Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) 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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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-wpwikipedia.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: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Optical Express

• Optical Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PKdundee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I see a lot of discussion taking place on the talk page. Unless someone else gets to it first, I'll check out the talk page and report back. There's obviously a COI but we'll have to see if there's still COI type content on the page and whether or not the editor understands what's going on. OlYeller^Talktome 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted notification on Talk:Optical Express. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

PKdundee has, on my advice, declared his conflict of interest. He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for. In return, he has assumptions of bad faith made against him, he's been accused of trying to turn the article into a vanity piece, he's been bitten and generally subjected to the very worst treatment of an inexperienced editor. You, and the others who have done this, should be ashamed of yourself. It's disgraceful, and your conduct is damaging the reputation of Wikipedia. You should try helping him to understand and offering constructive criticism instead of trying to get rid of him—the article before he re-drafted it was a pile of shit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not referring to me. I haven't looked deeply into the situation to know if such a strong opinion is warranted but if it is, I don't want to be lumped in. OlYeller^Talktome 18:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, to the OP and his baseless (and, for reasons the Privacy Policy prevents me as an OTRS agent from going into, incorrect) accusations of sockpuppetry on top of all the other biting the victim of this thread has suffered, and whom the OP hasn't even had the decency to inform that he's badmouthing him at a noticeboard. We treat petty vandals better than that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sympathetic to a new editor. And I appreciate your candor in revealing your association with the article subject. But let's be clear here, your job is to improve the image of Optical Express, as the "Online Director" of the company. If you are feuding with long-established editors about content, it's pretty obvious that claims of bias against these people are without merit. I looked at what you're trying to put into the article, you're arguing over whether it mentions a commercial? And you're accusing them of vandalism, and trying to damage the page? You need to try harder to listen to others, and work with them, or you will be blocked, if not by me, then by someone else. I can pretty much guarantee that. I was initially expecting to try to help you out and defend your status as a newbie, but you're really making it difficult. -- Atama頭 17:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently OrangeMike and I are now corporate sabotagers in PKdundee's mind, and he wants us banned... let me offer a piece of advice - stop adding promotional fluff and unsupported statements to the article, and maybe people won't have a problem with your edits. Also, as a matter of record, PKdundee admits above that prior editors who were blocked for sockpuppeting were colleagues of his - which means there's at least been *some* meatpuppeting going on, if not outright socking. I think my original concerns were justified. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not able to agree with HJ Mitchell, who said, "He is an inexperienced editor who is doing his best to abide by policy while improving the article on the company he works for." I'm having trouble assuming good faith at this point, and I often bend over backwards for COI editors. But Pat seems bent on fighting tooth-and-nail to keep inappropriate promotional information in the article, and accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being biased vandals trying to damage the page. That's not going to fly. -- Atama頭 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama I hear your points, but it does not excuse the actions of supposedly experienced editors - and my comments of vandalism and corporate sabotage are of historic and not recent events. Both MikeWazowski and OrangeMike, along with other experienced editors/admins who should know better were responsible as key enablers of the previous version of the article as of 22/August - and blocking/editing OE representatives who were trying to make corrective edits to potentially libellous remarks. I am both shocked and dismayed that they are still allowed to edit OE pages, let alone other pages. Whatever your views you have to agree from an NPOV with HJ Mitchell that it was "a pile of shit" and that it was written (restored, edited and enabled by the aforementioned and others implicated in this matter) with sole purpose to be extremely damaging to OE, putting it very mildly. Regardless of my inexperience and actions which have caused such offence, my objective is not to score oneupmanship or "promotion" but to resolve amicably a potentially serious incident.PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My recent edits, true to form of these supposed guardians of truth, were all systematically removed regardless of right or wrong - they were just removed. This has been the experience since before you became involved and I won't sit back and watch the same people systematically destruct and/or defend the destruction of the article, and re-introduction of inaccurate and damaging materials, as they did previously. As you point out, given my position that would be negligence given the history that is clearly catalogued. If you review even the recent change history you will see that a perfectly reasonable edit to the image caption was undone as was another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery. You can see the comments from MikeWazowski which demonstrates his inability to judge/ comment on this subject - if he doesn't know the basics why doesn't he find out or refrain from vandalising/hijacking a perfectly reasonable statement which is backed up, or at the very least is true. He did not attempt to remove suggested "promotion" which was not intended, but simply hit the undo to restore an infactual statement. TeapotGeorge, another experienced but consistenet offender to the article, whose MO is to ask COI's to post requests on talk pages then proceed to ignore them (check the history!), removed clearly referenced citation that Optical Express was the biggest of the three main UK laser eye surgery providers because he did not fully read the referenced material or lost interest in the opening paragraphs that explained that on the last survey in 2001 Optimax was considered to have most clinics but went on later to state that Optical Express, in the most recent study, had the most clinics. Incompetence that he has systematically demonstrated throught this process...and unfortunately he is not alone. I admit I am pulling no punches on challenging culprits who have clearly beyond doubt demonstrated they are unable to make sensible edits to the article and have enabled and supported materials that were clearly intended to cause damage, and making it impossible for you to defend my corner, however what has occurred to date is plainly ridiculous and not defensible imho. PKdundee (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You referred to, "another significant edit in the opening paragraph to simply correct an obvious error that suggested that other UK high street Opticians provided laser eye surgery." No, that's false. You inserted a statement that other opticians don't provide laser eye surgery, and your only reference for that assertion said that Optical Express does. You're continuing to lodge personal attacks against other editors, such as false claims of vandalism. If you don't tone it down, I will block you as a promotional-only account that is harassing other editors. -- Atama頭 22:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my reply to MikeWazowski on the OE talk page. The reference was a reputable industry source reporting a significant report on the industry and providing clear indication in writing that Optical Express is the only of the four major UK high street Opticians that provides laser eye surgery. Amazingly it is also actually true. As is the referenced fact that was removed by TeapotGeorge that Optical Express has the most clinics of all the three major UK providers of laser eye surgery! That last fact was inserted by one of the independent Wiki editors/admins, SimpleBob, to replace a piece of text, which was also true, that he obviously personally didn't like but was actually more factual of the reference. Had I been allowed to revert it, TeapotGeorge would not have become confused but possibly would have deleted it anyway. Atama, need I go on, this is obviously a joke. PKdundee (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

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

PKdundee, I do realize that you're new to Wikipedia and how it works. I'll give you some pointers that might make things easier for you. Personally, I don't have any opinion on what should or shouldn't be in that article, I'm not taking anyone's side on that (and my comment above about laser eye surgery was to point out the discrepancy between your claim and what Orange Mike's justification was for removing it). But here are some things to keep in mind:

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

I hope some of that advice can help you. I'm not your adversary, but as an administrator I'm expected to enforce community standards when necessary, and I will step in if things get out of hand, one way or the other. -- Atama頭 00:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Minor correction, Bob: this is now just one person doing the COI edits, so "they" is not appropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Understood. That one should be blocked. And either he or somebody else from the company posted on my talk page yesterday. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

SimpleBob. You and MikeWazowski were on the OE talk page under Recent Edits stating that COI text posted had no foundation to the references, where in fact the original text was verbatim of two very credible and independent sources - MINTEL and ASA. Both independent statements have been modified (massaged!) and/or deleted from the OE page by you and MW, and you have wrongly accused me of massaging references (as corrected by HJ Mitchell). You are obviously a very well respected contributor to Wiki, but I do not think that your edits on this page can be considered NPOV - you have adopted a negative approach to any COI edits. Please point out any edits I have attempted to add recently to the page that are not backed up by solid and accurate independent reference. I am able to highlight edits you have made that are based on only your personal preference - as these are/were backed up with credible references. You may not like what MINTEL, ASA and other positive references have said as much as I might not like negative references that have been used to slight OE, but you cannot adopt double standards by choosing what you do like and what you do not. Surely that is a key principle of Wiki.PKdundee (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

