Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{redirect|WP:COIN|the WikiProject on articles about coins|Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics}}
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]{{Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header}}
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]
[[Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest editing]]
{{Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 21
|counter = 216
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(10d)
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_%(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- All reports should be made at the bottom of the page. Do not modify the above when reporting! -->
== Carlton Wilborn ==


<!-- New entries go down at the *BOTTOM* of the page, not here. -->
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Carlton Wilborn}}
<!-- PLEASE REMEMBER TO SIGN YOUR MESSAGE -->
* {{userlinks|Carltonrising}}
<!-- Copy, do not edit, the below text and paste it below the newest section at the bottom of the page -->
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Clear [[WP:SPA]] only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Carlton_Wilborn&diff=prev&oldid=1258325004 See this edit] [[User:PHShanghai|PHShanghai &#124; they/them]] ([[User talk:PHShanghai|talk]]) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Possible [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiographies]] found by [[User:AlexNewArtBot|bot]] ==
::Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources [[User:PHShanghai|PHShanghai &#124; they/them]] ([[User talk:PHShanghai|talk]]) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Anahit saribekyan ==
* [[User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult]] &nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Octoshape ==
* {{pagelinks|Anahit saribekyan}}
* {{userlinks|Anahit Saribekyan}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
User created autobiography. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">[[User:Synorem|<span style="color: #0f52ba; text-decoration: none;">Synorem</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:Synorem|talk]]) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:Yes, and the first paragraph is a [[WP:COPYVIO]] from here: [https://mirrorspectator.com/2024/10/31/anahit-saribekyan-a-dancer-and-dance-enthusiast-to-her-core/]. Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.
{{resolved|Article has been rewritten to ensure neutrality. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC) }}
:
:The user seems to have severe issues with both [[WP:CIR]] and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.
:First there was this article on Dance Day [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anahit_Saribekyan/sandbox], which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.
:Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:International_Certification_of_Dance_Studies], turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.
:(Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)
:And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.
:As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Wikipedia since 2005 (under the title [[International Dance Day]]. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:::For more of the same, see the article for [[Alkis Raftis]] (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user [[user:CID-unesco|CID-unesco]] (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.
:::The Raftis article was also extensively edited by [[user:International Dance Council]] which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.
:::[[WP:DUCK]] therefore indicates that [[user:Anahit Saribekyan]] is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.
:::Copying in [[user:Jimfbleak]] who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Fun fact: [[user:Alkis Raftis]] even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Certification_of_Dance_Studies&diff=prev&oldid=1255180282] (their only edit). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)


:::::I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i>]] 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{article|Octoshape}}
::::::Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).
*{{userlinks|Octoshape}}
::::::I wonder if you would care to reconsider? [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.
::::::::I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. [[User:Anahit Saribekyan|Anahit Saribekyan]] ([[User talk:Anahit Saribekyan|talk]]) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Anahit Saribekyan}} Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== Pinialtaus ==
I request uninvolved review of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Octoshape&offset=20080107113000&action=history series of edits] I made to [[Octoshape]] recently.
The edits removed or corrected unsourced (and untrue!) negative claims about our product.


{{userlinks|Pinialtaus}}
I know that the recommended procedure is to describe the desired edits on the talk page and then wait for somebody else to do them, but I decided that it would be clearer to do than to describe, in light of the number of small changes as well as the low level of activity on the talk page. The edits may readily be undone in case I overstepped. I will, of course, be happy to discuss each change on the talk page if my edit summaries are not found convincing.
For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting [[Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur)]] and [[Enechange (company)]].
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Oona Wikiwalker|Oona Wikiwalker]] ([[User talk:Oona Wikiwalker#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Oona Wikiwalker|contribs]]) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
* Update: Pinialtaus has now been blocked as a [[WP:SOCK]], see [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124]]. {{nowrap|'''[[User:RA0808|<span style="color:red">RA</span><span style="background-color:red;color:white;">0808</span>]]''' [[User talk:RA0808|<sup>talk</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/RA0808|<sub>contribs</sub>]]}} 19:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Special:Contributions/EAllen04 ==
I don't think any of the individual edits are problematic; in each particular case our outside aims appear to be well in line with the interest of the encyclopedia. However, my selection of what to correct is inherently biased: If I were (hypothetically) to come across similarly unsourced ''positive'' claims about our product, I would not act to remove them. Therefore it might be desirable for somebody uninvolved to look over the current state of the article critically.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
(This was first posted at [[Talk:Octoshape]]. I repeat it here due to the risk that it would go unnoticed on the not very active talk page). [[User:Octoshape|Octoshape]] ([[User talk:Octoshape|talk]]) 11:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Flourishing}}
* {{pagelinks|Water For People}}
* {{userlinks|EAllen04}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.


It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the [[Water For People]] article. Eleanor recently edited the [[Flourishing]] article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.
: I'll help. I will post my comments on the article talk page there. [[User:CraigWyllie|CraigWyllie]] ([[User talk:CraigWyllie|talk]]) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to [[User:Octoshape]] for bringing the issue here. The article on [[Octoshape]] appears to have no reliable sources. It shouldn't remain that way long-term. Besides that, I noticed three problems:
:*''Reverts don't have references'': The items that have been added and reverted above should depend on more than just a few editors' opinions, and certainly shouldn't depend on assurances from the developer that they are not a problem.


EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.
:*''Terms of Service issues'': You would expect that some published article could be found on whether P2P programs can get in trouble for violating Terms of Service, even if the article doesn't specifically mention Octoshape. A quick search comes up with [http://torrentfreak.com/verizon-bans-p2p-streaming-services-and-online-gaming/ this link] noting that Verizon has banned P2P usage on EVDO. (Though the particular site I found is not a reliable source).


[[User:Trs9k|<span style="color: #0000FF;">🆃</span>]][[User talk:Trs9k|<span style="color: #FF00FF;">🆁</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Trs9k|<span style="color: #FFFF00;">🆂</span>]]™ 13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:*''Performance claim lacking all references.'' One of the current sentences in the article looks quite promotional and is completely uncited: ''This is the trick behind octoshape, because it makes the grid 100% stable with no interruptions in the sound or video when peers logoff.'' [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


:At this time I should also point out that in light of [[Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE]], I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article [[Water For People]] anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) [[User:Trs9k|<span style="color: #0000FF;">🆃</span>]][[User talk:Trs9k|<span style="color: #FF00FF;">🆁</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Trs9k|<span style="color: #FFFF00;">🆂</span>]]™ 13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Thanks for your comments. For the record (not that I think you meant to imply otherwise): To the best of my knowledge, the creator of the article is not affiliated with our company, nor have anybody at the company ever edited the article except for the four edits logged under this username. We know that some of our end users are very enthusiastic about our technology; we have been assuming that the peacocky language in the article was inserted by one of them.
::Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
::: To avoid splitting the discussion, I suggest that we move to the excellent (but lonely) [[Talk:Octoshape|talk page]] for problems with the article that are not directly related to COI. I will post a response to your points there shortly. [[User:Octoshape|Octoshape]] ([[User talk:Octoshape|talk]]) 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
::Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked [[WP:SPA]]s editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
::I tried to fix up the [[Octoshape]] article to sound more neutral. Since my last edit was on 15 January, and there have been no further comments either here or at [[Talk:Octoshape]] since my last edit, I assume this item can be closed. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of [[WP:SYNTH]]/[[WP:OR]] and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: {{tq|Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.}}
::Overall, a mess. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
::For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. [[User:EAllen04|EAllen04]] ([[User talk:EAllen04|talk]]) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::When you say {{tq|I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text}} are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]]?
:::Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Wikipedia, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your edits here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flourishing&diff=prev&oldid=1261926153], here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flourishing&diff=prev&oldid=1261926515] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Flourishing&diff=prev&oldid=1261926746] were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
::::To suggest that you are {{tq|Happy to tone it down}} isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.
::::I note that you also made a large promotional edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=B_Lab&diff=prev&oldid=1213715398] back in March 2024 to the article for [[B Lab]], another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as {{tq|Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp [https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/find-a-b-corp/ here]. There are many famous brands including: [...]}}
::::In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Water_For_People&diff=prev&oldid=1213711071])? [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I note also a previous note [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EAllen04&oldid=1213711683] left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that {{tq|editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.}} Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as {{tq|SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally}}. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


== Charles Taze Russell ==
== Leyla Kuliyeva ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
*{{article|Charles Taze Russell}} and related
* {{pagelinks|Leyla Kuliyeva}}
*{{user|Pastorrussell}}
* {{userlinks|User publisher wiki}}
There may be no problem - I admit I don't know the topic well enough - but there seems to be considerable risk of COI. A major contributor to the article describes himself as "the webmaster of Pastor-Russell.com, the official Charles Taze Russell website". Could someone take a look at the article history? [[Special:Contributions/86.148.154.23|86.148.154.23]] ([[User talk:86.148.154.23|talk]]) 02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leyla_Kuliyeva&diff=1260183920&oldid=1258895029 first], which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leyla_Kuliyeva&diff=1260352053&oldid=1260290494 second], which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded {{tq|I have the information}} and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, {{tq|I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Wikipedia's legal department to take further action}}. [[User:Tacyarg|Tacyarg]] ([[User talk:Tacyarg|talk]]) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:''There may be no problem''
:I think there is. The article itself currently looks reasonably even-handed (for instance, not glossing over controversies). However, the above user is making a lot of uncited reversions with no explanation or unhelpful summaries like ''improper edit'', and a couple of years back was the subject of a user RFC ([[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell]]) for [[WP:OWN]] problems. Things look a lot quieter now, but JW vs Bible Students is very a partisan situation, and being official webmaster for one camp looks far too close a relationship to the subject for comfort. I've added a COI tag. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
:Addendum: Pastorrussell just removed the COI tag as ''misunderstanding''. I've asked for explanation here. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] 10:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC) (''sorry - working from crappy filtered account that won't let me log in''). <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/213.249.221.34|213.249.221.34]] ([[User talk:213.249.221.34|talk]]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::'''Comment.''' The editor whose actions are being questioned is *not* in reality someone named Pastor Russell; he just operates a website about Charles Taze Russell who was a pastor. We need a proposal for what to do in this case. It could be COI if you argue:


:Their last comment has now earned them a {{tlx|uw-legal}} warning. --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::*That the article's citing of the pastor-russell.com web site is the violation, or
::There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
::*That this editor's affiliation with the Bible Students is leading to partisan editing in defence of that group's position, and against the neutrality of the article. (I think Gordon is arguing this above, but it needs details in my view).
::The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA [[user:TheWeldere]] who took the article to this rather odd <s>(but very long)</s> version [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leyla_Kuliyeva&oldid=1071151394] before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).
::The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheWeldere/Archive].
::Then in Sept '22 [[user:Dmarketingchamp]] attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmarketingchamp&oldid=1130578908]. It is obviously <s>the version that was favoured by</s> ''the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of'' the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leyla_Kuliyeva&oldid=1131230261]. So, this was <s>obvious</s> ''apparent'' block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.
::Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Leyla_Kuliyeva&oldid=1260183920]. So, same story as above.
::This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
::The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per [[WP:DUCK]]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{reply to|Axad12}} Are you going to file a report at SPI? --[[User:Drm310|Drm310]] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:Drm310|talk]]) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:User_publisher_wiki] and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leyla_Kuliyeva]. The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:User_publisher_wiki&diff=prev&oldid=1262635759]), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[user:User publisher wiki|User publisher wiki]] now blocked by [[user:Izno|Izno]] as an advertising only account (and for {{tq|wasting people's time on their user page}}, as per the SPI: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheWeldere]). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== South College ==
::The article appears carefully written, and it relies to a degree on online copies of scanned documents about 19th-century events that are hosted on the pastor-russell.com website. Someone who has patience could go through the history looking for any reverts of valid criticism. The article is fairly neutral in tone and heavily documented, though perhaps based to an excessive degree on documents hosted at the pastor-russell.com site. Does anyone have the patience to study the article history? As Gordonofcartoon points out, there was an [[WP:RFC/U]] on this editor back in 2005, claiming violation of [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:NPOV]], that must not have led to any official action. You could still read it for background, since it mentions this article. I notice that this editor has frequently reverted the work of other editors over at [[Bible Student movement]], and I don't see him participating on the talk page there. [[Bible Student movement]] is a weaker article than [[Charles Taze Russell]], and contains more unsourced material. It might be a better target of reform.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::The most questionable recent edit by [[User:Pastorrussell]] is probably [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Taze_Russell&diff=181900919&oldid=181900616 this one], where he accused another editor of vandalism for changing the picture on an article. A discussion with this editor is desirable. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|South College}}
* {{userlinks|Amanda Woodward Burns}}
In a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=South_College&diff=prev&oldid=1223709949 previous edit], this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a [[:Template:uw-paid|standard paid editing warning]] on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today ''after they stopped editing'' again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per [[WP:REALNAME]]. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I appreciate the concern for neutrality. This was brought up when the article was being about two years ago, and the issues were dealt with in an appropriate manner which satisfied all concerned. I added the "Criticisms" section in order to make the article as unbiased as possible, and have attempted to make sure there is no bias of any kind. Others who have attempted to remove "Criticisms" section, or to add inappropriate material has been undone by me. [[User:Pastorrussell|Pastorrussell]] ([[User talk:Pastorrussell|talk]]) 22:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
::In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=South_College&diff=prev&oldid=903261021] with edit summary {{tq|Update at the request of the college}}. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.
:::::Thanks for your response. On his User page, [[User:Gordonofcartoon]] (who I was counting on for further research) has indicated he won't be able to follow up on this issue. Since only Gordon and I, besides the original IP and Pastorrussell, have commented here, I think it is reasonable to close this, without prejudice to reopening if anyone has time to investigate. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::Then we have this exchange from 2020 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mcculley1108#Connection_to_South_College?], where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
::Then later that year this user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tiamaria2] edited the article, later blocked as [[WP:NOTHERE]].
::Then user SPA from 2021 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tknight4747] whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
::Then this user from 2023 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bradadams10], who made 1 edit before being notified of the [[WP:UPE]] policy.
::And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
::So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::You say {{tq|once a notice has been issued, they go away}}, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).
::::You also say that the college {{tq|is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM}}, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.
::::Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
::::You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
::::Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=South_College&diff=prev&oldid=1228765315], done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
::::The named user has been referred to [[WP:COI]] and to [[WP:PAID]] and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
::::The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. [[User:Tiggerjay|<span style='color:DarkOrange'>'''Tigger'''</span>'''Jay''']]&thinsp;[[User talk:Tiggerjay|<span style="font-size:85%;color:Purple">(talk)</span>]] 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
::::::Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at [[WP:RPPI]] wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
::::::Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== Ivan Lagundžić ==
::I'm reopening this for discussion as I still think this article needs some revision and input to be COI free. I don't know how much time I will have to research the issues but I will do my best.[[User:Shaneroosky|Shaneroosky]] ([[User talk:Shaneroosky|talk]]) 21:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
:::Looking at the article content, I can see some evidence of COI editing. It must be remembered that (according to their own WP articles) the [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] have 17 million adherents, while "there are still thousands of [[Bible Student movement|Bible Students]] worldwide". The fact that the Bible student navbox is listed above the JW navbox in Russell's article, and that Bible students are mentioned before JWs in the description of groups he founded, are clear violations of [[WP:Undue weight]]. Also, "best known as Pastor Russell" in the first sentence needs to be sourced; if, as I suspect, only non-JW Bible Students call him that (it is, if course, the username and website name of the editor in question here), it should not be in the Intro.
* {{pagelinks|Ivan Lagundžić}}
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Taze_Russell&oldid=186202681 Here] is the current version of the page, to which I am referring. I am now going to fix the issues I just described. If Gordonofcartoon or Shareroosky want to identify specific issues that I can helpfully comment on, please let me know on my talk page. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Ivan Lagundzic}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of [[Draft:Ivan Lagundžić]]. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to [[WP:COI]] concerns) or talk space - see history at [[Talk:Ivan Lagundžić]]. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:And [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ivan_Lagund%C5%BEi%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1263284453 he has done it again]. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:: I have partially blocked them from page moves. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::: Thank you. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)


== [[This Day]] on [[Bella Disu]] ==
::::Okay, I think there is a problem here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Taze_Russell&diff=187185784&oldid=187171536#Death.2C_aftermath.2C_and_legacy Here] is [[User:Pastorrussell]]'s response to my changes (and others too, mine are only in the lead paragraph). He insists on downplaying Jehovah's Witnesses, who make up 99.9% of Russell's present-day followers (however imperfectly they may follow him), and insists on the appellation "Pastor Russell", which strikes me as very non-encyclopedic. Note also that the user's website is the first listed at [[Charles Taze Russell#External links]], and is identified as the "official CT Russell website". Declared official by whom? On his website, the user says one of [http://www.pastor-russell.com/misc/purpose.html his motivations] is to "separate [Russell] from Jehovah's Witnesses," raising [[WP:SOAP]] concerns. The user's motivations are clearly to attract people to his website as well as to his small sect, which (in words that [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bible_Student_movement&diff=145701586&oldid=145700447 he added] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bible_Student_movement&diff=187047311&oldid=183301188 I removed] at the [[Bible Student movement]] page) has "had increased visibility and influence in recent years due to the formation and growth of the world wide web."
::::It seems to me that [[User:Pastorrussell]] should be counseled to cease placing [[WP:Undue weight|undue weight]] on his minority viewpoint and to cease promoting his website and his sect. If he cannot comply, then he should be enjoined from editing on topics related to C.T. Russell. I will leave a message on his talk page requesting his comment. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


I am trying to cut promotional content from [[Bella Disu]]. [[This Day]] seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.
:::::The name "Pastor Russell" is the most frequent name used for this man, and you can find that in nearly any encyclopedia. This isn't my preference, it is a matter of historical fact. The reference to the "increased visibility" et.al. was simply a poor wording on my part, and should clearly have been removed. The "Official site" is under the direction of Bible Students and his remaining family members. There is no attempt to downplay the Jehovah's Witnesses at all. The issue is one of balance. Both groups should be mentioned as they spring from the same movement. No one group should be marked out. I take offense to the direct matter-of-fact statements made as to my motives. How can you know my motives without asking me? Obviously there is some confusion as to the historical facts regarding Russell, Bible Students, and the JWs. The reference from the website that you quoted is not related to the article in any way, and has no impact upon the way the article is written. I have worked tirelessly with others over the past two years to make the article as neutral and unbiased as possible in every conceivable way, but have often been attacked by those who support JWs and wish to make the article more pro JW which is in violation of wikipedia policies. We need to have balance. Of course, nobody is perfect, but it really isn't fair to characterize me in such a negative light when you are making assumptions based on statements taken out of context. [[User:Pastorrussell|Pastorrussell]] ([[User talk:Pastorrussell|talk]]) 05:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


* [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2018/10/07/a-daughter-in-a-million-the-amazing-exploits-of-belinda-disu-in-busines/?amp A Daughter in a Million: The Amazing Exploits of Belinda Disu in Busines]
::::::Yes, we need balance, but that does not mean giving all views equal weight; per [[WP:NPOV]], it means views should be described with a weight "in proportion to the prominence of each". JWs (which, btw, I do not support in any way) are by far Russell's most prominent followers and should be most prominently mentioned. Some of the problems can be helped by [[WP:CITE|inline citations]], which currently are very sparse in this article. Claims such as that he is generally known as "Pastor Russell" by more than just certain of his followers, or that the majority of his followers left the Watchtower Society in the schism, need to be sourced. I looked at [http://www.pastor-russell.com/legacy/jwpgk.pdf this] JW source (hosted on your website, actually), which calls him "Brother Russell" and claims that the majority of his adherents remained faithful to the WTS. At External Links, I would list your website after Watchtower.org, and would not describe it as "official". In general, Wikipedia's job is to reflect the body of primary and secondary sources that we draw on, not to correct its errors.
* [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/03/31/super-woman-when-bella-adenuga-stormed-kigali-in-a-grand-style/?amp Super Woman…When Bella Adenuga Stormed Kigali In A Grand Style]
* [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/12/17/france-honours-bella-disu-with-prestigious-national-honour/ France Honours Bella Disu with Prestigious National Honour]
* [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/01/26/abumet-nigeria-appoints-belinda-ajoke-disu-chairman/ Abumet Nigeria Appoints Belinda Ajoke Disu Chairman]
* [https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2019/05/12/mike-adenuga-centre-another-promise-kept/ Mike Adenuga Centre: Another Promise Kept!]


