Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
→ See also: Metropolis, Crisscross, Nick Baker (1) section in COI/N Archive 12
- Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
What is the policy when two of the major editors of an article have an undisclosed COI?
It is clear from his long history of edits on the article that David Lyons is an WP:SPA created by a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. His edits either remove negative information about Baker and/or push POV that Baker is innocent and that his cause is well-supported. His only other edits attack articles that reference Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), which was highly critical of Baker's campaign. Frankly, no-one other than a strong supporter or possible family member could be bothered supporting Baker/attacking Metropolis to the extent shown by David Lyons in this article.
As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these out on the article talk page, [1]. Given his undisclosed COI I do not think it is fair for David Lyons to be able to edit the article directly while I can only respond on the talk page.
I would like to propose that either...
- Even though we both have undeclared COIs, that we are both allowed to participate in this article directly OR
- David Lyons is also prevented from directly editing the article and that his edits are confined to the article talk page as mine currently are. Changes that are then agreed upon on the talk page can then be added to the article.
Either of these options would restore balance of power to the editing process of the article, and stop the page from once again becoming a promotional tool for Baker's campaign. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Personal take: this isn't a conflict of interest. What you are concerned with here is POV-pushing which is different. Put simply, David Lyons may have a certain viewpoint and is editing with that viewpoint, but you haven't mentioned why it should be profiting him to do so or anything like that. That said, POV pushing is bad. Are there any neutral editors at the article? Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are no neutral editors. The history shows a balance of power between myself and David Lyons: he generally adds POV material and I correct it. Through this conflict a relatively neutral article has been created -- until now. As a member of Justice for Nick Baker it profits David Lyons by "getting the word out" and presenting Baker's case more sympathetically than it actually is. Baker's story was always suspect at best, and new evidence uncovered by Metropolis shows that the support group had actively misled the public about the facts of the case. COI policy notes this conflict of interest category:
- Campaigning
- Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.
- and
- Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.
- When David Lyons first brought up the idea of reporting me for COI, I told him that he also had a COI and that he should note this part of the policy...
- Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
- Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
- Rather than be accused of COI himself, he let User:heatedissuepuppet, a meatpuppet account, bring a COI against me. See the last paragraph here: [2].
- It is clear now that David Lyons is using the COI against me to get the upper hand to push the support group's POV. He should edit with respect to his COI. I look forward to a solution to this situation. Sparkzilla 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Despite his obvious COI, I have been trying to incorporate Sparkzilla's input into the article, and would direct interested editors here. Why Sparkzilla wants to confront the article combatively, talking about "getting the upperhand" is beyond me. For the record I have no connection with Heatedissuepuppet's account and at no point was (S)he ever shown to be a meatpuppet. Thanks David Lyons 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be posssble for some more editors used to dealing with COI issues to add their comments here? Thank you for your assistance. Sparkzilla 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have declared my COI as a published critic on the Nick Baker case. However User:DavidLyons, who is clearly an undeclared member of Baker's support group, is trying to use my postion as an expert on this case as a way to stop me correcting POV edits he has made that insinuate Baker' claims are facts. He is using COI as an excuse to get the upper hand in a content dispute - an abuse of COI policy. It would be very helpful if I could have some assistance to stop this POV pushing and restore balance to the article. Sparkzilla 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that I'm a neutral editor involved with the Nick Baker article. I have no connection to Metropolis (other than the fact that I read it sometimes) or to Nick Baker's cause. My comments on the matter are included in the RfC on the article's talk page. I believe as of right now the article is more or less balanced, giving both (Baker's and Metropolis) sides of the issue. I don't have any comment on the question as to whether there is a COI problem with either Sparkzilla or Lyons. Cla68 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Clifford Williams (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have tagged Clifford Williams (academic) and User_Talk:Clifford Williams, welcoming him along the way. He seems notable, but the article is a mess. I tried to be kind to an obvious newbie. Bearian 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org
- EServer.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about an electronic publishing cooperative
- Geoffrey Sauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - director of EServer.org
- Geoffsauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be Geoffrey Sauer - SPA adding eserver.org links and editing the above articles - active December 2004 - January 2007
Similar SPAs:
- 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006
- 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006
- 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active June 2006 - May 2007
- 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#eserver.org and Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree, this is a classic COI spam campaign. User:Geoffsauer, some SPA's, and some IP's from Iowa create both the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles, edit them heavily, and add a bunch of eserver.org external links. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. (Requestion 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
- I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's put away the torches and pitchforks. This appears to be an electronic library that makes literature available for free to the public. It's sort of like Project Gutenberg. I checked a few of the articles that contain these links, and I did not see an intentional linking campaign. Is see a large number of independent users citing this database from various articles and discussions. Example: [3] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [4] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.
- → (Interjected.) The links which Ronz supplied in his initial report here, to specific WT:WPSPAM and WT:EL discussion sections, were intended to support that "investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions" process. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Geoffsauer needs a friendly warning. I predict he will behave impeccably once he is informed. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [5], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
- You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
- I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
- I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
- I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
- I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
- You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
- Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [6]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [7] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
I started going down the list of 322 links found by this linksearch. As User:Jehochman has correctly observed, some of these links are to individual digitized books in the style of Project Gutenberg. I have no objection to these so long as they are appropriate to the article and are added with local consensus. Other links, such as the one that User:Geoffsauer added to our Technical communication article on in this edit on 28 March 2005, present a directory of links in a style reminiscent of DMOZ. I personally think that Sauer's Eserver link to http://tc.eserver.org should be removed from the Technical communication article, since Wikipedia is not a directory. In fairness, that article probably has more external links than it needs. If anyone has time, I suggest they randomly look at some other items found by the same linksearch and see what they think.
This editor doesn't seem to be a bad guy, but the profusion of DMOZ-style directories raises a warning flag. EdJohnston 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Wikipedia talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits by this IP are troublesome: 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007 Shall we send Geoffrey Sauer a friendly email and ask him to look at this thread and explain? If he is using anonymous IP's in a sneaky way to add links, that's a real problem. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's fair. Also you might find out why he doesn't use his logged-in account when he adds links to Eserver or edits his own article. If he must do this, at least do it openly. EdJohnston 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately he hasn't enabled email. We seem to have a complex situation. Possible linkspamming and sock puppets, but the resource is somewhat worthy and has attracted some valid links. We probably shouldn't delete them all. We probably need to give fresh warnings before blocking because the old one is almost six months old. We also can't be sure that the sockpuppets are abusive. Maybe it's another person at the organization who's on dial up and doesn't have a Wikipedia account. How about we place {{uw-coi}} on all the fresh socks, and ask them to come here to comment? Maybe the user will help us solve this mystery. If not, we can start blocking. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I shrunk down the original set of 322 links to a more modest 14 links to be studied:
- http://antislavery.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org
- http://bad.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.bad.eserver.org
- http://clogic.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.clogic.eserver.org
- http://drama.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.drama.eserver.org
- http://elab.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.elab.eserver.org
- http://emc.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.emc.eserver.org
- http://feminism.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.feminism.eserver.org
- http://govt.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.govt.eserver.org
- http://history.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.history.eserver.org
- http://lectures.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.lectures.eserver.org
- http://mamet.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.mamet.eserver.org
- http://orange.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.orange.eserver.org
- http://poetry.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.poetry.eserver.org
- http://reconstruction.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.reconstruction.eserver.org
These 14 links provide 'web directories with commentary'. So they may run into the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Directory unless they are really notable enough to deserve articles in their own right. Having articles would require reliable third-parties to have commented on their value. (A couple of the above links are not directories, but actual web periodicals, like http://bad.eserver.org, which is an online journal called 'Bad Subjects'.)
