Knowledge (XXG)

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 38 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Allied Artists (disambiguation)

Resolved
 – User banned, articles deleted. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a continuing saga. I don't really suspect COI but bring it up here because it was first raised here in connection with Allied Artists International, which has since been deleted.

I've been trying to sort this out but it's very complicated and involves a whole rat's nest of inter-related (or not?) articles, sockpuppets, and SPAs. As an incentive to get other editors to look at it, it's a sordid tale involving a classic motion picture studio (which in its later days distributed the infamous Story of O), crime and racketeering, embezzlement, a totaled Ferarri (sic), sex and depravity.

The whole thing is a hall of mirrors, and I have no idea what's real any more. For the full effect, start at Uppsala Mafia and just try to figure out what's going on. I dare you. Rees11 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it if you double-dog-dare me. -- Atama頭 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Too late! Admin Rlevse has deleted the whole nest and banned the user. I suspect it will pop up again though, given this user's history. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
The page was recreated, but I've tagged it as recreation from a banned user. However, I am unable to find any evidence that he was indeed banned. Icouce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left an edit summary of "ChinaUpdater" on the article's talk page. Netalarmtalk 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple socks involved, making it hard to completely ban the user. Rees11 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the long comment written on Talk:Uppsala Mafia give anyone else a bad feeling? My gut tells me the editor is some kind of activist. Also, the long list of bullet points listing "fact" after "fact" seems to be ChinaUpdater's MO (see User talk:ChinaUpdater for almost the same behavior). -- Atama頭 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I know WP:AGF, but I agree. It definitely reads like someone with an agenda. Dreaded Walrus 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The editing style is too similiar, especially the claims and references to law enforcement. Anyone thinking of requesting a SPI? Netalarmtalk 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well his edits on the talk page seem to suggest in advance that any such investigation would come back positive (see 2c and its sub-bullets, and 4, both of which could be read to suggest they are located in the same physical area or used the same physical computers). Dreaded Walrus 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started the report. Anyone who wants to add onto it, feel free, but I think it's so obvious that there's not much more that needs to be said. -- Atama頭 19:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Ya, the report/CU was just a formal assertion that the two users were related. The results were Likely Is there anything else we should do at this point with the article? Netalarmtalk 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It has attracted the attention of an admin so other than entertainment value, no. Rees11 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is awful so like all articles, there are 2 things to do. Clean it up, or get it deleted. I get a headache reading it but I'm pretty sure it's a work of synthesis, essentially using Knowledge (XXG) to publish investigative journalism. It might be worth salvaging if someone is willing to take the time to do it. Googling "Uppsala Mafia" shows that there has been real coverage of the group (in fact, I recall reading quite a bit about it a few years ago, it really is interesting). -- Atama頭 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a fascinating story, I think, and could make an interesting article. It was already deleted once so I suspect it will go away again. Much of the story is told in a less headache-inducing way at Stefan Eriksson. Rees11 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Then in that case, I'll do a redirect. I believe it should be uncontroversial considering the circumstances. -- Atama頭 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a few extra eyes

A high profile, very contentious political campaign in Seattle Washington (no small county this; this is the highest elected office in a county of over 2 million people) is heating up as November 3rd elections approach. The campaigns have gotten ugly, and not surprisingly this is spilling over into the articles. Currently, I believe they are neutral, but efforts by supporters & detractors attempting to control candidate's Knowledge (XXG) pages may have reached the point of extensive socking (see Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/He pled guilty). Both of these articles could really benefit from more watchers who don't care and can help ensure that they remain neutral. I suspect the situation will cool down after the dust settles following election day. If you have room on your watchlist, please consider keeping an eye out. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in the area and you can't turn on TV or the radio without hearing about this, it's big news right now. So I'm not surprised about this. I'll put them on my watchlist. -- Atama頭 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

This user is the subject of Ray Joseph Cormier, which has been nominated for deletion. The user has a very long history of ignoring COI guidelines and is currently posting compulsively to the AfD, the article talk page, and the talk pages of other editors who he apparently thinks will help him get the article kept . He has already been warned about canvassing here and COI here and has been energetic in ignoring them. I fervently request that he be blocked at least for the duration of the AfD -- there is every sign he will persist in being disruptive, and a block for purposes of prevention is well in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In the interest of balance and not to be in violation of canvassing, I informed an equal number of editors who registered a delete in the 2 previous Afd discussions of the current Afd. A block is not necessary since I have assured everyone I will make no more comment in the Afd discussion pending a consensus. It may not be a justification, but when the 2rd Afd tag appeared on the Article, I looked at the Knowledge (XXG) Article Traffic statistics and there was a sudden huge spike in views, from 1 or 2 a day to 53. Only Nomoskedasticity commented. I thought that to be odd. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
You are in violation of canvassing. Contacting people and asking them to help you keep an article is in complete violation of WP:CANVASS that states that biased notices are considered "campaigning". While you have also contacted people who voted to delete last time, that means you haven't performed "votestacking", which is a different kind of canvassing. I would say that if you had contacted everyone in the same, neutral manner that canvassing didn't occur but you clearly did not. If an administrator catches wind of this, you may face blocking or other consequences, but we don't get as many administrator eyes on this board as on another board (like WP:ANI which is where I would have suggested this be posted). -- Atama頭 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you follow my history you can see who I contacted and what I wrote is allowed as a ´friendly notice´ and was a generic as the automated bot sent to some, but not all, who were involved in the 2 previous Afd´s. The bot went to more deletes than to keeps. Was it canvassing? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In the diffs Nomoskedasticity presents, you wrote arguments for keeping the article and insinuated that another editor was nominating in bad faith. ("has nominated the BLP Ray Joseph Cormier for deletion again. This is the third time he has done this... Does Knowledge (XXG) allow this? Is this evidence of lack of an NPOV?") These are not generic notices. To answer your question about the bot, it notifies editors who have worked on an article about an AfD debate. It just happens that many of the people who made edits to the article also !voted in the AfD. Danger (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

InDanceCom

Resolved
 – User blocked and article deleted. Smartse (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

InDanceCom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Some edits may be valid, but this appears to be a conflict of interest. With the addition of external links, this appears to be a promotional account. Another look would be appreciated. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

InDanceCom seems to be short for "International Dance Competition-Hellas". See http://www.youtube.com/InDanceCom, which was added as an external link to Katerina pavlaki, an article created by this user and up for speedy deletion. Probable COI and promotional user name. Rees11 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The editor seems to be a single-purpose account trying to promote the web site indancecom.webs.com. They also created International dance competition hellas which I have asked to be speedily deleted as a copyright violation. I've reported the editor for username violations and spamming at WP:UAA. -- Atama頭 17:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works

Please see Talk:Douglas_Coupland#Story_2.

GoneAFK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be editing with an undeclared conflict of interest.

Looking at their contributions do seem to be a single purpose account, having only related articles related to Douglas Coupland. Their edits certainly cause some concern and suggest a COI, namely inserting lots of images from a personal website. The articles about his novels also need checking, I found this, pretty much a total re-write of Life After God. I'm not entirely convinced of a COI, they could possibly be a devoted fan but it definitely needs clarification. JN has left them a note so hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the situation. Smartse (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

On Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the anonymous user insists on the removal of negative information on the subject. Probable COI with the concerning subject, multiple edits in which negative (but well referenced) information have been removed without a proper explaination. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That content should definitely stay, however nobody should edit war and there have currently been 11 reverts on the page by both editors. I've requested semi-protection and given both editors a 3RR warning. Hopefully now it is posted here, other editors will be able to take control of the situation. Smartse (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The IP carried on reverting after 3RR and a final warning so is blocked for 55 hours. Smartse (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
7oceans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now removed exactly the same content with no explanation, I've already made two reverts so can someone else please take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Something smells funny there, either old socks or meat. I've reverted and left a level 1 warning. -- Atama頭 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Guys. I have looked at this page before and was annoyed to see another backhanded way to inject information that is old hat into the article (AGAIN!). And I really made an omission not to tap out a reason. I have edited the discussion to reflect on the bias. What is funny here is Reconsider the static is vigorously defending the only contribution byTruPrint exactly one minute after its removal. Is there a way to investigate this further? -7oceans (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I really think that you should report me and have my user checked! -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have opened a sockpuppetry case here. -- Atama頭 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
New update: I've requested that the article be semi-protected, it is now protected for a week. -- Atama頭 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
We've got another editor (EditorTwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) removing exactly the same material and using similar arguments to the other users. I've added them to the SPI. Smartse (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Inexperience with the complexities of WP is not a crime. Did it ever cross your mind that all of you are also making similar arguments? From what I gather now, your bias stems from a purely clerical procedure or protocol. You realize that you are no longer talking about the content. From a procedure viewpoint: I would think if there were a debate, the text should be taken off the main page and debated in the discussion. To have a world-wide live audience while tabloid like postings are debated is what has given WP a bad name. The BLP guidelines urge caution. A different viewpoint is also not a crime.-7oceans (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is the thing... We have a sockpuppet policy for a reason. When someone edits under different user names/IP addresses, or colludes with other editors off-wiki to create a false appearance of consensus, or false appearance at a lack of consensus, then discussion of the content can't really occur. -- Atama頭 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I am watching Lord of the Rings. Does a cabal with a consensual chant rule this island? I did not know the tools available to me to invite other like minded editors but I am learning fast. In fact I am learning from you. Thanks. I firmly oppose speculative postings or sensationalism on BLPs. I do not believe that constitues COI. Neither does the opinion that sensitive issues on a BLP should be discussed offline. I felt I was right in categorically removing it while asking for a discussion in the talk pages -- 7oceans (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
It was confirmed that 7oceans has been using sockpuppets in their edit wars on Vivek Kundra, including one editor who I had never even seen before. Also, I was told that I am not a sockpuppet which is a relief. I believe that this is resolved though I'll wait a bit to see this through all the way. -- Atama頭 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
They're still removing the content whilst claiming that the consensus is to remove it. Aren't users who use socks supposed to be blocked? Smartse (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
And on it goes, I'm getting a little tired of fighting the socks. Has 7oceans got mixed up between Lord of the Rings and Lord of the Flies btw? Smartse (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the next step here? I haven't had a dispute go this far before. I've made a couple of reverts, but I think a block would be in order. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds is the one who closed the case and blocked the sockpuppets. I'm not certain why 7oceans wasn't blocked at any point (they both violated 3RR and is a sockmaster) but you might want to ask. -- Atama頭 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I've actually asked him, I'll see what he says. -- Atama頭 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Peter thought 7oceans was already blocked, 7oceans is blocked now. -- Atama頭 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh joy, looks like we might have another sock on our hands, also from Philadelphia and using similar rationales like "look at wikipedia policy". They're also attacking another editor. I've already reverted twice (in 10 mins) so it looks like this will need more attention. Smartse (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP 173.12.38.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously given 48 hours under the 7oceans sock case, who has returned to continue the war on the article. The new block duration is one month, but any admin may lift the block if the IP will confine his edits to the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that, hadn't noticed that they had already been blocked as a sock. Smartse (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved

Mateyahoy (talk · contribs) is engaging in a slow edit war with anyone that edits Atmospheric water generator to maintain a version which mainly promotes Everest brand systems. (note that the two most recent reverts remove references to NYT and Science Daily). Also, Mateyahoy's version includes two images from the Everest website which are obviously copyright violations, yet he keeps insisting they are public domain. Some help regulating the article and sanctioning of the SPA would be appreciated. T34CH (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH (talk · contribs) has been taking down accurate information that others have put up and edited. My only contribution has been two images that show what an AWG looks like and how they work. I made both images and signed the appropraite waiver placing them in Public Domain when I uploaded them. If you check article history you can see any information I put up has been taken down or edited out except for the images. The information that was put up or edited by others is extremely accurate as to how an AWG looks and works. I have no interest in this other than to keep the information accurate and reliable. The information being supplied by T34CH is misinformation. I have suggested he put it in a seperate heading under desiccants but he seems bent on deystroying the real information, that has been put there by others. Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a thread at WP:ANI where I've replied, but essentially the COI seems to be evident and Mateyahoy has been showing signs of disruption. -- Atama頭 06:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Good luck! Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update about images reuploaded after deletion etc at ANI... please respond there. T34CH (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

images were re-uploaded with permissions :)Mateyahoy (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article reads fairly neutral. It is a good strategy to include lists of companies as an external link as a resource without specifically promoting any specific interest. Keeps WP honest as an encyclopedia. - Bismuthe (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes GreyWyvern did a good job of putting back most of the original info and getting rid of the misinformation. T34CH hasn't edited the page in a bit, so it looks like GreyWyvern's info will stay. :) Mateyahoy (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Theodorsen's relativity theory
Resolved
 – words deleted as discussed. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual posting for this board, but I would like to get some more opinions (and to share responsibility!)

Theodore Theodorsen (1897 - 1978) was an eminent Norwegian-American aerodynamicist who worked at NACA, the predecessor of NASA, became Chief Scientist for the U.S. Air Force, and wrote many papers and books. He also wrote a paper about relativity, proposing an alternative to Einstein's theory. About two years ago much of this paper was posted as a Knowledge (XXG) article, and deleted at this AfD, as a result of which a paragraph about the theory was added to the main article which read:

Although Theodorsen's life work was in aerodynamics, and he published numerous books and papers in that field, he had other interests. In particular, he wrote a paper, "Relativity and Classical Physics" which sought to show that the results of Einstein's general relativity theory could be obtained without resorting to curved space-time by a modification of Newtonian theory. The paper presents "a successful transformation of the theory of relativity into classical physics... The mathematical entities of the Einstein development have been redefined into rational physical quantities and rearranged in an organized classical framework. Einstein's 'space-time' has been eliminated and replaced by cognitive time." It was published in the Proceedings of the DKNVS Theodorsen Colloquium (see "Final Years" below) and on two later occasions , but it met with no acceptance.

In the course of wording this paragraph I had some email correspondence with Mr Theodorsen's son. He has now written to me again to say how much he appreciates the article: "...the result is excellent. I have read it over on many occasions. Our families are proud of it" but to ask us to delete the last six words "...but it met with no acceptance" from the Relativity paragraph. His arguments are:

From the very beginning (@1905) until now there have been numerous physicists who have and are still having serious reservations about Einstein's theories. A few have proposed alternative theories. On the other hand the other great theory, Quantum Mechanics (@1924), has been highly regarded from its inception with no attempts to challenge it. In fact physicists are currently having problems reconciling these two theories where they overlap.

Lastly, challenging theories such as father's are not easy to get published in prestigious journals or books.So you can see from where father's theory were published that it is not so much "no acceptance" but rather "limited exposure". Actually it is our hope that this Knowledge (XXG) article will create interest in father's work. By the way, here-in lies the great contribution Knowledge (XXG) is making.

There seem to me three possibilities:

A) no change
B) make the requested change
C) as a compromise, make it read "...but, perhaps owing to limited exposure, it met with no acceptance."

I suggest C, and propose to make that change if there is consensus. I am not happy with A - a small change, but it's deleting a fact in the hope of giving a boost, however slight, to a theory, contrary to WP:SOAP. I am posting here rather than the article talk page because I doubt if that gets much traffic. I would be glad of other opinions or alternative suggestions.

JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"..but it met with no acceptance" lacks a source. It sounds like we are criticizing something in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, but the thing itself might not be worth noting. If the world in general did not take any notice of Theodorsen's relativity theory, I'm not sure why we give it special attention. The proposed alternative 'limited exposure' would also lack a source. Sometimes things get limited exposure because they don't convince anyone. There have been a lot of wars regarding alternative theories of relativity that you may be able to find mention of over at WP:WikiProject Physics. On the other hand, if you merely listed his publications about an alternative theory of relativity without commenting on its degree of acceptance, this would not be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting way of looking at it which had not occurred to me. The words were put in out of a fear that his relativity work was being given too much emphasis per WP:FRINGE, but "gained no acceptance" is the sort of negative that can't be sourced - it didn't even make enough impact to get dismissive mentions that could be cited. My justification would be internet searches and a couple of hours spent in a university library, but that's OR, of course, not a reliable source. Well, unless any objection is raised, I will delete the words. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mediamannen probably working for Se og Hør

Resolved
 – No edits since October 30. Reopen if the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A writer by the name User:Mediamannen has claimed to be working for Se og Hør (Norway) on the Norwegian Knowledge (XXG). On no.wp and en.wp the writes has been focusing on the articles concerning this magazine and related issues. He has been reverted several times on no.wp, been blocked once and made at least one sockpuppet today. I just wanted to keep you informed. 3s (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (Please move this to the right place if I posted it in the wrong place. I'm not too familiar with en.wp)

I added Mediamannen's talk page and block log from the Norwegian Knowledge (XXG) to the above header. His account there was created on 29 October. He does seem to have been very busy editing the Norwegian version of the Se og Hør article, and he did manage to get blocked there on 30 October. I can't figure out the reason for the block. Since User:3s edits in Norwegian perhaps he can interpret. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
He was blocked for edit-waring. He later created the account Fiskepinner and kept on editing the article. It now looks like he has withdrawn from Knowledge (XXG), at least his last edit was 2 days ago. Hopefully this means that this will be no issue on en.wp. 3s (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Textile enginrreing college pabna

Stale
 – Per Rees11, and even if it wasn't stale there's no indication of a COI. -- Atama頭 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The user created the article a month ago and hasn't edited since. The article has multiple issues but I'm not sure COI is one of them. Rees11 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

American Pie

AmericanPieBookofLove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making potential COI edits to American Pie Presents: The Book of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Username is suspicious certainly. Aside from including a now-deleted copyright violation DVD cover image, their edits were actually productive. I guess it depends on whether they continue being productive or not. -- Atama頭 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AGF Management Limited

Resolved
 – Edit was reverted. -- Atama頭 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • AGF Management Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The most recent edit to this article introduces a chunk of text that's written like corporate communications content. The IP address associated with the edit traces back to an address within the company that's the article subject. Since I work for a competitor of this company, I'm uncomfortable editing or reverting the addition in any way, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict on my own part. Mlaffs (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I just want to say that it's hilarious that the company's name is "AGF". No other comment on it yet. :) -- Atama頭 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It was already reverted by Orangemike. Looking up some of the text from the IP's latest addition using Google, I see a substantial similarity with what is written in other locations by AGF so undoubtedly the IP is connected to the company (possibly from the marketing department). Since the info has been reverted and hasn't been restored, and the article itself seems neutral enough in its current state I'll consider this resolved. -- Atama頭 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Author creating article on own book?

