Knowledge (XXG)

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 52 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Ian Cooper (Violinist)

User creating and editing their own autobiography after they have declaired ownership and have been warned regarding COI. They appear to be editing both as an IP and an account (IP declares ownership on article discussion page, account userpage forwards to the article). For both accounts, all edits have been promoting Ian Cooper. Notability is borderline (lots of namedropping). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I found the link where the IP claims to be the subject of the article (). Do we have any concrete information (diffs) that the account belongs to the IP? The userpage redirect is due to the user creating the article in their userspace then moving it to mainspace. Also, the account and IP never claim ownership in edits or edit summaries. I've gone through every single edit by the account and IP. I personally feel that the subject at least fulfills WP:BAND point 12 by being featured by a nationally syndicated program and probably WP:GNG. The article isn't overly advertorial but there is a good amount of fluff that probably doesn't need to be there. OlYeller 12:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Just through a cursory look at the contributions of the IP and the account, I find it very implausible that they are the same person. From around 12:00 (UTC) on August 18 to just after 13:30, both the account and IP were continuously active, with a half dozen edits from the IP and over a dozen from the account within minutes of each other in that timeframe. If the IP was just the account logged out, then Ianjazz would have had to somehow log out, make an edit, then log in right away, over and over again. It's possible that Ianjazz was on two computers simultaneously, or two browsers on the same computer, and switching back and forth, but that's a lot of effort to maintain such duplicity and I don't see the purpose of it. It's certainly not a simple case of a person with an account being logged out temporarily and making edits.
I think the most plausible explanation is that these are two different people. They also don't have any overlap in the topics they edit, aside from the Ian Cooper article itself. They could be coordinating off-wiki in some way, maybe, it seems a bit coincidental that they both stopped editing at almost the same exact time (around 13:30 (UTC) on August 18). That would then mean that the IP is Cooper, and the account is someone that Cooper knows that created the article for him. But again, this is just speculation on my part. -- Atama頭 16:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The ip is Ian Cooper, as he stated this in the article discussion page (which has now been removed). If Ian Jazz is not him, then its likely that it is a PR firm or the like (since its has linked to images which were uploaded to commons 5 minutes earlier by Ian Cooper (19 Aug). -- Regardless, how should these edits be treated? There are clear whitewash / Autobiog issues, and both accounts ignore engagement and edit articles only related to Ian Cooper. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The IP claims to be Ian. I'll take his word for it, I don't see why not at this point. I'm just wondering, are there any edits that are particularly problematic? I've done a random sample from both editors and haven't seen anything particularly alarming. Not that the COI should be ignored (and if there is no COI then I'm a ham sandwich) but if the end result is that the encyclopedia gets fleshed out with some extra information on a potentially notable subject that might need some cleanup afterward, should we try to hinder that? -- Atama頭 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It depends on whether we want wikipedia to be objective and unbiased I suppose. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) will never be completely objective and unbiased, see WP:BIAS for numerous examples. Nor can any editor be 100% unbiased, I sure am not. On the other hand, we can judge the neutrality of a person's content contributions, which is one thing we usually do where a COI exists. That's why I'm trying to find specific examples here. -- Atama頭 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Images in multiple articles

  • Multiple articles

I wasn't sure where to bring this issue - conflict of interest seems to be the closest. It appears that some narcissist has given his personal collection of ephemera/kitsch the pretentious name of "The Cooper Collections," adding images of pieces of the collection to dozens of articles (examples below). The problem is threefold: (1.) There is a legitimate Cooper Collection, so the name of this pseudocollection confuses the matter; (2.) The owner of the "Cooper Collections" has added a note to each of the many images in the articles that the image is courtesy of the "Cooper Collections." This doesn't pass WP:MOS muster, does it? and (3.) In many (most?) instances, the images add nothing to the article, serving as little more than litter. Mass Construction (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yele_Haiti

CindyTanenbaum has created and been editing the article Yéle_Haiti. This article was forked out from the Wyclef Jean article. There were a lot of questions about this organization's finances in the past, and this information was included in the Wyclef Jean article. This information was correctly removed when the Yéle_Haiti article was created, but didn't end up in the new article. After restoring it to the new article, and being reverted without explanation by CindyTanenbaum, I was curious and searched for her and Yéle_Haiti in google. I quickly found a press release from Yéle_Haiti that listed a Cindy Tanenbaum as the Point of Contact. I am unsure how to proceed from this point. Sperril (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Between your notice that you brought the situation here and the warning I just placed, I think the best plan now would be to wait and see how she reacts. I've put the page on my watch list and can help you restore the sourced text if she or someone else attempts to whitewash again. We should report back here if we see anything else suspicious.
For the record, I've confirmed what you've found. While it could possibly be another Cindy Tanenbaum that's not related to the subject, I think the duck test applies here. OlYeller 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I just noticed that OTRS has confirmed that her previously copyvio tagged edits were properly released to the wiki. I think that establishes who she is at this point. Sorry I couldn't find the right template. I'm still learning when it comes to project tasks. Sperril (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Flemish Giant rabbits

The article was tagged as having weasel words.Not only that, but much of the info is painfully incorrect. When I tried to fix it, Red Rover an Admin banned me from changing the text, I assume they may have written the article? The info needs to be changed as someone may read this and think you can feed a rabbit leafy greens, you can't it will kill them, or that a rabbits pelvic bone fuses, it does not.These are but a few examples of the misinformation on that page. My email is , my website to show Im knowledgeable on this subject is www.pet-rabbit.netfirms.com IaJewel (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I fail to see how this is a conflict of interest so question why it is listed here and not on the article's talk page. Secondly your edits to Flemish Giant have been reverted by five different editors including myself and one bot. Despite repeated warnings you neither responded on the article's talk page, nor your own talk page. Subsequent to your edit warring you have now been blocked for 24 hours. I suggest you take this time out to read about the Knowledge (XXG) policies posted on your talk page, or engage there in a constructive discussion to understand why you have been blocked and what you can do to make positive, well sourced, changes to the article in question. --Simple Bob (Talk) 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Gompertz–Makeham law of mortality‎‎

Since April 2007, adding mentions of/Amazon links to medical books authored by Leonid A. Gavrilov & Natalia S. Gavrilova. User page is a lengthy CV of Dr. Leonid A. Gavrilov. --CliffC (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also,

Note also article Leonid Gavrilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created 14 August. I'm not questioning Dr. Gavrilov's notability, I'm just pointing out the promotional aspects of all this. --CliffC (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The user page at User:Gavrilov is clearly in breach of the WP:UP guidelines (it's basically a CV and therefore promotional) and I have tagged it for speedy deletion accordingly. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the userpage. I'd like to ask, though, that we handle Dr. Gavrilov with a bit of tact, unless and until he (or she, if this is Natalia) becomes willfully disruptive (ignoring requests to discuss things, attacking other editors, etc.). I do have concerns about the relentless spam, the editor's contributions are questionable at best, but I also hate chasing away subject matter experts for COI reasons. -- Atama頭 19:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hundredth (band)

See post on the talk page of the article. In addition, the article was apparently mentioned by the band on their Facebook page while it was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm requesting at least a few extra eyes on the article. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the article's talk page about the band's notability; essentially the claim that it met WP:BAND criterion number 5. (The band has only released one album, and I'm not convinced that the label is a notable one.) -- Atama頭 19:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Would listing it at AfD be appropriate? After putting it on my watchlist via NPP, I've noticed the only substantial edits were by apparent SPAs and IPs. It also appears that the subject fails WP:BAND, though admittedly I haven't done a proper WP:BEFORE check yet. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing that would make the AfD inappropriate, but I do strongly encourage you to check for sources just in case. I highly doubt you'll find anything but you never know, I've been surprised myself more than once by finding good references for a subject that I wouldn't expect to have any. -- Atama頭 19:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • User:Steinway1701 is doing nothing but advertising this project all over Knowledge (XXG). Since one of their goals is to get tens of thousands of participants, and he/she wants to add non-free pictures from the project (which advertise the project as well as the subject) to the articles on every notable participant, the clutter factor is getting pretty appalling. I've given him/her templated anti-spam and COI warnings, and added a link to WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a G11 to me. It appears to be notable but at this point, it could only be more spammy if there was a link towards the top of the page pointing to a donation website. OlYeller 16:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, and have tagged it as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Although, I guess G11 won't solve the presented issue. The editor has been painting the same information all over WP. I've been going through their contributions but it looks like it's all been cleaned up so far (they added the info to very high traffic articles that are highly monitored by other editors). Eventually, the files they have uploaded won't be linked to anything and deleted unless someone wants to take the initiative for copyvio checking/tagging/deleting. I'll keep looking through their contribs for missed spamming but an admin can watch their future contributions and take whatever action they see fit for the spammery. I'll make sure all the past spamming is dealt with. OlYeller 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Finished checking past contribs. Looks like Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) took care of almost all of their article contribs (I didn't check files/photos). High five him if you get a chance. OlYeller 17:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It is not my intention to be SPAMING Knowledge (XXG) or to be "cluttering" the site. My only reason for joining this community in the first place was because I was introduced to the I Am Equal photo documentary recently on Facebook, saw that Chelsea Handler had participated, posted on her Facebook, and her website about the campaign, and was surprised to see that it had not yet been added Knowledge (XXG). Understanding the importance of citations, I researched the project, and gathered over 50 news articles and reports before beginning to build the article and then went through a rather clumsy learning curve to get the information into Knowledge (XXG). Editing, citations, and formatting in wiki is all new to me and I'll admit, I have had to make many (minor and otherwise) changes to the article to get it where I thought it was matching other materials on the site. I have done my best to be thorough in my citations. I acknowledge that I may have done too many since after adding traditional news citations, I also searched the web for more details to verify references to events or individuals mentioned in the article, and added more citation references to galleries, and press releases. I thought they were relevant and supportive to the details being shared. There also seems to be some concern about my trying to add reference to the photo documentary on other wikipedia articles. I'll admit, if this is a problem then it's a result of my ignorance to the terminology of the site. While I was building the initial article, an administrator added the ORPHAN template to the top of the page indicating that there were no other articles linking to the page. I took that to mean I needed to go and create those connections (because they don't just make themselves). So naturally, I proceeded to the articles of the individuals, groups, and corporations mentioned in the main article and added a brief paragraph and link to the documentary page. It seemed to be exactly what the Orphan template had told me to do. Unfortunately, another administrator followed me around the site and systematically removed the references without explaining to me the problem or how to resolve the Orphan issue without adding references to other articles. Regarding the use of non-Free images, I must claim ignorance again. I thought that it made sense to supply the image of the individual, celebrity, or group referenced in the article as additional support for the fact that they had participated in the campaign. It's clearly my novice mistake to assume that an article should have as much support material as possible. As such, I attempted to upload the appropriate images that I found in the project gallery and include them in the article or associated article references. Of course, another admin was quick to remove the images and tried to explain the licensing issues associated with it. I attempted to navigate my way through the licensing and non-Free use materials to better understand the issue, but I'll admit, I'm still not totally clear on the procedures (though I think I understand the Fair Use Rational process for non-Free images). Needless to say, I am new to wikipedia and not completely versed in the process of adding, editing, and referencing articles in the system. Although I am new (and this article process was less then elegant), I still hold that the I Am Equal (photo documentary) is a noteworthy project that belongs in wikipedia. I'm happy to leave it to the admins to create the associated links to other articles as they see fit and add related images when appropriate, because I just don't get the rules of that process. As a wikipedia user, I feel the article is relevant based solely on how I heard about it. It took very little research for me to find out that this campaign is much bigger than I thought and something these individual participants are proud to be part of. My research lead me to websites, news articles, and phone calls to documentary office so I was absolutely clear on what the campaign is, how it works, what the intention is, and how long it will be going on. I included all my research notes in the article and built as complete an entry as I possibly could. I feel invested in the article simply because of the time, effort, research, and verification I put in knowing this is my first article on wikipedia and wanting it to be complete. In my naivete, I though that the research would be the hard part and adding the article to wikipedia would be easy, but I was wrong. Getting this article into the site, dealing with the admins, automatic template messages, talk pages, moving conversations, conflicting instructions, and threats of deletion have been more than I was expecting. I'd like to see the best article possible about the I Am Equal photo documentary on the site as possible so when other users come here to research (as I did initially after seeing the information on Chelsea Handler's facebook page) can get a complete understanding of the campaign. I'd also like to think that as the campaign grows over the years and new celebrities, groups, and corporations participate in the project, that information can be added to the article. Perhaps I am not the best person to do that because of my ignorance to the process, but perhaps someone else (an admin, maybe) will take up the responsibilty of keeping this article current and accurate for future readers. Steinway1701 (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Steinway. There are several problems with the article as it stands. As a new editor, no one really expects you to know all of the policies and guidelines that rule WP so don't feel like you've done something that can't be fixed. First off, for the subject to be included, it must satisfy an inclusion guideline found at WP:Notability which I'm almost certain that it does. Secondly, the article's information must be WP:Verifiable and non-bias (which is where the advertising-ish content is a problem). As of right now, the article reads like an advertisement and not so much like part of an encyclopedia (the links and prose of the text contribute the most to that in my opinion). Most importantly, even if the article is deleted, that doesn't mean that content is gone. We can WP:userfy it for you and put it in your userspace to work on until it's ready for mainspace. I certainly appreciate that you want to make the best article possible from I Am Equal. WP's goal is to have the best encyclopedic article for notable subjects as well. We just need to make sure that your goals and WP's goals line up. I highly doubt you want anything other than that so I'm sure we'll be able to get this worked out. Does that make sense so far? OlYeller 17:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand that everyone is committed to maintaining Knowledge (XXG) as a credible resource for information and a neutral space for all users. I know that there is a learning curve for entering the world of wiki and I have done my best to get through that as best I can. There are so many admins now focusing on what I have done (and what I was doing) that I am surprised none of them actually contacted me to explain the errors I was making BEFORE suggesting the article be deleted. They were quick to delete my work, suggest deletions, and remove links...but never actually work with me to resolve the issues. As a result, I feel like I am now chasing around this site, answering allegations of SPAM and promotion, fighting deletion, etc when much of this could have been mitigated with conversation and explanation. I'll be honest, I'm quite disillusioned by this whole process. At this point, it's getting so that I feel that the process is stacked against me at this time and there is nothing I can do to make this right. The fact is, the article is noteworthy. It's written from resources and news I found about the project. I probably included too much detail (because of the exhaustive research I did before starting this process) and thus called down the ire of the admins who now seem hell-bent on deleting the article completely rather than using their expertise to resolve the issues (or at the very least converse with me about the problems). I have initiated Talk conversations on a few of these admins walls and they are left unanswered. Instead, I find a new action has been taken against my work. It's frustrating. I'm doing my best to remember that everyone just wants to keep wikipedia clean and free of promotional spam...but the whole process seems more vindictive, exclusionary, and passive aggressive than I would have expected from a community-driven initiative. At this point, I don't know what I want to do. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
While I can't pretend to know how you feel right now, when I made my first article, it was quickly deleted and I felt helpless and prosecuted. I really don't want you to feel like that. Deletion doesn't mean anyone is blowing things away with a bazooka. No one is mad at you or what you've done. It's incredibly common for new users and I would be that 80% of users who start out here, have mad the same mistakes. Deleting the article for now is more like making it not visible to regular users until we can address a few issues. The subject does appear notable ([WP's "notable" is well defined and may be different than you think). No one is hell-bent on deletion; quite the contrary. I (not an admin) am doing my best to help you and WP by taking the steps necessary to make sure that the article complies with WP's policies and guidelines. The harsh nature probably comes from people doing lots of things at one time. The lag in communication is very common on WP but it's important to remember that nothing is permanent. Articles deleted 5 years ago can be brought back to mainspace with a few clicks of a mouse.
I suggest taking a break for a few hours or a day. From my experience, people aren't being quite as aggressive as you are perceiving. There are plenty of people here that want to help you create an article; we're all here to improve WP. I'll gladly lend my WP experience to you to help you with the article. Would you like me to help? Again, I'd be more than happy to help. I can userfy the article for you so that we can work on it together. OlYeller 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems best that one of the more capable admins can write this article better than me. I'll make it easy and supply links to all the news articles I found about the project that started me down this path to begin with. I'd rather it get entered into the site in the correct way than continue to blindly stumble through the process and be slapped down as a new contributor at every turn. Steinway1701 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think that an admin needs to even be involved in this process? It's very unlikely that anyone will write this article for you. I've been jumping through hoops to explain things to you, extend an olive branch, and help you create a good article. To keep saying that you're being "slapped down" or suggesting that I'm not able to help you is quite frankly offensive. Feel free to ask around for help and I hope you find someone. If you want my help, I'm here for the asking. OlYeller 18:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • OlYeller you have been awesome, and I have learned more from you and the time you have taken to explain this process than anyone else, and I truly appreciate everything you have said. It's that kind of attention and guidance I could have used 3 days ago when all this madness started. I guess I imagined Knowledge (XXG) was populated by OlYeller-type people who want to make sure it's a collaborative environment that is welcoming to new contributors...but that hasn't been my experience until now. I'm happy to take a stab at getting the article up to snuff in an area of the site that is not publicly accessible (since many admins seem to agree that my article is a gross misuse of the wikipedia site). I honestly have no idea what is involved in that, nor how to move it from that testing area back into the main site when I'm done. Whatever you think is best is what I'll do. Steinway1701 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • So, now some other admin has deleted the page. I've actually lost track of all the different admins who have jumped in on this article with different instructions, actions, and motives. I'd like to work on the page and get it up to snuff with wikipedia, but the whole process is seeming convoluted and inconsistent. So many admins with broad discretionary powers to move, change, and adjust content without question, discussion, or explanation is not a very collaborative approach for a site that seems to be built by the masses. It's looking more like a small group of admins do whatever they please with very little interest in cultivating new users and contributions. It's disappointing to say the least. I'm comforted in having found OlYeller in this process. Maybe there is still hope that there are genuinely collaboratively-minded individuals in the Knowledge (XXG) world and there's a chance for new people like me to make a positive contribution in the end. Steinway1701 (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I've asked the deleting admin to move it to your userspace. Either he or I will let you know when it's there. From there, we can work on it. I've got a deadline coming up at work here in a few hours and need to focus on that but I'll be back later to help out. If anyone else is available, they'll be able to help as well.
As for the report on this page, I don't see that Steinway is closely related to the subject so I don't believe there's a COI. I'll be helping Steinway with editing so I personally consider the COI matter closed (no need to worry about this part, Steinway). OlYeller 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The text has now been userfied at User:Steinway1701/I Am Equal (photo documentary). – ukexpat (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify for you, Steinway1701, what the role of an administrator is on Knowledge (XXG) (the quick-and-easy version). Administrators are individuals who have some additional tools that other editors don't. The main tools, the ones that are used the most, are the ability to block and unblock another editor (blocking prevents the person from being able to edit Knowledge (XXG)), delete or undelete pages, and protect or unprotect pages (which can prevent some or all people from editing a page for a particular duration). Administrators don't have any special authority over content. If I don't like a paragraph on an article, I don't have any more right to change it than you do. The ability to change content without discussion is a right that all editors can enjoy, including you. The discussion occurs when two or more people disagree on the content. And again, administrators are on an equal footing with everyone else in those discussions.
I would have chimed in earlier to this discussion but I was busy with real life issues, so I apologize for coming in late. However, I wanted to point out that if the subject of the article meets our inclusion criteria, that a recreation of the article should certainly be possible. Very little that is added to Knowledge (XXG) is lost forever, even deleted pages can be restored later. The article that was deleted has been restored to your userspace. It sounds like the issue is that the article was worded in a way to sound promotional. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, and only came about because you were so enthusiastic about the documentary. That enthusiasm which inspired you to create the article in the first place was a double-edged sword, unfortunately.
I'd like you to understand why the article was deleted, and that it shouldn't reflect a prejudice against your efforts or the documentary. Knowledge (XXG) does everything it can to be credible, because an encyclopedia that can't be trusted is worthless. That credibility is difficult to maintain when the encyclopedia can be edited by anyone. Some people add information that is well-meaning but harmful, while others see the site as a way to spread hoaxes or attack people. We have certain criteria for speedy deletion that can lead to a quick deletion of a page without prior discussion if the content of that page can potentially cause harm. Those criteria include such obviously problematic issues as violations of copyright (which can lead to legal action if left unchecked) or pages that attack real living people (which can not only harm Knowledge (XXG), but others as well). More subtle problems are also listed, such as overly-promotional articles. Those articles hurt Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility by giving the appearance that Knowledge (XXG) is an advocate, or an advertiser, and not a neutral presenter of information.
By moving the article out of the main space to a less-visible area, that promotional language can be improved with the goal being to return the article to the main space for others to enjoy. Sometimes people will create articles with the sole intention of promoting a person, organization, or product (and many of those people are hired public relations personnel), and in those cases we delete the article with no intention of restoring it, and if the person persists in recreating the article or adding the promotion elsewhere we may block them from editing. You're clearly not one of those people, and you should expect and I hope you experience that others like OlYeller will be willing to help you learn the ropes here. -- Atama頭 21:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Atama I appreciate the time you, OlYeller, Orange Mike, and others have made in getting this article in the right place and recognizing that I have been simply trying to be a positive contributor to a site that I have come to value and use on a daily basis. Clearly there is a learning curve and the admins are people too...who have the added burden of keeping Knowledge (XXG) a reliable source for content information around the world. I'd love to think that I can be come an expert in just 4 days (when I started this process) but there is much more work for me to do. I'll get into the article that was moved to my user space and see if I can make it better. I'll admit that the language is clunky because I felt such an urgency to get it up and available that I didn't have time to re-edit it before the army of admins started tearing it apart. Maybe now I will have the luxury of time to resolve the concerns made through this 3-day marathon of wiki-madness and the resulting article will be something we can all be proud of. Regards, Steinway1701 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Capital punishment in Texas