I am not sure we should be accepting the above 14 as external links, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles created. Especially we shouldn't keep them if Geoff Sauer is not willing to discuss the situation, because we'd like the Eserver people to acknowledge our policies and agree to cooperate with them. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The first resource on your list has Google PageRank of 6, and has attracted links from more than 1,000 different web pages, including many official university pages. This isn't run of the mill linkspam. See [8] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, it takes extraordinary effort to get a PR6. It's interesting that you mentioned the antislavery.eserver.org link. Today, I just found User:Jlockard, a university literature professor, who spent the majority of his edits adding or fixing 63 antislavery.eserver.org links. At first I wasn't sure if this was a spamming but the more I looked at the diffs the more I was convinced. Very little value was added to Wikipedia, mainly just a bunch of eserver.org external links. There was even a run-in with a spam fighter back in May 2006 but the spamming continued. This is a tricky situation. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
I read this discussion with interest, though I'm not a skilled Wikipedia user and don't feel qualified to contribute to the policy debate here about external linking. I'll respect your collective judgment about when external links are appropriate, and won't add any more without a clear policy decision that would encourage me to continue. In my judgment I have never added off-topic or poor-quality links to a Wikipedia entry, and would not do so. But I won't post here again, now that I see how my past contributions might be seen as self-serving. To clarify my past intent adding links to entries, as a professor of English with a speciality in technical communication I have edited entries and added links to online resources which I considered appropriate, as I understood it from my research, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines and existing entries. I don't know about an Iowa bias in posts about the EServer, though I do teach as many as 150 students per semester, all of whom use the site, and it may be that my students have posted some EServer-related entries. But I have never meant to injure Wikipedia's neutrality or credibility, and am concerned that anyone might consider my edits to have done so. I'll do my best, however, to answer any questions I can to clarify the reasoning behind any particular edits I have made.Geoffsauer 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful. For the future, I suggest you refrain from linking to your resources from articles. Instead, if you want to suggest a link, place a comment on the article talk page and let somebody else make the decision whether to add it to the article. I am not sure what you can do to restrain eager young students from adding these links. Maybe others can advise. Also, we have a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that might be very useful to you. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gerson therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Howard Straus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Article on controversial therapy being edited by Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Global Panel Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
- Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
- Marc S. Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the latter is a résumé for an individual who presides to the other two institutions; long but slow warn-and-revert war between inside editors and COI patrollers. Lately an inside editor has resorted to verbal aggressiveness, hence this report. --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Praguesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started all three articles; a week later promoted all of them to FA status (example)!
- The following users are all insiders of the organizations and have tried to restore cleaned-up or unsourced deleted content on all three articles - interestingly, as one user leaves, a new one takes his place:
- Nbenker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (seems like his secretary: "moved Prof. Dr. Marc S. Ellenbogen to Marc S. Ellenbogen: Mr. Ellenbogen does't want to use his title in Wiki.")
- Badenbaden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Profellenbogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BanikPico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (his idea of verifiability: "verified and accurate"); seemed in good faith at first (see) but right after tried to cram all content back in (see)
- Verticaldemocracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - latest active user, verbally aggressive in his defense of the articles
- 64.204.217.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 89.56.164.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 89.56.133.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 203.234.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- IP lookup results:
- 64.204.217.21 -
Possible - same geographical area (New York), but too populated.
- 89.56.164.199 and 89.56.133.222 - wrong side of the country.
Unlikely.
- 203.234.169.3 -
Unrelated - South Korea.
- Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Jordan Hoffman
COIBot saw this link addition today. The overlap in names makes me think that Jhoffman6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Jhoffman6) is Jordan Hoffman (as his site describes: "He is a filmmaker and a licensed New York City tour guide, and blogs about various mundane aspects of his life (oftentimes working in Mr. Spock.)"). He apparently once created a page Jordan Hoffman, which has been deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jordan_Hoffman).
- jordanhoffman.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Jordan Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Link additions reverted, monitored by COIBot and user notified. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Robert Roskamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Michael Mullan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Horntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - having created
- Roskamp Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gone to post what looks like his resume/CV Philip Trueman 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Has now added Robert Roskamp. Philip Trueman 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Across Five Aprils (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Themoonisdown09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - band member (+single purpose account) who doesn't want references included.
Would appreciate input from other editors on how to proceed - currently the article isn't sourced. Addhoc 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Added some rules to COIBot. IP 70.90.144.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (70.90.144.0/22; Comcast Business Communications, Inc) also removed the reference. Added a {{unreferenced}} and {{coi2}} on the page, and a {{uw-coi1}} on the userpage. I think the subject of the article is fine, but it needs some independent references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, on my talk page (see history) the IP signed his name as Themoonisdown09, so I presume they are the same editor. Addhoc 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The page was also edited by Across Five Aprils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account also created/edited some pages about albums by the band.