Sjbauer1215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the page Quest of the shadow-forge, describing a book written by a Stephen J. Bauer, which seems to suggest COI. I considered raising this with the editor as per Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest, but am unsure whether I ought to do this on the talk page for the editor or the talk page for the article. I am also uncertain as to whether raising COI in this case could be considered harassment through outing, by connecting the username to the potential real name. Another disinterested reader (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Normally I think you would raise the issue directly with the editor first (on the user talk page), then bring it up here if there is still a problem. Noticing this kind of similarity between user name and real name is not outing. Outing would be if you made use of some other information to link an editor with a real person where such a linkage would not normally be apparent within Knowledge (XXG). Rees11 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that outing isn't a concern. Pointing out information that an editor has voluntarily provided (such as a username choice) and making statements about a person's identity based on that info is not a violation of our policies. If Stephen didn't want people to make the connection, he should have picked a different username. It's also possible that the editor isn't really Stephen himself, but a fan or someone who is otherwise associated with him (such as an agent or marketer). This seems to be a moot point now, because the article was speedily deleted per G7 after the author blanked the page. The editor's user page was speedily deleted as advertising. -- Atama頭 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. It certainly is impressive how fast events can move. Another disinterested reader (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted)

I am relisting this thread; the bot had archived it because of inaction, but it has not been properly addressed to date. GoneAFK has not edited since the opening of this thread. It is probably best to give this another week, to give GoneAFK an opportunity to comment.

Please see Talk:Douglas_Coupland#Story_2.

GoneAFK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be editing with an undeclared conflict of interest.

Looking at their contributions do seem to be a single purpose account, having only related articles related to Douglas Coupland. Their edits certainly cause some concern and suggest a COI, namely inserting lots of images from a personal website. The articles about his novels also need checking, I found this, pretty much a total re-write of Life After God. I'm not entirely convinced of a COI, they could possibly be a devoted fan but it definitely needs clarification. JN has left them a note so hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the situation. Smartse (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney is a sockpuppet and used to defame

The page has shown photographs of Master Bruce Cairney and he has nothing to do with this page or user name. This problem was brought forward in the last few weeks and the page was cleared and now there is more slander back there again. This problem has been going on with this user name for years - what does wikipedia do about this type of abuse? Bacmac (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wish I can help you but I can't find the specific incident which you are talking about. Can you include some relevant diffs as part of your evidence? I've looked over your recent contributions and I don't see any intersection with you and a user "Bruce Cairney". Can you also link to the pages where the offenses are taking place? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
You're complaining about an editor who hasn't edited in nearly 6 months? Or are you complaining about the message left at the talk page? I don't really see what "abuse" you're worried about. -- Atama頭 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (again!) I guess it has something to do with this guy and this link that was posted on the user's talk page by an IP editor last week. It seems reasonably legitimate for someone to post it to his userpage and I can't see how in any way there are any conflict of interest problems here. Smartse (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If this was an active editor, and there was reason to believe that the editor was misrepresenting himself as Bruce Cairney then a WP:UAA complaint might be relevant. Otherwise I would say drop it. This isn't the first time that Bacmac has complained about this user, and last time there wasn't much to the complaint. I'm wondering if Bacmac is actually Bruce Cairney? If someone was impersonating me on Knowledge (XXG) that might make me uncomfortable at the very least. -- Atama頭 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK OK OK - you guys must not have read or checkd the previous problem that I refer to from a few weeks ago. I dont know how to navigate my way around real well and some of you guys out there could obviousley find the previius registered problem that resulted in the page being edited/ content deleted and see this is the same problem again. The user name "Bruce Cairney" is being used to defame and slander "Bruce Cairney" and yes your ... I guess it has something to do with this guy - is correct as you can see that he is the same guy whos photo was posted into this page. According to the feedback from the registered problem a couple weeks back, this is quite an unusual case where a user name is created to be used (by someone other than the named person) for the purposes of slandering an individual and to drive traffic to other slanderous websites that have been produced by a very active antagonist of the subject user name. Bacmac (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the page, which you could also have done. I was actually involved in the last "problem" so I don't really need to check it. If you're concerned with people showing up and posting inflammatory things, I suggest you contact Ultraexactzz, they deleted the talk page last time. Ask them to either semi-protect it indefinitely, or "salt" it because an IP recreated it with the same attack info as before. Semi-protection will stop anonymous or new users from adding bad things to that page, and "salting" it will prevent anyone from recreating it again. -- Atama頭 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thnx Atama, i dont know how you can know so much detail , but it is all appreciated. I will follow your link and see where it takes me. Did i mention before that this is a false user account, ie/ someone claiming to be Bruce Cairney when they are not? Bacmac (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The User:Bruce Cairney account could be blocked and its talk page protected if we saw evidence of abuse. So far the only visible problem is an IP editor who added a link at User talk:Bruce Cairney which is defamatory to the real Cairney. I have semiprotected that talk page for a month to be sure that doesn't recur. Meanwhile, I'll leave a message on the supposed Bruce Cairney editor's talk that he is being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have seen older pages within this user account have housed various derogatory comments. As well a photograph of the real Bruce Cairney was added after and while derogatory comments were on the user account pages - anyone who was editing their page and adding photographs would have removed the slander instead of leaving it. For what it is worth , I vote for the user name to be 'salted' or removed Bacmac (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I wondered about the uploaded images, but how would the fake Cairney acquire photos of the real Cairney? (Assuming those are real). If you can clarify how you come to be interested in the Cairney case, that would help. (There could be some rival martial arts instructors who are having a feud, and we need to be a little cautious here). If the problem has been 'going on for years' can you tell us more? Give us the name of one of the 'slanderous websites.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Easy to acquire photos just copy them from the net - I dont understand your 'rival' comments etc - this is not the real Bruce Cairney his websites are located at www.choikwang-do.com.au & www.ckdmac.com.au and they show a current contact email address of ckdmac at hotmail dot com - check and email him if there is doubt about my claims, no use in me doing it cause i dont know how to confirm that on wiki anyhow. Bacmac (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Waterfalls in Hamilton, Ontario

HamiltonCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is systematically adding potential spam links to articles concerning waterfalls in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. I'd suggest also checking existing links in these articles not added by this user to check for spam-ness. Tckma (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The editor was perhaps a bit overzealous in adding the links, but the website in question is owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority which is a government agency. The website itself seems somewhat useful as an information resource. As for a conflict of interest, if HamitlonCA works for the city of Hamilton or the Conservation Authority maybe a note of caution would suffice. freshacconci talktalk 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The mass insertion of links skirts along the edges of our spam policy. I don't think the links themselves are particularly problematic, but when an editor adds so many in such a short time it's difficult to argue that the links were added with much forethought. -- Atama頭 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it skirts the policy, it breaches it IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This guy's editing career on Knowledge (XXG) began and ended on October 28, and was all done in about half an hour. Maybe we can close this in a day or two. This report will remain in the archives in case the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

McGraw-Hill

It looks like staff at McGraw-Hill has started adding mentions of their books to quite a few articles. So far I've found:

Should the additions be reverted? - Eureka Lott 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The most disturbing edits were edits that linked to Amazon where the books could be purchased. Adding such links is a clear violation of WP:ELNO#5. Aside from that, the COI seems clear but mostly the additions were still helpful to the articles. I think you have too look at each edit on a case-by-case basis and not just revert them all en-masse. -- Atama頭 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I find the "Further reading" additions disturbing too. From what we know, it seems clear that they are doing so to promote their book. While the book may add to the article, the individual that added it is of concern. Netalarmtalk 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I left a warning. It would take a while to go through all this user's edits, since some may be appropriate and some not, and it would take an expert to tell the difference. I undid one of them, we'll see what happens. Rees11 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Should the additions stay? Netalarmtalk 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
No. It is common for edits by link spamming WP:SPA accounts to be reverted (see examples at WT:WikiProject Spam). When reverting link spamming, I try to exercise judgment, but in the case of simply adding a link to a book by a particular publisher, with no text in the article or the edit summary to indicate the point of that book, I would simply undo the edit. An edit summary might be "rv per WP:BOOKSPAM" or perhaps "rv unexplained addition, see WP:BOOKSPAM". Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a bot for that? Rees11 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all the spam links by the first IP with the help of some automated scripts. I'll see if mass rollback would be helpful in the 2nd IP. Netalarmtalk 08:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, not helpful at all. I've gone over some of the edits. If anyone else wants to help, just remove the book spamming. Netalarmtalk 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Graemedavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is sort of an unconventional request. About a year ago, Graemedavis came to the talk page and asked us to include his book in the article. The book is an analysis of Beedle the Bard and was released by a crowdsourced publishing company eight days after Bard came out. We sort of shrugged off the issue, and nothing happened. Recently he has come back to the article and once again asked for his book to be added. In full disclosure, he never actually edited the article, but he wants at least some mention of his book on several grounds, including that his book being released eight days after is significant, and also that not including "what is still the sole book of literary criticism on the subject" is making the article non-WP:NPOV.

The user opened a MedCab case which was held off pending further discussion, but I wanted to start a thread here first and see what people think. Can COIN still handle this issue even though there haven't been any actual controversial edits to the page, just recommendations? Should this book be included in the article, and if so, in what capacity? — HelloAnnyong 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been careful throughout not to post on the article page as I recognise that there would be a Conflict of Interest. Rather I have drawn editors' attention (on the talk page) to the existence of this book and I have been 100% clear that it is a book I have written (even my user name is virtually my real name). The response has been most unpleasant with attacks on me, the book (without reading it), the publisher, the editor. There are a whole range of behavioural issues here (in terms of Knowledge (XXG)'s behaviour guidelines) and there are real problems where someone who actively tries to avoid conflict of interest has to put up with this level of personal attack as a direct consequence of not breaching guidelines (eg using a user name which is not their name, getting a friend to make a post - both wrong actions). There's an attack even in the introductory post above - note that "Exploring Beedle the Bard" has been published by a standard trade/commercial press and pays me a royalty. It was not crowdsourced. I believe the Beedle the Bard article now breaches the neutrality of point of view guideline because it excludes all mention of this book not because of the appropriacy or otherwiise of the material but because some editors have come up with so many fatuous reasons for excluding it and are so entrenched that a change of mind would seem a miracle. I think this matter should be discussed within the MedCab area as it includes NPOV and behaviour issues and I'm far from convinced the COI is even central (I have not posted anything to the article). However if users here feel some useful progress could be made here I'm willing to discuss. Graemedavis (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
In full disclosure, the publisher is Nimble Books. — HelloAnnyong 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Dozens of books published by Nimble Books LLC are cited by Knowledge (XXG) articles. The press was established in 2004 and has published over 100 titles. It specialises in books which are quick to print, hence its name. I really think we need this discussion on a MedCab page. Graemedavis (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is the right venue for this. Graeme admits his COI, and has been pretty careful to abide by the voluntary restrictions suggested at the WP:COI guideline. This is essentially a content dispute, and should be handled by the usual means (article's talk page, or failing that, dispute resolution, which could include mediation). A question, has this book been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard? If it is deemed a reliable source by consensus then it might merit a mention in the article, if not, then I would suggest it doesn't. -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Taking it to RSN was the other option I had considered, but I thought I would bring it up here first since it's not a content dispute just yet. It went straight to MedCab, and I thought that it might be best to explore other avenues before going down the whole mediation process. But I suppose a post at RSN can't hurt. — HelloAnnyong 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Myorganicfamily and User:Erinely

Miessence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - These two users, Myorganicfamily (talk · contribs) and Erinely (talk · contribs) have been editing this article with an obvious conflict of interest, and the former has admitted to considering Knowledge (XXG) an advertising "independent representative" with the statement "Any representative can represent the company in advertisements (including wikipedia) as long as the title "independent representative" is included whenever (in the case of the stub 'miessence') the tradename 'miessence' is used.". See my talk page for details (1, 2, 3) and my responses on the user's talk page (1). I was tempted to report to WP:UAA, but the advertising is not quite so blatant. If you think it is appropriate to file at WP:AIVU, by all means do so. Intelligentsium 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Honestly, I'd report both. The advertising was unambiguous and certainly a violation of WP:ELNO, and while it's good for one of the editors to attempt to discuss matters with you, declaring that their edits were okay because some rules outside of Knowledge (XXG) allowed them is a red flag to me. -- Atama頭 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: Orangemike has blocked Myorganicfamily for spamming/username issues. -- Atama頭 17:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's sole contributions have been to create pages for Creative Minds, an elementary school based in Egypt. I believe all the pages have the same content on them. Since schools are not a subject deletable under A7 I am wondering what should be done about this user, as his current behaviour leads me to suspect an SPA. TheLetterM (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged them yesterday as spam and they where speedied, I agree that they do seem to be a SPA, hopefully they won't recreate them. Smartse (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The tag on Creative Minds was removed by AmrAbbass, I've restored it and warned them about doing that. -- Atama頭 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible Allied Artists again.

I'm thinking there is no way this user would just come back and edit articles related to Allied Artists all of a sudden, as the editor has not edited in a long time. This is also kind of strange, because the page was a redirect. Does anyone else think this may be a possible sock? Netalarmtalk 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The self-revert seems out of character for the particularly tenacious sock/meatpuppetry that was going on before. Also, look at the nature of the edits they made; they removed a lot of the "junk" that the socks were insisting on before, and citing WP:BLP as justification. They also apologized for undoing the redirect on the talk page. My opinion is that this is a completely uninvolved editor, look at their comments at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International where they were strongly opposed to ChinaUpdater. As to why they edited after being away for a long time, maybe they were busy in real life? When I was new to Knowledge (XXG) I would sometimes go for a month or longer without an edit. -- Atama頭 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that Niki's only edit prior to the edit of his (probable) autobiography was an edit to the newspaper that employs him. Just a note, the AfD for the Niki Cheong article is here. -- Atama頭 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Iwaterpolo

The COI is that he is associated with SOCR and many of his edits are to add links to SOCR. PDBailey (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend that Iwaterpolo no longer add external links to SOCR. I don't really have any comment about their other contributions to Knowledge (XXG) (which don't seem overly disruptive). -- Atama頭 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have no problems with his non SOCR related edits either. I guess the point is that he appeared to agree that he should not be adding links, then did. I then asked them to remove them and discontinue this activity and he ignored me (well, he has not added any more links in the last week). I didn't really know what to do next, so I came here. PDBailey (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The report seems both accurate and and appropriate. If he doesn't add more links, that's just fine. If he does, and enough time has passed that this discussion ends up being archived, search the noticeboard archives using the search field at the top of this page (just search for "Iwaterpolo" and I'm sure you'll find it). Then you can link to it in any further discussions with him, or anyone else. Thanks! -- Atama頭 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but what am I not getting. What value does this noticeboard have, don't understand. Also, I undid all the edits with COI since the claim of COI. PDBailey (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, the WP:COI guidelines have suggestions on how an editor can avoid getting into conflicts when they have a conflict of interest. A person with a COI who is causing disruption may find themselves under greater scrutiny once that COI is identified. But it usually doesn't automatically get them blocked or anything, in fact we have a number of productive editors who have COIs but still conform to WP:NPOV and other policies. So I guess the question is, what would you want to have done? -- Atama頭 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The way I see it, this user's edit before this last week have included, (1) adding links to SOCR, after having these removed by me and another editor, (2) starting a discussions trying to get them readded and arguing against WP policy on links to Java applets, (3) requesting a third opinion on this topic when already in a discussion with three people, (4) starting a RFC on the same topic in the same place. Even then I had to drag out of him that he actually had a COI and he agreed that he really should have acted according to COI. Then he just went about his merry business adding links again and never following the COI process. I think an admin should tell him that his previous actions were not in line with policy (I don't think he necessarily sees it that way, so this would help), and that any contribution he would like to make is welcome and appreciated but that this one kind of contribution he is asked to make according to the COI rules which the admin would be happy to help him find resources for if he has questions.
Alternately, I think I should be told that all of the rules are really only there for people who deep down want to follow them and that I shouldn't worry too much about this stuff. PDBailey (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An administrator would have no more authority than you or I to give such warnings. If you want a second person to do so, I will. All that an administrator can do that we can't is block them, and I doubt that they've done enough to warrant such a block. -- Atama頭 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, consider it requested. PDBailey (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've left them the standard COI warning template, as well as a personal note that it is discouraged to link to UCLA sites, and also to encourage them to acknowledge their affiliation on their user page. Since it has been close to 2 weeks since the last COI edit I hope that they've already stopped. -- Atama頭 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(backdent) he is back at it again here adding a huge image of SOCR as well as a link. The rest of the article does appear to be a useful addition to Knowledge (XXG)'s statistics pages. PDBailey (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the SOCR reference, since he has provided a different reference for the information already given. I've also cleaned up a couple of other things in the article. -- Atama頭 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see that one, I had already deleted a page-wide screen shot of SOCR and an external link. PDBailey (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that screenshot was a non sequitur and totally unnecessary, at least the reference was somewhat appropriate (if unnecessary). -- Atama頭 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Editor blocked, edits reverted. -- Atama頭 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Unusual and largely unreferenced and poorly formatted contributions on UNRIC made by User:Un regional info centre, although not sure if information is actually valid or not, which is why I have not reverted yet. Name reflects a UN organisation. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Censorship or NPOV?