Resolved

This user has repeatedly been introducing some sort of (perhaps promotional?) information about an organization against capital punishment in the state of Texas. Their username is conveniently an acronym for the organization, leading me to believe that they run or are otherwise part of the organization as well.  dalahäst 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User has been blocked for username violation by TParis. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


this User: Bruce Cairney is an imposter and uses this "User Name" to intimidate others,(due to the rank and position of the real Bruce Cairney in the Choi Kwang Do organisation) and makes edits to muddy the real Bruce Cairney's reputation. Have them prove who they are by providing drivers licence etc.

this fake user has had the run of wikipedia for 5 years? each time a query is brought up they go quiet and then come back when the attention is gone like they have done again in March 2011 Bacmac (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide us with some links to edits (diffs) where Bruce Cairney (talk · contribs) is doing harm to articles (like making unsubstantiated or libelous claims about living people or attacking others)? As of right now, this sounds like more of a username and civility issue than a conflict of interest but without any diffs, it's hard to tell. Regardless of what the problem is, with some diffs we can at least point you in the right direction if not help fix the problem. OlYeller 14:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) -- I look forward to being pointed in the right direction Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont understand what you are asking me to do - the user is impersonating another person and making edits in a martial arts article. As the real Bruce Cairney is a high rank in that type of martial art it would be considered bad ettiquette for members of that martial art to reverse the changes done by this fake user. This user has also published photos at times and made confronting comments. Bacmac (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What bizarre behaviour you are exhibiting Bacmac. You brought this up on 3 October 2009 Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37#User_name:_.22Bruce_Cairney.22_being_used_to_defame_him, and then again on on 29 October 2009 Knowledge (XXG):Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_38#User:_Bruce_Cairney_is_a_sockpuppet_and_used_to_defame. Since then the user in question has made just two edits in March 2011, both of which seem reasonable - especially the one to Choi Kwang-Do (diff), which was removing the link to an individual club (I would have done that myself). What has prompted you to pop up for a third time to report someone that hasn't even edited for the past six months? --Simple Bob (Talk) 14:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) It says brief explaination right? , I also wrote that each time it has been brought up the user has gone quiet and things die off, are you willing to help? or just out to vent - cause I dont know how this place works as you have noted each time I have got no-where AND that is because I hit dead-ends Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A link to a page that shows what you're claiming. Where is the user impersonating others? Is it just from his username? As you've been told twice in the past, this is a username violation at best but the user hasn't edited for quite some time. they Edited in March this year and the impersonation is from the user name (isnt that enough?) as well the impersonation is on the main wiki pages (martial arts)where people with an interest in visiting these wiki pages will know the real Bruce Cairney or know of him Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I should of looked at their edit history which is 6 edits long and contains nothing that can even be construed as a COI, vandalism, or incivility. An IP editor has apparently attacked User:Bruce Cairney's talk page at least once but that's the only issue I'm seeing. I should also note that Atama has dealt with Bacmac presenting this issue here in the past. No one can ever figure out where all of the intimidation and reputation-muddying is going on. As with the past two times this has been reported by Bacmac, this isn't a COI. OlYeller 14:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have added information about each edit from the oldest to the newest if they require more detail please let me know, the very first two edits I could not access (CAN YOU?) cause if you can you should they may be more blunt examples before this impersonator got more sneaky. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
On further reading of Bacmac's contributions, this is beginning to look like harassment against user Bruce Cairney, which is clearly forbidden at the COI noticeboard - as evidenced by the bright red text that appears when you click to edit this page. You exhibit a pattern of ownership behaviour on the Choi Kwang-Do article, reverting and sometimes badgering people who make negative, but sourced, entries regarding the organisation. --Simple Bob (Talk) 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) yeah well like i said below I have not been chastised for any of my edits that I can recall? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Very funny you guy(s) - I already told you I didnt understand what your question was. I have gone back and read through the edits and and here is my explaination AND it does not include the User Name Page write up deleted by EdJohnson. Here are my notes from looking through the edits. As Bruce Cairney is a long standing professional martial artist - the comment this fake user is adding are designed to undermine that professionalism / cheapen the services provided / and make out that some of the reasons for certain practices in th emartial art organisation is only to generate extra income. The user has also added comments about political persons under states and territories of australia which were not accurate (and most likely meant to reflect negativly on the real Bruce Cairney who conducts himself apolitical )

The edit removed as 'Blatant Advertising' is a former student/protege of the REAL Bruce Cairney and he would have contacted them directly.

And for the record Simple Bob you can keep your personal attacks to yourself. Also guy(s) I do not know who Atama is. Bacmac (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Simple Bob, I cannot recall being chastised by any admins for edits or changes and I have always tried to make any I do based on accuracy of information. I visited your user page and found your introductory statement in my experience to be false, because I require guidance where the appropriate area is to get rid of this impersonator. Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) ... and how many hours do you think it will take me to troll through and get this sorted out with my top speed of 30 words per hour? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this the right way to respond to your barrage of questions and statements? Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC) i DONT KNOW WHATS GOING ON HERE I just did a heap of edit and got run around .... hope this is done right , if not appologies now Bacmac (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That the user is or is not The or A Bruce Cairney is not a matter for this noticeboard to handle. This noticeboard is for conflicts of interest. The edit you're referring to was correct, linking to a company from such a subject is considered spam (the same way Internal combustion engine doesn't have links to every engine maker/seller). If the person is an imposter, you should make a report at WP:UAA where WP:REALNAME will be applied but they most likely will not take action as the editor hasn't made an edit in 5 months. Regardless, it's up to the administrators monitoring that noticeboard to act. If you have any questions about that, I'd be happy to explain. Otherwise, this board is about something not apparently related to this issue. OlYeller 16:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Bacmac, you may not remember me, but I remember you. I told you 2 years ago what could be done, and it was the same advice that OlYeller gave above (take it to UAA). This is the third time you've misused this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 20:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If trhat is the case appologies to you Atama, I have no recall of coming across you in my very interdispersed visits to wiki - perhaps time lapsed is against me, I wondered why I was not able to sort it out if you had given me THE EXACT INFO OL Yella just did?? So I followed Ol Yellas link where to go and it takes me to a page that doesnt tell me how to use and is very different from adding comment in an area like this (which is all I believe I have been successful in doing so far on wiki) - so I have been sent to a page that I dont know how to use and I dont know how to find out how to use? probably why i couldnt follow your information provided to me in exactley the same way as Ol Yella has. So where do I go from here - dont want anyone to take offence but this is a 5 year long frustrating cycle of being sent around the garden path - is this the spirit in which wiki was created? Bacmac (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ol Yeller for giving me active links , I will follow these and hopefully they will take me to an area I can seek some action from. I will also save these links on my pc so i can return when this impersonator activates again (this is definatley in an abusers advantage isnt it??) thanks again OL Yeller Bacmac (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

is there some way I can get an email sent to me automatically to tell me i need to make a responce or have information to respond to? Bacmac (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is called a watchlist - simply add the pages that you are interested in to your watchlist and you will be able to see when there are changes made, letting you responds if you think it is appropriate. See Help:Watching pages. --Simple Bob (Talk) 15:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
You can also get notification by email of changes to your user talk page. Set up your email address and the appropriate notification options in your user preferences. --Simple Bob (Talk) 15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ir Ovot

This is a single-issue user whose user name is the same as the article he is editing. I think it's worth keeping a watch on this user. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good to know. I'll note that the article subject is a kibbutz that was dissolved almost 20 years ago, so the username couldn't really be considered promotional or representative of an organization (similar to someone named Troy editing Troy). There might not actually be a COI at all, they may have been motivated to edit Knowledge (XXG) simply to edit a single article, and so picked the article's name as a username. On the other hand, regardless of the COI, their edits removed a lot of information without explanation. Their sole contribution is a single burst of edits, and we'll have to see if they repeat the behavior. If not, no worries. -- Atama頭 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. FWIW, even though the kibbutz was dissolved, Ir Ovot as a messianic community in Israel is a current phenomenon, which is why I think the user name is promotional. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not affiliated with Ir Ovot in any way, shape, or form. I just liked the name. There was a lot of unsourced information and also that had original research. I took out that information. Since WP states "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", i took out the stuff that was not. --Ir Ovot (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: The complaining editor seems to be involved in many edit wars and seems to have have many problems with other editors according to her User Talk Page. --Ir Ovot (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Lisa used to troll another site that I was involved with. He would repeatedly start arguments about Israel, belittling and berating anyone who disagreed even slightly with any of his assertions. He seems to have toned it down quite a bit...the kind of behavior he exhibited over there would have gotten him banned from wikipedia very quickly. 72.245.191.50 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
None of that is relevant at all to this COI discussion. -- Atama頭 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Bengal tiger

The user in question admits on his talk page to be a volunteer for Save China's Tiger (SCT). The was a dispute between the backers for SCT (Li Quan and co) and a former partner / employee in the project John Varty (documented on the John Varty page). The user in question has repeatedly placed / replaced allegations of fraud against Mr. Varty on the Bengal Tiger page.

Another user (LesnarMMA) has been blocked for edit warring against me on this. A third user has already been banned for vandalism against John Varty. Nic Roets (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear NRoets, no need to brings thing up till this extend. It is not about any conflict of interests. It is about placing what is right and verified on the various pages. Please do note that you are removing huge chunks of information from the various articles, such as the Bengal Tiger page. I have already discussed with you why such information should not be removed. Simply because they are not poorly-sourced, and are quite credible and informative. We can discuss all of this on the talk page, why do you have to come here? You have not replied to my statments on the various talk pages, and have not justified your action. It is pot calling kettle black because you are defending JV while i am just putting in information which has been there for the past 2 - 3 years. There is no conflict of interest issue. I dare to admit that i WAS a volunteer of SCT because i have nothing to hide, i am no longer in SA now and is overseas for further studies. I am a friend of JV too, but the fact remains that these are not allegations but facts. Administrators, please feel free to contact me, and to keep a lookout for everything. I have nothing to hide. Cheers

And Nroets, we can discuss all these on each other's talk page, you have not mentioned anything about all these to me before. You can just come to my talk page and ask me. Why haven't you? All you are doing is to bring all these up to the noticeboards. When you are the one who keeps removing important information from wikipedia. Stop doing all this. What do you gain? Like you mentioned, you have caused some other members of the wikipedia community to be blocked and banned due to your support for JV and them just trying to revert your edits... You know how to go to the right channel and go to the administrators and to lodge reports on them, now its my turn? China's Tiger (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


Dear Administrators, i have been discussing with Nroets on his talk page, and the various discussion page regarding this issue. I have suggested to take matters in our own hands, and to agree on disagreeing. We will sort this out ourselves, and edit the articles accordingly. Cheers. China's Tiger (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The user continues to act unfairly against Mr. Varty. Most recently he duplicated criticism that already appears on John Varty . The criticism is of financial mismanagement, so it's clearly unrelated to Bengal Tigers. -- Nic Roets (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nroets, not this again. I merely rephrased and edited what was on the Bengal Tiger's page in point form, to make it better structured and giving it better references, it can even be considered a "minor edit" since it is mostly just paraphrasing. How is this a conflict of interest case? Cheers. I thought we were over this already 16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by China's Tiger (talk • contribs)


I would like to contribute to this case since I have been aware of and following an edit war between Nroets and other users, which has ensued over the past few days. Given that Nroets has been involved in several conflict disputes with China's Tiger over the past few days, I question Nroets motivation for this COI accusation.

Having followed the edits of China's Tiger, I am aware that China's Tiger has made valuable contributions to the articles in question. Nroets has frequently removed these contributions, seemingly using a lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. China's Tiger has furthermore expressed an interest in enhancing the articles' neutrality on several occasions on their respective talk pages, requesting more time before the removal of content. I have expressed my concerns with the edits of Nroets on the Save China's Tigers talk page.

However, the motives behind the edits of Nroets have become increasingly questionable. For example, the motivation he provides for removing some content on the Bengal tiger page (which he refers in his comment above dated 16:08, 28 August 2011 — "criticism is of financial mismanagement") reads as follows: "Criticism added already appears verbatim on John Varty. Adding it to a second page is unfair to Mr Varty." (See Bengal tiger 16:01, 28 August 2011.) Is this not bias towards John Varty? Although I do not necessarily contest his edits, I do feel his motivations suggest a lack of neutrality — being "unfair" to someone is not a valid reason for removing content. I have expressed these concerns with Nroets on his talk page

In conclusion, I feel that this is a matter which should be resolved on the articles' talk pages, not the COI board. Given the prior conflicts of Nroets with other users, I question whether he is using the COI board to "gain the upper hand in a content dispute". I do not feel that his accusations have any grounds.

-- Dremagon (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the editor does have a conflict of interest, that's not at question. They admit to having one on their own user page (which I commend them for, by the way, I wish everyone was as open about COI). So it's worth bringing to this board for that reason alone. I don't know that this is the best place to resolve a content dispute, but the COI is definitely valid. Secondly, China's Tiger is unfortunately not a proper username, as it is a violation of WP:ORGNAME. I won't soft-block for the username, but I will ask for the name to be changed (but if China's Tiger doesn't wish to change it, I will soft-block). The edit war itself is a separate matter. -- Atama頭 18:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson%27s_UK

Though initally this user expanded the article and it seemed balanced they now are sourcing pretty much all of the article to the charities own website and the article is reading like little more than an advert. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It still looks *reasonably* balanced to me (there has been no changes to the animal testing section for example) and there seams to be some effort to avoid marketing language ( for example) my feeling is 'new editor doing best to make sure Knowledge (XXG) has the right information about their organisation in it' more than 'editor promoting their organisation against best interest of Knowledge (XXG)' - but I do think that the username is a big red flag, and that the editor needs a bit of guidance. All that said - this is my first post to the noticeboard and I'm much more here to learn than offer opinion...Failedwizard (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Right now, I'm not seeing that the subject is establishing notability so the COI may be coming through as pushing for the creation of an article for a non-notable subject. For WP:ORG, I'm not seeing any independent coverage that would satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. As for WP:GNG, I see 3-4 independent sources but from a quick skim, the coverage is from local papers or not significant coverage (or some combination of both).
Ultimately, I don't see any overzealous editing so addressing notability is probably the highest priority. During that process, if there is a COI (I see a close connection but no pushing of goals that are contrary to WP's yet), it will most likely come out. OlYeller 15:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited for a few days. I'll watch today for new edits as they might only edit from work. OlYeller 12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Um, it's a bank holiday in the UK today... so might be better watching tomorrow... :) Failedwizard (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Bank holiday?! Crazy UKians. OlYeller 16:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Us Yanks get next Monday off, don't forget. ;) -- Atama頭 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Totally. Looking forward to the three day weekend.
Also, ParkinsonsUK added an {{underconstruction}} template to the article but never changed anything. Hasn't made an edit since. I'll continue to monitor. OlYeller 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