- Collapse (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tragedy In Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Biomedcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - is a spinoff of Alexander Fleming BSRC
- Alexander Fleming BSRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - coordinates the MUGEN network and spun off Biomedcode
- George Kollias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - coordinator of MUGEN, president and director of Alexander Fleming BSRC, and president of Biomedcode
- MUGEN Mutant Mice Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a database provided by MUGEN
- Kanei22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new editor
- Afantitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - creator and major contributor to all the articles listed above
- 195.251.21.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - major article contributor
- 212.251.111.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was requested I file a COI/N report in the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#biomedcode.com_et_al. --Ronz 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- See also MUGEN NoE - a previously deleted article. - Tiswas(t) 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Wikipedia administrators. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE and BSRC Alexander Fleming… [copyvio from [9] redacted]
- Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. Afantitis 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
One deleted on Afd in December 2006, one speedy deleted as blatant advertising earlier this month. Remaining three {{prod}}ed as blatant advertising by COI SPAs. — Athaenara ✉ 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Donald E. Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sampearson10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are many uncited assertions and I think there is the possibility that the editor is too closely linked to the subject to be neutral. --Rifleman 82 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I left a warning and did a bit of cleanup. The article doesn't seem terribly fawning, and the subject is deceased. This could be a distant relative, in which case COI is a possibility, but not an automatic problem, depending on the writer's ability to remain neutral. The assertion of notability is thin. This needs more editors to review, and could be a candidate for AfD. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I did some cleanup, but a lot more is needed. He seems notable, if the facts can be verified and sources checked. Those are common problems with COI articles. Bearian 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cut this down to a stub. Bearian 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Vanderbilt University established the Donald E. Pearson Award in his honor in 1980. I've referenced that. NPOV improvement continues. Sampearson10 has not edited it since the 23rd. — Athaenara ✉ 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Sid Haig section in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive11
- Sid Haig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Spirot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 75.82.3.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (semi-anonymous user Spirot)
It has come to my attention that the Sid Haig article was written entirely by Sid Haig's publicist [10]. The entire article is unsourced, and likely, much of it cannot be sourced, since it all is pasted in from the biography written by Haig's publicist. Two individuals are actively subverting attempts to prune the article down such that it can be restarted using independent sources. Quatloo 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see the possibility that a single purpose account that is violating WP:COI and WP:OWN. It seems that all of User:Spirot mainspace edits are to this article, and all the rest of the edits are related to defending Spirot's version of the article. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- What Quatloo doesn't mention is that A.) the article has been released under GFDL and B.) that Spirot worked with admins to get the article to NPOV and has been rated as B-Class. I've seen articles by celebrities trying to pimp out their work; just look at the history for Nick Palumbo. With the possible exception of one or two sentences the article is mostly NPOV. And I don't see why his official site can't be used a source. Wouldn't an official source be more notable than an unofficial one?--CyberGhostface 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to know if Spirot is Sid Haig's publicist. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, she is.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The GFDL issue is not relevant here, CyberGhostface raises that as a red herring. I am not questioning the right to use the text in the article. I just question whether we should be using as a Wikipedia article a biography written by Haig's publicist, which has no independent verification. Quatloo 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found an interview with Sid Haig that confirms some facts from the article. I'll go look for some others. And as I said before, I don't see why an official source isn't relevant for the article. Is there something about Sid Haig's site that makes the information possibly false in your eyes?--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- And here's another link that verifies information from the article.--CyberGhostface 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not an independent source, and as a primary source should in general not be cited by Wikipedia article. I want to prune the article down, then you can add facts from independent sources. Since you seem to have produced independent sources, this should be possible. Quatloo 22:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the same information presented on the biography is verifiable from external sources, whats the purpose in dismantling and starting from scratch? The article should only be started over if the sources are contradictory with the article or if the article is a copyvio, which it isn't. What I will agree to do is perhaps have someone look over the article and give it a workover to make it more encyclopediac. But there's no reason to remove all the information because any new article would probably be very close to the old one.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because it comes with a strong bias by virtue of having been written by Sid Haig's publicist. The article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia. It's written from a very rosy point of view and borders on hagiography. Furthermore the people who edited it likely have a business relationship or other confict-of-interest connection to Sid Haig. When I originally came across it I was somewhat disgusted that an article like that had made its way into Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't think it should be salvaged. If there are sources abundant, it should be easy for good editors to create something better rather quickly. Quatloo 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only lines that sound POV are "After forty years of playing gun-toting tough guys, his hopes of being recognized as a more than competent actor were fading" and "As of the end of 2006, Haig has several projects in various stages of production, and continues to enjoy his renewed success as an actor". None of those are stating an opinion, though, but they do seem a bit unencyclopediac. The rest of the article just basically reads like an biography. Its not like there is any whitewashing or coverups. Saying that "the article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia" is bias on your part, and there's nothing that "borders on hagiography". I've just read it five times over and nothing comes off like that. Which points strike you as biased, if I might ask?--CyberGhostface 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because it comes with a strong bias by virtue of having been written by Sid Haig's publicist. The article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia. It's written from a very rosy point of view and borders on hagiography. Furthermore the people who edited it likely have a business relationship or other confict-of-interest connection to Sid Haig. When I originally came across it I was somewhat disgusted that an article like that had made its way into Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't think it should be salvaged. If there are sources abundant, it should be easy for good editors to create something better rather quickly. Quatloo 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the same information presented on the biography is verifiable from external sources, whats the purpose in dismantling and starting from scratch? The article should only be started over if the sources are contradictory with the article or if the article is a copyvio, which it isn't. What I will agree to do is perhaps have someone look over the article and give it a workover to make it more encyclopediac. But there's no reason to remove all the information because any new article would probably be very close to the old one.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found an interview with Sid Haig that confirms some facts from the article. I'll go look for some others. And as I said before, I don't see why an official source isn't relevant for the article. Is there something about Sid Haig's site that makes the information possibly false in your eyes?--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to know if Spirot is Sid Haig's publicist. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- arbitrary break
CyberGhostface, the article has no independent references. Of course we are concerned about it for that reason. Instead of arguing, why don't you start looking for references, and please, don't remove the maintenance tags until the problems with the article are fixed. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did you, or did you not, see the links to the interviews that I added? --CyberGhostface 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- How about everyone just calms down? I already told the Admin who protected the page that I would gladly edit it to be more NPOV. I have now posted not only web sources for the information contained therein, but PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF. If this photographic evidence is not enough for the witch hunt, then I give up.
If this continues, any and all licensing will be removed from our site, and a press release sent out assuring the media that the information on this article is not to be trusted, as certain editors have made a target out of this article for some reason. I have absolutely had it with this foolishness, over and over and over again! Don't you people look at anything but Sid's page when you're here???Spirot 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest a 24 or 48 hour block on Special:Contributions/Spirot to give NPOV editors a bit of a breather from dealing with his/her disruptive editing. — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Athaenara, these people are NOT making edits, they are DELETING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. When I tried that once, I got pounced on by Admins. Why is it now ok? Has policy changed? How exactly is wiping out an entire article "NPOV editing". I would very much like to know, please. Maybe you can also explain to me how exactly posting source links to an article is disruptive? Thank you.
Spirot 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- All of you seriously need to calm it down. So I made two edits and forgot to sign in before I did. So what? I am working on making the article NPOV, so I really do NOT see the reason for this continuing harassment and witch-hunting. KINDLY STOP. I don't even want to know what this "tar pit" thing is... *edit - Ah, ok. I see we're pretty much saying the same thing. Calm down, folks. Simple copyediting was all that was ever necessary here. It has been done, and sources galore have been cited, including a photo of the subject himself stating the accuracy of the article's content. I suggest we ALL leave the article alone until an Admin has had a chance to look at all of this. Spirot 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Spirot 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion of a one or two day block on the subject's publicist is serious. Spirot wasn't able even to leave a {{primarysources}} article maintenance tag unmolested. — Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't recall molesting anything, and I removed it with a reason, which was posted in the edit summary. Why put it there if you clearly have not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources, including a photograph of the article's subject stating the accuracy of the article? Said photo is also documented on the article's talk page, as you say in your summary I did not do.