PK, sorry I accidentally reverted the comment off the page. I somehow missed that the edit did more than alter Orange Mike's signature. I should have only reverted the signature change. OlYeller^Talktome 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought I had done something wrong again.PKdundee (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume it was a mistake. Just in case, per WP:SIGCLEAN, you shouldn't alter the signature's of others without their permission. OlYeller^Talktome 23:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That was a mistake. Apologies.PKdundee (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

It's been protected for a week so nothing has happened recently. I have added a third party reference for the new advert in place of the primary source link to the advert itself.Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I didn't know it was protected. I just saw a lot of talk page activity by the editor in question. OlYeller^Talktome 16:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

RANT: There is one editor creating a lot of vindictive badwill on the OE page and that's why OE is involved as a COI. If you get rid of the blatant vindictive postings - one individual is responsible - then you will gain credibility as a reference resource. What's happening on the OE page is representative of why Wiki is not viewed as a credible reference source for acedemia. Please clean up you act. It took me several days to work out what was going on and who is to blame. I have wasted, as many other good people have, days on this issue. The OE page is being attacked by one individual and I urge Wiki powers to investigate and put a stop to this rubbish. OE does not, as I have said all along, mind fair and proper ctitisism or reporting. However, what is happening is not acceptable behaviour = personal vendetta - and Wiki should not expect OE to stand aside and allow this to continue. It has gone on far too long already.PKdundee (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I know that this wasn't meant for me to respond to, but I am no longer editing the page. It infuriates me that Rotsmasher, who is clearly an SPA and COI, is, and there are also several unanswered items where I have requested deletions/weight reduction that have not been actioned even though in one instance two editors agreed that an item should/could be removed.

I would be happy if Rotsmasher was not allowed to post directly on the article. Happy for him to raise his issues and let the community decide whether his ramblings add or has substance, but at the moment he is a loose cannon and able to post any rubbish.PKdundee (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

A few things here...

• Rotsmasher, it might be in your best interest to familiarize yourself with Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. I noticed that you avoid indenting your comments, and I'm assuming that is unintentional. Indentation makes it much easier for readers to follow the flow of a conversation.
• PKdundee, you've failed to explain how Rotsmasher has a conflict of interest. What connection do they have that would constitute a COI? For example, is Rotsmasher a disgruntled former (or current!) employee of Optical Express, or working for a competitor? You would need an admission or other evidence on Wikipedia to establish something along those lines. Otherwise, you two simply have a difference of opinion which is healthy and normal.
• Failedwizard, arbitration only comes about when all other options have failed to reach resolution. You might want to read our dispute resolution policy, which shows the different avenues taken to solve disagreements with article content. Usually the process is to ask for a third opinion if two people disagree and need outside output. If more people are already involved, more uninvolved editors can be requested through a request for comments. There are a number of noticeboards that can offer advice for particular kinds of disputes, the dispute resolution noticeboard can be a place to inquire as to the best place to go for any given dispute. If there is a prolonged dispute that can't be resolved otherwise, mediation can be requested, either formal or informal. Only when all other options are exhausted is it appropriate to request arbitration, though generally that's a desperate last step because arbitrators won't actually solve the content dispute itself, rather they tend to enforce proper conduct through blocks, bans, and editing restrictions which generally do not make the editors of the article happy.

For everyone, what is left to be resolved? The COI is obvious (and acknowledged) from PKdundee, but he's cooperating. I see a lot of discussion on the article's talk page, including involvement from a few experienced editors and one administrator. I see some normal disagreements in recent discussions on the article's talk page but anything that can't be worked out has the options I listed above to Failedwizard. -- Atama頭 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama, here's what I need:

Stop the protagonist involved (by IP) from directly editing the article from three suspected accounts/IPs they have used. Let them put their point to editors as I must do.

Correct the infactual statements as pointed out repeatedly, but still not addressed.

Review every statement this protagonist has made.

Review further statements made from this protagonist and review references for accuracy and proper interpretation.

I have pledged not to edit this article, but cannot keep that pledge if the protagonist is allowed to continue their hate campaign using Wiki. This may result in a ban/block. If so, alternative resolution will be required.

What is absolute, to give you my honest view, is that the status quo is not an option.PKdundee (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Is "the protagonist" Rotsmasher? If so, I suspect what you mean is that since you've agreed to no longer edit the article directly, that it's only fair for the other person in the dispute to do the same. That's a reasonable request. I do caution you against using such terminology as "hate campaign", that's very strong language and seriously undermines your efforts here. It's important that you are able to communicate in a calm and civil manner and using such a phrase is anything but. -- Atama頭 21:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct... I would hope that since I am no longer editing the page directly, then Rotsmasher should do likewise. I will take your advice on board. Thank you.PKdundee (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I took his avoidance of the question to mean that he dropped the subject. I did notice that you ignored my advice as well. :) -- Atama頭 07:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore it but I am befuddled by events!Rotsmasher (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) So a question, do you think it would be fair if you stayed away from the main page of the article, just as a courtesy? Basically, if PKdundee sticks with the article talk page, and you do the same, then the only people working on the article will be neutral editors completely unaffiliated with the company. There seems to be plenty of attention being given to the article now so I'm confident that any remaining article problems can be addressed and fixed without your direct intervention. -- Atama頭 18:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

As a courtesy to who? If to you and your fellow Wikipedians then yes. If to ameliorate Optical Express I don't think so.Rotsmasher (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be a courtesy to anyone else at that article, because if you do so, then PKdundee will likewise avoid direct edits of the article and the COI concerns will become much easier to resolve. -- Atama頭 16:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok but as a courtesy to you guys with hundreds or thousands of articles to watch. Not because a COI editor of Optical Express has thrown his toys out.Rotsmasher (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