Also, are COI notices about action of an admin who edits the page of a company he worked at to consistently remove negative info appropriate if the editing is not recent, but is persistent? It's stuff that's not complimentary, but may or may not fall short of NPOV. Is this sort of POV pushing ever acceptable? This is a well-established admin. I'd like to hear views before leveling a specific charge.--CCritic (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are the the same editor who made this edit as an IP? If so, it's good to see that you've created an account; while I respect the right to edit anonymously without an IP address it is easier to work with editors who have a clear record in the project. Back to the matter at hand, do you have proof that the administrator worked at the company? (Did the admin declare it, for example.) If so, a COI claim might be warranted. However, if you see the COI guideline, specifically the section on non-controversial edits, you'll see that "removing spam and reverting vandalism" is generally okay. Negative information that is unsourced could be considered defamation and I'd argue that anyone should be allowed to remove such information. If that negative information is properly sourced, though, then such removal could be seen as whitewashing by an editor with a COI and might be worth at least a question about the behavior. Just keep in mind that it's best not to template the regulars; you'd be better off not leaving a COI warning template or anything along those lines, just ask them in your own language. -- Atama頭 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not asking about that user or Groupon; I had but removed the question; see my edits to this page. In the case in question, the user has admitted to having a position at the company. I have the proof. Please reconsider the question in this light. --CCritic (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It would still depend on the nature of the information removed, but it's certainly possible that there is a COI concern. Let me reassure you that you can definitely ask a question about a COI without making an accusation. You shouldn't worry about reprisals for mentioning the person's name, any editor who is offended by someone questioning a possible COI should be pointed at WP:AGF and I would hope that an established administrator in particular should have enough experience to take such a question in stride. -- Atama頭 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you went ahead and addressed Groupon anyway: I'll reply: the user keeps reverting the IP's comment on his talk page as 'vandalism'. The user apologized for calling the IP's edits vandalism, but keeps doing it (latest example; per: "The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism". (emphasis original)) The IP certainly didn't add unsourced info, as you imply. It's sourced, and I think it's well-sourced. The ferocity and inappropriateness of the users responses suggests there's a COI. But I am not claiming there is one. I do think the inappropriateness of the vandalism accusations warrants an administrative response. It's no way to treat someone. It's a blatant violation of policy WP:CIVIL. OTOH, I agree that the IPs edit to Groupon should not stand as is. Two wrongs don't make a right. (Is that policy? It should be.) --CCritic (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Though it's off-topic, I agree that Jwesley78 is toeing the line of WP:HARRASS, I'll leave them a note just so that they're aware. -- Atama頭 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Safehandling and PhaSeal

Resolved
 – Editors have gone away for now, but promise to come back next year. Rees11 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect both a COI and sockpuppetry. It's beyond credulity to think that two editors would naturally stumble upon the talk page of a new, somewhat obscure orphaned article to make their first and only edits as attempts to defend the article. However, absent any PhaSeal promotion there's probably no harm done. Assuming that the article is accurate I think it might be useful to have in the encyclopedia. I'll try to verify the NIOSH publication, I suspect it is available online. -- Atama頭 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was able to verify some of it, and also confirmed the claim that there are multiple peer-reviewed studies regarding the technology. -- Atama頭 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Safehandling has attempted to reinsert info about Phaseal, as has Brendan tate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the likely sock/meatpuppets who commented on the talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I came very close to opening a sockpuppet investigation but I've decided to assume good faith. The article has potential and I'm glad that it was created, and I assume that the editor(s) in question will be able to help expand it properly with the apparent knowledge they have. But if they keep pushing the PhaSeal thing, I might go ahead and open that case. -- Atama頭 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at the two IPs who defended the article on the talk page, one is American and one is Swedish (product is made by a Swedish company), so I'm thinking it's meatpuppetry although could be a combination. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brendan tate has admitted that he and Safehandling are being paid, apparently by Phaseal, to "own" this article and represent Phaseal as the only true Closed system drug transfer device. See my talk page here.

Yes, I know this is bad and I'm sure some of you are ready to jump down their throats. But please, let's start by gently explaining policy to them and try to get them to understand that their boss has given them an assignment that can't be done. Maybe we can get them to contribute in a positive way. Rees11 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think if they were blocked that would prevent them from coming under any pressure from their employers to keep doing this, whereas if they continue to have live accounts they'll have a dilemma if their boss asks them to try to slip references in unnoticed. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that it isn't up and running yet, but there are proposed guidelines and proposed policy for paid editing. See WP:PAID for links to both. Going by the description of what they are doing, it seems to come under the realm of Paid Advocacy which, under the terms of the proposed policy in its current form, would be prohibited. Stephen! 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


lets get some explainations going here...first up i am pretty much a wikipedia virgin, so if i am breaking some rules, i am doing it unitnentionally and with innocent ignorance...secondly, i do work for phaseal (i am their new copywriter) and one of many assignments i have been given is to create a wikipedia page, which so far it seems i have been unsuccessful in doing...thirdly, i did say to rees11 that i was told to 'own' the 'closed system drug transfer device' phrase, and i did also tell him that i know personally that this cannot be done. nobody owns anything on wikipedia....next, it is important to let the world know that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, and that the competitors false market themselves as being so to. there are over twenty independant, peer reviewed publish studies that verify this, and these scientific studies was the topic of one of the two sites that were taken down. the brief i was given was to make this clear on a reputable site on the internet, and wikipedia was chosen as that site... all i want to do is get the facts out on wikipedia, to let anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about the world of the closed system drug transfer device...next, i probably am guilty of being a meatpuppet and for this i apologise- as i said before i am a wikipedia virgin and didnt know how it worked....i am not interested in 'slipping references in unnoticed' (which to me seems impossible to do anyway), what i am interested in doing is getting the facts up, and once everybody is happy with that, to me this work assignment is over...and i wouldnt regard myself as a paid editor either, and if i was i wouldnt be doing this for the two dollars an hour that it would work out as....the thing with pushing the phaseal line isnt about the fact that i work for them, its about providing the correct information- that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, which as i said before, is a fact acknowledged in the oncology business....so if i have offended anyone, i am sorry and i i have broken any wikipedia rules then i am also sorry, but facts are facts are facts...brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes we're harsh on people who have a conflict of interest with articles. Much of the time this is justified. I think in your case, we've been a little more forgiving because the whole "Closed System Drug Transfer Device" is a good subject to have an article about. When editors produce good articles we ease off because that's what Knowledge (XXG) needs. So know that at least I appreciate what you're doing, and if you're willing to follow the rules in Knowledge (XXG) then you are more than welcome to continue.
Here's the thing... You're an advocate for PhaSeal. I'm glad that you acknowledge that, and that doesn't automatically make you ineligible to be an editor here. We're not against PhaSeal. And we don't have any rules that say it can't be mentioned in the article. But if it is, we need to have references. We need to have something backing up the claims, and it has to be reliable. I see that attempts have been made to do that, and that's good. If you're supposed to promote PhaSeal, and developing a good article about this subject ends up promoting PhaSeal, then you and Knowledge (XXG) both prosper. Our conflict of interest guidelines state, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Knowledge (XXG)’s interests." This may be one of those times. But know that your edits will be scrutinized, and may be questioned often. And there may come a point in which you will be asked to abide by stricter COI guidelines that suggest that you not edit the article directly, but that you instead make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to apply. For now, though, ask for advice and be open to others' suggestions and you'll be fine. -- Atama頭 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Some new information has been added to the article about Phaseal by Safehandling which makes it look quite unbalanced - "In all of these scientific studies only the PhaSeal system met the definitional requirements to be termed a closed system drug transfer device" - that's the last sentence so it reads like the conclusion of the article. It has been tagged for expert attention but should this material be removed from the article until the issue is resolved? I'd also suggest that Safehandling and Brendan Tate discuss any proposed edits concerning PhaSeal on the talk page before making them to the article per WP:COIC. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
We need someone with access to those paid sources to take a look at them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think that's the only problem, articles where all statements are verifiable can still be biased if the focus is weighted towards a particular viewpoint or conclusion. I think WP:YESPOV is relevant here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed those last two paragraphs. Discussion of the article content should probably move to the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


seriously, can you guys edit out half a paragraph that was both factually and referenced correctly, which then makes the other half of the paragraph false information? this is getting annoying, not because its taking me time to deal with it, but the things i have to deal with. i feel as though i have just been taken for a ride....you tell me that you want this to happen, so ok i do that in order to get the correct text reinstated, and because i have done what you wanted, you then say that you cant reinstate the text because of some primary source information rule?????? so which one is it? i am beginning to think this is a game to some people and that its not worth our time anymore.......brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, your conflict of interest is going to bring a lot of scrutiny to the additions you make to the article. It doesn't help that you cite the same studies as references that your company's web sites use. It's almost like you're using Knowledge (XXG) to host another web page for your company. Now, while we appreciate the information you're offering, it would be ludicrous for us to take your word that it is "factual". Even someone who didn't have the COI would have such edits questioned. -- Atama頭 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

hey atama,

you say that there is a problem with citing references that appear on our companies website. what company doesnt have relevant press releases, news items or in our case scientific studies relating to their business linked to their website? this is a fact of all companies who have an internet profile.

another fact is that these studies appear elsewhere (in credible scientific journals) before they get to our website. and if you look carefully, on the wikipedia page, no references are linked back to our website. in my learning about wikipedia i realise that this is a no-no, and so when i didnt know any better and did that, it was deleted and rightly so.

when you say that it would be ludicrous to take these published scientific studies as 'factual', does this mean that the publications that they first appeared in have no credibility either? as i said before, yes they do appear on our company website (just lik all other companies have) and i see this as a storing place for them, seen as how they are about us.

we are not trying to get wikipedia to host another phaseal website. we are trying to get across to anyone who is interested that there is a difference between what is a closed system drug transfer device and what is not. it just so happens that according to the definitions, phaseal is and our competitors arent which is backed by the scientific studies.

then you say that you are having trouble determining the reliability of Jorgenson. he is such a high player in this industry that his position and his reputation demand that he remains impartial. i only reference him because out of all the scientific studies relating to the performance of the phaseal system, he was the guy who did the studies comparing phaseal to the competitors. we have others where he is not the lead author/scientist, but he is associated with all the comparison studies. i wish it was different, but it isnt. this is/was his interest, and his findings were so conclusive that there was no need for anyone else to replicate them.

so i am asking you once again to ok what we want to put up on the page. it will be impartial because we are going to mention the competitors. it will be factual because the scientific studies have proved what we want to say, which is that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer system to meet the leakproof and airtight requirements of the NIOSH and the ISOPP definitions. and it will be referenced to the original sources of the information e.g. the original scientific journals that they were first published in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have another concern which I've added to the article's talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In this comment http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Closed_system_drug_transfer_device&diff=322977591&oldid=322953352, Brendan tate has made it clear that he is not just seeking to promote his employers but to denigrate their competitors. Unfortunately this is not going to be one of those occasions where outside interests coincide with Knowledge (XXG)’s interests. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article during my research on drug delivery systems and then on to the discussion on this COI page. I think of Knowledge (XXG) as an encyclopedia. While the subject may be mildly interesting at best, I don't think that mentioning any specific manufacturer in a positive or negative light is necessary for the article. It becomes a brochure or a negative ad campaign. -- Bismuthe (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The full story?

It seems there's more to this than we've been told. Carmel Pharma (PhaSeal's manufacturer) and one of their competitors, Tevadaptor, are locked in a debate over whose product is and isn't whether Tevadaptor is or isn't a 'closed system drug transfer device', which seems to have arisen when Carmel petitioned the FDA to withdraw their approval of Tevadaptor as a closed system device; there are claims and counter-claims, and both companies have commissioned studies which they claim proves their position. (Details on article talk page.)

An attempt to weigh up the conflicting studies and draw a conclusion within the article would be unacceptable per WP:SYNTH, so I think at this point we should decline User:Brendan tate's request to reinsert his deleted text. The question then is whether the article gives coverage to both companies' claims, or we follow User:Bismuthe's suggestion that the article should not mention any specific manufacturers or brands. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a controversial subject, whether products that claim to be closed systems really are, and which ones. I did a random sample and not all product articles mention brand names. Any mention of brand names in this one would be a POV magnet. I agree, just don't mention them. -- Atama頭 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree in view of the discussion on the article talk page, which is going round in circles and getting a little unpleasant (that suggestion that I might be working for their competitors!). In principle a mention of PhaSeal being first on the market might have been relevant, but we can't do that without mentioning there are others available, and the PhaSeal representatives will start up about their study if the article calls Tevadaptor a closed system device.
This whole thing is about which products meet definitions published by NIOSH and ISOPP, but those definitions are not mandatory so this debate is really only relevant within the pharmaceutical industry, not to the general reader - I don't want to see the article being turned into a battleground. Leaving the brand names out seems to be the least controversial solution, I know the PhaSeal representatives won't be happy with that, but I don't think they're going to settle for anything less than what they originally wanted so I can't see us reaching a solution that appeases everyone here. I think it's time to move towards a conclusion. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Brendan tate has put a message on the article talk page saying he doesn't have any more time to spend on this but he will be "back to further the cause sometime in the first three months of next year". Looks like we can wrap this up for now. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Wright

Resolved
 – Article deleted via AfD. Rees11 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually traffic in COI matters, so I'm bringing this here for outside action. Matthew_wright (talk · contribs) has an interesting and self-promotional userpage, and avidly edits the article on MWICPS, an institution he founded and operates. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the article is a mess and doesn't look to be notable (at first glance). Matthew also put a vandalism warning template on the article that is meant for user name space, and removed comments on the talk page that were critical of the article. -- Atama頭 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
It's got the strangest citation format I've ever seen. Rees11 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed. I'm sure that Matthew is trying to recreate our reference scripts using straight HTML. That's a new one to me. -- Atama頭 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just learning from examples. Still new to Knowledge (XXG)'s format. Sorry for the messiness.Matthew wright (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Matthew wright has expressed himself aggressively to editors who have made edits he doesn't like, using the words "coward" and "vandal". He has described proposing the article for deletion as "vandalism" and has threatened to remove further instances. The COI and promotional nature of his editing is beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, in early versions of MWICPS he referred to himself as "A pioneering young American male, 'M. Wright'", and claimed his business's results are "impressive". The article, before other editors toned it down, was totally promotional, and Matthew wright has also added himself to Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedians with articles, despite the fact that the article is about a completely different Matthew Wright (a former American politician now 50 years old, whereas this Matthew Wright states elsewhere that he is in his early 20s). Some of his edit summaries are somewhat puzzling; for example in this edit he gives the edit summary "Updated links and removed ambiguous statements", but in fact no statements are removed at all. Likewise in this edit he gives the edit summary "Rewrite for greater compliance with Knowledge (XXG) Guidelines on Verifiability", but makes numerous changes, most of which are do not appear to have anything to do with verifiability, including adding a particular user to a threat he had plced in the article to have users blocked if they make edits he doesn't like. And so it goes on, but I have spent enough time on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate doing your job and look forward to obtaining proper nobility in the future through further work with my school in South Korea. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, I wasn't aware of Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines 'to the T' until doing some research after my article was first nominated for deletion. I did however think it best to leave this note to clear up any possible confusions that you or any other member of the Knowledge (XXG) community might still have in regards to me, my intentions, or the school in Korea.
  1. In the beginning, I was not exactly sure how Knowledge (XXG) worked or how to properly create articles, much less even aware of the WP:N guideline (or any other guidelines for that matter), and as the date and time of the nomination for speedy deletion came eerily close to recent attacks by users of some particular website forums, it was a poor assumption on my part to assume even if it was one of these individuals, that they did not have a valid argument against the article. This may help the kind knowledgeable Wikipedian veterans to understanding my state of mind and "aggression" in the matter, and is truly the reason behind the first editing of comments and removal of nomination for deletion. I truly believed it was being vandalized and was not aware of the procedure for nominating and challenging nominations for deletion. I am now however and intend to handle matters such as these with greater finesse in the future. Sorry for any misunderstandings with that.
  2. Of course the article IS 100% self promotional. I wasn't attempting to write a neutral article in the slightest, I was attempting to write an article about my own school so others could stumble across it (as they have and will continue to do for all time thanks to Google's cache). (see "I was not exactly sure how Knowledge (XXG) worked or how to properly create articles" above for explanation of self promotional article being posted.) This also explains why my user page was the way it was. I honestly thought it was a "user page", where you could put a complete profile of yourself if you felt like it, but I was obviously very wrong as it too was deleted (for reasons of which are still not completely clear to me).
  3. For the record, I did 90% of the 'toning down' of the article after reading the appropriate guidelines for posting articles. I'm pretty sure the last post arguably follows all guidelines less the WP:Notability ones.
  4. Either you read the name wrong or I typed it wrong (more likely), but there was no fraud or deception intended in adding myself to Wikipedians with Knowledge (XXG) articles. It was done after my nomination for deletion after becoming aware of the apparent COI issues must of the users voting were concerned about. It was intended to make it transparent that I was writing the article and a show of good faith. As my real name is Matthew Wright and my user name is Matthew wright, I can see where some confusion may have arisen on your part.
  5. Article edits were done while multitasking. No argument about their spirastic-ness. On the charge of laziness while leaving edit comments that I thought no one even needed nor payed any attention to before-- guilty as charged. Won't happen again.
  6. Last but not least, as the community (and guidelines) of Knowledge (XXG) know all too well, when dealing with living persons there is a greater possibility of negative impact due to carelessness of edits, comments, etc. For this reason I would (and have) ask(ed) users not refer to my school as "fake" or state matter-of-factly that it "does not exist". The school address is up to date, registered with the South Korean Ministry of Education with all appropriate licensure and registrations to legally operate in the country of South Korea. This is easily verifiable through direct communication with the Gyeonggido Provincial Office of Education (경기도 교육청) and let this be a reminder that the existence of the school is not in question- the notability of the article for inclusion into Knowledge (XXG) (which is not an archive or directory of all things in the universe), is (or was anyway).

