Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(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.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-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:

Werner Krieglstein

Here is another connection were the writer is relationed person he is writing about by blood. ( [User:Dkriegls]) Truthrus (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My COI on these two pages was previously noted by Pgallert among a few other editors. A COI in wikipedia does not out right prohibit edits from said user, it only very strongly discourages them. Solid and meaningful discussion of my COI with Pgallert led to review of my edits and a note of my COI which notifies other editors of my edits on these pages so that they may be reviewed. Thank you for helping to keep Wikipedia professional, Dkriegls (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Krieglstein

This article was written by a member of the person's nuclear family, therefor there is a conflict of interest in the page authorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthrus (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthrus (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– moot, editor has been topic-banned from related articles, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Proposed_restrictions_on_PJHaseldine below

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) is a proponent of one or more theories covered by Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (article previously named "Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103"), and also repeated in related articles such as Bernt Carlsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). His COI over these articles goes back to a socket puppetry case over this article as well as his own biography. A COI case was opened back then, which resulted in him being blocked for a period, as well as agreeing with WP administrators to abide by WP guidlines for making COI edits. However it seems that the agreement has now been cast aside, as we're back in a situation where he is making COI edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 related articles. Part of the issue is that he's been partially successful in the past in using WP as a soapbox - for example, the Scotsman newspaper cut/paste his POV content from this article verbatim some months ago, thereby giving it some mileage (which was promptly self-referenced in the article in an attempt to meet WP's verifiability requirements). However his theory is not published or referenced by any reliable sources, and therefore is being given undue weight as well as being original research. In other words, he has a very strong COI to keep pushing his theory via this article here at WP, as is evident by his track record of ignoring repeated requests/reminders on associated talk pages to follow COI guidlines. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an ongoing COI issue with the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and Bernt Carlsson articles, it is one that Socrates2008 (talk · contribs) himself has to address. He is a South African editor who does not want to acknowledge the possibility that apartheid South Africa could have been responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. My recent edits to these articles followed his wholesale clean up, for which I congratulated him.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone who may not understand the insult made above, Mr Haseldine is attempting by his comment above to portray me as (racist) apartheid-lover. Please don't let him distract you from his self-stated COI over this article and others related to it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories:

I have no COI over this article. However, Socrates2008 appears to have one - see this COI discussion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's quickly summarise your lack of COI, shall we:

You have a personal alternate/conspiracy theory that you have been pushing in multiple WP articles (Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Bernt Carlsson, Bankole Timothy, Pan Am Flight 103, Patrick Haseldine, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, your user page), via your blog, here, from the UK government petitions website (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) and other internet locations.
You've been using Wikipedia as your personal website, by maintaining the primary content here that you continue to link to from multiple Internet websites. You therefore have a very strong COI in keeping this content up for all these external links you've created, and for the subject matter to reflect your own POV. Some of this info you have been publishing at WP has been driven from main article space by other editors, but you continue to flaunt WP policies by publishing it on the talk pages instead. (e.g. External links from here and here to here and from the UK government petitions site (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) to here).
You and your theory are not mentioned by any reliable, verifiable sources. (Try searching Google books - nothing). So there are issues of weighting and original research over your theory vs others that are well-published.
You've been representing your theory as fact in the WP articles you've been editing.
You added and defended citations to the Scotsman newspaper, despite knowing that they had cut/paste your WP edits.
You've used multiple accounts in the past to try to hide your edits and to give the impression of consensus when your POV has been challenged. Yes, the socket puppetry now appears to have stopped, but it still illustrates the depth of your COI.
You continue to make COI edits to your own theory in articles such as this one and this one, despite repeated requests (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) to follow COI guidlines.
You have been edit warring with other editors when your COI/POV content has been removed. (e.g. here)
You are the only person who has been expanding your theory in various WP articles over the past 24 months.
You have now gone back on your own word in a previous COI case where you agreed with Administrators not to make further COI edits.
You edited my first post above to replace Bernt Carlsson with Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, in an apparent attempt to limit the scope of this COI case.
You have been attacking other editors such as myself that are pointing out your COI, in an attempt to distract attention away from yourself. (e.g. here and here)

So, do you still say you have no COI over the Pan Am 103 conspiracy theories? In answer to your allegation of my own COI, I challenge you firstly to provide the edits; secondly I call your bluff - I will happy sign up for a topic ban across all Pan Am 103 related articles if you do... Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between 23 and 25 February 2009, Socrates2008 made a total of 39 edits to the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article. His WP:clean up of the article was necessary and long overdue, and I congratulated him for it.

However, Socrates managed to misrepresent - whether deliberately or not - the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. In particular, he was wrong to say "More recently, the theory has been expanded by Patrick Haseldine from the original version where the South Africans had only been forewarned of the bomb, to one were they were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and thereby prevent the transitioning of Namibia to independence. Haseldine cites the following unconnected events to explain his theory here."

As is clear from this discussion on Arthur Rubin's talk page, my alternative theory was first publicised on 7 December 1989, thus pre-dating many of the perhaps more aptly named conspiracy theories.

I therefore corrected Socrates' edits to the South-West Africa (Namibia) section, as follows: "According to another theory, apartheid South Africa was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103. The theory is rooted in an allegation made in the film the The Maltese Double Cross and by Die Zeit that the United States government knew of the bomb and warned staff from its embassies in Helsinki and Moscow, as well as a high-level South African delegation, to avoid the flight.[36] Someone allegedly contacted the US embassy in Helsinki, Finland 16 days before the bombing, warning of a bomb on a Pan Am aircraft departing Frankfurt for the US; none of the staff at the Moscow embassy took the flight, despite it being a popular route for them over Christmas.[6] The allegation prompted a strong statement from the then South African Foreign Minister, Pik Botha, (made by his private secretary in November 1994) stating: 'Had he known of the bomb, no force on earth would have stopped him from seeing to it that flight 103, with its deadly cargo, would not have left the airport'."[37][6]

"Initial allegations of South African responsibility for the bombing were made in a series of letters by former British diplomat, Patrick Haseldine, that were published in The Guardian newspaper between December 1989 and December 1993.[38][39] Haseldine did not accept that the South Africans had simply been forewarned of the bomb, but were actively involved in its placement. The alleged motive was to assassinate United Nations Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, and to frustrate Namibia's progress towards independence from South African rule. Haseldine cites a number of related events to support his theory:[40]

Signing of the Namibia independence agreement on 22 December 1988 (the day after the Lockerbie bombing) at UN headquarters.
Cancellation at short notice of a booking on PA 103 by a 23-strong South African delegation, headed by foreign minister Pik Botha, and including defence minister Magnus Malan and director of military intelligence General C J Van Tonder.
The last-minute change of travel plan by Bernt Carlsson. Instead of flying direct from Brussels to New York on December 20, Carlsson was persuaded by a representative of De Beers to stop over in London the following day and to join the PA 103 transatlantic flight."[41][42]

"He also links a version of his South-West Africa (Namibia) theory to the Joe Vialls "radio detonation" theory."

I stand by this version of the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory in preference to the incorrect one made by Socrates2008 (to which Arthur Rubin has reverted).

Wikipedia editors each have their own subjects of interest and expertise. As a British Wikipedian, my main subject of interest (and expertise) is the Lockerbie bombing. As befits a South African editor, Socrates2008 shows a great interest in South African battles and in aircrashes. His compatriot, Deon Steyn, also concentrates on South African military-related subjects. Neither editor seems to accept that he could have a conflict of interest in editing in his own subject interest areas, nor in their both collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.