In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. [[User talk:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक|🄻]][[Special:Contributions/लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक|🄰]] 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am willing to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] on your part, and I hope to see better. I hope that you have carefully read [[WP:COI]], because you clearly have a major ''potential'' conflict and need to be careful to keep your edits encyclopedic. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 06:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


:Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard ([[WP:RSN]]). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of [[WP:RS]] and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::First of all, the CTR entry is about the man and his life, history, theology, etc... and neither about JWs nor Bible Students. This means that nothing in the entry should seem to support either group, but simply mention the minimal yet pertinent historical facts of these two groups in relation to him. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the controversy here comes from an innocent ignorance of the history. JWs are NOT his followers, and that seems to be the major misunderstanding here. The Bible Student movement emerged as a result of Russell's ministry. When he died the majority (nearly three-quarters - documented in dozens of places) left the organization that he founded and formed several fellowships, all of whom remain in close contact and are called Bible Students. They still follow the teachings espoused by Russell, study his books, and hold to his views. The JWs on the other hand were the minority and were not founded by Russell, but by Rutherford his successor, in the year 1931, nearly fifteen years after Russell's death. Their theological viewpoints are significantly and radically different from Russell's, and they neither study nor encourage reading of his writings. All that they do is claim him as their founder which is not strictly correct as he didn't found their movement he simply founded the legal corporation they currently control. Anyhow, the CTR entry shouldn't have anything to do with JWs or Bible Students in terms of the historical information, but simply be restricted to the details of his life, while any details regarding the two mentioned groups be limited in scope in this article with the greater details kept within their own primary entries. Incidentally, the navbox on Bible Students and the one on JWs were both added by someone else, and I had nothing to do with either the creation or placement. The "official website" is through those who still study his writings and of those who are his remaining family, and is thus entirely official. JWs have NOTHING to do with the man, don't study his material, in fact going so far as to call his writings "old light" and their members are strongly discouraged from reading his works. Bible Students were in the majority, but now are the minority. JWs were the minority but now are the majority, and very rarely refer to themselves as Bible Students in order to not be confused with the other group. So, such info should be balanced, unbiased, but most importantly limited insofar as THIS article is concerned. Because of these misunderstandings my attempts to keep the article balanced and as unbiased as possible have been misconstrued and are being interpreted in completely the opposite way, which is unfortunate and very stressful. [[User:Pastorrussell|Pastorrussell]] ([[User talk:Pastorrussell|talk]]) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at [[WP:RSN]] in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers]) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Yang Youlin ==
::::::::Once again I'll say that [[WP:CITE|citing]] [[WP:RS|sources]] will go a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems around here. Don't just tell me that a certain claim is "documented in dozens of places," cite one or two of those sources when that statement is made in the article! I'll also note that third-party sources (i.e., with no vested interest in either JWs or BSs) will be ten times more valuable in convincing people of your claims. As for your opinion that Russell is not properly a founder of the JWs, I don't actually care whether you're right or wrong, because Wikipedia's standard is [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]]. What is relevant here is that this opinion of yours is hardly a consensus (which means it should not be stated as unqualified fact), and I don't know that it's even a majority view (if it's not, then it shouldn't be most prominently mentioned). Again, impartial third-party sources will be by far the most valuable here. Finally, I still have a problem with "official." C.T. Russell is not still around to give his endorsement, and there are multiple conflicting groups that claim his legacy. You need to qualify that claim about your website.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
::::::::I'm not going to say more about the details here, basically because I have a passing interest in the topic but not enough to dig deeply into it. I think at this point you're aware of your potential conflicts, and I trust you'll be careful. If, in the future, I can be useful as a mediator, I'd be glad to help. --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Yang Youlin}}
* {{userlinks|YangZongChang0101}}


This user has a self-declared family connection [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:YangZongChang0101&diff=1263045200&oldid=1263044817 here] to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a [[WP:NOTHERE]] and attempt at [[WP:OUTING]] from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you for your input. The way I worded my last comment was simply a brief outline for you so you could see what the matter is about. I am currently working on an exhaustive list of third-party references for the said entry. My hope is to have them all finished in about a week or two. As for the official website there are only two groups that are "conflicting" -JWs and Bible Students. Again, exhaustive references from all appropriate sources is being compiled. [[User:Pastorrussell|Pastorrussell]] ([[User talk:Pastorrussell|talk]]) 05:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Hokay, I'm back. Sorry about the absence. I agree with much of what has been said: specifically the need for third-party citation (I don't really trust sources from the minutes of a church to be sufficiently objective about its own history). Also [[User:Pastorrussell|Pastorrussell]] should avoid edits - unless trivially obvious - that simply assert without proof that a change is wrong. (Note also that you can't defame or libel [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Taze_Russell&diff=prev&oldid=186035737] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Charles_Taze_Russell&diff=prev&oldid=186034787] someone who has been dead since 1916).
:That said, I'm still uneasy about what relationship the operator of its "official website" has to the subject. If it's promotional and/or protective toward the subject, there's a conflict of interest. This "official" status still hasn't been satisfactorily explained, and discussion is ongoing at [[Talk:Charles Taze Russell#"Official" Website]]. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


:User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while [[WP:PAID]] might not apply here [[WP:NOTHERE]] is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Abacast article edited by an Abacast IP ==
::What is the involvement here of [[user:PrivateRyan44]]?
::PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later [[user:YangZongChang0101]] began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
::That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
::I also note the discussion between the 2 users here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YangZongChang0101#Edits_on_the_Yang_Youlin_Article] where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
::Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
::Something looks distinctly odd here. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
::I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
::if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. [[User:YangZongChang0101|YangZongChang0101]] ([[User talk:YangZongChang0101|talk]]) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. [[User:YangZongChang0101|YangZongChang0101]] ([[User talk:YangZongChang0101|talk]]) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yang_Youlin&diff=prev&oldid=1263196913].
::That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
::I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.}}
:::Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. [[WP:UPE]]?
:::And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
:::Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
:::Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Wikipedia works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest [[WP:NOBITING]] for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::In fairness, the statement {{tq|If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm}} is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia.
:::::Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of [[user:Amigao]] (both here and at the [[Yang Youlin]] talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
:::::Also, [[user:PrivateRyan44]] describes themselves here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yang_Youlin&oldid=1262789294] as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is ''not'' {{tq|from Mainland China}}.
:::::Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be {{tq|well-intentioned editing}}. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
:::::::The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. {{tq|Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory}}). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere.
:::::::Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a [[WP:TAGTEAM]] situation going on and potentially [[WP:MEAT]]. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst ==
{{resolved|Article was deleted (no-one contested the [[WP:PROD|prod]]). [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) }}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
I was a little surprised to see that we have a long article on {{article|Abacast}}, a web browser plug-in that's used to distribute streaming media. It appears that much of the content has come from {{userlinks|74.92.169.249}}, as well as {{userlinks|Jvosburgh}}, both with [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|virtually no editing outside]] the Abacast article. I'm not sure about the latter (registered) editor, but checking the conveniently-linked [[Whois]] report (which I like to do) shows that the [[IP address]] is assigned (by [[Comcast]]) to none other then Abacast[http://samspade.org/whois?query=74.92.169.249].
* {{pagelinks|Derek Warburton}}
* {{userlinks|Khamadi the Amethyst}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to [[Derek Warburton]] with extremely promotional language. Looking at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khamadi_the_Amethyst commons] a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to [[Derek Warburton]] or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to [[Eric Greitens]] today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.


The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Derek_Warburton&diff=1042775823&oldid=1037102727 Khamadi the Amethyst] removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKhamadi_the_Amethyst&diff=1035937659&oldid=1035936212 question] left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning.<span id="Ser!:1734443340850:WikipediaFTTCLNConflict_of_interest/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
I'm not sure if the article should be deleted (as it has 4 times), as their plug-in is used by the web sites of actual broadcast TV and radio stations[http://www.abacast.com/demo/streamingsamples.php] and its possible that some people wondering about the plug-in will come here looking for info. [[User:Jmchuff|Jason McHuff]] ([[User talk:Jmchuff|talk]]) 09:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:The [[Abacast]] article mentions [[Octoshape]], curiously [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Octoshape|also on the the noticeboard]] at this very moment. If Octoshape is notable, as it appears to be, and Abacast is truly a competitor to Octoshape, then chances are that both articles should be kept. (The Octoshape people, over at [[Talk:Octoshape]], have coyly declined to identify their competitors). Abacast is the newcomer that might still require more sourcing, in my view. If people can find no sources at all for Abacast it probably should be nominated for deletion. [[User:Jmchuff]] mentioned some companies that use Abacast, but they don't appear to be well-known. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::The [[Abacast]] article has no sources at all, let alone reliable sources. I have proposed it for deletion. Anyone who has the time is welcome to add sources. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Update: Not sure how I missed it, but [[User:Jvosburgh]] has said that he's with Abacast [{{fullurl:User talk:Crazytales|diff=prev&oldid=148298521}}] (this leaves few non-Abacast-connected editors of the article) --[[User:Jmchuff|Jason McHuff]] ([[User talk:Jmchuff|talk]]) 06:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


:OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Wikipedia page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Wikipedia in a hot minute. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== [[LACMTA Expo Line]] ==
::I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I am in fact thinking of [[Nigel Warburton]] lol and trout me. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


::::I've blocked this obvious UPE [[User:Jimfbleak|<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b>]] - [[User talk:Jimfbleak|<i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i>]] 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Damienwg}}
:::::Cheers Jim, much appreciated. '''[[User:Ser!|ser!]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Ser!|chat to me]] - [[Special:Contributions/Ser!|see my edits]])</sup> 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|Fixexpo}}
*{{userlinks|Dnwh}}


== Lyons Township High School ==
Group [[User:Fixexpo|FixExpo]] [http://fixexpo.org/], created and headed by [[User:Damienwg|Damien Goodmon]], is currently in a legal battle with the Expo Construction Authority [http://buildexpo.org], trying to stop the construction of the line (see, e.g., one of his latest legal filings [http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/EXP/77269.pdf], among the numerous).


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
It is highly unethical for FixExpo to make edits on the [[LACMTA Expo Line]] article, given its direct legal interest and lawsuit against the Expo Construction Authority, who is constructing the light-rail line.
* {{pagelinks|Lyons Township High School}}
* {{userlinks|Jeffcheslo}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya ==
Therefore, please do not allow edits by these two users ([[User:Fixexpo|FixExpo]] and [[User:Damienwg|Damienwg]]) on the [[LACMTA_Expo_Line]] article.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
[[User:Cheviotla|Cheviotla]] ([[User talk:Cheviotla|talk]]) 16:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya}}
:I agree that there is some inappropriate editing taking place at [[LACMTA Expo Line]]. I hope that [[User:Damienwg]] will make an appearance here to discuss the situation. The article's Talk page has a lot of recent discussion of the Conflict of Interest, but due to a scrambled time order, it is hard to follow the Talk page. I am surprised that we have such a large article on this topic. It seems to use lots of primary sources, which can lead to a confusing situation when there are conflicts going on. I hope that someone who has time can review the Talk page (and perhaps fix the time order of the postings) and can bring us more advice here. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Omarisonfire}}
::The COI issues should be discussed here rather than on the article talk page which has too many personal comments already. Overall, the article appears to be a battelground among activists on both sides of the issue. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
Possibly paid to edit Wikipedia to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of [[Diring]] with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. <span style="font-family: Georgia; background-color: coral; padding: 2px 3px 1px 3px;">[[User:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">MimirIsSmart</span>]] [[User talk:MimirIsSmart|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">(talk)</span>]]</span> 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:Draft now speedy deleted under [[WP:G11]] (unambiguous advertising or promotion). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is not a "both sides" issue. Unlike the editors who are members of Light Rail for Cheviot and Friends 4 Expo, I'm interested in accuracy in the article. There is none in the article - simple advocacy. Just look at what Cheviotla who is a member of both organizations (but claims isn't) did to the neutrality tag. They arbitrarily removed it (which was placed by someone else) even though there was no consensus on the issue being resolved. The tag should be re-added, the article needs to be completely rewritten and until the issues are resolved the neutrality tag should remain. Further, Cheviotla should be issued a warning to not remove the tag and banned if they try to again. ([[User:Damienwg|Damienwg]] ([[User talk:Damienwg|talk]]) 03:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC))


== Victor Yannacone ==


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
Administrators:
* {{pagelinks|Victor Yannacone}}
* {{userlinks|PeoplesBarrister}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PeoplesBarrister&diff=prev&oldid=1243006775 As seen here], this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.<br>Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Victor_Yannacone&diff=prev&oldid=1243494022 a COI tag was added]. However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.<br><br>Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">[[User:Synorem|<span style="color: #0f52ba; text-decoration: none;">Synorem</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:Synorem|talk]]) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


:User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
Evidently the new editor on the [[LACMTA Expo Line]] article, {{userlinks|Dnwh}}, is the same user as {{userlinks|Damienwg}}, which was the same user as {{userlinks|Fixexpo}} that was blocked. Therefore, it has the same conflict-of-interest problem. I think the associated IP address should be permanently blocked to prevent this person (Damien Goodmon) from making edits on this page under different user names on behalf of his legal protests [http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/efile/RULINGS/78162.pdf] with the California Public Utilities commision. [[User:Cheviotla|Cheviotla]] ([[User talk:Cheviotla|talk]]) 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
:If [[User:Dnwh]] and [[User:Damienwg]] are actually the same person, that is troubling, because there's no obvious need for Damien to use multiple accounts here. Dnwh's very first Wikipedia edit was to add a POV tag to this article. There is no reason why Damienwg can't continue to participate on the Talk page, so I don't see the case for blocking Damienwg. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
:This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins [[user:C.Fred|C.Fred]] and [[user:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]], so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::The following thread is of relevance here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victor_Yannacone#Soul-searching_requested:_unacceptable_bullying;_lack_of_civility;_casting_aspersions._Urgent_call_for_common_sense.].
::It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. <span style="color: #0f52ba; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: 0px 0px 1px #111111;">[[User:Synorem|<span style="color: #0f52ba; text-decoration: none;">Synorem</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:Synorem|talk]]) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


== COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided" ==
== [[Selma Blair]] ==


Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to [[It's Coming (film)]] and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.
{{resolved|Article edited to include only reliable sources. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
*{{la|Selma Blair}}
*{{userlinks|Wishlab}}


Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Wikipedia coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.
Wishlab has been repeatedly blanking sections of the article, claiming to be Ms. Blair's representative. In particular, xe keeps removing a report that Blair was seen checking into rehab. I've already left a note on xer talk page about [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:3RR]], but it's moving towards edit-warring. Can someone help straighten this out? <font color="blue">[[User:Shoy|sho]]</font><font color="red">[[User talk:Shoy|y]]</font> 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.
: I went to the page, checked the ''source'' for the rehab report, and the source is actually comically bad: the actual link is a gossip site (unafiliated with Us Weekly) which is supposed to reference Us Weekly (somewhere) as reporting about the rehab. But the site on it's front page criticizes Us Weekly for fraudulent pregnancy rumors (!). That is, the source for the source, denies the reliability of the source. So there is just no way to call that chain of references reliable. So I deleted the item and requested on the discussion page that a ''citable'' reference be supplied if someone wants it back. Frankly I have to wonder about Shoy, but if there is no more edit warring I'm happy to forget this. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 21:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


"It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.
* ''Single-purpose vandalism''. My deletion of the unsourced item got reverted by [[User_talk:Kaya80|Kaya80]], a single purpose account (see [[Special:Contributions/Kaya80|contribs]]). Can an admin look at this or should I post an AN/I? Thanks, [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
::The edits by [[User:Wishlab]] are close to a COI violation, and [[User:Kaya80]] has been repeatedly putting in that defamatory item about drug rehab that has no adequate source. Thanks to [[User:PeterStJohn]] and [[User:Pairadox]] for dealing with the inappropriate material. The version of the [[Selma Blair]] article as of this exact moment looks OK to me. If Kaya80 persists trying to insert the rehab thing, then a listing at [[WP:ANI]] seems appropriate. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


A review of these tags is needed based on:
The rehab information is fine to include but with better sourcing. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=selma+blair+rehab&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn Look here]. Major media attention. <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence]] § [[User talk:Lawrence Cohen|t]]/[[:Special:Contributions/Lawrence_Cohen|e]]</font></span> 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices
2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout
3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view
4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards


I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.
:Looking closer at the search results Lawrence Cohen has provided, most aren't about Blair in rehab at all. The single mention that appears in a reliable source only mentions her in passing in an article about Lindsey Lohan. But I've now included it and am marking this thread as resolved since it's no longer about a COI. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:: It may not be a COI, but it's horrible editting. I didn't find even the passing mention of Selma Blair in the gossip article about Lindsey Lohan. That's totally not a reputable source and I reverted it. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


:I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here [[WP:COI]]. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dispute_over_Paid_Editing_Tag_on_%22It's_Coming%22_and_Review_of_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Then you didn't look hard enough. "The Promises facility has had some famous patients of late, with both Britney Spears and actress Selma Blair undergoing treatment at the luxurious complex." About the 13th paragraph down. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dispute_over_Paid_Editing_Tag_on_%22It's_Coming%22_and_Review_of_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft]). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Axad12}}, I need to address several concerning points:
:::1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
:::2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
:::3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
:::I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
:::I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
:::[[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
::::2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
::::3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
::::Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Axad12}},
:::::1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
:::::2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
:::::3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
:::::The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
::::::2) When GPTzero ''frequently'' says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
::::::3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{u|Axad12}},
:::::::1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
:::::::2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
:::::::3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::As you wish...
::::::::Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
::::::::1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for [[Katherine Langford]] (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Misguided]). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
::::::::2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that {{tq|requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263784863]. This is, however, wrong on both counts.
::::::::3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Misguided#cite_note-2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=It%27s_Coming_(film)&oldid=1260300095] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sex,_Love,_Misery:_New_New_York&oldid=1260321591]
::::::::4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
::::::::E.g. this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_216#h-Incorrect_robots_meta_tag_on_live_article-20241203211300] .
::::::::this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_15#Help_with_New_Page_Patrol_Review_and_Paid_Editing_Tag_Removal_for_%22It's_Coming%22]
::::::::this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Help_with_Review_for_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft]
::::::::this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2024_December_15#Help_with_New_Page_Patrol_Review_and_Paid_Editing_Tag_Removal_for_%22It's_Coming%22]
::::::::and this thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dispute_over_Paid_Editing_Tag_on_%22It's_Coming%22_and_Review_of_%22The_Misguided%22_Draft]
::::::::5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stan1900&diff=prev&oldid=1260624891]. Also, [[user:Cullen328]] said that the overall pattern is {{tq|highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263288807].
::::::::Similarly (Cullen again): {{tq|In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=prev&oldid=1263791639]
::::::::I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Unwarranted_promotional_and_COI_tags_on_film_articles].
:::::::::Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable [[user:MrOllie|MrOllie]]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} [https://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File:The_Misguided_(2017_film)_poster.jpg&oldid=963541380 Here] is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Very interesting. Thank you. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that {{tpq|User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article}} That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either [[It's Coming (film)]] or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there {{tq|may have been}} an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard.
:::Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Axad12}}, {{u|Cullen328}}, your newest accusations require correction:
::::1. Following connected topics is normal Wikipedia behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
::::2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
::::3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Wikipedia policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
::::4. Using appropriate Wikipedia channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
::::5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
::::6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
::::The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Stan1900}}, the poster licensing matter is in no way a {{tpq|non-issue}}.
:::::''You'' made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. <s>You never provided any evidence that the {{tpq|copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use}}, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language.</s> Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
:::::1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1264017212].
:::::2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
:::::3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
:::::4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Unwarranted_promotional_and_COI_tags_on_film_articles] and here [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:It%27s_Coming_(film)#Promotional_tag]) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
:::::5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
:::::6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{u|Cullen328}}, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Wikipedia. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
== User Shadow600 posting mentions of Esther Lederberg everywhere ==
:Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
:Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Wikipedia stands for. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|DMacks}}, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Cullen328}} {{u|DMacks}}, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
:::1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
:::2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
:::3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Wikipedia.
:::I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Wikipedia. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
:::::This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
::::::If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The {{tl2|sister=c:|Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|MrOllie}} {{u|DMacks}}, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
:::::The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
:::::If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
:::::::Wikipedia defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
:::::::So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Wikipedia's COI policies. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Where are you getting the definition {{tq|1="an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia..."}} from? [[WP:COI]] hasn't said that since [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/662490901/next 15 May 2015]. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::{{u|Schazjmd}} Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. [[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]] ([[User talk:Stan1900|talk]]) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::But where did you get that definition, @[[User:Stan1900|Stan1900]]? If there are pages that aren't in sync with [[WP:COI]] anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stan1900#December_2024_3] following a thread at ANI [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#user_Stan1900_and_the_films_of_Shannon_Alexander]. [[User:Axad12|Axad12]] ([[User talk:Axad12|talk]]) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Andrew Kosove ==
*{{la|Seymour Benzer}}
*{{userlinks|Shadow600}}


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
This editor has been relentless in adding material about [[Esther Lederberg]] (1922-2006) to articles (about 50 edits so far). Though Lederberg appears notable enough to have her own article, mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view. In [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Seymour_Benzer&diff=186071692&oldid=183355164 this edit] [[User:Shadow600]] added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel Prize.
* {{pagelinks|Andrew Kosove}}
* {{userlinks|Alconite}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
[[User:AntiDionysius|AntiDionysius]] has tried to notify the user about [[WP:COI]] and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I [[Special:Diff/1264032146|restored]] to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. [[User:Myrealnamm|<span style="color:#0085BD">My</span><span style="color:#ED7700">real</span><span style="color:#2A7E19">namm</span>]] <big>([[User talk:Myrealnamm|💬Let's talk]]</big> · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Myrealnamm|📜My work]])</small> 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. [[User:AntiDionysius|<span style="color:green">AntiDionysius</span>]] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:AntiDionysius|talk]]</span>) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which [http://www.estherlederberg.com/Censorship.html expresses grievance] about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work. This editor can't be Lederberg herself, who is no longer alive, but could be a relative. The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/08/obituaries/08lederberg.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times obituary for Lederberg] indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for [[User:Shadow600]] asking him to join this discussion. All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::{{tq|I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes}} from [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Kosove&diff=prev&oldid=1263502683] So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred ==
: EdJohnston raises a number of interesting points. I'll respond to them in order.


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
: (1) "Mentions of her are being added in places that aren't justified, in my view."
* {{pagelinks|A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred}}
* {{userlinks|Atsme}}
{{multiple image
| align = right
| total_width = 320
| image1 = 1994ASHA-Article-86.jpeg
| image2 = 1994ASHA-Article-87.jpeg
| image3 = 1994ASHA-Article-88.jpeg
| footer = {{cite journal | journal = The American Saddlebred | publisher=American Saddlebred Horse Association|title= TV Series Featuring Saddlebreds Honored | page=88 | date=January 1994}}
}}
[[User:Atsme]] has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/A_Celebration_of_Horses:_The_American_Saddlebred#tool-authorship] and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.


The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. [[Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814|2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814]] ([[User talk:2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814|talk]]) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
: The Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site contains scans of literally hundreds of photos of friends and professional colleagues of Esther Lederberg. In the process of creating the section of her Wikipedia article that lists just a handful of her colleagues, I checked to see if each one had a Wikipedia article of their own. Where applicable, I linked each name to their Wikipedia page.
:This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

: I concur with [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]]; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
: I saw my action more like a 'cross-referencing' ('posting' a note about them on Esther's page, and then a corresponding note about Esther on their page), than an intrusion. To me, it was just good information architecture.
: I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding [[WP:COI]]. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

: (2) "In this edit, Shadow600 added mention of Esther Lederberg as a 'good friend' of Seymour Benzer, expressing the opinion that Lederberg should have won the Nobel prize."

: What I actually wrote, regarding the Nobel Prize, is that "Esther also did not receive the Nobel Prize, though many people thought she should have received it."

: (3) "In nearly all cases, the newly-added Lederberg material is cited only to a personal self-published site, http://www.estherlederberg.com, which expresses grievance about the lack of sufficient appreciation for Lederberg's work."

: This particular "personal self-published site" is the most authoritative, complete web site about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg, on the internet.

: Esther Lederberg died only 14 months ago (11/11/2006). This web site is being constructed in parallel with the archive of her extensive work. Neither is yet complete. Thus -- at least for the time being -- the web site serves not only as a memorial to Esther Lederberg, but as an inventory and map of the actual information (papers, photographs, letters, awards) that may be found in the archive.

: It is claimed on Esther Lederberg's memorial web site that every item represented on the site is either an analog to a real, physical item in Esther Lederberg's archive, or a representation of a printed paper already in the public domain.

: There is no other web site that provides the detailed information found in Esther Lederberg's archive. Thus, this 'personal self-published site' is the most complete site currently in existence.

: If there are any questions about the veracity of any of the materials on www.estherlederberg.com, I recommend you contact the webmaster for that site, Matthew Simon. You should be prepared to show evidence for your charges. (Wikipedia should not invite a publicly-documented charge of censorship.)

: (4) "The web page is copyrighted by someone named Matthew Simon. A New York Times obituary for Lederberg indicates that Matthew Simon was her husband. I'm leaving a message for User:Shadow600 asking him to join this discussion."

: I would prefer to maintain my privacy, if you don't mind. But I can assure you that I am NOT Matthew Simon. I am not a relative of his or Esther's. In fact, I'm not even a "him".

: (5) "All the new material that is not referenced to a reliable source may have to go."

: I agree. Any new material that is not referenced to a reliable source SHOULD be excised. However, I can't think of a more reliable source of information about Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg than her own archive. Can you?

: Shadow600 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shadow600|contribs]]) 08:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: Are you affiliated with that website? [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 09:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::: No, I am not affiliated with that web site (http://www.estherlederberg.com). [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]]) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

: I have examined the article and--here--have evaluated to some extent based on my own academic knowledge of the subject. the article exemplifies represents some of the difficulty with COI--whether from a friend, colleague , or relative. This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her. With respect to sourcing, the rule is straightforward: we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in ''third-party'' published sources. A good deal of the article is devoted to a defense of her importance, not a presentation of it, and this is not the appropriate tone; neither is a long discussion of the difficulties of women in science, especially those with more famous spouses. It's a very real topic, and what is said is in my opinion correct, but not an appropriate part of the article. I have done some editing, and will be doing some more. I'll be glad to discuss the details on the article talk page. I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral. I recommend to shadow a careful examination of WP:COI, and WP:RS. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 09:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

:: Okay, three questions:

:: 1. You say "This is supposed to be an article about her, not a tribute to her."