I will repost the article (in a much more neutral tone) at a time of which the school has obtained significant notability. I am also thinking that Knowledge (XXG) Koren might be a better home for the article at that time as international nobility may never occur.

Thanks for your hard work in keeping Knowledge (XXG) a clean and well managed resource for everyone. Matthew wright (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MWICPS is now at Afd, and looking shakey. User:Matthew wright also looks to me like a speediable G11, clearly way over the top for a user page and not in compliance with the letter or spirit of WP:UP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Speedy deleted. Rees11 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AdamHHurstfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has very obvious COI with these two articles: Adam Hurstfield and Adam H. Hurstfield. Both of the articles are created by him. Have given COI-warning to the author on User talk:AdamHHurstfield. I have never reported any COI so I hope this is the correct way to do it.  Ilyushka88  talk  19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

COI is clear, and the claims made in the articles are unverifiable and probably untrue. The Hitmakers seems to be a non-show (I can't see that it's actually broadcast), and if he had really been nominated for all of these awards you'd think there would be at least one news article mentioning him. I've redirected the newer article to the older one, and I've nominated the older article for deletion. And you did this COI report just fine. -- Atama頭 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Article was speedy deleted as a hoax after the AFD discussion, but has just been recreated by Cravejr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've nominated it for speedy deletion per G4. This user has been an occasional editor since 2007 so not sure if this is evidence of another COI, but I don't see why anyone without a connection would want to recreate it. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And again as Adam H., by a SPA AmberHopeEyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both now deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Article has been GA-delisted, but discussion here found no evidence of COI.

--JN466 19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article was created by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing Knowledge (XXG) on 10 September 2009. It was promoted to GA by Simon Kidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 27 September 2009; Simon Kidd started the GA assessment with his 14th edit to Knowledge (XXG). Simon Kidd has explained on the article's talk page that he used to edit under a different account name, and has now chosen to edit under his real name; hence the short edit history. He has also stated that he does not know the subject.

A COI concern arose from the fact that two people with the same names as the two WP accounts involved have commented at amazon on Kevin R. D. Shepherd, praising his work. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong in this, but it seemed a considerable coincidence.

The subject's photograph used in the article was uploaded by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs), who claims to be the copyright holder.

The subject's website carries a prominent link to this article, even though it was only created quite recently.

The article is currently at WP:GAR (Knowledge (XXG):Good_article_reassessment/Kevin_R._D._Shepherd/1); the main concern is that it is heavily based on self-published primary sources. (There also seems to be some prior Knowledge (XXG) history, see .) --JN466 02:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should probably assume good faith in terms of the COI at the moment, it seems like the poor sourcing and GA assessment may just be honest mistakes by newbies who don't entirely understand guidelines for sourcing and the criteria for GAs. As I've said on the reassessment page, if has to be delisted as the sourcing is really poor, and from a quick google it looks as though a comedian by the same name (who doesn't have an article) is perhaps more notable than this philosopher. It isn't totally out of the question that Simon Kidd and Alex jamieson are just fans of his writing, and therefore it is quite likely that they might be have written reviews on Amazon and made the article here independently of each other. As for the link on the subjects website, maybe one of the editors emailed him to say? If Alex and Simon could let us know if they have had any communication with the subject about the article it would be useful. I personally would be interested to know where the photo came from. Smartse (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Smartse, and thanks for your comments. I have contributed to the discussion on the GA reassessment page. Please read my comments about sourcing there. I would like to hear the opinion of others also, before any delisting decision is made. I'm not sure that the point about the comedian is valid: surely there are many entries in Knowledge (XXG) on subjects who may be less notable than that particular comedian! Each claim to notability should be assessed on its own merits - it is a question of notability, not relative notability. To answer your question here, I had nothing to do with the creation of the article, and had no correspondence with the subject on that matter. I have no photographs of him, and have never met him. I have been open about my intellectual interest in the subject and other topics in philosophy and religion, both in my Amazon comments and on my user page here in Knowledge (XXG). I don't particularly like the term 'fan', since it seems to imply some sort of blind and uncritical adherence. I am an admirer of the subject's writing, just as I am an admirer of the writing of many other thinkers, in the same way, perhaps, that Jayen466 is an admirer of the writing of Idries Shah (an admiration I would share). I hope this helps to clarify my own motivation. I can't speak for Alex Jamieson. Simon Kidd (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Smartse, your moving of 'Kevin R. D. Shepherd' to 'Kevin Shepherd' has resulted in a faulty link under the 'What links here' tool on the subject's page. It now shows that Laughing_Horse_New_Act_of_The_Year links to this article, but that is because comedian Kevin Shepherd (though not having an article himself) has been listed on the Laughing_Horse_New_Act_of_The_Year page, and the WP software has picked up on the coincidence of names. Can you fix this? Simon Kidd (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, that now links to Kevin Shepherd (comedian). Smartse (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Alex may well have a conflict of interest here. A single-purpose account with enough access to the author to have taken a photograph seems likely to be personally connected to him. Simon's COI is not so clear, and looking at Simon's contributions I see participation in a variety of subjects. The GA assessment seems to have been a big mistake but I think it's an honest mistake and I don't think a COI exists. These are just my personal opinions. -- Atama頭 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I feel obliged to point out that many of Simon's contributions to other articles have consisted in inserting Mr Shepherd's books as references, or updating such references: This contributed to my initial impression of COI editing. (Note that if other scholars have cited Shepherd's self-published books for facts, without comment, then it may be okay to use them as sources or add them as further reading, at least in non-BLPs.) --JN466 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, that is a very good point. Honestly, I looked at the articles that Simon edited and not the actual edits themselves. That does seem more suspicious. -- Atama頭 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The reason for my lack of edit history is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that I recently decided to edit under my real name from now on. This is an important issue for me, since I believe it is important to take responsibility for one's writing and editing. Since making that decision, I have discovered that I am not the only one with strong feelings on the subject (see here). I edited under my old pseudonym for about two years and contributed to a number of topics, many of which were entirely unrelated to the article currently under discussion. The reason that my recent edits have largely been limited to this and a few related articles is simply one of lack of time. Since it is a new article, I decided to link other articles to it where appropriate (or hyperlink existing references). As my user page makes clear, I have a wide-ranging interest in philosophical and religious topics, and in due course I expect to make contributions to a similarly wide range of articles. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please do forgive any lack of Wiki etiquette on my part. I am, as you rightly say, a newbie. However, I will just talk plainly; a form of universally recognized etiquette, one might say.

Thank you for the above comments Smartse (talk). Firstly, the author in question has written eleven annotated scholarly books to date under the name of Kevin R. D. Shepherd. The author is known by that name, and therefore that name should surely not be arbitrarily changed to Kevin Shepherd. I did not use “Kevin Shepherd” as a redirect for that very reason. Perhaps, as a matter of courtesy, you would be kind enough to undo the edit. As you rightly note, there is a comedian by the name of Kevin Shepherd; Kevin R. D. Shepherd is not a comedian, but rather a serious writer addressing serious issues. In answer to your above observation: A judgment of who is more notable would depend on your interest, i.e., for comedy or philosophy. If you type into Google “Kevin Shepherd” you will get a comedian, and if you type “Kevin R. D. Shepherd” you find a philosopher.

Now, to the concerns expressed by you and JN466:

I am intrigued by the posed conspiracy theory.

Let me therefore state, I am currently the sole contributor to the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article. I have been an avid reader of his books for the past fifteen years; I have met the author on several occasions in the past, and had felt confident enough to write three reviews of the author’s books for Amazon UK on different occasions. I therefore thought I was probably more knowledgeable than most to write an article about the author and his work for Knowledge (XXG). I trust you will agree that, the writer of an article should have a fair degree of interest in, and knowledge of, the subject he/she is writing about. The author gave permission for me to upload his photograph and was quite happy for me to be the known as the copyright holder. The picture box was uploaded following the assessment request. Also, as a matter of courtesy, I had informed the author I was going to write an article about him for Knowledge (XXG) (he expressed no objection), and I advised him of the article’s existence shortly after I had completed that article to my satisfaction.

As to the notability concern (yours, not mine). As you are both aware, notability remains a controversial issue within the Knowledge (XXG) community. Doubtless we could all trawl through Knowledge (XXG) and find articles or subjects that do not fulfill our personal criteria of what is notable. Some articles may have even left out, or editorially censored, material that we would personally consider as being “notable”. For me, an author who has written, to date, eleven annotated scholarly books on a diverse rage of notable subjects and issues, and those books have contributed to knowledge about those subjects and issues, and in turn been acknowledged and cited by other scholars, is sufficient proof of notability. Notability does not just resound loudly out from the rooftops, but can have significant influence in less extrovert ways.

Alex jamieson (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Labeling concerns about a "conflict of interest" as a "conspiracy theory" could be considered a breach of etiquette, though as you have said you are new I won't criticize you for such wording, just know that such charged language can be objected to. WP:AUTHOR is a notability addendum which can allow for authors to have a place in Knowledge (XXG) even if there isn't much coverage of the person in the usual places. What you claim would certainly make the author notable, but you still have to show evidence of this (show where he has been cited by other authors).
Just a note, while the notability of particular subjects can and often is a controversial thing, the notability requirement itself isn't so notable. It's a widely-held standard used by the community to determine the merit of an article's inclusion. Our "personal criteria of what is notable" isn't important, what's important is the notability criteria that the community has agreed to through consensus. That is the threshold that the article would have to meet. This isn't really the place to discuss this, however, that discussion would belong on the talk page of the article. -- Atama頭 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I have noted what you say. I will seriously look into revising the text over the next few weeks and adding some further evidence/references. I also note that Smartse has not taken my comments about Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s name to heart.
Alex jamieson (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the COI tag as I can't see any evidence for it. Simon Kidd has agreed that the article should be delisted and hopefully him and Alex can work towards producing a better article, that is less based on primary sources in the future. How do we go about delisting the article though? Smartse (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added inprogress template to the article. I request that the article stays in place whilst revision is undertaken.
Alex jamieson (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Alex, the article is simply being delisted from Good Article status. It isn't being deleted, and will certainly benefit from improvement. Smartse, I have done the delisting myself. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that as long as the article is being improved and Alex isn't being insistent on the article containing particular information or being written in a particular way that is contrary to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines (and I don't see any indication that he ever has), then I don't see why the COI tag can't be removed. And at this point I certainly wouldn't ask for the article to be deleted. -- Atama頭 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
My sincere thanks to all concerned. It is hard being a newbie! I will certainly attempt to bring the article into alignment and of course request a reassessment once I am satisfied.
Alex jamieson (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Prmwp

Atama: Really sorry about the accidental deletion. Is it possible to restore? It might be useful for deletion reviewers.The last good version ended with your referring me to deletion review. --Prmwp (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate third users' input at User_talk:Prmwp. Buckshot06(prof) 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given my opinion, you might also want to invite Prmwp to comment here as well if he so desires. -- Atama頭 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
BLP.
I created and posted this page containing my own BLP biography.

There may be a COI, but I believe that article qualifies for inclusion under Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines.

COI.

Virtually all the listings of living people that I have consulted show some degree of participation--inclusion or exclusion of material--by the subject. Knowledge (XXG) guidelinses say that this is "strongly discouraged", but it is not absolutely prohibited. This is a normative policy statement that seems to be disregarded in practice. From my personal empirical observation, it is simply not true in reality.

Whether such autobiographical participation involves inappropriate COI, is in my opinion, something that should be subject to critical analysis on an individual basis. There are potential v. actual conflicts of interests; convergent interests as well as conflicting ones.
I think that Knowledge (XXG) and its users have a strong interest in detail and interpretation that only subjects or their closest associates can provide. Aside from the interests of contemporary users, there are those of future ones. When the living subjects pass on there will be nobody to supply those details. Such information can easily be deleted, but it can never be restored.
As you can infer from the comments above, it does not seem appropriate to me to infer either COI or notability from the mere fact of authorship. In my view, each of these should be determined on its own merits, and articles should be edited to reduce possible COI.
I am requesting that the biography be considered on its own merits in terms of notability and COI.
Sure, but we have guidelines for a reason. We don't automatically say you can't create or edit your own biography. But we do say you shouldn't. As long as nobody objects, and you're open about it, everything is okay. Since people do object, it's not okay, and that's why we're discussing matters. By the way, are you the same person as User:Beerf? If you are, might I suggest that you choose one account and stick with it? Having alternate accounts isn't disallowed, but there are rules about such things. Thanks. -- Atama頭 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG), like many professional journals, is based on a volunteer submission model. That is clearly what my colleagues who are listed have done in their biographies, and I have benefited greatly from their contributions giving an overview of their professional work. I think that those contributions add to Knowledge (XXG)'s strength. I am following their example and have used their contributions as a model. I wish that there were more contributions from my colleagues, and I wish that they were more extensive. The Knowledge (XXG) community,like the scholarly community, is one where people are expected to contribute what they have. That is what I can do, and that is what I have done, summarizing 40 years of professional, peer reviewed, published research from which I hope that others can benefit.
One reviewer said thatguideline does state, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article....So generally an article should not be deleted because of a COI.
To what "coverage" were you referring in your own comment? I found substantial independent Google Scholar coverage under Francis A. Beer and FA Beer.
It may also be noteworthy, as the article notes, that I received two Fulbright awards as well as others.

--Prmwp (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Books, newspaper articles, television programs, any media written by an independent person about your life. That's the kind of thing that is normally looked for to show notability for biographies on Knowledge (XXG). I did mention there was coverage of your work in Google Scholar that would probably satisfy the notability requirements we have for academics. The reason why I'm torn is because I don't have a great deal of experience in judging academic notability, I try to stay away from deletion discussions involving such topics. I'd superficially assume that you qualify based on Google Scholar. Are you familiar at all with Deletion Review? You might want to pursue that in regards to your article. State up-front that you have a COI but that you believe that your article qualifies for inclusion under Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, mention the Google Scholar hits, and see what the community says.
I'd like to again stress that you should rethink editing the article yourself from now on. That doesn't mean you shouldn't participate in discussions about the article, or make suggestions or requests, but you probably shouldn't edit the main space of the article except to undo obvious vandalism, unsourced negative information, or minor things like typos or broken links. -- Atama頭 17:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Notability

Notability guidelines for academics state the following. "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable. If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria...

1.The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Also, the criteria say that "An alternative standard, 'the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor' is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted. Determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the nine more detailed criteria above. When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average.


1. There was substantial independent Google Scholar coverage under Francis A. Beer and FA Beer.

2. I received not one but two Media:Fulbright Awards as well as others. The Fulbright Award page identifies these awards as "prestigious".

Also, I was a tenured full professor at a Tier 1 research university. --Prmwp (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged this article, about a independent film due for theatrical release in December, with a COI tag, since an examination of contributions indicates that at least four of the accounts used to edit the article: Helicon Arts Cooperative, Sorrywrongnumber, Boxcarwillie and Filmsnoir are all single purpose accounts used (basically) only to edit this and related articles, such as those of the actors and creative staff involved in the film. In addition, several dozen IPs, all from the same area (69.23x.xxx.xxx), are likely to be COI editors as well, since they edit no other articles.