In summary, I accept that WP:COI prevents me from editing my own biography. However, I should not be restricted from editing elsewhere on Wikipedia, just as Socrates2008 should continue to edit articles such as the Vela incident, and Deon Steyn can edit Koevoet without restriction.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final response:

You've failed to address any of the COI complaints raised against you.
COI guidlines, with which you are already familiar from your biography, would allow you to express any concerns over your own theories via the relevant talk page.
My "collaboration" 18 months ago with user:Deon Steyn was limited specifically to rooting out the 4 socket puppet accounts that you were using to edit your own theory and bio.
Your attempt at painting me as an apartheid racist/militarist is not working. Kindly refrain from making further attempts at guessing my politics, as they are insulting far off the mark. Unlike you, I am not forwarding any original fringe theories or politics of my own here at WP. (I edit a wide range of articles, and have submitted a number of good articles) PS: Nice try once again trying to deflect the attention off yourself.
As above, you should absolutely be restricted from editing your own theories on WP - that is EXACTLY what the WP COI policy is all about adressing. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a fine point at which an Admin could review this case and take decisive action. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that it is only the South African Wikipedia editor, Socrates2008, who has raised this plethora of what he calls "COI complaints" against me. I have replied to his catalogue of criticism in a perfectly reasonable way, but he responds by unjustifiably accusing me of painting him "as an apartheid racist/militarist".

I would hope that when an Admin does come to "review this case and take decisive action", he will take action against both Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for collaborating to mount a concerted attack on the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it must have felt like a "concerted attack" to have all your socket puppet accounts closed down. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sure it has not gone unnoticed that your partner Deon Steyn awarded you The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for all your diligence in that respect! In fact, your concerted attack on me in collaboration with Deon Steyn has been recorded by no less an authority than Wikipedia Review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:NPOV and/or WP:V issues rather than WP:COI (which would ~~require~~be obvious if there were off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest on a topic, none of which appear to be present). Is there any reason why this would not be better handled in another forum? -- samj _in^out 11:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, from Conflict of interest examples:

Citing oneself - PH regularly cites his own letters to the Guardian when he details his own theories. There are no reliable secondary sources for these letters or for his theory.
Campaigning - PH is campaigning for a UN investigation into his theory that Pan Am 103 was downed in order to assassinate Bernt Carlsson. (See http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/, which contains a link to South Africa luggage swap theory, which redirected to Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories#South-West Africa (Namibia) before it was deleted.) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I agree with you about the inapplicability of WP:COI to this case.

This Canada Free Press article, headed Looking in the Mirror, demonstrates that Socrates2008 is wrong on both counts.---PJHaseldine (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here. In any case this is not the forum for discussing such issues as the late Mr Carlsson's last minute travel changes. As this appears to be a dispute between two editors how about keeping WP:COOL and getting a WP:3O? -- samj _in^out 13:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, can you point out where in the COI guidelines that "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" is specified for determining whether somebody has a COI? Obviously a COI is much clearer where this is evident, but I believe that campaigning and advocacy of this sort are covered by the guidelines; indeed campaigning has a subsection there, and the guidelines specifically states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." --Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the individual derives no benefit despite clearly having a strong interest in the case and a specific point of view (which can be articulated in the article along with others provided it's verifiable). The point where a strong interest crosses over to a conflict of interest is where there is a benefit (e.g. money, votes, popularity). As there is no such evidence we need to assume good faith. -- samj _in^out 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are clear here that it isn't just the individual's benefit that counts; it is even bolded "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". This may involve personal "off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest" including money, votes, popularity, or it may involve "getting the word out" about a cause, organization or group. I see the confusion about the term "campaigning", but campaigning doesn't just refer to political campaigns. I haven't looked very closely at this specific case, but a cursory glance suggests that the originator and promoter of a Fringe theory about the Lockerbie bombing could be very much be in COI when editing WP articles on this subject, since there would be a strong (and natural) desire to advance your pet theory. --Slp1 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy goes on to say "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest" and there is no such organisation for the user to be 'involved with', rather a point of view. As it's not clear I'm commenting on the content rather than the contributors (per WP:NPA) and suggest they should try to do the same - particularly when it comes to nationality/race. WP:FRINGE is a good reference, as are WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:POV, which explains "article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue".

I am however concerned about this edit which contradicts the findings of the European Court of Human Rights relating to his dismissal (personal COI) and this more recent series of edits which show the {{OR}} tag being repeatedly removed (potential WP:3RR violation). -- samj _in^out 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the above continues to be a very narrow interpretation of what constitutes a COI; campaigning may be for organizations or not, but the COI guideline (including the nutshell) makes clear that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", while WP:SOAP (which is actually policy, while the COI guidelines are not) make clear that WP is not the place for "propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise". I agree that the focus needs to be on whether the edits show that an editor is not editing from a NPOV, including using unreliable sources etc. I appreciate that you have identified some areas of editing concern that indicated that there may indeed be an issue here. In my view, other examples provided above by Socrates, also suggest that there is cause for concern.--Slp1 (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst not in any way condoning potential WP:3RR violations, I offer the following discussion starting with Socrates2008 categorising me as a conspiracy theorist in mitigation. This is the category about which EricWarmelink has today taken issue with Socrates2008, whom he accuses of archiving in order to to win the edit war.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I sincerely doubt that a posting on Canada Free Press qualifies as a reliable source, but that is a question for WP:RSN--Slp1 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only comment to a pattern of behaviour, which includes

the use of sock puppets (Phase1, Phase2, Phase4)
COI edits to article of himself (Patrick Haseldine) and
canvassing support for an external petition (petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) relating to the Lockerbie bombing via:
- direct appeals to six users
- external links in six articles related to the topic: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

His conflict of interest stems from his real life public support for these conspiracy theories and his dismissal from the British diplomatic service for –amongst other things– his public criticism of Margaret Thatcher's handling of South African agents at the time of the Lockerbie bombing. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates' buddy, Deon, finally rides to the rescue!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond to Sam's comments above:

I agree with Slp1 that your interpretation of not deriving benefit is too narrow. There is considerable "financial benefit" to be gained as the currency of politics (Mr Haseldine is active in British politics) is fame, notoriety and votes.
The underlying issue for me - the one that prompted me to re-open this case, is unverifiabile OR. If Wikipedia is happy with someone writing an article about something controversial, citing only themselves as a source, giving their ideas more space than other well-published and reviewed points of view, using the talk pages to publish when ideas are removed from main article space, then we're done here.

PS: I find the "dirty tricks" employed here (e.g. making accusations above against Deon Steyn, who hasn't edited any of the related articles for at least a year, then crying wolf when he comes to defend himself) to be quite distasteful, but I sincerely hope he is not succeeding in diverting anyone's attention through it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to correct Socrates2008 on a couple of points:

Since standing down in 1995 as the first elected Labour parish councillor for Chipping Ongar, I have not even been involved, let alone been active, in British politics.
Deon Steyn did not come guns blazing to "defend himself". He came to do Socrates' dirty work, and to attack me.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did in fact come here to defend myself against more personal attacks. Mr. Haseldine, you have been warned before against linking to external sites making personal attacks (suggesting I might be an apartheid era general etc.), because that is in fact considered a personal attack (Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack). — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No changes in the pattern

Removal of the COI tag over PH's personal theory in the Bernt Carlsson article. Furthermore, neither the section in article itself nor the "reference" on the talk page meet verifiability criteria. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case, as Socrates2008 well knows! This is the full talk page edit:

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Talk:Bernt_Carlsson#Special_Representative_of_the_Secretary-General