:: What portion of the article are you calling a tribute, and why? And a 'tribute' as opposed to WHAT? Are you saying this is not truly factual information?

:: 2. You say "we do not use archival material, we use self-originated material only for uncontroversial biographical details, and we prefer sources in 'third-party' published sources."

:: I didn't originate any of the material I cite. It was all originated independently by others -- in many cases, before I was even born.

:: Why is http://www.estherlederberg.com not considered to be a 'third-party' source? All the artifacts it displays (including a number of letters written by third parties) were created by others, and are all verifiable in physical fact. (They are all documented parts of Esther M. Zimmer Lederberg's Stanford archive, duly checked in and catalogued by a Stanford employee.)

:: Can you give me an example of a good, relevant 'third-party' source on Esther Lederberg, that would serve in place of all the 'self-originated' material you say I cite? Other than the third-party sites I already mention, that is. (To the best of my knowledge, all the journal articles I cite are long since in the public domain, as is the Brandeis University ''scientific.legacies'' site.)

:: 3. You say "I also agree with EdJ's removal of the paragraph from the article on Benzer. It is really peripheral."

:: If you do that you're denuding the Benzer page of most of its content.

:: What about that editor's statement that Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize? I see no third-party attribution there, and yet that statement still stands. Isn't that a defense of Benzer, or a tribute? Why is that okay? Are there different criteria for Seymour Benzer than there are for Esther Lederberg? And if so, why?

:: (By the way, I'm not disputing that Seymour Benzer should have won the Nobel Prize.)

:: [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]]) 18:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::: This isn't the place to debate content; use the article talk page for that. This is to determine a potential [[WP:COI|Conflict of interest]].
::: You say you have no connection to http://www.estherlederberg.com. Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest, e.g. family member, protégé, colleague, employee of any of the above? I notice that still hasn't been addressed. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 06:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: It wasn't addressed because it wasn't asked. (In the real world I am, among other things, a technical writer. Hence, VERY literal. It drives me crazy when computer manuals advise users to "HIT Return.")

:::: But since you ask:

:::: I am not a member of Esther Lederberg's family, a protege of Esther Lederberg, a colleague of Esther Lederberg, or a former employee of Esther Lederberg.

:::: I am not a member of Matthew Simon's family, a protege of Matthew Simon, a colleague of Matthew Simon, or an employee of Matthew Simon. (Actually, I believe the guy is retired.)

:::: I'm currently engaged in a serious investigation of Wikipedia Guidelines. I don't expect to create or be involved in further trouble on this score.

:::: Henceforth, I'll take content issues to the article talk page.

:::: [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]]) 16:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::: I notice that you responded to the examples, but left the core question unanswered. To reiterate: Is there ANY connection that would present a conflict of interest? [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::: No, there is not. [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]]) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

: [[User:Shadow600]] has denied some of the obvious real-life connections that are treated at this noticeboard. However this user is still busy adding the self-published personal site http://www.estherlederberg.com as a reference for factual claims to a variety of different articles. This is *not* a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for any factual claims. I'm requesting a consensus of the editors here that this site be removed from all the articles Shadow600 has added it to.

: Another issue that may of wider concern to administrators is that [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] is making troubling changes to the article on [[Joshua Lederberg]], the biologist who shared the 1958 Nobel prize with Edward Tatum and George Beadle. Joshua is the ex-husband of Esther Lederberg, and since he is still alive our rules about [[Wikipedia:Biography of living persons]] apply to any changes to his article. I draw [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Joshua_Lederberg&diff=185504855&oldid=179814846 this edit] to your attention. Here is a section from it: <blockquote>References to Joshua Lederberg's accomplishments (including those claimed by the National Library of Medicine and others) must be examined with great care. Citations are often missing. When references are provided, names of other participating researchers are explicitly excluded. When photographs announcing discoveries are provided, they are from entirely different events. Such photographs exclude other researchers who either made the discoveries or were co-discoverers with Joshua Lederberg.</blockquote>How do people feel about [[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] adding attacks on the conduct of [[Joshua Lederberg]] to that man's article? The word 'dishonesty' is used in the title of the self-published [http://www.estherlederberg.com/Dishonesty.html link] that has been added as a reference. Before any talk of blocks is introduced, I guess it should be observed that reverts of defamatory material don't count toward 3RR. I'll wait to give a chance for response from others before I do any edits of this article myself. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 23:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

''Shadow600 replies for what she hopes is the last time:''

I agree that I got carried away with changes to Joshua Lederberg's page. I have not reversed anything you or other editors have deleted from that page since that time, because I see that I overstepped.

So really, I think the remaining energy on those changes, all these days later, is quite misplaced.

I read your "self-published" jibe as a commentary on the 'ransom note' quality of much of the Esther Lederberg Memorial Web Site, and I understand it. It's a pity that the site looks so ANGRY. Still: what does one do, when sites by grieving spouses, have scans of real, honest-to-god artifacts, that aren't available online anywhere else?

No, don't answer that. This has really gone on far too long already.

[[User:Shadow600|Shadow600]] ([[User talk:Shadow600|talk]]) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== Bikerfox ==

{{resolved|Article was deleted at AfD. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC) }}

*{{article|Bikerfox}}
*{{userlinks|Bikerfox}}

A self-styled [[internet celebrity]], originally editing as [[Special:Contributions/Bikerfox|Bikerfox]], recently through IP [[Special:Contributions/68.12.57.246|68.12.57.246]]. Contentiously engages in revert-warring over [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bikerfox&diff=186620321&oldid=186615203 absurd claims], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bikerfox&diff=prev&oldid=186678881 self-promotion], and resorts to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ACounterFX&diff=186621542&oldid=184514825 vandalism] when opposed. Similar behaviour [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Frontflip&diff=186681146&oldid=186648518 exhibited] on {{article|Frontflip}}. [[User:CounterFX|CounterFX]] ([[User talk:CounterFX|talk]]) 23:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Per etiquette, I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A68.12.57.246&diff=186691393&oldid=186631839 informed] the said editor of this report, and also mentioned it on the [[Talk:Bikerfox#Conflict of interest|Bikerfox talk page]] in case past editors would be interested in participating. [[User:CounterFX|CounterFX]] ([[User talk:CounterFX|talk]]) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bikerfox (2nd nomination)]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

== [[Freddy Moore]] ==

* user {{userlinks|Eroomgf}}
* user {{userlinks|Fgmoore}}
* article {{article|Freddy Moore}} - I've described the incident [[Talk:Freddy_Moore#Possible_Conflict_of_Interest|here]]. I'd like an administrators (or other editors) comments. Please, if you could, once you have commented please leave a message on my talk page stating so, as I will most likely forget about this otherwise. Thanks! [[User:Save-Me-Oprah|<font color="00AACC">Save-Me-Oprah</font>]]<sup><font color="3388AA">[[User talk:Save-Me-Oprah|(talk)]]</font></sup> 06:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
::Though you were right to mention this at COIN, the further discussion which has occurred over at [[Talk:Freddy Moore#Possible Conflict of Interest]] indicates this editor is quite unlikely to be the singer himself. The article is not badly written and nobody (it seems) has been reverting this person's edits, which seem collaborative. The singer may not really deserve this much ink, but if so, it's up to some industrious person to rewrite the article. I suggest that we close this report and remove the {{tl|COI}} tag from the article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm not convinced that the IP creator of the article and the named account are actually two different people. Looking at the IP contribution history[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.169.213.73] shows that the IP was editing both Demi and Freddy Moore's articles on 9 May 2006 until 22:54. {{userlinks|Fgmoore}} was created just 6 minutes after that, and immediately started uploading pics for the Moore article. Even assuming the best, there is the fact that the majority of edits by Fgmoore (and Eroomgf) have been in relation to the various bands, people and albums that Freddy Moore has been involved with; [[Skogie (band)‎]], [[The Kats‎]], [[Boy (1980s band)‎]], [[Dennis Peterson‎]], [[Skogie and the Flaming Pachucos‎]], [[The Nu Kats‎]]... well, you get the idea. I think there's a strong case for COI, if not on this article, then on many others. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 08:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::::If you think there's a real COI, then probably we should just rewrite the article to remove the excessive material. I had assumed that all this stuff was added by a fan. Almost nothing in the article has citations to online-accessible sources, so we would probably need to shorten it drastically. Nothing prevents [[User:Fgmoore|Fgmoore]] from coming back with reliable sources, of course. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Based on the patterns, I'd call it likely. Given the sheer number, I'm not sure how to proceed with the follow-up. There's probably better than a dozen more than the ones I listed, included more bands, albums, songs and people. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Atma Singh ==

* {{article|Atma Singh}} - article created by [[User:AtSiKa| AtSiKa]] -- apparently an acronym of the subject. Majority of edits from anonymous users, who have only edited this article; or by [[User:Askangconsultancyltd |Askangconsultancyltd]], which is apparently a company whose chairman and MD is the subject of this article. Much of the text, and all of the images, come from [http://askangconsultancy.co.uk/default.aspx the subject's own web site]. The subject may be notable; but the current article reads like a vanity article. [[User:RolandR|RolandR]] ([[User talk:RolandR|talk]]) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:Article is listed for deletion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma Singh]]. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 04:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== Frank Howson autobiography? ==

* {{La|Frank Howson}}
* {{Userlinks|MichaelBergman}}

I suspect that [[User:MichaelBergman]] is in fact [[Frank Howson]], the user is the creator and a major contributor to the Howson article. I posted a note at [[WP:BLPN]] about a week ago. The following interchange has occurred on my talk page (I have cut and pasted it):

=== BLPN ===

Hello. It's been so long since you placed your note at [[WP:BLPN]] about [[:Frank Howson]], that I thought I'd duplicate my reply here. :) I'll be watching your talk page if you'd like to discuss it with me further.
:I have tagged the article with {{tl|COI2}} and left template {{tl|Uw-coi}} at the talk page of the editor. I am unfamiliar with the subject, but as a regular contributor trust that you will be keeping an eye on it. :) If you feel the problem persists, you may have better luck addressing it at [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]] where volunteers are more accustomed to dealing specifically with this issue. I know it recommends at the top bringing BLP issues here, but I do see other autobiographies addressed on that page. I suspect (though I'm not sure) that they mean a COI where an editor is deliberately defaming the subject of the article rather than promoting him. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

::Thank you for your kind response, my concerns relate to both self-promotion within the [[:Frank Howson]] article but also the editor's contributions to linked articles. To my eye they tend to be non-NPOV and poorly referenced & I have corrected some that I felt were too extreme: other editors have done likewise. Until recently, I was unaware that the editor was almost certainly the ''subject'' of this article and thus had particular personal biases for or against living individuals in other articles. With this hindsight, more of his contributions are possible non-NPOV statements and they still remain, both here and elsewhere. Since I have also been a contributor to many of the same articles I felt that I should not delete nor modify his contributions due to possible bias.

::I suggest looking at the article's Page History starting with 14:30, 9 August 2007 version, just before I started editing the article: it was due to be deleted! I put in a lot of effort to wikify this article in good faith perceiving the content to be notable but poorly formatted. Check the article's version on 00:21, 21 September 2007 after most of my changes had been implemented. I did contribute a few more times attempting to obtain a photo of Mr. Howson for the infobox but no usable image was available however consider: Image:Frank Howson.jpg uploaded by the editor and which I used for the article but was subsequently deleted. I pointed out on the editor's talk page (on 11:41, 25 September 2007, before due date of deletion had occurred) that it was a good image but that it was the ''same'' as that on Mr. Howson's MySpace page: I believed it had been taken off the page without permission but the editor may have been able to provide evidence of such permission.

::Now, however, I suspect Howson of writing almost all of the content of the article - I concede that he has a phenomenal memory (or has kept very good notes): I have been able to verify / edit substantial portions of his account but some remains murky and likely non-NPOV. I notice from the article that Howson has researched and is promoting a "tell all" book, he has produced/directed new film/stage projects since returning to Australia and is looking to start more projects: thus portions of this article becomes highly suspect as self-promotional.

::IMO, other articles that require checking for possible non-NPOV statements made by this editor (or by non-identified ISPs that ''may'' be same person) include: [[Terry Reid]] (self-promotion?); [[John Paul Young]] negative non-NPOV & since deleted (but may return in future); [[Kerry Armstrong]] negative non-NPOV is still in article; [[Les Darcy]] (self-promotion? & negative non-NPOV to Heath Ledger); [[Stan Rofe]] (self-promotion?); [[Magical Frank]] (self-promotion? & merge to existing [[Frank Howson]] as being same person!) similar {{tl|COI2}} and {{tl|COI2}} may be needed here too; and [[Guy Pearce]] (self-promotion? some still remains: most of the original non-NPOV (negative comments about Pearce) entries have be deleted by other editors).

::Due to my own involvement, I don't believe I have sufficient neutrality to undertake the edits / changes that I perceive to be required. Hence, I have asked for a suitable administrator to check entries by this editor (& possible non-identified ISP edits) for non-NPOV content.[[User:Shaidar cuebiyar|Shaidar cuebiyar]] ([[User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar#top|talk]]) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::It sounds very much as though you might want to file this at [[WP:COIN]], then. I would imagine that the editors there are used to dealing with such situations and may be able to help straighten it out. Good luck with it! --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 03:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

::::I hope that suitable action can be undertaken.[[User:Shaidar cuebiyar|Shaidar cuebiyar]] ([[User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar|talk]]) 03:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:::::I'm going through the edits he's made to articles beyond his biography. It looks to me like he's trying to do nothing more than drop his name in as many articles as possible, within unreferenced material that apparently has no encyclopedic value. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On this subject, does anyone think [[Magical Frank]] has any encyclopedic value? If the content is a fair presentation, then it's obviously notable, although Bergman/Howson clearly wrote this as another piece of pure vanity. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 03:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

:I certainly agree that [[Magical Frank]] should be redirected, however, is it possible to redirect it to the relevant sub-section of [[Frank Howson]] called Early years?

I would like to thank [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] (& others involved) for the time-consuming task of tracking down [[User:MichaelBergman]]'s contributions to other articles and re-editing where appropriate: I happy with the ones I've read. IMO, [[Guy Pearce]] still needs to have the Howson component toned down: Pearce was already a notable TV actor (in Australia) and, although Howson assisted in Pearce's transition to film acting / international recognition, the article's sentences by Howson/Bergman read like it was a one person effort.[[User:Shaidar cuebiyar|Shaidar cuebiyar]] ([[User talk:Shaidar cuebiyar|talk]]) 02:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

== Wiley Protocol COI dispute (Nraden and DebV) ==

{{resolved|The issue has quiesced. Those concerned are obeying the COI guideline. There have been no further personal attacks. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC) }}

{{article|Wiley Protocol}} - Book written by [[T. S. Wiley]]. Her husband, [[User:Nraden]], has been involved in a COI dispute with [[User:Debv]] for quite some time, and issues resulting from this dispute have spilled over onto [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette alerts]], [[User talk:Cheeser1]], [[User talk:Nraden]], and [[User talk:KieferSkunk|my talk page]]. Nraden says that Debv is an outspoken critic of the Wiley Protocol, that she runs "hate sites" off-wiki and pushes her POV, and essentially blocks progress toward constructive edits. I have not seen much of Debv's side of this, but I've officially told Nraden by way of my talk page that I no longer want to be involved in the matter.

The latest point of contention is that Cheeser1 added a COI tag to the top of the [[Wiley Protocol]] article and a COI-user template to [[Talk:Wiley Protocol]] that calls out Nraden as a COI editor. Nraden believes that DebV should also be called out as a COI in this manner, but his attempt to add that tag was reverted. My personal take on this is that Nraden, being Wiley's husband, is clearly in COI - nobody seems to dispute that. I also believe that if Debv is as outspoken a critic as Nraden says she is, she would also be in COI, or at least should be watched for violations of [[WP:NPOV]]. I'm not in a good position to judge this conflict, so that's why I'm bringing it up here. &mdash; '''[[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]]''' ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) &mdash; 01:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Debv is ACTIVELY involved in an attempt to stop the Wiley Protocol. This goes beyond her website, wileywatch.org, she contacts media outlets and internet sites wherever Wiley appears. This is clearly COI. She has much more skin in the game than just a negative opinion. We agreed almost a year ago to not edit the article, agreeing that we were both COI. It has worked well, with the help of [[User:WLU|WLU]], but Cheeser1 is meddling because I filed a WQA against him. I ask that you either remove my COI template, or reinsert the one Cheeser1 removed for Debv. [[User:Nraden|Neil Raden]] ([[User talk:Nraden|talk]]) 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

:For context:
:* [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Neil Raden]]: Original WQA filed against Neil Raden by Debv, accusing him of personal attacks and veiled threats against her.
:* [[User talk:Nraden#Wikiquette Alert]]: Extensive discussion in here, including by Cheeser1 (who handled the above WQA).
:* [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Cheeser1 (2)]]: WQA filed against Cheeser1 by Neil Raden, accusing him of false accusations and other incivility. I attempted to help out in this one by pointing out to Cheeser1 how some of what he had said in the prior discussion may have been offensive. I also told Nraden that by chastising Cheeser1, I was *not* condoning Neil's actions or taking sides in the matter.
:** [[User talk:Cheeser1#Re the most recent WQA against you|Cheeser1 discussion]]
:** [[User talk:Cheeser1#Witch hunt|"Witch hunt" discussion in Cheeser1's talk page]]
:** [[User talk:Cheeser1#Wiley Protocol COI|Conversation between Cheeser1 and Nraden]] - Cheeser1 tells Nraden to stop "trolling" in his talk page.
:** [[User talk:KieferSkunk#Cheeser1|Discussion in my talk page]], partially copied in [[User talk:Nraden#Cheeser1]]

:What this boils down to is a long-standing feud between Nraden and Debv, which has obviously spilled over onto Wikipedia in the form of edit warring on the Wiley Protocol article, and is further spilling into back-and-forth fighting that's involving [[WP:WQA]] and other noticeboards. At this point, it's difficult for me to tell which of the ANs this issue really belongs in, since quite a few policies have been breached at this point, and it's caused (in my opinion) a lot of undue stress on several editors who have tried to help, myself included. &mdash; '''[[User:KieferSkunk|KieferSkunk]]''' ([[User talk:KieferSkunk|talk]]) &mdash; 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::I see no reason to remove the tag, even though I'm not one for the use of that tag. Seems like Nraden/DebV dispute needs to be escalated to ANI, or at least Nraden's persistent, tendentious behavior should be. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::: Then you should conclude that a COI template for DebV should be added too. She said, in her WQA complaint, "Both of us are obviously COI." Why don't you ask yourself why only one of us was singled out? Also, "tendentioius" is the same word Cheeser1 used just a few minutes ago. Is this a coincidence? [[User:Nraden|Neil Raden]] ([[User talk:Nraden|talk]]) 02:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::I'm using "tendentious" in reference to [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]]. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I thought I was "obviously" COI but looking [[WP:COI]] over again (it's been a while), it's not entirely clear to me whether I qualify. I suppose the "Campaigning" example would be the closest match. But it really doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I'm happy to limit myself to the talk pages of these two articles and let others decide whether any of what I bring to the table merits incorporation.
:::I'm not involved in the dispute over COI tags and don't wish to be. To me, the only outstanding issue between Neil Raden and me (here on Wikipedia) is the persistent personal attacks, and I'm pretty well resolved at this point not to respond to them. If they continue, I'll take the issue to the next level. [[User:Debv|Debv]] ([[User talk:Debv|talk]]) 03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::::Limiting yourself to the talk pages, not responding to the personal attacks and using [[WP:WQA|proper "no personal attacks" channels]] are ''very'' good decisions. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::'''Close?''' On 28 January, after appropriate discussions [[User:Cheeser1|Cheeser1]] removed the {{tl|COI2}} tag from the article. I notice that [[User:Nraden|Nraden]] and [[User:WLU|WLU]] have been working on a revised version of the article in a calm manner. Both Nraden and Debv are continuing to observe the COI rules by staying off the article itself. The submitter of the complaint, KieferSkunk, is not inclined to do anything more with the issue. Since the previous unpleasantness seems to be dying down, is it time to close this? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh: Editorial process being dictated by followers ==

* {{article|Osho}} - the editing and decision making process, particularly the inclusion of relevant factual information by others (generally from academic sources or news items)is being manipulated and controlled by two individuals; both of whom have had, or still have, affiliations with Osho International Foundation. It can be easily verified that said individuals are "Swamis" by doing relevant searches on the internet. They are intentionally frustrating the efforts of those who attempt to address serious [[NPOV]] issues that exist in this article [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 15:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
**Which accounts are involved? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
::One would assume
::*{{user|Jalal}}, whose [[User:Jalal|user page]] reports past association with the movement and dissatisfaction with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing on this subject.
::*{{user|Jayen466}}, who [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] claims is a swami in the Bagwash's movement. Evidence? [[Special:Contributions/86.147.151.211|86.147.151.211]] ([[User talk:86.147.151.211|talk]]) 01:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:*I suspect Semitransgenic is referring to me. It is a response to some reverts that I made to his previous edits. Semitransgenic has a deep dislike of cults and Osho (see edit history of subject), for instance, referring to him as 'Bagwash' above. This negative viewpoint skews the narrative of the article. Plus, as above, Semitrangenic makes some of his edits from an IP in order to bolster his earlier edits.<br> I've always been open about my involvement and knowledge of Osho and the Osho movement (see my user page), that was 20 years ago and I'm quite capable of writing from a neutral point of view. [[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:*This is about edit quality. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&diff=next&oldid=185997551 reverted] the addition of one major chunk of text added by Semi (as did subsequently Jalal). The reason was that the text made a number of statements, purporting to be taken from reliable sources, which upon checking these sources were found to have been either made up or come from somewhere else altogether. For example, this applies to everything sourced to ''Carter: Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram, p. 63-64'' in the edit reverted above. Pages 63 to 64 of Carter are available in [http://books.google.com/books?id=d1SLj0HbX-MC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=%22normative+limits+alienating+host+cultures%22&source=web&ots=2av9MExOLz&sig=3XNWxt15I-NqWtT6onz7k_1B7I0 Google Books]. I copied Semi's text out and placed it on the discussion page, for further discussion. -- <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 12:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

::Perhaps Semitransgenic could provide some diffs to show how he thinks these editors have acted improperly. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''Bagwash? Actually, I didn't write that. '''Nor did I ever make up sources, pages numbers wrong, yes, the sources were all valid. Also, the accusation that I intentionally make edits from a different IP is false, I have on a number of occasions simply forgotten to log on (from as many as four different machines at my disposal), on other occasions I have been logged in but for some reason wiki had logged me out by the time I had submitted my edit.Check the history, if i was trying to do that why would I suddenly log in directly after an IP edit and use exactly the same writing/language style, not to mention that the IP logs and my username would share the same edit topics over time. If I wanted to "bolster" edits, I would employ a different technique.

:As for evidence, is was provided, but user Will_Beback removed it. Jayen then made it clear that he had been a member of Osho's commune - see discussion - and he has recently used the title Swami; and has elsewhere proclaimed his love for Osho.

:Jalal, after consistently denying the inclusion of relevant material (see below) states '''"we have a page for the Osho movement" - who's "we"?'''