List of all-female bands

User Claudia Diez replaced a large portion of the "C" section of List of all-female bands with what appeared to be cut-and-paste material from . The edit was reverted as removal of material from the article without explanation. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Alan. It's the account's first edit and, I would guess, the editor's first edit. Since you've handled it all (reverted and warned), it doesn't look like there's anything to be done but watch for more problem edits. I'll keep an eye out and report back here if I see anything. OlYeller 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I get the feeling that this may be a WP:REALNAME problem as well, but that's difficult to judge based on one edit. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I just stumbled upon an article (Claudia Diez and The Tropical Symphony Concert that I nominated for deletion that was a copyvio of the same website. I didn't put it together until a few seconds ago. It was created by Bibiana Fricke (talk · contribs). As for REALNAME, we'll have to ask over in their talk page then take it to UAA. I'll start checking around for more pasting of that website. OlYeller 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Claudia Diez was already declined at WP:UAA. That's why I brought it here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Ya, having the name isn't a problem in itself unless they're pretending to be Claudia Diez. If we ask and they're not that person, they're violating UAA which they would care about at UAA. Ultimately, that's unrelated to a COI though unless they picked the name to defame the person or push other goals that are contrary to WP's goals. They probably should have mentioned that but they tend to work through things very fast over there. OlYeller 18:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been searching WP with this and this for more usage but haven't found anything. I'll check and report until this section is archived. I'll also talk to the editor about REALNAME if someone hasn't already. OlYeller 22:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Harold Baim

Raised here recently; but the involved editor is still removing content and failing to engage on his own talk page. I've reverted his latest, clearly good-faith, but inappropriate edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, it looks like you dealt with this situation a bit but Pigs has reverted some more problematic edits today. I don't know the history of the discussion to know how flagrantly the editor is dismissing COI concerns but I thought you might want to take a look at it. OlYeller 22:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Hopfensperger

I caught this out of the new article filter. There's a claim of notability and A7 was declined. Since then, the editor has continued editing and adding information. I can't keep up with all the edits and could use some help. As for a COI, I see at least a few weasel words. There's also a lot of unreferenced claims. He has claimed to be the subject of the article and his userpage is currently another version of the article with a lot of external links that surprisingly seems less spammy. So far, I think all of their edits have been in good faith and that they're simply unaware of the issues that surround creating an autobiography. OlYeller 13:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I blanked the user page as a fake article, and will nominate the article for deletion--I don't see much of a claim of notability, frankly, but more importantly I don't see any evidence of notability. In other words, I'm taking a detour around the COI, for more or less pragmatic reasons. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I can't argue with that. I saw the claims on the FINA Open Water Grand Prix accomplishments as a claim but don't know if they satisfy any portion of WP:ATHLETE (but that's irrelevant for this board). The COI is obvious but I don't see that there's any additional action that needs to be taken against the author at this time. I'll report back if we need an admin to step in. OlYeller 17:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin H. Bratton‎

User has admitted to being a student of the subject's. The editor seems very interested, is open to suggestion from others, and is attempting to learn the relating inclusion guidelines. I've tagged the article with the appropriate improvement templates. There's definitely some problems with the article but I think they can be worked on with the editor. I haven't contacted them but if someone else does, I hope we can be as un-bitey as possible as we may get a great editor out of the situation. OlYeller 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Merely being a student of the subject is not a violation of the COI guideline, and this article looks no different from any of the similar WP:PROF articles.
I recommend that you halve the number of tags you've spammed on that article (at least). Fewer tags means a much greater likelihood of the new person figuring out how to address the issues, and tags are perceived by new users as being very bite-y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't disagree with you there. That in itself is not a violation. I do think it requires some attention but no blocks, etc. I probably shouldn't have put so many tags on the article either. I sift through so many new articles that sometimes it's easy to seem like a robot. Whatever the case, I'll do my best to make sure the editor feels welcome and not offended/turned off by the tags. If telling him that I was overzealous or wrong will help the situation, feel free. OlYeller 01:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
OlYeller, your ability to reassess and adjust your position is appreciated and a sign of strong character. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Kevin A. Ross

This is a public relations agency (you can find its name by doing a search on the Internet). It went into Nate Holden and changed the info taken from a Source. Apparently it is doing publicity for a judge, Kevin A. Ross, who has a TV show.GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nate_Holden&action=historysubmit&diff=447459649&oldid=433665933 GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reported the user at UAA for a username violation. They'll most likely be blocked soon. I'll keep an eye on the articles to see if they persist after a warning. OlYeller 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through every edit they made on Kevin A. Ross. They're extensive and mostly confusing. An admin from UAA is attempting to speak with them. I feel that if any editing continues, an admin will need to use their toolbox to assure that this editor understands that they can't alter article's of people their firm represents. OlYeller 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Health

User's name (and edit) indicate a COI. I left a Template:Uw-coi-username on their user page. Jesanj (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They may be blocked soon for a username violation as they've been reported on UAA. They only have one edit which you have taken care of. I'll watch the account and the page to see if they reappear in another form. If they're attempting to promote the publisher's products, it's going to be difficult or more likely impossible to catch them under a different username on other articles as it's a self-publishing company that's publishing a "predicted" 100k titles a year. Hopefully they were just on to promote that single book. I'd be willing to bet they're done given that they picked such a broad subject like "health" to add their advert to. Regardless, I'll keep an eye out. OlYeller 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
They've been blocked. I'll report back if there's any new... news. OlYeller 14:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clinical pathology

User's name (and edit history of spamming external links, of which all are currently reverted) indicates a COI. Jesanj (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The username and editing pattern would be blockable per WP:ORGNAME as a promotional account, but the editor has been warned about both and hasn't edited since. I've put their user page on a watchlist, and if they continue again without making any attempt to change their name, or change their edits, I will indefinitely block them. -- Atama頭 17:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sciencenews is editing a number of articles where their main interest seems to be the inclusion of this and other articles by the same group of authors. Now, the articles are probably fine and acceptable, but this is a bit of a coincidence. I have reverted on two occasions also because the quality of the writing wasn't great (and Evolution is an FA). I am interested in hearing other editors' opinions. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of random insertion of sources--Guerillero | My Talk 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking through their contributions, it looks like all they have done is add links to papers by the same set of authors - particularly, papers by Sahney. There's nothing inherently wrong with adding sources without much else, even if they are sources you were involved in creating, as long as it is done in a way that adds to the quality of the article. However, many of Sciencenews' additions don't seem to add to the quality of the article. Some of them, like this one, don't even really seem to make any sense. Given that sciencenews made more than five dozen contributions over six months that look like they are entirely geared towards promoting a particular person's work rather than improving the quality of the encyclopedia.. I think we have a problem.

Coincidentally, sciencesnews also wrote Sarda Sahney's article here. If I was feeling a little bit more delete-y today I'd try to kill it since there's no way she meets our notability guidelines. Kevin (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarda Sahney is a Ph.D. student in Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol (started 2005 ). <redacted> I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Enough said? Mathsci (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:OUTING prohibit us from suggesting an editor's real life identity even if it seems kind of obvious? That said, I would agree a prod is warranted. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Textbook Outing. OlYeller 21:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I used the word "probably", so it was just a guess, so it is not outing since there is no joining-of-the dots. (OlYeller21, please try to be more careful what you write.) It is very hard to explain the edits in any other way (extreme puffery in the BLP and the undue insertions prominently in a high-level article). Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, guy. You're certainly walking a thin line. Given your history here, I doubt it will go over well but if you feel that you "probably" weren't outing then more power to you. OlYeller 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Please cease these unsubstantiated personal attacks: ("your history here" is a smearing and baseless remark which you should please redact): you are likely to be blocked if you continue. Please also do not address me as "guy". That is just rude and uncivil. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if you were offended by a colloquialism I use often. Perhaps it's used differently where you're from. Any derogatory connotation you have read into the word was unintended. It wasn't a personal attack, just stating an opinion that I believe you have outed someone when in your opinion you have not. I didn't call you names or post in bold to tell you to stop or anything. Whether or not there's outing is up to an admin, not you or me. If I had to guess, if you remove the information now, any problem would be averted. Regulars can asses your history of bringing content disputes here as a COI. That's not an opinion. I can see from the rapid edits and changing of your comment that this discussion isn't going to go well so I'm stepping out for now. We can address this later if you'd like. OlYeller 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(←) Yeah, that's a violation of WP:OUTING. I just redacted it and had to delete a dozen revisions (ugh, that's why I hate outing, especially on a noticeboard). Mathsci, Rule #1 of the COI noticeboard is to be extra super-duper careful about outing, which includes speculation of an editor's identity. We have reason to believe there's a COI, based on information on-wiki, but anything further that's even a guess is a violation. Outing is grounds for an immediate block but I'm not going to do that at this time, just remember, and I mean this in the strongest terms, be careful. -- Atama頭 22:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was not even joining-the dots and certainly there was no intention of WP:OUTING. In the meantime an A.K.Nole ipsock (already known to ArbCom) just posted a trolling comment which I have removed. (See for example Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole and the blocked account A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).) thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I have had another go at the speedy delete, taking into account Atama's advice. Sorry about the confusion. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't want to stir the pot but the comment removed pointed out that what I was referring to by "your history" was based on Mathsci being blocked for WP:OUTING in the past. This no longer has a bearing on the matter at hand but I don't wish for others to think that my claim was truly baseless as has been suggested. It was overturned later on but I don't feel that such an event should have been completely ignored. Adding this to other content disputes held here, I felt that the history was notable in this case. OlYeller 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think that Mathsci intended to out anyone, hence I just gave a warning. :) I had to decline the speedy deletion request, unfortunately, because it didn't belong to any of the proper criteria. However, I checked with Kevin, and he didn't mean to decline the proposed deletion itself, he just objected to some of the information in it. So I restored the tag, minus that info, and kept the same timestamp that it had, so the proposed deletion should continue as if it was never interrupted based on the initial time that Mathsci started it. -- Atama頭 22:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Atama, for clearing this up. I'm left totally confused about the status of this COI, though. Have we established that there's an issue here that needs to be dealt with besides the PROD issue? OlYeller 22:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor in question has made like 60 unproductive edits that in some cases were actively detrimental to article quality in order to promote research done by a particular author. I'm not sure what normally is done in such a situation, but do think something should be. If this were a business or something doing it, we would've blocked 'em ages ago, but I'm not sure how academic COI's are normally handled. Kevin (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

<--Good point, Kevin. BTW, I didn't come here to out anyone; I hadn't even looked for a real person. In my opinion, the COI is blatant, and the comparison with a business plugging itself is evident. Any admin walking by here could block, IMO, or I could just take this to AN/ANI. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The same COI seems to have occurred with Sleeppointer (talk · contribs), an account active only in 2009, and 173.181.39.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we may be being more than a little bit overzealous here in our reading of WP:OUTING, and just plain silly in the enforcement of it. When we have a discussion
  • on the conflict of interest noticeboard,
  • about article edits by a single editor,
  • that all relate to a single real-life person's published works,
  • including the creation of that person's biography on Knowledge (XXG),
  • which we clearly identify in the discussion,
then it seems disingenuous to the point of absurdity to suggest that we can have the discussion about a possible conflict of interest, but that no one is allowed to explicitly suggest that maybe – just maybe – the real person and the Knowledge (XXG) editor are one and the same without getting a threatening slap on the wrist, followed by reflexive deletion of several page revisions.
I mean, come on, guys. It's not like it's difficult to guess what the deleted sentence said from the content of the discussion remaining after redaction. We're talking about a conflict of interest in the context of biographical material; censoring any explicit suggestion that the real person and the editor might be related while leaving such an enormous implicit suggestion in place is a pointlessly legalistic reading of WP:OUTING. Either this discussion is legitimate and permitted by policy, or it is not. The figleaf of revision deleting the explicit acknowledgement of what we're really talking about is counterproductive, and the subsequent warnings directed at Mathsci are unwarranted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It was more than a "maybe". The allegation was that the editor was "most probably" a particular person, and the main basis of the proposed deletion of the article was the identity of the editor. That went farther than some speculation about who the editor might be. -- Atama頭 21:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to make a disclosure. When I first read the outing complaint here, I had initially planned to dismiss the complaint. I was thinking much along the same lines you were. But then I had a change of heart and decided that especially on this page which is so prone to outing problems I'd better err on the side of caution. And that is also why I only gave a warning to be careful rather than a formal warning (let alone a block). I know that this wasn't an egregious violation. -- Atama頭 22:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Atama is absolutely right about his warning to be careful. Although no outing was intended, discussing matters like this is fairly delicate and it was quite hard to know in which terms to couch the discussion. In a sense, matters like this might be best discussed off-wiki. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
When a complaint arrives here about an editor writing a biographical puff piece and linking heavily to that individual's works, the suggestion that the editor is the biography's subject (for individuals of limited means and notability) or their agent/PR firm (acting at the subject's behest, or at least with their approval) is implicit. If the complainant did not strongly suspect such a link between the editor and the real life individual, then they wouldn't have brought the matter to the conflict of interest noticeboard.
When we say that "Editor Foo may have a conflict of interest regarding article John Doe, and seems to be addding references only to Doe's work" we're implicitly saying that Foo is Doe, or Doe's agent—and in the case of an article about a graduate student, it seems unlikely that a public relations firm is involved. Either WP:OUTING is violated by that implication, or it isn't. If it isn't, then explicitly stating the assumption that everyone is already making doesn't violate WP:OUTING either. If WP:OUTING is violated by that implication, then this entire thread violates WP:OUTING, and some sort of winking semantic contortion where we censor any mention of what is being assumed – while still acting on that assumption and carrying on the discussion – violates the spirit and probably the letter of the policy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
You're assuming that the person is obviously using the account which is why Atama has mentioned in the past that in most cases, a COI isn't a sure COI unless the editor intentionally or mistakenly outs themselves. The main issue is the assumed part that you're referring to. The only time I ever see that it's OK take action in a COI where a person doesn't intentionally or accidentally out themselves is when it's incredibly obvious and the user is not cooperating (no talk page comments at all) but even then, action is usually taken because some other policy has been violated (3RR, copyvio, etc.). Just my two cents. Probably a better discussion for WP:COI instead of WP:COIN but it's definitely an interesting thought that seemed to often be misunderstood. OlYeller 22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No, TenOfAllTrades. We don't act on the assumption that an editor is the article subject unless there is a clear reason to think so (for example, they edit a biographical article with an edit summary saying "fixing my age"). You're conflating a discussion of COI with a discussion of the actual identity of an editor. Do you suggest we do away with the outing warnings on this page then? -- Atama頭 00:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't help but feel you're playing a game of semantics here. If the editor is not the article subject (or an employee or agent of the article subject), then there is no conflict of interest to discuss. A discussion about whether or not a Knowledge (XXG) editor has a conflict of interest with respect to biographical article content necessarily impinges on the question of whether or not the Knowledge (XXG) editor and article subject are one and the same. It would be nonsensical for us to conclude that an editor with no relation to the subject has a conflict of interest; if we are discussing whether or not a conflict of interest exists, we are necessarily discussing the likely identity of an account holder. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Or a relative, or a friend, or someone else with a close connection. We don't need to establish the person's actual identity, however. 9 times out of 10 we can establish a COI without it. I'm having trouble believing that you would flippantly dismiss such differences as "semantics". You should know how serious outing is, it's one of the few ways that one editor can actually harm another editor on Knowledge (XXG). If you think that it's impossible to determine a COI without actually naming someone, look on this page for the "Intercultural Open University Foundation" section, where a COI is established for an editor because they claim to represent an organization, without going into any other specifics. I don't know that person's name, place of residence, email address, gender, favorite flavor of ice cream, etc. Nor is any of that speculated, or necessary to establish the conflict of interest. The COI noticeboard isn't a place to try to discover and reveal an editor's identity, especially using guesswork and/or off-Wiki sleuthing. If it was, this board would and should be shut down. -- Atama頭 22:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that it would be perfectly all right had Mathsci used a magic formulation akin to "The editor is most likely Sahney or someone very closely connected" but writing something like "The editor is most likely Sahney" warrants a reflexive warning and redaction? You're splitting some very fine hairs, I think. Discussion of a COI involves considering the identity of the account holder—whether we single out an individual, or simply consider them part of some small, narrowly-circumscribed group close to that individual. When we're considering a single person of relatively low importance and limited resources, the distinction is virtually irrelevant; we're not talking about one employee out of a million working for a multinational corportation. If you want to talk about whether or not an editor is editing on a given topic in a biased manner without considering their identity or possible relatedness to the topic (and without potential conflicts with the strictures of WP:OUTING) then WP:COIN isn't the place to do it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
There's a very good reason to not try to name an editor here who has not named themselves, even if you think you know who they are - being named here can have real-life consequences. Additionally, cases like this could very easily be (and often are) someone's lab assistant, TA, friend, etc, who is trying to edit to make their associate look good. Since we can evaluate the editor's behavior solely on the basis of their edits, there is no reason to speculate (especially not firmly speculate, e.g., "seems to be person X") on their real life identity. Doing so presents no benefit to us, and can potentially cause significant real life harm if we are incorrect. Outing causes potentially serious harm and represents no benefit, so there's no need to do it. Established policy agrees with me here as far as I know. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an actual issue here. Can someone else (preferably someone with a block button) take a look over sciencenews edits? If not, is there another appropriate venue to raise this? I don't want to have to follow this person around reverting their coi spam. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone would like to continue a discussion about COIs, feel free to start up a RfC or section on the COI talk page. If you invite me, I'll happily participate. For now, this discussion is detracting from the point of this noticeboard.
Kgorman, I would also hit the POV noticeboard WP:NPOVN. I'd help if I was an admin but if no one has come over to help yet, going to WP:NPOVN is the only other way (besides tapping individual admins) to get some help. OlYeller 14:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Editors who refuse to communicate should, in my opinion, normally be blocked. I see this editor only edits intermittently so that could be the reason they haven't responded here, although it seems possible they saw the notice. I guess I could post a strongly worded request that the editor starts talking. Dougweller (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University Foundation

The above users seem to be insiders of the non-accredited university (at least they express themselves as acting on behalf of it in the discussion page) and repeatedly remove information based upon reliable sources which does not advance the interests of their university. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I've spent about 10 minutes trying to find where they are acting on behalf of the subject of the article and can't find anything explicit. The talk page is quite large and is poorly formatted (looks like there's a lot of new editors commenting) so I definitely haven't read every word. Can you please provide a link to where they're claiming to be working/editing on behalf of the foundation? I'm seeing a lot of strange claims (such as, even though the university is not accredited, "the IOUF has the legal right of a Foundation to award a PhD degree and in countries other than the Netherlands, the Foundation's PhD gives graduates the privilege of being addressed as Dr.") that may be part of a problem. To prove a COI, we're going to have to show admins that the editors you mentioned have a close connection to the subject. They certainly seem to be defending at this point but I'm not seeing a clear connection. OlYeller 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
About Thomanq, see and , wherein he/she is pleading in favor of the IOUF. He/she does not say that he/she represents the foundation, but he/she promotes the notable graduates of the foundation, deletes information which he/she considers derogatory for the foundation and removes at the claim that NVAO accreditation is relevant for Dutch educational foundations. About Seahorse7 see