Resolved

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

Extended content

Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am concerned about a possible breach of WP:COI on Ricardo Duchesne. User:Gun Powder Ma has included information about the subject that does not appear to be publicly available. This includes the subject's place of birth the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada This could have been a minor issue, except that User:Gun Powder Ma is the principal contributor to the article and an unrelenting defender of its inclusion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricardo Duchesne. I have asked User:Gun Powder Ma to state where s/he obtained this information. This request, however, was repeatedly ignored, which I found troubling. Given that s/he is the principal contributor to the article, and given that the second and third items were clearly included to build the subject's notability, I am concerned that User:Gun Powder Ma may have an undisclosed connection to the subject.--BlueonGray (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Do you have any connection to the subject? I ask because you do *nothing* on wiki that is not related to this bio, and invariably related in a negative way, up to and including vandalising it. It is difficult to believe that you just happen to be interested but have no connection William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC) If I had any connection to the subject, I would have disclosed it long ago. The contention that I do nothing on Wikipedia that is not related to the article is demonstrably false. For the time being, my main purpose here will be to evaluate the quality and integrity of academic biographies. My suspicion now, as from the beginning, is that the article on Duchesne is a promotion piece. If you can furnish the above three pieces of information from public sources, I would be grateful. Otherwise, I cannot help but interpret your appearance here as a partisan intervention on behalf of a friend.--BlueonGray (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC) As a monitoring/helping editor at COIN, I'm not seeing a COI here. First and most obviously, I don't see that the subject has admitted to a close connection or a goal that directly goes against WP's goals. Secondly, the evidence provided is vague as it links to a very large number of edits and possibly the largest AfD I've ever seen in almost three years on WP. I did find the diffs you provided in the COI discussion in the AfD and don't see a clear COI but that may be because I have no knowledge of the websites linked in a few edits. As you have taken this issue to several places that also don't see a clear COI, I don't see that anything can be done unless you provide some additional information/evidence that proves a COI or at the very least, strongly indicates a COI. Also, if you're suggesting that arguing in an AfD, providing references/information that you can't find publicly, or disagreeing with your AfD constitutes a COI, then you're wrong. I don't know if WMC has a connection with the editor or subject in question but if he doesn't, you seem to be assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow linked to the subject or editor in question. While I don't see any evidence to prove WMC's claim, your actions are verging if not fully assuming bad faith. I usually follow the duck test here but I'm just not seeing a connection. Unless you have some clear evidence of a COI, I think continuing this conversation may be out of line. OlYellerTalktome 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) To be clear, even if the subject themselves logged on and provided the information you listed above, there isn't a COI. A COI consists of an editor having a close connection to the subject (or being the subject) and advancing outside interests is that directly compete with advancing the aims of Wikipedia. If they're just doing the latter, it's a problem but not a COI (or a problem for this noticeboard). As neither have been proven, I don't see a COI. OlYellerTalktome 17:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the comments. To clarify, I did not bring up the COI on the AfD. That was brought up by someone else. This is a separate case. I am merely raising an issue concerning three pieces of information on Ricardo Duchesne that have not been sourced and for which there appear to be no public sources. I asked User:Gun Powder Ma if he could share his sources for this information, but I was not given an answer. Given his role as a major contributor to the article, I therefore thought there should be some discussion about it. I'm not saying anything has been proven, but rather raising concern. I consulted with different pages and concluded, perhaps mistakenly, that the best course of action was to initiate a COI discussion. If this is not the place to have that discussion, I would be grateful if you could kindly advise where and how that discussion should proceed. Thank you,BlueonGray (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC) This would be the place to discuss it and I wouldn't say you've really done anything wrong. The issue we see here often is that content cases will be brought against someone when there only seems to be a content dispute. I'm not saying that there's only a content dispute because things do seem a little fishy but at this point, I don't see that any action can really be taken past continuing to monitor the situation. The one thing I'd like to make sure of is that we don't go around accusing editors of having a COI without and real evidence. Like I said before, there can be an overwhelming amount of "circumstantial" evidence which allows action to be taken (which is how I interpret WP:DUCK) but I'm just not seeing it right now. It's definitely strange when information is added that, it appears, only someone with a connection to the subject or the subject themselves would know but that in itself doesn't constitute a COI where action can be taken. I'll try to keep an eye on things but as this case is quite large, it's almost impossible to catch everything so if you see any evidence that further substantiates a COI, be sure to post it here (diffs and a short explanation work best). OlYellerTalktome 18:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for the advice and helpful suggestions. I agree with everything you've written, and I've tried carefully to avoid any accusations, explicit or implicit, against another editor. I agree, the case is very large and rather complicated. To clarify, I'm not asking for any disciplinary action to be taken. I leave that entirely up to an admin to decide. In any case, if I find anything else, I will share it here. Once again, thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Generally you can't establish a COI without a direct admission or a clear "gotcha" from the editor. In this case, the unsourced information could simply be original research, or even falsified (though I'd rather not assume the latter). If I added info about Patrick Stewart's hat size, I could have gotten it from carefully examining the size of his hat in relation to objects of known size in a feature film, or just blindly guessing, it doesn't mean that I'm his personal milliner. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC) I appreciate your point. It could indeed have been original research, and I made sure to leave that open as a possibility when I tried to discuss this with my fellow editor. My only concern is that, when asked about this research, the editor refused to say where s/he obtained crucial information about a biographical subject. It's not so much the inclusion of that information, but rather the persistent refusal to say where s/he obtained it. Still, your point is well taken and I appreciate it. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Any controversial information about a BLP must be sourced. Regardless of COI or any other factors. -- Atama頭 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The only possible COI I can see is this: 03-01-2011: Ricardo Duchesne (RD) writes an article about the "racism industry" of Canada's academia in a national newspaper 12-02-2011 5:28 PM: On a comments page a user named "Blue on Gray" gets pretty agitated about Duchesne article. Quotes: For the record, if anyone is turned off by Western civilization, it is because of the arrogance and tastelessness of its self-appointed representatives like Ricardo Duchesne. (Feb 12, 2011 5:28 PM) And, why not do this all *without* the resentment and foaming at the mouth? That would be a genuinely interesting research project. For that, of course, you would actually need to think and speak like a mature, civil, and intellectually responsible social scientist. (Apr 24, 2011 10:55 PM) 21-02-2011: BlueonGray registered on Wikipedia and... became until August 2011 a WP:single-purpose account (1) only devoted ...to vandalize the article on RD repeatedly: 1, 2 and... ...initiated two AfDs misusing WP as his personal battleground and... refuses to answer a simple question whether he is identical with this BlueonGray even though I was gracious enough to tell him that I am not RD (I am not)... So, if someone misuses WP as a platform for his/her personal antipathy, then it is BlueonGray who comes here to wage his personal crusade. I am concerned that User:BlueonGray may have an undisclosed connection to one of the Canadian academics mentioned less flatteringly in RD's article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC) If you are accusing me of a COI, please be explicit about it and kindly follow the established procedure for initiating an investigation. This discussion is not about me. It is about how three crucial pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne, the second two of which were included to elevate the subject's notability, managed to be included without public sources. Since you are finally here, I would be grateful if you could kindly share how you managed to obtain those three pieces of information. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The section is not entitled "Gun Powder Ma", but "Ricardo Duchesne", hence the investigation is just as much about you and your questionable edit pattern. Now that we have established that COI does not apply to me, the question arises, whether it does to you. I can also open up a new section if formal need arises, but why not hear first what others here have to say about it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Again, if you suspect me of a COI, please make that explicit and kindly follow the appropriate steps to initiate an investigation. In the meantime, I am merely asking how you were able to obtain the following pieces of information in Ricardo Duchesne: the subject's place of birth the year in which the subject was promoted to full professor the subject's membership on the doctoral selection committee for The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Again, this information does not appear to be publicly available. I would therefore be grateful if you could kindly share your sources, so that this discussion can come to a quick and graceful end. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: the discussion needs to be postponed for 24 hours. BlueonGray has been blocked for being disruptive on "Ricardo Duchesne". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC) So is there anything at this point that proves that this is more than just a content dispute? As several people seem to be involved in the AfD, I don't see that they'll be able to change the outcome of the AfD even if there was a proven COI. Perhaps this is better dealt with after the AfD concludes? OlYellerTalktome 22:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Let me repeat what it says at the top of this page, in bold text: accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you. Both of you have been doing this, but I don't feel like blocking both of you, so why don't you just move this dispute somewhere else? -- Atama頭 17:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Hi: to be clear, I have not accused another editor of a COI. I initiated the discussion here precisely to avoid making any accusation and merely to discuss the issue I raised above. In any case, you can close this discussion if you'd like, as the original problem seems to be taking care of itself. Thank you.--BlueonGray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC). So why haven't you closed the debate when you don't see a COI? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Jespah

• Enough Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Prendergast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ryan Gosling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Satellite Sentinel Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unlikely Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• George Clooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jespah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The user is an SPA, focusing on human rights issues in Sudan & Africa, and has exhibited serious advocacy issues in the past. Previously she had denied any affiliation with the subjects of her articles, see this prior COI discussion, but the recent quoted remark suggests that things may have changed. JohnInDC (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or I could be wrong: she may, as has been claimed, simply be a true believer who is in contact with the various projects, Prendergast, etc., and relied on by them to push their POV; in which case it's an NPOV issue, not a COI one. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Whichever it turns out to be, the fact that the issue caught your eye indicates that the NPOV / advocacy issues persist (albeit in less prolific fashion than in previous months) and should be addressed. For those who may care to dive into this, in addition to the COI Noticeboard link I included above, the John Prendergast Talk page (beginning about here) reflects more of the prior discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I know who Jespah is, and though I won't reveal her name here on Wikipedia, if you just put her username in Google it's not hard to see it. She's quite vocal in many places on the Web about her admiration of and support for Prendergast, but nowhere do I see her claim any actual affiliation with him or his organization. If she did have some affiliation it would almost certainly come out in one of the many forums or blogs that she has participated in, or her Twitter page. -- Atama頭 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So I guess this would be something for WP:NPOVN. I've never really thought about it but I guess there's a bit of a grey area between a COI and POV pushing when an editor isn't technically connected with the subject. I guess that's something for a topic ban discussion to decide, right? OlYeller^Talktome 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yes. That possibility was raised previously but Jespah's editing intensity fell off shortly thereafter and the need for a solution became less urgent. JohnInDC (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I am so sick of all of the policing here when I am trying to insert some valuable information for Wikipedia readers. Please step back and take a look at all of it. I thought I was enhancing Ryan's wiki page and, again, providing important information for his followers, who might be inspired to involve themselves in the work he cherishes. Isn't that a worthy aim for Wikipedia! Rhetorical, please! Good God! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)--Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I do think this has reached harassment levels. If you don't, please reconsider! --Jespah 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is not a worthy aim for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advocacy organization, it is a neutral encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Jespah, I think your aims, well-intentioned or not, are directly in conflict with the aims of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 00:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