:'''In the section entitled Legacy I included the following:'''

:''Recently, the resorts management instigated a so-called "de-Oshoisation" of the commune. Hundreds of pictures of Osho, which earlier greeted visitors, were removed from the premises. A senior member of the management team has openly declared, in a New York Times interview, that Osho’s pictures were removed because new visitors to the resort found them off putting. In response to this move, former spokesperson for Osho, Chaitanya Keerti, stated that the removal of Osho’s pictures was part of a deliberate plan to emphasise the "resort" aspect of the facility and downplay the commune’s association with Osho.Other allegations regarding the "unpalatable" rampant commercialisation of the Ashram have been made and Keerti has said: "Osho wanted the Commune to be a resting place for the spiritual seeker. Now it is called the Zen Resorts Pvt Ltd and anyone who can pay Rs 1,900 a night can stay there."; the suggestion being that some believe Osho's spiritual legacy may be under threat.''

:The above paragraph was entered immediately after mention of the Osho International Foundation Resort and serves to elaborate on its status, in the context of it being an aspect of "Osho's Legacy". It is sourced from two The Times Of India stories, one of which is entitled "Osho's spiritual legacy under threat". Jalal reverted this a number of times and then stated "we" have a page for the Osho movement, as he feels it belongs there and is not fitting for Osho's biography. I fail to see why the above paragraph does not relate directly to the Legacy section.

:I would go further, by saying that since I've started pushing the NPOV policy on this article Jalal and Jayen have '''"tag teamed"''' on edits to try and limit the inclusion of what they see as "negative" material.

:I also invite doubters to compare the current page with the page that Jayen submitted for peer review (which was a hagiographic fan page essentially). There is a marked difference in terms of a balance of information but the tone is still incorrect for an encyclopedic article. The inclusion of relevant material that Jayen has intentionally avoided using is remarkable (he had all the information, please see the discussion history for evidence of this, he just refused to use it, which I allege was because of his affiliations). Now that the matter is being pressed he is changing his tack, one only needs to look at the edit history to see this.
:However, he still nit picks everything, and is very controlling of edits - with wording always written to down play any "negative" connotations. Damage limitation is clearly at work here.

:Finally, I fail to see how my edit history demonstrates a deep dislike of cults, that is a moot point. I dislike the way religious groups present falsehoods as absolute truth and then intentionally hinder objective inquiry, hence the NPOV issue I raised for the Osho article. '''Wikipedia is not the place for hagiography, that is my position'''. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''Also, in relation to the material Jayen refered to''', the chronology was inaccurate in the edits I made, this has to do with my lack of insight in this area but the material presented was correctly sourced. One section, to highlight Jayens selectivity, was taken from a book (Urban) that he had also used. This is the material: ''By this time the community had also come under serious investigation by the U.S government, specifically around the issue of the interlock of the Rajneesh Church and the city of Rajneeshpuram, and it's claim to tax-exempt status (in 1986, the state attorney general finally decided that Rajneeshpuram violated the church state separation clause of the Constitution). Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson.[24]''. This is taken verbatim from Urban, who references Carter; just as Jayen had used a section, verbatim, from Urban. Jayen then inferred that Osho was never under investigation for criminal activities at Rajneshpuram, but this is a patently false assertion.

:'''Another sentence:''' ''The group very soon ran into difficulty with the local community regarding land use laws and over time became increasingly antagonistic towards it's American neighbors'' supported by Latkin, also removed.

:'''Another one:''' ''They clashed first with the local residents of Antelopes peaceful retirement community, whom they attempted to displace and push out using terrorist tactics. These began initially with activities such as dumping animal parts on the lawns of local officials and then escalated, in an attempt to effect the outcome of county elections,[24] to a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using (salmonella)[25]; an incident that resulted in the poisoning of seven hundred and fifty individuals and which is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans [26]'' supported by Carter.

:'''I was then accused of inserting "propaganda" by Jalal'''. I did not conduct the above studies, I did not write the reports, however, this information comes from authoritative sources, that is beyond dispute.

:'''Another example, this paragraph went from:''' ''In mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). After a brief spell in Montclair, New Jersey,[21] his followers bought (for US$6 million) a 64,000-acre (260 km²) ranch in Wasco County, Oregon, previously known as "The Big Muddy Ranch", where they settled for the next four years and legally incorporated a city named Rajneeshpuram.
''
:'''to:''' ''On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[25] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (he suffered from asthma, diabetes and severe back problems). Though ill health is cited by his followers as the reason for Osho's immigration, others attribute the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[26]
''

:'''to:''' ''By 1981, Osho's Ashram hosted 30,000 visitors per year.[32] On 10 April 1981, having discoursed daily for nearly 15 years, Osho entered a three-and-a-half-year period of self-imposed public silence,[28] and satsangs (silent sitting and music, with some readings from spiritual works such as Khalil Gibran's The Prophet) took the place of his discourses. Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (apart from his other health issues, he now suffered from a persistent and very painful back problem).[33] The move to America seems to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Osho's secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, who wished to ensure the availability of medical facilities in the event of any further deterioration in Osho's health.[34][33] Others attributed the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[35] There is, however, ample evidence that Osho had not intended to reside permanently in the United States.''[36]

:'''So where is the ample evidence?''' A page number in Fox? (which, until pushed, was Jayen's primary source, other than Osho books, for the entire article)

:'''Yet we have in Urban, and elsewhere, the following''' ''I am the Messiah America has been waiting for. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, upon his first arrival in the United States''
:'''There's more, I enter this:''' ''In March 1984 Rajneesh prophesied the death of two thirds of humanity from AIDS, the "spiritual disease." As a result, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[37][38] Osho at this time held that an apocalyptic future was inevitable declaring that "...all the causes for a third world war have already happened.There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable-such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy-to change the direction in which humanity is heading...the third world war...will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[39]Osho maintained that "Rajneeshism" was in essence a Noah's Ark of consciousness thus positioning himself as the savior of those who chose to follow his path[40]''

:'''then becomes:''' ''In October 1982, an article in the Rajneesh Foundation International Newsletter announced that Osho had said an apocalyptic future was now inevitable, declaring that "... all the causes for a third world war have already happened. There is therefore only a very remote possibility that the conflict itself will not take place. It would take something totally unpredictable – such as, for example, contact with an intelligent life form from another Galaxy – to change the direction in which humanity is heading ... the third world war ... will begin sometime between 1993 and 1999."[41]''

:''In 1983, Sheela announced that Osho had predicted the death of two-thirds of humanity from AIDS.[42][43] As a precaution, sannyasins were required to wear rubber gloves and condoms while making love and to refrain from kissing.[44][45] This was widely seen as an extreme overreaction, as AIDS was not considered a heterosexual disease at the time and the use of condoms was not yet widely recommended for AIDS prevention.[43]''

:''A book entitled "Rajneeshism" was published by Sheela in 1984, claiming that Rajneeshpuram was in essence a "Noah's Ark of consciousness," a "still centre in the midst of the cyclone" – in short, a safe haven for those who chose to follow Osho's path.[43]''

:'''Yet in Urban we have this:''' ''Bhagwan prophesied that by the end of the 20th century man would either die in a third world war or man will take . . . a critical quantum leap . . . and become a new man . . . 1993 would be the beginning of World War Three . . . this would destroy civilization, except a few Rajneesh communes which would give a start to the new world.''

:Above we see an example that is prevalent amongst Rajneesh followers who write about their guru, Sheela is widely used as a scapegoat,when she says something it is "a claim", so that it casts doubt in the mind of the reader as to whether or not the Bhagwan actually said such a thing. I am highlighting this because it has become apparent to me from reading into this subject that there are a number of rifts in this movement, they are actually divided on a number of issues, yet they all claim allegiance to Bhagwans "vision". Anyone observing this saga from the outside can see that there are many contradictions, many falsehoods, and many doubts as to what did or did not happen, what was or was not said. '''Jayen and Jalal have a deep emotional connection to their guru so are overtly defensive when it comes to edits they see as being too "negative".'''

:I can provide many more examples. And there will be many more inclusions of material that they perceive as being "negative".Again, I ask anyone who doubts that there is a religiously biased agenda at play to simply look at the article Jayen sought to have passed for peer review and compare it with what we have now. The result is an example of NPOV enforcement but there are still issues to be resolved. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::Just a quick correction regarding the review history of this article. Wikipedia Bureaucrat [[User:Nichalp]] reviewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&oldid=134065622 this] version of the article in May of last year; his comments are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osho/Comments here]. The result was a B-class assessment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Osho The recent peer review] was initiated by [[User:TheRingess]], who described the article as a "solid B-class article". Regarding bias -- while some of your edits have added value, and introduced some worthwhile sources, others struck me as examples of [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]] that took considerable liberties with sources. One example was given above, where three times you indicated a source that had absolutely no relation to what you were inserting. Another is [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&diff=186164837&oldid=186125322 here]. The source referred to is [http://publishingtrends.com/copy/01/0105/0105osho.htm this]. This clearly attributes the statement you inserted (''the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism'') to [[Tom Robbins]] (not a follower of Osho), whereas your edit claims it was "The justification provided for such extravagance". The [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&diff=next&oldid=186172211 next edit] is more of the same [[WP:OR]] – it is simply not what the source states. -- <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:OK

:'''A)''' Are disputing that Rajneesh achieved notoriety for the number of Rolls he had?

:'''B)''' would that be the same Tom Robbins who is described in the very same article as '''"an outspoken supporter who once called Osho's fleet of Rolls-Royces ''the funniest joke ever played on our pathological consumerism'' and deemed Osho ''the greatest spiritual teacher of the 20th century''?''' Also we see Tom Robbins [http://video.aol.com/video-detail/osho-tom-robbins-about-the-indian-mystic-osho/3649626030 here] in an Osho International Foundation video talking about Rajneesh.

:'''C)''' your original [http://www.sannyas.net/friends/write/subhuti.htm link] for the Rolls item states '''"Americans became unbelievably incensed over the brilliant satire on their cultural values"'''. Also, we have, on page 380 of "Osho Rajneesh and His Disciples: Some Western Perceptions", in a paper by Susan Palmer, entitled "Charisma and Abdication: A Study of the leadership of Bhagwan Shree Rajnessh" this: '''"The Rolls Royce collection was a wise investment of the commune's money but explained to a skeptical public as "a sign of the great love between master and disciple," or, alternatively, as a "joke": Bhagwan is like a child who delights in his toys. He has 92 Rolls Royces, the most expensive car in the world, and yet he . . .can only drive one'''

:'''D)''' We have over on the peer review discussion a dissenter (Curt Wilhelm VonSavage)who points out the following:
*This article is not neutral in the slightest. It reads like a blatant [[Puff_piece#Puff_piece|puff-piece]]/[[Hagiography|hagiography]]/[[Whitewash (censorship)|whitewash]]. Some specific points:
#It seems as if distasteful information about "Osho" is pushed down into a "Controversy and criticism", whereas this info would be better off incorporated chronologically into the article itself, and expanded upon, instead of briefly mentioned in passing in couple lines.
#The immigration violations are covered in one sentence. This was a major United States Federal Government investigation. This needs to be elaborated upon, instead of just skimmed over as if this was a minor incident. See [http://www.ice.gov/about/leadership/ot_bio/joe_greene.htm], and [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju76810.000/hju76810_0.HTM], [http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_crm_502.html] for some more info that is barely covered in the article at all.
#Several legal cases and cases from [[United States district court|United States Federal courts]] are not covered at all. These should at the very least be mentioned and summarized within the article. To name a few notable ones:
#:*'''''United States of America v. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, et al.'''''
#:*'''''Rajneesh Friends International v. United States'''''
#:*'''''Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International'''''
#:*'''''State of Oregon v. City of Rajneeshpuram''''' -- This one was a landmark case involving a discussion of a potential violation of the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]].
#In addition to the bioterrorism attack, the first in United States history, which is only covered in ''eight words of the entire article'', the other incidents listed briefly, (serious and criminal misconduct by the commune's management (including conspiracy to murder public officials, wiretapping within the commune, the attempted murder of Osho's personal physician), conspiracy to murder a [[United States attorney]] is not even mentioned or discussed ''at all''.
#In summation, coverage of the above extremely controversial issues is glossed over, and barely discussed. These sections of the article are grossly in need of expansion, unless editors wish for the article to read like a praising [[hagiography]] piece which lauds over its subject and skims over unimportant details like conspiracy to murder federal officials, and bioterrorism, all of which are ''heavily'' covered and available in both government sources, books, media/news, and reputable websites.

[[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::(After editing conflict) I have already mentioned elsewhere that Osho was not accused of any of the crimes Cirt refers to. The crimes in question were committed by Sheela and her cronies in 1984, and remained undetected until a year later, when Osho convened a press conference (16 Sept. 1985), came forward with evidence and asked the U.S. authorities to investigate. There is no doubt that had he not done so, these crimes would not have come to light. The salmonella incident e.g. had been attributed, by the official investigators, to food handlers' lack of hygiene. See [[1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack]]. -- <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Re Urban: This was discussed on the [[Talk:Osho]] page. Semitransgenic [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&diff=185922716&oldid=185899812 reverted] the insertion of this sentence with the edit comment ''revert: not a source quote. strongly biased POV''. I then [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOsho&diff=185991119&oldid=185988614 placed the verbatim] from Urban on the talk page, for reference. Despite Semi's allegation of "not a source quote", there is in fact very close agreement (not literal agreement, that would be a copyright violation) between what I inserted and what the source says. (Btw, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Osho&diff=next&oldid=187127493 this edit] ''was'' a [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Land+use+approval+was+denied+and%2C+more+important%2C+the+Indian+government+placed+a+moratorium+on+visas+for+travelers+whose+primary+destination+was+the+Ashram&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a copyright violation].) -- <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for content disputes (or soapboxing). Please discuss content on the article's talk page or in some form of dispute resolution. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

: Agreed. This is supposed to be a discussion of Conflict of Interest. I'm still not clear why the tag was put on the page. That has not been clarified by the kilobytes of material posted above. Unless it refers to ST's CoI? [[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply doing what I was instructed to do by admin [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 20:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

: So let's talk Conflict of Interest then. What is your interest in Osho? You have no interest in any other biography in Wikipedia. You could have edited Einstein, Rev Paisley, Satya Sai Babha... anyone of thousands of other interesting, fascinating people here in Wikipedia. But you didn't, you went straight to the Osho biography. You've put a phenomenal amount of effort and editing time into the page, some of it good. You've done research. You've even researched me! So what is it that drives you? Isn't it about time you declared exactly what you're interest is in this little project?<br>In my case it's clear. I've met Osho, I have a lot of respect for him, it's interesting for me to work on his biog here. But you, you're a bit of a puzzle... [[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, I've made my position clear, and I only have so much time on my hands, I've tackled Sai Baba elsewhere using other means, I'm familiar with the controversy surrounding him, also interested in B. Premanand's debunking work in India etc. It was by chance that I came across the oshso page on wiki,
and once I saw it, I thought "this is a bunch of POV BS", so got stuck in, if I put my mind to something, I get absorbed, especially when avoiding the real work I'm supposed to be doing, and more so when there is opposition, research is easy, it's all on the net, also have access to JSTOR, so pulled stuff from there, there's really not much to it actually, I'm simply a random glitch in the system. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 11:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

: Riiiggghhht.... well, I'm less than convinced. We'll put "wannabe guru-buster" then :-) That explains your strong POV issues with regard to the subject matter. But I don't think there is any Conflict of Interest. Unless you plan on taking up a career as a guru-buster.[[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 20:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What convincing do you need? it really is all on the net, did you know that noby guy had you pasted up there like that? should be more careful about your cyber trail, as I said, sometimes I will do anything to avoid real work, sitting at a PC all day can easily take one on unusual tangents, this is the latest one. Of course I am interested in the mystical tradition, otherwise I wouldn't bother, and yes I have my opinions regarding authenticity, that would be my main POV, but facts are the important thing. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 22:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

: I've no need to "be careful about my cyber trail" because I've nothing to hide. I've been on the internet since it's birth, before that fido net and bulletin boards. I live on the net... but this is not the place to discuss that. If you wish to discuss this, and the search for facts, any further, leave a note for me on my [[User talk:jalal|talk]] page. Otherwise, I think we are finished here. [[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 23:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''Comment.''' The page [[Talk:Osho]] is very confusing right now, due to all the charges flying around about people misquoting the sources. I doubt that any of the editors mentioned above will come under severe criticism for COI if it appears they are sincerely helping to create a neutral article. If it is just a matter of quoting sources correctly, that sounds like it should be a doable task, so I'm not sure what all the difficulties are on the article Talk page. It seems there is a lot of incivility on the Talk page, and the need to address the problems in a more calm manner is something that admins may be able to enforce if the parties themselves can't work in a more orderly fashion. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
::The discussion at [[Talk:Osho]] has calmed down a bit. The same people who exchange barbs here (Semitransgenic and Jalal) seem to be collaborating somewhat on the article Talk. Since the only remedy I can envision (short of letting the status quo continue) is to ban both of them from the article, this suggests that we may as well close the COI report. Does anyone request that it stay open? If so, what remedy do you propose? [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

::
I think EdJohnston is mistaken in his assessment, Semitransgenic and Jalal collaborating? don't take this the wrong way but can
you please present evidence to support this claim? Also, the questions that have been raised regarding the repeated exclusion of relevant material has not been addressed, yet you propose banning Semitransgenic from the article because he has highlighted this and other questionable edits. BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement", there has been no response to this. The rationale behind this decision seems unclear. One admin person ushers the disupte here after advising this on the discussion page, and now, without any serious consideration given to the claims EdJohnstons solution is to simply ban people from the article based on an inaccurate assessment? Wouldn't it be more effective to transfer to Dispute resolution if you consider the COI issue moot? However, I propose that the COI banner remains on the page until a genuinely NPOV biography emerges. If that happens then the COI and NPOV banner can both be removed. [[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

::: ''BTW who exactly was Jalal referring to when he said "we have a page for the Osho movement"'' - "'''we'''" = '''Wikipedia''' [[User:Jalal|jalal]] ([[User talk:Jalal|talk]]) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?[[User:Semitransgenic|Semitransgenic]] ([[User talk:Semitransgenic|talk]]) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== User:Majken schultz ==

* {{userlinks|Majken schultz}} - new editor, whose username is the same as an author of two books that this editor has been adding as references
* {{article|Brand management}} - editor added two paragraphs, apparently sourced from a book by Schultz that will be published in March 2008.
* {{article|Corporate branding}} - editor added content sourced again by same March 2008 book, as well as a 2001 book also by Schultz.
:I've placed a coi notice on the editor's talk page, but there's no indication that this new editor has seen it yet. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:An independent editor has restored the content to [[Corporate branding]]. I've removed it, as this is a very strange situation. The book has not been published yet, so how can it possibly meet [[WP:V]] and how is including it not promotional? I'd appreciate suggestions on how to handle this. --[[User:Ronz|Ronz]] ([[User talk:Ronz|talk]]) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
::This seems blatant. I agree that [[User:Majken schultz|Majken schultz]] shouldn't be adding links to his own book to articles. Let's see if your {{tl|uw-coi}} notice will get his attention, and persuade him to join this discussion. He has not edited since your notice on 28 January. I also invited the independent editor to participate here. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 06:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Apparently the 2001 reference was just an article in the harvard business review. Obviously, we need some other way to verify the contents of the 2008 book;; we may just have to wait until march. Although, maybe [[User:Majken schultz|Majken]] can provide us with references from this book to substantiate his contribution. --[[User:Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="8800FF">BE</font>''']][[User_talk: Bentheadvocate|'''<font color="0000FF">TA</font>''']] 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Jurassic Park (and related pages) - JPLegacy ==

{{resolved|The submitter and everyone who responded have agreed this can be closed. We don't see the link to jplegacy.org posing a COI problem. The intrinsic value of the link can be decided by others. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC) }}

* {{article|Jurassic Park}} and related pages
* {{user|Tyrannosaur}}

I have some concern over whether or not the external link to Jurassic Park Legacy falls within the bounds of [[WP:COI]], considering the fact that a significant contributor to the articles in question is the site's webmaster. However, being involved in an unrelated dispute between the site in question and another site (Jurassic Park Terror), I feel that any decision I make could be misconstrued as a personal campaign and so seek neutral opinion from the wider community at large before, or in lieu of, taking any type of direct action. --[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


First off let me comment that this issue had been resolved a long time ago. Wikipedia agreed to only allow JPL's link becuase JPL is the only Jurassic Park encyclopedia online. Most of the others, if not all, have since expired or have not attempted to place their link on wikipedia. JPT placed its link along with other JP related sites in an attempt to gain popularity through those who would be reading the JP article and would be interested to join their forum. They offered no encyclopedia information and as thus, Wiki decided to remove their links and list them simply as "fan links," which are not allowed.

: All right, I was not aware that any previous discussion on this topic had ever taken place. Could you please provide me with a link to it? Also, stating that "JPL is the ''only'' Jurassic Park encyclopedia online" (emphasis mine) is nothing short of ignorant. Off the top of my head, I could point you to the [[wikia:JurassicPark|Jurassic Park Wikia wiki]]. Also, I was making no statement as to the placement of JPT links. Personally, I feel that JPT probably shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia, unless an impartial third party gave a convincing enough reason for its inclusion. --[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur was the leader of JPL and many people were banned from the site and those people tend to congregate on Jurassic Park Terror. Their displeasure with the site has turned into an all out war on their part to discredit JPL and this is simply another attempt. Tyrannosaur has since stepped down from leadership of the site due to high stress in his life and becuase he is moving. There is no real conflict of interest except that on the part of JPT which has continuously flamed this very board and this very article, removing our link, removing information contained in the article, or changing links to redirect would be visitors to JPL to JPT, causing anxiety on the part of JPL. If there is any conflict of interest, it is by those who have asked you, an Admin of Jurassic Park Terror, to examine this.

: While I do not deny the circumstances surrounding the "war" between JPL and JPT, and also freely admit that I am a JPT administrator, this is not another attempt at one-upsmanship on JPT's behalf. When I come onto Wikipedia to edit, I do so with the sincerity of any other editor, and I started this discussion because I felt there was the possibility of a conflict of interest. I assure you, no one else even hinted at me to start this - I doubt that most of JPT's members actually know enough about Wikipedia policy, and most of them would just resort to the same type of vandlism you mentioned above. And considering that I was originally planning to comment out the JPL link in lieu of further discussion, I believe you should give me the benefit of the doubt. Also, I hardly see why spamming JPT's link in place of JPL's should have caused ''any'' editor anxiety, since reverting such changes is a very simple and mundane process. --[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as Tyrannosaur's contribution to the article, if you check the history, you will find that his contributions have been well founded and are based solely in the want to articulately define cannon and non-cannon sources, thereby dividing the article into clearer sections.

Merely reading the article will simply prove that no jaded view meant to further JPL's influence on the community or garnish further popularity is expressed.

: I was not at any time questioning the veracity, authenticity, and correctness of Tyrannosaur's edits. This started out as a genuine concern that there may be a conflict of interest in the link to JPL, given that Tyrannosaur seems to be a significant contributor to Jurassic Park-related pages. --[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention that Jurassic Park Legacy has been approached by several Universal Licensed Companies to aide in different research and development opportunities both for props and exhibits and currently has contacts both in ILM and in the Universal Theme Parks so if there is a question of JPL's authenticity, Universal thinks highly enough of JPL to contact it and utilize it for the Jurassic Park franchise which speaks in and of itself of the authenticity of Jurassic Park Legacy.