Special Representative of the Secretary-General

Had UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, lived to see the signature of the New York Accords on 22 December 1988, he would have been appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General, and would thus have overseen Namibia's transition to independence. Carlsson would not have stood for all the shenanigans that the South Africans got up to. For instance, he would not have authorised the deployment of SADF units and Koevoet against the alleged incursion of SWAPO "fighters" from Angola on 1 April 1989, as his replacement Martti Ahtisaari was persuaded to do by Margaret Thatcher and Pik Botha (see Missing diplomatic links and the Lockerbie tragedy).
The South Africans knew that Carlsson would not tolerate any interference with Namibia's progress towards independence. And it would have been an independence election with SWAPO achieving well over the 66.6% vote that was necessary for them to revise their "imposed" independence constitution!---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Namibia successfully transitioned to independence, with SWAPO the majority party, so the outcome would not have been any different. Your assertions need reliable secondary sources, as they are only conjecture. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
How's this? "In July 1989, Glenys Kinnock and Tessa Blackstone of the British Council of Churches visited Namibia and reported: 'There is a widespread feeling that too many concessions were made to South African personnel and preferences and that Martti Ahtisaari was not forceful enough in his dealings with the South Africans.'Glenys Kinnock (1990). Namibia: Birth of a Nation. Quartet Books Ltd. p. 19."---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions on PJHaseldine

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– Topic ban enacted at User:PJHaseldine/Community_sanction and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on PJHaseldine that will restrict him from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles he should not edit would be:

The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as Bernt Carlsson, and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist).
Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in PJHaseldine's case. He is a one-man Lockerbie industry and he persists in inappropriately adding material to articles that he is personally connected to. I would welcome comments on this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose the following wording: "PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, Bernt Carlsson (person on the flight crash), Hugh Miles (journalist) (person who wrote about flight crash)." EdJohnston, do you have any issues with this? I've assumed you don't want to include talk pages and related discussions; if you would like to include that in the ban, please let me know so I can tweak it in a couple of spots. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How would you like to handle articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, albeit less so? e.g. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, State-sponsored terrorism, Tripartite Accord (Angola), Robert Black (professor), Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission, conspiracy theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs)

I don't object to any reasonable rewording. I never intended that Patrick be banned from Talk pages. @Socrates2008: I believe that all the articles you mention are included in the ban under the new wording of Ncmvocalist, as 'articles relating to Pam Am Flight 103, broadly construed.' EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ncmvocalists's wording, with a clarifying note that this applies to article not talk space. I believe we have a working consensus (nobody other than PJHaseldine opposing, multiple experienced users and admins agree unanimously). I also support Samj's comment below regarding other editors close to the situation being requested to edit with caution during the period Haseldine is topic banned. NCM, if you want to do the honors, go ahead, or I or another uninvolved admin can later today... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All

Done Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If such a wide-ranging topic ban were to be imposed on me, surely "equality of arms" would require that Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn be restricted from editing any articles related to apartheid South Africa.

As an example of Socrates' COI over that subject area and specifically over the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories article, he has this morning craftily and unjustifiably moved the New York Accords article (which includes the signing of the Namibia independence agreement) to the less appropriate Tripartite Accord (Angola) article.

Deon Steyn made a POV edit to the Bernt Carlsson article on 5 March 2009. As noted in the above subsection, I responded fully to his edit at User talk:Bernt Carlsson#Special Representative of the Secretary-General, after which I removed Deon's redundant edit. Socrates reinserted Deon's patently wrong edit here.

It seems to me that EdJohnston's proposal is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and could even be interpreted as advocating a form of censorship. I do not have a WP:COI on Lockerbie bombing-related articles. All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith - the old article name is not the most commonly used - see discusion. A request for reliable references is not censorship as this is an encyclopedia, not Speakers' Corner. You have been requested numerous times to provide reliable secondary sources for your theory, but have thus far not been able to, even throughout this disussion.Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Socrates2008's spelling of "discussion" lets him down (twice). And 35 paragraphs ago, Socrates said it was his "final response"!

Don't forget that I was the one who said "All that is necessary is to challenge and correct any edits that are not in accordance with WP:V and WP:NPOV." I did not equate reliable references with censorship: Socrates did.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that Socrates has lost this whole COI argument, and when he talks about reliable secondary sources: where is his secondary source to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support There is now considerable evidence on this page to demonstrate the lengths that PH will go to in order to defend his one-person POV conspiracy/alternate theory and to prevent a topic ban being implemented over his COI related to it. Most importantly, please note above how requests for reliable secondary sources are met with personal attacks, anger, denial, accusations, decoy arguments, but not the requested sources that would simply end any dispute on the spot. I would therefore welcome this plan and encourage others to support it too. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A conflict of interest is not by itself a problem, but the editor is regularly violating V, NOR, NPOV, and WEIGHT to promote his own fringe ideas in the articles, and it is disruptive.[7] (I don't understand why Haseldine is in the article at all, given that it is only citing to his blog posts and letters to the editor; the inclusion seems to violate WP:FRINGE's warning against the inclusion of idiosyncratic views held by noone else.) If he has a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section, but I see nothing defending Haseldine's own editing. THF (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reject. As SamJohnston has quite rightly said above: "An interest is not a conflict of interest. Citing oneself is more relevant to academic papers and the like - citing letters to the editor is an obvious violation of WP:V (specifically WP:SPS), much the same for circular references (which you can discuss specifically at WP:RSN). As for campaigning, I don't see an off-wiki direct financial, professional, or marketing interest here." Sam Johnston also said that this is an WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:COI one. In short, I (PJHaseldine) have no pecuniary interest (ie no conflict of interest) in this article. However, others such as the South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn may well stand to benefit financially by rubbishing the South-West Africa (Namibia) theory. I would Support restrictions that might be placed upon Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn, for COI editing if appropriate.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to have the topic ban on Haseldine be based on persistent violations of NPOV rather than COI. If Haseldine wishes to make a separate complaint about other editors, he should feel free to do so in another section on this page. Samj is quite frankly confused about the policy: self-promotion in mainspace in violation of FRINGE violates COI as well as other policies. THF (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF might be the one who is confused, rather than SamJohnston. Where are all of THF's "persistent violations of NPOV" that he imputes?---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree that there is necessarily a conflict, and I don't think it matters since regardless of the cause there are violations. Thus:

Support per my reasons explained above; violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV (WP:UNDUE), WP:3RR, etc. (that is, generally disruptive editing). It was this edit that really tipped the scales for me. -- samj _in^out 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, the edit that really tipped the scales for you sought to correct my disputed entry as a conspiracy theorist ("British 'FSO' official" changed to "British diplomat"). It was Socrates2008 who originally categorised me and was challenged by EdJohnston to explain why. I have consistently opposed Socrates' insult and others have sought to remove the category from my biography but have so far been prevented by what appears to be some aggressive editing from Arthur Rubin and Deon Steyn. In the edit immediately preceding the voting above, I asked Socrates to provide reliable secondary sources to confirm that Patrick Haseldine is a conspiracy theorist. I think that you will agree that if Socrates cannot provide a secondary source, the category should be removed.

I'm not sure how you can describe my editing as generally disruptive when my edits are mainly uncontroversial and always fully referenced.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending (still visible) edit added an unverifiable reason as to why you were "dismissed by the Thatcher government in 1989": "for writing a letter to The Guardian on 7 December 1988", which is in direct conflict with the referenced European Court of Human Rights findings which explicitly state "The Commission finds that the applicant's dismissal was based on his breach of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, and that no sanction was imposed in respect of the opinions which he expressed as such". If this is representative of your edits relating to this topic then I think a topic ban is a fairly light punishment.