- Once again, I suggest we ALL leave it alone until an Admin has a chance to see what has been going on here. I will not be removing your tag again, because frankly, right now I feel like every effort I make to have a decent, accurate article is going to be undone by one of you. So if you feel the need to keep this harassment up, have your fun alone. I'm done for the night. Spirot 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Civility is policy here. Uncivil edit summaries such as
- by the subject's publicist don't aid the encyclopedic process. — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources are needed. This means sources that are not connected to Sid Haig. Most importantly, this means sources other than Sid himself or his official website. The fact that you have gotten Sid Haig to pose behind a prop is irrelevant tomfoolery. Quatloo 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fully support Quatloo. One's own site should not be considered a credible source per seand should NOT be used as the primary source. The latest addition of a mugshot of the article's subject "confirming" the content is so original but ridiculous and pathetic that a) it should go on the jokes board (I'll look into it), b) it proves Spirot is still clueless about WP's policy, and stubborn in that she doesn't want to follow it, and c) on a more personal opinion, she is being harmful to her client's reputation. --maf (talk-cont) 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The subject's publicist had removed a {{primarysources}} tag justifying her action by posting "not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources" regarding her subject [11], attached to a inappropriate pejorative message directed at myself. An anti-spam-bot considered them spammy enough to remove them automatically [12], so I have addressed the sources individually [13]. Bottom line, these ten sources reduce to one single independent primary source (the PhillyBurbs interview) and one brief tertiary source (the AllMovie Guide entry on Sid Haig). It is not certain that an article of the length desired by the publicist can be sustained by one single primary source. Quatloo 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the right thing to do is to prune the article down to a stub (as User:Burntsauce did a couple of weeks ago), and let it grow organically. This is an rather minor actor, he probably does not require more than a couple of paragraphs. Most of the information in it presently can never be properly sourced, and is generally unimportant minutiae. Quatloo 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Massive tantrum deletions by the subject's publicist aren't the way to go, though. — Athaenara ✉ 04:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Trax FM (section 18) in COI/N Archive 9
- 217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I reported this IP to the noticeboard before about edits made to Lincs FM Group articles (the owner of Trax FM) who is deleting verifiable information from the article. The same anon editor has also now deleted information about a rival station from the Worksop article as well. The anon user's IP address is registered to the Lincs FM Group (source). Because of the editors deletion of verifiable information with no explaination or attempt at conflict resolution, and due to what I believed is a continuing conflict of interest, I am resubmitting this to the noticeboard. --tgheretford (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Bookuser
- Special:Linksearch/*.mitpress.mit.edu
- Bookuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 184 edits since 8 Aug 2006, almost all adding mitpress.mit.edu
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mitpress.mit.edu - Bookuser.
I first thought this was a SPA spamming mitpress.mit.edu links. Bookuser has recently taken action to clean up some of these links [14], so I thought the problem was resolved. However, I just found that Bookuser used to be MITPress. [15], so I think it's important that other editors look at the situation from a COI angle. --Ronz 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm concerned that spam links are being addeded to mitpress.mit.edu, that Bookuser has a relationship with MIT Press, and that Bookuser is adding MIT Press books to articles to promote these books. Adding books to References sections without any indication that they've actually been used as references [16] [17] [18] is especially troubling. --Ronz 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- 18.173.1.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be making similar edits from an MIT ip. --Ronz 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Christopher Bennett Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gabrielle Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- LostSentiment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both of these articles were created by LostSentiment who also uploaded Image:Chrisreeves.jpg claiming to have created it himself. The image page contains a non-working link to an image hosting site. Neither bio looks anywhere near notable to me. Inexplicably, an administrator has removed the speedy delete tag from the "Gabrielle" article saying that it satisfies notability. Please note that both Christopher Reeves and Christopher reeves now redirect to Christopher Bennett Reeves and should redirect to Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman, as a misspelling if these bios are deleted.
- I've moved redirects back to the original, although a DAB page may make more sense. I suggest you AfD the pages if you have any concern. However, if the claim that CBR has Emmy's is correct then he is by any reasonable defintion notable. JoshuaZ 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich and Articles for deletion/Blacksmith Books
- Paul Ulrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [watchlist?]
- Saudi Match Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - his first novel
- Blacksmith Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - his publisher
- Jing Ulrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - his wife (?)
- Pulrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A quick glance at the article's name and the editor's name is enough to explain my initial concerns. A review of his contrib history shows he has created 3 articles and only ever made 2 (minor) edits outside of those articles.
Aside from the obvious COI concerns, I think there are some notability questions about all 3 articles as well. I'd really like some advice on how best to handle this situation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- AFD would be the best way to go. MER-C 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have placed boilerplate warnings on the talk pages of all four articles (I have added his publisher's article to the list), as well as the author's talk page ... given the suggestion to go the WP:AfD route, I have refrained from adding the WP:CSD#A7 tags on them, which is the 3rd step of my draft protocols for speedy deletion ... OTOH, if there is no activity within the next 24 hours, I will proceed with the speedy delete tags ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Pulrich just doesn't seem to grasp the concepts of WP:N and WP:RS ... adding links for his patents to his own biography, and linking to the blog of a "Well-known Hong Kong novelist and writer," while citing just the names (but no dates) of NN publications that have reviewed his book, just don't cut it, IMHO ... WP:V is not about how much has been published by the subject, it's about how much has been published about the subject.
- I have placed boilerplate warnings on the talk pages of all four articles (I have added his publisher's article to the list), as well as the author's talk page ... given the suggestion to go the WP:AfD route, I have refrained from adding the WP:CSD#A7 tags on them, which is the 3rd step of my draft protocols for speedy deletion ... OTOH, if there is no activity within the next 24 hours, I will proceed with the speedy delete tags ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can point him to WP:BK, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO, but if he won't read them, and instead puts things like
- a registration form for a 45 minute, HK$390 per seat lecture his wife will be giving,
- Amazon linkspam to 44¢ used copies of an autobiography that "devoted several pages" to her,
- Google search results for Bloomberg L.P. articles with trivial mention of her, and
- links that require a subscription to read
- as substitutes for "reliable source citations" in the article about her, then what are we to do?
- We can point him to WP:BK, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO, but if he won't read them, and instead puts things like
- I blame myself ... I gave him Too Much information, and he just cannot process it ... <Heavy Sigh!> ... since he refuses to dialog on any of the Talk pages, should someone maybe try to contact him by email and hold his hand off-line to guide him through this ordeal?