--[[User:GoodMusician|GoodMusician]] ([[User talk:GoodMusician|talk]]) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)<math>--[[Special:Contributions/72.188.34.9|72.188.34.9]] ([[User talk:72.188.34.9|talk]]) 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</math>
: Once again, it is my own fault that I didn't know that, and I would be interested in seeing links for further information on this matter. --[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


As far as Links, I believe all the information is still contained on the original JP page. As far as JPL being the only encyclopedia, I stated as well that it's the only one that has attempted to place any link to itself on Wiki, which is all that's really relevant in this issue.

I must further ask, what is the question of Tyrannosaurs edits? You say there is a conflict of interest.

Conflict of interest is if someone who loved Tom Cruise kept going onto his Wiki page saying what a god he was. That's neither neutral nor accurate. Any Edit TY made wasn't done in such a way as to limit information, spread mis-information, or to attain fame, so I see no basis on which a conflict of interest is at all valid.

What is the question being asked becuase frankly, I see no conflict of interest. The whole point of wiki is for people to come on here and to update it. His knowledge of Jurassic Park is documented in every page of his site. If a man who knows what he's talking about cannot come on here, and edit Wikipedia and say "this is correct and the citation is here," then who can?
--[[User:GoodMusician|GoodMusician]] ([[User talk:GoodMusician|talk]]) 03:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:If my understanding of Wikipedia policy is correct (and I am certainly not making any claims on the subject), in general, it is considered a conflict of interest to reference yourself and/or your own work on Wikipedia. I was never suggesting that Tyrannosaur be barred from contributing to Jurassic Park-related articles, I was merely requesting the review and opinion of an uninvolved, unrelated third party about whether any conflict of interest existed, and if so, how it should be dealt with. —[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
:There are at least two articles to consider, [[Jurassic Park]] and [[Jurassic Park (film)]]. Both articles include http://www.jplegacy.org as an External Link. I'm not impressed by the value of the link and if it were up to me personally, I would remove it. However that link has survived a long time on [[Jurassic Park (film)]] which is currently a featured article, and it had the link in it the whole time. So it's hard to come up with a focused COI argument for why the link doesn't belong. The link has (it seems) been reviewed by many people already, and it has survived. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Thank you for your comment. This is exactly the type of response I originally posted here to get - someone uninvolved with the issue, giving their own opinion on the matter. Unless anyone else has something to contribute to the discussion, I would be perfectly content to drop the issue in the face of prior review as EdJohnston pointed out above. —[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would impress Wiki, but apparently as stated, JPL's link has remained through both the original review and the further one for being a featured article. And in all fairness, Tyrannosaur may have been citing his website, but the website is compiled from many further sources documented on the site itself so perhaps it is a bit misleading and easy to think he's citing himself, but the reality is he's citing further evidence. Past that, I have nothing really further to add as well.--[[User:GoodMusician|GoodMusician]] ([[User talk:GoodMusician|talk]]) 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:All right, on that note, this can be marked as closed or resolved or whatever, unless someone else wishes to comment first. —[[User:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: blue;">Dino</span>]][[User_talk:Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: green;">guy</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Dinoguy1000|<span style="color: orange;">1000</span>]] 20:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Homeopathy ==

{{archive top}}
{{userlinks|Arion 3x3}} - Has admitted to working in [[Homeopathy]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=187561098&oldid=187560400], but there is disagreement over the relevance of this issue with regards to his editing and discussion of the subject [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=187706927&oldid=187700987]. Clarification of how the policy applies here is requested. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''Reply''' - Homeopathic medicines, as well as many other medical modalities and therapies, are utilized at the clinic where I have worked for 27 years. In fact, homeopathic medicines are dispensed ''free of charge'' as an adjunct to other medical care, never as a primary treatment. [[User:Arion 3x3|Arion 3x3]] ([[User talk:Arion 3x3|talk]]) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

::Hmm, if it's true that you make no money off of homeopathic treatments, that's certainly a mitigating factor. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''comment''' (to Arion) First, what wiki defines as homeopathy, and the way the term may be used at a particular facility, may be different. Second, placebos are sometimes administered, and the effectiveness of a placebo (they ''can be'' effective, e.g. in hysteria) can be affected by what it's called, e.g. a sugar pill would not have a beneficial placebo effect if it is called a sugar pill. The (mostly benign) practice of subterfuge in treating cases aggravated by hysteria or psychosomatics can confuse the discussion, as a practioner of subterfuge does not want to advertise himself that way, no matter if the purpose is benign (giving a sugar pill to an hysteric) or malign (defrauding the patient with quack medication). That said, Arion's point is well-taken as it stands, I don't mean to impugn their practice particularly. It might be helpful to give a particular example. [[User:PeterStJohn|Pete St.John]] ([[User talk:PeterStJohn|talk]]) 19:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:My commentary on the talk page is directly opposed to that of Arion. That said, I do not believe Arion is editing with a COI. People who work in a field should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia; their knowledge is invaluable. That is all he is doing. He's not pushing his practice or selling or trying to insert original research. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

::In general, I agree with that, however I do feel that there is nevertheless the potential for problems. These mostly crop up when someone tries to edit in order to put their subject of expertise in a better light for reasons that have to do with what they stand to gain if it's presented that way. While Arion has certainly been arguing towards a more sympathetic view of Homeopathy, I would still agree that there's no COI seeing as he doesn't stand to gain from doing so. I'm quite willing to mark this case as resolved if no one has any further objections. --[[User:Infophile|Infophile]] <sup>[[User_talk:Infophile|(Talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Infophile|(Contribs)]]</sup> 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''comment''' (to the board) I do take issue with Arion's editing of the article, because he is a clear hindrance to any meaningful changes happening to the Homeopathy article. A cursory glance over the past few days of his edits show that he vehemently opposes classifying it as a pseudoscience (or even using the word) even though the a large group (I'd say 80% or so) of the editors at least agree that the word pseudoscience should be used in the LEAD (based on a ton of RS), even a homeopathic supporter. Though he has been warned about it, he has a habit of dropping a giant amount studies that support his position onto the talk page, which is a serious problem for two reasons. Firstly, these are all primary resources and including every single study ever performed that reaches a positive result for homeopathy is clearly not how things work. Secondly, in a talk page that has Mizabot set to archive everything older than 2 days, because of the vast amount of use, it sucks up valuable talk space. It seems that every time someone cites a secondary source (or a dozen) stating that homeopathy is not actually a science, Arion comes back with a few studies (primary sources) that say the opposite and then claims there is no consensus for the claim. I am sure we all understand how easy it is for primary sources to be misinterpretted, which is why they are not used nearly as often. Arion appears to be unable to distinguish between the two and the article is definitely suffering. If an editor who is deeply involved within a field can't edit objectively, then he is not an asset to the project. If he can edit dispassionately, welcome aboard. If not, well steps should be taken. [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 22:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'''Reply''' - I respectfully disagree with [[User:Baegis|Baegis]]'s description of my comments on the discussion page. I did post 3 short excerpts from 3 abstracts of laboratory research indicating there were definite measureable biological effects elicited by homeopathic remedies at the 200C level (no molecules left) which could not be explained away by placebo effects. This was to offset the ''massive'' amount of discussion about how there is ''no'' evidence that homeopathic medicines have any effect.

That said, I would hope that we could get at least one person with experience in photography to edit photography articles, at least one person with experience with chemistry to edit chemistry articles, etc. I hope you see my point. [[User:Arion 3x3|Arion 3x3]] ([[User talk:Arion 3x3|talk]]) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

:'''reply''' [[User:Peter_morrell|Peter Morrell]] is a renown homeopath and he has no trouble working with other editors to the betterment of Homeopathy articles. You still didn't address the problem of you constantly using questionable primary sources and completely disregarding the growing consensus. [[User:Baegis|Baegis]] ([[User talk:Baegis|talk]]) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

::'''reply''' even though ia lso dabble in homeopathy i msut agree with [[User:Baegis]]'s assertions here. i myself have witnessed one instance where User:Arion3x3 selectively quoted form one of his own sources to portray a biased pro-homeopathy view, a movement that not only harms the article but discredts homeopaths who legitimately want to edit this article in good faith and following NPOV and all the equal weight principles that user:baegis mentioend above. (the instance in which I noticed that Arion3x3 was first accused of selective quoting is [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&action=edit&section=18 here]. [[User:Smith Jones|Smith Jones]] ([[User talk:Smith Jones|talk]]) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the numerous other places this topic is being scrutinized, I'm tempted to mark this done and leave this to those forums and editors to hash out. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:I'm glad that people here on both sides of this issue appreciate [[Peter Morrell]]. However, Peter is more of an expert on homeopathic history than homeopathic research, while [[Arion 3x3]] has rightfully sought to educate people here about the V, RS, and notable character of basic science and clinical research in homeopathy. As such, he (and others) assert that homeopathy should not be in the category of pseudoscience. Considering the fact that there are hundreds (!) of double-blind and placebo controlled clinical trials and basic science experiments, how many "pseudosciences" can make such a verified claim? One would think that everyone would welcome the references that Arion has provided, whether it be short or long. Instead, some editors are attacking the editor, not the content (WP encourages us to analyze the content primarily. Further, whether Arion prescribes homeopathic medicines or not should not determine if he is COI. If so, does this mean that every medical doctor cannot edit any medical topic? Please clarify this concern. [[User:Danaullman|Dana]] [[Special:Contributions/Danaullman|Ullman]] <sup>[[User talk:Danaullman|Talk]]</sup> 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infophile was recently banned from editing [[homeopathy]] under [[Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation]]. <s>There is an appearance that this conversation has been set up as a [[strawman argument]]. Some of the other sympathetic editors commenting above seem to have coordinated their comments with Inphophile in order to create the appearance of a consensus that does not exist. This thread is disruptive, and if this sort of thing continues, I will issue bans. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)</s>
: Above said, there is not COI, because the editor is not promoting their own products or links. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Living Faith Fellowship ==

{{Resolved|Article deleted by [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] under [[Wikipedia:CSD#G11|CSD G11]]: [[WP:SPAM|Blatant advertising]]. [[User:CounterFX|CounterFX]] ([[User talk:CounterFX|talk]]) 12:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)}}

* {{article|Living Faith Fellowship}} - Creating editor's summary is "basically our church is trying to build this page and will take some time before completion." This appears to be an obvious COI as it both advertises when their services are and is sourced only to their website. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::I left a {{tl|uw-coi}} notice for this new editor, hoping that the template is not really BITE-y and gives good advice. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Kaz Simmons ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 04:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Kaz Simmons}} - Creating editor's userid is {{userlinks|Kazsjazz}} and the tone of the article seems to be more self promotional/autobiographical. No sources. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
::Proposed for [[WP:PROD|deletion]]. Article does not seem to meet [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

== Myles Doupe ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted by [[User:Versageek|Versageek]] under [[Wikipedia:CSD#A7|CSD A7 (Bio)]]: Biographical article that does not assert significance. [[User:CounterFX|CounterFX]] ([[User talk:CounterFX|talk]]) 12:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)}}

* {{article|Myles Doupe}} - Creating editor's userid is Mylesdoupe and the tone of the article seems to be more self promotional/autobiographical. No sources. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== [[Arabian Prince]] ==

* Article: {{La|Arabian Prince}}
* User: {{Userlinks|T3flondon}}

An editor appears to be turning this into a promotional article.See [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Arabian_Prince&diff=187961893&oldid=186822722]. I don't have time to deal with this so am hoping that someone else can do so. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== LectureShare ==

{{resolved|Article speedy deleted as blatant advert. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|LectureShare}} - Creating username = article title. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
*{{userlinks|LectureShare}}

== [[Michael Lucas (porn star)]] ==

{{resolved|Not a COI. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
{{discussion top}}
* {{article|Michael Lucas (porn star)}}
Editor David Shankbone has made an edit seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Lucas_%28porn_star%29&diff=188284540&oldid=183926271], to the [[Michael Lucas (porn star)]] page. This is a reversal of his earlier statement of intent seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMichael_Lucas_%28porn_star%29&diff=184682168&oldid=184663665], where he said "prostitute is too well-documented." It also reverses his earlier edits seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Lucas_%28porn_star%29&diff=next&oldid=173924526], and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Lucas_%28porn_star%29&diff=next&oldid=173930141], and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michael_Lucas_%28porn_star%29&diff=next&oldid=174181865], where each time he re-inserted the text on Lucas being a prostitute after that specific text had been deleted by editor Lucasent. Lucasent has been blocked from editing, evidenced here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Lucasent].

That Michael Lucas was a prostitute is well-documented on the internet:
<br>(1) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/16/law-blog-law-graduate-of-the-day-porn-king-michael-lucas/,<br> (2) http://nymag.com/movies/features/23146/index1.html,<br> (3) http://www.glbtjews.org/article.php3?id_article=255.

Previously, when the text about Lucas being a prostitute was deleted, the matter was discussed by other editors, as seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Michael_Lucas_.28porn_star.29], and here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_4#Michael_Lucas_.28porn_star.29]. One of those editors noted: "The reference stating he was a prostitute comes from the Yale Daily News. I think we can consider that a highly reliable source."

That source is the current source cited in the text of the article -- it supports the fact that Michael Lucas was a prostitute. The source does not state that Lucas worked as an escort, as Shankbone has edited the text to read.
--[[Special:Contributions/72.68.122.138|72.68.122.138]] ([[User talk:72.68.122.138|talk]]) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:Have you got any evidence of a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] on the part of the parties involved? [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 13:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::The evidence is found in the citations above. In summary, Michael Lucas or somebody purporting to be him wrote on the talk page of his bio expressing dissatisfaction with its content, including the reference to his being a prostitute. David Shankbone replied specifically to the prostitute reference saying, "...if information is well-sourced, you will have a difficult time asking it be removed, and the prostitute mention is in the Wall Street Journal, New York Magazine, and at least several others" and "But we'll work with you..." and "Unless someone reverts me, I will make a few of the minor changes." Shankbone also admitted to corresponding with Lucas outside of Wikipedia. Prior to this exchange, Shankbone had three times restored the prostitute reference after it had been deleted by the banned editor [[User:Lucasent|Lucasent]]. Subsequent to the talk page exchange, Shankbone removed the prostitute reference and inserted the comparatively benign term "escort." The source cited for the text does not say Lucas was an escort, it says Lucas was a prostitute. Other reputable sources say Lucas was a prostitute, as Shankbone himself noted, yet Shankbone removed the prostitute reference knowing full well that it is well-documented fact.--[[Special:Contributions/71.127.235.96|71.127.235.96]] ([[User talk:71.127.235.96|talk]]) 14:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I've been invited to comment on this thread. To reply only to the conflict of interest aspect, I see nothing improper about David Shankbone's involvement. If Mr. Lucas was indeed the person who protested, then leaving a comment on the talk page was one of the appropriate ways to express it. So is corresponding with experienced and uninvolved editors. Mr. Shankbone has wide-ranging experience on several Wikimedia projects. I suggest moving this discussion to the [[WP:BLPN|biographies of living persons noticeboard]], since the serious issue is about the degree of sourcing that would be necessary to support a biography statement about prostitution in a living person's biography. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

::::The question is not about sourcing, totally reliable sources say Lucas was a prostitute. The serious issue here is Shankbone's conflict of interest in the edits he made. Lucas didn't like that his bio had him as a prostitute. Shankbone took out reliably sourced info, that Lucas was a prostitute, and put in unsourced info, that he was an escort, even though the source says Lucas was a prostitute. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia free from original research, and the aims of an individual editor." Shankbone put it original research, there's a conflict of interest. Lucas wanted prostitute out of his bio, and Shankbone took it out, so Shankbone promoted the interests of Lucas, there's another conflict of interest. Shankbone knew what he was doing, otherwise why would he take out prostitute and put in escort when he previously restored prostitute three times after [[User:Lucasent|Lucasent]] deleted it? Anybody can take this to BLPN and maybe it should be in both places, but it belongs here mostly because Shankbone has clear conflict of interest with this article: planting OR and doing it for Lucas.--[[Special:Contributions/71.127.233.107|71.127.233.107]] ([[User talk:71.127.233.107|talk]]) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:FYI, myself and other editors have been watching and sourcing the article as that's what we do here and I haven't seen any issue with Shankbone's edits except where they and I disagree on content issues which have never been COI-inspired. His work on wikinews has only benefited wikipedia and correctly calling Lucas a male escort, which is the industry term for prostitute, to me, is a non-issue. This isn't central or notable to his bio and as Shankbone has stated the information will be in there one way or another. If Lucas is charged with prostitution or the term otherwise becomes notable we can certainly re-add it but it seems quite minor in the scheme of things. [[User:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#32127A">Benji</u>]][[User_talk:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#090">boi</u>]] 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::This article has been at [[WP:COIN]] before. The article on [[Michael Lucas (porn star)]] is now in a rather neutral state after being slanted either for or against Lucas at various times in the past. The issue that has been presented to us this time doesn't seem of enough moment to get concerned about. I agree with [[User:Benjiboi]]'s diagnosis. Since the submitter of this complaint, [[User_talk:72.68.122.138|72.68.122.138]] is an IP who has not edited WP before, it would be good to hear if there are any other editors who are concerned that Shankbone's edits represent a COI. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 04:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I see not conflict of interest in David Shankbone's involvement; merely a conservative interpretation of [[WP:BLP]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree so far with the above, esp. Durova. I don't see COI here, this case could be relisted at BLP or at NPOV boards however. If the specific intent is to promote "prostitute" over "escort" I'd suggest first going to [[WP:BLP|the BLP page]] for further discussion. COI is only for situations where, say, Shankbone is Lucas' roommate, or publisher, or brother or wrote a book about him or something.[[User:Wjhonson|Wjhonson]] ([[User talk:Wjhonson|talk]]) 04:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:Several points made in response to the nomination: (1) To characterize this substitution of terms as [[WP:OR]] is an unreasonable and unsupported attempt to apply the concepts of OR. Escort means prostitute (as does hustler, rent boy, and several other terms, depending on the genders of the provider and client), and escort is the term generally used in the industry, so it's simply not OR to use that term instead of the legalistic term prostitute. For example, escorts is the only listing category used for that profession in newspapers, magazines, and on-line. If the cited sources support Lucas being a prostitute, they necessarily support his being an escort, as the terms mean the same, so there is no evidence of "planting" OR. (2) Further, in terms of labeling, we routinely use, for example, gay instead of the legalistic term homosexual, African-American instead of Colored or Negro, and other preferred terms of identity, per [[WP:MOS]], unless in direct quotations. Why pick on the world's oldest profession? (3) Also, the actual label used in one source above, ''Yale Daily News'', is "hustler", not "prostitute", as in: ''"Lucas then worked as a hustler -- earning money through prostitution to open up his own porn production company in New York City."'' The term prostitution in this citation is used in the sense of source of income, not a label for a person and the actual word "prostitute" was not used. (4) I don't see this as [[WP:COI]] either. Claiming that there is a COI because Shankbone removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content at Lucas's behest is also unreasonable and unsupported, since it remains fully sourced, as explained above, and there was absolutely no material change in the content or slant as a result of this word substitution. (5) Endorse closure as not supported. — [[User:Becksguy|Becksguy]] ([[User talk:Becksguy|talk]]) 04:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
::I will only privately quiver at the intimate knowledge that Becksguy has of rent boys (titter titter). [[User:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:95% cursive;color:#32127A">Benji</u>]][[User_talk:Benjiboi|<u style="text-decoration:none;font:90% cursive;color:#090">boi</u>]] 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}

== AutoSimSport Magazine ==

* {{article|AutoSimSport Magazine}} - Per this thread [[User_talk:DGG#AutoSimSport_Magazine]] the article creator and main editor is the employee of the magazine whose job description [http://autosimsport.net/staff.php] is "Marketing/Contributing Editor/Merchandising/Advertising" '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
* {{userlinks|Ljmagyar}} would be the editor in question. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 02:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Alison Lawton ==

* {{article|Alison Lawton}} - A day after the subject's husband was on the front page of the NYTimes, an employee of Alison Lawton has returned to insert self-promotional material (name-dropping Bill Clinton, Dali Lama, etc). I'm just a very occasional editor and I can't seem to get through to the editor [[User:Mindsetmedia]]. [[User:Canuckle|Canuckle]] ([[User talk:Canuckle|talk]]) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

:For anyone looking here, {{User|Mindsetmedia}} has identified himself as having been asked by Alison Lawton to [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alison_Lawton&diff=prev&oldid=157288939 "spearhead the description on her wikipedia page."] I haven't decided the full merits of his edits, but the present version of the article is clearly a fluff piece. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

== Buniverse ==

* {{userlinks|Buniverse}} - This user has been adding [[Special:Contributions/Buniverse|links]] to various articles pointing at the [http://www.bu.edu/today/buniverse/index.shtml|BUniverse website] which may be appropriate, but probably isn't a reliable source since its user created. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 07:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

:BUniverse (the website) is the Boston University Today's Media Archives, and seems to be run by the University. A random sampling of the actual links show them to be videos of lectures or talks conducted at Boston University by various departments featuring the subject of the article in question. While this may technically be a COI, I think Wikipedia readers would be better served by informing this editor ''how'' to place their links. I've left a welcome note on the talk page, since nobody has even greeted them yet. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

::I should've sampled. I saw the "Submitting Videos" link and thought "O great another youtube on a college network". '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Hey, you're doing a great job just reporting them here. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Normally, I think we regard the action of a publisher or a library in trying to post links to its content in articles about people on whom it has published or about whom it holds material as spam. Such items are best added by editors working on the subject in question. if there is relevant material held by BU, it should be mentioned on the article talk page for discussion. There is no particular reason I can see to post such a link as "*Watch Chuck Close and Robert Storr in Conversation on http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=153 BUniverse" on the [[Robert Storr]] article. Staightforward spam links, in my opinion, though not COI.'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 02:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Larry Tanz ==

* {{article|Larry Tanz}}
* {{userlinks|Larrytanz}} - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 07:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

:Editor given an autobiography warning by [[User:JohnCD]], one pass at reducing resume qualities for the article. Could still use more work. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== Ryan Youens ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Ryan Youens}}
* {{userlinks|RyanYouens}} - User name = article title. Article is a personal bio with some spammy external links. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 07:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
*:It's a copyvio, so tagged. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== Beat Autopsy ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Beat Autopsy}}
* {{userlinks|Beat autopsy}} - User name = article title. Article is links to external sites. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 07:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== Paul Brook ==

* {{article|Paul Brook}} picture release credit from author of page says he's with Paul's "team" and the article looks like an advert. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

== The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman ==

* {{article|The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman}} - is an article about a machine that is variously claimed as either the answer to mankinds energy needs or a perpetual motion machine (and therefore pseudoscience/fringe-theory).
* {{userlinks|ESoule}} - appears to be Evan Soule'. On this page: http://www.phact.org/e/dennis19.html Evan Soule' identifies himself as: "Director of Information NEWMAN ENERGY PRODUCTS". It would appear to me then that his continual efforts to rewrite the article in order to support the claim that it truly does produce energy from nowhere (essentially) is a severe conflict of interest. I have asked him to cease working on the article both on his own talk page and on [[Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman]] - but without success. In his latest post to [[Talk:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman]] he does not exactly deny his relationship with the company...but claims that he merely worked as a volunteer. Personally, I don't see how that makes a difference from a WP:COI perspective. What can and should be done about this? [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Baker: Never have I written that the energy machine "produce(s) energy from nowhere." Certainly Joseph Newman -- the inventor of the technology -- has never said such a thing. On the contrary. Newman has repeatedly described the source of the energy produced by his technology: the kinetic energy contained within the (electro)magnetic fields produced by the invention. And those (electro)magnetic fields originate from the atomic domains comprising the conductor and permanent magnets used in Newman's system.

