Noticeboard, he argued for keeping in this material at the Noticeboard. So now it seems this is something that editors on this article need advice on, before bringing issue to WP:BLPN where perhaps it should have gone in first place. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have never attempted to disguise my personal views on Atzmon, but I do not believe that I have allowed these to colour my objective editing of this article. Like Carol, but unlike most editors on this and other sensitive issues, I edit using my own name. This means that it is possible to discover and "expose" my activities elsewhere, and to argue that this disqualifies me from editing. Carol is well aware of this, having herself been the target of an unwarranted attack on the talk page of the same article, by an editor who trawled her personal website to find something damaging. This puts both of us at a disadvantage, compared to editors who can disguise their identity and pretend to a neutrality that many clearly do not possess.
As Carol accepts, I have edited this article fairly. She objects to my use of a quote from one of the best-known and most widely-read Arab academics in the USA. When she brought this issue to the reliable sources noticeboard, opinion was quite divided, with some editors agreeing that my use of the quote was acceptable, and one even adding more of the quote to the main article. It seems that this exchange has led to a change in the reliable sources guidelines. This alone shows that my edit, though possibly contentious, was in no way outrageous. Nor can I see any reason that I should be disqualified from defending this edit on the noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with RolandR defending the use of the quote over at WP:RSN, which is a discussion board. Per WP:COI I would advise that Roland not revert disputed material into the Gilad Atzmon article. Stay on the Talk page for controversial points, or follow WP:Dispute resolution if you think no progress can be made. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Taylor Corp. (Taylor Corporation) page very likely controlled by Taylor Corporation

I hope this is the right place for this POV page may be better but I wasn't sure.

The Taylor Corp. page has been changed quite a bit by user(s) that have IP's that are fairly easy to track back to be internal to the company. I didn't want to just go ahead and revert it since so many changes have been made and no one is watching the talk page (the unsigned post their is from me). No reliable sources are given to this new information either, only links to websites owned by the company.

Also Taylor Corp. being the main name when its a nickname and almost impossible to search is another issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeBoldInEdits (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Forbes asserts that the Taylor companies have 15,000 employees altogether, so the business is large enough to meet WP:CORP. The chairman, Glen Taylor has his own article. It does not appear that anyone from the company has edited in the last six months. Do you have any time to try improving this article? In its present state it is better than nothing, and due to notability it probably would not be deleted. It lacks references at present, but they have to be out there. For example, in the trade press for the advertising industry. Advertisers are not shy, you should be able to find something. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Stan Krome

African Institute for Mathematical Sciences

Polypill and Polycap

Polypill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Polycap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor with a username similar to someone's real name in the articles is doing lots of work on both - Polycap is "their" article but Polypill now has a huge midsection on Polycap too: perhaps disproportionately much in my view. I'm out of my depth with this: I have done what I can with templates and (unsuccessful) attempts to communicate with the editor, initially over their use of bold before I appreciated the COI situation. I don't even know if my concerns (other than the bold!) are correct. Can someone please have a look? Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's some promotion! The article Polycap was started by User:Alansohn, an experienced editor, and was well balanced in his last version, though it appeared to a first step toward a final article. Subsequent edits are totally over the top. Some of those adding the excessive material are probably not familiar with Wikipedia, and they should be patiently reasoned with. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected Polycap due to the activities of a enthusiastic IP editor who reverts changes by other editors but does not participate on Talk. Still hoping to engage in a proper dialog with Drmaseeh (talk · contribs) who seems to be one of the scientists involved in this important study. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In creating the article, I had hoped to use the available sources to provide a neutral article that would be a decent start towards more-complete coverage of the topic. I apologize for not being more on top of the article, but I agree with both User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and User:EdJohnston that the content added to the article is predominantly inappropriate puffery and that the ID of the editor making the changes raises serious concerns of Conflict of Interest policy violations. While there is some useful material that has been added, it needs to be heavily pruned to put it in proper Wikipedia format. Alansohn (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks both of you. I feel much better knowing that wiser heads than mine are looking into this and taking action. It would be nice to get this sorted out. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC) PS we need also to not forget that Polypill has certain similar issues - I wondered if the duplication between it and Polycap should maybe be trimmed out a bit. Certainly it would be great if we (whatever exactly we is here!) were able to communicate with the principal interested editor.
User:Drmaseeh appears to have disappeared. I will heavily edit the Polycap article. Mush of what was added by User:Drmaseeh will be heavily pruned. The same should be done to the Polypill article to remove the unnecessary duplication. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Most odd. I hope he had not lost interest entirely. Thank you Alansohn for having a good old sort-out at Polycap. I hope that someone will also have a look at Polypill from a similar perspective, as I do not feel that I can but it clearly still suffers from many of the same issues. Sounds lazy and bad I know, but hey. Thanks DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I worked on the Polypill article to remove the promotional section about Polycap. Also took off the COI tag and the cleanup tag. A proper lead still should be written, and the references should be put into a common format. Unless the COI-affected editors return to undo this work, I believe we are done. Feel free to improve the article further. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, wonderful. Big thanks all round. Now looks like a much better-balanced pair of articles with the right stuff in the right places. Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Vince Stanzione

Vince Stanzione (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vince7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
88.15.168.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPAs, the IP keeps removing notability, COI, etc., tags. The article may have enough to stand, though it currently is poorly written and sounds self-promotional reference to The Advert Channel, at least, may be OK. I just hope it gets an few extra pairs of eyes and hands on it. - Nabla (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Left some notes on the articles talk pages, and in edit summaries pointing him there. Also, I wikified the references he had added, to make it easier to assess notability. It certainly needs a bit of tone cleanup to be more encyclopedic. I'd give it a couple of days as an AGF move, to give him the opportunity to clean up the tone, or at least to discuss on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

D W Knaggs

Resolved
 – Article deleted via WP:CSD#G7 --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Extended content

This seems to be an autobiography based on the assertion of the contributor on his talk page that he owns the company that made the logo. I have very little time on Wiki tonight, and I'm fairly swamped with some massive copyright cleanup when I am here, so I would be very grateful if one of the experienced contributors here could take a look at this and see what might need to be done. :) I'm not sure about general notability, though I haven't review the article closely; I notice that the subject's book is printed on Lulu (company), which is a self-publisher. I've given the contributor a COI, but not tagged the article since I've barely had time to skim it. Help, please? Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Please delete, I did not realise that Wikipedia didn't allow artists to submit their own biograpies.

My own mistake. I apologise —Preceding unsigned comment added by HauntedKid (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, article has been deleted under g7.
Purplebananasandelephants (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Lyndon

Autobiographical article. Please also look into contributor's other edits; seems to be a fine line between notability and vanity, but there are numerous promotional, neutrality, and conflict of interest issues. JNW (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Concurred. There are a lot of personal viewpoint injections that I feel iffy about just out and out removing. On the one hand, they're probably truthful (assuming this person is who their username asserts them to be). On the other hand, their inclusion seems to be being taken more as a veiled soapboxing opportunity. I'll leave it to the individual viewer to decide what portions, if any, are such. - Vianello (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
If notability is not the main concern, then tone is. It's self-promotional, a resume without selectivity, and, finally, diminishing to the subject's real achievements. Soapboxing is one issue among many. The references are a hodgepodge of sources, videos, and blogs, and the article cries out for dozens of citation tags to substantiate its many assertions--everything shimmers with self-glorification. A textbook example of why contributors are discouraged from writing about themselves. A good copyeditor's eye is welcome here. JNW (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The sources remain completely divorced from the text, but I went ahead and did some peacock hunting (and a little general grammatical formatting). Undo this if it seems over the line, but I axed the religious views section entirely. It's unsourced, seemingly irrelevant to the text, and arguably the most soapboxy portion of the article. - Vianello (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
All appropriate edits, Vianello. What remains is still far too long, unsourced, often trivial and anecdotal. There are actually maintenance templates for 'too many sections' and (my favorite) 'puffery', but although they are apt, adding those on would probably be overkill. I'm loath to copyedit, having already done some tagging and reverting of vandalism by the author, followed up with numerous warnings. Thanks for helping out. JNW (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a lawyer in COI when whitewashing the Lawyer article?

Precisely, the Lawyer article has a "Cultural perception of lawyers" section (already whitewashed from the standard "Criticism of lawyers"[22] title) where a sourced quote from Ambrose Bierce's classic The Devil's Dictionary, short and perfectly relevant to this section, has been deleted twice by a lawyer, User:Coolcaesar – the second time with the wikilawyering hodgepodge of an edit summary "Countermand POV and original research which also violates the systemic bias guideline"[23] – so, COI or not COI? — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed this at Talk:Lawyer. The quote is too closely tied up to a particular point in U.S. cultural history, it violates what Wikipedia is not (specifically it is not a collection of random quotations and aphorisms), and it breaks what is otherwise a neutral tone. Any experienced writer who is paid to write for a living knows not to break tone except in certain limited circumstances (unless you are deliberately trying to appear psychotic). This is not one of those circumstances. Furthermore, there is already a compilation of highly negative quotations about lawyers called The Devil's Advocates which did take a worldwide view of the subject. It is already described and referenced in the Lawyer article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You are off-topic: this board is NOT about content dispute but only about COI. (For instance, if a Microsoft employee takes exception to unflattering facts in the Microsoft article, he can explain it on the talk page and provide sources and alternative wording, and his points may convince non-COI editors to amend the article – but doing it himself directly, being judge and party, would be a COI.)
  • Whether you are right or wrong about the content dispute itself (and I still object to your caracterization), the only question at THIS board is: does a lawyer enter a COI when removing sourced material perceived as criticism/negative/unflattering from the Lawyer article? — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. COI generally requires a much closer relationship - at the level of, say, someone involved in removing criticism in articles about their own company. That said, it doesn't look good when adherents of affiliations (of whatever nature) remove negative edits in their own territory; there's always going to be the suspicion of non-neutrality, and I think it would be better if someone other than a lawyer made the call on this.
I agree with you, it would be like saying that I have a conflict of interest when editing Tenor being someone who is a classical singer - editing an article about a group I sing with would be another matter. That being said, whitewashing isn't okay unless the changes proposed can be soured and justified, and the personal attacks from User:Coolcaesar are unacceptable. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you that there's a flavour of advocacy to Coolcaesar's arguments. For instance, "systemic bias" doesn't even have the status of a guideline; it's just a Wikiproject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias). Even taking it into the account, it isn't difficult to find international examples [24]. And we can certainly do without all that "I know more about writing than you" bombast. BTW, the cultural perception section entirely omits the many digs at lawyers in Shakespeare, especially the famous one by Dick the Butcher in Henry VI Pt II. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The funny is that I also proposed several additions about the positive cultural perceptions of some lawyers (such as Gandhi or country lawyers) but he was too focused on the Bierce quote to notice, so I had to repost it as an entirely different talk section... As for int'l refs: say, that's a good ref you posted there, I mean not just the Shakespeare quote but the book it's used within. I was thinking about expanding the first sentence of the "Cultural perceptions" section and it'll provide half of my referencing. You can see it now proposed at Talk:Lawyer#First sentence of "Cultural perceptions" — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jessamason