As User:THF said, "If [you have] a complaint against other editors' COI, raise it in a separate section". -- samj _in^out 19:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ECHR findings did not — and were not required to — address the reason that I was dismissed. On the other hand, EdJohnston's edit here did do so. As did the following references removed from the biography by Socrates2008:

The Guardian December 7 1988 - Letters: The double standards on terrorism
The Guardian December 9 1988 - page 24, Richard Norton-Taylor and David Pallister: Commons test for SA arms row - Letters:Clive Ponting The burden of conscience in the civil service
Observer December 11 1988 - Richard Ingrams: splendid kamikaze attack on Mrs Thatcher
The Guardian December 13 1988 - Letters: Geoffrey Bindman Shabby manoeuvres that aid and abet Botha
The Guardian December 17 1988 "Fifth man" professor identified in South African weapons ring
TIME December 19 1988 - page 22: Sour Land of Liberty
The Guardian May 6 1989 - Richard Norton-Taylor: Thatcher's Whitehall critic to appeal against loss of job
The Guardian July 27 1989 - Richard Norton-Taylor: Thatcher critic faces dismissal
The Guardian August 3 1989 - Editorial: Just out of court - David Pallister: FO to dismiss official in Pretoria row
The Daily Telegraph August 4 1989 - Alan Osborn: Foreign Office sacks Thatcher attack diplomat

As regards THF, he made this edit today. He has thus effectively rendered the whole of this COI discussion nugatory. I am commenting elsewhere about THF's other recent activities.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I believe the two events are intrinsically linked (and I think that comes through clearly in your bio now), however an encyclopedia reports verifiable facts. User:EdJohnston's edit reverts a link that is at best synthesis (stating the link as fact: "[dismissal] resulted from [criticism]") to one that is fact, leaving the reader to fill in the gaps ("[dismissal] followed [criticism]"). There is a subtle but critical difference even if you don't see it. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it customary for those involved in the dispute to vote on it? I see this as 3 supports thus far, ignoring the participants. -- samj _in^out 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a temporary ban pending closer review. (A closing admin should take responsibility for the duration, it should not require return to this forum, and if the closing admin becomes unavailable, any admin should be able to lift it.) The editor should be encouraged to propose edits to Talk pages, and should be cautioned against incivility. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and being "right" is no defense against being disruptive. My support here makes no assumption that the behavior of other editors is free of fault; however, the subject editor clearly needs to work toward better dispute resolution. If a topic banned editor believes that suggestions are unreasonably being ignored, that editor can seek assistance from other editors. Pecuniary interest is a clear form of COI, but others exist. The basic issue on that is outside affiliation that might impair neutrality. However, the topic ban may be justifiable without any reference to COI. --Abd (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would happily support these limitations and would suggest that other editors who are close to the situation (User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn) exercise caution in making potentially contentious edits during this period. -- samj _in^out 13:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy to keep an eye on the PA-103 releated articles without editing them if that will assist the administrators in this case. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed restrictions on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– No action needed. The nomination may be a WP:POINT violation by a naive editor, whom I have been advising at his request.--Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Samj's suggestion above, and subject to the same limitations in respect of PJHaseldine,

I recommend that admins impose a topic ban on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn that will restrict them from editing any articles related to Pan Am 103, or the Lockerbie disaster. The articles they should not edit would be:

The topic ban would include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash, such as Bernt Carlsson, and on people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist).
Many COI cases are settled by discussion and mild warnings. Mere discussion isn't going to work in Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn's case. They are a combined Lockerbie industry and they persist in inappropriately adding material to articles that they are potentially in conflict with.
I propose the following wording: "Socrates2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Deon Steyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, Investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, Bernt Carlsson (person on the flight crash), Hugh Miles (journalist) (person who wrote about flight crash) as well as articles on the periphery that have from time-to-time also been involved, e.g. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, State-sponsored terrorism, Tripartite Accord (Angola), Robert Black (professor), Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission, conspiracy theory."

I would welcome comments on this plan.---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just as the topic ban imposed on me is based upon alleged WP:V and WP:NPOV infringements (rather than conflict of interest as defined by Samj), this proposed topic ban should be imposed on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn for their disruptive behaviour, such as:

Edit warring by Socrates2008.

For anyone interested, PH was using the talk page of his bio to publish this content (now archived), which he was trying to keep in place so that inbound links from sites such as this would not be broken. (WP:NOTWEBHOST) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To assist the admins, I will happily patrol the Lockerbie-related articles to ensure compliance by Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn with the proposed topic ban.---PJHaseldine (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I missed something, but how do Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 have a conflict of interest? I doubt that being South African is considered a conflict under any Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of conflict of interest. A point of view is not a conflict of interest. I don't even see a single diff where they have violated policy. This is frivolous, and I hope administrators take action to deter such disruption--PJH has now issued complaints in multiple forums against every editor who has dared to point out he is violating policy. THF (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case is about your editing, not anyone else's. As per the advice above, suggest you open a new COI case if you have evidence to support your thus far unproven allegations against another editor. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTCOI the only conflicts I have identified here are User:PJHaseldine's edit that fails verification with the EUCHR reference (discussed above) and a weak link with validating a theory publicly associated with User:PJHaseldine. As such I prefer to focus on the policy violations and those are clear as day (also discussed above). I'd suggest that this case be closed and a new concise case be opened with clear, relevant evidence should User:PJHaseldine wish to proceed against the other two editors. -- samj _in^out 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The examples of disruptive behaviour cited above make the case for the proposed topic ban on Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn.---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other users who've commented above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conspiracy theorist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– No action needed. Wrong forum. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that THF has deleted the Haseldine "conspiracy theory" from both the Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and the Bernt Carlsson articles, logic requires that the [Category:Conspiracy theorists] be removed from the Patrick Haseldine biography and his entry be removed from the Conspiracy theory article. Could we please have a vote on this issue?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Remove the category on the biography and his entry on the Conspiracy theory article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The category was added to the biography by Socrates2008 as evidenced by the following extract from Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Conspiracy theorist?:

"Socrates2008 recently added Category:Conspiracy theorists to this page. I think this requires a reference within the page. Either a self-identification, or a reliable source referring to Haseldine as a conspiracy theorist. Since I'm new to this area, maybe this is something well-known, but it still needs a cite. If this follows automatically from some rule that is observed on other Wikipedia pages, please specify how it follows. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Labelling someone a conspiracy theorist is certainly POV:- it is a pejorative term used to discredit the theories expressed by that individual (and I'm not expressing support for his beliefs.) In contrast his position as a diplomat is fact. The link recently given by Socrates2008 on the talkpages of State-sponsored terrorism in support no way proves Patrick Haseldine is happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist. All it shows is that someone who registered as PJHaseldine, and linked himself to this article, did not change the description. This is not support as anyone could claim on Wikipedia to be him, and it is policy that Wikipedia is not used as its own reference. Also Wikipedia cautions about comments about a living person - WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.217.219 (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. No inference should be drawn from Patrick's non-removal of the term 'conspiracy theorist,' since he has agreed to stay off the article to avoid COI issues. We appreciate his cooperation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