30 August 2011

27 August 2011

26 August 2011

25 August 2011

(he/she is an one-issue editor); what counts in respect to him/her is the behavior, i.e. undoing edits supported by what are imho reliable sources and introducing claims like international foundations have the right to grant PhDs, see the last paragraph of . Perhaps I should replace above "act on the behalf of the foundation" with "plead on the behalf of the foundation", since this more accurately renders their behavior. Now, if for me the motivation is blowing the whistle or the watchdog must bite, what is their motivation for promoting this foundation? Since they only promote it through their edits, they try to minimize the importance of its lack of accreditation/recognition, they believe that a protest reaction published on the CIMEA site would be evidence that the CIMEA paper on diploma mills would be unreliable, they say that Nanninga (head editor of the review of the Dutch skeptics association) is unable to detect a fake university since he is no expert in education. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Without a clear connection to the IOUF we can't make a credible claim of conflict of interest. They still may be violating our neutral point of view policy but that doesn't in itself constitute a conflict of interest. The POV noticeboard might be of more assistance. -- Atama頭 00:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The article does have some bias problems. However, it's likely that these editors, if they have a connection to the organization, are merely badly informed (i.e., believed everything the sales department told them) rather than maliciously trying to spread misinformation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, those users have no provable affiliation with IOUF. But this user has outed himself/herself in that respect: . He/she has recently removed from the article information based upon reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
When establishing a COI, edits like that are exactly what I was talking about. Stretch call explicitly claimed to be "at" the IOU Foundation, and kept referring to the foundation as "we", which is a clear acknowledgement. That doesn't mean that the other editors have a COI, but this editor certainly does.
I'll also point out that disclosing a COI in such a way is a credit to the editor. It's much more difficult to deal with people who have undisclosed conflicts of interest, and it's generally appreciated when a person is forthright about it. -- Atama頭 18:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is a broader disclosure by the same user: Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Charreada

This user seems to running a single purpose account and to promote the articles subject and rubbish criticism. They also seem to be many of the Ips editing the article with similar aims. It is mostly like a tennis match between them and one other user but I think it bears looking at here. RafikiSykes (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely some bizarre behavior going on. Is there any evidence that shows a connection between the editors involved and the subject? OlYeller 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the user ether knows or is the owner of of one of the pro sites that is being inserted often with attacking titles. The user also posts whever the safety stats on a site are updates so it seems like they are involved there.RafikiSykes (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
"I think" sounds like a speculation without evidence. Disruptive editing needs to be addressed but we have to be careful about drawing unsupported conclusions about someones real life activities or motivations.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Looking quickly at Rmj8757's edit history I see, yes its an SPA, but I don't see any signs of edit warring. Did I miss it? Also the editor seems to have made some worthwhile edits including adding sourced content. Can you point to specific issue(s) and give diffs? Right now I don't see the problem. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I dont want to out anyone but it is not purely speculation. Compare the contact page of the legalise site with the single purpose account. The wording on that problem site was tweaked to match in with how the user wanted to title the link in the external links section.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The sacharro site being used to cite the injury would seem to share the creator and familiar details. Given it also seems to be self published I am concerned they are being used as reliable sources to push the pov. http://damacharra.com/ as well. They all share the same website kit format and seem to share the same creator. Also the legalise site is yet again inserted despite multiple editors removing it.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Luke Ravenstahl

205.141.129.33 (talk · contribs), which is an IP address belonging to the government of the city of Pittsburgh, has been chastised a few times in the past for editing the mayor's article, Luke Ravenstahl. On 31 August, this editor began editing Luke Ravenstahl again, accompanied by the WP:SPA Username7891 (talk · contribs). I suspect Username7891's efforts to be coordinated with 205.141.129.33's. I cautioned both editors that they might be in violation of WP:COI, suggested they both read WP:ORGFAQ, and invited them both to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. I also restored the article to its prior state. Username7891 simply reverted my edit and resumed editing, and 205.141.129.33 has not responded. I alerted WP:WikiProject Pittsburgh of the issue, then came here to seek advice. (My writeup on the article's talk page goes into more detail than this one does.) —Bill Price (nyb) 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My first suspicion would be that they are the same person, but after looking into the editing patterns of the IP and the account I don't think that's the case. There's enough of an overlap in editing between the two (where the IP and the named account are editing at similar times) to cast doubt on that. When I see a named account edit, then an IP, then a named acount, then an IP, back and forth, it usually means there are two different people. There's enough of a gap between such edits (10 minutes or more) to make it possible that this is one person on two computers, or using two browsers, or logging out and back in on the same browser, but Occam's razor would suggest that these are two different people. It's likely that they are coordinating their edits, however, which is strongly frowned upon.
Regardless of any off-Wiki coordination or conflicts of interest, the (presumably) two editors are making disruptive edits, including the removal of sourced information without explanation and at least in the case of the named account, copyright violations. Considering that the editors have never responded to warnings, altered their behavior, or otherwise attempted to communicate or comply with others' concerns, if they continue with these edits I'm inclined to block both of them simply for disruption (temporarily for the IP, indefinitely for the named account). -- Atama頭 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Email

Single purpose account User:Vashiva continue to insert himself into the Email article, regarding an email system he developed and copyrighted. I'm not finding any sources indicating how this system is notable (most mentions of it online are sourced to his own sites). OhNoitsJamie 20:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

They've been blocked by Materialscientist for 31 hours for edit warring. — Satori Son 13:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jon Hinck

Likewise, Hinck recently posted this on Facebook "An old friend posted this "wiki-art" for me. Now its time to get corrections and revisions from others. http://en.wikipedia.org/Jon_Hinck". Definitely worth watching for bias.TM 19:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The FB page isn't public and I don't particularly feel like trolling around someone's FB page. Regardless, the user has claimed to be the subject of the article. I'll check now but is the article currently damaged because of their edits? OlYeller 23:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I went through every edit the account has made. Only the addition of the two photos could really be considered controversial (at least in my opinion). I removed the photos and the COI tag which basically leaves a few caption improvements and names of family members in the infobox as far as the account's edits go. I've left a message for the editor on their talk page and I'll report back here if the editing continues. As of now, the situation seems under control. OlYeller 23:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

76.175.193.153 an IP address user who clearly has a conflict of interest and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. I came across this user while doing vandalism patrol of edits for the flash mob article, an article 76.175.193.153 is utterly obsessed with connecting to flash mobs even to the point to claim the video itself was the seminal source of all flash mobbing. --SpyMagician (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone gotten a chance to check this situation out? I haven't yet and won't be able to today. I'll check tomorrow if no one has. OlYeller 22:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
According to what I have seen nobody has intervened, but someone really needs to come in and explain to 76.175.193.153 that one cannot just edit items because they “know” and not provide valid citation. Additionally, there seems to be an endless discussion on the Where the Streets Have No Name page where 76.175.193.153 is beating the same drum over and over and even when explained “Yes, one can make edits as long as they do not introduce uncited info…” 76.175.193.153 still doesn’t seem to get it. --SpyMagician (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the editor is open for discussion. That was their last edit. I'm leaving my computer right now but someone needs to go explain things to them if it hasn't been explained already (I only looked at their last few edits). OlYeller 14:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
He has been “open for discussion” since the first editor saw this guy’s edits and reverted them. He’s simply a broken record asking for “clarification” to the point he’s clearly just being patronizing. Someone else not directly involved in this stuff needs to come in and basically explain what the deal is. Thanks in advance for the help! --SpyMagician (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Anthony S Adams

I don't remember why this page is on my watchlist but it has been recreated today. An single purpose IP editor has removed the COI tag another editor placed and changed a few words around. In the edit summary they say, "Added Memberships, Cleaned Copy and removed {{ROI}} as I'm (JS) the author, article was just posted under a2adams account." An SPA named a2adams (talk · contribs) created the page. Can an admin shed some light on the situation from the previous version, please? Σ (talk · contribs) has added the COI tag twice and I'm not particularly sure why. The non-IP's userpage was deleted and may also help shed some light on the situation. It seems as though something weird is going on and that the answers may have been deleted for one reason or another. OlYeller 23:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Article is now at AfD Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Anthony S Adams and the ip has been reported as a possible sock of user:A2adams. See Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/A2adams. Phearson (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sterling EQ

Resolved
 – Undergoing AfD and author blocked. Phearson (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Five Seasons Music is a major contributor to this article, Sterling EQ member/flautist Carina Bruwer is Director of Five Seasons Music and there is a definite conflict of interest. Article is biased, sources cited are to personal social networking pages and cd sales sites, search engine results display only minor sites. 41.28.147.170 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bukit Kepong Incident

Hezery99 is undoing all my changes which involve adding "Citation needed" tags as well as removing dead External links, allowed as per the Knowledge (XXG):External links guideline, while accusing me of being a "pro-communist terrorist sympthiser" in one of his undo summary descriptions. The page is currently lacking any citation except for one link. The other link is a dead link. Furthermore, most of the dead links in the External links section which I have removed as allowed by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for External links sections were links to the Royal Malaysian Police website which is obviously biased due to the subject matter of the article. - kriskhaira (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This incident looks like it's being handled. I'll keep my hands off of it unless more help is needed. They appear to have only ever made two edits to the page. Calling you a terrorist is certainly seems out of line but otherwise, they seem to be talking. Regardless, I can only help to address content and not the actions of an editor as I'm not an admin. Any admin want to make a comment/take action regarding the Hezery99's comment? OlYeller 14:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Selena Cuffe

Edits the extremely favorable article about herself, originally created by an s.p.a. whose userpage simply says, "a Chicago-based editor." Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the user has claimed to be the subject of the article. OlYeller 23:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
This may also be of note. The SPA you referred to created the article in their userspace. An admin, DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), moved it to mainspace after only the original edit. I'm not suggesting any foul editing or anything like that. Just thought it might be useful information at some point.
Lastly, it looks like all she has done is add some photos and remove an orphan tag (which has been appropriately replaced). The photos don't look advertorial or promblematic to me but I won't remove the COI tag.
It looks like Orange Mike has warned the editor on their talk page. We should remove the COI tag soon if no one objects to the photos on the page and Selena does not continue editing. I'll report back if there's any change. OlYeller 23:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
SelenaCuffe (talk · contribs) removed the autobiography tag. I didn't realize we had an AB and COI tag on the article which is overkill. I've left a message on Selena's talk page to try and fix the situation. I'll report back if anything changes. OlYeller 14:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Braithwaite

The user has created a promotional article of uncertain notability with primary sources; the user name matches an organization. Jesanj (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The username has been indefinitely blocked for a username violation. Jesanj has done some great leg work on cleaning it up so the COI issue seems stale at this point. I'm not sure about the notability of the subject, though. OlYeller 15:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource Space Model

:I've asked the reporting user, A13ean (talk · contribs), to come back and provide some evidence. OlYeller 14:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

An IP (Special:Contributions/159.226.43.35) has been adding references to the work of a computer scientist named Zhunge Hai to a large number of articles. To the best of my knowledge, no one else has written about the "resource space model" besides this scientist and his collaborators, and a large portion of the citations for these works come from the same group. Several editors, including myself, have reverted these additions as non-notable but they are constantly re-added.

Articles in question: Faceted search, Faceted classification, Resource Space Model, Digital ecosystem, Cyber-physical system, Knowledge Grid, Typed link#Semantic link A13ean (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging sections. I didn't see that is was added twice before I asked the reporting user to provider evidence. I'll be more careful in the future. OlYeller 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg

The user Takabeg changed the name of article Hazi Aslanov to Azi Aslanov by claiming it in english without having constructive reason and started to change all the articles with that name to Russianised version. Main fact is, Hazi Aslanov is in English goes as Hazi Aslanov as his original name is in Azerbaijani which is used in English not Azi which is Russian version but Takabeg knewing this ignoring all other users actions and reverting to his own style. NovaSkola (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any information that indicates that Takabeg is closely related to the subject of the article? There must be a close connection for it to be considered a COI. If there is no connection, this is a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page. If the user is going against consensus, the situation should be reported to WP:ANI. OlYeller 14:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
That is the problem. This user doesn't talk in talk page, just does his own stuff without respecting other users. Then instead of focusing on mutual talk, he tries to blame and scare me with this type of actions http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NovaSkola. So could u please take action. I am sure he is sock puppet of user Xebulon --NovaSkola (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard regarding conflicts of interest which means that the user's goals are contrary to the goals of WP (which you're obviously stating) and the user has a close connection with the subject of the article that they are editing. As no connection has been shown, this appears to be a content dispute best suited for WP:ANI, WP:SPI, or possibly WP:POVN. OlYeller 15:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Tomsen

User has notified on talk page of an intended contribution by the page subject. User self-identifies as a representative of the publisher Public Affairs. User has identified by RL name the researcher who drafted this work. So far as I can see, user is "playing it straight" and so I've been as helpful as I believe a responsible editor should. I'd appreciate uninvolved eyes to look over my shoulder. Legitimate issues of "paid editing" are involved. IMHO, there should be a right way to accept these sorts of contributions, and I'm hoping I haven't done the COI/BLP effort damage by my initiative. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how they are connected. But I have reverted her addition on the main count that it wasn't cited. User was also notified of this discussion. Phearson (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I was planning to build this up from scratch using found sources anyway. Can you define "they"(as in "I don't see how they are connected.")? BusterD (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing that "they" are Emily and Peter. However, Emily stated: We work with Peter Tomsen at Public Affairs, the publisher of his book "The Wars of Afghanistan..." That seems to be an open admission of a COI. -- Atama頭 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

Resolved
 – Issue took care of itself.--BlueonGray (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Extended content

I am concerned about a possible breach of WP:COI on Ricardo Duchesne. User:Gun Powder Ma has included information about the subject that does not appear to be publicly available. This includes

  1. the subject's place of birth
  2. the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
  3. the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

This could have been a minor issue, except that User:Gun Powder Ma is the principal contributor to the article and an unrelenting defender of its inclusion on Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. I have asked User:Gun Powder Ma to state where s/he obtained this information. This request, however, was repeatedly ignored, which I found troubling. Given that s/he is the principal contributor to the article, and given that the second and third items were clearly included to build the subject's notability, I am concerned that User:Gun Powder Ma may have an undisclosed connection to the subject.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to the subject? I ask because you do *nothing* on wiki that is not related to this bio, and invariably related in a negative way, up to and including vandalising it. It is difficult to believe that you just happen to be interested but have no connection William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
If I had any connection to the subject, I would have disclosed it long ago. The contention that I do nothing on Knowledge (XXG) that is not related to the article is demonstrably false. For the time being, my main purpose here will be to evaluate the quality and integrity of academic biographies. My suspicion now, as from the beginning, is that the article on Duchesne is a promotion piece. If you can furnish the above three pieces of information from public sources, I would be grateful. Otherwise, I cannot help but interpret your appearance here as a partisan intervention on behalf of a friend.--BlueonGray (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
As a monitoring/helping editor at COIN, I'm not seeing a COI here. First and most obviously, I don't see that the subject has admitted to a close connection or a goal that directly goes against WP's goals. Secondly, the evidence provided is vague as it links to a very large number of edits and possibly the largest AfD I've ever seen in almost three years on WP. I did find the diffs you provided in the COI discussion in the AfD and don't see a clear COI but that may be because I have no knowledge of the websites linked in a few edits. As you have taken this issue to several places that also don't see a clear COI, I don't see that anything can be done unless you provide some additional information/evidence that proves a COI or at the very least, strongly indicates a COI.
Also, if you're suggesting that arguing in an AfD, providing references/information that you can't find publicly, or disagreeing with your AfD constitutes a COI, then you're wrong. I don't know if WMC has a connection with the editor or subject in question but if he doesn't, you seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow linked to the subject or editor in question. While I don't see any evidence to prove WMC's claim, your actions are verging if not fully assuming bad faith. I usually follow the duck test here but I'm just not seeing a connection. Unless you have some clear evidence of a COI, I think continuing this conversation may be out of line. OlYeller 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, even if the subject themselves logged on and provided the information you listed above, there isn't a COI. A COI consists of an editor having a close connection to the subject (or being the subject) and advancing outside interests is that directly compete with advancing the aims of Knowledge (XXG). If they're just doing the latter, it's a problem but not a COI (or a problem for this noticeboard). As neither have been proven, I don't see a COI. OlYeller 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. To clarify, I did not bring up the COI on the AfD. That was brought up by someone else. This is a separate case. I am merely raising an issue concerning three pieces of information on Ricardo Duchesne that have not been sourced and for which there appear to be no public sources. I asked User:Gun Powder Ma if he could share his sources for this information, but I was not given an answer. Given his role as a major contributor to the article, I therefore thought there should be some discussion about it. I'm not saying anything has been proven, but rather raising concern. I consulted with different pages and concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the best course of action was to initiate a COI discussion. If this is not the place to have that discussion, I would be grateful if you could kindly advise where and how that discussion should proceed. Thank you,BlueonGray (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
This would be the place to discuss it and I wouldn't say you've really done anything wrong. The issue we see here often is that content cases will be brought against someone when there only seems to be a content dispute. I'm not saying that there's only a content dispute because things do seem a little fishy but at this point, I don't see that any action can really be taken past continuing to monitor the situation. The one thing I'd like to make sure of is that we don't go around accusing editors of having a COI without and real evidence. Like I said before, there can be an overwhelming amount of "circumstantial" evidence which allows action to be taken (which is how I interpret WP:DUCK) but I'm just not seeing it right now. It's definitely strange when information is added that, it appears, only someone with a connection to the subject or the subject themselves would know but that in itself doesn't constitute a COI where action can be taken.
I'll try to keep an eye on things but as this case is quite large, it's almost impossible to catch everything so if you see any evidence that further substantiates a COI, be sure to post it here (diffs and a short explanation work best). OlYeller 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the advice and helpful suggestions. I agree with everything you've written, and I've tried carefully to avoid any accusations, explicit or implicit, against another editor. I agree, the case is very large and rather complicated. To clarify, I'm not asking for any disciplinary action to be taken. I leave that entirely up to an admin to decide. In any case, if I find anything else, I will share it here. Once again, thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Generally you can't establish a COI without a direct admission or a clear "gotcha" from the editor. In this case, the unsourced information could simply be original research, or even falsified (though I'd rather not assume the latter). If I added info about Patrick Stewart's hat size, I could have gotten it from carefully examining the size of his hat in relation to objects of known size in a feature film, or just blindly guessing, it doesn't mean that I'm his personal milliner. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your point. It could indeed have been original research, and I made sure to leave that open as a possibility when I tried to discuss this with my fellow editor. My only concern is that, when asked about this research, the editor refused to say where s/he obtained crucial information about a biographical subject. It's not so much the inclusion of that information, but rather the persistent refusal to say where s/he obtained it. Still, your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Any controversial information about a BLP must be sourced. Regardless of COI or any other factors. -- Atama頭 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The only possible COI I can see is this:

  1. 03-01-2011: Ricardo Duchesne (RD) writes an article about the "racism industry" of Canada's academia in a national newspaper
  2. 12-02-2011 5:28 PM: On a comments page a user named "Blue on Gray" gets pretty agitated about Duchesne article. Quotes:
For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM)
And, why not do this all *without* the resentment and foaming at the mouth? That would be a genuinely interesting research project. For that, of course, you would actually need to think and speak like a mature, civil, and intellectually responsible social scientist. (Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM)
  1. 21-02-2011: BlueonGray registered on Knowledge (XXG) and...
  2. became until August 2011 a WP:single-purpose account (1) only devoted
  3. ...to vandalize the article on RD repeatedly: 1, 2 and...
  4. ...initiated two AfDs misusing WP as his personal battleground and...
  5. refuses to answer a simple question whether he is identical with this BlueonGray even though I was gracious enough to tell him that I am not RD (I am not)...