Hi again. This user has a clear COI with the this is why you're fat article. I've left them a note and I'm headed off to revert the changes now. Maybe this report isn't necessary, but extra eyes never hurt and I've got my hand a little full at the moment with other stuff. Cheers. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find any information as to what the COI is. The edits have been reverted by User:ChildofMidnight. Smartse (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor doesn't seem to have stopped back in lately. The COI was indicated by the username and the article's notation that "It was started by Richard Blakeley, 20, an employee of Gawker Media's eponymous flagship blog and his girlfriend ­Jessica Amason, 27,". Sorry I wasn't clearer. Thanks for looking into it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Raptor

Looking at this article's edit history, it appears to me that there is a long-running effort to steer the article's content to promote a favorable impression of this aircraft. Criticism and controversy are downplayed and positive aspects are highlighted. A lot of IPs edit the article. Is there a quick way to check if any of the IPs are originating from Lockheed Martin or Boeing, the manufacturer of this aircraft? If someone could point me towards the how to instructions, I can do it myself. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Go to the Contributions page of the IP involved and click on 'Whois' or 'Geolocate'. It would help if you would provide some diffs of the promotional edits that you perceive. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
While this may have been a small issue in the past, the converse was also true and some IPs have tried to unnecessarily denigrate the aircraft as well. Everything seemed to be ironed out through talk page discussions. Aside from that, I see no evidence of any particular entity attempting to collaboratively influence the article. Please let us all know if you find something. — BQZip01 — talk 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stray Dogg

Resolved
 – Articles have been deleted. Smartse (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sharky Boi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the following pages:

All of them relate to Stray Dogg. The writing style of the articles and the prediction of future events suggest that Sharky Boi either works with/knows Stray Dogg or is Stray Dogg himself. --Gardenhoser! (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Likely case of paid editing: User:ChulaOne

I'm trying not to violate WP:OUTING so I apologize if I've gone too far. I found an advertisement on Craigslist claiming "Let me fashion your message into a Wikipedia article that provides you with the added recognition you deserve as a market leader or innovator!" that offered for $99 "an article written to Wikipedia standards, successful posting of your article to Wikipedia, extended protection from editing or removal, an active article link to your professional website". It concluded with "why shouldn't you be among those to benefit from a little renown?"

I followed this ad to the poster's commercial homepage which gave as writing samples the articles Six Generations (game) and Junko Yoshioka, both of which ChulaOne created and expanded . Here are all the articles that ChulaOne has created:

I think this is a clear violation of WP:COI#Financial. Of the preceding articles, Joe Antouri and his Private Trainers Association don't appear notable, and I think they should be sent to AfD. Junko Yoshioka appears notable but biased so I think the COI tag should go there. I'm not sure what to do about Crystal McKenzie Inc or the Marietta Daily Journal. Six Generations (game) appears to have a lot of puffery but I'll have to do more research to see if it meets WP:N or not. I'm inviting others to look over this and see what should be done as I'm not familiar with cases of paid editing. I've also invited ChulaOne to join this discussion. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Many of his articles have been deleted; I suggest a final warning, and an immediate ban for around 72 hours should he persist. Cheers. I'mperator 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor hasn't responded to the COI notice, and has not edited at all since 17 March. We are still left with what to do with the articles they created, which are now carrying COI tags. Anyone who wants to review these would be doing a service. (The last two articles are already at AfD). EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The editor popped up today, questioning the COI tag at a few of the pages, but he hasn't yet responded to the accusations of paid editing. ThemFromSpace 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to start a discussion with ChulaOne over at the talk page of Crystal McKenzie Inc, an article which may have notability problems. Longer term, we may need to discuss how we feel about paid editing which is not disclosed on-wiki. For a prior case that led to sanctions, see the block log of MyWikiBiz. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I started an Articles for Deletion discussion for Six Generations (game). Half the sources listed are a reprint of the same press-release, and I wasn't able to find anything that qualified as non-trivial or third party concerning said game. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Pierfrancesco Cravel

Resolved

Pierfrancesco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created Pierfrancesco Cravel. Article seems to at least indicate some notability for the architect, but the author's username implies that he is also the subject. --Gardenhoser! (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is obvious, but the article itself isn't inherently promotional or spam. COI or not, this might belong at AfD. Personally, I think notability is questionable at best, a gnews archive search didn't turn up anything that was non-trivial third party, just a couple of trivial mentions in ArchitectureWeek (which itself doesn't even have an article). Some portions of the article may be a copyright infringement of his personal website. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved by using the db-bio tag, has been deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Got so caught up in the COI and copyvio issues I failed to see that there was no actual assertion of notability. Problem solved, thanks for catching that! - 2 ... says you, says me 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RobiComb

Resolved

Article speedily deleted per CSD G11, Robi Comb blocked indefinitely by User:Orangemike for having a promotional username. - 2 ... says you, says me 00:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RobiComb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robi Comb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Seems to be all corporate fluff. No sources, written like an ad, and one of the editors, whose only other contributions have been wikilinks to this otherwise orphaned article, is named Robi Comb. Rees11 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

user:Dispatches intern

Dispatches intern appears to have been dispatched to add cites regarding Dispatches/ Dispatches.com. I'm not an expert on these COI things, so I'm noting it here and I'll leave a nice note with a link to the COI policy. I'm not sure if further action is perhaps required. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Most added stuff is superfluous and should probably be removed. Also note that this user is creator and only substantial contributor to Dispatches (journal), which probably will end up deleted (the notability of a periodical with only three issues so far needs extraordinary evidence that the article does not provide). What happens now depends on whether your nice note did its job; it is always possible that the user will see the error of his/her ways, in which case cleanup will be simple, and WP:PROD can take care of the main article. Otherwise it'll have to go through AfD, so let's wait a few days and see first. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Who is volunteering to sort through the edit history? Is any of it worthwhile to include? Should we leave it up to the editors working on the individual articles? There are a few cites on the Journal article. It had been previously speedy deleted it looks like. It could probably be emrged to Gary Knight if need be... Despite the obvious COI, no need to throw out the good stuff with the bad I suppose. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems being nice didn't work; the user has continued editing in the same pattern without replying, at least once removing a COI tag from Dispatches (journal). Seems like an AfD followed by cleanup-by-edit-history will be needed. –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
On further thought, let's see if WP:CSD#G11 will stick first, to avoid adding workload to the AfD process. –Henning Makholm (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Dispatches (journal) has now been speedily deleted. I have gone through User:Dispatches intern's remaining contributions and reverted most of them, except a series of edits to Gary Knight which just did honest cleanup and wikifying. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The user has now switched strategy to creating articles for those of the journal's authors that don't have articles already. Initially copies of author biographies on the journal's website, they tend to be tagged by automated copyvio search bots, which may or may not be the right response.

I'm not quite sure what to do here. The new articles contain "external links" section that point to essays behind a paywall; such linking is inappropriate according to WP:EL. But I don't think we can assume that the entire article must be lacking in notability just because they're created by a COI account. Third (or fourth) opinions would be welcome here.

In any case I find this user's consistent refusal to engage in talk page dialog to be worrying. –Henning Makholm (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet: New User:Angelm06 has re-created Dispatches (magazine). –Henning Makholm (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy attempted but denied; now at WP:Articles for deletion/Dispatches (magazine). –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Dispatches intern continues editing and has re-reverted some of my reversals, still without edit comments or talk space activity. Someone please take some interest here. I'm wary about cleaning everything up myself, lest it would look like a single-man crusade. –Henning Makholm (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the reverts that User:Dispatches intern made to Samantha Power and Paul Theroux. Looking at the users other contributions there are a lot more dubious COI edits. Most of the bio pages seem to effectively be adverts to the dispatches website with which the user clearly has a COI. Should the links be removed from Ron Haviv and Alissa Quart? Smartse (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left a final warning for User:Dispatches intern about continuing to create articles that may be promotional and for removing the COI tag. He never leaves talk comments or edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely there's also a copyvio problem, eg Yuri Kozyrev is lifted almost straight from the linked bio [25]. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
True. My misgiving about playing the copyvio card is that I have trouble imagining that the magazine (the copyright holder) would object to this use of the text. It is clear that Rules Have Been Broken here -- even if we take the user name at face value, an intern is not empowered to waive his/her employers copyright interest -- but it is also rules that are somewhat incidental to the main CoI problem. It might not be conductive to dialogue if we let the intern (or his bosses) get the impression that we're using formal copyright trouble as a pretext for keeping their contributions out.
I have deleted Yuri Kozyrev and Alissa Quart as blatant copyvios, I have tagged Ron Haviv for a second opinion, although it is clearly all from the one source. On the above - it doesn't matter if the magazine would object - the text can't be copied to such a degree without an explicit GFDL release on the origin. Mfield (Oi!) 23:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that whether they would actually object or not is not a legal factor; it is clear that in the long run we could not keep this material without a GFDL grant. I was just thinking aloud whether in the short run a different tactic than immediate deletion (such as emailing the publisher to ask for permission, or deleting with a more content-oriented rationale) would be better for encouraging the magazine to cooperate. –Henning Makholm (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I have also reduced the size of his oversized FU image that was violating the fair use policy on reproducibility. Mfield (Oi!) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, we don't have much of a dialogue now, and speedying the new articles per copyvio may help break their talkspace silence ... –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree some questionable entries in terms of copyright, style, and general wiki rigour have been added under this account. However, I don't agree that all should lead to speedy deletion/conflict of interest. Is adding wiki entries for prominent individuals who happen to have contributed to a journal (in addition to many, many, other journals, magazines, newspapers) warrant a conflict of interest? I will go ahead and add several references that indicate the person should be included in wikipedia, but again they will all come from this username...It seems to me it will take time for others to contribute to the entries, so deleting them within a matter of days seems unreasonable. I will also proceed to clean up several of the entries in terms of references, copyright, and wikipedia style. But not sure how to resolve the debatable coi. Dispatches intern (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It does not make sense to create a new article before having enough references to justify keeping it. You have the option of starting a new article in your own user space, for example at User:Dispatches intern/New article. You can leave it there until you have time to add the references, and it will not run the risk of deletion. But even in your own user space, you must avoid directly copying material from another publication. EdJohnston (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Upinews

Resolved
 – User was blocked by YellowMonkey for spam and has not requested unblock. EdJohnston (talk)
Extended content

This editor has made about 70 edits in rapid succession over the past 4 hours, across dozens of articles. I didn't check every single edit, but those I checked indicate he is inserting a sentence or two of content, and then referencing it to the UPI.COM website. I see that he has already been questioned about being affiliated with UPI by another editor (see his talk page), and while he said he would look into changing his name, he didn't really deny an affiliation.