- So, take these to AfD and give him another week to "improve" them, and they will still be just vanispamcruftisements ... four
{{Orphan}}
articles with no WP:A that violate WP:COI ... at least he'll see that it's the consensus view, and not an arbitrary decision by a few faceless "deletionist" editors with an agenda ... personally, I have better thing to do with my time here on Wikipedia. —68.239.79.82 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- So, take these to AfD and give him another week to "improve" them, and they will still be just vanispamcruftisements ... four
- Thanks for all your attention and effort 68. I'm going to respond at greater length on your talkpage so as to avoid cluttering this section with my comments and questions. But first, I have to make a sandwich or I'll die of starvation before I get to your page : ) Doc Tropics 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done the deed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich. The publisher probably needs separate treatment and his wife seems more notable, so I've left those alone for now. MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks MER-C, I was still debating and procrastinating when you stepped up to the plate and did what I should have. I'll nom the publisher Blacksmith Books for a seperate AfD, but I agree that the article about Jing Ulrich is the strongest of the 4 and may merit inclusion. Thanks for all the help. Doc Tropics 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've documented my WP:A concerns about his wife's article at Talk:Jing Ulrich#No WP:A for WP:N should someone decide to take it to AfD as well ... OTOH, I thought that the WP:COI of having been written by her husband should have been sufficient ... can't we just add "written by self, close relative, or business associate/employee in violation of WP:COI" as a speedy deletion category and avoid all of this in the future? —68.239.79.82 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would oppose any such CSD. While COI often causes problems, and is generally a bad idea, if a self-written article is well sourced, or can be made well sourced, is or can be made NPOV, and establishes notability, there is no reason to delete it. Determining those things is what afd or prod are for, not speedy. DES (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, CSD is no longer on the table for Jing Ulrich (just documenting for an AfD that it is not well sourced, even though upon a casual review it appears to be) ... but your point about "no CSDs based on COI" is noted, and I withdraw the suggestion ... COI is an AfD issue, period. —68.239.79.82 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, COI is our problem at this noticeboard. We can delegate to AFD if we wish. MER-C 13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, CSD is no longer on the table for Jing Ulrich (just documenting for an AfD that it is not well sourced, even though upon a casual review it appears to be) ... but your point about "no CSDs based on COI" is noted, and I withdraw the suggestion ... COI is an AfD issue, period. —68.239.79.82 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would oppose any such CSD. While COI often causes problems, and is generally a bad idea, if a self-written article is well sourced, or can be made well sourced, is or can be made NPOV, and establishes notability, there is no reason to delete it. Determining those things is what afd or prod are for, not speedy. DES (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've documented my WP:A concerns about his wife's article at Talk:Jing Ulrich#No WP:A for WP:N should someone decide to take it to AfD as well ... OTOH, I thought that the WP:COI of having been written by her husband should have been sufficient ... can't we just add "written by self, close relative, or business associate/employee in violation of WP:COI" as a speedy deletion category and avoid all of this in the future? —68.239.79.82 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Two Common Cause sections in COI/N Archive 8 & one on COI/N talk page.
- 208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anonymous IP address 208.201.146.137, which is assigned to Common Cause, has continued to edit the article Common Cause, despite being warned to stop previously. Are the administrators ever going to take action to stop this, or are they all on vacation? XINOPH | TALK 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- XINOPH, how about sending an email to Common Cause and inviting them to look at this page, as well as the talk page for that IP showing all the warnings. It's possible that there are multiple clueless users involved. Maybe we can get the attention of their IT department and convince them to circulate a memo.
- In addition to that, I support a short block for this edit.[19] IANAA. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is IANAA? — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- IANAL is netspeak for "I am not a lawyer." So, IANAA is "I am not an administrator." XINOPH left a message on my talk page requesting a block of Common Cause. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cool beans. I added it to the Glossary. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- IANAL is netspeak for "I am not a lawyer." So, IANAA is "I am not an administrator." XINOPH left a message on my talk page requesting a block of Common Cause. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- What is IANAA? — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Catanich (section #20) in COI/N Archive 8
- Catanich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user was previously indef-blocked for writing promotional articles as a business, with an indef-block notice on the user page. Received the following comment:
- This foolish user has wrecked his reputation. If you Google for "Catanich Internet Marketing," the name of his business, a very ugly result shows up from his Wikipedia user page. It would be a good deed to delete or rename his user page (with permission, of course). Your block will prevent the user from damaging Wikipedia further, but we should not vindictively destroy his business. Do you understand the problem here? For the record, I've never communicated with this person. I don't know him at all. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Did a quick Google search on "Catanich Internet Marketing" and notice that there are various other references to our action. I am amenable to restoring the status quo ante on this one if possible/appropriate (so long as the outfit doesn't provide paid services involving Wikipedia) but would appreciate input on how to proceed here. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Catanich has complained that Wikipedia is wrecking his business. We should listen to this complaint because it is seriously affecting him in real life. I suggest:
- Get a statement from Catanich that there will be no more abuse of Wikipedia. He now knows the consequences.
- Unblock Catanich so he can change his user name to something else. This will most likely prevent his user page from showing up in Google searches for his name.
- I volunteer to monitor this user to make sure there is no more trouble. As a professional SEO, one of the main contributors to the COI guideline, and a frequent contributor to this board, I don't think he will get away with anything while I am watching.
- Thank you for considering this. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Wrecking his business"? All that's happened is that the search results in Google accurately reflect the fact that he has been using Wikipedia for promotional services. The user was warned repeatedly, and WP:COI mentions the possibility of unintended consequences. Right to vanish doesn't apply to users not in good standing. nadav (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The warnings Catanich actually saw were for copyvio. Catanich didn't make any edits between this COI warning,[20] and his block.[21], so he makes a fair point when he says "Your 'articles on behalf of clients' policy was unknown to me and I will abide to this in the future".[22] If Catanich demonstrates that he understands our content policies, and unequivocally agrees to follow them, he should be unblocked so he can exercise the right to vanish. This would be a great kindness by us. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. nadav (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: references to the company (full name) in talk pages discussing the incident would also come up in various internet searches, although only until the various talk pages are archived. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The User and User talk pages are his main problem. The keyword, his name, appears in the title of those page, which is the main factor that will drive them to the top of the search rankings. Jehochman Talk 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: references to the company (full name) in talk pages discussing the incident would also come up in various internet searches, although only until the various talk pages are archived. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. nadav (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The warnings Catanich actually saw were for copyvio. Catanich didn't make any edits between this COI warning,[20] and his block.[21], so he makes a fair point when he says "Your 'articles on behalf of clients' policy was unknown to me and I will abide to this in the future".[22] If Catanich demonstrates that he understands our content policies, and unequivocally agrees to follow them, he should be unblocked so he can exercise the right to vanish. This would be a great kindness by us. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Woah woah woah! I have no objection to letting the guy cover his tracks, but you should all be aware that he received a warning for using WP for promotional and advertising purposes a mere 14 minutes after creating his account! It was over a month later that he set about posting / editing about a dozen articles to add references to his paying clients, which elicited to my copyvio tags, which led to his assertion / admission that he had permission to use the copied text because the subjects were clients of his firm. This was not a good faith / novice error, as contended by the editor. Be that as it may, I don't think he'll try it again, and hopefully this will deter others similarly situated from doing the same, so there's no reason to make the guy suffer further. Let's allow him to vanish, not because he's innocent, but because we're reasonable and forgiving people. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have left a note offering this option in User talk:Catanich#Your request to unblock --Shirahadasha 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- As things currently stand the user has left a message on User Talk:Catanich requesting to vanish, but has not agreed to the statement I've asked him to agree to as a condition for unblocking, so I haven't unblocked. User:Jehochman has left a note reminding the user that agreeing to the condition is needed to proceed further. It might be worth having an outside admin review the statement I've requested this user to make in order to unblock to ensure that this whole approach, and the particular wording, is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Vhupo Tours adding external links
- Special:Linksearch/*.vhupo-tours.com
- 41.243.73.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding external links for the Vhupo Tours Company, with descriptions such as "take a day trip to [location] with an accredited Tour Operator," to various articles. The user had added seven such external links within seven minutes when I saw it, so I'm posting it here for attention. — Athaenara ✉ 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for reporting. I've left a {{uw-spam1}} warning and removed the links added thus far. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This article takes a very promotional tone toward the festival, particularly in the section entitled "Performances at ChickenStock 2007." It completely departs from formal style and looks a lot like a press release. It also links to a myspace page. --Steven J. Anderson 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Bryantmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Promotional and conflicted article. RJASE1 Talk 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
- AUParty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The principle contributions of this user seem to be creating American Unicorn Party and re-creating it following deletion per AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where and how was this resolved? — Athaenara ✉ 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Marc Fiszman
Marcfiszman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introduced in the beginning a couple of links to nearthwort.com:
- nearthwort.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Some time later the links were changed to an mp3-file somewhere else on that server. In his latest edits, the links were changed from nearthwort.com to marcfiszman.com.