We've been over this so many times that we have an entire article on this very subject: NO: Wikipedia is not here to promote your noble cause!!!! (And asking you to abide by our rules, or leave, does not constitute harassment.) --Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, we've been over this same ground again and again - at Talk:John Prendergast, on your Talk page, and at the COI Noticeboard to name just three venues. If after all of that, your response here is simply to complain about mistreatment at the hands of other editors, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you are unwilling, or unable, ever to understand or abide by the basic policies that underlie the encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Somehow you feel it is okay for Wiki to appear 'Tabloid' by stating who Ryan Gosling is dating, yet find it in opposition to Wiki's aims to indicate why Ryan travels to and is concerned with what is going on in the DRC. I don't get that. I was trying to state facts. I wasn't suggesting an agenda. When people are being raped, mutilated, in other ways tortured and murdered, I think it is smart for Wiki to indicate that. I don't see that as being biased; it is documented, you know? --Jespah 12:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

i don't know what the issue is here. my editing was changed and remains as changed by, probably, JohnInDC, who, by the way, really has an issue with me. Each time I add or change anything on Wiki, he is there, which is rather like stalking and extremely uncomfortable. There was no need for you to insert your comments above, JohnInDC! In the real world, some wiki editors have a reputation of being religous zealots, robots. You come at me as though I should be burned at the stake. I have a problem with my memory, which accounts for some of my misunderstandings of wiki protocol. Orange Mike - you have never dealt with me before and come at me spitting fire! Well, spit away. --Jespah 18:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

In the meantime, if it's okay with Orange Mike, I suggest that the COI template be removed from Satellite Sentinel Project. I don't think Jespah has an actual COI, and, for the time being the article seems clear of NPOV issues. JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been involved in previous discussions (COIN archive and article talk), and it is disappointing that the problem persists. One trivial issue illustrates the problem for me: a number of editors have advised Jespah that their signature should be fixed (here and other places), and the signature was fixed last April, but above we see that it is broken again. I looked at Jespah's contributions in an attempt to establish whether the user had sought assistance (apparently not), but I did find this talk section where yet again Jespah demonstrates an inability to grasp the procedures used at Wikipedia: the issue at that talk is minor (incorrect claims that replies to Jespah were "offensive"), but the amount of disruption cannot be ignored. Given the persistence after all the civil and lengthy explanations that have been offered to Jespah, I would support a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard regarding a possible topic ban or an indefinite block per WP:CIR (indefinite until the user provides convincing evidence on their talk page that they understand the previous problems and how to avoid them in the future). Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Jespah has a direct conflict of interest, it has been clear to me for a while that she prioritizes getting Enough's message out over following Wikipedia's rules. This is advocacy. Comments on Talk:John Prendergast show a strong disdain towards collaborative editing, and recent edits show that she continues to either ignore or not understand our copyright regs. I would support a topic ban. As is evident in this thread, Jespah has no problem personally attacking those who attempt to clean up after her, and has developed a very adversarial position towards the WP community. We would not tolerate this sort of behaviour if it this was a SPA for a corporation. I firmly believe that if action is not taken this time, these issues will repeat themselves indefinitely. Jespah has been "Enough's wiki editor" since 2008, and shows no indication of giving up that role. The Interior (Talk) 13:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Jespah has in some instances obtained licenses from these organizations to republish their material here. See Talk:John_Prendergast for an example. I would have thought she'd done the same for Enough Project but apparently not. Perhaps the license described at John Prendergast is broad enough to cover Enough Project, but I don't know; and it's not on the Enough Project Talk page anyhow. Wholly apart from copyright issues, one of the continuing POV issues has been the propriety of importing an organization's own words about itself wholesale into the article here. (E.g., here and here.) They are hardly neutral sources. JohnInDC (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, pretty much every bit I've google has been lifted from copyright sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would, by the way, support a topic ban proposal, but Jespah seems to think I have it in for her (see above for one instance). It would be better, I think - certainly less likely to open the door to collateral issues - if the proposal were drafted by another editor. JohnInDC (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I also should recuse myself from drafting the proposal, as with JohnInDC, because of extensive unpleasant past interactions. The Interior (Talk) 14:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I can write a report but I won't really know if I support a topic ban or any sort of sanctions until I'm done with it. It may take me a week to write up as I try to be as thorough as possible about these sorts of things. OlYeller^Talktome 14:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, OlYeller. I think most of the pertinent links are in the posts above, but if you would like additional diffs to clarify any of the claims made, I've a few. My talk page and its archives have more than a few examples of ownership, civility, etc. The Interior (Talk) 15:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the thanks and on the offer of diffs and links. Much, but not all, of the history is linked above. JohnInDC (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've started the report here. If while I'm writing it, you see I've missed something or misinterpreted something, please mention it on the talk page. I'd like the report to all be done by me so that it can be as independent as possible. I don't own it and can't stop anyone else from editing it but my opinions and statements will all be signed by me and nothing else. OlYeller^Talktome 15:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I consider myself too involved at this point to use my tools against Jespah in this matter, after the extensive time I spent on the article's talk page months ago. Not that I think it would be warranted, not yet, but even if I did I wouldn't feel comfortable blocking her or taking any other official administrator action. -- Atama頭 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I too am involved and wouldn't want to use my tools to enforce a topic ban, but I do think we have reached that point. I've just blanked most of the Enough Project as it was copied directly from their website. This kind of behavior is not a net benefit to the project and Jespah's continued inability to change her pattern has reached the breaking point. We are not helped by single topic advocates whose only goal is promotion. --Daniel 18:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I totally forgot that Jespah disclosed at least part of real name multiple times; she used to sign her comments as "Nell" and you can still see that a number of times on her user talk page. This is getting back to my earlier comment about discovering her real identity. -- Atama頭 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I've requested some feedback from User:OlEnglish, as he is an OTRS volunteer and familiar with this situation. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, she outed herself more exactly a while ago. It's in my report. As Atama has done, I've done a lot of searching and can find no direct connection. I think she feels so strongly about the subject that she often says, "we" and "our". OlYeller^Talktome 23:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The report isn't done yet. I've finished going through all non article or article talk page edits. Starting the article and article talk page edits now. OlYeller^Talktome 23:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

To Atama頭 : Why would you reference my name? If you 'know' me, please contact me. The article about Enough states what they do. It isn't bias; it is factual. It has been on Wiki for years now. Why would you suddenly delete copy? To Orange Mike | Talk: You look like a hippie; however, you clearly are not. If a person says they feel harassed, best to look at it from their point of view, don't you think? McCarthyism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jespah (talk • contribs)

Jespah, your name has been used on WP by you. To state that it isn't biased is to state your opinion as fact. Your opinion is that it's not bias while other editors disagree and have disagreed with you for quite some time (about a year now). It having been on WP for a year has nothing to do with anything, really. That it was overlooked doesn't mean that it's somehow acceptable. I'm not sure what harassment you're talking about but it seems hypocritical to judge others (your comments about OrangeMike) then ask others to see things your way.