I normally wouldn't take issue with UPI-sourced content being placed into articles, when appropriate, but some of these edits I checked had another problem. The couple sentences of content inserted by this editor already existed elsewhere in the articles. That leads me to question whether this editor is more concerned with improving articles, or just inserting this website as a reference into as many articles as possible. Can someone else take a peek at this user's contributions, and tell me if there is anything here with which to be concerned? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of these changes don't seem appropriate. He's been adding a link to a '1971 year in review' article to multiple articles, for example Louis Armstrong, that seems to offer little useful content about the person involved. I think we should ask him to propose his changes on the Talk pages rather than add them directly to the articles. He has been notified of this COIN discussion.EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that all his edits should be reverted. Does anyone know how to request this most simply? A bot or AWB might do the job. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I spoke with this user previously regarding his username possibly suggesting an Official capacity with UPI. He requested a name change which was denied with the suggestion that he just register the new name. Additionally, he has replied on his userpage regarding this latest issue; his block prevents him from coming here. ArakunemTalk 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the edits themselves, they seem mostly to be added as inline references. If the UPI audio file does in fact support the statement it is linked to, that doesn't strike me as excessively promotional, seeing as it is to a news agency (unless the current ownership of UPI makes it slip in the eyes of WP:RS...) ArakunemTalk 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I undid the 'resolved' banner since the user may want his block lifted. If you take a look at the number of places where the '1971 in review' audio file was added, it looks like he is promoting the audio file. For instance, if you try to find anything at all about Louis Armstrong in that file, you'd have to either go through many, many pages of web text or listen to the entire audio which covers everything that happened in 1971. Not too useful for learning anything about Louis Armstrong, and unclear why it should be linked from his article. That same link is now in 18 articles. In the message this user left about his block, he showed no inkling of why his edits were a problem. 19:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I guess its a question of the appropriate format to cite with. In the Armstrong example, the UPI file was added as a citation to support the sentence describing who did what at his funeral. The file does support it, but as you said, it is buried amongst everything else that happened in the year. I think in general, linking to the exact text page would be more appropriate than linking to the first page of 12 and leaving it to the reader/listener to find the supporting material. The UPI site doesn't seem friendly towards copying link locations within the article however. I found the Armstrong support on page 12, but my main browser link was still to the title page. Perhaps a caution to the user to verify his cites are behaving as he intended once added would be in order? I just feel these to be good-faith adds rather than Spam, albeit with some more specificity needed. ArakunemTalk 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

CAS International

Resolved
 – No major problem with this article. Anyone who would like to improve it further is welcome to do so. Revert this close if you think more discussion here is needed. EdJohnston (talk)

The edit history of the creator of the page indicates that it is the owner of the organisation, Marius Kolff. I, wrongly (under the etiquette of Wiki, that is), accused the only other major editor of being an employee of the organisation I have encountered in my work. I pointed this out, and the fact that there were no proper references, on User talk:THF, because THF provided a resoltion to a COI of my own making. Having been accused of pro-bullfighting bias for my edits on User_talk:THF#CAS_International, which I give a cursory defence of on that page - I'm not pro, nor anti, I'm researching; which pisses off many people - I leave it to someone else to deal with. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands seems quite neutral to me. It describes what the organization's purpose is, and a brief history, without trying to influence the reader's opinion of bullfighting in general. I can't speak to the Reliable Source aspect of the references, not being a speaker of Spanish, but the prose of the article right now seems ok to me. As long as it stays such, any potential COI with the author doesn't enter into the equation, as COI-affected authors are expressly not prohibited from editing, as long as they stay neutral. ArakunemTalk 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
As it stands now, it seems okay to me. Wanted to flag it here, but I agree. My big beef was with the 15,000 members, largest organisation bit, but with the proviso "as it says on its website", seems okay. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
In the entire reference list there is only one reliable source: Ref 9, an interview published on the website of the Colombian newspaper El Tiempo. It is not clear why so many other links are needed. They are just links promoting the campaign, press releases, or announcements of future meetings. I agree that the article is otherwise reasonably neutral. Of course, there is no criticism; somebody would have to go and look for it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Ned Katz

This page reads like a résumé, and it appears that the person about whom the article is written has made numerous edits off and on since February 2006, including three self-promotional edits in the last 24 hours. momoricks (make my day) 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The article has no references and doesn't really make any claims of notability either. It needs a major pruning to improve it. Smartse (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The writeup at Outhistory suggests that this writer may actually be notable by our standards. It might take an AfD to find out, but we should first try and see if Katz is willing to make some improvements. A Google for 'invention of heterosexuality katz' gets 30,000 hits, including some mainstream publications. I will leave a note for User:Jnkatz1. EdJohnston (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirkland College

This posting [26] (in the article space, now reverted) indicates a coordinated effort by interested parties to rework the article is coming. No immediate action seems necessary, but I think a few extra eyes to make sure the article doesn't become advertorial and that appropriate content isn't removed might be wise? If more history is added, I think that would be great. I will add a COI notice to the editor's page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've watchlisted it. ArakunemTalk 19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Might we also block the role account that made the edit. Grsz11 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If it truly is one, yes. So far the account has just said that people will be editing the article, not necessarily that they will all use that one account. ArakunemTalk 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Majora Carter

Extended content

User:Givechase is the husband and VP of publicity for Majora Carter's private consulting company. Over the past few months he has repeatedly inserted inappropriate material into the article Majora Carter (plus minor insertions elsewhere) despite repeated warnings about it and repeatedly being told about COI. He admits that his interest does not lie with the encyclopedia but with controlling the information in the article and presenting his wife/client in the best light because the article comes up in searches for her name. He is not following guidelines regarding requesting adding stuff on the talk page and seems to believe that anything that has a source is fair game no matter how trivial.

Look at the media he has uploaded, including a picture of her with a dog and the logo for her consulting firm. At one point he had added dozens of minor awards in a list to the article and has deleted well-sourced pertinent and significant information. I am requesting that someone review his history of contributions because it is becoming a major distraction and waste of time cleaning up after him. At first I believed that he meant well but it is apparent that this is a situation where he is using Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle. Left to the natural processes the article would not be so over-elaborated.

There is also the concern that some sources may not be reliable or at best are circular because they rely on information provided by this User:Givechase and then are used to support the Wikipedia entry. There have also been general nastiness and libel on his part towards me. I am bearing the brunt of it because so few people contribute to the article. My interest in this area is primarily with the South Bronx and not any individual but this is taking up most of my time now. Please someone intervene. Drawn Some (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am asking here for a block based on the policy below. Perhaps a rest and the prospect of not being able to edit at all will give him pause. Almost all of his edits have been to the Majora Carter article with a few to closely related articles especially those that mention her name.

Blocks

Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Disruption

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Does seem suspicuous - User:Givechase has only edited articles related to Majora Carter and seems to defend their edits fiercely. I don't have much experience on biographies of living people so I'm not sure if Givechase's edits count as spam or not. Drawn Some has determined that User:Givechase is "husband and VP of publicity for Majora Carter's private consulting company" from this website [27]. If this is the case then a block doesn't seem out of order IMO. Smartse (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Givechase and Drawn Some have a bit of a history of incivility and edit warring. I don’t know that I need to provide links, but if you check the history at Majora Carter, it becomes pretty apparent. I recognize that this background is kind of immaterial to Givechase’s COI, but I think the context in which this particular COI ended up here is relevant. Because while there is a COI, the problem seems more of a conflict between two editors than a COI. Both users were warned in regard to their behavior in January, and since then, Givechase has made a good faith effort to better utilize the talk page and provide valid references. I think Givechase’s efforts since early January show that he is trying to do the right thing and play by the rules, even if he's not perfect.
For the record, Givechase obviously has a COI that could cause some problems. He has explicitly stated that his goals are (or at least could be) at odds with Wikipedia in that he wants the information presented about Majora Carter to reflect positively on her work (or something to that effect). However, I don’t think that’s terribly different from many other editors I’ve seen here who feel similarly about other topics but manage to edit constructively by following wikipedia guidelines and policies. The only difference, of course, is that Givechase has a personal and professional relationship with Majora Carter.
As far as the block is concerned, Givechase does have a single-purpose account focused on Majora Carter, but it's not promotional in a spam sort of way. Yes, he wants to present Majora Carter in the best light, and that goes against the goals of wikipedia. However, it hasn’t cause problems for anyone other than Drawn Some (who, as evidenced most obviously by the outing of Givechase on multiple talk pages in large bold letters, is rather fixated on Givechase's COI) and, IMO, Givechase has not been actively promoting Majora Carter but rather trying to fix the article (I know, terrorist vs. freedom fighter, but I thought I should put my opinion out there).
If Drawn Some has issues with "inappropriate material" added by Givechase or relevant information deleted by Givechase, I would appreciate seeing this on the talk page of the article. -- Irn (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Irn, you yourself suggested that I bring my concerns about the COI to this noticeboard. I waited several months hoping that Givechase would stop using Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle but he has not. I have endured his personal attacks and accusations and mopped up after him. He has not been fixing the article but exaggerating its importance by adding useless trivia including, at one point, a list of over 40 awards that she received. His purpose in editing Wikipedia is clear: it is solely a as a promotional vehicle for his wife.
Also, I have asked you before not to loosely accuse me of violating guidelines such as being uncivil or edit warring. Removing publicity material/spam is NOT edit warring. You apologized but now you are doing it again. Any conflict is a direct consequence of the conflict of interest and so the COI needs to be addressed in a definitive way.
I am hereby requesting a permanent ban on further editing by User:Givechase. What you wrote in your penultimate paragraph alone is enough to support a complete permanent ban and IP block, that he has a single purpose account and goes against the goals of Wikipedia. A review of the talk page for Majora Carter will confirm this and also show that he has been warned by at least four other people than myself and that he is argumentative and puts his own purposes over those fo the encyclopedia.
I am shocked that you are defending the spam and repeated violations of guidelines despite multiple warnings by many different people including you. Wikipedia guidelines are clear, if he wants something added to the encyclopedia that regards his wife/client he should request it on the talk page, especially if he is in conflict with another editor. Wikipedia has COI guidelines for exactly this situation and you are trying to turn it upside down. Drawn Some (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
hi everyone! yeah, i'm sure some COI exists; and I am very open about that. I have loads of relevant info and links to support it all now that i know the rules here. I try to keep it all out there for discussion. I do single purpose edits because we are very busy doing real things to help communities suffering from environmentally borne diseases - i don't have time to root around and edit other articles like some people. I think drawnsome is under the impression that we "use" WP for some kind of gain. It's actually a great place for info that we have no commercial use for, but that should live in one record for future researchers. There is no space limitation here like in an actual book, let's let information live here.
Our ultimate preference, given this experience, would be no presence on WP whatsoever, and let commercial media work. I will take News Corp over Drawnsome any day.
I am very happy to continue putting my proposed additions up on the discussion page to see if there are ligit reasons not to include the info. I feel that Drawnsome should do the same before deleting sourced info. The question then remains, for how long do proposed changes stay open for discussion before they are executed; and who decides?
I propose that neither drawnsome nor i be allowed to execute any edits on the Majora Carter page in perpetuity; but that we propose additions (probably me) or deletions (guess who), and let others put them in place eventually - no rush.