It now behoves Socrates2008 to explain this insult and to apologise.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with reasoning - Notability is not reciprocal. That a relationship between A-and-B is notable enough to include in Article B does not mean that the A-B relationship is notable enough to include in Article A. Thus, Barack Obama is mentioned in the Aaron Klein article, but Aaron Klein is not in the Barack Obama article. But I agree that the Haseldine article needs some real scrubbing for WP:PUFF, which may or may not include the Guardian letters: I leave that editorial decision to others. THF (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned the article for issues and find the guardian letters acceptable as a primary source for describing Haseldine's opinions, but not for establishing notability for inclusion in other articles in the absence of other reliable sources. If anything I find the article rather critical of Haseldine, albeit largely justified thanks to his own EUCHR filing. -- samj _in^out 14:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - THF's reasoning is spot-on. The category is not "Conspiracy theorists who are widely discussed in the media" or "People with conspiracy theories that are discussed on Wikipedia." Bhimaji (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's an element of WP:DUCK here, but per User:EdJohnston should we not require this statement to appear in a reliable source? After all we've just sanctioned User:PJHaseldine for same offense. On the other hand the conspiracy theory itself is supported by User:PJHaseldine's own primary sources. As such I would be inclined to Support removal of the pejorative Category:Conspiracy theorists category but Reject the removal of the reference in the conspiracy theory article per User:THF above. -- samj _in^out 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reject both removal from the category and removal of the content on the grounds that the category "specifically only includes articles where the subject is mentioned in their article as actively defending one of the conspiracy theories" (which is clearly met) and the content itself is supported by User:PJHaseldine's own primary sources. -- samj _in^out 13:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a suggestion to refine the category inclusion, as follows: "People can be included in this category only if there are verifiable secondary source media references either where they have declared themselves or which label the person a conspiracy theorist."---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has nothing to do with WP:COIN. Make a {{request edit}} at the two articles in question, since you're bound to relitigate this there anyway since there's not a snowball's chance you'll get the result you want at this board, where we're already familiar with your case. THF (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this content dispute elsewhere. This long ago stopped being a COI issue. THF (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion pasted here by user:PJHaseldine from Category talk:Conspiracy theorists#Adding_people_to_this_category_is_purely_POV.Socrates2008 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:PJHaseldine's case is an interesting one. He has a primary source on his bio (Patrick Haseldine) - the letter(s) to the editor discussed in conspiracy theories - which is adequate for verifying his opinions but inadequate for inclusion in articles related to the theory itself. Now that an indefinite topic ban has been imposed at WP:COI/N he seeks to remove these references (and this category), even if it means redefining "conspiracy theorist".

Initially I too called for reliable sources stating that he is a "conspiracy theorist" but then I retracted this after reviewing the current category requirements which seem fairly reasonable; in my opinion the WP:DUCK test passes so he belongs in this category. If this were a list then the existence of the reliable (if primary) source would likely justify his inclusion independent of his bio.

If someone can be verified to be a proponent of a conspiracy theory then they are by definition a conspiracy theorist (they need not be a proponent of many such theories either - usually there is on ly one). The real grey area then is in defining what exactly is a conspiracy theory, but that's a topic for another article. In summary, WP:V applies as always but in my opinion there need not be an overt "X is a conspiracy theorist" statement (these are rare anyway). -- samj _in^out 10:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have another take on this: there's no doubt about his association with a theory about PA-103, that it's his own invention, that he's been campaigning for supporters for it and that there are primary sources that back this up. So if the duck test is so obviously satisfied, then what's the problem? Looking at his own wording in the content he's created around this, he prefers to euphemistically call his theory an "alternate theory" rather than a "fringe theory" or "conspiracy theory". While I'm quite sure he will be quick to differ when he chirps in, my interpretation is that he's trying to keep a positive "spin" on his story while trying to gain public support for it (i.e. he's concerned that the word "conspiracy" may have negative connotations for his campaign), and secondly, that he absolutely believes his own theory, so that from his POV, it is fact. In other words, this is a form of COI, as the subject's objectives and perceptions in respect of his theory differ from those of uninvolved editors, who simply see this as another of many conspiracy theories around PA-103. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My so-called euphemism was shared by all editors until less than 3 months ago when the title of Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 was converted to conspiracy theories without discussion. And it was Socrates' pal, Deon Steyn, who put the Alternative theories article into the Category:Conspiracy theories in the first place!

Didn't their concerted attack work out well?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by alleged Single-purpose accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just over a year ago, the Wikipedia Review commentator, tarantino, alleged that the South African editor Socrates2008 had "turned into something of an SPA" through his edits to PA 103-related articles. The same commentator went on to say: "I also think the theory of South Africa's involvement in the bombing is more compelling than that of Libya's. I'm now very curious about the motivations and identity of Socrates2008 and his tag team partner Deon Steyn. Their edits show an interest in South Africa military history and weapons."

This is what Abd told me two days ago about Single-purpose accounts:

"As an SPA, you are vulnerable, and need take special care. SPAs are sometimes effectively topic banned as to the article, there is no clear boundary between WP:SPA and WP:COI. From the other side, experts in a field are often SPA or COI, so my view is that, while the community should set and maintain strict behavioral boundaries for such editors, we should also actively invite their participation in Talk pages, and attempt to moderate the disputes which arise. In my view, much damage has been done to the project and its reputation because of a lack of understanding of this, and experts have been rather badly treated. Many or most experts have, as a result of their extensive knowledge, a strong POV, as viewed from a general perspective, though not necessarily from within field. (When I've special knowledge in a field, I've been accused of POV-pushing when I've simply expressed what is well-known in the field, as I know through extensive off-wiki communication with others even more knowledgeable than myself, but which is not necessarily easy to prove from reliable source; without supporting RS, I can't incorporate such knowledge into articles, generally, but I should definitely be able to mention it on a Talk page without sanction.)"--Abd (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From the above, I believe that South African editors Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are both SPAs, and should be restricted from editing any articles describing people and events where apartheid South Africa has been accused of responsibility for what happened. This restriction should clearly apply to Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories and all its related articles such as Bernt Carlsson. Just as clearly, they should stay away from: Mozambican Tupolev Tu-134 air disaster and Samora Machel; Olof Palme assassination and Olof Palme; and also South African Airways Flight 295 (because the flight was said to have been carrying sanctions-busting munitions). The two South Africans should be cautioned against editing articles such as Koevoet, Civil Cooperation Bureau, Tripartite Accord (Angola) and P. W. Botha for example: if in any doubt, Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn should refrain from editing, and stick to the relevant Talk pages.---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be hard pressed to convince anybody to agree that either Socrates2008 and Deon Steyn are SPAs when less than 2% of Socrates' article edits [8] and less 1% of Deon's article edits are to the Pan Am article.[9]. Nor are they inappropriately focussed on South African topics. These accusations (see above for proposed restrictions of the same two editors, which was declined) are becoming more and more pointy and inappropriate. Please stop.--Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another SPA — who may or may not be linked to Deon and Socrates — is User:Checkeroffacts whose contribution record since the account opened in May 2008 has been focused on the Patrick Haseldine biography.---PJHaseldine (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I urge Mr Haseldine to focus on improving some articles rather than pursuing this disruptive attempt at retaliation against other editor for initiating the COI complaints that resulted in him being topic banned and having his socket accounts uncovered. The two cases against him, unlike this allegation, had considerable evidence to back them up, and were reviewed by a cross section of administrators and experienced editors before appropriate action was taken. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how I would expect a South African SPA to respond when challenged over the clear COI edits that he made to the wide range of articles listed above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This allegation (without a single diff of an allegedly problematic edit) is plainly frivolous, retaliatory, and violates WP:HARASS and WP:POINT. I hope admins take action, and that the falsely accused editors don't feel the need of wasting time responding. THF (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also troubled by this "clear COI" claim which lacks supporting policy violations, a demonstrated conflict of interest and proof by way of specific edits - frivolous reports aside this to me constitutes a personal attack and I too would like to see PJHaseldine supporting these claims with the best two or three offending edits he can find before we consider taking any further action. -- samj _in^out 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection re-attached to parent section to provide context and to demonstrate COI through cited specific edits above.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an extension of the same case.---PJHaseldine (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I'm still waiting for a specific smoking gun for User:Socrates2008 and User:Deon Steyn, User:Checkeroffacts has a problematic history and does indeed to be an WP:SPA for WP:HARASSing and/or WP:HOUNDing User:PJHaseldine for almost a year - it is not surprising then that he might suspect others are up to no good (indeed it seems somebody is). -- samj _in^out 11:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the SPA verdict, and would be happy for an admin to run a checkuser against my account if that would help to narrow down the possibilities. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea (to run a checkuser, not fishing necessarily against your account). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Checkeroffacts. -- samj _in^out 12:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon the smoking gun for User:Deon Steyn is lurking somewhere around here,here and here.