- marcfiszman.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I removed all the links added by Marcfiszman, and gave the user a welcome message and a coi1-warning, as it seems that the editor is involved in the website. He responded on my talkpage with a question, and I explained the situation. Apparently Marcfiszman thinks my removal is overzealous, and he started to reinsert the link to marcfizman again. Link addition is reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Victoria and Albert Museum
Another one with similarity to the library links, this time a museum. VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Webteam of the Victoria and Albert Museum is adding external links to wikipedia to a website where they are affiliated with.
- vam.ac.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
User has been notified of WP:COI (and has responded to that), but is still adding links only. I'm posting here to record the situation, I will try and explain the user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am going ahead and remove the linkadditions by user:VAwebteam to external links sections. Please consider using the links as (proper!) references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I came to this little discussion because I noticed and was surprised by a deletion of the link from Don McCullin. From my PoV, the article is mildly enhanced by the presence of the link. I then looked at a couple more of the relevant articles; again, I thought that the articles benefited from the links.
- VAwebteam may indeed have a "CoI" here; but it seems to me that it's a compatibility of interest: What draws attention to the V&A also helps WP readers. (You may of course disagree.)
- We read above: User has been notified of WP:COI but actually that page says next to nothing about linkspamming. (It does talk of Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links) [my emphasis] and Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages; neither is relevant.) Instead it refers the reader to WP:SPAM. This too isn't helpful, referring the reader back to COI and also to WP:LINK. The V&A links don't seem to fall within those classes best avoided.
- Here's an idea. Don McCullin (a photographer) has a talk page, which has two project templates. It's obvious that one (biography) is huge in scope compared with the other (History of photography). VAwebteam should be encouraged to go to the discussion page of the latter project, explain what he/she/it -- and incidentally, doesn't "team" ownership of a username break some spam-irrelevant policy? -- proposes to do; and then if there's agreement, should feel free to go ahead and do it. Ditto for fashion, interior design and the rest. -- Hoary 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It may very well be that the links can be relevant (but then, they are probably better as a reference, not as an external link). But WP:COI clearly states, that "... but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)" .. therefore, it is better to discuss on the talkpage, and let uninvolved editors add the links. Being commercial or not, it now appears to be promotional (even if there is no direct financial gain from adding the links).
- As a sidenote, why include one museum/library and not all the other ones which also have information. Again, it is better to discuss which of the musea/libraries/&c. are going to be the few that are included (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NPOV). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Beetstra, thanks for your message. I had already spotted the situation & sent a message to the VAwebteam talk page. I agree most, even all, of their links so far are probably useful, but still support them being warned off. I think they should restrict themselves to suggesting on talk pages (article or project) that a link might be useful. If other editors agree, they can add it themselves. Johnbod 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Who adds it? If VAwebteam asks at "my" project talk page, then I for one will say "Sure, go ahead." If most people agree with me, I (and I think those other people) will be delighted if VAwebteam goes ahead and does the dreary work of adding the links. Anyway I'm sure that (i) in all the cases I looked at the links benefit the articles, (ii) I've got more interesting things to do in my life than add a single link to each of dozens (?) of articles. -- Hoary 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- You add it - your understandable reluctance to do so is the best way to limit these links to the really useful ones, and you have no COI. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- For the examples I looked at, no, the links are better as "external links" and not as "references": (i) it would be bizarre (if not fraudulent) to imply that an article depended on web pages that are actually extraneous to what's put forward in the text; (ii) "external links" seem the natural place to add links to images that are highly relevant to but not specifically mentioned within the text.
- I tend to agree - is this about the bots not being able to pick up references? We should not really dictate editorial policy on that basis, and I don't want spam references that actually aren't references at all, but added hastily to get round COI restraints. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- therefore, it is better to discuss on the talkpage Which talk page? Should VAwebteam ask in Talk:Don McCullin and be told yes or no, ask in Talk:Dorothea Lange and be told yes or no, and ditto for dozens of pages on photography? Sheesh: just how many man–hours do you want other people to devote to this? Much better, I think, to ask once in the relevant project page, see what discussion ensues, and act on that.
- Unrealistic. They should go to every page & see if people are interested enough to do it themselves. Otherwise every museum in the world will add all its little exhibitions & online features. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a sidenote, why include one museum/library and not all the other ones which also have information. VAwebteam would be doing the former for reasons that are blazingly obvious and that also are similar to the reasons why I (and I venture to guess you too) edit certain pages and not others. VAwebteam's addition to the Don McCullin page of a link does nothing to stop addition by somebody else of a link to a different gallery or to stop later removal of these links by an editor who discovers that the wealth of images in some other site renders unnecessary the links added previously.
- Again, it is better to discuss which of the musea/libraries/&c. are going to be the few that are included (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NPOV I don't see how NPOV is an issue. VAwebteam has a clear PoV and neither hides it nor (as far as I know) sabotages the work of people with different PoVs; it's similar to the way in which my PoV on the relative merits of the two photographers leads me to work on Seiji Kurata and not the considerably better known Mario Testino; this admitted bias of mine does nothing to hinder anybody else's efforts to create an article on Testino. -- Hoary 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- For all I see, there has been no discussion on any talkpage where this user has been involved in and where it was deemed OK to add external links to pages (as for many of the other COI-discussions here). And even then, the person has a conflict of interest, and therefore, it is better discuss (also per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:EL; also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer may be of interest, as may be the statement in WP:SPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."). It may be more work to discuss, but how am I, as an outsider, supposed to see whether the link-additions are NPOV when an editor is only adding the links? A link to a discussion in a wikiproject or to the talkpage in the edit summary would be helpful. There are many links that are suitable as external links on some pages, but WP:NOT#REPOSITORY says that we only should have a few (also per WP:EL); are linkadditions by someone who is involved in the website then the best person to decide whether his/her link should be on the page (how does the person decide whether his page is one of the better pages, and why this link and not other musea as well)?