So, if someone misuses WP as a platform for his/her personal antipathy, then it is BlueonGray who comes here to wage his personal crusade. I am concerned that User:BlueonGray may have an undisclosed connection to one of the Canadian academics mentioned less flatteringly in RD's article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are accusing me of a COI, please be explicit about it and kindly follow the established procedure for initiating an investigation. This discussion is not about me. It is about how three crucial pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne, the second two of which were included to elevate the subject's notability, managed to be included without public sources. Since you are finally here, I would be grateful if you could kindly share how you managed to obtain those three pieces of information. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The section is not entitled "Gun Powder Ma", but "Ricardo Duchesne", hence the investigation is just as much about you and your questionable edit pattern. Now that we have established that COI does not apply to me, the question arises, whether it does to you. I can also open up a new section if formal need arises, but why not hear first what others here have to say about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, if you suspect me of a COI, please make that explicit and kindly follow the appropriate steps to initiate an investigation. In the meantime, I am merely asking how you were able to obtain the following pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne:

  1. the subject's place of birth
  2. the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor
  3. the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Again, this information does not appear to be publicly available. I would therefore be grateful if you could kindly share your sources, so that this discussion can come to a quick and graceful end. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the discussion needs to be postponed for 24 hours. BlueonGray has been blocked for being disruptive on "Ricardo Duchesne". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
So is there anything at this point that proves that this is more than just a content dispute? As several people seem to be involved in the AfD, I don't see that they'll be able to change the outcome of the AfD even if there was a proven COI. Perhaps this is better dealt with after the AfD concludes? OlYeller 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me repeat what it says at the top of this page, in bold text: accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you. Both of you have been doing this, but I don't feel like blocking both of you, so why don't you just move this dispute somewhere else? -- Atama頭 17:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi: to be clear, I have not accused another editor of a COI. I initiated the discussion here precisely to avoid making any accusation and merely to discuss the issue I raised above. In any case, you can close this discussion if you'd like, as the original problem seems to be taking care of itself. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

So why haven't you closed the debate when you don't see a COI? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Pablo Ulpiano

Seems to obviously be a AB. Reads like a FB profile. I probably would have A7'd it but the author already declined a PROD. Probably wouldn't survive an AfD but I don't have time to write one up per WP:BEFORE. OlYeller 19:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Christ, are people suppose to read that? I AFD'd it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Voted Speedy Delete, and marked A7. Phearson (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The user has not edited since the creation of the article. They have a version of their article on their userspace now that I've tagged as a {{userpage}} that won't be indexed by search engines. At this point, the issue seems stale. I'll monitor and report back if there are changes. OlYeller 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note of the relationship between PROD and CSD (a bit off-topic but might bear mentioning)...
Proposed deletions are for articles where deletion of the article, in general, is uncontroversial. In other words, nobody objects to deletion. Speedy deletions are situations where an article meets one of the criteria listed at WP:CSD.
Declining a PROD should not affect an article's eligibility for speedy deletion. In this case, if the article lacks a credible claim of importance for the subject, then someone should add such a claim or the article can be speedily deleted. It doesn't matter if someone objects to the deletion by declining a PROD, or protesting on the article's talk page, etc. It's still eligible if it meets the A7 criteria.
Declining a speedy deletion request may make an article ineligible for PROD, but it's situational. In the case where the author of the page protests the speedy deletion by writing on the article talk page that they don't want the article deleted, that would make proposed deletion controversial if the article happens to be declined. On the other hand, in a case where someone rejects a speedy deletion request only because the requirements of the speedy deletion tag aren't met, that doesn't show that the person is objecting to deletion of the article in general. I myself have declined a speedy deletion tag and replaced it with PROD on articles. It all boils down to common sense; has someone demonstrated in words or actions that they feel the article merits inclusion? If so, the article is ineligible for PROD, if not, it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I always thought it was CSD->PROD->AfD. If the article had been AfD'd or a PROD was declined, it was obviously controversial and therefore didn't qualify for speedy deletion. As I re-read WP:CSD, it never mentions that speedy deletions are inherently uncontroversial (save objections by the author) as I thought they had to be. The more I think about my previous interpretation, the less sense it makes.
In short, thanks for the heads up. OlYeller 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
No problem. The point of a speedy deletion is that there's a reason that the article should be deleted right now (or as soon as an admin gets a chance to review the article and determine if the speedy deletion criteria apply). There's no hierarchy between the deletion processes, they are all independent of each other for the most part, except that an article that has undergone AfD is ineligible for PROD. (And technically, an article that has been to AfD and has had no "keep" !votes or arguments could probably be eligible though that would be open to debate, actually that's a good question for WT:PROD, hmm...) It's also not uncommon for an article to be brought to an AfD and speedily deleted before the AfD finishes, in which case the AfD is closed with a "speedy delete" result. -- Atama頭 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Integrated Device Technology

Hi, I've previously worked on the Integrated Device Technology article before it was taken down for violation of using promotional language. Since then I've had the page userfied, and I've recently made changes to the userfied page User:Crisscutfries/Integrated Device Technology and I'd like to publish those on the public article. I'd like to ask for assistance in making sure the page is completely neutral. Thank you. Crisscutfries (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Crisscutfries

Zoe Crosher

Assistant to artist is making changes to article with artist's approval (see edit summary on sample diff). I have placed a COI notice on editor's talk page. 72Dino (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

SPAs at work on special election candidates David Weprin and Bob Turner

I got email from friend in NY complaining about the tilt of our bios for two opposing candidates in election to be held Tuesday, David Weprin and Bob Turner. Looking at the edit histories, there has been a very clever political editor at work on Bob Turner, adding lots of positive spin but all well-sourced, etc.:

Just the past couple of weeks two new SPAs showed up, one on Sept 4 and the other today Sept 11 to work on his opponenent David Weprin, adding only negative information:

My guess is that these three accounts are all the same person working to make Knowledge (XXG) help to win the election for Turner, but I'm not sure where to start on sorting this out. I hope somebody experienced has good ideas to share. Sharktopus 18:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm a new wikipedia user. Most of my edits until this point have been related to current events, hence my interest the David Weprin page. My only edits to this page, I believe, relate to ensuring that the article actually states what the sources say and undoing the edits of Sharktopus who erased nearly an entire section from the article. I believe the Weprin page should contain truthful information and not attempt to lean the page in any particular direction. On that note, if you look at Shark's last edit, you'll notice an effort to do just what he accuses me of doing. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=David_Weprin&action=historysubmit&diff=449867520&oldid=449836643
Inthegarden52 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the edit by Sharktopus cited in the post above is troubling as it appears he has deleted a substantial amount of sourced content instead of rewording it and/or making corrections as needed and he/she seems to have cherry picked a criticism from a feature article in the NY Times. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the first week of school and I do not have a lot of time free for trying to despin a political article about a district I don't live in and a race I know nothing about. I'm sorry if my attempt to remove what I thought was pure mudslinging was hamhanded. I was hoping that posting here would get help from somebody more capable. Also, I think KeptSouth is a legitimate Wikipedian, but the other two are in my opinion SPAs trying to cover that up with a few random postings elsewhere. Sharktopus 05:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems obvious that the person's or persons' goal(s) seem to be contrary to that of WP's but for there to be a COI, there needs to be a close connection between the subject of the articles and the person editing. If there's no connection proven (the person outs themselves or there's incredibly obvious signs of a connection outside of perceived goals), then this should be taken care of on the talk page and then at WP:POVN if the issue can't be resolved on the talk page. OlYeller 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sharktopus, I appreciate your efforts to address the situation. Though I have not examined the article and its editing history in detail, it appears, as OlYeller21 says, to be more of a content dispute than a COI issue and may be better served on another noticeboard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks, OlYeller and Keithbob, for your informative replies. I will have a better idea how to deal with such situations in the future (and I hope a bit more time to spend fixing problems myself.) Sharktopus 22:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Leathermarket_JMB

http://leathermarketjmb.org.uk/news11/news110510_CivicAwardMaytum.html I think that link will make my concerns about the article and its creator clear enough. The article seems little better than an advert and it seems to by trying to show notability via sideline mentions in the murder articles from reliable sources RafikiSykes (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express

PKdundee has an admitted connection to the company and also has serious ownership issues - seems to think they have the right to transform the page into a promotional site run by the company. Possible sockpuppet of blocked user Beatthecyberhate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also tried to purge negative content about the company from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of discussion taking place on the talk page. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll check out the talk page and report back. There's obviously a COI but we'll have to see if there's still COI type content on the page and whether or not the editor understands what's going on. OlYeller 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Posted notification on Talk:Optical Express. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
PKdundee has, on my advice, declared his conflict of interest. He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for. In return, he has assumptions of bad faith made against him, he's been accused of trying to turn the article into a vanity piece, he's been bitten and generally subjected to the very worst treatment of an inexperienced editor. You, and the others who have done this, should be ashamed of yourself. It's disgraceful, and your conduct is damaging the reputation of Knowledge (XXG). You should try helping him to understand and offering constructive criticism instead of trying to get rid of him—the article before he re-drafted it was a pile of shit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't looked deeply into the situation to know if such a strong opinion is warranted but if it is, I don't want to be lumped in. OlYeller 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
No, to the OP and his baseless (and, for reasons the Privacy Policy prevents me as an OTRS agent from going into, incorrect) accusations of sockpuppetry on top of all the other biting the victim of this thread has suffered, and whom the OP hasn't even had the decency to inform that he's badmouthing him at a noticeboard. We treat petty vandals better than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well on 11th August he vandalised my user page and has admitted it.. Also, he removed most of the talk page for Optical Express.Rotsmasher (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did PKdundee admit to being the IP that vandalized your user page? -- Atama頭 20:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the "Assume Good Faith" section. He initially gave a slightly longer and more detailed apology and then edited it slightly.Rotsmasher (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's this edit made by PK in response to the edit before it by Rot. OlYeller 20:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

May I first say, I am inexperienced to Wiki and I have made mistakes for which I have apologised publicly. I have recently created a user account and agreed to comply personally and on behalf of OE to Wiki policies. No doubt I have made, and will make, some more mistakes but these are not intentional. My replies in turn: PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