User:Socrates2008 is more subtle, and probably attaches a silencer to reduce sound and smoke emissions, but his efforts as an SPA apologist for apartheid South Africa are evident here and here.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PJH, Stop it! You seem to have seriously lost your balance. Those two edits you point out as making "evident" the editor being what you asserted, quite simply, don't. That is, suppose he is. Those edits don't show it, and that you would make such an accusation without carefully providing proof could show that you are unaware or incapable of following community norms regarding civility and personal attacks, in which case, there will be no option but to block or ban you. I'm not threatening you, I don't have the tools to block, and, indeed, I'm trying to protect you (and the project) from this outcome. If you think that an editor is a POV-pushing SPA, you will have to be much more careful and thorough and patient to deal with the problem. What you are doing is essentially committing wiki-suicide. This discussion does not belong here, insufficient grounds have been established to file a COI complaint. --Abd (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First edit about Tambo is unreferenced original research. The second edit, which was discussed at talk:Patrick Haseldine as well as here and on this very page, meets the criteria for inclusion in the category and furthermore has nothing to do with "apartheid". I agree with admins that this case is a WP:POINTy form of harassment in retribution for my initiating the two earlier COI cases that resulted in user:PJHaseldine's socket puppet accounts being closed and a topic ban being enforced by the community. I suggest Mr Haseldine is cautioned about civility, personal attacks and assuming good faith in his comments in which he continues to direct at editors rather than content, and where he alludes to other editors being (apartheid) racists. Here is evidence that he believes he does not have to comply with these core WP policies unless the topic ban imposed by the community is lifted first. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Haseldine has unfortunately misinterpreted what I wrote about SPAs, and I seriously dislike being quoted as part of an attack. Being SPA isn't being COI. A complaint about editors being SPA is not in order here. Indeed, being SPA isn't anything actionable in itself. However, if an SPA edit wars or is disruptive, SPAs are more likely to be blocked quickly, for lots of reasons. I've clearly advised him to stop pursuing controversy here, and to start doing what he could do well, even in the presence of the topic ban: as someone very knowledgeable about the topics of interest to him, he can advise us, on Talk pages, pointing to sources with which he may be familiar, providing background, etc. However, this utility presumes civility. If he's uncivil, if that continues, he will do more damage than good, and my efforts to rescue his participation here will have failed. But I will note one positive thing. I suggested to Mr. Haseldine that if he has a simple edit to make to an article under the ban, he make it, noting that he will self-revert because of the ban, and then revert himself. He did it. This shows intent to help the project without controlling it, and it shows cooperation with the ban. So, on that, I congratulate him, it is, at least, a first step toward fuller cooperation. I checked his edit and reverted it back in, this was much more efficient than it having been proposed on Talk. --Abd (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion of Microsoft ideas at Ribbon (computing)?

Resolved

– Potential WP:COI identified but not serious. Noting it on talk page, warning user and reffering reporter back to article/talk page. -- samj _in^out 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ribbon_(computing)&diff=next&oldid=261681851 by user:PHenry ip range ownerships should be researched on these type of things, this one lasted 2 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientus (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The offending passage is only two sentences of that article. Why not try to revise that passage to make it neutral? There is no harm in including Microsoft's own theory of why their ribbon is different, so long as we don't imply that their opinion decides the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but there was a deliberate changing of "KDE developer Jarosław Staniek notes" to "some critics contend", which is not in good faith. That is what irked me.Scientus (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals this guy is (or at least was) likely a Microsoft employee, which would certainly be a WP:COI. That said the offense here is fairly minor. Potentially contentious edits go back years but none of them appear to have been egregious. I'm going to mention this on the talk page and warn the user, but otherwise agree with User:EdJohnston above. -- samj _in^out 14:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. I haven't worked for Microsoft for seven years. I don't know anyone who works on Office, and I don't know anyone involved in the implementation of this feature. My "conflict of interest" here is no greater than that of any of the legions of FOSS devotees who write articles about programs and features they use and know and like, which is exactly what they should be doing.

If you have a problem with the accuracy of what I wrote, then let's hear it. Don't use this noticeboard as a cudgel to intimidate people into not following your particular party line. I don't appreciate being made the target of false and unfair accusations, and I sure as hell do not appreciate having my commitment to good faith questioned without foundation. Try a little AGF sometime and you may find that it pays off. —phh (^t/_c) 16:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor complained about a specific edit that has obvious (if mostly benign) WP:V (WP:SPS) and WP:NPOV issues. Given you're a former Microsoft employee then their complaint about WP:COI may well be justified, but it's irrelevant given there were other policy violations. If there are indeed FOSS developers editing the article (and I mean developers, not devotees because an interest is not a conflict of interest) then they would be subject to exactly the same rules as you are. -- samj _in^out 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if an interest is not a conflict of interest, then none of this applies to me, now does it? Explain to me again why we're wasting everyone's time with this? —phh (^t/_c) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even ex-employees have conflicts sometimes. -- samj _in^out 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sometimes they don't. Regardless, we certainly wouldn't want to take any radical actions like assuming good faith, would we? —phh (^t/_c) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MattKeegan

Some of the links he writes for;

matthewkeegan.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
saycampuslife.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
thearticlewriter.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User only edits to insert links, whick he wrote. this is an ongoing issue. Back in August of 2007 he acknowledged there is a coi, yet he continues to use wikipedia to promote his work.--Hu12 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy minnesota canned meat company batman! I'll happily Support whatever punishment is deemed necessary, right up to an indefinite block. 0% signal to noise ratio. "The duties of the original stewardesses went far beyond providing cabin services"?! -- samj _in^out 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have reported the sites for blacklisting. Should wait for result before starting any cleanup. -- samj _in^out 14:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to the first two sites are essentially gone from articles. I have warned MattKeegan that he may be blocked if he continues. (He has not edited since 10 March). Is there anyone who has time to check out a number of the links to thearticlewriter.com and see if they should all be removed? If the answer is yes, consider reporting at WT:WPSPAM and there could be someone there who can remove the links using AWB or a bot. There was already a response given at the spam blacklist that blocking should be tried before blacklisting. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have listed the offending user and domains at WT:WPSPAM for them to have a look at it. -- samj _in^out 22:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Son of musician writing eulogic articles

Pjs012915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
John Serry, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Rhapsody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Concerto For Free Bass Accordion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pjs012915 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Main writer asserted "I am one of the composer's on."[10] about his eulogic articles American Rhapsody and John Serry, Sr. Articles seem salvageable but understandably full of POV and OR (I only tagged and cleaned leads). 62.147.36.251 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Concerto_For_Free_Bass_Accordion -- samj _in^out 17:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:pjs012915 is the main writer and one of the composer's sons as identified to the editor User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )- who submitted the article for approval as a biography. The article is well researched and documented with ample references to major periodocals and published books. It was written not as a eulogy but as a balanced biographical accounting of the contributons made by the composer to the advancement of both the free bass accordion and the traditional stradella accordion as legitimate concert instruments during the evolution of classical and jazz music at the start of the 20th century in America. It should be of interest to researchers who wish to investigate the development of this neglected and often ridiculed concert instrument in the United States during this period as well as to musicologists and historians in general.