The issue is and has been that you have been in a content dispute or in other words, your opinion about something varies from that of others. As you obviously have a deep interest in the subjects that you edit (which is very admirable), it's not hard to image that those feelings might cloud your judgement regarding your opinions. Several editors have repeatedly tried to explain this to you and, from what I've seen, you take it as a personal attack and sometimes attack back. This gets us no where; not you, the organizations you care about, WP or any other editor. Does this make sense to you? I don't know how I can put it more plainly.

This is something you need to try an understand as several editors are suggesting that you be banned from editing certain topics; the topics you care about. If you don't change the way you're acting, I can almost assure you that you will be banned from editing these articles.

No one thinks you're a bad person and in fact, it seems that several editors want to try and help you become a productive editor of WP. There's plenty of people here that would like to help you but you but you never seem truly open to help and/or ignore the valid policies and guidelines they show you. OlYeller^Talktome 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Jespah, I count the name "Nell" 20 times on your user talk page. And outside of your user talk page, you've mentioned your full name, see here for an example. I didn't realize you've already given people your full identity on Wikipedia, so there is no violation of policy to mention it. You even gave your email address (or at least what it was two years ago). -- Atama頭 01:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Atama頭 I am aware that I have used my name. I don't care if you know my name. I wondered why you would go out of your way to show my name. What difference does it make? I also don't understand how stating what an organization does can be viewed as biased. I am not making a judgment, simply stating what they do, as in Ford makes cars. --Jespah 01:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Jespah, I can assure you that if a Wikipedia editor with a particular fondness for Fords began to reproduce marketing copy from Ford's website at Ford Motor Company, it would be removed within minutes. Even if they had managed to gain permission to reprint it, and no matter how much they believed it to be true. JohnInDC (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

And since you asked, Atama's trying to stick up for you, to explain to the other editors that you do not have an actual conflict of interest on Enough Project or the various other Prendergast-related undertakings. If you did have a COI you'd probably have a topic ban imposed on you with very little additional discussion. Absent the COI, it's the tougher question of whether your enthusiasm for the subject inevitably compromises your ability to edit Wikipedia neutrally. But Wikipedia has rules against identifying an editor's real identity, even if someone manages to figure it out. There is no such prohibition if the editor discloses their own identity, which you did. That's why Atama mentioned it. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry Jespah, I'm not trying to intimidate you. My first comment here was to point out that after I found out who you were (which wasn't hard since you said who you were, even if I initially forgot that you'd done so) I looked at other sites to see if you were officially affiliated with these groups or claimed to work for them, and found nothing. One of the purposes of this board is to establish whether or not a COI exists, and if an editor self-discloses their identity (as you did) that makes it easier. I still advise that people don't give out personal info here, but you've already done so repeatedly so the cat's already out of the bag, so to speak. -- Atama頭 16:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm almost done with the report. I've come to the conclusion that the report won't be exhaustive. For it to be exhaustive (read and analyze every single piece of evidence), it would take weeks for me to go through everything mostly due to the fact that singular conversations sometimes happen across talk multiple talk pages, have self-typed signatures that don't match time stamps, and varying signatures (between the user's name and username). I don't feel that reports have to be exhaustive to be accurate and given the situation, I feel that it will still be very accurate.

I'll post back here by the end of the day. As for taking action, I'll read up on the appropriate method of action after I have come to a conclusion. OlYeller^Talktome 16:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OlYeller Am I allowed to respond to your report? --Jespah 23:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do, Jespah. This is a discussion and your input is welcomed. The Interior (Talk) 17:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jespah. Feel free to comment on the report anywhere you'd like. It would probably be easiest if the comment is left here. Thank you for asking. OlYeller^Talktome 18:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, The Interior and OlYeller. May I remove the COI tag from Satellite Sentinel Project? Thank you. --Jespah 04:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I did it. I think we agree that there is no technical COI; and as I said above, the article as currently written seems to be fairly NPOV. JohnInDC (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Jespah 14:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeffrey Braithwaite

• Jeffrey Braithwaite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• NicheConsult (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Pablo Ulpiano

• Pablo Ulpiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pabloulpiano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Christ, are people suppose to read that? I AFD'd it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Voted Speedy Delete, and marked A7. Phearson (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The user has not edited since the creation of the article. They have a version of their article on their userspace now that I've tagged as a {{userpage}} that won't be indexed by search engines. At this point, the issue seems stale. I'll monitor and report back if there are changes. OlYeller^Talktome 15:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note of the relationship between PROD and CSD (a bit off-topic but might bear mentioning)...

Proposed deletions are for articles where deletion of the article, in general, is uncontroversial. In other words, nobody objects to deletion. Speedy deletions are situations where an article meets one of the criteria listed at WP:CSD.

Declining a PROD should not affect an article's eligibility for speedy deletion. In this case, if the article lacks a credible claim of importance for the subject, then someone should add such a claim or the article can be speedily deleted. It doesn't matter if someone objects to the deletion by declining a PROD, or protesting on the article's talk page, etc. It's still eligible if it meets the A7 criteria.

Declining a speedy deletion request may make an article ineligible for PROD, but it's situational. In the case where the author of the page protests the speedy deletion by writing on the article talk page that they don't want the article deleted, that would make proposed deletion controversial if the article happens to be declined. On the other hand, in a case where someone rejects a speedy deletion request only because the requirements of the speedy deletion tag aren't met, that doesn't show that the person is objecting to deletion of the article in general. I myself have declined a speedy deletion tag and replaced it with PROD on articles. It all boils down to common sense; has someone demonstrated in words or actions that they feel the article merits inclusion? If so, the article is ineligible for PROD, if not, it isn't. -- Atama頭 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I always thought it was CSD->PROD->AfD. If the article had been AfD'd or a PROD was declined, it was obviously controversial and therefore didn't qualify for speedy deletion. As I re-read WP:CSD, it never mentions that speedy deletions are inherently uncontroversial (save objections by the author) as I thought they had to be. The more I think about my previous interpretation, the less sense it makes.

In short, thanks for the heads up. OlYeller^Talktome 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The point of a speedy deletion is that there's a reason that the article should be deleted right now (or as soon as an admin gets a chance to review the article and determine if the speedy deletion criteria apply). There's no hierarchy between the deletion processes, they are all independent of each other for the most part, except that an article that has undergone AfD is ineligible for PROD. (And technically, an article that has been to AfD and has had no "keep" !votes or arguments could probably be eligible though that would be open to debate, actually that's a good question for WT:PROD, hmm...) It's also not uncommon for an article to be brought to an AfD and speedily deleted before the AfD finishes, in which case the AfD is closed with a "speedy delete" result. -- Atama頭 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource Space Model

• Faceted search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 159.226.43.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

Alexander_Misharin

• Alexander_Misharin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ssr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Here are the whitewashing diffs. Ssr (talk · contribs) has added a {{POV}} tag to the "Controversies" section. As I don't read Russian, I can't read the several references provided in the section. The conversation has been taken to the talk page. Justified or not (again I don't speak Russian), this definitely seems like a controversy that has spilled over from the Russian WP as the "Controversies" section was taken directly from ru.Wikipedia. OlYeller^Talktome 14:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

From quick read of the Russian WP article using Google Translate, it looks like the controversy is still taking place there. This situation is more complicated than it seems.

Gritzko, how do you know that Ssr works for the subject of the article? I see that he has stated his name on his user page but don't see a clear connection between him and the subject of the article.

Well, S.Rublev does not hide his affiliation. Once he was hired, that got into the press, also he was giving comments to the press regarding the whitewashing controversy.