In the very early days of my history, I ignorantly vandalised two pages of users whom I believed were vandalising the OE page. I have apologised publicly for this - they however have not apologised for vandalising the OE page and I guess still don't acknowledge their errors. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When I deleted some of the OE talk page I was deleting older comments from one of my colleagues who was also pleading for help and being both ignored on talk and attacked elsewhere, and eventually blocked. I did say on the edit note that I was happy for that to be reinstated if I was making a mistake. MikeWazowski also deleted talk from his own page from beatthecyberhate, so I was unaware this was not allowed or bad in any way. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have also observed users re-editing their own, and other's, edits for brevity, and again did not think that I was committing a crime to do this while I was adding the last comment on that thread, especially as nothing materially important had been removed, the discussion had taken place and apology accepted. To be honest I did not really think anything of it. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As a newbie, sticking to rules has been a challenge when the only examples to reference were similar actions of other more experience users - albeit in hindsight I should not have copied them. Going forward, I will continue to (or at least attempt to) vigorously defend wrongful and damaging edits made on the OE page, while complying with Wiki policies and guidelines. OE is not adverse to negative edits being made when these are fair and accurate and have a respective weighting. All we seek is a balanced article that is fair and written with good intention. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there are several editors and admins who have not only conducted themselves in biased editing but positively endorsed it with blocking and deletion of talk and edits they don't personally like...if not, I cannot imagine why the article was allowed to get so bad originally. Over the past few days I have observed the same pattern of picking away and watering down positive balanced copy from the same users (some of whom are experienced admins!); deleting factual copy on the basis of it being viewed as promotional material even though it is not; unneccessary and pointless citations being requested and eventually content removed (for being without citation) so that eventually there will be nothing but negative edits on the page. Thoroughly disgusted with some Wikipedians who give the good guys a bad name. PKdundee (talk) 11:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to a new editor. And I appreciate your candor in revealing your association with the article subject. But let's be clear here, your job is to improve the image of Optical Express, as the "Online Director" of the company. If you are feuding with long-established editors about content, it's pretty obvious that claims of bias against these people are without merit. I looked at what you're trying to put into the article, you're arguing over whether it mentions a commercial? And you're accusing them of vandalism, and trying to damage the page? You need to try harder to listen to others, and work with them, or you will be blocked, if not by me, then by someone else. I can pretty much guarantee that. I was initially expecting to try to help you out and defend your status as a newbie, but you're really making it difficult. -- Atama頭 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently OrangeMike and I are now corporate sabotagers in PKdundee's mind, and he wants us banned... let me offer a piece of advice - stop adding promotional fluff and unsupported statements to the article, and maybe people won't have a problem with your edits. Also, as a matter of record, PKdundee admits above that prior editors who were blocked for sockpuppeting were colleagues of his - which means there's at least been *some* meatpuppeting going on, if not outright socking. I think my original concerns were justified. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm also not able to agree with HJ Mitchell, who said, "He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for." I'm having trouble assuming good faith at this point, and I often bend over backwards for COI editors. But Pat seems bent on fighting tooth-and-nail to keep inappropriate promotional information in the article, and accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being biased vandals trying to damage the page. That's not going to fly. -- Atama頭 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Atama I hear your points, but it does not excuse the actions of supposedly experienced editors - and my comments of vandalism and corporate sabotage are of historic and not recent events. Both MikeWazowski and OrangeMike, along with other experienced editors/admins who should know better were responsible as key enablers of the previous version of the article as of 22/August - and blocking/editing OE representatives who were trying to make corrective edits to potentially libellous remarks. I am both shocked and dismayed that they are still allowed to edit OE pages, let alone other pages. Whatever your views you have to agree from an NPOV with HJ Mitchell that it was "a pile of shit" and that it was written (restored, edited and enabled by the aforementioned and others implicated in this matter) with sole purpose to be extremely damaging to OE, putting it very mildly. Regardless of my inexperience and actions which have caused such offence, my objective is not to score oneupmanship or "promotion" but to resolve amicably a potentially serious incident.PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
My recent edits, true to form of these supposed guardians of truth, were all systematically removed regardless of right or wrong - they were just removed. This has been the experience since before you became involved and I won't sit back and watch the same people systematically destruct and/or defend the destruction of the article, and re-introduction of inaccurate and damaging materials, as they did previously. As you point out, given my position that would be negligence given the history that is clearly catalogued. If you review even the recent change history you will see that a perfectly reasonable edit to the image caption was undone as was another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery. You can see the comments from MikeWazowski which demonstrates his inability to judge/ comment on this subject - if he doesn't know the basics why doesn't he find out or refrain from vandalising/hijacking a perfectly reasonable statement which is backed up, or at the very least is true. He did not attempt to remove suggested "promotion" which was not intended, but simply hit the undo to restore an infactual statement. TeapotGeorge, another experienced but consistenet offender to the article, whose MO is to ask COI's to post requests on talk pages then proceed to ignore them (check the history!), removed clearly referenced citation that Optical Express was the biggest of the three main UK laser eye surgery providers because he did not fully read the referenced material or lost interest in the opening paragraphs that explained that on the last survey in 2001 Optimax was considered to have most clinics but went on later to state that Optical Express, in the most recent study, had the most clinics. Incompetence that he has systematically demonstrated throught this process...and unfortunately he is not alone. I admit I am pulling no punches on challenging culprits who have clearly beyond doubt demonstrated they are unable to make sensible edits to the article and have enabled and supported materials that were clearly intended to cause damage, and making it impossible for you to defend my corner, however what has occurred to date is plainly ridiculous and not defensible imho. PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You referred to, "another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery." No, that's false. You inserted a statement that other opticians don't provide laser eye surgery, and your only reference for that assertion said that Optical Express does. You're continuing to lodge personal attacks against other editors, such as false claims of vandalism. If you don't tone it down, I will block you as a promotional-only account that is harassing other editors. -- Atama頭 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Please refer to my reply to MikeWazowski on the OE talk page. The reference was a reputable industry source reporting a significant report on the industry and providing clear indication in writing that Optical Express is the only of the four major UK high street Opticians that provides laser eye surgery. Amazingly it is also actually true. As is the referenced fact that was removed by TeapotGeorge that Optical Express has the most clinics of all the three major UK providers of laser eye surgery! That last fact was inserted by one of the independent Wiki editors/admins, SimpleBob, to replace a piece of text, which was also true, that he obviously personally didn't like but was actually more factual of the reference. Had I been allowed to revert it, TeapotGeorge would not have become confused but possibly would have deleted it anyway. Atama, need I go on, this is obviously a joke. PKdundee (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, PKdundee (a name that I really like; it is so Scottish) from — well, I can't say, but it is on the other side of the world — I am totally neutral, haven't looked at the page yet but will do so. In the meantime, just have a nice cuppa and take a deep breath. Really, your customers don't give a rodent's patootie what Knowledge (XXG) says about your organization. If I were in London, I would drop by and take you out for some cheer myself. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Oh, sorry. Just checked the site. It is definitely of Scottish origin. OK, if I were in SCOTLAND I would take you out for some cheer. Regards, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PKdundee, I do realize that you're new to Knowledge (XXG) and how it works. I'll give you some pointers that might make things easier for you. Personally, I don't have any opinion on what should or shouldn't be in that article, I'm not taking anyone's side on that (and my comment above about laser eye surgery was to point out the discrepancy between your claim and what Orange Mike's justification was for removing it). But here are some things to keep in mind:
  • If you have complaints about the actions of other editors, discuss what they've done, not their motives, biases, or any perceived personal flaws you might believe they have. We have a policy against personal attacks and when you're "pulling no punches", you're weakening your own arguments. It's difficult to have a civil conversation with someone as you're punching them in the face. And as I said before, we don't tolerate personal attacks on people, it destroys the collaborative environment that is necessary to have when multiple editors are trying to work on an article. People who continue personal attacks are often blocked.
  • We have a very specific definition of vandalism on Knowledge (XXG). That word is one of the harshest labels that can be applied to a person. It means that they are literally trying to harm Knowledge (XXG) with their actions. You can read what is or isn't vandalism at the policy page. The actions you're calling vandalism most definitely are not, and false accusations of vandalism are very much frowned upon, and can lead to sanctions such as being blocked if they are repeated.
  • Also be very, very, very careful to avoid terms like "libel" if you can, especially since you work for the article's subject. If you give the impression that you may be involved in any legal action against Knowledge (XXG), or any other editors, you will be blocked until and unless you make it unambiguously clear that no legal action is forthcoming. That's a hard-and-fast rule, and necessary. Editors are not allowed to use threats of legal action as intimidation, no matter how subtly it is done. I don't feel that you've done that in any way, yet, but I did want you to be aware of this so that you don't say the wrong thing, spook people, and get blocked over a misunderstanding. Advice on avoiding such a problem can be read at WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats.
  • We have a policy against edit-warring; that is, repeatedly reverting other people at an article (including restoring back material you had previously added that was reverted by someone else). The recommended way to edit an article is called "BRD"; be bold in adding information, but if you are reverted, then go to the article's talk page to discuss it. If the other person refuses to discuss matters at the article's talk page, you have a legitimate complaint, my advice is to seek assistance from a third person if that happens (just about anyone really).
  • You may already know this by now, but I thought I'd reinforce that when there is a dispute about the validity of any information you wish to add to an article, the determining factor is whether or not you can verify the information using reliable sources. That doesn't guarantee that the information can or should be included, some information is trivia, or you may be adding too much undue weight by adding too much information about something of relative unimportance, even if everything you wish to add is backed up with quality sources.
  • Above all else, try your best to get along with other editors. You are at a number of disadvantages, most especially because you are still learning how people do things here, and you're editing with a proclaimed conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you should always do what everyone else tells you to do, they may very well be wrong or might be misunderstanding you, but taking an adversarial position against most or all people who disagree with you will not work. If someone disagrees with you, ask them why in a civil manner, and counter their reasons with justifications of your own. Even though you're new, you're not at all a second-class contributor, everyone else has to follow the same guidelines so it's not necessary to be defensive if you are challenged. An administrator who has edited the site for 7 years may know the ropes better than you, but they don't have any more authority than you do regarding what can and can't be included in an article. The tools you'll need to use to convince other people are diplomacy, common sense, and a knowledge of our policies and guidelines (the latter will come in time, and don't hesitate to ask questions).
I hope some of that advice can help you. I'm not your adversary, but as an administrator I'm expected to enforce community standards when necessary, and I will step in if things get out of hand, one way or the other. -- Atama頭 00:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we put an end to this company's COI editing of its own article by blocking the accounts involved. The latest contributions on the article and the talk page show how the company is shamefully massaging references to promote their business and discredit its critics. As SPA's they have not contributed to Knowledge (XXG) in any other substantive way so it's no great loss if we lose their future contributions. --Simple Bob (Talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction, Bob: this is now just one person doing the COI edits, so "they" is not appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Understood. That one should be blocked. And either he or somebody else from the company posted on my talk page yesterday. --Simple Bob (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
SimpleBob. You and MikeWazowski were on the OE talk page under Recent Edits stating that COI text posted had no foundation to the references, where in fact the original text was verbatim of two very credible and independent sources - MINTEL and ASA. Both independent statements have been modified (massaged!) and/or deleted from the OE page by you and MW, and you have wrongly accused me of massaging references (as corrected by HJ Mitchell). You are obviously a very well respected contributor to Wiki, but I do not think that your edits on this page can be considered NPOV - you have adopted a negative approach to any COI edits. Please point out any edits I have attempted to add recently to the page that are not backed up by solid and accurate independent reference. I am able to highlight edits you have made that are based on only your personal preference - as these are/were backed up with credible references. You may not like what MINTEL, ASA and other positive references have said as much as I might not like negative references that have been used to slight OE, but you cannot adopt double standards by choosing what you do like and what you do not. Surely that is a key principle of Wiki.PKdundee (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
PK, sorry I accidentally reverted the comment off the page. I somehow missed that the edit did more than alter Orange Mike's signature. I should have only reverted the signature change. OlYeller 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. I thought I had done something wrong again.PKdundee (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I assume it was a mistake. Just in case, per WP:SIGCLEAN, you shouldn't alter the signature's of others without their permission. OlYeller 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That was a mistake. Apologies.PKdundee (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of activity going on still at the article. How are things going? I see mostly good chatter but some more contentious chatter as well. OlYeller 15:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been protected for a week so nothing has happened recently. I have added a third party reference for the new advert in place of the primary source link to the advert itself.Teapotgeorge 16:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I didn't know it was protected. I just saw a lot of talk page activity by the editor in question. OlYeller 16:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
RANT: There is one editor creating a lot of vindictive badwill on the OE page and that's why OE is involved as a COI. If you get rid of the blatant vindictive postings - one individual is responsible - then you will gain credibility as a reference resource. What's happening on the OE page is representative of why Wiki is not viewed as a credible reference source for acedemia. Please clean up you act. It took me several days to work out what was going on and who is to blame. I have wasted, as many other good people have, days on this issue. The OE page is being attacked by one individual and I urge Wiki powers to investigate and put a stop to this rubbish. OE does not, as I have said all along, mind fair and proper ctitisism or reporting. However, what is happening is not acceptable behaviour = personal vendetta - and Wiki should not expect OE to stand aside and allow this to continue. It has gone on far too long already.PKdundee (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an ill considered paragraph. My edits have stimulated debate and a better article is the result. Optical Express appear not to like the fact that they cannot control Knowledge (XXG). I also do not agree with your comments about Knowledge (XXG). I have just edited the Optical Express page again to add information on a big VAT case. Are you saying I should have been "refrained" from doing that?Rotsmasher (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that you have a personal vendetta against OE and should be considered a COI editor, and you should not be allowed to edit this article. In terms of the VAT case, once the VAT case is settled either way then it would be time to report authoratitively on it - and the current post is news. OE do not want to control the page, just stop your vindictive edits. The admins can do that quite easily if they wish and I urge them, again, to review your activity and more importantly your sentiment - it is hardly nuetral.PKdundee (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So in a nutshell, I am to be banned from editing Optical Express because an admitted COI editor who works for the company feels that my previous edits are "rubbish"? The vast majority of my edits have been accepted by senior Knowledge (XXG) editors. Where an edit has been reverted I have accepted this. I do not accept that just because Optical Express has some negative issues over the years, these should be censored from Knowledge (XXG). Over time Optical Express have used sockpuppets, meatpuppets, large scale blanking and vandalism of userpages in their attempts to create a positive spin article.Rotsmasher (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rotsmasher, your allegations do you, your profession and your colleagues, no credit and have further implicated your deceipt.PKdundee (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So I'm new to the COI board, and got involved with the OE article after seeing it on the board. There's a few issues cropping up, and it looks unlikely that either duelist is going to let go soon, so there are somethings to solve - my question is: is this still a COI issue or would it be best to go to, say, arbitration for example? Personally I think I bit of wiki-experience would help on both sides and think a double topic ban would be a nice solution - but I'm aware that could start a whole new debate. Failedwizard (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that this wasn't meant for me to respond to, but I am no longer editing the page. It infuriates me that Rotsmasher, who is clearly an SPA and COI, is, and there are also several unanswered items where I have requested deletions/weight reduction that have not been actioned even though in one instance two editors agreed that an item should/could be removed.
I would be happy if Rotsmasher was not allowed to post directly on the article. Happy for him to raise his issues and let the community decide whether his ramblings add or has substance, but at the moment he is a loose cannon and able to post any rubbish.PKdundee (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You got a bit personal on the talk page and this also feels a bit personal. I feel confident that my edits are in the best interests of Knowledge (XXG) and the general public. Obviously you strongly disagree. I think the facts speak for themselves.Rotsmasher (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A few things here...
  • Rotsmasher, it might be in your best interest to familiarize yourself with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. I noticed that you avoid indenting your comments, and I'm assuming that is unintentional. Indentation makes it much easier for readers to follow the flow of a conversation.
  • PKdundee, you've failed to explain how Rotsmasher has a conflict of interest. What connection do they have that would constitute a COI? For example, is Rotsmasher a disgruntled former (or current!) employee of Optical Express, or working for a competitor? You would need an admission or other evidence on Knowledge (XXG) to establish something along those lines. Otherwise, you two simply have a difference of opinion which is healthy and normal.
  • Failedwizard, arbitration only comes about when all other options have failed to reach resolution. You might want to read our dispute resolution policy, which shows the different avenues taken to solve disagreements with article content. Usually the process is to ask for a third opinion if two people disagree and need outside output. If more people are already involved, more uninvolved editors can be requested through a request for comments. There are a number of noticeboards that can offer advice for particular kinds of disputes, the dispute resolution noticeboard can be a place to inquire as to the best place to go for any given dispute. If there is a prolonged dispute that can't be resolved otherwise, mediation can be requested, either formal or informal. Only when all other options are exhausted is it appropriate to request arbitration, though generally that's a desperate last step because arbitrators won't actually solve the content dispute itself, rather they tend to enforce proper conduct through blocks, bans, and editing restrictions which generally do not make the editors of the article happy.
For everyone, what is left to be resolved? The COI is obvious (and acknowledged) from PKdundee, but he's cooperating. I see a lot of discussion on the article's talk page, including involvement from a few experienced editors and one administrator. I see some normal disagreements in recent discussions on the article's talk page but anything that can't be worked out has the options I listed above to Failedwizard. -- Atama頭 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Atama, here's what I need:
Stop the protagonist involved (by IP) from directly editing the article from three suspected accounts/IPs they have used. Let them put their point to editors as I must do.
Correct the infactual statements as pointed out repeatedly, but still not addressed.
Review every statement this protagonist has made.
Review further statements made from this protagonist and review references for accuracy and proper interpretation.
I have pledged not to edit this article, but cannot keep that pledge if the protagonist is allowed to continue their hate campaign using Wiki. This may result in a ban/block. If so, alternative resolution will be required.
What is absolute, to give you my honest view, is that the status quo is not an option.PKdundee (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Is "the protagonist" Rotsmasher? If so, I suspect what you mean is that since you've agreed to no longer edit the article directly, that it's only fair for the other person in the dispute to do the same. That's a reasonable request. I do caution you against using such terminology as "hate campaign", that's very strong language and seriously undermines your efforts here. It's important that you are able to communicate in a calm and civil manner and using such a phrase is anything but. -- Atama頭 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct... I would hope that since I am no longer editing the page directly, then Rotsmasher should do likewise. I will take your advice on board. Thank you.PKdundee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Atama. You gave previous bullet pointed advice to PKDundee. He has ignored it. He has also made assumptions about me that are unfounded and this conduct is against the spirit of Knowledge (XXG)Rotsmasher (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I took his avoidance of the question to mean that he dropped the subject. I did notice that you ignored my advice as well. :) -- Atama頭 07:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to ignore it but I am befuddled by events!Rotsmasher (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. :) So a question, do you think it would be fair if you stayed away from the main page of the article, just as a courtesy? Basically, if PKdundee sticks with the article talk page, and you do the same, then the only people working on the article will be neutral editors completely unaffiliated with the company. There seems to be plenty of attention being given to the article now so I'm confident that any remaining article problems can be addressed and fixed without your direct intervention. -- Atama頭 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As a courtesy to who? If to you and your fellow Wikipedians then yes. If to ameliorate Optical Express I don't think so.Rotsmasher (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be a courtesy to anyone else at that article, because if you do so, then PKdundee will likewise avoid direct edits of the article and the COI concerns will become much easier to resolve. -- Atama頭 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok but as a courtesy to you guys with hundreds or thousands of articles to watch. Not because a COI editor of Optical Express has thrown his toys out.Rotsmasher (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alexander_Misharin

There are definitely some COI issues with User:Ssr. He wrote his real name on his user page: Sergey Rublev, but he forgot to mention he works for Gov. A.S.Misharin as a PR person. He was already involved into a whitewashing scandal on Russian Knowledge (XXG): http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ng.ru%2Fregions%2F2011-04-13%2F2_wiki.html He repeatedly removes all controversial and unpleasant information, now from the English version on the article. The Russian version was edit-protected by admins, because of COI and edit warring. Gritzko (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the whitewashing diffs. Ssr (talk · contribs) has added a {{POV}} tag to the "Controversies" section. As I don't read Russian, I can't read the several references provided in the section. The conversation has been taken to the talk page. Justified or not (again I don't speak Russian), this definitely seems like a controversy that has spilled over from the Russian WP as the "Controversies" section was taken directly from ru.Knowledge (XXG). OlYeller 14:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
From quick read of the Russian WP article using Google Translate, it looks like the controversy is still taking place there. This situation is more complicated than it seems.
Gritzko, how do you know that Ssr works for the subject of the article? I see that he has stated his name on his user page but don't see a clear connection between him and the subject of the article.
Well, S.Rublev does not hide his affiliation. Once he was hired, that got into the press, also he was giving comments to the press regarding the whitewashing controversy.
"Gov Misharin entrusted his blog to a guy (famous by swearing)" - actually, the former boss of Mr.Rublev was famous for profuse swearing and suchlike
in this publication S.Rublev gives a commentary on the scandal, as a employee of Gov.Misharin
Twitter profile of S.Rublev - says he is a "twitter secretary of @amisharin" Gritzko (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Digging in my personal data and publishing it here is not the point of the case. Look at what I written at the article's talk page. As was stated in Russian dicussions, I am not trying to hide that I'm involved in COI, so no need to "unmask" me. I try to show that Gritzko is a member of a "team" that are also members of COI - but, unlike myself, they don't admit it. For long time, they supposedly try to use Russian Knowledge (XXG), along with some mass media Gritzko refers to, for local political struggle (a common thing for Sverdlovsk Oblast). So, as I stated on the talk page, I was not "whitewashing", but was legally using Russian Knowledge (XXG) procedures to counter POV-pushing that appeared long time ago before I started to edit the corresponding articles. Gritzko is not trying to make a quality article, he is POV-pushing and trying to make the article consist only of "controversies". So do "his team" in ru-wikipedia, that finally led to freezing of the article (by my requests) that they made very non-NPOV, consisting mostly of "controversies", not a biography. Not a surprise that someone tries to deal with them using legal Knowledge (XXG) procedures and NPOV-related rules, because Knowledge (XXG) should be neutral and such systematic POV-pushing must be stopped. --ssr (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Again, as I don't know Russian, I can't verify the controversial information in the article and I have no idea how WP:BLPVIO applies to information that can be verified in another language than English. While that's a content/BLP issue, knowing whether or not Ssr is justified will help determine a COI or namely, if his goals are contrary to those of WP. OlYeller 14:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, to the best of my understanding, the problem is that Mr.Rublev&Co are paid to maintain online presence of Gov.Misharin and to build his positive image. At the same time, Gov.Misharin is mostly famous because of corruption/mismanagement scandals he was involved in. Quite regularly, he gets into the press precisely because of that. Hence, Mr.Rublev has nothing better to do than to remove all that info from the article and to keep it a stub. Gritzko (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The information brought here is most troubling. It does appear that user:ssr is blanking cited information from the English Knowledge (XXG). The last edit you shown has this misinformed summery: "(the section is non-NPOV and sometimes untrue, see talk)". Shows that he is unaware that we go by cited independent sources, not WP:TRUTH. Also, his user page shows that further, saying that errors in the wikipedia are press errors, not science book errors. We are trying to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Phearson (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. So I'm seeing a clear connection between Rublev linking his Twitter page to Micharin and the WP account, Ssr. As for his goals being contrary to those of WP, if the references are somehow highly unreliable, which I doubt, it could be argued that Ssr isn't doing anything inadmissible per WP:COI. I've asked Wikiproject Russia's members for assistance. The article hasn't had any edits for two days so I don't feel that any action needs to be taken immediately. OlYeller 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Ezhiki has gone through the beginning portion of the section. Here is thier report. If I had to summarize, it seems that Ezhiki feels that much of the section is synthesis and until it can be rewritten by an uninvolved editor, it should be removed from the BLP.
Bottom line, neither party seems to be totally neutral on the subject and the references used leave some things up to interpretation and/or are not neutral themselves. While there's a strong possibility of a COI with Ssr, Gritzko may be pushing a POV as well.
An admin may need to take action at this point. Before they do, I suggest reading Ezhiki's report. It's very thorough. OlYeller 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I may correct the issues mentioned by Ezhiki (sources, tone, synthesis) in two days. Otherwise, an easy way to ban something is to set the quality standard so high that no one can match it. In the present situation, I do not feel that there is some White Knight who can do it better. Gritzko (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Ezhiki has done a great job and made great conclusions. Thank him very much for that! Per his conclusions, please remove Gritzko's writings ("Controversies" section) to avoid BLP violation. Please remove his content, do not let him add more (per Ezhiki's findings, he is not capable of writing neutral content in this case). As I said previously, there is not just "strong possibility of a COI" with me, but I am an openly-declared COI party that try to oppose other COI party (per my opinion, and which is not openly-declared). Letting him just insert his highly-biased content is not in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) goals, while my intervention and my COI dispute to make Knowledge (XXG) neutral (by removing his writings) is in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) goals. --ssr (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why not make things simple? Both of you could voluntarily not edit the article at all, due to COI and instead ask at WP:EAR and the talk page of the subject article. Phearson (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow Ssr's accusations of conspiracy led to me becoming a COI party. In either case, I am editing the section according to Ezhiki's comments and then WP:EAR is OK. Gritzko (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I backed every fact with the best sources I can find and removed everything I cannot reliably support with references. I think, I've put x10 more work into the article than User:Ssr who, in principle, is paid to do that. Just to highlight the fact that the lack of positive information is not my fault. Comments are welcome. Gritzko (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Voilà: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#A._Misharin:_controversies Gritzko (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