After I placed the tag another IP editor from a different range User:166.205.130.225 objected, and a discussion on our talk pages ensued (here and here). Following this, an editor, or editors, under a number of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx began a series vandalistic edits to remove the COI tag without explanation or discussion, and, indeed, to delete the discussion of my COI concerns on the talk page in toto.

I take the actions of the 69.23x IP editor as at least partial confirmation that someone has a powerful ownership interest in this article, presumably the producers of the film or their associates. I believe that semi-protecting the article to prevent the actions of the 69.23x IPs would be totally justified at this point (and I have requested it at WP:RPP), and that the nature of the four named editors I listed above should also be looked into. Sach (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I applaud this user's vigilance; however, his sudden creation of an account and immediate preoccupation with reverting verified information in this particular article, 3RR violations, and bad faith accusations against others (of being socks, or "aliases" as he calls them), smacks of a COI itself. He is accusing editors of being socks with COIs; however, he provides no real evidence of either, other than the fact that these editors have all worked on this article over the years. There does not appear to have been any bias or false information introduced into the article by these users. The film and cast members appear, on the surface, to have a strong Internet/scifi convention following so such editing patterns are hardly unusual. I agree that caution should always be followed; however, repeated public accusations of sockpuppetry with no proof is defamatory and has no place on a Talk page. Thank you.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I note that while my account was created only three days ago, I extensively edited 20+ other articles (many of the film related) before ever accidentally coming across Yesterday Was a Lie, a film I had never heardd of before last night. If my intention was, as 166 has accused me of on my talk page, wrecking havoc on the article because I have a conflict of interest, I certainly took a rather round-about path to get there.

No, the truth of the matter is, I came to this article by happenstance, and recognized what seems clearly to be a COI problem. Simply looking at the contributions of the four accounts I named above provides the clear evidence: they have been used almost exclusively to edit this film's article or, in the case of Sorrywrongnumber, articles related to it (actors and creative staff). In addition, every single one of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IPs that I looked into had only edited the film article. Combine this with the formatting anf language of the original article (which, for instance, mirrored typical contractual language for "with" and "and" billing for the actors) points strongly to a strong conflict of interest. Add to that the attempts to remove my COI concerns by brute force, and there's more than sufficient evidence to support my concerns.

In any event, I see little to be gained by the kind of back-and-forth thst 166 seems to want to engage in, so unless someone has something substantive to contribute, I suppose I'll retire for the time being. Sach (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Belatedly, I notified the four accounts named above of this discussion. Sach (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)One final thing which I noted on the article's talk page, but neglected to mention here. About a year or so ago, the article in question was up for deletion, and in the AfD discussion Sorrywrongnumber voted to keep, as did one 69.23x.xx.xx IP, with no significant edit history, and one other editor User:2Misters who had only 2 previous edits and has not edited since. This strongly suggests that the AfD vote was manipulated into a Keep, and is additional evidence to support my concern. Sach (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The issues on this article began here, with edits made by a registered account, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, an account name with other issues that need to be reported due to it being the name of a public company, but also the name of the company that appears to be the distributor , an account that prior to October 11 had only edited once - in January 2008, that uploaded a new version of the film poster File:Yesterdayposternew.jpg and added it to the article. Eight minutes later, one of the 69.231 IPs, 69.231.234.235, edited the article, followed by Helicon Arts Cooperative uploading an update to already existing film poster, indicating it was the "MPAA cleared official theatrical release poster 11/09" and added to the article. While the 69.231.234.235 may be a coincidence, there had been no previous edits to this article since October 13, 2009. Slightly less than 3 hours later, H Debussy-Jones made major edits to the article. It was then that the IP 166.205.130.225 began editing the page, and within an hour, 3 IPs from quite obviously from the same IP range as the first IP editor (69.231.234.235) also began editing - those being 69.231.206.130, 69.231.207.238 and 69.231.201.204. There is something amiss with all of this sudden activity in response to someone previously unrelated to the article editing soon after the apparent distributor of the film made edits, especially when four of the five IPs from the same IP range and location. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One insignicant correction: I believe that "Helicon Arts Cooperative" is the production company and not the distributor; otherwise Wildhartlivie's account is accurate. Sach (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't sure of that - the print was too small to read on the official site. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
My point remains: Even IF user "Helicon Arts Cooperative" has anything to do with the actual company, and even IF the 69... IPs are related, or people at the company, and even IF the other editors are all socks (which is preposterous to suggest w/o solid proof)... There still doesn't seem to be a point here, unless there is bias and misinformation in the article. I don't see any. Between the three of us, tonight we have vetted and cited anything that needs citing, and there didn't really seem to be anything weighted or subjective in the article in the first place (IMHO)... just a series of facts. Trust me, I've seen company press releases. That article read nothing like a press release. The whole thing is moot, unless you can show that the facts of the article have been spun or manipulated to be misleading. Please remember that Wiki COI policy doesn't say that an article's subject can't edit the article; it says that an article's subject can't edit the article if the editor's aims are contrary to Knowledge (XXG)'s aims and the editor's edits are non-neutral. I see nothing here to suggest this, and this is really a huge waste of time. All you have effectively done is change a few minor formatting issues (which I agree are improvements), and then stuck a COI tag at the top of the article, which accomplishes nothing and in no way contributes to the factualness of the article, since there were no "wrong" facts in there to begin with.166.205.130.225 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The point is that Knowledge (XXG) is intended to be a neutral source of information, not a vehicle for viral advertising. Sach (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) Although this may be more properly material for an SSI investigation, I want to point out that of the four named accounts I mentioned above (one of which has now been blocked as an improper name), User:Sorrywrongnumber is clearly the primary account. I have examined this account's 140 contributions since June 2006, and only 9 of them, by my count, do not relate to Yesterday Was a Lie, James Kerwin (the film's director), Chase Masterson (the film's producer and star) or the other actors involved in the film. (That count includes the two vandalism removals from Parkway Central High School in Chesterton, St. Louis County, Missouri since St. Louis is the birthplace listed for James Kerwin.) I am drawn to the conclusion that Sorrywrongnumber .

Also, a close look at the history of the articles listed above, and those for Kipleigh Brown, John Newton (actor) and R.U.R. (film) (an article created by Sorrywrongnumber about a future film to be directed by Kerwin, which is now a redirect to Kerwin's article) also indicate extensive contributions from 69.23x.xxx.xxx IPs, leading to the conclusion that there is a strong relationship between Sorrywrongnumber and those IPs, whose latest activity was to edit war in the attempt to remove my concerns about COI problems.

The evidence seems to point to User:Sorrywrongnumber having a significant conflict of interest. I'm off to notify this user of this expanded evidence. Sach (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to bring up two points. First, COI editing is clearly occurring in this article. The 69.231.X.X IPs geolocate to Los Angeles, which would fit with someone affiliated with a movie. Others who are single purpose accounts only working on this movie or related articles would probably have conflicts of interest as well.
The second is that whether or not the previous AfD was "manipulated" seems to be a moot point. If you removed the obvious sock/meatpuppets with a COI, you're left with a single Keep !vote from Badlydrawnjeff, an experienced and established editor. Perhaps the discussion would have been left open a bit longer and relisted if not for the other !votes, but as it was closed after 5 days (a full listing at that time) there wasn't a single person advocating its deletion aside from the nominator. So I'd consider that AfD to be valid, though a new AfD might be warranted. -- Atama頭 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not seeking that the article be deleted, and do not suggest that a new AfD be started. I think the film is quite notable enough for inclusion, and would have voted "Keep" on the original AfD. I didn't bring up the AfD to have it invalidated, but simply as additional evidence that someone is manipulating the encyclopedia for their own purposes. Sach (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you guys work for McCarthy? You'd be great witch hunters. Seriously, this is goofy. "Edits came from Los Angeles, so it must be the film company!" Really? Los Angeles is that small, eh? "It's probably the director!" Right, because there's no one else who works on a film other than the director. "2Misers must be a sock because he voted to keep!" Riiiiight... "Knowledge (XXG) isn't for viral marketing!" True - but there doesn't appear to have been any viral marketing going on because the article consisted of verifiable facts, not spin or misinformation. In short, like I said last night, you're accomplishing nothing. You already rewrote the article to your standards so, even if there was a COI before, there isn't now, unless you have a COI yourself.166.205.130.225 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it comes from LA is consistent with someone affiliated with the picture. It's not conclusive proof, and I never said nor even implied it was, so your strawman arguments aren't helpful. If the IPs geolocated to Australia or eastern Hungary then I might have suggested that the COI was a stretch. But I can assure you that I am not employed by a long-dead senator.
You are either being disingenuous, or you have little experience with sockpuppetry if you so quickly dismiss a one-time !vote in an AfD. If it wasn't so stale I'd open the SPI report myself but I don't see the need for it. I will agree with you on one point, the COI is almost a non-issue. Work on getting the article neutral (if it isn't now), and if IPs continue to add disruption/promotional info at a high volume, then there shouldn't be an issue getting the article semiprotected for a longer period of time. -- Atama頭 23:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I assure you I am not being disingenuous. I am pointing out that there is a suspicious militancy here that is unwarranted by the situation. As you say, the COI issue is moot because the article contains/contained no COI information. My point is that, even if all these IPs and editors are socks and/or somehow connected to the article's subject, there is still no basis for a COI accusation because none of them appear to have ever posted non-neutral or promotional information. Film articles all over Wiki include contributions by people who worked on the films. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they aren't saying biased statements like "An excellent film," etc. Sach says there's viral marketing going on but provides no evidence, as there are no "marketing" statements made by these editors throughout the article's history. The only contibution by "Helicon Arts Cooperative" was the posting of an official copyrighted image, which is permitted. Now that that user appears to have been permablocked, and the article has been made "acceptable" by Sach, the COI tag should no longer be there.166.205.130.225 (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of talk page posts is abuse, especially when one of the posts was merely pointing out the potential existence of a COI. Please let the regular editors decide when it's appropriate to remove the COI tag. If you are trying to distinguish yourself from the other three IPs who appear to be bona fide socks, it would be to your advantage to register an account. Even IP editors who are not socks risk not being taken seriously if they involve themselves in contested articles and engage in reverting maintenance tags such as the COI tag. I perceive that 166.205.130.225 (talk · contribs) reverted the article five times today, and may be in danger of sanctions for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Please avoid Wikilawyering and personal accusations and stick to the matter at hand. I am in danger of nothing; I engaged in no edit warring. My edits to the aticle corrected factual and citation errors which were repeatedly reintroduced into the article by Sach. The COI tag was removed in good faith because there was/is no COI bias in the article. If other editors feel the tag should remain indefinitely, I think it's pretty funny but I won't revert it. But accusing me of "edit warring" simply because I made some good faith corrections to an article is inappropriate.166.205.130.225 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
You warned about 3RR, then broke it yourself. I don't see "correcting factual and citation errors" as an exception in WP:3RR. Now, Sach violated it as well, as a removal of a tag is generally not vandalism (and in fact is explicitly listed as something that is not an exception to 3RR). So neither of you are smelling like roses here. I don't feel the COI tag should remain indefinitely, but what I recommend is that Sach post a list of specific concerns with the article that he believes should be repaired in order for the article to remain balanced. If those concerns are laid to rest, or if those concerns aren't brought forth, the COI tag should be removed. As the IP has alluded to, the COI tag is not supposed to be a permanent mark on an article that was once created and/or edited by someone with a COI, it's supposed to alert readers and editors that the article contains bias that was inserted through a COI and needs to be fixed. -- Atama頭 01:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. I have already admitted and apologized for my 3RR violation, while Sach continues to maintain that his was justified because the tag removal was "vandalism," even though this is contrary to Wiki policy. In any case, your point is valid, that the COI tag is inappropriate now, since the article was entirely rewritten by Sach. Unless Sach is admitting to his own COI, the tag should no longer be in place.166.205.130.225 (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)Regarding the COI tag -- I am not a proponent of tagging in general; in fact, I find that most of the time they deface the program to the detriment of the reader's use of Knowledge (XXG). As a general rule, I work to remove tags that are out of date or incorrect and to alleviate the problems they flag so as to be able to remove them. In this case, the COI tag was, I think, justified by the situation. As far as the state of the article goes at this moment, I believe most of the influence from the COI edtiors has been removed, and the article is suitably neutral. Normally that would mean that the COI tag could be removed, but I am loathe to do so while the issue of whether User:Sorrywrongnumber . If SWN would come here and respond to the concerns I've raised and either convince folks that my concerns are unwarranted or, if they are true, pledge not to edit the article in the future, that would, I think, be sufficient justification for the tag to be removed. Without that, though, I think it would be best to keep the tag in place for the time being. Sach (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, User:Sorrywrongnumber is aware of this discussion: both my notices have been blanked from his talk page, as were previous COI-related notices. Sach (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want Sorrywrongnumber blocked, please request that on the appropriate boards. There is no way for you, or anyone, to determine who it is IRL without a court order. Suggesting the reallife identity of an editor is a serious violation of WP:OUTING and this needs to be struck immediately by an admin, with prejudice, and Sach should be warned accordingly. Again, the COI tag should be struck; saying that you are "waiting" to find out the real life identity of an editor before you do so is preposterous, because you will be waiting forever.166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If I wanted SWN blocked, I would have gone to WP:SPI -- that remains a possibility. This board is for discussing COI issues, and SWN clearly has a COI problem that needs to be addressed. I would be much more interested in having SWN come here that to continue to re-hash the issue without their participation.

Incidentally, according to <personal information redacted> "Helicon Arts Cooperative" has an address c/o <name redacted>, in Los Angeles, another indication that <name redacted> or a close associate appears to be at the center of the problem here.

(Incidentally, your accusation of outing -- which is about the fifth or sixth major policy violation you've accused me of, nice work, except you don't really seem to understand the policies you're throwing around so blithely -- is baseless. If Sorrywrongnumber has a COI problem, it can be resolved without their acknowledging their identity. All that SWN needs to do is say "I am connected with the production, and I won't edit these articles anymore" and the problem is solved.) Sach (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting what you believe to be an editors' real name and address is one of most serious Wiki violations and carries the penalty of immediate and permanent block of your account. You gave been reported accordingly.166.205.130.225 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's the diff for those of us trying to keep track of all this. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I am reluctantly and cautiously wading in here with some comments, and other experienced COI editors like Atama might suggest I be directed elsewhere. Sockpuppetry is generally prohibited. I sympathise with everything H Debussy-Jones / Sach raises here, and it looks as though there are socks involved in this case that may need to be dealt with. The fact that the article may have been edited so that right now it doesn't have any bias issues (as IP166... points out) really isn't the whole story. It would be preferable if editors with a COI / socks were dealt with to the extent necessary to ensure that other editors don't have to clean up after them every time in future they introduce issues into these articles (hence, eg, topic bans). But i have a separate concern Sach might like to address. Sach's account is three days old. But Sach wrote above "I am not a proponent of tagging in general; in fact, I find that most of the time they deface the program to the detriment of the reader's use of Knowledge (XXG). As a general rule, I work to remove tags that are out of date or incorrect and to alleviate the problems they flag so as to be able to remove them". This does not sound like an editor who arrived three days ago. I'm not sure whether this may raise a separate COI issue, or just another possible WP:SPI. Sach, can you comment? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
My account is indeed three days old, but I am not three days old (as anyone looking at my edits can plainly see), nor was I born yesterday. I have edited in the past under a different name, and for my own reasons I prefer not to specify what that is, but I have also made no effort to hide my style of editing in any way. I will make this outright affirmation, though: I am not evading a ban or a block, I have never edited with more than one account at the same time, this account has not commented on or voted about anything the other account did, and I have not violated multiple account policy in any way in the use of this account. I am more than happy for a checkuser to confirm that.