The biographical accounts of this musician's performances as well as his compositions are not presented in a eulogistic fashion and are intended to document the collaborative efforts which Mr. Serry succeeded in formulating with major conductors and professional musicians in the course of advancing the professional acceptance of his instrument. These references also serve to document the willingness of leading musicians of the era to perform with accomplished concert accordionists who demonstrated a higher than average level of performance, musicianship and creative writing. The references to Mr. Serry's unique artistic vision for the accordion as a concert instrument have been independently documented on the liner notes by the producers of his album Squeeze Play as well as in an article published by the composer himself in the indepedent journal Accordion World during the 1950s. Consequently, these references to the composer's artist's artistry cannot be construed as eulogistic or biased and should not be excised. In addition, the major compositions listed in the article have been listed for copyright at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and thoroughly reviewed and archived by a professional archivist/research librarian for research purposes at a major music conservatory (University of Rochester-Eastman School of Music). The Special Collections Archivist/Librarian can be contacted directly for verification of the compositions and their authenticity. In addition, they have been accepted for instructional purposes by faculty members at the university as a reference source within the Piano Department at the Eastman School of Music- Piano Dept. Documented Copyright references have now been added to various compositions within the Unpublished Music section of the article in order to provided independent verification of their existence. In addition, I have removed listings for additional compositions which were not published or copyrighted by the composer. The numerous published compostions listed in the article have been copyrighted by the respective publishers as per contractual arrangements with the composer. Consequently, I am unable to provide accurate Copyright identification numbers for the vast majority of the published works (in so far as the copyrights were obtained at the time of composition by the publishers and/or record producers). Kindly note, however, that a simple Google Search of the name John Serry or John Serry Sr. often results in a listing on E-Bay or Amazon.com of used copies of Mr. Serry's compositions, arrangements and records for auction. This evidence should serve as sufficient verification of the authorship and authenticity of these compositions and/or musical arrangments for general research purposes. With this in mind I have taken the libverty of removing the flags posted on the artcle by 62.147.36.251. The utilization of these flags appears to be somewhat puzzling and inappropriate in nature. Kindly recall that the article was submitted by its author to the Wikipedia editor User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who clearly recognized and documented the relationship of the author to the subject of the article. Mr. Norton was even kind enough to offer to download copies of references from the New York Times to the author for his files and as a rememberance during the course of approving the article for classification as a biography. The article has been successfully categorized as a biography for a considerable period of time without objection from any major contributor . In addition, none of the major facts contained within the article have been challenged or disputed through a documented effort. Evidently, the use of a non-neutral euology flag on this article constitutes a hasty attempt to categorize the article in accordance with a new and as yet unproven categorization methodology which is inconsistent with the accepted standards of a well documented biography. In addition, the application of such a flag on this article by 62.147.36.251 appears to be based upon a cursory, incomplete and limited understanding of the article's subject material(i.e. the struggles encountered by professional accordionists prior to World War II and during the post war period to gain acceptance into professional orchestral ensembles and to present their artistry for the enjoyment of concert audiences within an orchestral setting while overcoming objections raised by symphonic musicians/ publishers/ instrument manufacturers and a skeptical public) as well as the musical history of 1930s-1960s ( when musicians were often required to activley promote their individual artistry in order to educate a public audience which was often musically illiterate). With this in mind, I have taken the liberty of removing the non-neutraility flags. Kindly contact me if I may be of further assistance and Thanks for your consideration pjs012915 March 20, 2009.

I'll give you a tip. Don't put the word "exotic" in the lead of an article unless you can quote the statement from someone else's words. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion should be considered for deletion due to lack of reliable sources that comment on their importance. The musician John Serry, Sr. appears notable though that article needs some cleanup (a complete list of works is not needed). If the cleanup is going to take time to complete, I suggest the article may need to be tagged until that can be taken care of. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the comments by EdJohnston it should be noted that it is not entirely surprising that additional sources have failed to comment upon the importance of the contributions made by Mr. Serry to the advancement of the accordion in the early 20th century. Due to the passage of time since the 1930s-1960s the vast majority of Mr. Serry's colleagues in the music profession (including his associates at the CBS Orchestra at the Columbia Broadcast Network in New York City, the CBS Pan American Orchestra and the Shep Fields Big Band as well as on Broadway) are deceased. Contemporaries such as Charles Magnante are also no longer living. The lack of supporting evidence from sources who are no longer available to provide input should not in an of itself serve as a rational for excising important insights into this unique period in the development of early 20th century music. In addition, it should be kept in mind that attempts by artists such as Mr. Serry to integrate the accordion into major orchestral ensembles during the 1930's through the 1960's were not successful-- as the Wikipedia articles on the Accordion, the free-bass system and their use in classical music clearly illustrate. Consequently, it is not surprising to note that few contemporary experts have provided reliable supporting references--i.e. leading orchestral conductors or musicians who could be expected to possess expert knowledge of these activities are not likely to exist since the efforts of musicians such as Mr. Serry to integrate the instrument into professional ensembles were of limited success over forty years ago. It is illogical to expect confirmation from contemporary leading musical authorities when their conterparts failed to acknowledge the efforts of musicians such as Mr. Serry over 4 decades ago. While photographic evidence of Mr. Serry's performance at CBS and on Broadway can be provided for additional proof, they cannot be displayed on Wikipedia due to copywright protection issues related to the use of the CBS logo and/or the use of signed photographs from leading Broadway stars. It should also be noted that a published photograph of Mr. Serry performing with the CBS Pan American Orchestra has been reference in the article in the citiation for the bookThe Pictorial History of Radiofrom the 1960s. Also kindly note that Mr. Serry's artistry has been documented in writting on the liner notes of his album Squeeze Play (still available on E-Bay) by the noted produced Ben Selvin-- a reference which has been included in the article. In addition, it should be noted for clarity that Mr. Serry's revised American Rhapsody and Concerto For Free Bass Accordion have been reviewed for their musical quality and authenticity by a staff of professional archivists at one of the leading music conservatories in the United States and have been accepted for archival research within the university's research library for the benefit of students and musicologists. The acceptance of such works by the Sibley Music Library at the Eastman School of Music (which maintains the largest and most comprehensive music manuscript compilations on the East coast of the United States) should serve as a suitable reference for the accuracy of the articles in question. The Special Archivist and Librarian at the Sibley Library can acknowledge the acceptance of these works by contacting his E-mail address listed in the link to the Sibley Music Library. It should also be kept in mind that these manuscripts have been accepted as reference resource materials within the faculty's departmental library at the Piano Dept. of the Eastman School for use in various courses centered on the development of music in the early 20th century and compositional. It would be surprising indeed for an editor of an respected on-line encyclopedia to recommend the deletion of a series of articles which describes the musical endeavors of a musician whose works are deemed to be of interest to the faculty and students of one of the nation's leading music conservatories. While an editor such as Mr. Johnston may raise doubts as to the significance of Mr. Serry's contributions by citing a lack of references, it is clear that leading educators in the field of music disagree with such an assessment by accepting Mr. Serry's compositions into a permanent research archive--a distinction not easily attained. In addition, it should be noted that contemporary contributors to the article on the free-bass system accordion (Use in Classical Music) have not disputed the contents of the article on Mr. Serry despite major revisions to the article in the months just past. In so far as several musical authorities and editors have contributed to the development of the article about the accordion and the free-bass system and have not objected to the references contained within them to Mr. Serry's contributions, I must question the rational for deleting Mr. Serry's article. In addition, it should be noted that references to Mr. Serry's contributuons as a soloist in the articles on Shep Fields and Alfredo Antonini (two leading musicians of his era) have not been challenged despite editorial reviews and revisions to these articles. With this in mind I respectfully request that any recommendation for deletion be reviewed by an editorial panel which is qualified to judge the historical developments of the period in question with impartiality and a sufficiently high level of professionalism, academic excellence and expertise. Thanks for your consideration pjs012915

Listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Rhapsody and main article tagged {{cleanup}} per User:EdJohnston above. -- samj _in^out 16:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple living external link

I removed a personal essay from the Simple living article as it violated several points of WP:ELNO, namely points 1, 4, and 11. The IP became indignant and attacked me because I am a college student, which somehow means I can't grasp what he's saying in the article. He has persistantly called me a vandal and has not assumed good faith. On several occasions he has stated that the essay is his own and has not responded to my suggestion that he read and follow WP:COI. I'd like some more help trying to deal with this guy. Them From Space 14:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may well be grounds for semi-protection and/or sock warnings, since there's a user clearly edit-warring from multiple IPs:

Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anybody mind removing this link if they agree with my assessment? I don't want to be labelled a "vandal" agaiin as this guy thinks I'm biased against him. Them From Space 15:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also asked 59.95.10.47 to get an account and stop the false accusations of vandalism. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has now been sufficiently warned. If the link continues to be added, in my opinion semi-protection of the article is justified. To block a rotating IP is not worth the bother. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability article and Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites

Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An editor User:Granitethighs wrote a book. He is a member of a team editing the article Sustainability, led mostly by editor User:Sunray. I seems to me like a person writing a book that did not disclose that he is the author of said for profit commercial book... and then using that book as a reff/citation in the mentioned article and also the other mentioned article in the title here is in a c.o.i.- The inclusion is being defended on the talk page of said article.