- I just saw this diff (
I removed the link earlier because it was added by user:VAwebteamI removed the link because I thought user:VAwebteam added it, but the user only changed the text of the link, sorry for the misunderstanding). The link was there as an 'external reference', though it could easily be used as a reference in the text (good example, diff), which, I think, gives more value to the link and it gives more attribution to the text (and I am sorry if I violated WP:POINT here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I sat on the sidelines, quietly doing my WikiGnome thing, but I can't keep my mouth shut any longer ... after seeing the above comment about the VAM link in the fig leaf article, I decided to take a look and use it as an example of
{{cite web}}
usage, since I had just made reference to it on User Talk:VAwebteam's Talk page (I also invited them to participate in this discussion, BTW, with a direct link so that they did not have to search for it) … what I found in that article led to some Major Surgery, which I documented on that article's talk page, but that's what compelled me to add some comments here.
- OK, I sat on the sidelines, quietly doing my WikiGnome thing, but I can't keep my mouth shut any longer ... after seeing the above comment about the VAM link in the fig leaf article, I decided to take a look and use it as an example of
- That article had two ELs to a NN website (www.SandowMuseum.com) honoring Eugen Sandow, a 19th century bodybuilder, that apparently hasn't been updated very recently … every page contains the footer,
copyright ©1998 - 2001 R. Christian Anderson - All Rights Reserved
- The decision of which museum/library/etc. may be linked to a Wikipedia article should be based on a Very Simple criterion: WP:Notability
- Victoria and Albert Museum has an article in Wikipedia, and since it has been around since 1852, it should be considered a WP:Reliable Source. Period.
- SandowMuseum.com does not have an article, however, in this case, I feel that it is an appropriate link because (a) it's a citation is for a paragraph that talks about how Eugen Sandow made a living from photographs taken of him in the nude except for a fig leaf, (b) the paragraph is linked to his Wikipedia article, and (c) the page referenced in the citation has the title "Eugen Sandow Wearing a Figleaf" and begins,
Photographed in New York in 1894, Sandow wears a trademark "figleaf".
- I feel that Beetstra placed the VAM reference in the wrong place, so I moved it to a more appropriate location (compare the before and after versions)
- The choice of where an EL belongs depends on a simple rule of thumb: "If you can find an appropriate place to use it as a citation, then do it that way, otherwise add it to External Links."
- That article had two ELs to a NN website (www.SandowMuseum.com) honoring Eugen Sandow, a 19th century bodybuilder, that apparently hasn't been updated very recently … every page contains the footer,
- I don't think that allowing ELs to VAM is a slippery slope situation; if anything, their inclusion adds verisimilitude to Wikipedia's credibility! OTOH, if it were not so relevant, I would have eliminated both of the SandowMuseum.com links without asking for anyone else's opinion or approval … but one of them just had to go because one link to any NN site is sufficient, and if the one that I chose to delete had been the only one (it was very off-topic, with only a peripheral mention of "figleaf"), then there would be none there now.
- In conclusion, (a) links to VAM should not be forbidden, (b) the links should be added as cited references whenever possible, and (c) VAwebteam's contributions should be monitored for a while, as any newbie should be when they are going to be around for the foreseeable future … to be quite honest, I would consider it an Honour to be allowed to help such a venerable and respected institution in their efforts to become a responsible contributor to Wikipedia, so I volunteer to supervise their activities for the next few weeks while they come up to speed.
- Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Douglas Carswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Douglas Carswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Possible autobiographical editing by a British MP. RJASE1 Talk 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- At first glance, this is as clear a case of WP:VSCA as I've ever seen ... his only contributions to Wikipedia have been the edits to the article about himself ... but, he's not the original author of the article (it was created over six months before he first touched it), which certainly takes at least half the weight off of the COI issue ... and, since he's a MP of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, then his WP:Notability is pretty much established de facto, regardless of the lack of WP:Attribution.
- I say, "Either revert his edits and tell him not to do it again, or else take it to AfD" ... but be prepared for arguments that his WP:N sufficiently trumps any failure of WP:BIO or WP:A as a reason for deletion, because we're not talking about a "first year, assistant basketball coach at some NN junior college" who has made beau coup edits to an article about himself that was created by one of his students ... that one would probably be closed as Delete within 48 hours. —68.239.79.82 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible corporate spam
- Stmicro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The user in question has created a number of pages recently, describing several individual microcontrollers created by STMicroelectronics. Considering the name of the user, and the name of the company in question, I'm suspicious about the user's intentions in creating the following pages: ST6 (which, for some reason, the user redirected at Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country), St6 microcontroller, ST6 microcontroller, ST62xx, ST7, STR7, Str7, ST9, St9, Str9, ST10, St10, Stm32, and UPSD. The user also updated STMicroelectronics to point to some, but not all, of these product pages. Finally, each page contains a link to product pages at http://www.st.com/, the STMicroelectronics web site. Is this an appropriate CoI topic, or should I just db-spam each of the pages in question? FeralDruid 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I left a {{uw-coi1}} on this editor's Talk page. I think it's fine to put db-spam on all the pages listed above, except for the main company page at STMicroelectronics. EdJohnston 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
STMicroelectronics is one of those articles which duplicates company website content, almost all of which should be cleared out of any encyclopedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- All of Stmicro's edits have been reverted, including creation of the new pages and the edits to STMicroelectronics linking to the new pages. Only thing I can't figure out is how to undo the reference page from ST6 to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. :) --FeralDruid 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- They've created more, and re-created deleted articles; St6 microcontroller ST10 STR7 STR9. All tagged again. EliminatorJR Talk 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Plainsartmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains Art Museum
Article created and edited by above user. RJASE1 Talk 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tania Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tania Chen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Apparent autobiographical editing. RJASE1 Talk 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Raritan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - November 2006 to present
- 72.236.162.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/October 2006, January 2007
- 72.236.162.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/September 2006
- 72.236.162.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - December 2006
- Vsevolod4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wrote first version June 2006
- Raritan Computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently gave a 3O on this article related to 'advertising'. It was written by the company VP and is being edited by a company employee and at least one outside (neutral) editor. The article is almost 1 year old and there are no external/verifiable sources provided in the article. It was suggested that I post this here to obtain additional eyes-on. Lsi john 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved. Smee (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly asked for specific evidence of wrongdoing and has not provided it. Jossi (talk · contribs) has done exactly what we would hope for: provided disclosure and edited in good faith. If Smee is "curious" about COI policy, he should take it to another forum. This is not what the noticeboards are for. Marskell 12:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
→ See also: Similar issues in BLP/N Archive 17