Is there a system to let future editors know that this has been decided and let them vote or something?--believe me (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Givechase, that's just not the way it works here, you don't get to make up your own rules to suit yourself, that's been going on for several months and it needs to stop now.
Wikipedia has guidelines that have evolved over many years and they exist for good reasons. This is a prime example of why the COI guidelines exist. I am again requesting that Givechase be permanently banned and his IP address blocked by an administrator now that he has responded. Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Drawnsome's edit history is really out of control now. Please look at DS's edits re - South Bronx, Hunts Point, Wesleyan, Van Jones - in short, anywhere Majora's name appears, Drawsome has been deleting info for arbitrary reasons. At one point claiming that "Green Economic Consultant" is preferable over "MacArthur Fellow" or "Founder, SSBx" because it is on Majora's website; but then deleting Majora as cofounder of greenforall.org because it only says that on the green for all website. I can't make any informed decisions here when the rules keep changing, and i think this WP community is enabling this behavior. How can we help ensure some consistancy here? I think DS has really done a fair amount of damage at this point. I'd really like to hear the opinion of several people who have traced back Drawnsome's edits as well as mine and compared. I don't think DS can be proven to have a COI here; but clearly - there is a conflict going on inside...

--believe me (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's not how it works here. You have a clear conflict of interest. Complaining that someone is cleaning up after you won't get you very far. Wikipedia is not a repository of minutiae for future generations. It is not an advertising or publicity device. It is an encyclopedia.
Your behavior is very disruptive. Here is an example of an identical situation four months ago with the same editing behaviors but arguing with two different editors. This shows that a preventative complete ban and block are necessary. You have been given multiple opportunities to change your behavior and editors such as myself, irn, Willbe Back, Somno, collect, etc. have been much too patient and assuming of good faith but nothing has changed.
You are a single purpose account with a conflict of interest who is not concerned about the integrity of the encyclopedia or respectful of its values and those of its editors. You have stated repeatedly that you would like the Majora Carter article deleted or locked. I assure you that continuing to disrupt Wikipedia will not achieve that. Drawn Some (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
ok, one last point - why is Drawnsome so averse to discussion and backing up edits with a little explanation that includes the broader context of the info, and not just how upsetting it is that i contribute here?? It looks like that because DS has concluded a COI, edits on my work or even things i didn't write but have to do with Majora, are fare game. I am still new here, but from what i can tell, that's not how WP rolls.
I still would like to offer a voluntary and permanent moratorium on editing anything to do with Majora Carter if Drawnsome also agrees to the same. As much as i love her, DS clearly doesn't care for her. let's put a discussion section up for new additions and deletions, and let others weigh in. I believe that is closer to the WP ideal than what has been happening here.--believe me (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors do not have to clear their work with the publicists for the subject of an article and the publicists are not allowed to do what you have been doing for several months now. Drawn Some (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

please -- i am asking that we both clear our Majora Carter related work with others (not you or me) and let them post or delete based on our suggestions if they choose. If you are so sure of your judgment, there must be others who will agree with you. Likewise, i am sure there will be plenty more people who agree with me. One of us must be wrong.--believe me (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The only question here is whether or not there is an ongoing conflict of interest by a single-purpose account that is disrupting the encyclopedia and should result in a permanent block and the answer, even just judging from the information on this page, is yes. Drawn Some (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

so, you are saying that you harbor no ill-will towards Majora Carter whatsoever? I say the real COI here is in your court.
I think your edits betray you; that both of us have a bias, but that only one of us has attempted to reform - under a more or less equal number of wrist slappings on both sides. My COI is in the open and manageable - kind of like dandruff. Your self-righteous unilateralism is something i get the impression you are not even aware of. Some of your edits and /relevance/ tags look irrational - which often indicates an underlying and unmanaged emotional component to such decisions. --believe me (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Truce - Majora Carter related material on WP

hey - i am happy to cooperate by posting proposed edits, and see if anyone has an opinion +/-. Can Drawn Some can be considered a neutral arbiter ?
Look at fellow torch bearers' opinions, and links to the NYPD and FD, and 9/11 (?), while removing sourced material about how Majora got the Olympic Torch in her hands in the first place, in DS's "clean-up".
DS's past deletions of sourced material related to Majora's early life in the South Bronx (different from the Bronx); deleting without comment her NAS position and now deciding to list it as "awards" and not "consulting"; removing her public radio team's Peabody Award (3 words, sourced + wp link = richer material and a sense of who Majora surrounds herself with), or choosing to include $25k speaking fee reference and employing her husband (neither of which are unusual), but removing reliable info from BusinessWeek Magazine and the NYTimes about consulting work in rural N. Carolina?
one could go on with examples like these, but how boring... If this all meets the WP Administrators' idea of neutral and reliable editing, then you all can live with that and be proud.
However, I still think DS should enter into a gentleman's agreement to not edit any Majora Carter related material (plenty of other work out there) and post, as i will, any proposed changes to let other less emotionally charged participants add or subtract. I'll make a new heading on the article's talk page called PROPOSED EDITS.
will anyone second this ?--believe me (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That seems sensible but is regarding disagreements on editing and not necessarily dealing with the COI issue. Just to clarify, Givechase, are you Majora Carter's husband? Smartse (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

indeed; which is why i understand the need to let the WP community vet the info i propose first. I think given Drawn Some's pattern of unilateral and at times irrational edits, that the same waiting/third party template ought to apply. --believe me (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is he her husband, he is the VP of Marketing and Communications for her private consulting firm. If you want to see what the article looks like when Givechase/believe me edits it without oversight by neutral editors, HERE it is. Note the photo of her kindergarten class, for starters.
What will happen going forward, as discussed many times before, by many different editors, is that believe me/Givechase will post all proposed additions on the article talk page or on this notice board and he will follow WP:COI and WP:NPA. I will continue respecting Wikipedia guidelines as I always have and I will continue monitoring the Majora Carter article and other articles that have been or might be compromised. It won't be turned into a fluff piece.
The husband and PR person for the subject of an article with that double conflict of interest and who has a single purpose account with a history of disruptive behavior, blatant vandalism, and tendentious editing does not get the article deleted, locked, or block other editors from editing it. He doesn't get to make up his own rules and from now on he will respect Wikipedia guidelines. Wikpedia principles are NOT up for discussion or negotiation as to how they may be further compromised by believe me/Givechase.
I am sure believe me/Givechase agrees that he has done sufficient damage to his own reputation and to that of his wife at this point and wishes to cause no further damage--see WP:COI.
Believe me/Givechase, I'll warn you again here that if you violate WP:NPA again it will be addressed. I have been quite patient on ignoring your attacks.
Thank you. Drawn Some (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The current version of the Majora Carter article seems neutral. The list of awards is a bit long, and perhaps only the most important might be kept. User:J has already removed the COI tag, which seems OK. I suggest that other readers of this noticeboard take a look at the article and see if they agree it is now appropriately neutral and non-promotional. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I put a lot of work into it last night to bring it to this point. My only concern now is that the pic at the head of the article is inappropriate as it shows two other people clearly, it's just not a good bio pic. Wikipedia has standards somewhere but I can't find them. Perhaps Givechase/believe me could upload a portrait-type picture or crop one he already has uploaded so that corporate logos, dogs, other people, headphones, etc. aren't in the shot. The pic really looks bad now. I would suggest looking at Sarah Palin for an appropriate shot that is flattering without looking like propoganda. The one they had of her before showed her in a jogging suit. Drawn Some (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct to garment printing

This article appears to have been written by a few SPA's working together. All/most of the "references" are to the websites of various companies selling DTG-related products. The text is primarily PEACOCK about how wonderful DTG printing is ("almost 100% eco-friendly," "can be as durable as screen printing," and "price options for most every apparel decorators budget").

I think there's an article to be written on this topic, but this isn't it.

Cross-posting at WT:WikiProject Textile Arts in the hopes that someone will take this on.

Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I used the db-spam template. See what happens. Drawn Some (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You tagged it for CSD, but SchuminWeb shortly afterwards removed the {{db-spam}} with a comment of "I don't see this as G11, but it needs a LOT of work." I've put some effort into it, but I still think he's right. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was worth a try. I guess all the commercial links could be deleted. It has a pretense of being a genuine article but is it any different from other printing processes? Maybe a merge is appropriate.
I wish you hadn't posted a link to User:SchuminWeb because I'm epileptic and when I clicked on it by accident I had a mild seizure triggered by his shirt. Don't worry, I'm okay now, just tired.Drawn Some (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes and Tori Amos

User Phil Sandifer has created sections labeled "Academic Response" for both of the above Wikipedia articles, though all these sections consist of are academic publications from the journal he edits, or which he has himself written, with a single additional article - arguably as window dressing. Full paragraphs cover the publications, despite their tenuous usefulness to the article as a whole. To his credit, he has admitted the possibility that a COI exists in each case...however, this takes on the appearance of mere pro-forma acknowledgment since he resists any impulse by other editors to remove, condense, or relocate the material. Multiple attempts to address the situation have devolved into defensiveness. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been open about the nature of the articles. However, the opposition on the part of 99.174 has amounted to "it's post-structuralist garbage" with a smattering of "and it's a COI" to grow on. The assumptions of bad faith on 99.174's part are staggering - "arguably as window dressing," "mere pro-forma acknowledgement," etc. The fact of the matter is, all of the references added - and we're talking about four references, one of which is an article I wrote, another one of which was in a journal I edit - are peer-reviewed sources that add information about a significant perspective - that of peer-reviewed academic criticism - to the subjects.
The objection appears to be that the articles are insufficiently notable, and that they are suitable as references, but not to summarize. This seems to me to suggest that the information should simply be added as fact? I'm happy to rewrite Calvin and Hobbes throughout so as to better establish the Lacanian underpinnings of the strip, as supported within a reliable source. But honestly, I thought the academic criticism section was a better idea, given that WP:NPOV demands the representation of all significant views, and academic peer-reviewed scholarship does seem to me a significant view. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI = "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author....Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable....When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." Your own words: "If we can tell you have a COI, your COI is interfering excessively." 138.23.244.7 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And yet WP:N explicitly says it doesn't govern article content. And WP:COI does not link to WP:N directly on this issue. I am hard-pressed to believe that there is a rule requiring notability by the WP:N standard for this. Certainly no such rule is implied by WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. NOR, in fact, says "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." It explicitly doesn't even bring up the issue of notability.
My point being that any claim that the citation in the Calvin and Hobbes article (the only one that is meaningfully self-promotional - I am no longer even on the masthead of ImageTexT, and have zilch to gain from its general promotion) is a violation of COI because it does not satisfy WP:N is a selective reading of our policies that amounts to an objection on the basis of a technicality of a section that has been in place without criticism for nine months and hundreds of edits. This whole fuss, as you're phrasing it, could be defused by a lone editor willing to add the material back. Do you really think that is at all difficult to obtain? Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Phil, wouldn't the best approach be to propose the content on the talk page and see what other editors think? Adding it yourself doesn't seem appropriate to me. If you're not happy with the consensus reached by the editors already working on the article, maybe an RfC to get wider input would be helpful? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I added the content almost a year ago, and it remained stable and uncontroversial. The IP just has a strange and inexplicable bone to pick with me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Trust me, my interest is in improving the article, not you. Is your position that any material which has avoided comment on Wikipedia for a year must therefore be 'good?' That seems contrary to the entire aim of the project. Just because something has avoided notice for a while doesn't mean it isn't flawed. 99.174.233.4 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, my point is that it is hardly as though this has been widely rejected and controversial. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As a neutral party who is not even a fan of Calvin & Hobbes I must say that the material is not blatantly promotional but I do question as to whether anyone other than the author or someone else with a COI would think it important enough to put in the article in the first place. The audience for that sort of information is small and this is a general encyclopedia, not a psychology text or a class on psychology in cartoons.