You say: "was given a COI reminder early in 2009". By who? where? Do you have a diff or a link? Also, you have listed 5 accounts, only the first three are SPA's and the first two are inactive. What I'm getting at is, yes there is some SP editing of this article but do you have any evidence of COI? which is the theme of this noticeboard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to start over. Dear IP 217, thanks for your concern and vigilance and for taking the time to create a post here. However, I've looked at the article, its history and its user page (where I found the COI warning you referred to in your post)and I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the situation. 1) I don't see the article as having a strong POV and even if it did that would be an issue for the NPOV or BLP noticeboards. 2) Looking at the talk page I see there are not current controversies or discussions that are being dominated by the accounts listed in your post. 3) Looking at the edit history for the past few months I don't see any glaring examples of POV editing. What I see are copy edits and the addition of a few pieces of reliable sourced text. So unless you can give a clearer demonstration of disruptive editing by someone who you have good reason to think is the article subject, then I'm not sure there is an issue relevant to this noticeboard. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the IP didn't get the link formatted properly for Prspiring, I just fixed that. Following the link above to the user's talk page, you can clearly see a COI notice left in January 2009 (it's the first comment on the page). Also, Prspiring clearly matches Paul R. Spiring, who has edited the Spiring article created by TedSherrell. TedSherrell and Prspiring have a great number of contributions in common and may in fact be the same person, but a sockpuppet investigation was closed without any action taken. At this point, both accounts have been inactive (one for a year and the other for 4 months) and so checkuser data would be very stale if another investigation was requested. The real question is whether or not Paul Spiring is notable enough to have an article at all, and that's not really a matter for this noticeboard to decide. -- Atama頭 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been meaning to comment here for a while but haven't got round to it... Anyway I agree that there are problems that need addressing. First I did some digging and noticed that TedSherrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who originally created the article also reviewed one of Spiring's books on Spiring's website suggesting a possible COI. The article also contained large amounts of unsourced personal information (DOB etc.) which as far as I can tell is not publicly available, again suggesting that editors have a close connection to the subject. As an IP has noted on my talk page (presumably the OP) there are large numbers of links to Spiring's website (which is probably not reliable in the sense of WP:RS) which were added by IPs. It's not clear to me that either WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR are met either, so I feel that a deletion debate is probably the way to go, once I get the chance to double check for more sources. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is full of puff and needs a rewrite. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking further into this - virtually all of his "published" works are simply vanity publishing and he's simply been the editor of them. This guy is not notable. My first thought is that this article should be AFD'd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting - mx publishing and Mr. Spiring seem to be inserted in a lot of articles in various ways. I sense I will be deleting quite a bit of content over the next few days... --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nu Skin Enterprises

This article is being edited both by Nscomms (talk · contribs), who appropriately self-identified as a member of Nu Skin's PR team, and by multiple IPs linked to nuskin.com. The IPs include:

The IPs in particular have been edit-warring to remove appropriately sourced information, presumably because it reflects poorly on one of the company's products. MastCell  21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ravidassia (caste)

Section gotra(surnames) of this article is unsourced and has no inline citations. Section is using various other gotras that may belong to the another communities. Above user are adding unverified and unsourced informations in the article. The above users are reverting every edit made by another user on the article without adhering to consensus and may have COI that is causing edit war. May be these user are using there account for promoting a group or they are campaigning. Article fails on the core content policies—Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view, Knowledge (XXG):No original research, and Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability.  Sehmeet singh  Talk  05:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

under Vandalism or Content Dispute section the user has previously been reported for his civility and nature of edit and same situation is this time  Sehmeet singh  Talk  16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You said, "May be these user are using there account for promoting a group or they are campaigning." Can you explain that suggestion? What group would they be promoting, and what evidence (on Knowledge (XXG)) would indicate their connection to that group? I see from the ANI archive link that you provided that Bal537 has had complaints about behavior in the past, but I don't see any indication of a COI there either. -- Atama頭 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
bal mainly contributes to the articles belonging to his ethinic group i.e ravidasia(leather tanners) , chamar, Mochi (Hindu), Jatav and many more these are indian leather tanner groups belonging to same ethinic group where he is being currently involved in. Sehmeet singh  Talk  18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
We do not ever declare a COI based on a person's ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other personal characteristic. I can't imagine the tempest that would be stirred up if we banned an ethnic group from participating at an article. Good grief! -- Atama頭 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The above users are adding unsourced materials which you can check on the talk page of the article. My point is they are adding controversial information which is hurting sentiments of other ethnic group like in this article ramdasia where they are reverting every edit if they have page ownerships. Sehmeet singh  Talk  19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That's troubling behavior but not a conflict of interest. You might want to ask for opinions at WP:POVN. I notice that the article in question already has a neutrality tag on it, so I think that board would be particularly helpful. I'd recommend letting Bal537 and CiscoManager know if you open a discussion there, because without their participation you might not be able to resolve the issue. I looked on the talk page of the article and both editors are willing to discuss the reasons for their edits, so it looks like a civil discussion may be possible. Bringing the issue to that noticeboard will help you find the opinion of others so that it's not just you against them. -- Atama頭 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


I see Mr Sehmeet is posting all over wikipedia with multiple moderators with things against me. I strongly suspect that you Mr Ravinder121 & SunnyisSingh (and both IDs that was permanently banned by Gwen Gale). You have been doing this for many years and under many Ids against the Chamar & Ravidassia pages. It's time to stop it.

bal537bal537 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

CoI on Boris Berezovsky page, user Kolokol1

User Kolokol1 has removed several sections and rewrote the remaining part of the article on Boris Berezovsky (you can compare it to the version straight before his edits in late July) He performed multiple acts of vandalism and removed all negative material published on Berezovsky by Paul Klebnikov as well as from most other sources. Later I was able to guess that Kolokol1 is probably working for Berezovsky, as website with same name is one of Berezovsky's propaganda resources, according to information on the wiki page of firm financed by Berezovsky, see "External links" section, which states that "kolokol.ru - Foundation's news project (no updates since 2006)"). I accused Kolokol1 of being connected to this website and Berezovsky, and shortly he confessed that he's indeed "associated with several Russian dissidents, including the subject, you can call it COI, I don't care. I will not disclose my identity because I do not want to get a dose of Polonium in my tea" - see Berezovsky discussion page This user does not have any right at all to call himself a dissident as he's just a tool in Berezovsky's hands, and I would appreciate if that user was banned from further access to Berezovsky's page (including all IP addressed which he used so far). And if possible, the page should be reverted to earlier fair edit, which contained all sourced material on Berezovsky's crimes, which was so studiously wiped out by Kolokol1. Thank you very much, hope for your fair decision on this Deepdish7 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to block or at least force a username change for Kolokol1, except that the account has been around since early 2006. Heck, I just realized the account is older than mine! With an account that old with over 1,000 edits, I figure that if the username was that big of a problem for the community someone would have done something about it by now.
The COI is pretty blatant. The editor's dismissal of COI concerns is problematic.
I'd like to point out a couple of things for you, however. And this is just some advice. You shouldn't insert comments in the middle of other editors' comments as I see you doing at Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). If you want to address a point that someone else made, you can quote them in another reply, by copying their text and making it clear that it was a quote by putting quotation marks around the text, or changing the formatting (using a different color, bold, italics, etc.). Or rather than quoting them, just address the point they made in your own words. But if you insert text in the middle of someone else's text, it makes it very difficult for others to follow what that person said, and to figure out where their words end and yours begin. It could also be considered a violation of WP:TPO; editing another person's comments without justification.
The other thing is that if you want to leave a comment for a person, do so on their user talk page, not their user page. You should probably remove your comment at User:Kolokol1 and move it to the talk page. I'm sure that was just a simple mistake, I just wanted to make you aware of it.
There is a very lively discussion already at the article's talk page, and I think that any discussion about banning Kolokol1 or reverting the article should be discussed there. If you want someone to back up your concerns about the COI, you can point anyone to my comments at this page if you wish. -- Atama頭 23:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A Response

I do not hide having an association with the subject of this BLP, and accept the COI tag, but I do not see why I should be prohibited from editing. WP:BLP clearly states: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative... removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable... Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns."

The policy also says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." My edits, in fact, were the removals of false and potentially libelous material, and the complaintant has been banned for a week for revering them.

The July version of the article cited above by the complaintant is as good example of an attack page as can be (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29&oldid=439915507 ). This has been noted in numerous comments on the talk page over the past three years. Some users said that the article is not salvageable and should be scrapped altogether.

I undertook to remove the poorly sourced potentially libelous material, particularly allegations, which have been subject to several libel suits by the subject and led to either retractions or apologies, or court decisions in favor of Berezovsky. Repeating these allegations without qualification is a clear violation and is strongly libelous. All of this has been painstakingly explained in an endless discussion on the talk page.

One case in point is the procuratorial article in Forbes by Paul Klebnikov, which accused Berezovsky of murder and mafia connections. As the result of a libel suit, Forbes has retracted the article in a statement in a London court. Moreover, three independent and respectable news sources -- Guardian, The Independent and Haaretz noted a streak of anti-semitism in Klebnikov writings on Berezovsky. I did not remove those libelous allegations, because they are part of the story, but in accord with NPOV, I qualified them by mentioning the retraction and concerns about the source, which led to the first edit war and banning of the complaintant.

In addition, I collaborated with other editors on creating a balanced version of the biography, scrupulously following WP policy on sourcing, NPOV and BLP. Not a single of my edits has not been solidly sourced. The result of this effort can be seen from the following version of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)&oldid=450509807 . Of course, this is a work in progress, and needs more improvement, but the comparison of the two versions speaks for itself.

Hopefully, this complaint would lead to someone finally looking into the substance of the dispute and comparing the two versions. If after that, the powers that be decide to revert to the original attack page in violation of WP's every policy, so be it. But that would be not to the benefit of Knowledge (XXG), and its readers--Kolokol1 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kolokol1, you have stated that you are associated with the subject, that the subject has pursued several libel suits, and that you have declared that information libelous. That is dangerously close to a legal threat. I'll give you an opportunity to formally and unambiguously make it clear that you have no intention of pursuing legal action against Knowledge (XXG) or any editors at Knowledge (XXG). Furthermore, you should refrain from using such language in the future, because it gives the appearance of intimidation through legal speech, which is not allowed. If you don't do so, our policy is to indefinitely block you until you make it clear that no legal action will be forthcoming, or if legal action is taken, you will be blocked until the legal issues are concluded. -- Atama頭 23:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I declare that I have no intention of pursuing legal action against Knowledge (XXG) or any editors of Knowledge (XXG) in this matter. Having said that, I have to clarify that my connection to the subject is not of a nature that I could speak or make pledges on his behalf - he is a completely separate legal person.
Also please clarify, how an editor can carry out WP:BLP policy calling for "immediate removal" of "potentially libelous" material, and then warn the same editor that using such language is an intimidation? How can I then justify removing a text, which answers this definition, without being allowed to say so? Makes no sense to me. Or is this policy no longer active?--Kolokol1 (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's most helpful to direct you to WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats, which has advice about how to avoid giving the impression of legal threats. Trust me, BLP is very much active. Libel can and does exist. But to accuse another person of libel is something that editors are cautioned against. One of the goals of the BLP policy is to avoid libel, but you can do that without accusing someone of it. -- Atama頭 00:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
  • One problem I see here is that two SPA accounts are edit warring with opposite POV's and there is the possibility that both of them have a COI when it comes to the article in question. Reading through their edits it seems clear that they each seek to get the other one blocked or banned.TMCk (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I have despaired of ever sorting out who has a conflict in this mess. My assumption is both users do. And I wouldn't want to compare different versions of the Berezovsky article again, even if I were paid to do so, which last time I checked, I am not. It is fairly clear to me that both Deepdish and Kolokol are single purpose accounts with opposing points of view. I believe Kolokol even referred to Deepdish in one of the many posts in the many forums this article has been discussed as his "opponent". If I were proposing administrative action in this unseemly debacle, I would propose that both users be prohibited from editing the Berezovsky article. If even after that, there are problems related to other Russian-subject articles, then a broader topic ban would be appropriate. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I have been watching and involved a bit in this BLP and I fully support Bbb23's comments - full support for a topic ban on both SPI users from editing the Berezovsky article. - perhaps it would be better to topic ban them both from adding any content at all related to Boris Berezovsky. - Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Endorse as a solution to the actual problem.TMCk (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea. -- Atama頭 00:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree, good idea to end this. Dayewalker (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a ban request at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User admits to working for subject's management company, is eager to get an article in here at subject's request. "I actually work for New Wave Entertainment and we manage Jeff, he is asking us to get this page up so I really need to complete this task."Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not at all a fan of paid editing, and the COI is pretty blatant, but at the same time that's not a bad BLP stub. The article isn't overly promotional, it is sourced (including a few reliable enough sources), and it seems somewhat clear that the subject is notable based on his TV work. I do see that Dismas has been critical of the article and Kidnike03's COI, so I'll invite him to comment here as well. -- Atama頭 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
FYI I removed some of the promotional/peacock wording in the draft and it is now at Jeff Dye. Jesanj (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been critical of the article. It has, on numerous occasions, been created over the redirect to "Last Comic Standing 6" by SPAs and each time I have reverted it back. I started working with Kidnike because I was tired of the back and forth and because by now Dye seems to have had enough press to be notable. Is the article great? Not really. Does it establish notability, I think so. Though, it will have to be watched because Jeff Dye seems to think that Knowledge (XXG) is an advertising medium. Dismas| 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the help! I just want to clarify, Jeff didn't intend to use this as a medium of advertizement, he simply wanted to know why his page was always redirected. Once again, thanks alot though guys Kidnike03 (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Libya lobby in the United States

Can anyone please help with this request: Talk:Libya_lobby_in_the_United_States#Assistance Requested Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

multifocal motor neuropathy

Request for advice on conflict of interest in External Links. See the Talk page for details. Twitchyfirefly (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Avoid any forum site to external links. Sehmeet singh  Talk  17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Twitchy, thanks for your good intentions to help folks find info on MNN and for respecting the policies of Knowledge (XXG). However, as has been stated here and on the MNN talk page, it is against Knowledge (XXG) guidelines to place a URL or Ext Link in an article that leads to a discussion or user generated forum. see WP:ELNO I have done some clean up to the format in the EL section even though these kinds of content issues are not relevant to this noticeboard, I don't want to give a new user the run around. If you still have some conflict of interest concerns or specific questions, please let us know. Cheers,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, thanks for the reply. Also for the format cleanup. There's a lot to learn. Twitchyfirefly (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
In the future, the WP:External links/Noticeboard is a good place to take problems like this, even if you suspect that the person adding the link might have a close connection to the website in question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hayley Westenra

User is a representative of some kind, judging from comments on her talk page. Certainly her edits to this and other articles are far from neutral, and they come in such frequency that they are really disruptive. Your advice is appreciated; I think I would have blocked the editor if I hadn't been editing the article myself. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think she is. She's clearly a fan, probably lives in NZ, and isn't a native English speaker. I see no tide of warnings on her talkpage about exactly why her edits are problematic (and some of them clearly are). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)

Would appreciate a review of this WP:COI and WP:BLPSELF for notability. The case for notability is laid out in a temporary "Summary of Career" section that would be removed prior to moving to article space. I have worked hard at maintaining a neutral point of view and included four profile citations (that are specifically about the BLP, per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines) to strenthen the case for notability. See discussion page for more detail. You might also Google "Don Martin Austin" re further evidence of notability, as there are about 5 pages of entries for Don Martin. Knowledge (XXG) policy on notability says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Four such articles are provided -- independent, reliable, third-party party biographical articles.

Your opinions and suggestions are most welcome. Please leave comments here or ideally on the article Discussion page. Thank you!!! Austex • Talk 14:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

An appropriate place to make comments is HERE

Brookstreet Hotel

Can someone have a look over the Brookstreet Hotel "article" I believe that there is a bit of COI promotion going on, I am currently WP:3RR'ed out of the article. Mtking 22:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So I did some googling, and now I could do with a bit of info on OUTING. Can someone give me the hard and fast rules here? Failedwizard (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
To sum up WP:OUTING in a nutshell, don't reveal a person's private information on Knowledge (XXG) if they have taken steps to protect their privacy. If a person's actions on Knowledge (XXG) in some form or another reveals personal information then they have essentially waived that right. You're still not supposed to "dig up dirt on them":
  • The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research".
But you are allowed to use that information to help establish a COI:
  • However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums.
So, if, for example, you Googled "Andy W. Sparks" and saw that there was a person with that name associated with a company or companies that would be promoted through Andy.w.sparks' edits, then that would be an appropriate use of on-Knowledge (XXG) information to establish a COI and would not be outing. -- Atama頭 20:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. Assuming I've understood this right... (feel free to revert) I've had a look at (some of) the edits and I see a pleasant user and a lot of editing on lots of articles, I'm not convinced that Brookstreet Hotel is a COI, but I would submit (via ) that Protecode certainly is..Failedwizard (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
And just to double check my understanding - I understand that I can post that twitter link here because it is directly relevant to establishing a conflict of interest (and I assume handy admins are red-hot on this page with the ability to hide it again) but it would be a VERY BAD THING to do it on any other page? Is that right? Failedwizard (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It's actually more because he self-disclosed his identity by choosing "Andy.w.sparks" as a username. WP:REALNAME applies, we warn people of the consequences of choosing a real name as a username, and specifically state, "Use of a real name allows contributions to be more easily traced to an individual." -- Atama頭 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, to clarify my earlier remarks and to avoid any misunderstandings, I'd like to point out that revealing information that would enable a person to be directly contacted is almost never allowed in any circumstances. Common sense applies. That would include info such as a person's mailing address, email address, phone number, social security number, etc. Under some circumstances, saying that a person works for Microsoft might be relevant, giving a link to a person's blog might be relevant, but giving a person's cell phone number would probably never be relevant. The only reason to ever give out information which is that personal would be to intimidate and/or harass a person. -- Atama頭 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Wandering well off the subject now, but what I'm hearing is 'You've not broken any rules, but the staff page of the company (assuming it exists) might have been a better choice than the twitter account', so I can breathe a bit more easily.