"Gov Misharin entrusted his blog to a guy (famous by swearing)" - actually, the former boss of Mr.Rublev was famous for profuse swearing and suchlike

in this publication S.Rublev gives a commentary on the scandal, as a employee of Gov.Misharin

Twitter profile of S.Rublev - says he is a "twitter secretary of @amisharin" Gritzko (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Digging in my personal data and publishing it here is not the point of the case. Look at what I written at the article's talk page. As was stated in Russian dicussions, I am not trying to hide that I'm involved in COI, so no need to "unmask" me. I try to show that Gritzko is a member of a "team" that are also members of COI - but, unlike myself, they don't admit it. For long time, they supposedly try to use Russian Wikipedia, along with some mass media Gritzko refers to, for local political struggle (a common thing for Sverdlovsk Oblast). So, as I stated on the talk page, I was not "whitewashing", but was legally using Russian Wikipedia procedures to counter POV-pushing that appeared long time ago before I started to edit the corresponding articles. Gritzko is not trying to make a quality article, he is POV-pushing and trying to make the article consist only of "controversies". So do "his team" in ru-wikipedia, that finally led to freezing of the article (by my requests) that they made very non-NPOV, consisting mostly of "controversies", not a biography. Not a surprise that someone tries to deal with them using legal Wikipedia procedures and NPOV-related rules, because Wikipedia should be neutral and such systematic POV-pushing must be stopped. --ssr (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, as I don't know Russian, I can't verify the controversial information in the article and I have no idea how WP:BLPVIO applies to information that can be verified in another language than English. While that's a content/BLP issue, knowing whether or not Ssr is justified will help determine a COI or namely, if his goals are contrary to those of WP. OlYeller^Talktome 14:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, to the best of my understanding, the problem is that Mr.Rublev&Co are paid to maintain online presence of Gov.Misharin and to build his positive image. At the same time, Gov.Misharin is mostly famous because of corruption/mismanagement scandals he was involved in. Quite regularly, he gets into the press precisely because of that. Hence, Mr.Rublev has nothing better to do than to remove all that info from the article and to keep it a stub. Gritzko (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

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

OK. So I'm seeing a clear connection between Rublev linking his Twitter page to Micharin and the WP account, Ssr. As for his goals being contrary to those of WP, if the references are somehow highly unreliable, which I doubt, it could be argued that Ssr isn't doing anything inadmissible per WP:COI. I've asked Wikiproject Russia's members for assistance. The article hasn't had any edits for two days so I don't feel that any action needs to be taken immediately. OlYeller^Talktome 17:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ezhiki has gone through the beginning portion of the section. Here is thier report. If I had to summarize, it seems that Ezhiki feels that much of the section is synthesis and until it can be rewritten by an uninvolved editor, it should be removed from the BLP.

Bottom line, neither party seems to be totally neutral on the subject and the references used leave some things up to interpretation and/or are not neutral themselves. While there's a strong possibility of a COI with Ssr, Gritzko may be pushing a POV as well.

An admin may need to take action at this point. Before they do, I suggest reading Ezhiki's report. It's very thorough. OlYeller^Talktome 20:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I may correct the issues mentioned by Ezhiki (sources, tone, synthesis) in two days. Otherwise, an easy way to ban something is to set the quality standard so high that no one can match it. In the present situation, I do not feel that there is some White Knight who can do it better. Gritzko (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ezhiki has done a great job and made great conclusions. Thank him very much for that! Per his conclusions, please remove Gritzko's writings ("Controversies" section) to avoid BLP violation. Please remove his content, do not let him add more (per Ezhiki's findings, he is not capable of writing neutral content in this case). As I said previously, there is not just "strong possibility of a COI" with me, but I am an openly-declared COI party that try to oppose other COI party (per my opinion, and which is not openly-declared). Letting him just insert his highly-biased content is not in accordance with Wikipedia goals, while my intervention and my COI dispute to make Wikipedia neutral (by removing his writings) is in accordance with Wikipedia goals. --ssr (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Somehow Ssr's accusations of conspiracy led to me becoming a COI party. In either case, I am editing the section according to Ezhiki's comments and then WP:EAR is OK. Gritzko (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I backed every fact with the best sources I can find and removed everything I cannot reliably support with references. I think, I've put x10 more work into the article than User:Ssr who, in principle, is paid to do that. Just to highlight the fact that the lack of positive information is not my fault. Comments are welcome. Gritzko (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Voilà: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#A._Misharin:_controversies Gritzko (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg

• Hazi Aslanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Takabeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Do you have any information that indicates that Takabeg is closely related to the subject of the article? There must be a close connection for it to be considered a COI. If there is no connection, this is a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page. If the user is going against consensus, the situation should be reported to WP:ANI. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem. This user doesn't talk in talk page, just does his own stuff without respecting other users. Then instead of focusing on mutual talk, he tries to blame and scare me with this type of actions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NovaSkola. So could u please take action. I am sure he is sock puppet of user Xebulon --NovaSkola (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard regarding conflicts of interest which means that the user's goals are contrary to the goals of WP (which you're obviously stating) and the user has a close connection with the subject of the article that they are editing. As no connection has been shown, this appears to be a content dispute best suited for WP:ANI, WP:SPI, or possibly WP:POVN. OlYeller^Talktome 15:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

• Paul Spiring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bertram Fletcher Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 94.1.82.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 217.233.193.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.247.190.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.6.44.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prspiring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given a COI reminder early in 2009. Since then, these and related articles have seen a continuing stream of single-purpose IP edits. The bio article appears distinctly promotional; the guy is just a schoolteacher, but it spins him as some kind of high-flying "scientist and educator". 217.44.18.82 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You say: "was given a COI reminder early in 2009". By who? where? Do you have a diff or a link? Also, you have listed 5 accounts, only the first three are SPA's and the first two are inactive. What I'm getting at is, yes there is some SP editing of this article but do you have any evidence of COI? which is the theme of this noticeboard.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start over. Dear IP 217, thanks for your concern and vigilance and for taking the time to create a post here. However, I've looked at the article, its history and its user page (where I found the COI warning you referred to in your post)and I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the situation. 1) I don't see the article as having a strong POV and even if it did that would be an issue for the NPOV or BLP noticeboards. 2) Looking at the talk page I see there are not current controversies or discussions that are being dominated by the accounts listed in your post. 3) Looking at the edit history for the past few months I don't see any glaring examples of POV editing. What I see are copy edits and the addition of a few pieces of reliable sourced text. So unless you can give a clearer demonstration of disruptive editing by someone who you have good reason to think is the article subject, then I'm not sure there is an issue relevant to this noticeboard. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the IP didn't get the link formatted properly for Prspiring, I just fixed that. Following the link above to the user's talk page, you can clearly see a COI notice left in January 2009 (it's the first comment on the page). Also, Prspiring clearly matches Paul R. Spiring, who has edited the Spiring article created by TedSherrell. TedSherrell and Prspiring have a great number of contributions in common and may in fact be the same person, but a sockpuppet investigation was closed without any action taken. At this point, both accounts have been inactive (one for a year and the other for 4 months) and so checkuser data would be very stale if another investigation was requested. The real question is whether or not Paul Spiring is notable enough to have an article at all, and that's not really a matter for this noticeboard to decide. -- Atama頭 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been meaning to comment here for a while but haven't got round to it... Anyway I agree that there are problems that need addressing. First I did some digging and noticed that TedSherrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who originally created the article also reviewed one of Spiring's books on Spiring's website suggesting a possible COI. The article also contained large amounts of unsourced personal information (DOB etc.) which as far as I can tell is not publicly available, again suggesting that editors have a close connection to the subject. As an IP has noted on my talk page (presumably the OP) there are large numbers of links to Spiring's website (which is probably not reliable in the sense of WP:RS) which were added by IPs. It's not clear to me that either WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR are met either, so I feel that a deletion debate is probably the way to go, once I get the chance to double check for more sources. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Peter Tomsen

• Peter Tomsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Emily.lavelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I don't see how they are connected. But I have reverted her addition on the main count that it wasn't cited. User was also notified of this discussion. Phearson (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I was planning to build this up from scratch using found sources anyway. Can you define "they"(as in "I don't see how they are connected.")? BusterD (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "they" are Emily and Peter. However, Emily stated: We work with Peter Tomsen at Public Affairs, the publisher of his book "The Wars of Afghanistan..." That seems to be an open admission of a COI. -- Atama頭 04:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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