Part of the reason the guideline on COI exist are to prevent undue importance from being placed on a subject or aspect of a subject just because it is technically relevant or "notable". Even people without COI who aren't sure if something is important enough put it on the talk page and that would be wise in this case.

Something else I would point out as a neutral party is that the article is very long. I was surprised to see the links to primary articles on some sections because the sections themselves were quite large. It is a cartoon after all and not WW II. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Armorlogic

I strongly suspect that this article has been created by a founder of the company, Srebrenko Sehic [28]. They've also mentioned themselves in the article as a "key person". The page doesn't seem spammy but IMO articles shouldn't be created by people with such strong and obvious COIs. This guideline must have been broken: "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing". I've informed ssehic of the COI guidelines and will also inform him of this discussion. What should we do? Smartse (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Smartse, do you think the company is notable? If not, db-spam template would be appropriate. The references are weak to say the least and a Google search doesn't seem to show hard references unrelated to a company press release. Drawn Some (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response under the talk page for the article. I'm not a founder but am an executive at Armorlogic. Mr. Sehic purposely used his own name and did not try to hide his connection. He did nothing unethical. You've presumably chosen to use nick names for a reason that is personal to you. I'm not challenging your motives in this regard but am asking you, whoever you are, to help us make the article more appropriate. Web security, and particularly regulations around web security, and the leading solutions in this space are extremely noteworthy. All our competitors have "articles" on wikipedia which appear to me to be in a form and substance no more "neutral" or "noteworthy" than the article about Armorlogic. One could easily use nickname or a third party to post an article. That would be unethical. What Mr. Sehic did was not unethical and we shouldn't deprive wikipedia and its readers from information about a noteable company and product in website and web application security. (MatthewGWatson (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Part of the problem I see with the article is that it purports to be about the company but is primarily about a software product. I even deleted the article about your company from a navigation template that listed various software titles, not the companies making the software. That is a stylistic issue that I think influences the real issues:
Notability. See WP:Company for notability requirements for an article about a company and WP:Notability for general requirements that would apply to a software product. Sources have to be secondary, not just press releases, the company website or reprinting of the press releases on websites or in the backs of magazines. If I were in your situation, I would assemble valid references that would meet the notability guidelines and choose either the company OR the software as the primary subject of the article. In an article about the software it would be good to have a small section about the company and vice versa of course. If notability requirements are not met an article will eventually be deleted every time and this is the real hurdle.
Then there is WP:COI Conflict of Interest. I would create a very neutral and unenthusiastic article on a subpage such as User:MatthewGWatson/Profense, starting by copying the present article to that page, with all of the references (at your leisure, it won't be deleted there while you're working on it) and then when you are sure it meets guidelines come here to the COI noticeboard and ask for neutral editors to vet it and add it to the article space to avoid COI.
An alternative would be to look for neutral editors who take an interest in articles on similar software or topics to assist. You can look at the history tab of each article to see who has been involved. Look at a couple of different article histories and it will become apparent who is interested because they tend to cross edit related articles.
The third important factor is that the article must be supported by reliable sources. There's a lot of overlap here with notability sources especially in a short article but there is a little more leeway here to use the company website, say, as a source of information.
Also no one is really accusing you or your colleagues of being unethical or spamming, just of not being aware of these guidelines because you are new. It raises a caution flag when there is a COI. Actually it is obvious that the article is very neutral especially considering the inherent COI and using real names does show there is no intent to deceive and that's not what COI is about anyway. The question was really more about notability.
Also be aware that anyone can edit an article so if there is information that is in reliable sources it can be added even if it is uncomplimentary. (Think Wal-Mart, Union Carbide, Bernie Madoff.)
I would be glad to assist any way I can, all of this can seem daunting to new users, but be aware server software isn't my area of expertise. I can certainly spot COI or non-neutrality though and check sources. No doubt others could be more helpful and accurate but the best advice is to become familiar with the guidelines I linked to and prove notability. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've left a not on the computing wikiproject and on the talk page of an editor of Check Point - a competitor asking people to have a look and perhaps clean up. Hopefully someone will take a look. Smartse (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy declined: "close call, but there's enough doubt that this should go to AfD for discussion" Smartse (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
My personal belief is that while speedy is a good test and method of deleting inappropriate articles unless you are sure that a normal AfD will result in deletion it's better to put the effort into improving the article and less work, too. If the article had more references (especially to support notability) it would be pretty much okay as is. There is obvious COI but no undesirable outcome from it, it's better written than most short articles. Drawn Some (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've had a look at this and I think it is probably notable, but there are a few "advertorial" type phrases in the article. I will have a look at cleaning it up later. Gavint0 (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional Bodyguard Association‎

Resolved

Smartse (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncorrected proof SPAs/spammers

Resolved
 – Consensus was to keep the article and merge with other similar topics to develop something meeting our referencing requirements. The COI edits stopped after the SPI case was resolved, so I see nothing further that can be done here.

- 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
  • Uncorrected proof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally created by User:TuscanMeadow at Uncorrected Proof primarily to spend three out of four paragraphs describing (and linking to a site to sell) a book by that title by some unknown author with a publisher called "ElephantEars Press". User:ElephantEars2008 shows up and makes more edits, and then gets spotted when he links the Book article to the Uncorrected proof article. Once that spam got removed, suddenly User:Jamlady showed up to revert changes. The accounts in question have no other edits other than those related to this article n some way (though the ElephantEars one has some inexplicable vandalism of an unrelated editor's page). Now the accounts are trying to establish "true consensus" to return advertisement of this book to the article. I could use some other editors weighing in and responding in whatever ways they find appropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope I'm not jumping to conclusions, but considering that they're apparently all single purpose accounts, this looks strangely like a sock drawer to me. Has anyone put in a request over at WP:SPI? -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Created a case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TuscanMeadow feel free to comment if you have any additional information. -Senseless!... says you, says me 20:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the accounts named above were blocked as a result of the sock case. We should probably keep this report open for a couple more days to see if that cures the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Uncorrected proof has been proposed for deletion. This seems not to be a well-defined term with a fixed meaning. Only one of the two reference links works, and it is not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
ProD was declined by an established editor, I started an AfD discussion here. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Flack for Coca-Cola Enterprises operating an s.p.a.

Resolved
 – over a week ago in-fact

- 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems resolved. SNHennessy has admitted she is an employee and has promised to only correct factual innaccuracies in the future. May be worth keeping an eye on. Smartse (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Siru108

User:Siru108 has been repeatedly trying to remove any information critical of Diamond Way and it's controversial leader, Ole Nydahl. This is because he is a member of the group, and therefore has a conflict of interest. Please stop him from censoring these two and similar articles. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.153.8 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, this is complicated! The above user has been accused of being a sockpuppet [29] by User:Siru108. Siru108 has then removed comments made by the IP user on the talkpage of Ole Nydahl. I've informed User:Siru108 of this discussion. Smartse (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Solved. The ip-user is blocked, and the content I removed was clearly against WP:BLP. This person has tried to report me 10-20 times already, but always ends up getting blocked himself. Siru108 (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it? The accusation was made against you but know you are saying it is solved?! Smartse (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment from passing admin, somewhat familiar with the ongoing vandalism to this article - I won't comment on the conflict of interest claims, as they are not something I've looked at too closely. Hopefully someone else on this board will take a good look. However, it's clear that this IP user is a sockpuppeteer intent on adding defamatory content, either to the article or its talk page, with total disregard to Wikipedia's policies. The content which Siru108 removed in this case, which I subsequently re-removed, was a clear violation of the BLP policy. Such unsourced allegations must be removed. Whatever conflict of interest problems this article may or may not have, the removal of content under discussion here is irrelevant. Are there any other examples of a conflict of interest affecting these articles? -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any generel CoI issues in the article. Hopefully not, but you could maybe look into it. I find it rather balanced, maybe with a little too much weight on the criticism part. It is however deliberate I havn't edited too much in this section (apart from removing obviously wrong unsourced claims as well as som misquotes), since I do have a CoI. Siru108 (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zzuuzz about the BLP problems that were introduced by various IP editors. For instance here on 12 February, calling someone a 'career con man and a fraud,' and here on 15 March The article does not suppress criticism of Diamond Way, and it even provides a link over to a criticism section of Ole Nydahl's article. The IP who filed this report was briefly blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Roy Ward, so I've added Ward's name to the head of this report. Ward was indef blocked on 14 April per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roy Ward. If BLP violations continue in the future, in the light of the sock case I suggest that long-term semiprotection be considered. I don't see anything for us to do here regarding COI, and suggest this report be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The same IP user started posting again... I filed a report for BLP protection [30]. This time it was however just adding links, and a bot seems effective too move them again. The allegations on the linked pages are the same that the user try to put on wikipedia. Siru108 (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Myners, Baron Myners

Resolved
 – Moved to ANI, considering nature of subject this is likely a more appropriate venue - if I shouldn't have closed this, please feel free to revert

- 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Paul Myners, Baron Myners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is getting out of hand. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is regarding editing by User:Lordmyners - the subject of the article. Lordmyners (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Some edits are ok but others e.g. [31] [32] [33] and [34] are not. Of course we can't tell whether these edits are really being made by the Lord himself but these edits are removing sourced content and changing the tone of the article. Smartse (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This is also discussed here: [35] Smartse (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:ANI was probably the right way to go, considering this is such a high profile figure. He's been adequately warned about making unsourced changes to his own article, and if the reversions persist, a sysop can deal with it appropriately. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Moved to ANI or AN? DuncanHill (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the account should be banned as a single purpose account. Drawn Some (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