Mr. Baker: I am a Director of Information for Newman Energy Products. I literally "direct information" about the energy machine technology. Who hired me? No one. Who asked me to be a Director of Information? No one. Am I paid to direct information about the Energy Machine of Joseph Newman? No. Have I ever been paid to direct information about Newman's technology? No. Am I in business with Joseph Newman? No. Having voluntarily helped Joseph Newman disseminate information about the technology for nearly 25 years, I have direct, first-hand knowledge about the technology and its history as well as supporting documentation. That is precisely why I have corrected errors in statements made by others on the Wikipedia page, The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman. Example: Someone had previously posted on Wikipedia that Newman "rented" the Superdome in New Orleans. That is a false statement. I know for a fact that Newman was invited by two gentlemen in New Orleans to present his technology at the Louisiana Superdome for a week. Those two gentlemen had previously heard his free presentation to more than 2,000 people at the New Orleans Hilton Hotel, liked what they heard, and they wanted to provide Joseph Newman with a larger and longer venue at the Louisiana Superdome. Thus, of their own initiative, they personally contracted with the Louisiana Superdome and invited Joseph Newman to come and present his technology to a larger audience. Before that presentation, Joseph Newman requested that the event at the Superdome be free and open to the public. However, Superdome officials required a minimum $1.00 entrance fee to the event. Joseph Newman subsequently agreed to the presentation on the stipulation that all entrance fee monies be paid directly to the Superdome and retained by the Superdome. Joseph Newman publicly announced at the Superdome event that he "would not accept any entrance fee monies" since he had originally requested the event to be free and open to everyone. Since there have been factual errors posted by others on Wikipedia, I have endeavored to correct such errors. [[Special:Contributions/206.255.88.80|206.255.88.80]] ([[User talk:206.255.88.80|talk]]) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:This is not a debate about facts and non-facts in the article. This is about your personal involvement in the article. You clearly ADMIT your involvement with the inventor of the machine and his business. That's a conflict of interest and it's not allowed. You are now adding to the problem by admitting that your editing is [[WP:NOR|Original research]]...precisely the kind of problem that arises when people with conflicted interests are permitted to edit. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(I just reviewed [[User:ESoule]]'s edit history - and aside from edits to [[The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman]], the editor also edited [[Executive Order 6102]] in order to add his own name into the article, and aside from a handful of edits to [[Andrew Joseph Galambos]], those are the only edits this user has made. I would point out that [[WP:COI]] states: ''Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the '''sole or primary purpose''' of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.'' - I submit that User:ESoule is indeed such an account. He has been repeatedly warned - and is still editing [[The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman]] - so perhaps a block should be considered. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 14:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:I haven't gone through the entire history of this case, but my opinion is that, notwithstanding of [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]]'s assertions, if the involved parties refrain from engaging in contentious or disruptive editing, then suggesting factual corrections (backed by reliable sources) to be made to articles should be encouraged. Unfortunately, some errors can only be brought to light by individuals who were directly involved, and it's counter-productive to condone such errors on grounds of avoiding COI. Maybe the editor should be asked to redirect his efforts to the article's talk page, and have another uninvolved editor perform the changes after verifying that the information checks out against the sources. [[User:CounterFX|CounterFX]] ([[User talk:CounterFX|talk]]) 14:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

::I have no problem with ESoule discussing edits on the talk page, explaining where we're going wrong or suggesting other avenues of investigation. My problem is with his direct introduction of new "facts", backed up largely by references to Newman's web site - which he, himself (as 'Director of Information') may very well have written! Far from doing this with the cooperation and agreement of independent editors - he's making changes that directly conflict with the proper disposition of the article. At the very least, this is a conflict of interest of the worst possible kind. This effectively gives ESoule carte blanche to put any information he likes into the article - and then to provide his own reference to make it 'legal' per WP:V. If this person were merely a technician or machinist at the organisation, that would be much less of an issue (although I'd still be uncomfortable with it) - but to have the "'''Director of Information'''" pushing information into Wikipedia is quite intolerable! [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

: Apart from COI, ESoule’s contributions raise some other interesting policy issues. Let’s take [[Wikipedia:NOR]] for starters. &mdash;&nbsp;<em>[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]</em> 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:: I’m an idiot. ^_^ I see SteveBaker has already brought up the OR too. &mdash;&nbsp;<em>[[User:NRen2k5|NRen2k5]]</em> 00:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

== Possible COI. ==

I think there is a possible COI with [[user:CzekMate]] and the article [[Ray Robson]]. (1) the user only edits that article, (2) the user acts as if he "owns" the article, and (3) the user refused to answer my question about any connection to the person and deleted the question from his talk page. I'm not sure if this is a COI, and even if it is a problem, but I would like to get some input. Thank you. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:It is odd that such a young (14 years old by my math) chess prodigy would have such an ardent fan. And of course the user name is a strong chess references. And the external links seem rather details for what is a minor honor of being the youngest grand master in a particular US state. Can't really prove COI though, since he hasn't used the first person or brought in non-public material (family, etc). Although an edit like this, does provide an extreme level of detail [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ray_Robson&diff=next&oldid=178834127]. A comment like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ray_Robson&diff=next&oldid=179537248] concerns me though, as how do you know where his dad works? '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:: I found the city in which his father works with a Google search. I assumed that he lives in that area - maybe that is wrong. Notice the edit history - always changing what I and another editor put in there. Even when one was a copyedit (but that was allowed to stand this time). As I said, even if there is a COI, I'm not sure how big of a problem it is. I do appreciate you looking into it. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 04:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: It is in the third external link in the article. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Thats the answer I was hoping for (as opposed to something less honorable). My suggestion might be to take this to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess]], which would be able to help more with style and fact-vetting. That or [[WP:BLPN]] which would handle the standards to which an article on a living person must be vetted to. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::: I'm an active member of that project. Thank you. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 04:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Doh! Then I guess just keep a watch and if you see first-person or personal details, feel free to drop the <nowiki>{{COI}}</nowiki> template on the page and come back here. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::I did do a uw-coi on the user's talk page a couple of hours ago. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Yea, that is good, and if it proves very likely that he is a COI, you can tag the actual article with a warning box. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Matthew Ducey ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Matthew Ducey}} -
* {{userlinks|Ducey1337}} - Username and article name are similar, its a bio written from a personal perspective '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== City of SeaTac Fire Department ==

* {{article|City of SeaTac Fire Department}} -
* {{userlinks|SeatacTraining}} - Admits on user talk page to being the creator of it '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:Article tagged as a copyright vio. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Machine Embroidery ==

{{resolved|Redirected to [[Embroidery]]. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Machine Embroidery}} -
* {{userlinks|Sewdragondesigns}} - Only external link is to same name as creator username '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
** I turned the stub into a redirect to [[Embroidery]] since the exact same paragraph was in the parent article also and reported the username to [[WP:UAA]]. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Nativity parish ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Nativity parish}} - Page admits that this is a class project of students at the school. Don't know policy re: this. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Aeros 40D Sky Dragon ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Aeros 40D Sky Dragon}} -
* {{userlinks|Aerosml}} - Advertisment for product from a username that looks like its a corporate name '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Ned Bristow ==

{{resolved|Article deleted. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Ned Bristow}} -
* {{userlinks|Nedbcfc}} - Personal career bio '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Gymnázium Vrútky ==

{{Resolved|Username blocked. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 05:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Gymnázium Vrútky}} -
* {{article|Gymnazium vrutky}} -
* {{userlinks|GymnaziumVrutky}} - Org name = username. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:Probably no more COI than your average teenager editing their high school's article, but referred to [[WP:UAA]] anyway. Article itself is pretty neutral. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 07:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== LA.Direct Magazine ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 02:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|LA.Direct Magazine}} -
* {{userlinks|Ladirectmag}} - Org name = username. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Muris Varajic ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Muris Varajic}} -
* {{userlinks|Muris Varajic}} - Org name = username. Personal bio '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Annandale United FC ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Annandale United FC}} -
* {{userlinks|Annantown}} - Org name and user name are similar and it appears to promote the team. ~~

== Mozart Face Recordings ==

{{Resolved|1=Article deleted '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)}}
* {{article|Mozart Face Recordings}} -
* {{userlinks|Mozart Face}} - Org name and user name are similar and it describes who holds various corporate posts. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Central Asian Shepherd Dog ==

*{{article|Central Asian Shepherd Dog}}
I did a long needed cleanup for this article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog in September, 2007 and did not check it until today.

I found out that 4 days after the article was edited by another user, UKC CASSA, with defamatory and libelous statement about me. I asked to remove the statement, thanks a lot to '''Pairadox''' for help and a useful advise.--[[User:Afru|Afru]] ([[User talk:Afru|talk]]) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are still two issues that need to be resolved. First is that the information about this breed of dogs is very limited in English. I did my best to translate and publish the most current, accurate and reliable verifiable information while I was in the country of origin for the breed as per September, 2007. It was replaced by way outdated, and way less informative article of very questionable accuracy.
I placed links to the registry in the country of origin and the most complete breed pictures gallery. Those were changed into links to UKC CASSA user's own US based kennel club (she is DBA for) and a US kennel, advertising dogs of this breed for sale.

I do realize that the article may need editing, but in my opinion this is not the sort of editing any given Wikipedia article will ever need.
What would be the best way to prevent this sort of interruptions?

Second issue is that user UKC CASSA has years of history of online harassment me and other people involved with purebred dogs, especially of this breed. She did have lawsuits against her, numerous complaints for cyber stalking and such.

What is the best way to permanently stop as well as prevent future personal attacks at Wikipedia site?
And who can remove a false and libelous statement about me in the history section ?[[User:Afru|Afru]] ([[User talk:Afru|talk]]) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)AFRU

:To find out how to have items removed from the history of a page, go to [[Wikipedia:Oversight]]. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
::Ugh. Dog breed wars. While libels can't be tolerated, [[User:Afru|Afru]]'s edits are problematical too.
::''This breed overview is the most accurate. Further editions of this page contain wrong, incomplete and/or outdated information'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog&diff=189206857&oldid=188960853]
::''Wrote a true and correct breed overview based on modern population analysis''. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Central_Asian_Shepherd_Dog&diff=156244209&oldid=153066304]
::Sources? I don't see any. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] ([[User talk:Gordonofcartoon|talk]]) 10:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Will add sources and more links. And will do my best to provide relevant materials.
I do not pretend that my edit is perfect, but it was replaced with a sort of breed commercial based on 1994 materials.
The issue with this breed is that there are working lines and fighting lines under the same breed name. At the very same time, there are traditional dog fights in the place of origin, that differ from modern dog fights. Now, there is a major difference between aboriginal dogs that are normally not dog aggressive within the same pack, and modern time pit and bandog mixes used for "modern" fights.
Any given breed description must contain a disclosure and ideally help people unfamiliar with the breed to determine how to differ one from another. --[[User:Afru|Afru]] ([[User talk:Afru|talk]]) 16:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Cartoon All-Stars 2000s doesn't exist! ==

{{resolved|Not a COI [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)}}
*{{user|66.245.194.183}}
Despite repeated warnings [[User:66.245.194.183]] keeps adding credits for a non-exsistant animated special called "Cartoon All-Stars 2000s" and unsourced information about various animated caharacters.--Hailey 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
:Per this edit here [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Don_Bluth&diff=prev&oldid=188724373] , it looks like its an unsourced future prediction. I'd say point him at [[WP:RS]] and it that doesn't work, keep warning/teaching through the [[WP:WARN]] system. Once he hits 4, take it to [[WP:ANI]] and they'll take care of it. Or he'll get the message and not add speculative stuff. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

::It appears that the IP linked to [[Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue]], a 1990 work. I don't see how this is a Conflict of interest. [[User:Pairadox|Pairadox]] ([[User talk:Pairadox|talk]]) 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis ==

*{{la|Ziusudra}}
*{{userlinks|Greensburger}}

I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of [[User:Greensburger]].

I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "[[Sumerian origin legend|Eridu Genesis]]", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the [[Ziusudra]] article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sumerophile#Eridu_Genesis Eridu Genesis], and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.

When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ziusudra&diff=188846084&oldid=188844084]. So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ziusudra&diff=188976083&oldid=188905254]. The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ziusudra#Material_relating_to_the_Sumerian_tablet.].
When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greensburger#Genesis_5_article Genesis 5 article]) about this book [http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Ark-Ziusudra-Epic-Sumerian/dp/0966784014/] by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader?ie=UTF8&p=S08O&asin=0966784014]) are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility.

The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:

1) Attempts to link the "[[Sumerian origin legend|Eridu Genesis]]" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "[[Sumerian king list]]". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ziusudra#Material_relating_to_the_Sumerian_tablet. discussion] mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).

2) And attempts to "re-interpret" the very long lives and reigns that ancient literature gives to ancient kings ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ziusudra&diff=128644472&oldid=118195798] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sumerian_king_list&diff=188147229&oldid=186631876]). This is entirely original research.

I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics ([http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0966784014/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books about the author]), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.

I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:: All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any ''good'' reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –[[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:::I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.

:::The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. [[User:Sumerophile|Sumerophile]] ([[User talk:Sumerophile|talk]]) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

::I'm assuming that the article which [[User:Sumerophile|Sumerophile]] is nominating for COI investigation is [[Ziusudra]], so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited [[Sumerian origin legend]] at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be [[WP:FRINGE]] stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually I was nominating the user, if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the [[Sumerian king list]] article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sumerian_king_list#Early_Dynastic_I.2C_II_and_III_periods], in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. [[User:Sumerophile|Sumerophile]] ([[User talk:Sumerophile|talk]]) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== Paste Magazine ==

{{user|Maryrobbins06}} was posting a large number of links in the "Professional reviews" section of album articles, all of them linking to [[Paste Magazine]]'s website. She [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Erik&diff=189521285&oldid=189499903 disclosed] that she is indeed affiliated with the magazine so I [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maryrobbins06&diff=189523907&oldid=189520331 informed her] of our COI policy. She stopped editing, but then {{user|72.16.210.162}} was adding links, so I gave the same warning. Interestingly, this anon then [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Erik&diff=prev&oldid=189601845 removed] Maryrobbins06's message on my Talk page, and added [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Erik&diff=prev&oldid=189603595 this]. My inclination would be to remove all of these links to Paste Magazine due to the likely COI, but I would like others' input. Thanks in advance. --<font face="Comic sans MS">[[User:Paul Erik|Paul Erik]]</font> <small><sup><font color="Blue">[[User_talk:Paul Erik|(talk)]]</font><font color="Green">[[Special:Contributions/Paul Erik|(contribs)]]</font></sup></small> 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:No doubt its spamming. I've opened a case here [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.pastemagazine.com]], and will look into it more. --[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 23:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
::The updated link for the WPSPAM posting is [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Paste Media Group]]. I agree that someone affiliated with Paste Magazine should not have been posting these links, per the COI rules, but I'm uncertain whether regular editors should be allowed to post the same ones. Note the following language from [[Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional reviews]]:<blockquote>Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc. A list of some sources of professional reviews is available at [[WP:ALBUM#Review sites]].</blockquote>This seems to open the possibility that [[Paste Magazine]] could be a valid source of professional reviews. (Our definition of 'professional' seems to be 'written by a member of the editorial staff of a reliable source'). I noticed that a review that appeared in Paste was included by [[Metacritic]] for [http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/sonvolt/search?q=son%20volt an album] that I spot-checked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 00:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::They seem to have received major awards both as general and specialized media from good sources. Removingthese links is counterproductive in terms of establishing notability. It's not my subject, but it appears from the evidence that they are a RS for popular music. this was not the right way to put in the links, but we are here to build content and source it. It should be explained to them how to cooperate properly by suggesting them on the talk pages. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 02:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== [[User:Jossi]] and [[Prem Rawat]] ==

* {{user|Jossi}}
* {{article|Prem Rawat}}
An article [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/] in [[The Register]] had just presented strong evidence that [[User:Jossi|Jossi]] has serious COI issues with [[Prem Rawat]] articles. I've formally requested [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJossi&diff=189618750&oldid=189586991] on his talk page that he stay away from Rawat-related articles and away from issues, such as policy changes, that appear to be intended to assist in pushing POV in or protecting Rawat articles. The article also mentions that [[User:Momento]] and [[User:Rumiton]] may have COI issues with Rawat as well, but doesn't present as clear evidence of it so I'll leave that for further discussion and observation for now. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

: You can read [[User:Jossi#comment_on_article|my comment]] in my user page about this, as well as my request for advice placed at the [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29/Archive_5#Request_for_support_and_advice|Village Pump]] on January 15. I intend to continue editing Wikipedia, and at the same time submit myself to the community's review on these issues. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

: Also note that I made some comments challenging The Register as a source for the [[Criticism of Wikipedia]] article, a few days before I was contacted by that journalist. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=182679191&oldid=182678749 diff] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticism_of_Wikipedia&diff=183037874&oldid=183035366 diff]. Not sure if the attack piece was a retaliatory action on their part, or not. When I asked the journalist about this, he did not respond. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Jossi, the article presents evidence from people using their real names in stating that you worked personally for Rawat, even "sitting at his desk". That's as strong a COI as I think as it can get without actually being Rawat himself. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::: As I said, I have acted transparently about my affiliation and I have adopted a behavior [[User:Jossi/About|to disclose COI]] and contribute via talk page discussions, offering sources and insight for others to consider, and ensure that statements are accurate. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::::The existence of a conflict of interest is not reason to pre-emtively and completely prohibit an editor from editing an article or topic. Do you have any actual diffs or discussion threads to back your claim that Jossi is pushing a POV? Because I just went and searched all of Jossi's edits to [[Prem Rawat]] in the last half a year and didn't see anything to suggest that. [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::As one of the people named in the article, I feel I should comment. The Wikipedia article on Prem Rawat is a whitewash of the Prem Rawat described in all independent press articles. My website has a collection of those articles at the press room [http://ex-premie.org/pages/press_room.htm], and if Jossi was as neutral as he claims the article would reflect the views expressed in those articles. Instead, Jossi, and his associates (Momento and Rumiton) reject the entire 4th estate as 'tabloid'. Unfortunately, even if Jossi is prevented from editing Rawat related articles, other Rawat cult members would take his place. If editors here care about the integrity of Wikipedia they must address this gaping flaw in the Wikipedia project. --[[User:John Brauns|John Brauns]] ([[User talk:John Brauns|talk]]) 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::::::There have been problems in other areas of Wikipedia in which "tag teams" of editors combine their efforts to push a particular POV or squash criticism in all the articles related to a specific subject and which appears to be the case here. If these editors refuse to correct their behavior, and Jossi has already stated on his talk page in response to this that he'll edit wherever and however he wants to, then further, formal action may be necessary. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 02:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) This is an issue that has been examined over and over again. Jossi is periodically reported for a conflict of interest, leading to his actions being repeatedly put under scrutiny. I think if this were an actual issue of concern, something would have come of it by now. I'm also a bit concerned about the source of this round of scrutiny. The Register is hardly unbiased or entirely accurate when it comes to reporting on Wikipedia. Similarly, when it pertains to matters dealing with Prem Rawat, John Brauns and Mike Finch are no more reliable than [[Ed Decker]] in matters dealing with the [[Latter-Day Saints]]. Certainly, if it is felt necessary, Jossi's contributions should be reviewed ''yet again''. However, I would recommend treading carefully before seizing onto the claims of such clearly antagonistic sources. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] ([[User talk:Vassyana|talk]]) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:So I'm new enough here to not know that Jossi created the COIN, but after reading the Register article, I'd say there are enough exaggerations and questionable interpretations to make me not trust this specific article. If anyone insists, I will go through and identity these, but quite frankly, I'd want to see some specific diffs of Jossi inserting or deleting material to which COI would apply before I'd consider a full out investigation. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 04:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
: I don't think anybody wants to take claims uncritically, especially from a source with such a flair for the dramatic. On the other hand, given that Wikipedia's value to the public is based in large part on a perception that we are trustworthy, I think it's worth taking the time to carefully look into the questions raised and put together a page detailing the facts as we see it.
: However, I'm certainly concerned that Jossi has made [http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en&page=Prem_Rawat over 1000 edits] to the Prem Rawat page alone, more than any other editor. Given his admitted conflict of interest, that can't help but look suspicious to an outsider. Combine that with Jossi's [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=1000&target=Jossi Jossi's early dedication to these topics], and I think a reasonable outside observer could be concerned. [[User:William Pietri|William Pietri]] ([[User talk:William Pietri|talk]]) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Perusing the article and article talk page and history shows some of the well-known tactics used to push POV: frequent archiving of the discussion threads, tag-team reverts, delaying tactics in discussions on the merits of sources, attacking the supposed motivations of the authors of the sources, etc. To be fair, if Jossi hadn't somewhat declared his COI (and the Register article gives evidence that he ''may'' have misrepresented his COI) on the subject, he would only be guilty (arguably, of course) of POV pushing. But, POV pushing plus evidence of COI equals serious COI, as in serious enough that action has to be taken to protect the article from it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:Before anyone starts believing "The Lord of the Universe owns Wiki", here is a incomplete list of people who edit Prem Rawat related material who regularly contribute to the anti-Rawat forum- [[User:Wowest]],[[User:John Brauns]], [[User:Andries]],[[User:Sylviecyn]] and [[User:Nik Wright2]]. And let's not forget the anon editors like [[User:24.98.132.123]], [[User:137.222.107.32]] and [[User:84.9.48.220]] who burst on to the scene in the last week to edit without discussion. Prem Rawat articles have often been a battle ground of opinion but thanks to editors like Jossi, Vassyana and others, it has been transformed from a bloated, editing warring, quote fight into one of the most meticulously researched articles in Wiki. The PR article is almost entirely composed of the indisputable facts of Rawat's life as gleaned from independent sociologists and religious scholars. It has very little opinion pro or con as to the efficacy of Rawat's teachings and that's as it should be, Wiki is here to present the facts. If you want opinion read The Register. [[User:Momento|Momento]] ([[User talk:Momento|talk]]) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::Momento, attributed scholarly opinions about Rawat and his teachings do have a place in wikipedia. You have repeatedly and systematically removed many scholarly sourced critical statements. [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk:Andries|talk]]) 10:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Again, diffs of any bad behavior? [[User:Someguy1221|Someguy1221]] ([[User talk:Someguy1221|talk]]) 08:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks


::::I get the feeling this is more about appearances ([[Caesar's wife]] and all that) rather than any evidence of concrete wrongdoing - so far anyway. There's no real doubt that Jossi has a significant COI here, but that's not the same as saying that he's edited abusively. To quote an unnamed Wikipedian cited in the article, "So long as you divulge a conflict and you edit appropriately in light of that conflict, then it's OK to continue editing." If people want to make the case that Jossi has edited inappropriately, there needs to be hard evidence of that. Otherwise this matter relies more on suspicions and innuendo than anything concrete. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 09:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::(edit conflict)Does that include re-writing COI policy so you yourself are not in violation of COI? '''-''' <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font><strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">[[User:Allstarecho|ALLSTAR]]</strong><font size="+1" color="red">&#10032;</font> <sup><small>[[User_talk:Allstarecho|echo]]</small></sup> 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:::::The main culprit is revert warrior Momento. I think all people who were heavily involved in this conflict have sometimes edited inappropriately in the past (incl. me and Jossi). Diffs are easy to give. [[User:Andries|Andries]] ([[User talk:Andries|talk]])