But, really, that is not terribly relevant here. I have no conflict of interest with the article in question, whereas User:Sorrywrongnumber plainly does. Since this is the COI noticeboard, it's SWN's COI problem that should be the focus here, and we still have not heard from them throughout the whole process, although by blanking their page they have signaled that they are aware of the discussion. Sach (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I've removed the COI tag and archived the old discussion at the article talkpage as the article didn't seem to read as COI and reads pretty much like every other film article. If there are new COI clean-up issues then spell out what they are. You will never be able to stop everyone from editing the article so it's better to simply push for better sourcing and regularly weed out problems. Better writing and sourcing should curb mos of the problems and when cruft or unsubstantiated claims are introduced they stick out more. -- Banjeboi 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Benjiboi, I believe your actions were unwise, since while the article has indeed been cleaned up (I did most of the cleaning), the COI issue is still outstanding. There are any number of potential solutions to that problem, from the simplest (Sorrywrongnumber fesses up and pledges not to do it again), through admin-enforced topic bans, right on up to blocking for sockpuppetry. While removing the COi tag was defensible, archiving the talk page discussion was premature, and I urge you to undo your actions. Sach (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
COI, and frankly all tags, are meant to facilitate cleaning up the article not as a badge of shame. Is there any actual article content that is there that shouldn't be or anything that isn't there that should be? These are the points of the COI tag - that the article itself is so compromised it needs to be fixed. Editors behaving badly is a separate issue. If there is content to be addressed still then that is what the tag could address. Editing issues don't require the article itself to be tagged. -- Banjeboi 03:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That explains removing the tag, which I said was defensible (but, again, unwise) -- how do you justify archiving an ongoing discussion? Sach (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I offer a public apology to BenjiboI for misunderstanding what action he took to the COI discussion on the article's talk page, and reacting on the basis of the misunderstanding. I thought that when he said he had "archived" the discussion, he had moved it to a separate archive page, and did not realize until just now that he had left the discussion visible on the talk page. Had I gone to look, I obviously would have seen that and not reacted as I did, and that is my oversight. Sorry to all, and specficially to Benjiboy. Sach (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to have a go at the article to further address format and style and to do a bit of copyedit and cleanup to remove a bit of hyperbole... setting it up in sections and cleaning up the cites... or even going through it to add more sources toward notability.... but alas.. I had an uncredited appearance in the film and if I did any edit THAT would smack of COI... even though my goal would be to improve the article and not promote my small role in the film. Sigh. Look at it this way... no matter who put it here, it now belongs to Knowledge (XXG).. and it is to be noted a great number of editors have since worked on improving the article who do not have any COI. It belongs to Knowledge (XXG) now. Editors with obvious COI can be cautioned and if they continue, be sanctioned. Schmidt, 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Michael: Are you suggesting that it's not worthwhile to pursue this COI complaint? What happens next month, when the film is scheduled to be released, and the Helicon Arts Cooperative crew decides to retake control of the article at that time, to enhance its value as viral advertising? What is an editor who wants a neutrally-edited article to do in that situation, revert the edits of multiple accounts (which these folks obviously have no qualms about using) to maintain the article's integrity and fall afoul of 3RR and avenging angels such as 166?

No, I think it's best to nip this in the bud, and if User:Sorrywrongnumber won't come clean and pledge to lay off the article and its related articles, other more drastic methods will have to come into play. Sach (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep it up! You realize that, unless you can prove what you are saying, you are likely gonna get your ass sued off for libel. You do realize that, right? :) 166.205.130.225 (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Now that is a completely inappropriate comment and a legal threat. Comments of that sort will very quickly get you blocked. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh really? And what about "when the Helicon... crew decides to retake control of the article to enhance it's value as viral marketing?" (emphasis added). What about that is not inappropriate? He has no evidence for this, and no evidence that any viral marketing has ever been added into the article, but he loves to keep saying that because it makes him sound like he has a point. when, in reality, he is clearly just a disgruntled stalker. This guy is just cruising for a ban at this point.166.205.130.225 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
166, that's not a legal threat, it's a speculative statement about a possible future event, should this COI not result in something, either voluntary or non-voluntary, to prevent the conflcited editors from continuing to edit the article. Sach (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(to Sach): Not at all. This is the proper place for COI discussions... and hopefully (sigh) not too much drama. But as the article belongs to Knowledge (XXG). Editors with obvious COI can be cautioned and if they continue, be blocked for violation of policy. Schmidt, 05:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, then we are in agreement. And, as a non-conflicted editor, I'd be more than happy to hear your suggestions for improving the article and to put them into effect once this account is autoconfirmed and I am able to edit the article.. Please feel free to post them on my talk page or on the article's talk page (which is probably a better idea, since others can then put them in immediately). Inside information, openly and legitimately integrated into the article, is almost always a good thing. Thanks. Sach (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-start

In American politics, a very successful strategy has been that when someone's bad deeds or other foibles have been brought to light, one vehemently and vigourously attacks the person making the claim – or, better yet, uses proxies to do so. It doesn't really matter what is said, or the validity of the counter-charges, the stronger and more violent the counter-attack, the better. The hope is that the media, out of a misplaced zeal to be "balanced" and "fair", will report both sets of claims equally and fail to parse the situation correctly, and the general public, with no time to figure out who's right and who's wrong, and little unbiased information to go on, will say "a pox on both their houses" and ignore both claims.

As I said, this strategy has been extremely successful, but here, if possible, I'd like cut through the mishegas and return to the issue at hand.

The article Yesterday Was a Lie, concerning an independent film scheduled for general theatrical release in December, was created and has been largely shaped by four named accounts, primary among them User:Sorrywrongnumber, and a large number of IPs in the 69.23x.xxx.xxx range, all of which appear to have a conflict of interest regarding the film. In particular, over 93% of the contributions of User:Sorrywrongnumber are to the film's article or to articles about the film's actors, the film's director and the director's other projects and interests. When these COI concerns were first raised on the article's talk page, a number of 69.23x IP editors attempted to tag-team to delete the discussion.

I believe it would be beneficial to the project if these editors, both named and numbered, were to avoid editing the article Yesterday Was a Lie and articles associated with it, and use the suggested scheme for editing by those with a conflict of interest: post the changes they think are appropriate on the article's talk page and allow other, non-conflicted, editors to institute the changes.

I have notified all the named editors involved about this thread but, so far, none have appeared here to discuss the issue, despite the fact that at least one (User:Sorrywrongnumber) has acknowledged the notifications by deleting them from their talk page. Sach (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that this COI complaint be closed, without prejudice to reopening if further bad edits occur. There have been no edits at all of Yesterday Was a Lie since the COI tag was removed. If any problems come up that interfere with article improvement, they can be reported in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I second Ed's proposal. There may be a sockpuppetry case here, but there appears to be wide consensus that there is no COI since there is/was no promotional material placed in the article by the editor(s) in question. As for his complaint about ad hominem attacks; this is curious, since the majority of Sach's "case" against these editors' consisted of bizarrely personal ad hominem attacks against the filmmakers responsible for the film's production - which have since been redacted by the admins and arb committee as inappropriate. His entire point was that it is "obvious" to him that certain editors are affiliated with the film (which he can conveniently neither prove nor disprove); however, when a similar suggestion is made about him, he cries foul. He has even resorted to ignoring my direct questions, and instead simply insinuating that I am also a sock or COI. Wiki does not block an editor/s from editing an article simply because one user feels that he knows who the person "might be" IRL (despite providing only subjective circumstantial evidence), especially when said editor/s has/have not introduced COI material into the article. Furthermore, Sach's complete silence whenever he is asked for a proposed solution to his "complaint" makes the whole matter irrelevant; he appears to want nothing more than to place a "badge of shame" on the article and insult the filmmakers who produced the film, while failing to specify what specifically he would like changed in the article. His only proposed solution - that these editors all be outed, revealed as socks, and blocked - is not going to happen because there is no evidence of this, and Knowledge (XXG) has no way of verifying or disproving his accusations. If there is any sockpuppetry evidence, that would be a sockpuppet case, not a COI case. Sach's insistence that this is a COI matter and repeated personal insults directed at real life individuals is simply too suspicious. (I note that on his own talk page, he claims personal knowledge of one of the producer's real life motives, while simultaneously insisting that he has "never heard" of them.) If he has a real life personal beef with these film producers, I suggest he keep it IRL. Wiki is not a platform for personal grudges. If, as he claims, he has no personal interest in the matter, his best bet would be to prove it by letting the matter rest, rather than trying to open and reopen COI cases after they've been rejected. My 2 cents. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 166's comment: Please see the first paragraph under "Re-start". Thanks.

Oh, and 166: Please do enjoy racking your brains about what nefarious enemy of the production I might be. Every answer you come up with will be wrong, because my involvement in this matter is entirely happenstance, and not in any way related to the film, the director, or any one else involved in it. Nevertheless, I'm quite certain you won't believe that, so... have fun!! Sach (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. None of us have any idea who each other is in real life. There is as much evidence that you are associated with the film as any of the other editors you accuse of the same thing. You are all preoccupied with editing the article, so there is as much evidence of a COI on your part as any of the others. I note that you just reverted an edit I made to the article yesterday, when I pointed out that SAG and the IMDB have conflicting reports of the film's budget, and therefore we cannot know for sure. I notice you RE-INSTATED the IMDB number (the less accurate site), which has the effect of possibly artificially inflating the film's budget. If you have no personal stake in this film, you have a very curious way of showing it. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I read your first paragraph Yes, you seem to have extensive knowledge of how to engage in ad hominem attacks. In fact, your entire case consists of them and it has grown tiring. Our attempts to engage in cogent discussion with you about the specifics of your complaints (precisely what sentences in the article are COIs and what you propose to be done about them) are still, after 2 days, met with smokescreening and subject-changing. The only thing you ever seem to discuss is whether or not you or anyone else is associated with the film. You are totally silent when it comes to answering other editors' questions about specifics of your COI complaint (ie, what you want CHANGED in the article). I fully expect you to avoid the question herein and engage in another "whatever, dude!" dismissal. 166.205.131.52 (talk) 01:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As the COI issue seems to have settled, I suggest that if you two really must continue this argument, please do so on your talk pages. I'd rather you both just drop the matter altogether and get back to working on the article itself (and others), but if you can't do that, please don't do it here. Sach, if you've informed the editors with a COI and they haven't responded, they're not going to. And if they stay away from the article (or don't add anything problematic) then what's the problem? -- Atama頭 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the future potential for mischief, and that I really hate having things on my watchlist – but that's what I guess I'll have to do, keep an eye on it that way. Thanks. Sach (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to restart this; COI is not a problem in and of itself, so unless a specific and ongoing content problem is presented, this is not a productive discussion. John Vandenberg 03:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuck DeVore

I'd appreciate if someone with more experience with COI issues would take a look at the editing of Chuck DeVore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Chuckdevore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in particular the latest edit, today, which occurred after I posted a note about the COI guideline on the user talk page yesterday.

And I also would appreciate any editors with COI experience adding their opinions on the article talk/discussion page regarding the COI tag/template that is on the top of the article; the second-to-last section of the talk/discussion page is about that issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫)

The article in general doesn't seem overly-promotional. Oddly enough, the latest edit by Chuckdevore seems to have removed POV rather than added it. I don't have a big objection to that editor but I'd recommend a username change to remove the appearance of impropriety. -- Atama頭 01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
That's an unusual suggestion - if the editor is in fact Chuck DeVore, why would changing the username so that the real identity isn't apparent improve things? (And I think the editor's identity should be evaluated based on all of his edits, not just the very most recent.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree that User:Chuckdevore doesn't need to change his username. When reviewing his 12 November edit I don't immediately see a problem, since it appears to be adding properly-sourced facts to the article. It would certainly be desirable if Chuckdevore would join in discussion either on the article Talk, or here at the noticeboard. I notice there was some controversy on the article talk about excessive inclusion of military medals, but I don't see any recent attempt by Chuckdevore to interfere on that matter. His last two edits were on 12 May and 12 November, and the 12 November edit did not seem to be a revert. Since there is no tug-of-war going on between the article subject and regular editors, and since his edits are sparse and not worrisome, I see no need for a COI tag on the article. The tone of the article could still be made more neutral. We have an article on China Attacks, a self-published novel by DeVore. I suggest that it be considered for deletion since there are no sources to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sol Wachtler

This article, about an attorney with apparent criminal accusations once made against him, has been edited by its subject, both as an IP (User: 69.114.117.119) and as a named account (User:JMHarlan). If you look at the history of the article, you'll see that both these accounts, when making changes re: facts made during the trial, refers to Wachtler as "I". The accounts seem to remove negative information from the articles, which is pretty much in the realm of COI. (Note: Reading the outing policy, I am concerned that this report might be interpreted as such; however, when the editor refutes material from the trial by saying "I didn't....."...If I AM outing, please oversight this and warn the hell out of me, and then please tell me how I could have done this without violating that policy.) GJC 22:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The outing policy does not apply to editors like yourself who only repeat what the editor has voluntarily revealed. This is what is sometimes referred to as a "self-declared" COI. It's commendable that you would be concerned about outing, especially considering the problems this noticeboard experienced recently in that matter, but I don't think you need to be concerned. Notice that Orangemike had already given a COI warning on their talk page when the edits were made (back in January) so this COI has already been identified. Neither the editor nor the IP have edited that article, or any other article, in nearly a year. What concerns do you have about the article and/or the editors? -- Atama頭 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Um....well, for one thing, both the article and the author have CLEARLY blunted my ability to read dates?? (See, this is why people like me should never edit before bedtime.) My mistake...I'll be slinking away now...GJC 01:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't sweat it, two threads up you can see an example of my stellar ability to add and subtract. :P No worries! -- Atama頭 06:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There might be a COI but it's hard to tell. The editor did choose a username similar to the name of the article subject, but that could simply be because the editor planned on creating the article when they registered (after all, it's the first and so far only article they've edited). The article subject was mayor of a town in 1934, assuming that they were extremely young at that time (let's say 20 years old) that would make them 75 years old today. I'd say it's unlikely (though not impossible) that the article is an autobiography. The editor could still be related to the subject in some other way (a child or grandchild perhaps) but I see no indication of that. The article isn't overly promotional or biased in any other way so I don't see an issue there. I can only conclude that absent any other indication the COI is unlikely. -- Atama頭 18:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be 95 years old?! It does seem more likely that the article was made by a child or grandchild, it doesn't really seem like a problem at the moment, assuming they are notable which I guess they are as a mayor of a large city. It's worth keeping an eye on though, I'll watch it for a bit. Smartse (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, details, details (don't do math in your head before caffeine in the morning). :P But that just reinforces the unlikelihood of it being an autobiography. -- Atama頭 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess a descendant: . - Altenmann >t 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

User:SPresley and her bookstore

I'm not sure if Liberty, which is a "journal of culture and politics written from a classical liberal point of view", counts as a reliable source. Especially when the specific article used as a source looks to be an essay. Her editing the article of a store she founded is definitely discouraged. -- Atama頭 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed name from User:PasswordUsername amid nationalist V. anti-nationalist type disputes (with many claims that targets are not even nationalist etc.). Advocates and commits to on-wiki adversary to anything possibly nationalist. Involved with various ArbCom disputes etc. and reported in various places of which none seem to be the right place so good luck with that thanks ~ R.T.G 02:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already a discussion at WP:ANI. Stop forum shopping. Singularity42 (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hookah

Kamcha (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account, most probably of real name Kamal Chaouachi (see edit summary here), persists to insert a piece into the "hookah" page, which glorifies his research. (Actually, he replaces a neutrally-written text about his research with an over-emphacized one.) IMO a clean-cut example of COI: self-citing, rather than referring from a secondary source. Please handle. - Altenmann >t 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Kamcha outed himself as the author, and declared his identity even more firmly here from a question posed here so the COI should be obvious. I do have concerns about this editor because of this edit which talks about "defending this position with Top Knowledge (XXG) Administrators" and this edit which has a false vandalism claim. I'm not sure what should be done, it looks like Mr. Chaouachi may not be aware of or understand our conflict of interest guidelines, and if anyone can engage him in dialog explaining them might be helpful. He did respond to a question about his identity (a question that shouldn't have been asked) so he's not completely uncommunicative, many editors who behave this way are. -- Atama頭 17:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Kamal Chaouachi (18 Nov 2009): I was not abreast of all subtelties of Knowledge (XXG). So I am sorry for these interventions. I agree that, as a chief actor in this field, I should not have to mention myself the studies I have authored or co-authored. However, I wished to draw the attention of Knowledge (XXG) administrators to a serious case of vandalism driven by the obvious antismoking prohibitionist ideology of most "editors" (the one named "Altelmann" in particular).