David J Farrar

Resolved
 – Article edited and watchlisted by various editors. Drawn Some (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
I left a COI note on his talk page. His edits to the article have been pretty neutral so far, even self-revising some puffery in one case. The overall tone of the article looks ok to me, though it does need some Wikification, sectioning, and so on. I'll keep an eye on it, but so far it doesn't seem problematic. ArakunemTalk 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, too, I added a couple of categories and moved the page to add a period after the middle initial. Drawn Some (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good enough for me then.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

JUMP - The IAESTE Motivation and Training Seminar

Resolved
 – Article merged and additional merger of similar article proposed by User:Drawn Some. Please reopen if anyone thinks it is unresolved.Drawn Some (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
What is the next step? No person whats to help me? How can I reach the goal to have the article online and conform? What about my second proposal User:Aekeller/JUMP_-_The_IAESTE_Motivation_and_Training_Seminar_Proposal2? Is that fine?Aekeller (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Unresolved
The article does not explain what JUMP is but is a chronology of JUMP seminars and is definite WP:POV and reads like an advertisement. It uses what amounts to copy & paste of copyrighted material from a website which is a no-no but the website unfortunately doesn't explain what JUMP is either.
Furthermore, I am unable to confirm anything about JUMP using third-party sources. So basically I am stymied and unable to help but suspect that JUMP may not meet Wikipedia requirements for notability and verifiability.
My suggestion is to improve your website making it clear what JUMP is, who is behind it and sponsors it, its legal structure, etc., and once independent newspapers and magazines start doing articles about JUMP you will have people writing an article about it using reliable sources without you even having to do anything. Drawn Some (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is ready to be a real Wikipedia article. It's unlikely that the topic is important enough. An organization exists, and it holds workshops in various places. Nothing that needs coverage by us, unless the workshops are famous and are often written up in the regular press. Details of these meetings should be kept on the organization's own web site, not here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, me again. I see now the article for IASTE and that it is a bona fide organization. My suggestion now is to have a section of the article on on IASTE be about JUMP. I'll add it for you. I agreee with EdJohnston it doesn't warrant a separate article. Most organizations do not have separate articles about their conferences except in rare cases like the Olympics and the Olympic Committee or the larger political parties and their conventions. Drawn Some (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Drawn Some for adding a section to the IAESTE article. That is fine. However I do not understand why Central European Convention is covered by an own article, but not JUMP. Both events are pretty much the same. There are also some links about JUMP as [36] [37] [38] ) Aekeller (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason you don't understand it is because it probably should not have its own article and should also be part of the IASTE article, it has no references and is essentially made up of lists. It is better for readers of the encycopedia to find a well-developed section of an article than a separate but weak and unreferenced article. Drawn Some (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Central European Convention might be replaced by a couple of sentences in the main IAESTE article. There is no independent notability there. Drawn Some has already added merge tags to help accomplish this. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnadonovan and Royal Dutch Shell

Johnadonovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User admittedly runs a few Shell-critical websites; what's more, the user is citing several sources for which he writes (e.g., shellnews.net, Royaldutchshellplc.com, etc.); see articles including Royal Dutch Shell initiatives, royaldutchshellplc.com, Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues. Multiple users have called him out on his talk page, and although I can't find an archive history for it, it appears from the user's talk page that a similar issue was raised on COIN a few months ago. It appears the user is violating the following three COI policies:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)

—Eustress talk 23:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
The previous discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Royal Dutch Shell. Not a lot came out of it besides further engaging with the user. If this is persistent to the point of disruption, then maybe an admin should be looking at a topic ban. Remember that policy doesn't forbid the above listed things, just discourages them. I'm pretty sure John knows that he's working with a conflict of interest. The only thing that might be new is if he's persistently ignoring best practice to push his point. I'll have a look at what's been going on. Bigbluefish (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bigbluefish that the last COIN discussion from January 2008 didn't end with a decisive result. But at the bottom of that thread, Donovan promised to restrict his editing in certain ways. It would be helpful if people could read over that undertaking to be sure he is still following it. I hope that User:BozMo will comment as well, since he knows the case. Independent of the COI issues, it seems to me that Royaldutchshellplc.com is getting ridiculously long, and it needs to be trimmed down. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've got to say that the way that this has returned to COIN is somewhat drive-by. The trouble doesn't seem to be that John is edit-warring out good-faith edits, just few efforts have been made to fix the problems with his contributions. The material contributed is by and large encyclopedic, just currently sporting fairly serious NPOV issues. There isn't really even a direct COI except with Royaldutchshellplc.com, any more than a voter has a COI with a politician. I don't see any specific suggestion regarding how to deal with this beyond fixing the content. Bigbluefish (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, I'm not at all convinced that Royal Dutch Shell initiatives is a good idea. Every single section is about what essentially is a run-of-the-mill funding venture. The sources don't help in establishing a notability and none of them summarise the topic as a whole, largely probably because as a single topic it's not very encyclopedically defined. This isn't how NPOV works. I think anything remarkable about Shell's "initiatives" could easily be summarised in a single paragraph in the main article. Anyone else think this is one for AfD? Bigbluefish (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, an AfD sounds good. Devoting an entire section of this article to a $5 million donation, even for a good cause in Brunei, does not seem noteworthy for a company of Shell's size. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
The article was just tagged for db-spam deletion and I declined; db-spam shouldn't be a tool for dealing with conflicts over POV. I don't mean to imply that the article shouldn't be deleted, just that I don't think it fits the "unambiguous" part of the db-spam criteria. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I tagged it and I still stand by it. I posted a message on your talk page too -- this article could not have been better written by their PR department. If no one else takes it to Afd, I will do so in the morning when I have calmed down. – ukexpat (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have been a bit tied up with other things, and I also as someone who worked for Shell five years ago I have a degree of POV (I run a charity now). From an overall quality point of view I don't think we get near NPOV on Shell or perhaps other big companies because we violate WP:UNDUE on criticism and problems. Perhaps we should not care about this. I have other things to worry about but as far as I can tell on most measures Shell is a similar size to Belgium, the world's eleventh biggest country (i.e. turnover for GNP, total energy consumption from own operations and even if you include sub contractors and mandated resellers employment). There is a vast amount of published material on Shell. It is hardly surprising that an operation on this scale has problems (ref there are criminals in Belgium), but whatever I have seen indicates Shell has less or same of these problems than competitors not more. Unlike articles on countries there is disproportionately little information about perfectly notable issues (technology, patents, investments, employment, interesting facts like that the Shell building in Denmark headquarters the Gestapo in WW2 and the RAF succeeded in bombing out the lower floors). JD seems to me to be a fairly responsible editor adding material but the things he knows about are generally of a particular type and this throws the balance of articles. I guess this initiatives thing is an attempt to rebalance it (misguided in my view). --BozMo talk 06:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia contributor complained a couple of years ago that there was not a “positives” article about RDS. I promised to rectify this when I had time: hence the "initiatives" article. Contrary to what is stated, there are no links on the "initiatives" article to any articles of which Shellnews.net is the source. If an article is published by a source such as the Daily Telegraph that retains freely accessible articles on their website on a long-term basis, then I provide direct links. If the source is subscription, or one where the articles vanish after a short time, I save a copy on the ShellNews.net website so that it can be used as a verification source. On the relevant web pages there are no links to other websites or web pages and no advertising or branding other than may be contained in the source article. The only identification for the ShellNews.net site is in the link information. We have never operated a commercial website and although approached many times have never accepted advertising. We have also declined all donation offers. We have never sold a domain name. Our websites are all totally non-commercial, with no products to sell and no subscription charges and have always been operated on that basis since their inception over a decade ago. I will try to find an alternative source as a substitute for the WebWire sourced section. I have never cited as a Wikipedia reference source any article authored by me or by any author who has contributed to our website including a prominent former RDS executive and high level officials. Bearing in mind our practise of routinely giving RDS advance sight of our own articles on the basis that we will delete anything Shell states is categorically untrue and publish with the article, on an unedited basis, any comments Shell wishes to make, I would respectfully suggest that our articles about RDS are more reliable than other publishers. RDS has taken up our invitations on a number of occasions. When Michiel Brandjes, the Company Secretary and General Counsel Corporate asked us not to publish an article because of exceptional circumstances, we did not do so. An article authored by me was referred to in evidence submitted to a House of Commons Select Committee by the WWF. Bearing all of the forgoing in mind, the allegation of being an “unreliable source” is unfair, though I do accept that use of such articles on Wikipedia would in any event be ruled out for other reasons. The “initiatives” article as viewed now has changed due to editing by other contributors. At the time of its first publication it contained the following sentence designed to provide balance: "Cynics might argue that such activities are undertaken for public relation purposes." Below I provided prominently placed links to other articles about RDS covering environmental issues, safety concerns and controversies surrounding the company. It was put in the wrong way but the objective was to provide balance. All of that was deleted, no doubt entirely properly, but it changed the character of the article. The relevant links have now been relegated to the small print at the foot of the article. I can add something along the lines of recommending that readers can obtain a better-informed overall balanced view of RDS by reading the article in conjunction with other main subsidiary articles about Shell. When BozMo made his comment about the lack of any mention of The Shell Foundation in the article, the above preamble and prominent links were still in place. With regards to the comment about the length of the royaldutchshellplc.com article, does it really matter provided the content is true, properly sourced and written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines/rules? No one is compelled to read it all unless interested in the content. As always, I have presented my response and will of course abide by collective decisions. Johnadonovan (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As I hinted above, I think COI is the wrong way to look at the issues with this topic. As others have backed up, achieving NPOV isn't about saying something positive for every negative thing, regardless of what another user has said. Your comment sums it up nicely:
"Does it really matter provided the content is true, properly sourced and written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines/rules?"
The answer is no, provided you acknowledge the Wikipedia guidelines/rules that require things to be suitable for an encyclopedia and written in a compelling and concise style. This whole family of articles is currently a handful of laundry lists of things to do with Shell. Most if not all of them would never merit an article of their own even if there were more to write about them. The problem with "RDS initiatives" is that nobody (at least within the list of references we currently have) has written about "RDS initiatives" as a subject. I think it's more likely that the environmental or safety practices of Shell have been written about as a whole subject, but I doubt many of the details in these articles would appear there. Part of the requirements on all encyclopedia content is for it to be made continually clear the importance of the information to the title subject. I suspect that this means that a lot of information needs to be carefully deleted for the benefit of the articles' overall integrity and coherence. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