== Steve Abbot actor ==

(Moved from [[WP:UAA]])

{{user5|Steve Abbott actor}}

Adding himself to articles.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Toluca_Lake%2C_Los_Angeles%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=189670080], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Woodland_Hills%2C_Los_Angeles%2C_California&diff=prev&oldid=189670690] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wittenberg_University&diff=prev&oldid=189671442]. Been warned. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

== [[Ralph Nader]] articles editor with serious personal grudge against Nader ==

* user {{userlinks|Griot}}
* article {{article|Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns}}
* article {{article|Ralph Nader}}

[[User:Griot|Griot]] has been heavily involved in the above two articles, as well as other Green Party related artciles (e.g., Matt Gonzalez]] for at least a year, consistently and belligerently pushing a hard-line, anti-Nader POV, ferociously battling against attempts at balance or neutrality. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he has described his own serious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.64.208.188 personal grudge] against Ralph Nader, yet persists in attempting to make the articles show the subject in the most negative light, and disrupt efforts for balance. (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ralph_Nader%27s_presidential_campaigns#2000_elections here for just the most recent example], and note that [[User:Sedlam|Sedlam]] in that discussion is a possible sock puppet of [[User:Griot|Griot]]). [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] ([[User talk:Boodlesthecat|talk]]) 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

:I can confirm that the above information supplied by [[User:Boodlesthecat]] is true. [[Special:Contributions/76.87.47.110|76.87.47.110]] ([[User talk:76.87.47.110|talk]]) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Stay (Jeremy Camp song)==
* {{userlinks|Jeremycamprox}} - has contributed articles on Jeremy Camp, not sure if its a direct or indirect COI. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought==
* {{article|Philosophical Frontiers: A Journal of Emerging Thought}} -
* {{userlinks|Philosophicalfrontiers}} - Username indicates relation to journal, possibly a "corporate" account. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Eric Jurgensen==
* {{article|Eric Jurgensen}} -
* {{userlinks|Nikolausjurgensen}} - Same last name, promotional tone. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==California Women's Law Center==
* {{article|California Women's Law Center}} -
* {{userlinks|CWLC}} - Username acronym of article title. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==NRG Recording Studios==
* {{article|NRG Recording Studios}} -
* {{userlinks|Nrgstudios}} - Promotional article about studio, username indicates connection. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Bob Baldwin (musician)==
* {{article|Bob Baldwin (musician)}} -
* {{userlinks|Baldwin77}} - Promotional autobio. Admits being subject in edit summary. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Raymond J. Brune==
* {{article|Raymond J. Brune}} -
* {{userlinks|Rayjay2}} - Username similar and in highly promotional tone. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Poplar High School==
* {{article|Poplar High School}} -
* {{userlinks|Poplar High}} - Username same, promotional tone. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Dan Benton==
* {{article|Dan Benton}} -
* {{userlinks|Danksank44}} - Media upload info + username indicates a connection. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 08:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

==Buzz!==
* {{article|Buzz!}} - Hi, I'm employed by a company called Sleepydog and we work on the Buzz! franchise of video games. I would like our company to be credited appropriately on this page and in accordance with your guidelines but would like your advice on how to do this. Sleepydog came up with the original concept for the buzz games (see http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/tm_objectid=16290566&method=full&siteid=50142&headline=buzz-is-the-business--name_page.html), and since then we have wrote all the questions and supplied all the images, audio and video clips for the games (see http://www.thumbbandits.com/Buzz_Relentless_Q_and_A.asp). Sleepydog is also credited in all the instruction manuals which are shipped with the games. I’ve discussed this with another Wiki editor, who has highlighted the potential COI issue, and recommended I seek your advice on how best to implement these changes. Many thanks. [[User:Neal 2004|Neal 2004]] ([[User talk:Neal 2004|talk]]) 09:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:31, 23 December 2024

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

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

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

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

    Carlton Wilborn

    [edit]

    Clear WP:SPA only interested in editing an article about himself. Previous edits already revdeleted for copyright issues. See this edit PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like a very clear-cut COI violation. - Amigao (talk) 03:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I also add the main article to Articles for deletion? The sources of that article all suck.. there's only one reliable source (Attitude Magazine). I haven't heard of the other sources PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anahit saribekyan

    [edit]

    User created autobiography. Synorem (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, and the first paragraph is a WP:COPYVIO from here: [1]. Copyvio is a problem that was pointed out on a previously turned down AfC from this user, but their talk page doesn't inspire confidence that the message will have been understood.
    The user seems to have severe issues with both WP:CIR and promotion of herself and her employer (The International Dance Council). A look at the user's talk page reveals a long list of declined promo AfCs, and deleted promo material that was introduced directly into mainspace.
    First there was this article on Dance Day [2], which was declined at AfC 5 times in the space of a month.
    Then there was this article for International Certification of Dance Studies [3], turned down at AfC, nominated for speedy deletion, moved into mainspace, then back to draftspace, then back to mainspace and eventually deleted at AfD - all in the course of a fortnight.
    (Both of the above articles are directly related to the International Dance Council.)
    And now the user has moved an entirely unsourced and COPYVIO article about themselves directly to mainspace, only for it to go to AfD half an hour later. It was then speedy deleted under G11 within the hour.
    As far as I can see this is a blatant promo only account which is wasting a lot of volunteer time. The fact that they started bypassing AfC is the clearest sign that something is wrong here. Axad12 (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As further illustration of the issues here, an article for Dance Day has actually existed on Wikipedia since 2005 (under the title International Dance Day. We can only wonder why an employee of the organising body was repeatedly trying to create an inadequately sourced and very poorly written duplicate article. However, the 5 referrals to AfC and the reams of resultant back and forth communication on the user's talkpage indicates that a massive amount of time was wasted. Axad12 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more of the same, see the article for Alkis Raftis (president of the International Dance Council), edited by the user above back in August, but set up by the obviously COI user CID-unesco (The IDC/CID is part of Unesco), and entirely bereft of references and apparently the work of the same hand. Another strange similarity, the article was originally created as Alkis raftis (lower case r) and the Anahit saribekyan article today had the same peculiarity.
    The Raftis article was also extensively edited by user:International Dance Council which was site blocked in 2023 for being a promo/advertising only account.
    WP:DUCK therefore indicates that user:Anahit Saribekyan is involved in block evasion. They are employed (by their own admission) by the International Dance Council, and they are involved only in promotional and advertising.
    Copying in user:Jimfbleak who has been working on removing some of the material mentioned earlier in the thread. Axad12 (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact: user:Alkis Raftis even popped up as a meat puppet at the AfD for International Certification of Dance Studies [4] (their only edit). Axad12 (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about blocking this account, but the COI had been declared and it seemed to be as much a competence issue as anything, so I didn't, perhaps an error in retrospect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken, but surely block evasion after a block for promo/advertising isn't a competence issue - and the behaviour that got them blocked has continued (if anything, worse than before).
    I wonder if you would care to reconsider? Axad12 (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, declaring a COI doesn't give a user carte blanche to repeatedly crowbar promotional mateerial into mainspace that has been turned down at AfC, or to start bypassing AfC altogether with their promotional and unsourced autobiography. Axad12 (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys no problem. Let me know how to delete my account from here.
    I am getting tired from the issue. Or delete my account from here. Anahit Saribekyan (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anahit Saribekyan: Accounts cannot be deleted. If you don't want to edit Wikipedia anymore, simply abandon your account and never log into it again. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinialtaus

    [edit]

    Pinialtaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) For going straight to making ten edits after being old enough to meet the time requirement and then immediately to posting Yohei Kiguchi (entrepreneur) and Enechange (company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oona Wikiwalker (talkcontribs) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/EAllen04

    [edit]

    First time submitting something like this, so please bear with me.

    It appears to me that user EAllen04 is the same Eleanor Allen named in the Water For People article. Eleanor recently edited the Flourishing article, contributing a word salad of advertising copy that further dilutes the quality of an article already thoroughly suffused with marketing-speak and woo.

    EAllen04 was notified of their COI responsibilities in March of 2024. I notified them again following their most recent string of edits. Respectfully requesting a more seasoned editor double check my work here.

    🆃🆁🆂13:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    At this time I should also point out that in light of Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE, I struggle to discern a convincing case for the continued presence of the article Water For People anywhere within the scope of the project. The subject organization fails the notability test, and nearly all the cited sources are from either the organization itself or one of their members named in the article. If it were my choice, I'd say nuke this stinker -- but that's probably why I don't have any actual power around here ;) 🆃🆁🆂13:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. I've removed some unsourced text from Water For People and reverted the recent edits to Flourishing. As you say, AfD may be the solution for Water for People.
    Looking at the edit history for Water For People, there have been various redlinked WP:SPAs editing the article from 2010 onwards, which is probably why it is such a mess.
    However, on the other hand there is the following text, which is obviously some kind of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and presumably doesn't originate from the organisation itself: Water For People reported in its 2015 IRS tax form that it spent a total of $18,844,346, in which $5,819,735 in administration, and $1,944,288 in fundraising. There's a discrepancy here. On Water For People's website, they have all their audited financial statements from 2005 to 2015. They also have all their IRS Form 990s from 2012 to 2016. They also have their IRS Form 1023 accessible from 1991, where they applied for recognition of tax exemption. They also have their 501(c)(3) document, containing a letter that confirms their tax exemption status from the Internal Revenue Service. On its website, the charity also has its own printed pamphlet, called "Behind the Numbers" from the years 2013 to 2015. The pamphlet explains what the money in the respective fiscal year was able to accomplish in project works around the world.
    Overall, a mess. Axad12 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi all -EAllen here - I am not trying to be a problem. I am trying to contribute meaningfully. I am the former CEO of Water For People. The page is/was very outdated and I was trying to update it and make it more factual. Wanting to help and appreciate your guidance to do so in an appropriate way.
    For Flourishing, the page doesn't mention workplace flourishing. I think it is a missing element on the flourishing page. I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text and more factual. Appreciate the guidance. EAllen04 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say I did get some copy from SHAPE, a company I respect in this space. Happy to tone it down to not make it sound like marketing text are you basically admitting to having attempted a large scale copyright violation?
    Also, I see very clear offwiki evidence suggesting a degree of association between yourself and SHAPE. Given that you appear to have cut and pasted material from SHAPE into Wikipedia, material that you accept sounded like marketing text, maybe it would be best if you were to disclose your conflict of interest there? Axad12 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits here [5], here [6] and here [7] were clearly blatant adverts for SHAPE.
    To suggest that you are Happy to tone it down isn’t really going to get us anywhere. There is no place for this kind of promotionalism on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is toned down. These edits were not, as you claim, adding detail to an element of Flourishing that was previously not covered. They were very blatant adverts for a specific company.
    I note that you also made a large promotional edit [8] back in March 2024 to the article for B Lab, another organisation where off wiki evidence suggests some degree of association. The edit including material such as Notable B-Lab certified corporations: There are thousands of certified B Corps all around the world. You can search the database to find a B Corp here. There are many famous brands including: [...]
    In fact, looking at your edit history, is it fair to say that it relates primarily to adding promotional material to articles where you have a conflict of interest (including apparent self-promotion, here [9])? Axad12 (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note also a previous note [10] left on your talk page back in March this year, observing that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Under the circumstances some explanation is surely required on why you recently felt it wise to add material such as SHAPE Global Ltd is a leading advocate for the research and application of organizational flourishing. Contributing to multiple groups such as Harvard University’s Flourishing at Work and AI for Human Flourishing, as well as IWBI WELL standard, SHAPE is linking the importance of flourishing to regulatory as well as academic communities globally. That is obvious marketing copy re: SHAPE and has nothing to do with the topic of the article. I could give further examples, but hopefully that suffices for now... Axad12 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Leyla Kuliyeva

    [edit]

    User publisher wiki has made two sets of changes to this article. The first, which I reverted, was promotional in tone and either unsourced or referenced to primary sources. The second, which I also reverted, was unsourced. Another editor posted on the user's Talk page about CoI, and I followed up with a direct question, to which User publisher wiki responded I have the information and giving concerns about the grammar, quality and brevity of the article. They have now posted on the article's Talk page saying, in part, I have been assigned to create a page for this individual with all the relevant information. This article either needs to be properly edited or deleted and replaced with a new one, as it does not adhere to Wikipedia's standards. If this is not addressed promptly, we will need to notify Wikipedia's legal department to take further action. Tacyarg (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Their last comment has now earned them a {{uw-legal}} warning. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been quite a lot of problems with this article since it was created. All of the problematic activity clearly derives from a single previously blocked user, evidence as follows...
    The article was originally created in Feb '22 by virtual SPA user:TheWeldere who took the article to this rather odd (but very long) version [11] before their work began to be reverted (and the article was taken back to very short stub status).
    The user was then blocked for sockpuppetry [12].
    Then in Sept '22 user:Dmarketingchamp attempted to create a new article for Leyla Kuliyeva (despite the fact that one already existed). This was turned down at AfC. The user placed their new version of the article on their talk page, here [13]. It is obviously the version that was favoured by the work of a user with an identical agenda to that of the blocked user TheWeldere. Then in Jan '23 Dmarketingchamp cut and pasted their version into the existing article, here [14]. So, this was obvious apparent block evasion and sockpuppetry by the user of the TheWeldere account.
    Then in Nov '24 the present account appeared and attempted to create a new article for Kuliyeva (is this sounding familiar?). This was again turned down at AfC (twice this time). The user then implemented their preferred version within the current article, here [15]. So, same story as above.
    This version is different to the previous version that the earlier accounts attempted to implement, but is very likely from the same hand.
    The behavioural evidence of users trying to create complete replacement articles indicates obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion, as per WP:DUCK. Axad12 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axad12: Are you going to file a report at SPI? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, but I don't know how to. If you feel an SPI is required, would you be prepared to do the honours and simply link to the evidence above? If so it would be much appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note to say that the user seems to be restricted to communicating with extensive AI produced material, as can be seen in recent discussions at their talk page [16] and at the Leyla Kuliyeva talkpage [17]. The user even parroted back one of my responses (here:[18]), presumably due to cut and paste error while putting an earlier question into Google Translate. Axad12 (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User publisher wiki now blocked by Izno as an advertising only account (and for wasting people's time on their user page, as per the SPI: [19]). Axad12 (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    South College

    [edit]

    In a previous edit, this editor used an edit summary that indicates that they work for the college: "We needed to update our number of programs we offer, update the 2023 stats to include CBE programs. Also correct a few grammatical issues." I placed a standard paid editing warning on their User Talk page in May. They have not yet responded to the warning but they continue to edit the college's article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An once of good faith might be due, just from the standpoint that you warned them last time and they stopped. Then 7 months later they come back, probably don't remember seeing the first warning, and then get two more today after they stopped editing again. Not that this isn't a problem, but I'd probably wait for them to edit again in the next day or two, and then if they do perhaps a hammer needs to come down. Another possibility might be to report per WP:REALNAME. TiggerJay(talk) 05:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, various promotional accounts have been editing that article since at least 2019. For example, this promotional edit [20] with edit summary Update at the request of the college. That user was blocked as an advertising only account.
    Then we have this exchange from 2020 [21], where another user admits to working for the college in a marketing capacity and is asked not to edit the article.
    Then later that year this user [22] edited the article, later blocked as WP:NOTHERE.
    Then user SPA from 2021 [23] whose promotional edits were reverted later that day.
    Then this user from 2023 [24], who made 1 edit before being notified of the WP:UPE policy.
    And then the current user, whose first edit indicated that they work for the college, and who was notified of the relevant policy back in May.
    So, let's not be under any illusion that this college has been directly editing the article for many years, receiving repeated push back in that regard, and is well aware that such activity is contrary to policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does appear consistent with what I've found, but also let's be real, given the spread of these edits, and their limited scope, even blocking this account isn't going to provide a different outcome. Because, as you noted, there have been multiple accounts, and even blocking those accounts isn't making a difference. A large reason for this, I believe, is that college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but also, there is a huge rotation employees - most people who edit these sorts of pages on college will not be working there two years later. This is different from a company or individual. That doesn't mean that we ignore it. But my point is, once a notice has been issued, they go away, a block will not make any reasonable difference here except make someone doing AIV patrolling feel better. This doesn't mean that I'm light on abuse, but rather, that I believe that we should be more concerned with actual outcomes versus the appearance of just following the process. TiggerJay(talk) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You say once a notice has been issued, they go away, but in this case the user has continued their editing beyond a notice (which is why they ended up here).
    You also say that the college is full of well intentioned, technically versed students who are going to introduce SPAM, but as far as can be ascertained (from the accounts' own statements) the accounts originated from employees of the college and from marketing companies employed by the college.
    Under those circumstances it's entirely reasonable to assume that those working for the college are aware of the past failures to install promotional content and that they are simply returning to the article once a year or so in the vain hope that no one is looking any more.
    You also note that you don't feel a block would be worthwhile - but when an account exists solely for advertising or promotion, and continues beyond a notice, a block is a fairly standard response in accordance with policy (although in this case I don't see that anyone has actually called for a block anyway).
    Note also the relatively recent promotional edit here [25], done by an IP address (quite possibly the user named at the top of this thread, or else clearly someone with an identical agenda). That edit (done under a misleading edit summary) was swiftly reverted on the basis that it was promotional.
    The named user has been referred to WP:COI and to WP:PAID and any further continuation of the same agenda can only be construed as blatant breaches of policies and guidelines. That's all the more the case given how easy it is to follow the COI edit request process.
    The general long term pattern of behaviour seen in this case is actually alarmingly common on the articles for schools and colleges. Blocking is often the only way to get the attention of such editors. Axad12 (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not against a block, but I'm simply suggesting that it will simply be a case of WHACKAMOLE and that using warning templates will likely result in the same case of editing every few months from various accounts. The only real way to keep colleges protected is to use page protection, which might be a better option. TiggerJay(talk) 17:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but when I've tried to get page protection in the past I've often found that (a) this level of disruptive editing wouldn't be judged sufficient to justify protection (they sometimes refer requesting editors back to COIN for this sort of thing), and (b) when protection is applied it's usually only for a time period that wouldn't be much use if the promotional edits only seem to occur once a year or so.
    Clearly this isn't an ideal state of affairs, but I can understand why volunteers at WP:RPPI wouldn't want to apply long term protection and thus prevent new good faith non-promotional editors from being able to edit a page. That sort of solution is only going to be a good idea on articles with endemic vandalism issues.
    Ideally engaging with COI editors is the way to encourage them to use the COI edit request process, but most promotional editors simply don't engage at their talk page. Axad12 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ivan Lagundžić

    [edit]

    One to keep an eye on. This appears to be an autobiography. See the page history of Draft:Ivan Lagundžić. The user doesn't really communicate and most of their edits seem to be to force the article into mainspace (in spite of it being moved out of there due to WP:COI concerns) or talk space - see history at Talk:Ivan Lagundžić. As they have been abusing the function, it may be worth restricting their ability to move articles if their poor behaviour continues. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And he has done it again. He really will stop at nothing to get himself an article on here, it would seem. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have partially blocked them from page moves. PhilKnight (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am trying to cut promotional content from Bella Disu. This Day seems like a "reliable source". However, looking at the content they've published, I'm concerned that this newspaper may have a conflict of interest when it comes to her/her billionaire family.

    In fact, many of the sources used in the article seem like the kind of thing a billionaire in a country like Nigeria probably paid someone to write but I am not sure how to handle this. 🄻🄰 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe best to raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (WP:RSN). Users there may be able to confirm your concerns or perhaps could point you in the direction of a list of WP:RS and non-RS sources within the Nigerian media. Hope this helps. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a brief follow-up to say that there is actually a current thread at WP:RSN in relation to the reliability of Nigerian newspapers (here [26]) which may be of assistance to the user who opened this thread. It seems that the existence of sponsored content in Nigerian newspapers is a widespread problem. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yang Youlin

    [edit]

    This user has a self-declared family connection here to the page in question. Definitely is looking like a WP:NOTHERE and attempt at WP:OUTING from this user's contributions to the article's talk page. - Amigao (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User has engaged in libelous activity on Reddit, claiming you have disrespected his relative by reverting his edits. His nationalistic behavior and lack of understanding on civil behavior might imply that he either is doing this in favor of the CCP or is simply a really dedicated patriot; while WP:PAID might not apply here WP:NOTHERE is clearly evident. Could warrant a block if he engages in similar behavior. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the involvement here of user:PrivateRyan44?
    PrivateRyan44 set up the article on 13th December and then 24 hours later user:YangZongChang0101 began editing the article, which he states relates to a member of his family.
    That is either a matter of the most extreme coincidence, or there is off-wiki collusion taking place.
    I also note the discussion between the 2 users here [27] where both users sign off their posts in an identical but rather unusual way.
    Note also in the edit history for the article how on 14th December the 2 users seem to tag each other in and out over the course of several hours.
    Something looks distinctly odd here. Axad12 (talk) 09:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a nationalist. I am a patriot. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory.
    I am responding to my concern of Amigao, a well known member on r/sino, and chollima, who has an inherently pro american and pro israel stance, and edits a ridiculous amount of China related articles everyday.
    if you can’t see this simple connection to why I am acting the way I am, then I will no longer contribute to this discussion. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i know him from discord. We are working together on the article with my irl friend Luoniya. YangZongChang0101 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting to see that a user previously interested almost solely in the Boer War suddenly meets a relative of a 1930s member of the CCP on Discord and immediately creates an article about that subject based almost solely on Chinese language sources and then nominates it for Good Article status. The general pattern is what would be expected of someone with a degree of Wiki-editing skills being paid to assist a family member who claims to have an archive of relevant material [28].
    That talk page discussion is clearly fake and based on previous collusion off-wiki (given that you have already admitted previous contact).
    I still maintain that something irregular appears to have occurred here. Axad12 (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note on the user page for YangZongChang0101: If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm.
    Surely the only reason why such a communication would take place off-wiki is if there was something irregular taking place, e.g. WP:UPE?
    And why would someone be advertising their availability to create articles on any subject to order, but then using another account to create an article on someone they claim is their own distant relative?
    Also, the quote above was added within hours of the YangZong account being opened, clearly indicating that this is not the user's first rodeo.
    Evidently there are multiple elements to what has been going on here which look very odd indeed. If there is not some form of paid editing and/or sockpuppetry taking place here I would be most surprised Axad12 (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have communicated privately with the editor of note about this on Reddit. These editors are from Mainland China and don't understand how Wikipedia works, so their well-intentioned editing led to all this chaos. I would suggest WP:NOBITING for now, but if similar events happen again action should be taken. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, the statement If you want me to research or write about anything to make a page just dm is not a comment by someone unfamiliar with the workings of Wikipedia.
    Similarly the quite disgraceful disparagement of user:Amigao (both here and at the Yang Youlin talkpage) was clearly by someone who had encountered the user before and not someone who had only opened their first account 3 days ago.
    Also, user:PrivateRyan44 describes themselves here [29] as a US citizen who has difficulty accessing material in Chinese. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume that PrivateRyan44 is not from Mainland China.
    Finally, I do not consider extreme nationalistic POV-pushing to be well-intentioned editing. Axad12 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor's mistakes are severe, but I personally believe that he deserves one last chance, on the condition that he adheres to the rules and does not harass editors like he did. If he does not change his ways I suppose a block would do. He showed genuine remorse for the nationalist POV thing but as long as he knows he cannot afford to get into trouble again, he's fine to edit. No comment on the PrivateRyan guy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the user wants to express remorse for anything, the place to do that is here. Not in private on Reddit.
    The user clearly is not new. I wonder if Amigao has any thoughts on which account the user previously edited under? Presumably it will be quite easy to spot someone who casually drops their interpretation of Marxist doctrine into conversation (e.g. Nationalism is a contradiction of Marx’s words in his theory). Also, the detailed critique of Amigao's editing pattern and perceived agenda may have been seen before somewhere.
    Of course, we await PrivateRyan44's version of all of these events... Axad12 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. You might have to look at the IP he had been using, could be a VPN or proxy. MimirIsSmart (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, there is a declared COI coupled with a WP:TAGTEAM situation going on and potentially WP:MEAT. - Amigao (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Warburton and Khamadi the Amethyst

    [edit]

    This appears to be a COI situation; Khamadi the Amethyst has made a great number of edits to Derek Warburton with extremely promotional language. Looking at commons a sizeable majority of their uploads have been removed for lacking any permission and all pertain to Derek Warburton. All of the account's edits are to Derek Warburton or per their talkpage, attempting to create a page for something pertaining to Warburton - apart from a first edit to Eric Greitens today which is where I noticed the user; this aroused my suspicion as an IP had made sweeping, whitewashing changes to Greitens a few days back - but I digress.