• David Weprin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bob Turner (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• KeptSouth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Inthegarden52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZannyBrainy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KeptSouth

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Inthegarden52
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZannyBrainy

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

I'm a new wikipedia user. Most of my edits until this point have been related to current events, hence my interest the David Weprin page. My only edits to this page, I believe, relate to ensuring that the article actually states what the sources say and undoing the edits of Sharktopus who erased nearly an entire section from the article. I believe the Weprin page should contain truthful information and not attempt to lean the page in any particular direction. On that note, if you look at Shark's last edit, you'll notice an effort to do just what he accuses me of doing. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=David_Weprin&action=historysubmit&diff=449867520&oldid=449836643

Inthegarden52 (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the edit by Sharktopus cited in the post above is troubling as it appears he has deleted a substantial amount of sourced content instead of rewording it and/or making corrections as needed and he/she seems to have cherry picked a criticism from a feature article in the NY Times. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the first week of school and I do not have a lot of time free for trying to despin a political article about a district I don't live in and a race I know nothing about. I'm sorry if my attempt to remove what I thought was pure mudslinging was hamhanded. I was hoping that posting here would get help from somebody more capable. Also, I think KeptSouth is a legitimate Wikipedian, but the other two are in my opinion SPAs trying to cover that up with a few random postings elsewhere. Sharktopus ^talk 05:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the person's or persons' goal(s) seem to be contrary to that of WP's but for there to be a COI, there needs to be a close connection between the subject of the articles and the person editing. If there's no connection proven (the person outs themselves or there's incredibly obvious signs of a connection outside of perceived goals), then this should be taken care of on the talk page and then at WP:POVN if the issue can't be resolved on the talk page. OlYeller^Talktome 12:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Integrated Device Technology

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

Zoe Crosher

• Zoe Crosher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jobpiston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Leathermarket_JMB

• Leathermarket_JMB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jpmaytum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Brookstreet Hotel

• Brookstreet Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andy.w.sparks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

So I did some googling, and now I could do with a bit of info on OUTING. Can someone give me the hard and fast rules here? Failedwizard (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

To sum up WP:OUTING in a nutshell, don't reveal a person's private information on Wikipedia if they have taken steps to protect their privacy. If a person's actions on Wikipedia in some form or another reveals personal information then they have essentially waived that right. You're still not supposed to "dig up dirt on them":

• The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research".

But you are allowed to use that information to help establish a COI:

• However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums.

So, if, for example, you Googled "Andy W. Sparks" and saw that there was a person with that name associated with a company or companies that would be promoted through Andy.w.sparks' edits, then that would be an appropriate use of on-Wikipedia information to establish a COI and would not be outing. -- Atama頭 20:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Assuming I've understood this right... (feel free to revert) I've had a look at (some of) the edits and I see a pleasant user and a lot of editing on lots of articles, I'm not convinced that Brookstreet Hotel is a COI, but I would submit (via [1]) that Protecode certainly is. Failedwizard (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And just to double check my understanding - I understand that I can post that twitter link here because it is directly relevant to establishing a conflict of interest (and I assume handy admins are red-hot on this page with the ability to hide it again) but it would be a VERY BAD THING to do it on any other page? Is that right? Failedwizard (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually more because he self-disclosed his identity by choosing "Andy.w.sparks" as a username. WP:REALNAME applies, we warn people of the consequences of choosing a real name as a username, and specifically state, "Use of a real name allows contributions to be more easily traced to an individual." -- Atama頭 21:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, to clarify my earlier remarks and to avoid any misunderstandings, I'd like to point out that revealing information that would enable a person to be directly contacted is almost never allowed in any circumstances. Common sense applies. That would include info such as a person's mailing address, email address, phone number, social security number, etc. Under some circumstances, saying that a person works for Microsoft might be relevant, giving a link to a person's blog might be relevant, but giving a person's cell phone number would probably never be relevant. The only reason to ever give out information which is that personal would be to intimidate and/or harass a person. -- Atama頭 21:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Wandering well off the subject now, but what I'm hearing is 'You've not broken any rules, but the staff page of the company (assuming it exists) might have been a better choice than the twitter account', so I can breathe a bit more easily.

Now what happens ?Failedwizard (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good question. Conflicts of interest on their own generally aren't a problem. If an editor is able to contribute positively, without violating any of our policies and guidelines (or specific editing restrictions), then they are welcome to do so in any way they wish. Note that WP:COI doesn't say that editors with a COI are unable to contribute, it only gives suggestions on how to approach individuals who have a COI, and advice for people who edit with a COI. It is only when an editor acts disruptively that we have concerns. From my time assisting with COI-related issues, I think that I can name the 4 most common forms of disruption that are caused, or at least made worse by a conflict of interest.

• WP:NPOV - This is probably the most common issue, so common that POV issues and COI issues are often confused for one another. An editor has a particularly strong point of view because of their close connection to the article subject, and tries to remove criticisms and add praise, or vice-versa depending on the nature of the COI.
• WP:SPAM - This is the second most common issue, and in many cases the COI is incidental; an individual is warned and/or blocked for spamming and the issue is resolved. Wikipedia is one of the most widely-viewed sites on the web, and anyone can edit free of charge, so it's a marketer's paradise, if vigilant people don't clean up the promotion.
• WP:OWN - This often goes along with POV problems, where a person feels that their connection to the article subject gives them greater authority to determine what is and isn't appropriate for an article. The upside is that in doing so they are pretty up-front about the conflict of interest, because they try to use it as an advantage.
• WP:NLT - Similar to spamming situations, the COI is usually incidental, the editor is blocked until the legal threat is retracted or clarified to not actually be a legal threat.

Lesser forms of disruption can occur, such as username violations, the creation (or repeated recreation) of articles for non-notable subjects, an inability (or unwillingness) to add verification through reliable sources, and other issues that can come along with a general unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's procedures. In many cases editors just need guidance. Sometimes providing a template like Template:Welcome-COI is the only action required.

The initial allegation in this thread was that promotion was being done at Brookstreet Hotel. That could be spam, a POV slant, or a combination. I notice that nobody has addressed concerns with Andy on his user talk page, or informed him of this discussion, or brought up concerns on the article's talk page. I'd recommend taking one of those actions before doing anything else. -- Atama頭 00:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Ravidassia (caste)

• Ravidassia (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bal537 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CiscoManager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

[2] under Vandalism or Content Dispute section the user has previously been reported for his civility and nature of edit and same situation is this time  Sehmeet singh  Talk  16:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You said, "May be these user are using there account for promoting a group or they are campaigning." Can you explain that suggestion? What group would they be promoting, and what evidence (on Wikipedia) would indicate their connection to that group? I see from the ANI archive link that you provided that Bal537 has had complaints about behavior in the past, but I don't see any indication of a COI there either. -- Atama頭 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

bal mainly contributes to the articles belonging to his ethinic group i.e ravidasia(leather tanners) [3], chamar, Mochi (Hindu), Jatav and many more these are indian leather tanner groups belonging to same ethinic group where he is being currently involved in. Sehmeet singh  Talk  18:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We do not ever declare a COI based on a person's ethnicity, nationality, race, gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other personal characteristic. I can't imagine the tempest that would be stirred up if we banned an ethnic group from participating at an article. Good grief! -- Atama頭 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The above users are adding unsourced materials which you can check on the talk page of the article. My point is they are adding controversial information which is hurting sentiments of other ethnic group like in this article ramdasia where they are reverting every edit if they have page ownerships. Sehmeet singh  Talk  19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's troubling behavior but not a conflict of interest. You might want to ask for opinions at WP:POVN. I notice that the article in question already has a neutrality tag on it, so I think that board would be particularly helpful. I'd recommend letting Bal537 and CiscoManager know if you open a discussion there, because without their participation you might not be able to resolve the issue. I looked on the talk page of the article and both editors are willing to discuss the reasons for their edits, so it looks like a civil discussion may be possible. Bringing the issue to that noticeboard will help you find the opinion of others so that it's not just you against them. -- Atama頭 19:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Kidnike03/Jeff Dye