- User:Jossi/Disclosure -- Jossi (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest editing articles related to Prem Rawat aka Guru Maharaj Ji. Per Jossi, he has "accepted a position in a related organization" - and this may mean some sort of ambiguous financial relationship or other related conflict of interest, aka User:MyWikiBiz, and the Microsoft controversy, which Jimbo Wales had described at the time as unethical. These issues should be looked into and discussed. Smee 04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Do you have any evidence to present of Jossi violating NPOV? According to his disclosure, it seems like he's doing the right thing. COI does not wholesale prohibit people from editing articles they are close to. It encourages them to avoid it, or to use extreme caution. It is actually possible for someone to edit neutrally about a subject they are connected to. Unless you have some evidence that his new job is to edit Wikipedia (doubtful, since he pledges to reduce his editing of those articles), what is there to look into or discuss? - Crockspot 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I declared a potential COI, on October last year, (See User:Jossi/Disclosure). Note that I am not editing the article on Prem Rawat, I am contributing to talk page discussions, providing sources for other editors to add, and making minor edits only. See a recent discussion on this subject in which neutral editors User:Vassyana, User:Jpgordon (see diff) and User:Jayjg (see diff commented on this. The user placing this notice Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Smeelgova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked five times for editwarring, and has a tendency to inject her particular POV is less than honest ways, as per recent WP:ANI incidents. This user and I are currently editing the article Sacred Journeys (book), and after failing to address the concerns I expressed about her edits, this user choses to post a claim of COI, a most unbecoming attitude, as a means to derail the editing process. The user has not read the book in question, has not read any of the sources he/she presented, demonstrating poor scholarship and poor care for accuracy and neutrality. The user continues using editwarring as a way to assert his/her viewpoints in this and may other articles as you can see from that article's history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I simply wished to point this out and bring it to others' attention. User:Jossi had stated an intention to step back from the Prem Rawat related articles. While he has slowed down his editing on the main article, Prem Rawat, he has not on the other associated articles. Thank you for your time. Smee 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- We actually have no way of knowing at the moment, the precise nature of this new job, and whether it in fact does in some way involve editing Wikipedia. Smee 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- User:Smee needs to be reminded of this aspect of WP:COI (my highlight) and not play the innocent party:
Conflict of interest in point of view disputes: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
- Please read the comments in which this was discussed.: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Jossi.27s_Conflict_of_Interest.
- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- A NOTE: - I am actually curious about what the broader community thinks of this troubling potential Conflict of Interest Issue, and I quite frankly did not report this in any relation whatsoever to that other article. The fact remains that Jossi's continued actions at these related articles is troubling, but my motivations for the report are not related to some sort of desire to get a "upper hand", that is actually patently ridiculous. Smee 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Curious my foot, Smee. Just a sudden interest? Minutes after being taken to account for editwaring, citing sources that you have not read, poor scholarship, and not before? You are missing the fact, Smee, that your actions always speak louder than your words. We all make mistakes, Smee, but some basic honesty is expected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have been curious about this issue for a long, long time. Your editing of virtually all articles related to Mr. Prem Rawat is what has sparked that curiosity about a Conflict of Interest Issue. Your amusing accusations and attempts at distraction from this particular Conflict of Interest discussion not-withstanding, I am simply stating that they are irrelevant. Yes, actions speak louder than words, as do your editing patterns on this project. I am interested to hear what other editors think. Smee 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- When you place a user conduct notice, be certain that you will attract scrutinity about yours. That is the way it works, Smee. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- A simple perusal of Jossi's editing patterns from wannabe kate shows where he concentrates the majority of his edits, and that they are virtually all related to Prem Rawat in one way shape or form... Smee 05:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- That was prior to my potential COI, Smee. I have been editing Wikipedia for three years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- We have no way of knowing what is exactly prior to what, but the edit patterns speaks for itself. Smee 05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Smee, I have close to 43,000 edits in en.Wiki, and my article namespace edits to related articles, is but a very small percentage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would like other editors and the community to take a look at this, and see what they think. Others have asked you for more clarity on this "disclosure". You apparently refused. I am not going to make that request here, but it certainly is very ambiguous. Smee 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Smee, I have close to 43,000 edits in en.Wiki, and my article namespace edits to related articles, is but a very small percentage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, Smee. I would also invite the community to look at your editing behavior in the article we are currently editing Sacred Journeys and the timing of you posting this notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Though that is a distraction and not related to a Conflict of Interest Issue, that would be fine with me. Smee 06:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- I would like to hear comments from other editors on this issue and the Conflict of Interest involved. However, if others really think there is some sort of "timing" thing going on here, I can re-file this issue at a later point in time. Smee 06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Though that is a distraction and not related to a Conflict of Interest Issue, that would be fine with me. Smee 06:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- Sure, Smee. I would also invite the community to look at your editing behavior in the article we are currently editing Sacred Journeys and the timing of you posting this notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think if other editors review the Contribs history at the Prem Rawat article, you'll see Jossi is still among one of the common contributors. As an interesting note, it is also interesting to note that two different Web sites on Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji's Divinity Claims: Spurious Academic Denials and Wikipedia, and Prem Rawat AKA Maharaji, both point to Wikipedia as examples of bias towards this individual and whitewashing of the past. I find it fascinating that both of these 2 sites took the time to devote to writing about the treatment of this individual's past and the bias towards it on Wikipedia. Smee 06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- My edits in that article are either minor edits, adding references, making agreed upon edits, and even restoring criticism (diff). I think that you are moving away from a COI notice and into off-wiki polemics with your other comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think I would like to hear comments from other editors, admins and the community on this one aside from the user with the Conflict of Interest Issue in question here. Smee 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC).
- My edits in that article are either minor edits, adding references, making agreed upon edits, and even restoring criticism (diff). I think that you are moving away from a COI notice and into off-wiki polemics with your other comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm with Crockspot on this one, "what is there to look into or discuss?Momento 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
various BBC-owned IP addresses
The BBC-owned IP addresses:
- 132.185.144.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 132.185.144.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 132.185.240.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 132.185.240.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 132.185.240.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 132.185.240.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
all have a history of editing BBC-related articles. Some of these edits were flagged as CoI, others not, but appear to be so on reflection (e.g the removal of deletion nomination from an article about BBC radio presenter). I wonder whether someone shouldn't contact the BBC, and ask them to run an article on Wikipeida's CoI policy, in their staff magazine, or on their intranet? Andy Mabbett 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the edits from these addresses are also fairly juvenile vandalism that doesn't reflect well on the BBC ([23][24][25]). If these came from BBC employees, I'm sure their employment contracts say something about actions disreputable to their employer. 86.140.181.239 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wendy Higgins
- Dr Hadwen Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wendyhiggins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - media director of Dr Hadwen Trust
User:Wendyhiggins has created a self-promotional userpage and has edited several articles related to her animal rights activism. Among these is the Dr Hadwen Trust. Since the edits may be legitimate, I have decided not to revert them, and instead to seek a second opinion here. YechielMan 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch. I've reverted some of the edits, warned the user and tagged Dr Hadwen Trust. This needs attention from a careful editor to restore or confirm neutral point of view. Once that's done, remove the {{COI}} tag. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)