Now what happens ?Failedwizard (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good question. Conflicts of interest on their own generally aren't a problem. If an editor is able to contribute positively, without violating any of our policies and guidelines (or specific editing restrictions), then they are welcome to do so in any way they wish. Note that WP:COI doesn't say that editors with a COI are unable to contribute, it only gives suggestions on how to approach individuals who have a COI, and advice for people who edit with a COI. It is only when an editor acts disruptively that we have concerns. From my time assisting with COI-related issues, I think that I can name the 4 most common forms of disruption that are caused, or at least made worse by a conflict of interest.
  • WP:NPOV - This is probably the most common issue, so common that POV issues and COI issues are often confused for one another. An editor has a particularly strong point of view because of their close connection to the article subject, and tries to remove criticisms and add praise, or vice-versa depending on the nature of the COI.
  • WP:SPAM - This is the second most common issue, and in many cases the COI is incidental; an individual is warned and/or blocked for spamming and the issue is resolved. Knowledge (XXG) is one of the most widely-viewed sites on the web, and anyone can edit free of charge, so it's a marketer's paradise, if vigilant people don't clean up the promotion.
  • WP:OWN - This often goes along with POV problems, where a person feels that their connection to the article subject gives them greater authority to determine what is and isn't appropriate for an article. The upside is that in doing so they are pretty up-front about the conflict of interest, because they try to use it as an advantage.
  • WP:NLT - Similar to spamming situations, the COI is usually incidental, the editor is blocked until the legal threat is retracted or clarified to not actually be a legal threat.
Lesser forms of disruption can occur, such as username violations, the creation (or repeated recreation) of articles for non-notable subjects, an inability (or unwillingness) to add verification through reliable sources, and other issues that can come along with a general unfamiliarity with Knowledge (XXG)'s procedures. In many cases editors just need guidance. Sometimes providing a template like Template:Welcome-COI is the only action required.
The initial allegation in this thread was that promotion was being done at Brookstreet Hotel. That could be spam, a POV slant, or a combination. I notice that nobody has addressed concerns with Andy on his user talk page, or informed him of this discussion, or brought up concerns on the article's talk page. I'd recommend taking one of those actions before doing anything else. -- Atama頭 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you - assuming that this doesn't get nasty down the line we could preserve this case as a tutorial... I've posted on his talk page Failedwizard (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy has made no edits since I posted the message, on the other hand I draw attention to the contributions of user User:The.sparrowhawk - first edit was after Andy's notification and every page edited is one that user:Andy.w.sparks edited previously (with the exception of a closely related page that sparrowhawk created) Failedwizard (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Failedwizard speculating on my identity and trying to out me. It feels like harassment. Andy.w.sparks (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you abandoned that luxury at account creation, Andy Sparks. You've already told us who you are. It's not "speculation" at this point. -- Atama頭 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jespah

User either works for or is in cahoots with The Enough Project, its founder, and/or various persons involved in these projects and other related ones: "I was asked by The Enough Project to add the information about George and SSP. I edit Enough's wiki pages. As you can see, George works with John Prendergast, the co-founder of Enough.". Orange Mike | Talk 14:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The user is an SPA, focusing on human rights issues in Sudan & Africa, and has exhibited serious advocacy issues in the past. Previously she had denied any affiliation with the subjects of her articles, see this prior COI discussion, but the recent quoted remark suggests that things may have changed. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Or I could be wrong: she may, as has been claimed, simply be a true believer who is in contact with the various projects, Prendergast, etc., and relied on by them to push their POV; in which case it's an NPOV issue, not a COI one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Whichever it turns out to be, the fact that the issue caught your eye indicates that the NPOV / advocacy issues persist (albeit in less prolific fashion than in previous months) and should be addressed. For those who may care to dive into this, in addition to the COI Noticeboard link I included above, the John Prendergast Talk page (beginning about here) reflects more of the prior discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I know who Jespah is, and though I won't reveal her name here on Knowledge (XXG), if you just put her username in Google it's not hard to see it. She's quite vocal in many places on the Web about her admiration of and support for Prendergast, but nowhere do I see her claim any actual affiliation with him or his organization. If she did have some affiliation it would almost certainly come out in one of the many forums or blogs that she has participated in, or her Twitter page. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So I guess this would be something for WP:NPOVN. I've never really thought about it but I guess there's a bit of a grey area between a COI and POV pushing when an editor isn't technically connected with the subject. I guess that's something for a topic ban discussion to decide, right? OlYeller 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably, yes. That possibility was raised previously but Jespah's editing intensity fell off shortly thereafter and the need for a solution became less urgent. JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I am so sick of all of the policing here when I am trying to insert some valuable information for Knowledge (XXG) readers. Please step back and take a look at all of it. I thought I was enhancing Ryan's wiki page and, again, providing important information for his followers, who might be inspired to involve themselves in the work he cherishes. Isn't that a worthy aim for Knowledge (XXG)! Rhetorical, please! Good God! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)--Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I do think this has reached harassment levels. If you don't, please reconsider! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, it is not a worthy aim for Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is not an advocacy organization, it is a neutral encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Jespah, I think your aims, well-intentioned or not, are directly in conflict with the aims of Knowledge (XXG). -- Atama頭 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
We've been over this so many times that we have an entire article on this very subject: NO: Knowledge (XXG) is not here to promote your noble cause!!!! (And asking you to abide by our rules, or leave, does not constitute harassment.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah, we've been over this same ground again and again - at Talk:John Prendergast, on your Talk page, and at the COI Noticeboard to name just three venues. If after all of that, your response here is simply to complain about mistreatment at the hands of other editors, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you are unwilling, or unable, ever to understand or abide by the basic policies that underlie the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Somehow you feel it is okay for Wiki to appear 'Tabloid' by stating who Ryan Gosling is dating, yet find it in opposition to Wiki's aims to indicate why Ryan travels to and is concerned with what is going on in the DRC. I don't get that. I was trying to state facts. I wasn't suggesting an agenda. When people are being raped, mutilated, in other ways tortured and murdered, I think it is smart for Wiki to indicate that. I don't see that as being biased; it is documented, you know? --Jespah 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
i don't know what the issue is here. my editing was changed and remains as changed by, probably, JohnInDC, who, by the way, really has an issue with me. Each time I add or change anything on Wiki, he is there, which is rather like stalking and extremely uncomfortable. There was no need for you to insert your comments above, JohnInDC! In the real world, some wiki editors have a reputation of being religous zealots, robots. You come at me as though I should be burned at the stake. I have a problem with my memory, which accounts for some of my misunderstandings of wiki protocol. Orange Mike - you have never dealt with me before and come at me spitting fire! Well, spit away. --Jespah 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, it's nothing personal. And I'm only one of maybe ten editors who have expressed serious concerns about your persistent - and until recently, unremitting - advocacy issues. I'm sorry you don't understand the issue. It is not for lack of patient explanation, that I know.

Now a broader question for the other editors - OrangeMike opened this discussion out of concern for a possible COI. Jespah hasn't denied the COI here, but she has denied it in the past and as Atama notes above, if she did have an actual, formal connection to the various advocacy organizations, it would likely have emerged in one or another forum. So there's probably no COI but there remain persistent POV / Soapbox issues (albeit at lesser velocity than in the past). Jespah has given no indication that she appreciates the problem (rather, has stated the contrary) and has given no indication that she intends to do things differently in the future. So my question is, what next? A topic ban seems harsh for someone who seems well-intentioned and well-informed; but good intentions aside, the problem is chronic is likely to continue for as long as Jespah continues to edit in this subject area (which, I would note, is the only subject matter area in which she contributes). Thoughts? JohnInDC (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, if it's okay with Orange Mike, I suggest that the COI template be removed from Satellite Sentinel Project. I don't think Jespah has an actual COI, and, for the time being the article seems clear of NPOV issues. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been involved in previous discussions (COIN archive and article talk), and it is disappointing that the problem persists. One trivial issue illustrates the problem for me: a number of editors have advised Jespah that their signature should be fixed (here and other places), and the signature was fixed last April, but above we see that it is broken again. I looked at Jespah's contributions in an attempt to establish whether the user had sought assistance (apparently not), but I did find this talk section where yet again Jespah demonstrates an inability to grasp the procedures used at Knowledge (XXG): the issue at that talk is minor (incorrect claims that replies to Jespah were "offensive"), but the amount of disruption cannot be ignored. Given the persistence after all the civil and lengthy explanations that have been offered to Jespah, I would support a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard regarding a possible topic ban or an indefinite block per WP:CIR (indefinite until the user provides convincing evidence on their talk page that they understand the previous problems and how to avoid them in the future). Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not Jespah has a direct conflict of interest, it has been clear to me for a while that she prioritizes getting Enough's message out over following Knowledge (XXG)'s rules. This is advocacy. Comments on Talk:John Prendergast show a strong disdain towards collaborative editing, and recent edits show that she continues to either ignore or not understand our copyright regs. I would support a topic ban. As is evident in this thread, Jespah has no problem personally attacking those who attempt to clean up after her, and has developed a very adversarial position towards the WP community. We would not tolerate this sort of behaviour if it this was a SPA for a corporation. I firmly believe that if action is not taken this time, these issues will repeat themselves indefinitely. Jespah has been "Enough's wiki editor" since 2008, and shows no indication of giving up that role. The Interior (Talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as aside, the first article at least is full of copyvios. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah has in some instances obtained licenses from these organizations to republish their material here. See Talk:John_Prendergast for an example. I would have thought she'd done the same for Enough Project but apparently not. Perhaps the license described at John Prendergast is broad enough to cover Enough Project, but I don't know; and it's not on the Enough Project Talk page anyhow. Wholly apart from copyright issues, one of the continuing POV issues has been the propriety of importing an organization's own words about itself wholesale into the article here. (E.g., here and here.) They are hardly neutral sources. JohnInDC (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually scratch that, pretty much every bit I've google has been lifted from copyright sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I would, by the way, support a topic ban proposal, but Jespah seems to think I have it in for her (see above for one instance). It would be better, I think - certainly less likely to open the door to collateral issues - if the proposal were drafted by another editor. JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I also should recuse myself from drafting the proposal, as with JohnInDC, because of extensive unpleasant past interactions. The Interior (Talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I can write a report but I won't really know if I support a topic ban or any sort of sanctions until I'm done with it. It may take me a week to write up as I try to be as thorough as possible about these sorts of things. OlYeller 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated, OlYeller. I think most of the pertinent links are in the posts above, but if you would like additional diffs to clarify any of the claims made, I've a few. My talk page and its archives have more than a few examples of ownership, civility, etc. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Ditto on the thanks and on the offer of diffs and links. Much, but not all, of the history is linked above. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've started the report here. If while I'm writing it, you see I've missed something or misinterpreted something, please mention it on the talk page. I'd like the report to all be done by me so that it can be as independent as possible. I don't own it and can't stop anyone else from editing it but my opinions and statements will all be signed by me and nothing else. OlYeller 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I consider myself too involved at this point to use my tools against Jespah in this matter, after the extensive time I spent on the article's talk page months ago. Not that I think it would be warranted, not yet, but even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking her or taking any other official administrator action. -- Atama頭 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I too am involved and wouldn't want to use my tools to enforce a topic ban, but I do think we have reached that point. I've just blanked most of the Enough Project as it was copied directly from their website. This kind of behavior is not a net benefit to the project and Jespah's continued inability to change her pattern has reached the breaking point. We are not helped by single topic advocates whose only goal is promotion. --Daniel 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I totally forgot that Jespah disclosed at least part of real name multiple times; she used to sign her comments as "Nell" and you can still see that a number of times on her user talk page. This is getting back to my earlier comment about discovering her real identity. -- Atama頭 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I feel that I have found an admission of a conflict of interest. Jespah has uploaded several files and often uses words like "we" or "our" when stating that the Enough Project gives permission (examples here and here). While this would only indicated a COI with the Enough Project, I believe the connection along with the claimed history of POV pushing (I haven't gotten that far yet) indicates that there's a bigger problem here than just a COI with one subject. Also, has anyone asked OTRS about a connection? Obviously we're not looking to out someone (although it sounds like they've outed themselves) but mabye OTRS could shed some light on the issue. OlYeller 20:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've requested some feedback from User:OlEnglish, as he is an OTRS volunteer and familiar with this situation. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, she outed herself more exactly a while ago. It's in my report. As Atama has done, I've done a lot of searching and can find no direct connection. I think she feels so strongly about the subject that she often says, "we" and "our". OlYeller 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The report isn't done yet. I've finished going through all non article or article talk page edits. Starting the article and article talk page edits now. OlYeller 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
To Atama頭 : Why would you reference my name? If you 'know' me, please contact me. The article about Enough states what they do. It isn't bias; it is factual. It has been on Wiki for years now. Why would you suddenly delete copy? To Orange Mike | Talk: You look like a hippie; however, you clearly are not. If a person says they feel harassed, best to look at it from their point of view, don't you think? McCarthyism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)
Jespah, your name has been used on WP by you. To state that it isn't biased is to state your opinion as fact. Your opinion is that it's not bias while other editors disagree and have disagreed with you for quite some time (about a year now). It having been on WP for a year has nothing to do with anything, really. That it was overlooked doesn't mean that it's somehow acceptable. I'm not sure what harassment you're talking about but it seems hypocritical to judge others (your comments about OrangeMike) then ask others to see things your way.
The issue is and has been that you have been in a content dispute or in other words, your opinion about something varies from that of others. As you obviously have a deep interest in the subjects that you edit (which is very admirable), it's not hard to image that those feelings might cloud your judgement regarding your opinions. Several editors have repeatedly tried to explain this to you and, from what I've seen, you take it as a personal attack and sometimes attack back. This gets us no where; not you, the organizations you care about, WP or any other editor. Does this make sense to you? I don't know how I can put it more plainly.
This is something you need to try an understand as several editors are suggesting that you be banned from editing certain topics; the topics you care about. If you don't change the way you're acting, I can almost assure you that you will be banned from editing these articles.
No one thinks you're a bad person and in fact, it seems that several editors want to try and help you become a productive editor of WP. There's plenty of people here that would like to help you but you but you never seem truly open to help and/or ignore the valid policies and guidelines they show you. OlYeller 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Jespah, I count the name "Nell" 20 times on your user talk page. And outside of your user talk page, you've mentioned your full name, see here for an example. I didn't realize you've already given people your full identity on Knowledge (XXG), so there is no violation of policy to mention it. You even gave your email address (or at least what it was two years ago). -- Atama頭 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Atama頭 I am aware that I have used my name. I don't care if you know my name. I wondered why you would go out of your way to show my name. What difference does it make? I also don't understand how stating what an organization does can be viewed as biased. I am not making a judgment, simply stating what they do, as in Ford makes cars. --Jespah 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Jespah, I can assure you that if a Knowledge (XXG) editor with a particular fondness for Fords began to reproduce marketing copy from Ford's website at Ford Motor Company, it would be removed within minutes. Even if they had managed to gain permission to reprint it, and no matter how much they believed it to be true. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
And since you asked, Atama's trying to stick up for you, to explain to the other editors that you do not have an actual conflict of interest on Enough Project or the various other Prendergast-related undertakings. If you did have a COI you'd probably have a topic ban imposed on you with very little additional discussion. Absent the COI, it's the tougher question of whether your enthusiasm for the subject inevitably compromises your ability to edit Knowledge (XXG) neutrally. But Knowledge (XXG) has rules against identifying an editor's real identity, even if someone manages to figure it out. There is no such prohibition if the editor discloses their own identity, which you did. That's why Atama mentioned it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry Jespah, I'm not trying to intimidate you. My first comment here was to point out that after I found out who you were (which wasn't hard since you said who you were, even if I initially forgot that you'd done so) I looked at other sites to see if you were officially affiliated with these groups or claimed to work for them, and found nothing. One of the purposes of this board is to establish whether or not a COI exists, and if an editor self-discloses their identity (as you did) that makes it easier. I still advise that people don't give out personal info here, but you've already done so repeatedly so the cat's already out of the bag, so to speak. -- Atama頭 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation; I don't feel intimidated, Atama. Everyone, I will try to work with you all. --Jespah 18:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost done with the report. I've come to the conclusion that the report won't be exhaustive. For it to be exhaustive (read and analyze every single piece of evidence), it would take weeks for me to go through everything mostly due to the fact that singular conversations sometimes happen across talk multiple talk pages, have self-typed signatures that don't match time stamps, and varying signatures (between the user's name and username). I don't feel that reports have to be exhaustive to be accurate and given the situation, I feel that it will still be very accurate.
I'll post back here by the end of the day. As for taking action, I'll read up on the appropriate method of action after I have come to a conclusion. OlYeller 16:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
OlYeller Am I allowed to respond to your report? --Jespah 23:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do, Jespah. This is a discussion and your input is welcomed. The Interior (Talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jespah. Feel free to comment on the report anywhere you'd like. It would probably be easiest if the comment is left here. Thank you for asking. OlYeller 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, The Interior and OlYeller. May I remove the COI tag from Satellite Sentinel Project? Thank you. --Jespah 04:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I did it. I think we agree that there is no technical COI; and as I said above, the article as currently written seems to be fairly NPOV. JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. --Jespah 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi All, Have been very busy, as I imagine you all are and also am not quite sure what to say, as I am still confused about all of this. I have looked at other Wiki pages and seen, what seems to me, to be clear violations, have mentioned some to you, and yet none of you have taken action to rectify. Have looked at enclyclopedia articles and found nothing dissimilar from what I have posted. When I tell you that the Enough Project says it does what it's website says it does, that it is not marketing propaganda, I guess you are telling me that I need a third-party as a source? When I read who Ryan Gosling is dating, via Wiki, and you tell me that it is marketing... to say with whom he visited in the DRC and his purpose for going there, I just don't get it. --Jespah 21:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
For starters, it is a real problem to repeatedly copy or or add closely paraphrased material from the various subject organizations directly into the Knowledge (XXG) articles about those organizations. Copyright issues entirely aside (because for the most part you've obtained permission), the practice virtually guarantees POV presentation. The web sites of advocacy organizations do not exist simply to "inform" but to promote, advocate, bring people into the cause and otherwise put the most positive and attractive spin on what they're doing. They exist to promote the particular point of view of the operation. The information on such web sites may be "factual" in that it is not incorrect, but no matter how you slice it up it is marketing material. PR. And Knowledge (XXG) is not here for the purpose of republishing any organization's own descriptions or characterizations of what they do. I have described this inherent problem to you at least twice before, perhaps three times, so it is discouraging to hear you say you don't understand the concern being expressed here. (Worse still, despite the fact that these concerns have been voiced by nearly every editor who's ever dealt with your work, you dispute that there is any issue at all.) I feel like I'm running out of words - JohnInDC (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've decided to propose a topic ban of the editor. I'm attempting to set the scope of the topic ban. There are seven articles that should obviously be included as 98.1% of the user's mainspace edits have been made to those pages but that scope seems to narrow. Suggesting Jespah be banned from all humanitarian or even just African humanitarian related articles may be too broad. I'd like to submit this request in the next 7 hours so please let me know if you have an opinion regarding the scope of the proposed topic ban. OlYeller 17:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend a narrow ban to include only topics directly related to Enough, as well as adding Enough-related content to other pages. Jespah has a lot of potential to be a good Africa editor; she knows her way around markup and has knowledge about the region. The Interior (Talk) 17:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think the ban should be broader than the observed problem. The seven articles, plus any edits that refer to or link to them - something like that. The insertion of excessively detailed humanitarian information into celebrity articles is a problem, albeit a lesser one (and which also seem to get corrected pretty quickly by editors who watch those pages). In a way it is easy inasmuch as her edits have been so focused on just these few articles. Perhaps the thing to do is describe the seven articles, plus related / linking edits, and then wait to see if the problem emerges in other areas. I'd really like to see Jespah try her hand at editing articles in which she's not quite so personally invested. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I agree on those suggestions. I really hope we can make the scope as surgical as possible.
The proposed topic ban can be found here. I think any further discussion should probably take place over there. OlYeller 17:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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

↑