• User:Kidnike03/Jeff Dye (edit | [[Talk:User:Kidnike03/Jeff Dye|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kidnike03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

I'm not at all a fan of paid editing, and the COI is pretty blatant, but at the same time that's not a bad BLP stub. The article isn't overly promotional, it is sourced (including a few reliable enough sources), and it seems somewhat clear that the subject is notable based on his TV work. I do see that Dismas has been critical of the article and Kidnike03's COI, so I'll invite him to comment here as well. -- Atama頭 17:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI I removed some of the promotional/peacock wording in the draft and it is now at Jeff Dye. Jesanj (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been critical of the article. It has, on numerous occasions, been created over the redirect to "Last Comic Standing 6" by SPAs and each time I have reverted it back. I started working with Kidnike because I was tired of the back and forth and because by now Dye seems to have had enough press to be notable. Is the article great? Not really. Does it establish notability, I think so. Though, it will have to be watched because Jeff Dye seems to think that Wikipedia is an advertising medium. Dismas|^(talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nu Skin Enterprises

• Nu Skin Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Multiple IPs from nuskin.com

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

• 216.169.204.17 (talk)
• 216.169.203.109 (talk)
• 216.169.206.4 (talk)

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

Babylon (program): Violation of consensus and conflict of interest

• Babylon (program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a conflict of interest. He constantly changes the article the form that he loves, inserting exaggeratedly positive and advertising material about the software product and removing the negative ones. In the mean time, Talk:Babylon (program) is filled to brim with people who require the article to be re-written from a neutral point of view.

When the user is warned not to do this, he simply disappears for a while, only to return three or four month later and do the same things. If this user had a good explanation for his edits, he would not have done such a thing. (He would have explained it.) This user is already warned but simply refuses to get the point.

Diffs

• This and this diff are of an edit warring in 10 May 2011. He has:
  1. Removed all maintenance tags from the article with this edit summary: "tags unneeded" and "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them"! Well, I do not know how he can possibly count {{bare links}} as someone having grudge, or how he can count {{Unreferenced section}} as unnecessary!
  2. Merged "Company information" section with the lead section, which is against WP:MOS. Lead section must no have novel info.

• This diff shows the six edits that he did in 10 May 2011 which include:
  1. Moving the auxiliary information about the company from "Company information" section at the bottom of the article to the top, and rewriting them in an advertising manner.
  2. Using euphemism in "Malware-like behavior" section to reduce its effect in a non-neutral manner: He replaces the accurate adverbs of time with the inaccurate ones, which is not allowed in WP:MOS. Also, he renamed the "Malware-like behavior" title into the vague "Controversies".

• This diff is his eight edits that he has done on 15 September 2011. He has:
  1. Again, has shifted focus of the matter from Babylon to its creator in the History section, thus converting the "History" section so that it is now "History of the producer" instead of history of the product.
  2. Again, has add novel information to lead section that is not about the subject of the article. (Something about "Babylon-Enterprise", which is obviously a separate product.)
  3. Commited the same violation of WP:MOS about use of accurate time adverb that he did back in May, in the same section ("Malware-like behavior").
  4. Again, he attempted to reduce the negative weight of "Malware-like behavior" section by calling the behavior "potentially intrusive" instead of "intrusive".
  5. Added a single spam link to See Also section; though this is not much of an issue.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As we speak he has started an edit war by un-reverting my revert and has supplied the following edit summary: "copyediting and adding new sources is what Wikipedia is about - blanket reverting edits is what vandalism is about". Well correct me if I am wrong but:

1. He has not added source for existing material.
2. He has not copyedited. (Or at least what he calls copy-editing is in violation of WP:MOS).
3. He has reinstated in edit, knowing that it is highly likely to be contested. This is a violation of WP:BRD and is an instance of refusal to get the point and/or edit warring.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the report and formatting it so neatly. That's very helpful. Do you have any proof that there's a close connection between Gilabrand and the subject of the article? If not, this issue is better suited for WP:POVN. OlYeller^Talktome 13:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean besides the fact that his edits are heavily focused on Babylon Ltd. instead of Babylon computer program, as well as the focus on making Babylon more lovely? Well, at least not at the moment but I can show other diffs in the same line. As for moving the discussion, if you think the case is clear-cut enough, I think we shouldn't do it, per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. I will be more careful on the choice of noticeboard in the future. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So far nothing listed above gives a hint as to a COI. Like OlYeller suggests, this looks to be more of a POV problem than a COI. One thing that's important to note is that Gilabrand has been involved in WP:ARBPIA issues, to the extent that he was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for his behavior at Israeli-Palestinian articles. That block was provisionally suspended as of August 25 this year (less than a month ago). He has been blocked and banned at various times for various reasons at such articles. So his behavior at the Babylon article is less of an indication of a COI, and more of an indication that he's continuing with the same troubles as before. (Note that Babylon, Ltd is an Israeli company.) From what I can tell, his actions aren't in violation of any specific editing restriction he is under, but the motion that led to his unblock did state, "Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly." That means that he's skating on thin ice with any future misbehavior. -- Atama頭 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. Do you think there is no case against him whatsoever or do you think I should take this matter to WP:POVN. If the latter is your answer, don't you think you can do whatever an admin attending POVN would do about him? Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

POVN isn't an administrator noticeboard, and while admins participate at all noticeboards, that noticeboard exists so that "editors can post questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion". If you require administrator action, and given the person you're reporting, you very well might, my suggestion is to try WP:ANI. One advantage of doing that is that you might catch the attention of an administrator who is familiar with WP:ARBPIA (I'm not familiar with it and try to avoid arbitration enforcement like the plague, the very few times I've tried to help in those areas I practically got my hand bit off). If this was a clear violation of existing arbitration restrictions I'd suggest going to WP:AE but I don't see that it is. I don't like directing people to "drama central" but unfortunately, in this case ANI may be your best bet. And yes, I think as far as COI is concerned there's no case against him whatsoever, but that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking; if someone decides that this is a violation of his conditional unblock then he'll probably be blocked for a long time, if not indefinitely, and might even face a site ban. Establishing a COI here might get him a stern warning at the most. -- Atama頭 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit, I looked over the most recent edits and I actually think they're overall an improvement. There's generally nothing wrong with adding information about a company to an article about the product of the company, if the company has no article. In fact, often if a company is only notable for a single product, we create an article about the product and put the company's info in the article, and often put more than we would if the company had its own article. That's because readers may be curious about the maker of the software but have no other place on Wikipedia to read about it. We have to be careful not to add undue weight, but otherwise that's actually a good thing to do.

Older edits may have been problematic, but they took place months ago. A MOS violation should be dealt with, sure, no denying that. His most recent edits removed a bit of uncited info and added citations for new info. Despite the editor's problematic past, I'm starting to think this is just a standard editing dispute and nothing more. -- Atama頭 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

multifocal motor neuropathy

• Multifocal motor neuropathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• twitchyfirefly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Avoid any forum site to external links. Sehmeet singh  Talk  17:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Twitchy, thanks for your good intentions to help folks find info on MNN and for respecting the policies of Wikipedia. However, as has been stated here and on the MNN talk page, it is against Wikipedia guidelines to place a URL or Ext Link in an article that leads to a discussion or user generated forum. see WP:ELNO I have done some clean up to the format in the EL section even though these kinds of content issues are not relevant to this noticeboard, I don't want to give a new user the run around. If you still have some conflict of interest concerns or specific questions, please let us know. Cheers,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

CoI on Boris Berezovsky page, user Kolokol1

• Boris Berezovsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kolokol1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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