←Despite Johnadonovan's altruistic motives, as stated above, the editor violates COI in a major way—editing and creating articles related to he and his father's anti-Shell Shell commentary organization, and linking to websites of his organizations in Wikipedia articles. It is understood that all editors have some bias in their editing, but Johnadonovan posts archived articles on his personal websites so he can reference them on Wikipedia, and he dominates the editing of the articles in question: as of right now, he created and accounts for 86% of the edits on Royal Dutch Shell initiatives (verify), he created and accounts for 61% of edits on Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues (verify), he created and accounts for 71% of edits for Royaldutchshellplc.com (verify), and he's the #1 editor for Royal Dutch Shell (verify). —Eustress talk 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the article, apart from a couple of quasi-negative statements, reads as if the Shell PR department wrote it as a "Look at how green Shell is" puff piece. That is not appropriate for this or any encyclopedia, nor is creating articles that are "positive" about RDS. This is an encyclopedia not a free webspace to promote anyone or anything in a positive light. Unless that can be rectified by a major neutral point of view edit, this is heading for AFD. – ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Eustress, with all due respect, although entitled to express an opinion, you are wrong in stating that we are an anti-Shell organisation. We know that the vast majority of Shell employees are hard working decent people. As a long time Shell shareholder, I fully support the Shell General Business Principles, including the core principles of honesty, integrity, openness and respect for people in all of Shell’s dealings. When the deeds of Shell executives do not match the pledges, as for example with the 2004 securities fraud which ruined the reputation of the brand, we comment accordingly. At the moment, you are getting excited not by an article which contains "anti-Shell" information, but one which focusses on Shell initiatives for which the company surely deserves credit. Please also give me credit for operating from the outset openly under my own name as a Wikipedia contributor. With regards to all of my Wikipedia contributions, please point out any content added by me on any RDS article in which I make biased comments about Shell. With the high percentages you mention it will surely be an easy task. With regards to UKexpat, your suggestion already seems to have been declined? Johnadonovan (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion has been declined, but Afd is just around the corner. And I am concerned about any article which games the system and goes against the principle of neutrality. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "games the system"? I tried from the outset to inject balance and did so again today, but the relevant edits are quickly deleted. It is a strange situation when I am being accused simultaneously of being anti-Shell and pro-Shell. Why isn’t anyone prepared to be constructive and add counter weight information instead of being hell-bent on axing a well-sourced article? Turning to the comments by Eustress, because I have not responded to other comments does not mean that I accept them. Johnadonovan (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

←Pursuant to your reply, I've modified my classification above of your organization; however, my concern still remains: regardless of your editing intentions, per WP:COI it appears that advancing outside interests is more important in your edits than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, as you created and are the principle editor for the article on Royaldutchshellplc.com, a website which you operate; and every citation to Royaldutchshellplc.com and Shellnews.net can bring more web traffic to your sites (e.g., WP:COI#Self-promotion). The policy is as follows:

"Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

  1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography."

The frequency and magnitude of your edits to Shell-related pages and the incorporation of your websites as sources are what I believe merit attention. The AfD talk is damage control, which can be done, but we need to somehow prevent this from occurring again. It seems to me that the above policies are in violation. —Eustress talk 17:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ShellNews.net was the first generation royaldutchshellplc.com website in 2004. We are now on to the third generation. We keep both of the old sites operational to maintain old links and store secondary information. We make many postings on to the current generation website – royaldutchshellplc.com - every day. I have not placed any links to the royaldutchshellplc.com site on Wikipedia for some considerable time. The links were in any event only ever to third party articles from well-known publishing sources such as Reuters, never to any articles authored by my father or me. I have already explained the reasons for publishing the articles on the ShellNews.net site. It is only done in the case of articles that would not otherwise be freely accessible. There is no information about ShellNews.net on the relevant web pages other than in the website url. In other words, there are no links to other pages on the site, no advertising and no branding. The site receives hardly any traffic because it is not our main site. No one would have any inkling about the identity of the website other than from the url. There is no benefit of any kind to us. I strongly resent your assertion that I put our interests before the interests of Wikipedia. That is an unnecessary and untrue allegation that I greatly resent. I have always gone to some trouble to comply with the changing rules/guidelines and have done so in a transparent way. Let me also remind you that the current unpleasantness was instigated not because of an alleged bias against Shell in my contributions, but the exact opposite. I note that thus far despite the vast amount of my contributions to various articles you have not provided a single example of me making a biased comment against Shell. Since you have already retracted one comment, perhaps you will kindly reconsider the other comments which are equally unfounded. Johnadonovan (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Your allegation about "the incorporation of your websites as sources" is at best misleading. As explained, the links were to articles by independent publishers e.g. The Wall Street Journal - posted on our website. Johnadonovan (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the one who requested that there be a "positives" section. I had tried to add some "positives" several times to the criticisms section for RDC, and they kept being removed by other users (I believe Johnadonovan was one of them) because it was a "criticism" page. I eventually gave up, but not before mentioning that this was really imbalanced that only criticism was allowed, and that a positives page would be very useful. If there is a NPOV issue due to linking articles that Johnadonovan was involved creating, then by all means there should be a call for a better source (obviously, mirroring content others has created doesn't fall into this category). However, apart from that, his work on this page in general has my full support, for that's what it's worth. Sites like Wikipedia tend to attract large numbers of anti-corporate types, and corporations aren't allowed to edit their own pages. So if there's to be any degree of balance, pages like this should be included, and I appreciate Johnadonovan's work. -- Rei (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Like Rei, I too appreciate Johnadonovan's work in adding some balance to the articles through the introduction of Shell successes. But please note that my query is not whether or not the editor has introduced any bias into the articles but whether or not he has violated WP:COI. I have listed the policies believed to have been violated twice now, which the user has yet to deny or confirm. Assuming COI is in violation here, [Q] do other editors feel that this is a case of a net positive—that Johnadonovan appears to be advancing the aims of Wikipedia rather than outside interests, rather than the other way around? The user so asserts above, but I have brought this to COIN to ask the community's help in ascertaining the issue. After hearing the user's kind clarifications above, I am leaning towards the former. Best regards —Eustress talk 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
My personal belief is that editors with a conflict of interest should not only not indulge that conflict of interest but go the extra step of avoiding the appearance of indulging it. In other words, their actions should not have to be deeply scrutinized. For instance, I do not believe anyone should edit an article about themselves or their employer. I have not reviewed the article or edits under discussion and am just stating a general principle. Drawn Some (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
COI issues in respect of the royaldutchshellplc.com Wikipedia article have already been discussed exhaustively here previously and a way forward agreed which I have abided with as promised. I post all proposed content on to the article talk page, thereby giving others the opportunity to edit it, delete it or post it in the article. If no one has objected or posted the content after 4 weeks, I take that as consent for me to do so. The posted information contains no comment by me but is based on articles published by reputable independent publishers which have mentioned the web site. The last group of postings included for example a publication by The House of Commons. Turning to the "initiatives" article, no articles are cited for reference purposes in which I have had any involvement. The source articles are all from reputable independent publishers. Turning to the royaldutchshellplc.com website, it has always been our policy to post all articles relating to Shell whether positive or negative in content. When REI persuasively made the case for an RDS "positives" article, I started to collect for possible use as Wikipedia articles positive articles about Shell. I still have more articles for the "initiatives" article and many more for other RDS articles. If there is a Wikipedia policy limit on contributions to any article from a single source, as seems to be implied by Eustress, then please advise me accordingly. All information added will comply with Wikipedia policy. Johnadonovan (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I've listed Royal Dutch Shell initiatives for deletion. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Robotic War

Resolved
 – Article has been deleted

Smartse (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Has been sent to AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Robotic_War Smartse (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Spinnerpub

Resolved
 – ukexpat (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Spinnerpub (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) User added Spinner Publications books to bibliographies in articles. Willking1979 (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why your UAA report was dismissed with "for blatant violations". What is more blatant than adding the company's publications to bibliographies? I must admit I am becoming disheartened with the way some admins are interpreting and applying the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Sanity prevails, user blocked by Orangemike. – ukexpat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan and Julie Myerson

Splendido (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made several edits to the articles Jonathan Myerson and Julie Myerson in recent days which appear to indicate a personal interest. Edits concern an incident involving the couple and their son where unfavourable material has been removed. Edits today, however, have added positive information and are referenced, and check out. But due to the nature of the earlier edits I'm still concerned the user is an interested party, particularly as they have only edited these two articles. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Splendido is an obvious single-purpose account and should be made aware of guidelines regarding WP:SPA and WP:COI as well as WP:NPOV. The articles have a bit of a gossip-column feel to them. Drawn Some (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Gang

Resolved
 – by User:Smartse -Drawn Some (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
  • Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Stevonmfl has added a large amount of information from a book that was self-published by Dr. Steven D. Valdivia (who resides in Marco Island, FL). The user displays the following on his user page: "Steven D. Valdivia is an expert on youth gangs and other forms of community violence. Has authored two books: Forces...Gangs to Riots 1 and 2." This is the book he is trying to cite. User refuses to discuss on talk page and has already violated the 3R. I strongly suspect a COI and that Stevonmfl is Valdivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stevonmfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Smartse (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The information being added might well be worthy of inclusion but I agree with Niteshift36 that there does seem to be some COI. For example including the author's name in the article before discussing the points. If Stevonmfl is interested in improving the article the classifications should probably be merged and not have two seperate lists. Smartse (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that the author has also posted a 5 star review of his own book on amazon.com [39] which to me suggests self-promotion. I've removed the text to the talk page for the moment. Smartse (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Reply from on Stevonmfl my talk page User talk:Smartse has confirmed that Stevonmfl is indeed the author of the book "This is where my work differs from the usual info" and " I am noted for developing the current state of the art methodologies". Should he be blocked? Smartse (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The editor also posted on my talk page that he is Steve Valdivia. I think he means well and is here with good intentions, so I'm not sure a block is warranted (unless you mean a short one for the 3R). In his (somewhat insulting) response on my talk page, he sort of asked for assistance in navigating the WP policies to see if there is a legitimate way to get the info included. I'm willing to help, especially since I actually believe the material is actually valid and would be educational. I just haven't decided if I want to put up with the attitude I've seen displayed thus far. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