What is blantantly disparaging is that they insit on putting "a Pakistani article" instead of "study" order to downplay the importance of a study which is the first ever published on this issue. The study is in open access as well as its astract so I am not inventing anything. Altenamnn and others' attitude is not accepable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamcha (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at this and I think you have a valid point. But I would urge you to avoid editing the article directly, at least for now, and instead propose alternate wording on the talk page. Otherwise you risk an edit war, which usually turns out badly for everyone involved. I will try to follow this but no promises. Rees11 (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for replying here Kamcha, I'll put this article on my watchlist and see what plays out, regardless of conflicts of interest we should treat the study fairly on its own merits. -- Atama頭 21:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

David R. Brown (neuroscientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be an autobiography by User:Gonkstem, who has blanked the talkpage of the article when this issue was raised. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I understand User:Gonkstem blanked the talk page to remove the resolved discussion about the lack of third party sources, and in an attempt to prevent people knowing that User:Gonkstem created the article. I then later added a section on the talk page explaining why I think it's an autobiography. To summarise: Gonkstem's user contributions match up with the user contributions from an anonymous user identifying himself as David Brown on the prion talk page (also note this user edited the alumnus section of David Brown's former school). I proposed this article for deletion but the response was "absurd proposal".Purple 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have declined the proposed deletion as well. The article seems to be sourced well enough to show notability, and a conflict of interest isn't a valid deletion criteria (though it certainly makes an article with problems seem worse). But I'm concerned about outing here. Gonkstem has never admitted to being the article subject, and that's certainly not the only explanation (he could be a relative, close friend, or colleague, for example). Our rules about harassment trump our COI guidelines so be careful in these matters. -- Atama頭 02:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is the issue that Gonkstem claims to own the copyright an obviously staged photo of David Brown in a lab. At a minimum, this person is too close to write the article. So basically, if you make a COI biography, it is okay so long as you do it within article standards? PDBailey (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, a COI doesn't really matter as long as the editor is being productive and isn't causing disruption. -- Atama頭 07:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all very disappointing. I would have thought better of Knowledge (XXG). I was a new user to Knowledge (XXG) and created an article for some one I have alot of respect for. It is obvious that the user "purple" doesn't and appear to be someone who had some conflict with Prof Brown in the past. However, Purple is using a mistake I made in trying to clean up the talk page of the article to try and make out I am Brown. Also, the photo is just one I came across and didn't seem to have any associated copy-right. I might be wrong in this but I didn't get it from Prof Brown either. I am sure that Purple would not have bothered with any of this if he/she didn't have some grudge. I would have hope Knowledge (XXG) users would see through this. I also don't like being attacked over this article and I think Knowledge (XXG) whould do more to exclude people like Purple who obviously have little to do with their time.--Gonkstem (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I have plenty to do with my time, which is why I have not not been very active on Knowledge (XXG) for months. I have no grudge against Prof Brown (who was friendly to me face to face) personally or professionally, and I have no grudge against any Knowledge (XXG) user. Purple 13:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And just to be very clear I did not blank any page to cover up an "autobiography". I did it only when the article was first posted to create a clean talk page. There was nothing in that discussion that related to autobiography. --Gonkstem (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree - hence why I tried to clarify that above. Purple 13:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in the discussion, Gonkstem. Just to note, a question about conflict of interest isn't an accusation, in fact I don't see a single suggestion that you've done anything wrong in your edits except make some mistakes on the talk page of the David R. Brown article. The concern raised here is only that you might have some connection to Brown, and if so that connection should be clarified (if it exists) so that editors might more easily find good faith in your edits in the case of a dispute at that article, and related articles.
I have to admit that I'm very curious about 138.38.27.69. Your account was created 14 minutes after the very last edit made by that IP address, and considering the overlap between the edits you've made and that IP address I have trouble believing you're not the same person. That itself isn't a problem (I edited as an IP a few times before I registered an account) but I'm worried about this edit. -- Atama頭 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
And - making no inference that they are any particular person - Gonkstem and 138.38.27.69 do share certain grammatical idiosyncrasies, as you might have notice . 138.38.27.69 86.139.85.209 did well to revise that edit, as talk of involving solicitors is a fast track to a WP:LEGAL block (and I hope that's not what's meant by "I will attempt to block this but if I am not able to I will have to try other means to prevent this person from doing this"). As to not doing anything wrong in the edits, I've had a go at cleanup, and some of Gonkstem's work is a bit counterproductive in various ways: unsourced material (including unpublished bio stuff that rather supports the COI theory), citations that don't actually support the statements they cite, etc. And Gonkstem needs definitely to understand that it's a no-no to remove others' comments from Talk pages, having done it again . Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, that's troubling. Gonkstem has been warned about this in the past, and I was hoping those were accidents but having it happen again yesterday makes that harder to believe. -- Atama頭 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


A good puzzle never hurt anyone. So let's see... IP 132.xx on 16 Feb leaves a lengthy message while identifying self as one "Professor David R. Brown". Jump forward to 2-6 May. A User:Gonkestem blanks the talk page of David_R._Brown_(neuroscientist) twice. Claims that a request for comment about and article isn't relevant to the article. Goes to great lengths to support Mr Brown. Stops by only twice in the next 6 months, only to add irreverent BLP info until 17 November. After User:OrangeMike added a COI tag to the article, it was indeed on. A big mistake! Despite his extremely harmless Orange Midwesterner-type exterior, he is quite the resourceful admin. One swift strike and a PROD from User:Purple and all hell broke loose... almost! User:Gonkestem knows his/her policy quite well, running through 3RRs within all of 8 minutes, and that was after coming here to post. As parting shots, passively mentions legal threats here, and takes the opinion here that if you spend a lot of time collecting information on something that means it's automatically granted Knowledge (XXG) entry. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Observations:

  • User has entirely disappeared since and by my estimates will be back at about.. 20:17 UTC, 1 minute after the first revert from yesterday.
  • Hacking up the article was kind of crude and done in a hurry, but ironically started the edit war with edit summaries that have made this more interesting.
  • Wiping stuff off any talk page other than your own is never really cool past extreme vandalism.
  • Rushing to 3RR and instantly stopping, as though to deliberately say you know how to 'war'? Them's fightin' words-- er, thoughts. Noted with interest.
  • The reversions of the BLP/POV/COI material by someone claiming not to be involved is really blatant disruption especially considering the user didn't leave edit summaries.

Short-term action: Um. Someone do a CU? ...And see what happens in another 5 hours. Further RRing would be against anything at all close to consensus and Knowledge (XXG) guidelines and be blatant disruption. The actual identities don't even matter besides the CU technicality, since threats and disruptions are a common language. Might also suggest this get moved to ANI if it goes any further or CU is positive. Anyone seconding the RfCU should submit it, I suppose. Silly to do without others thinking it could be relevant. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Gbradt Promoting books by Author George Bradt

User:Gbradt has been adding references and urls on Human Resources and related HR articles which are cites of one or more books and webpages where the principal author is George Bradt and the obvious similarity with the Username suggest there is likely to be a conflict of interest. For example here and here. There are a number of edits innocent in themselves adding a link to the article on Onboarding where the book was originally added to and where User Gbrant has been a frequent editor. There was a spate of this type of activity back on or about 28 October and User Gbradt was advised on their Talk Page as per guidelines. I have added a message to their Talk Page tonight urging them to read and seek advice before editing further. I then noticed on their Username Page there is a lot of information concerning this Author and promotion of their publications, urls etc which I presume are also outwith the spirit of WP:COI. Please could an Admin or experienced Editor of COI issues advise if the User should be told to remove this material, and is there anything I should do myself?, Thanks Tmol42 (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's quite a few issues here. I see the following:

That's just for starters. I'm not an admin. I will commence the AfD on George Bradt. Any takers for handling the rest?! hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hamiltonstone for your clear analysis and list of actions. I see User:Orangemike has enthusiastically picked this up and I will keep track of actions for my own education. CheersTmol42 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The COI is pretty obvious here.
  • I don't have a big problem with his user page. It's not overly promotional, he's saying who he is and lists some books he wrote. He doesn't really talk himself up, and only links to his company's main web site and lists some books he wrote. I actually appreciate the honesty about who he is, he's essentially declaring his COI as our guidelines suggest he do.
  • The George Bradt article is poorly written (looks like an ad in parts) but I found a BusinessWeek article that gives him a decent amount of coverage, he's quoted in the New York Times (not really coverage but it helps a bit and that's only one of many mentions of him in reliable sources), one of his books is reviewed by the Washington Business Journal, he was also the subject of an article in the Fairfield County Business Journal. He was also a staff writer for The Harvard Crimson (which is pretty big as college newspapers go). I didn't expect to find any real coverage of him but there seems to be at least enough for a weak notability claim.
  • Sockpuppetry might be a concern, as always, but there should be evidence of disruption before you make a big deal of it.
These are my thoughts on the points raised so far. -- Atama頭 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jon Butcher again

This was brought up on this notice board a couple of weeksmonths ago (now archived).

User is a friend of the article's subject, and user name is related to the subject (subject had a band called "Jon Butcher Axis").

The user is new to Knowledge (XXG) and doesn't seem to grasp the concept of using reliable sources to support the article text. He has recently begun re-adding material that was removed for being unsourced, this time with sources that don't support or even mention the subject. I'm not very good at explaining the concepts while assuming good faith and could use some help. Another very experienced and skillful editor (User:Chzz) was involved but has gone on break. Rees11 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki publishing

Resolved
 – All registered accounts blocked for sockpuppetry. IP blocked for three months. AfDs in place for all but one of the remaining articles. Desi Sanchez article will remain in place for now. Singularity42 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if it was accidental or not, but this user just removed the entire AFD header from the article, and of course I reverted that removal. ArcAngel (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Alright, user has removed AFD notice a second time, and I consider that to be vandalism, so I warned the user accordingly. I also warned the IP who removed the header as well. ArcAngel (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This is above COI and needs to be posted elsewhere because of socks and likely spam = a mess. I'd guess the all the following are very closely related:
Users: Wiki publishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) // Essay editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) // 99.61.4.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Articles:Financial Relief Method // Optipictual Art // Rob Eastman III // Financial Relief // Law Offices of Gerald Wolfe // Law Office of Gerald Wolfe
Well, I'll post the users to SPI and start AfDs on the articles; they're far above CSD matters but have no actual citations or non-SPS sources. Actually no. I'll ANI this for a second opinion to see if the further action is warranted or obvious. Thanks for those already-deleted articles since I wouldn't have caught them myself. Really wish I could see deletion logs... would make this so much easier. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that, as in an ec it seems ArcAngel has just saved me a lot of extra work, and I shall assume a return here soon. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? Cool beans! Glad that I could help.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course! Now, if it doesn't stop... well I suppose I'll have to do the ANI anyway. But still, saved me trouble of tagging the stuff first round. Still good after I spent an hour glaring at red text in edit logs, and you have the benefit of deletion logs to check articles vs my... guessing  :) ...I've got this on watch, and I'll check back tomorrow to see if anything is different or the editing has continued. I'm 95% sure the CU on the 3 users would match, but those guys are so terribly busy I'd rather not trouble with a fairly dull possible 3-part SPA. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am not an admin so I can't see deletion logs ;) ArcAngel (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have nominated the remaining articles for AfD due to lack of notability. There still remains the editor themselves (and socks). Probably best to do an SPI for the two accounts, the IP, and possibly 131.96.89.69 (talk · contribs). Singularity42 (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI has been opened at Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Essay editor. Singularity42 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
And we were right - group of editors (or single editor with multiple accounts) using Knowledge (XXG) to promote their clients. The only article out of these that has not been raised already is Desi Sanchez. Subject appears notable enough for a Knowledge (XXG) article, so I'm just going to tag it with {{coi}}. Singularity42 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kenny1452

‎* Kenny1452 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has created a page called Kenny Stevenson, possible conflict of interest? 5 albert square (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that's very likely. That and the copyright violations are troubling. Also created Phil Stevenson, father/brother/etc. which seems likely to be deleted soon as a copyvio of this. -- Atama頭 00:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've never reported someone for conflict of interest before. What happens next? --5 albert square (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Each COI case is handled differently, because COI cases range from a very helpful editor who happens to be close to what he is editing, to a highly-disruptive editor who needs to be blocked. Most cases fall somewhere in the middle. In this case, every article created by this editor has already been deleted. I've left the editor a welcome message on their talk page that discusses Knowledge (XXG)'s conflict of interest guideline and offers some advice, just in case they're still around. But it's likely that the editor was a "drive by"; registering an account, creating 3 articles, and then leaving. I can see that the only edits that they've done are to create those articles and that's it, no editing of any of the articles after creation, so I think it's likely that they won't edit any further. Thanks again for reporting this issue. -- Atama頭 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aura Light

Both Aura Light and Aura Long Life lamps have been deleted. The editor has been notified of the COI. I'd consider this resolved unless the articles get recreated. -- Atama頭 17:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone look at the article on George Eid and tell me what they think? filceolaire (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be improved but was there a particular COI concern you had? Rees11 (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you want the NPOV noticeboard. There is a tag on the article that suggests that it might have neutrality issues and while you've made a COI complaint on the talk page I don't see any basis for it. Single-purpose accounts aren't uncommon on Knowledge (XXG) and are used for much more than autobiographies. (Technically it isn't really an SPA, since they did edit May Chidiac.) In any case, the article creator only edited on March 24th and 29th of this year and never edited again, so if there was any basis for the complaint it would be a very stale one. -- Atama頭 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

P2U!

I've speedily deleted the userpage as a blatant advertisement per G11 criteria. Page blanking was not the proper thing to do, there are limited circumstances in which blanking a page is acceptable and blanking another person's user page for being promotional is not one of them. Not a big deal in this case, as the page should have been deleted, but just be aware of that in the future. You've suggested that the person change their username, which was appropriate and helpful, thanks for doing that. Unless and until the editor starts editing in the main article space of Knowledge (XXG) there's not much else to do. -- Atama頭 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Page was created by an editor with the same name, and an IP just added it to Prosperity theology. It is 4th on Google when you search for "Chris Mentillo", I really wish we'd do something about no-indexing all user pages. (Can I add the noindex template to pages like this one?). Several IPs have edited it - they geolocate to the Boston area where he lives. This is a bit more about him (written by him), and a google search leaves me impressed by his publicity skills. :-) Is this page a record for the number of 'See alsos' I wonder? Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support the noindex template, it looks like it's commonly used for BLP talk pages to protect negative info from getting out into Google, and the same philosophy should hold true for a BLP sandbox page that's not going to get the same scrutiny as a BLP article. I did the Google search as well, and yes this person does seem skilled at self-promotion (which in general is admirable, but for Knowledge (XXG) is a problem). I'd suggest MfD, except that the sandbox is exactly where this kind of article should go, we routinely recommend to people that they use their subpages to work on articles before putting them in the mainspace precisely to avoid premature deletion so I don't think it'd be right to do so in this case. I don't see anything in the article that warrants a speedy deletion either, so I'd say leave the noindex template and leave it alone until this tries to get moved into the mainspace. -- Atama頭 18:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that, hopefully correctly, but someone else has tagged it for speedy delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I agree with the tag, it doesn't seem all that promotional as written, but I agree that the page was probably created with promotional intent. Let's see what another admin does with that. -- Atama頭 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been declined. Found another problem though, I think that this user may be using several accounts, 72.74.219.159 (talk · contribs) has added to the Mentillo article and created User:Docment/Got money records, owned by Mentillo, and has put it as a link at List of hip hop record labels. Maybe they/he/she doesn't understand the difference between userspace and article space? 72.74.210.53 (talk · contribs) appears to be the same editor.
Now this is odd and worrying. Docment (talk · contribs) is blocked as a sockpuppet. Ah, the sockpuppet page leads me to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chris mentillo from last month. So, we seem to have an attempt to avoid both the block and the AfD result. A search on Google for "got money records" brings it up as the first hit, and the 2nd hit is Chris Mentillo's userspace article. Maybe this is an ANI issue - or maybe I should just block the accounts and delete both. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Christopher mentillo indefinitely for disruption (i.e. blatant recreation), spamming, and sock puppetry. I have also moved the userfied page to the article incubator; I think all of the pages there are supposed to be NOINDEXed, so it should be safe there for those to make improvements if need be. It's rather late here, so if I missed something, let me know. MuZemike 08:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There are some clear IP socks here, but anon-only rangeblocking is out of the question as the ranges are too busy, not to mention too wide to block. MuZemike 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I keep forgetting about the incubator. I'll check to see if anything else needs action after breakfast. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NBeale on Faraday Institute

Resolved
 – Mostly because this thread isn't even about a COI anymore. -- Atama頭 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It can't be COI to add refs from impeccable sources (eg Science) and this article has been on Knowledge (XXG) since 2006, unchallenged until Hrafn has mounted his forlorn campaign against it, which seems to consist of demanding that people add references and then complaining that its COI when I do. The notability of the Faraday Institute is beyond reasonable doubt, as anyone who works in the field knows. (PS it is not very civil to post on the COI noticeboard without informing the editor complained of) NBeale (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Adding references to a statement, that do not explicitly contain the claim contained in the statement, is WP:Synthesis, regardless of the reliability of the sources added (and the Science reference has not been disputed on the basis of synthesis).
  2. You neglected to mention this edit re-inserting honorifics in violation of WP:MOSBIO, removing WP:ASF attribution and re-adding a list of self-published material.
  3. The article's sourcing is a bunch of one-sentence-mentions (which WP:NOTE describes as "plainly trivial" coverage) and non-independent coverage. It is therefore perfectly 'reasonable' to doubt its notability.