    The entirety of the Warburton page history appears to be SPA contributors, but this one is the most long-running one. David Gerard added a COI template, which Khamadi the Amethyst removed; this to me is particularly egregious. There was also a question left on the user's talk page around this time which was ignored and the user continued to edit. This seems pretty clearcut COI to me, and the lack of communication/removal of COI templates/continual editing of the page is concerning. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG if Warburton is trying to write his own Wikipedia page then this may be the funniest thing to happen in Philosophy Wikipedia in a hot minute. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am clearly thinking of a different Derek Warburton after looking at the page. LOL Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am in fact thinking of Nigel Warburton lol and trout me. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked this obvious UPE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Jim, much appreciated. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lyons Township High School

    [edit]

    Editor states they work for the school. I notified them about their COI which they ignored, perhaps they havent found their talk page. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:John Fred Ogbonnaya

    [edit]

    Possibly paid to edit Wikipedia to create an article for the individual. Editor first replaced the entirety of Diring with the article he created before starting a rejected draft. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and there is no way there is no connection between editor and subject. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft now speedy deleted under WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Axad12 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Victor Yannacone

    [edit]

    As seen here, this user states "I am also a public figure still active as an attorney with an extensive website at https://yannalaw.com" which links to a page promoting Victor Yannacone's legal services.
    Given that the article about Victor Yannacone appears to be predominantly edited by this user, a COI tag was added. However, the user recently removed the tag, despite the conflict of interest remaining applicable.

    Based on the user's statement and editing patterns, it is reasonable to conclude that they are heavily involved in editing their own article, thus creating a clear conflict of interest. Synorem (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User was informed of the COI policy back in August and has continued making extensive edits to the article - including, at present, edit warring over a highly promotional version of the article that they are trying to implement.
    The account is evidently only interested in self-promotion.
    This activity has already attracted the attentions of admins C.Fred and Significa liberdade, so if the user continues on their current path presumably they will find themselves blocked in the near future. Axad12 (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following thread is of relevance here: [30].
    It appears to be a good faith attempt at mediation, as an apparent associate of PeoplesBarrister returns to make their first edit in over 10 years arguing on PB's behalf. The post also includes some quite unacceptable allegations of bad faith activity by multiple users which some readers may find rather over the top. I'd suggest that we try to look beyond that in the hope of finding a way forward. Axad12 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user turned out to be a sockpuppet, and has been blocked. Synorem (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    COI tags on "It's Coming (film)" and "The Misguided"

    [edit]

    Hello, I'm seeking review of the close connection tags recently added to It's Coming (film) and Draft:The Misguided. These tags were applied based solely on basic journalistic contact with the filmmaker for fact-checking purposes. To be clear: I have never met Shannon Alexander or anyone from the film production company/distribution team, have no personal or professional relationship with them, and my only contact was for fact verification.

    Having followed Perth's independent film scene closely for years, I noticed several internationally-recognized films lacked Wikipedia coverage. Rather than simply copy online sources, I took a thorough journalistic approach. My contact was limited to requesting factual verification of release dates and sourcing materials. This contact served to ensure accurate documentation of the films' development and history.

    Both articles are built entirely on independent coverage from established media outlets like The Hollywood Reporter, LA Times, and Film Threat. All content follows proper journalistic standards, maintains neutrality, and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. Every statement in the articles can be verified through these independent sources.

    "It's Coming" just underwent thorough review this week, resulting in removal of an unwarranted paid editing tag. The addition of these new tags without discussion or specific concerns lacks justification.

    A review of these tags is needed based on: 1. Contact limited to standard fact-checking practices 2. Reliance on independent, reliable sources throughout 3. Clear adherence to neutral point of view 4. Recent thorough review confirming content standards

    I'm here to ensure these films are documented accurately and objectively. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Happy to address any specific concerns about the content or sourcing.

    Stan1900 (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest raising this issue at the talk pages of the articles concerned, using the COI edit process detailed here WP:COI. When you do so, please link to the connected discussion at the Help Desk, here [31]. Axad12 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, GPTzero indicates that there is a 100% likelihood that your post above was AI generated. Please stop using AI to generate posts (as was also previously pointed out to you in the discussion here [32]). Axad12 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, I need to address several concerning points:
    1. You suggest I raise these issues on the article talk pages, but if you actually check the links you provided you'll see I've already tried that multiple times. I've gotten zero response there which is why I'm I'm hoping to get a fair and objective assessment from editors who aren't already entrenched in this dispute.
    2. The accusation that I'm using AI to write my posts is completely baseless. GPZero is known to be only around 80% accurate at best, so claiming "100% likelihood" is just flat-out wrong. You're mistaking my formal writing style, which comes from my professional background for AI text. Throwing around serious accusations like that with zero proof is not only wrong but also really damaging and hurtful.
    3. The sudden addition of a promotional content tag, without any prior discussion, is just the latest in this ongoing pattern of unfounded allegations. First it was paid editing with zero evidence, then a COI tag that's still sitting there after I've repeatedly explained my lack of any affiliation and now suddenly it's 'promotional content?' The article is based entirely on reliable, independent sources. If there are particular statements that seem promotional to you, point them out specifically so we can address them. Just because the film has gotten good reviews from reputable publications doesn't automatically make the article promotional.
    I've had to defend myself dozens of times now, repeatedly explaining the same things over and over, providing evidence that gets ignored. How many more baseless accusations do I need to address? The constant tags and allegations without justification have made this whole process exhausting and frankly, pretty demoralizing. But you know what? If anything, it's made me more determined to keep improving these articles properly.
    I'm going to post at the NPOV Noticeboard about this latest promotional content tag and I'm also asking for the COI tags to be removed. I'd rather focus on actually improving content than dealing with endless unfounded accusations.
    Stan1900 (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) You got zero response because you didn't use the COI editing process. How many users do you think access the talk pages of brand new articles for independent films?
    2) You consistently use AI to generate your posts here and any suggestion to the contrary is untrue, as has been noted by several users.
    3) Evidence of COI is not required, only room for plausible concern. There is room for huge concern in relation to your editing, as I will demonstrate shortly.
    Promotional content can obviously be based on independent reliable sources - especially when the material installed in articles goes some way beyond what the sources actually say (which appears to be your standard MO). Axad12 (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12,
    1. I've followed every proper channel available - talk pages, help desk, and now appropriate noticeboards. Suggesting I'm at fault for others not responding isn't constructive.
    2. Your continued insistence about AI use without evidence is becoming harassment. You have no proof because there is none - these are my own words. Making repeated false accusations doesn't make them true.
    3. You state "Evidence of COI is not required" but then claim you'll "demonstrate shortly." Which is it? Either provide specific evidence or stop making vague accusations. If you have concerns about source interpretation, point to specific examples instead of making broad claims.
    The recent removal of a properly sourced Reception section, combined with these continued unsubstantiated allegations, suggests a pattern of targeting rather than constructive editing. Stan1900 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I didn't say you were at fault, I said it was unreasonable to expect a swift response on a low traffic page. Had you used the COI edit request process you would have got a much faster response as the posts would have gone directly into a volunteer queue rather than relying on footfall.
    2) When GPTzero frequently says that there is a 100% likelihood that a post was AI generated, that is sufficient proof. Half of your posts produce that response, the other half produce very low likelihoods of AI input or an indication of human origin. You are therefore producing two distinctively different kinds of posts in a way that is only possible if half of them were not written by you.
    3) I'm about to demonstrate the areas of concern, I'm currently drafting the post. Axad12 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12,
    1. The COI process is for editors with actual conflicts of interest. I have none, as I've repeatedly explained.
    2. Your claims about GPTZero are incorrect. The tool obviously has false positives and is far from 100% accurate, especially with formal writing. Again, making accusations of AI use with no evidence is not constructive.
    3. You keep saying you'll "demonstrate" concerns but continue making vague accusations. Please provide specific policy-based concerns about actual content rather than continuing these unsupported allegations. Stan1900 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you wish...
    Areas of concern in relation to the editing of user Stan1900:
    1) User is a single purpose account in relation to the films of Shannon Alexander. This goes back all the way to Dec 2017 when they edited the article for Katherine Langford (an actress who featured in the Alexander film 'The Misguided' [33]). The user’s account was then dormant until Nov 2024 when it began creating articles for Alexander’s films.
    2) The user states that they have been in touch with Shannon Alexander and that requesting source materials when writing an article is standard practice and doesn't constitute a conflict of interest when there's no financial or professional relationship involved [34]. This is, however, wrong on both counts.
    3) The articles created (plus draft) have clearly been of a promotional nature. [35] [36] [37]
    4) User appears very interested in when articles will appear in mainspace and when they will appear on Google. This is typical of those interested in search engine optimisation, i.e. in publicity.
    E.g. this thread [38] .
    this thread [39]
    this thread [40]
    this thread [41]
    and this thread [42]
    5) Concerns have consistently been raised in those discussions that (a) the user is not forthcoming when asked about their association with Shannon Alexander (they have only denied being paid but avoid further clarification) and (b) the user appears to be involved primarily in promotional activity, as noted here [43]. Also, user:Cullen328 said that the overall pattern is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment [44].
    Similarly (Cullen again): In that three weeks, the editor has been incredibly repetitive and persistent in pushing these three articles and dismissing the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. They are not above making a false accusation against me. They consistently insist on special preferential treatment that is not extended to thousands of other editors who have written drafts. This is highly unusual behaviour. [45]
    I entirely concur with the sentiments expressed by Cullen328 and would suggest that the PAID templates be replaced on the articles and draft created by this user. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who hasn't yet had enough of Stan1900's relentless forum shopping over this issue may be interested in the thread they started an hour ago at the Neutral Point of View Forum, here [46].
    Inevitably they've received the same response there that they've encountered elsewhere, this time from the redoubtable MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is one of several instances of Stan1900 claiming to be the license-holder of various of Alexander's film-posters. DMacks (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very interesting. Thank you. Axad12 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stan1900 wrote a couple of days ago at the Help Desk that User:Cullen328 has been the primary editor maintaining the paid editing tag on the article That is a blatant falsehood. I have never once edited either It's Coming (film) or its talk page. I have never discouraged any uninvolved editor from removing the tag. I have simply tried to explain to Stan1900 why several editors (more now) have expressed concern about their pattern of editing. They have persisted with their axe grinding for many days. At Wikimedia Commons, they uploaded posters of films by Shannon Alexander in 2017, 2021 and 2023, with a legally binding licensing declaration that those posters were their "own work". A poster artist clearly has a paid editing relationship (or a deep and profound conflict of interest if unpaid). The only alternative explanation is that Stan1900 lied about these posters being their "own work" and therefore created a major multi-year copyright violation, which is illegal. Cullen328 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Cullen. On that basis I have reinstated the 'undisclosed paid' tag to the relevant articles. The wording of that tag, of course, only states that there may have been an undisclosed paid situation - and there is evidently more than enough cause for concern in that regard.
    Disregarding whether or not they are paid, the user is clearly a blockable promo-only account. They have wasted a great many users' time by forum shopping their transparent COI around in search of support which never arose (in, I think, 7 different threads now). Axad12 (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Axad12, Cullen328, your newest accusations require correction:
    1. Following connected topics is normal Wikipedia behavior. Yes, I edited Langford's article about The Misguided, which naturally led to noticing significant gaps in coverage of Perth's independent film scene.
    2. The poster licensing issue is a non-issue. The copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use. Copyright holders can authorize others to license their work - this is standard practice, not a violation or evidence of anything nefarious.
    3. Regarding AI claims - you keep citing GPTZero without acknowledging its known 80% accuracy rate. My writing style comes from professional background. More importantly, even if AI tools were used for drafting (which they weren't), this violates no Wikipedia policies. Focus on content accuracy and sourcing, not unfounded assumptions about writing style.
    4. Using appropriate Wikipedia channels isn't "forum shopping" - it's seeking proper review when talk pages receive no response. Each venue serves a different purpose: talk pages for initial discussion, help desk for guidance, NPOV for content neutrality issues.
    5. Your pattern of escalating accusations - from paid editing to COI to AI use to promotional content - while removing properly sourced content suggests targeting rather than legitimate concerns. In fact, your apparent determination to suppress documentation of these artists' contributions raises questions. What's your motivation for trying to prevent coverage of their work despite reliable sources confirming its notability?
    6. Claiming "everyone disagrees" while actively removing properly sourced content and making baseless accusations isn't consensus - it's coordinated targeting. The aggressive resistance to documenting these artists' widely recognized contributions to independent film is puzzling at best.
    The focus should be on article content and reliable sources, not endless unfounded assumptions about contributors. I've provided reliable sources, followed guidelines, and explained everything clearly. What I haven't seen is any specific policy-based reason why properly sourced content should be removed. Stan1900 (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stan1900, the poster licensing matter is in no way a non-issue.
    You made a legally binding statement that those posters were your "own work", which was a lie according to what you just wrote above. You never provided any evidence that the copyright holder assigned permission for Wikipedia documentation use, which must be a written document from the copyright holder in legally precise language. Accordingly, I will be removing these copyright violations from the articles and the draft in question. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that you don’t intend to back down, but the simple fact is that a number of users over a range of threads oppose your edits and that represents a strong consensus contrary to what appears to be a promotional agenda. With regard to your 6 points above I believe that it is all old ground, but for clarification:
    1) You clearly lied about the Langford edits, as demonstrated here [47].
    2) The image issue has been recently discussed here by others.
    3) Regarding AI, you are clearly producing 2 very different types of post, one type which GPTzero identifies as very high likelihood AI generated and one type which it identifies as very high likelihood human generated. If, as you say, you have a very formal way of writing which is distorting the results, this would produce a consistent spread of results lumped into the middle of the range and not two exceptionally disparate groups. Arguing that GPTzero isn't 100% accurate doesn't invalidate that point.
    4) Going to multiple places trying to get a decision that you didn’t get at a previous discussion is forum shopping. You're currently holding down three simultaneous discussions in three separate locations (here, here [48] and here [49]) in which the same point (reinstatement of removed material) is being discussed. You have previously opened multiple threads trying to get COI templates removed.
    5) Everything in this thread and elsewhere has been based on reasonable concerns raised by multiple users.
    6) I think it is time for you to accept that there is a broad consensus against what you are trying unsuccessfully to achieve. Axad12 (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, from what I see on Commons, they "uploaded" the files in 2024 (their account itself was only created 30 November 2024), though they are for films that were themselves from 2017, 2022, 2023 and likewise the images are identified as having been created in or near those years. But you're definitely correct that Stan literally said "I, the copyright holder of this work" for each of them. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, I completely reject your accusation that I lied about the poster images. I acted in good faith as an authorized representative of the copyright holder, who gave me explicit permission to use the images on Wikipedia. This is the first time you've even asked about the permissions, so your claim that I "never provided evidence" is entirely false. If you have doubts about the licensing, there are established processes for verifying image permissions. Publicly demanding private communications and unilaterally removing images based on unfounded accusations is not how it works. If an admin asks for documentation, I'll happily provide it through proper channels.
    Your pattern of behavior - the personal attacks, bad faith assumptions, and removal of properly sourced content without discussion - is really concerning. It feels more like a witch hunt than a collaborative effort. I'm open to constructive feedback and working together to make these articles the best they can be. But I won't stand for baseless attacks on my character.
    Let's focus on the actual content and policies, not personal vendettas. If you truly believe there's a permission issue, take it up with the appropriate admins. But stop making unilateral accusations and removals. It's disruptive and goes against waht Wikipedia stands for. Stan1900 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not have access to the non-public communications (and wouldn't disclose them even if I did), but someone did go through the proper process to document the license release for the files Stan uploaded to Commons, to the default satisfaction of those who handle that process on there. I'm saying this as a stand-alone detail, purely from a commons policy standpoint. DMacks (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks, you are correct that the file pages report that a licensing agreement was sent and received, and I apologize for not noticing that. But those three files still state that they are the "own work" of Stan1900, which is not the case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328 DMacks, the unilateral deletion of these properly licensed images is completely unacceptable and appears to be part of a pattern of aggressive, disruptive actions.
    1. As DMacks confirmed, proper licensing documentation was ALREADY verified through official Commons channels. This fact was deliberately ignored.
    2. The "own work" designation relates to the upload as an authorized representative - a standard practice on Commons that is well understood by experienced editors.
    3. Deleting multiple images across several articles over template semantics, especially after licensing was confirmed, is extraordinarily aggressive and disruptive to Wikipedia.
    I will be filing for undeletion of all three images: "It's Coming", "The Misguided", and "Sex, Love, Misery: New New York" posters. The proper documentation exists and was previously verified. This kind of unilateral action without discussion or opportunity for clarification is exactly the type of disruptive behavior that damages Wikipedia. Stan1900 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "own work" means exactly what it says - that you made the poster yourself. You're not doing yourself any favors by denying something so obvious. MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this interpretation of "own work" on Commons is wrong because the designation refers to the upload itself being my own work as an authorized representative - a standard practice for authorized uploaders contributing licensed material with the proper permissions. As DMacks noted earlier, the proper licensing documentation was already verified through official Commons channels.
    This is yet another example of interpreting template language in the most uncharitable way possible rather than addressing actual licensing substance. The fact remains: these images were properly licensed, documentation was verified, and they were serving a legitimate encyclopedic purpose before being improperly removed. Stan1900 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interpreting 'own work' to mean 'own work' is not 'uncharitable', it is the plain meaning of the words. Under your 'the upload was my work' literally every file uploaded on commons would be 'own work', which is obviously not the case.
    If you didn't actually make these posters yourself, just admit you were mistaken so people can figure out what the proper source should be and get it set up properly for you. Working collaboratively with others in this case means you are going to have to own up when you make a mistake so someone can actually fix it. Digging in like this when you are so obviously wrong is just disruptive - actual disruption, not the 'someone disagrees with me' way you've been throwing around the word. MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The {{Own work}} tag on commons is documented as "Use this to say that you personally created the entire original image by yourself (for example, you drew the picture on paper, you used a camera to take the photograph, you painted the picture on canvas, etc.). Do not use this tag for any images that you saw on any website, downloaded from any source, scanned from a book, newspaper, or magazine, or copied from anything." I tried a few upload methods on commons, and all of them forced me to choose between an option that says I created something entirely myself vs something I got from somewhere else. In particular, I verified that the Wizard method, when I choose the from-somewhere-else option, does not apply the 'own' tag. DMacks (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The images were removed as an editorial action within each enwiki article here on enwiki, not an administrative action for the files themselves on commons. DMacks (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MrOllie DMacks, like I keep saying this continued focus on template semantics rather than substance is unproductive. As an authorized representative with explicit permission to upload these images, I used "own work" to indicate my authorized upload - a practice that many representatives use when contributing licensed material. The licensing documentation was properly submitted and verified through Commons channels, as DMacks noted earlier.
    The removal of properly licensed images from articles over template terminology, rather than addressing any actual licensing concerns, is still needlessly disruptive. Images serve a legitimate encyclopedic purpose and have verified permissions.
    If there's a preferred template format for authorized uploads, I'm willing to discuss. But using template semantics to justify wholesale content removal seems to be part of a broader pattern of finding technicalities to suppress properly sourced content about these films. Stan1900 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If as you say you are an "an authorized representative" then you clearly have a conflict of interest despite your repeated denials. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Acting as an authorized representative doesn't constitute as COI. Being authorized to handle tasks like verifying copyright or providing accurate information does not mean that contributions are biased or promotional.
    Wikipedia defines COI as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and an editor's personal or external relationships." My edits have been basically focused on adhering to standards of neutrality, verifiability, and reliability. How tiresome I must repeat this ad nauseum.
    So, in summary being authorized to facilitate copyright or provide accurate details about a subject does not violate Wikipedia's COI policies. Stan1900 (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you getting the definition "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia..." from? WP:COI hasn't said that since 15 May 2015. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd Thank you for catching the outdated COI definition. That was an oversight on my part and I appreciate the correction. To be clear, my point was never to rely on an obsolete technicality but emphasize substance; My limited interactions with the filmmaker for fact-checking and image licensing do not constitute a substantive COI in terms of the content I've contributed, which is all neutrally written and based on independent reliable sources. I should have double-checked the current policy wording and I apologize for any confusion. The underlying principle remains that nothing improper has occurred . The focus belongs on content and policies, not unfounded aspersions. I'm here to collaborate in good faith. I hope we can move forward productively with that shared goal in mind. Stan1900 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But where did you get that definition, @Stan1900? If there are pages that aren't in sync with WP:COI anymore, I'd like to reconcile them. Schazjmd (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    UPDATE: Stan1900 has now been indef blocked [50] following a thread at ANI [51]. Axad12 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew Kosove

    [edit]

    AntiDionysius has tried to notify the user about WP:COI and based on the users' edit summaries, it's clear they have a COI. I restored to the version with AntiDionysius's revert because the previous version was too promotional. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mmm, and the use of "our" in one of the edit summaries is also not a great sign. AntiDionysius (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a direct representative and employee of Alcon who was approved to make these changes from [52] So, we have a paid editor who hasn't been responsive to talk page inquiries, and instead seem to be edit-warring their preferred version. Given that, could an admin consider pblocking them from the page to force them to use the talk page for edit requests? If they do, yay. If they sock or do anything else untoward, we can look at a regular promotional editing block. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Celebration of Horses: The American Saddlebred

    [edit]
    "TV Series Featuring Saddlebreds Honored". The American Saddlebred. American Saddlebred Horse Association: 88. January 1994.

    User:Atsme has previously self identified as Betty Wills. She has authored two thirds of the article content [53] and is listed in the article as the program's executive producer.

    The subject of the article also has serious notability issues. The only citation that meets significant coverage is the piece from The American Saddlebred magazine which is shown on the right and is also likely unreliable as it is clearly marked as a promotion. 2A00:23C7:118C:A901:3D75:27EF:BBDF:1814 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This filing borders on trolling. Just look at the talk page of that article, where Atsme has a declaration of her connection right at the top of the page, and there is a lengthy discussion about it – from 2016. If there are notability concerns, AfD is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Tryptofish; Atsme is a solid and good editor who has made any required disclosures, and is fastidious about editing within the rules. This report is frivolous. BD2412 T 21:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also concur. This editor has already fulfilled their obligations regarding WP:COI. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]