From VALDIVIA Re: GANGS: Please see the Google - Valdivia links for expertise verification. I have provided numerous citations from universities, Dept of Justice, mags and newspapers: Time, NY Times, LA Times, Newsweek, People, etc. etc. You guys are smart alecs about a very serious subject that mainly affects minority children. The area of gangs is not simply a law enforcement, incarceration, criminality area. I am known for making solutions that go into sources and causes of conflict. I have now created a model that follows gang creation to evolution in order to end it. This is where my work differs from the usual info. Please do not treat the work lightly and with glib attitude. Please read the material, review the numerous articles and esp my award and recognition by the US Congress In the Congressional Record as only one example. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:29:./temp/~r103M87RGJ:: There I am noted for developing the current state of the art methodologies. Yes, I was retired to Marco Island (glib) but was asked by the UIUC people to work with their Supercomputer center (Seasr) to develop my ideas and models which I wrote about http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/may/03/guest-commentary-supercomputers-may-help-map-evolu/?printer=1/. So...what else do you need or want. Whatever it is I will provide a ton of it. Also, you are showing a double standard by allowing Dr. Stith to mention her book as well as others in the same article and really coming down hard on mine. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevonmfl (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided one iota of evidence that this other scholar has ever come anywhere near this book. Your conflict of interest in advancing your self-published book and your theories is exceeded only by your inability to comprehend our policies on neutral points of view, reliable sources, and exclusion of original research and self-published materials which have not undergone any form of editing or peer review. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Stevonmfl has also posted "I am Steven Valdivia. Please know that I have been trying to figure out this system and still do not know if this is the correct avenue. There is so much to say about how you are handling this...I AM a much recognised expert in this field" on Niteshift36's talk page. Smartse (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, as I posted the last response, Valdivia decided to come here and be insulting. Smart alecs? Really? Well I guess the policy of no personal attacks and assuming good faith haven't made it to the reading list yet. If I were truly a smart alec, I'd post something wondering about the research skills of someone who can't seem to find the applicable policies and understand them enough to follow them. Dr. Valdivia, you are clearly making this a personal matter, which is the very essence of a conflict of interest. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who inserts references to themselves or to books they wrote in a promotional manner is violating WP:COI and they should be warned and then blocked if necessary. That they are a recognized expert is irrelevant and the fact that someone else is also violating the guidelines is not a defense. (They could always report that person here.) Also other editors should not get dragged into edit wars or multiple reversions, it might make the other party more tenacious and give the appearance of compromising your own integrity which isn't worth it. Drawn Some (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The material he is talking about, by a Dr. Stith, has been in the article for quite a while. There has never been any indication that Stith was the one who added it, nor has anyone else ever made that claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Escalation - Valdivia is now attacking Niteshift36 and myself on our respective talk pages, assailing us as bigots, complete with the always-helpful phrase "you people" and what we people do to keep him/them down. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
If there is a violation of WP:Civil or WP:NPA provide a warning and then if it continues ask for administrative action on that. We are all volunteers and shouldn't be subjected to abuse. Drawn Some (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
We're up to uw-npa3 templating now. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair to Dr Valdivia, WP:COI does say of citing oneself: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

Rather than repeatedly stating that he cannot under any circumstances cite his own book (which would not be a violation of WP:COI in all cases), one ought to perhaps more fairly state that (1) even if he is an expert, that doesn't give him the automatic right to paste chunks of his own authorship into articles; and (2) - and more at the heart of the matter - he hasn't actually provided any evidence that he is a recognised expert. If he were to provide online or paper sources which cited himself or his book as a key resource, or even provided independent reviews of his book in some appropriate journal that extoled it's relevance to the topic, that would be a start to the end of this kerfuffle perhaps.

Also, Dr Valdivia might care to note that if (to use a completely uncontroversial example) Jaromir Malek were to sign up to Wikipedia and write an article on the Cat in Ancient Egypt, I expect if would contain a great deal of the content of his book, The Cat in Ancient Egypt (it is, as the feline trade press review confirms, the definitive book on this somewhat obscure subject). However, I am also sure Dr Malek would (with or without outing himself) confirm that Dr Malek was a well respected Egyptologist, and the book was published by the British Museum Press. I expect he would also, rather than cite his book all the time, in fact create the article by citing some of the same sources he used to create the book (110 illustrative sources and about 35 other authors/texts). Were Dr Valdivia to structure his contribution along the same lines, I feel sure a great deal of this controversy could be avoided.

I wonder if Stevonmfl could perhaps persuade himself to respond in some way, having started this process himself by requesting that a 'higher authority' look at it. I don't see a note on his talk page (but I may have missed it) - has someone made him aware of this COI discussion?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Is he aware? He has responded in this discussion. Just scroll up. Part of the issue is that not only does he cite himself, but the book he cites is also self-published. He makes claims about where it is used, but refuses to show evidence of it. Even at Amazon, the only review of the book is written by.....you guessed it, Valdivia. Gangs are not an obscure subject. There are books and articles on them and they are a current topic in the news. The only newspaper citation Valdivia provided was a link to an op-ed peiece he wrote himself. The notability of the book isn't established. Again: self-published, no outside reviews, in shourt, nothing notable has been shown. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. I see his contribution - and your problem - now. This is the link that no-one seemed to be able to open [40] As I seem to have struck lucky in opening it, here's the text (it's from proceedings in the House of Representatives, so I assume it is a public domain document)

STEVE D. VALDIVIA HONORED -- HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES (Extension of Remarks - May 28, 1993)[Page: E1410]

HON. ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES in the House of Representatives THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1993

Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my good friend, Steve D. Valdivia. Steve is retiring from the Community Youth Gang Services after 10 years of dedicated service.

In 1970 the barrios of East Los Angeles were in serious turmoil. Gang vendettas took lives in ever increasing numbers. In a move to neutralize hostilities a group of gang leaders and I arranged a truce in order to use the period of peace to talk things out. We left town and took a weekend retreat in the San Gabriel Mountains. It was there that we reached agreement to work together and rebuild the Maravilla housing project. Central to this peace was the Cleland House and the 18-year-old youth counselor Steve Valdivia.

Steve has dedicated 10 years to the development and betterment of Los Angeles' youth. In 1970, he began his career as a youth counselor at the Cleland House, an antigang community organization in East Los Angeles.

In 1972, Steve was appointed executive director of Cleland House at age 22, then the youngest executive director in a Los Angeles County social service organization. Under his direction and guidance, Cleland House became widely recognized as the leading institution involved in antigang programs and activities. In addition, through the cooperation of community residents, foundations and corporations, Cleland House raised over $4.2 million for its reconstruction and renovation.

In 1983, Steve was appointed by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to serve as the executive director of Community Youth Gang Services. In this capacity, he implemented the Community Youth Gang Services target area strategy which offers a multifaceted target area approach and combines gang intervention, community action, educational and prevention activities in Los Angeles neighborhoods. Steve also initiated the Reduction of Street Violence Program [RSVP], which focuses on the education, prevention, and enforcement of antigang programs and services.

Steve also volunteers his time as chairman of the Prevention Committee of the Los Angeles Inter-Agency Task Force; vice-chair of the Los Angeles County Public Health Violence Prevention Coalition; member of the California District Attorney's Association; member of the Mayor's After School and Education Committee; and as a member of the executive committee of the United Way Roundtable on Gang Violence.

Steve has been recognized as an expert in the dynamics, prevention, and control of gang activity. His expertise has resulted in gang prevention legislation at the local and national levels. In addition, Steve assisted in establishing the City of Los Angeles Youth Opportunities unlimited [Y.O.U.] Program; and managed the Sweep Up Los Angeles Program.

Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 1993, family, friends, civic leaders, and the community of Los Angeles will be gathered to honor Steve D. Valdivia. It is with great honor and pride that I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Steve for his tireless and unselfish devotion to the youth of Los Angeles County.

At least we now know more about him. On Google I've found a couple of cites in the NY Times [here from 1988] and [here from 1992], also Education Week quotes him [here]. This does suggest that he is a person well known enough in his particular field to be in the rolodexes of editors of notable sources.

So he could legitimately add content of the "a view put forward by Dr V, who for many years was chairman of etc, is that....(cites book)", but this would have to be very carefully written as if from a third party perspective, to avoid a host of problems with NPOV, COI etc.

So far, he is not going the right way around achieving this, but maybe it is possible that he might become a better editor if he is viewed with less suspicion (and if he gets down off his high horse), to which former I hope I may have contributed positively.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, I never said he wasn't who he said he was, nor that his info wasn't right. But self-published books are an uphill fight to begin with no matter who is trying to cite them, but moreso when the author is the one trying to insert it. The "recognition" by Congress is worthless to me. Every session has time where congressmen can talk about whatever they want (often with nobody else even in chambers) and they regularly extoll the virtues of someone or another in their districts, including people they've never met. Sometimes the speech isn't even given, but merely inserted into the Congressional Record. They really have little value. The 1988 NYT article does mention that he was the ED of a small social service type program. It never calls him a "gang czar", like he calls himself, nor really calls him an expert. It does, however, show he has experience in the field. Same with the 1992 article. Says he was the ED of the program. The Education week article is subscription only, so I have no idea what it says about him. But those items aren't convincing to me as being established as a "recognized expert" in the field. I've been quoted by Court TV on a couple of matters that I still wouldn't say qualify me as a "recognized expert" in the field either. I was just a noted participant in the field and they asked from my input. I think there is a lot more work that needs done before the criteria can be established that would let him cite himself or cite a self-published book. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Without reviewing the substance of each edit but just the edit history, and skimming the comments here, this is a single-purpose account for the purpose of self-promotion of a self-published book. Despite being some level of expert on the subject, he came here to edit only to promote his book.
If he isn't going to be blocked then he should agree not to self-promote again. The article can be checked and any damage undone. In the future he can contribute in a positive manner or if he continues to undermine Wikipedia he should be blocked. More discussion won't change anything. Drawn Some (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My, that's a harsh judgement. You sure about that? I agree that the guy appears totally resistant to the idea that he's contributing to an encyclopaedia, rather than delivering a paper at a conference, but how do you know that what he's trying to see represented is not himself, but a viewpoint that he holds passionately. It strikes me, reading back over the edit conversations, that his issue is rather WP:OWN than WP:COI. COI is primarily intended to deal with self-promotion by individuals who fail WP:NN and MouseCorp executives patrolling to ensure nothing bad is ever written about MouseCorp. It's the wrong instrument to be using here, but at the same time it has to be said that if the gent continues to refuse to engage in discussion, it's not really going to matter what instrument is used. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's really more an assessment of the situation followed by two possible solutions depending on his behavior. If there are other solutions or if you disagree with my assessment then point out where they are wrong. I was merely summarizing the situation. Drawn Some (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've already pointed out where I disagree with your assessment, but at the end of the day I suspect it's not going to matter, as the user seems to have exited stage left.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just my opinion, but when he started telling people that don't know anything about the topic and calling them racists for merely following WP policy, I think that indicated a shift from being about the believe to being about himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we stick to COI issues and not personal attack issues. I think that neither Niteshift36 or Stevonmfl have acted particularly courteously to each other but this isn't the place to discuss it. I think that Stevonmfl has taken the message that he should be very careful in adding work straight out his book and I therefore that this COI issue is resolved. Smartse (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I reviewed User:Niteshift36's talk page and it seems to be more of a civility/harassment issue at this point confined to the user talk pages and User:Stevonmfl has been blocked for 24 hours. I'm going to mark this resolved and urge the parties to work out the other issues. If self-promotion reoccurs then that issue should be brought back to this noticeboard. Drawn Some (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_31&oldid=1089087165"