HrafnStalk 03:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As the highly respected independent editor DGG rightly says "the notability is clear and obvious". Please desist in this silly campaign. NBeale (talk) 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:Complete bollocks! DGG is not an "independent editor" (having made multiple edits to the article), and he is notorious fro his radically inclusionist views Further, he offered no substantiation for his opinion. Further, this edit, is in clear violation of WP:COI. HrafnStalk 08:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If you feel that notability is not and cannot be established why don't you nominate it for deletion? Save everyone some time and drama. Unomi (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are two different issues here. One is notability of the article itself (which should be handled at AfD), the other is a conflict of interest from NBeale editing the article. From what I can tell, NBeale has been open about the COI but I would suggest trying to follow WP:SCOIC as some of the edits have been problematic and controversial (reverting edits in violation of MOS calling it "borderline vandalism" for example). Stick to the article talk page if you can.
I see another problem however. Hrafn, characterizing DGG as being "notorious fro his radically inclusionist views" is a borderline personal attack. I'd suggest redacting that statement. -- Atama頭 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see exactly the same problem, and have pointed it out to Hrafn in the past (along with the fact that another editor was just blocked indef for calling an al-Quaeda recruiter "evil". To say "my opinion is you are notorious" is ugly. To say "you are notorious" on Knowledge (XXG) is defamatory. I've just at the AfD discussed it again with Hrafn; I can't tell from his response whether he cares much for my view on the matter. Perhaps you independently reaching the same conclusion will lead him to apologize.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • <yawn> (i) You have no basis for directly equating "notoriously" with "evil", let alone declaring that adverb to be per se defamatory. (ii) All this hullabaloo over an already-striken comment. HrafnStalk 07:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Notorious -- "ill-famed, infamous, notorious (known widely and usually unfavorably)" See here. Writing for all the world to see that DGG is (not in your opinion, mind you, but is) notorious is defamatory. He deserves an apology, and it might actually help your arguments if your were more civil with your fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The dictionary definition I quoted above, with a link, is the first one that appears in a google search for a definition of the term. It is simply innappropriate, and defamatory.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(i) I had already rephrased this comment, prior to your comment. (ii) DGG's inclusionism is sufficiently pronounced and sufficiently widely commented upon (see for instance Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development#Statement by User:Kww) that characterising it as "notorious" & "radical" is pretty much WP:SPADE. The article is now at AfD. HrafnStalk 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That defamatory statement remains above, untouched rather than crossed out. In addition, I would point out that at the AfD on the Faraday Institute right now that you have brought, you stated incorrectly (for reasons I point out there) that NBeale -- disclosing his relationship -- is not allowed to comment. That is inappropriate, as the guidance makes clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Epeefleche: your comment is in pervasive violation of WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable "Do not misrepresent other people". Beyond that (unless explicitly stated elsewhere) I reject wholesale your premises and your conclusions, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. HrafnStalk 03:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
My dear friend, what in the world are you talking about. Even nowthe defamatory statement remains above, untouched rather than crossed out. And you have the temerity to cross the line and accuse me of misrepresenting you? Really, I'm not sure where the problem lies, but I am offended by your audacity and defamatory remarks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Leave out the saccharine WP:BAITing. I had forgotten that I had repeated my intemperate (though accurate) statement from article talk to the thread above. Except as excepted here, my above rejection stands ("notorious", NBeale, notability, WP:NORN, everything you say on the AfD and on article talk, etc). HrafnStalk 03:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finally owning up to your being intemperate and making misstatements. At least, to half of the instances in this string. Its a start.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
not that I take offense, myself, but for the benefit of anyone who knows me, but I've personally deleted over 9,000 articles in my two years as an admin & probably !voted delete on about 3,000. That's certainly more than I've managed to save. Saving is harder. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree, having participated in a number of AfDs that DGG has shown up to that he seems to be pretty balanced, he's far from a rabid inclusionist. And yes, it's definitely easier to delete something than to save it. Anyway, since this thread has turned into a spat between two editors and is no longer about NBeale, Faraday Institute, or COI I'm going to mark it "resolved". -- Atama頭 00:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Schoolofmace

Resolved
 – User blocked as a role account Smartse (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Beetstra blocked them, they must have considered it a violation of WP:Username which I'd say I agree with as it is a pretty clear acronym. Their edits where pretty biased though like saying it "is one of the leading engineering schools in the world and the largest in Europe". Smartse (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
They created some socks after but that's been sorted out too: Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Schoolofmace/Archive Smartse (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several editors who seems to be students (disaffected) and administrators for the school who are actively editing the article. I have been trying my best to have them discuss the issues on the talk page, but have not been very successful. Looking for some more help. Thanks. Basket of Puppies 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

some of it was rather outrageous--one students complaint that he had failed a course but did not deserve to; in the other direction, the article contained details of the fee schedule and the sequence of course. I removed those also. I invite some other admin to review my changes and protect the article if necessary. The deleted material included an image of a student grade transcript intended to support the material. someone who's an admin at Commons also is needed to remove that one. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Students are mad about the school and want to soapbox, I support your actions DGG. -- Atama頭 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted)

I am relisting this thread, as the editor has become active again and today has posted a statement here. I still feel it is best to discuss this here, so we can clarify and properly resolve the matter, and eventually remove the tags from the Douglas Coupland article. I've invited the editor to make a brief statement here. --JN466 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Douglas_Coupland#Story_2.

GoneAFK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be editing with an undeclared conflict of interest.

Looking at their contributions do seem to be a single purpose account, having only related articles related to Douglas Coupland. Their edits certainly cause some concern and suggest a COI, namely inserting lots of images from a personal website. The articles about his novels also need checking, I found this, pretty much a total re-write of Life After God. I'm not entirely convinced of a COI, they could possibly be a devoted fan but it definitely needs clarification. JN has left them a note so hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the situation. Smartse (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
An IP has done some work on the Douglas Coupland article which has addressed most of the style/content concerns, and I've removed two of the tags. --JN466 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the conflict of Interest problems, it seems that the person who recently edited the article, by IP from the University of Alberta, I believe that any over the top language has been attested to. I am the sole editor behind many of the article rewrites, but a partner in the creation of the primary Coupland article. In reference to that, I understand some of the language was improper, but I see that those problems have been addressed. Let us work together to further this article, I am only interested in making this article accurate and well rounded. GoneAFK (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Joey Dauben

Resolved
 – Article deleted. Rees11 (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Promotional article written by user with the same name as subject. Very few secondary references but full of personal observations not sure it he is notable either but it probably needs a substantial rewrite or is a candidate for deletion. Any advice appreciation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's already survived db-person but is completely unsourced so I suggest AfD. Rees11 (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Google News shows some minor notability of a negative kind. Not enough to warrant an article in my opinion. The article could possibly be speedied as an advertisement but I'd say just let the proposed deletion run its course. -- Atama頭 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Mahdipn

Resolved
 – The article in question was deleted, the editor has made no other edits since. -- Atama頭 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Corporate usernames at Baynote

Stale
 – Per below. -- Atama頭 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Two corporate officers of the software company Baynote have been editing their company's article with the usernames Jack S. Jia (talk · contribs) (the CEO)& Mjsvatek (talk · contribs) (former VP of marketing). Would these be blockable blatent COI/corporate spam accounts?--Blargh29 (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Jia is fine. In his deleted contributions, he created an autobiography (Jack Jia) but later deleted it himself with the explanation, "deleted to avoid COI". His only contribution aside from that (and only non-deleted contribution) was to wikilink "Jack Jia" within the Baynote article. Yes, he has engaged in self-promotion at one time but since then has been very good about following suggestions at WP:COI. Also, he edited one day, January 5, 2009, and never edited since (and I doubt will edit again).
Mjsvatek is a little more blatant, but hasn't edited Knowledge (XXG) since July 2007. Not only that, but his entire edit history is over a 5 day span. Since this was apparently a short-lived throwaway account that hasn't done anything for 2 1/2 years I don't think we need to worry about it.
Currently the article is a very short stub but with a lot of references to show notability. There's nothing at the article to fix, the editors mentioned edited in a very short time period long ago, so there doesn't seem to be anything else to do. -- Atama頭 21:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several attempts by Edward Davenport - a confirmed con-artist as reported by the BBC - to edit his page in order to add legitimacy to his scams by claiming a variety of nonsense. He has continually posted under several different names and several different IP addresses, an act which I would imagine to be typical modus operandi for a confidence trickster. I have in the past reported the page for self-promotion and it was frozen for quite some time. I therefore request help from the wikipedia community in order to determine what to do to this page given that I am at wit's end with this article in particular. Rowing88 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've done some work on it, you are right that there were certainly some problems. One source states that he has a "reputation as one of the social circuit's most shameless self-publicists" so wasn't too surprising to find a list of celebrities who have vistited his house in the article. I've removed some other irrelevant stuff about his house and made it more neutral. Just to note Rowing88, remember to assume good faith - we can't be sure that the page was edited by him using multiple IPs. Smartse (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The other thing is that, as a BLP, we need to be cautious about negative info. Be certain you have rock solid sources for that stuff, and don't put in anything negative that isn't encyclopedic and doesn't improve the article. Granted, we don't give article subjects free reign to sanitize their articles but we don't want the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction. -- Atama頭 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Article was kept in the discussion, but is being improved. -- Atama頭 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention that the Kirkland Reporter is a small, local free newspaper and mention in that paper isn't much for notability. (I lived in Kirkland for a couple of years.) I've reverted all of Ddetwiler's edits on that article, they were clearly either self-promotion or a joe job. I've welcomed the editor and given a COI notice, and I'm also going to nominate the article for deletion. -- Atama頭 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The deletion discussion can be seen here. -- Atama頭 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastman Kodak Company

I can't say that I approve of asking someone directly whether or not they work for Kodak, it is dangerously close to violating WP:OUT. It's not unreasonable to suspect that, considering their edit history and declaration of being a native of Rochester, NY. I'll take a look at the article itself, if anonymous editors are adding too much POV info then semiprotection may be warranted. I'll look over the history of the article and try to come up with a solution for that. -- Atama頭 17:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Shesh Paul Vaid

Please have a look at Shesh Paul Vaid, which was created by a user who until 30 November was called User:Vaiddauji. He edits almost exclusively on the Indian Police and has removed the COI tag without discussion. I strongly suspect a user creating a page about himself. I've also tagged it for notability. Shem (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The COI does seem pretty likely - this certainly makes it sound like they're someway associated with Shesh Paul Vaid. I see that they've decided to retire so hopefully there won't cause any problems. COI isn't a worthy reason for deletion in itself, I've tried looking for sources about the guy but can't find enough coverage to meet WP:BIO, there are plenty of hits for "S P Vaid" but I'm not convinced that they constitute "substantial coverage" as they only seem to be him being quoted in news articles. I'm tempted to say that it should go to AfD but there might well be some better sources out there so won't for the moment. Smartse (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the COI template as there aren't any problems with the article as it is. Smartse (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've put the tag back on. Despite the the user's intention to retire, the article and associated talk pages have been edited by an Indian Government IP with the intention to remove the COI. This verges on Sockpuppetry. I'm tempted to go to AfD for this article, based on the lack of notability, the COI and the attempts to hide the issues. Shem (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
COI in itself isn't a reason to send an article to AfD, I'll try to find more sources. Not sure how you worked out the IPs are from the Indian govt, this says they are "NIB (NATIONAL INTERNET BACKBONE)". Smartse (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a Dauji Vaid who is a high school student. It doesn't seem to be the first person as Shesh Paul Vaid. There may or may not be a COI, they might be a relative but since they directly deny having any sort of connection and have expressed that they no longer want to edit Knowledge (XXG) it doesn't really matter. There's no way to prove the COI and if they're retiring then there's no longer a conflict if there was one to begin with. Nobody has contested the proposed deletion, even JK-RULZ has said to delete it if more sources can't be found. Smartse has expressed an intention to find more sources, and there is almost a week before the proposed deletion tag expires so I'd say just see what happens. The fate of the article hinges on whether or not there is enough to show notability, which is as it should be. -- Atama頭 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Amideg appears to have a strong personal connection with the subject of this BLP. The article has been controversial in the past. It survived AfD, and then there was a merge proposal which led to a lot of discussion. It relates to fringe theories - you'll see if you look at it. I supported keeping the article separate and would still defend notability. But that's only on condition that it remains NPOV and does not include any cruft that would tend to support fringe theories. Could some people have a look. It may be that some of the new edits are OK, but at first glance the sourcing is not great. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the COI yet, but articles that meet notability should be kept no matter what state they are in. NPOV problems need to be fixed, not deleted. Editors who insist on violating WP:NPOV either need to stop editing with a slant or stop editing the article (voluntarily or involuntarily). -- Atama頭 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here isAmidegThere is something strange happening. On December 1st, 2009 I have made edits and added references to the above article. These changes have been deleted by ItsmeJudith - she says so herself - in less than half an hour, giving nobody a chance to look and judge my edits. On december 3rd, I find that any trace of my edits and of ItsmeJudith' deletions have disappeared from the history page of the article - as if nothing had ever happened. I would like to know how this can happen, and who is responsible for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amideg (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying here. Maybe you can clear up some of the concerns that have been mentioned. To answer your question, I'm not sure what you mean. I see 4 edits from you in the article on December 1, totalled here, followed by a revert by Itsmejudith here, and then one more edit by on on that day here. Then you made one more edit today. I'm not sure why you thought that all trace of them was gone, you're looking at the history page correct?
Anyway, now that you're here, I was wondering if you could clear up this; it says "self-picture", so are you saying in that photo upload that you are Alfred de Grazia? If you aren't, and Alfred was the one who took the picture (it says "self-picture") then how are you the copyright holder? Thank you. -- Atama頭 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Amideg When I called up the article, edits of Dec. 1, both by me and Itsmejudith, did not appear today for several hours whereas those of Dec 3 did. The Dec 1 edits are now visible again. The incident is therefore closed. Sorry about the picture: I understood that "self-picture" meant that it was not a source picture under copyright protection. I am learning as I go along.

Conflict of interest is a challenging issue when most of the editors act under a pseudonym concealing their identity, and therefore, their interests. For instance, I know full well the identity of “Phaedrus7" who nominated the biographical article “Alfred de Grazia” for deletion under the pretext of its being a “vanity article.” This same "Phaedrus7" has since had an article posted about himself, from all appearances written by himself, and a far cry from the exacting standards which you strive to enforce. Judge by the following eminently irrelevant sentence concerning "Phaedrus7": “He first read “Worlds in Collision” in August 1969 after discovering it while browsing in the B. Dalton’s Bookstore in Crestwood, Missouri.”

Yet, by contrast, and just to give an example among many, mention of Alfred de Grazia's WWII experience as one of the first officers to come out in 1943 of the newly created Psychological Warfare Unit of the recently created OSS in Camp Ritchie is not considered relevant to his biographical article and has been repeatedly deleted. Is this less relevant to Knowledge (XXG) than learning that Mr X walked into a Dalton’s bookstore in August 1969? Writing and nurturing an article about oneself while nominating for deletion an article about someone of more considerable achievements is an interesting case of a conflict of interest and it deserves being looked into.

The article in its present state is by no means NPOV as it subtly but pointedly emphasizes negative matters that can be found in subject's biography while suppressing matters of interest which could reflect favorably on the subject. When I tried to set the record straight about his being denied tenure at Stanford University (how often is denial of tenure mentioned in a wikipedia biography?) by citing lines of Rebecca S. Lowen's book "Creating the Cold War University: the Transformation of Stanford" (U. of California Press, 1997) which puts this episode into the larger context of the Cold War and of McCarthyism, and makes it indeed significant, my edit was immediately erased, leaving the community little chance to judge. The very fact that there is a discussion about "notability" of the subject going on, which is still not resolved after three years, when subject has published more than 20 books in political science with publishers like Alfred Knopf or Wiley or Doubleday, shows that a certain amount of bad faith must be at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amideg (talk • contribs) 22:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If your edits are being reverted, that's what the talk page of the article is for. Please see WP:BRD for an explanation of how that process works in Knowledge (XXG). Basically, you don't need to worry about the community having a "change to judge" your edits because you can address the community directly through the talk page. Except for extreme circumstances, your comments on talk pages can't be removed, and so everyone can judge your arguments freely. You can even put the information on the talk page of the article that you wanted to put on the main page and ask people to judge it. Knowledge (XXG) is a collaboration, no one person can own an article, so it's important that editors are able to talk to each other about the information in an article. Although it can feel like you're being shut out and your efforts are dismissed when your edits are deleted, don't worry, that's part of the process and your input is valuable as long as you are genuinely trying to improve the article. -- Atama頭 22:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User UBX misleading and possible conflict of interest

I think there is conflict of interest because WP:UBX#Which namespace? shouldn't promote User:UBX which is also linked to User:Mets501. Knowledge (XXG):Userboxes promotes User:UBX as well by giving indirect indication to store userboxes there, see 'A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX)'. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion. Central location for userboxes shouldn't be under somebody's username. Discussed on ] – imis 04:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG)'s conflict of interest guidelines concern editors using Knowledge (XXG) to promote outside interests. That is not what is occurring here at all. User:UBX was a convenience account set up to host userboxes, and while it isn't a bot account it is used in much the same way; the account exists for the benefit of the community and isn't used to edit articles as a regular account would be used. The reason why the user page says that it is an alternate account of Mets501 is to avoid charges of sockpuppetry; it is best that alternate accounts are openly declared. Since the community has had a long history of bot accounts operating that point back to their creators (or even named for them) I can't see how this UBX account can be considered unduly promotional. It's regrettable if the situation led to some confusion but it looks like nothing improper is being done. -- Atama頭 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User Nikhileshwaranand

The COI is quite strongly indicated from their username. I removed the A7 tag, just to let you know, because the article clearly indicates the importance of the individual. It fails to establish notability with reliable sources, but that's not necessary, only a credible assertion of importance is needed. I did Google this person's name and this doesn't seem to be a hoax; although I think that the article subject actually died 11 years ago, this article says that he "left his physical form in 1998" which implies that he died (to me at least). There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this person to satisfy WP:BIO so you might want to propose it for deletion.
I've informed the editor of the COI concerns and asked them to participate here. If they have interests in Knowledge (XXG) beyond the article they created and don't have an actual COI I would recommend that they choose a less promotional username. -- Atama頭 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