Editor admits he is author, but editor did not disclose previously that fact when disclosure was important. The book was just published. I have tagged the Sustainability article with the coi tag suggested above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

All of these Reffs in this diff go to editor's book in article he created.

Skip naming the book is equivalent to naming GT, not sure how OK he is with that so have removed it, also doesn't seem very relevant what book it is....--Travelplanner (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838

Sunray reverting my taking away Granitethings book reference from the article in Sustainability

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=277864633&oldid=277817578

Discussing conflict on talk page... and getting no where with Sunray who is defending his team member. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Possible_conflict_of_interest_in_team

skip sievert (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The test of a conflict of interest set out in WP:COI is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Granitethigh's editing of the Sustainability article has been incredibly valuable. A subject matter expert in botany, he has devoted years to the problem of sustainability. He has contributed selflessly of his time and expertise in improving the article.

I've been aware of his book for some time now and have a copy. Out of 164 citations we have used in the article, there are two to Sustainable Gardens (one of which Skipsievert has now removed in connection with his complaint of "conflict of interest"). I had planned to add several other citations to the book, as it is a high-quality source that is a compendium of the issues and solutions related to sustainability.

This is the latest in Skipsievert's disruptions of the Sustainability article FA project. This is not the place to elaborate on his actions, but suffice it to say, he seems unable to assume good faith and edit collaboratively. I find this sidetracking particularly distressing since we are in the middle of a peer review process to prepare our submission for FA. Sunray (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you are attacking another editor here? I have brought up a conflict of interest by an editor who has referenced their commercial book without telling anyone. You and he may be friends but this commercial capital to be gained enterprise of selling books seems at base at least to me to be a c.o.i. Why was it not made known that an editor was promoting a book? - skip sievert (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it as I see it, Skip. If others wish to get a feel for your credibility, they need look no further than Talk:Sustainability. Sunray (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also involved in editing the Sustainability page although I confess most things in my life are more fun at the moment, for reasons which will be immediately clear from the Talk:Sustainability discussion.

As well as this post, this same "issue" is the subject of lengthy posts here and here. Effectively User:Granitethighs is being accused of COI in regards to editing in the area of Sustainability on the grounds that he is co-author of a book on sustainable gardening.

User:Skipsievert also regularly casts aspersions on another editor in this topic area on the basis that he is doing some work for the UN decade of education for sustainability.

If the accusation is that User:Granitethighs is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field? And if the book is published by a reputable publisher (which it is) then citing it is fine too?--Travelplanner (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that a given person who wrote a book on sustainability in gardening would be one of the best editors to contribute such information on WP. GT may make a bit of money from a few editors running to the local book shop to get a copy of a book cited in the article, but this would most likely be very limited and irrelevant to his contributions in the article, which, might I add, have thus far been entirely unbiassed in such matters, if anything, biased against his specialised interests (the topic of the book he has written. Needless to mention, the CSIRO is unbiased also, interested primarily in scientific research. It should also be clarified that the team is actually assembled of editors who have taken on the collective responsibility of re-writing the article, which was in dire need of a re-write. The team is not exclusive, nor are it's numbers limited by it's existing members, it is very informal and entirely democratic in an entirely non-capitalist way. Nick carson (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusation is that User:Granitethighs is an expert with multiple links to this subject as a result of a lifetime of hard work then I'm sure he would have to plead guilty. But this is not the China of the cultural revolution - being expert enough to have a book published isn't necessary (which is great) but surely it doesn't prevent one editing in the field? TravelPlanner end quote. Lets not confuse things. I never said he should be precluded from editing the article.. only that he is in a conflict of interest by concealing that he is an author of a book that he linked... and the book may not be notable... and that there may be a bias in the team toward the team also.

Why was it hidden before, that he is the author? How is it that apparently the team knew about this, and are now defending this ... and did not share the information as to disclosure on the Sustainability article? The team has a long running overly close relationship to the U.N. also... and Granitethighs book also revolves around that. This has been an issue also with the article http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 and it is a fact that a team member above worked or works for the U.N. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 ... but this is not the issue that has been brought here.

The issue is that User:Granitethighs wrote a book that apparently his fellow team members are aware of and that this information was not disclosed... in effect it was hidden from other editors and the public... and now only after the fact of this discovery is an attempt to justify an author placing his capital project in a prime advertising spot on Wikipedia being made. Add to this now attacking the messenger, who is trying to point out what they perceive may be a conflict of interest thereby. To me this means a p.o.v. among a narrow team is not good, as it has meant too much control of editorial and material presentation thus a closed consensus.

The author fully admitted he is the author here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

So Travel planner please do not remove information that I was trying to give for the panel here. They admitted this... but only when asked. It is a fact that editor Granitethings used his book by his own admission ... after it was overtly questioned on the talk page, he made his book the backbone of an entire article, that he created from scratch on Wikipedia: ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 - skip sievert (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it was hidden from other editors and the public." Absolutely and categorically not. Editors have user names and are in no way obligated to reveal their identities. However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing. Skipsievert is out of line in pointing to Granitethigh's identity, IMO.

The real issue here is whether the addition of a reliable source by its author is necessarily a conflict of interest. A review of the policy in light of Granitethigh's contributions to the article clearly do not support the conclusion that there is a conflict of interest, IMHO. Sunray (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop attacking an editor for reporting a possible violation. This article was secretly sourced to his book without associating his name to it. This only came out after the fact... when another editor tagged the article ... not myself. Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites Selling books is an issue and promoting a book as something notable on Wikipedia which was done without revealing a conflict of interest possible... without allowing people to decide for themselves about that. He also is promoting the outfit that sponsored the book. The book promotes them also. However, a modest amount of investigation would allow anyone to determine Granitethigh's background. He hides nothing. Wrong... he did not reveal that he was sourcing an entire article to the book he wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites&diff=prev&oldid=277643838 How am I pointing to his identity? He revealed, on a discussion page that he is the author

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

after the fact of his reffing his book in the two articles.skip sievert (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of a specific book doesn't worry me, and this complaint is not very exciting as a COI case. At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact.' EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are a multitude of actual science and expert studies does it make sense to use one of the crusaders books, and a member of this close looped team? Especially in the gardening article this seems like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VSCA they... and apparently team members knew that the article was reffed by a just published ... probably non notable book published at the exact same time that said editor came to edit on Wikipedia. This same group over reffed and linked U.N. material through out the article. The same group attacked me for bringing up these issues. Is it better safe than sorry, to not include a clandestinely placed book by a 4 person team into the article... just to be on the safe side of c.o.i.-- or would inserting this book be a neutrality issue.?.. being it is an ax grinding account of the U.N. and a promotional tool of said author... and it also is promoting a group he is affiliated with?

Reffing an entire article with an editors book that did not disclose that he was the author... seems way over the top. Would it not be better if this book which is straight pov., not be presented on the two articles given neutrality issues and conflict issues? skip sievert (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear if your concern is only with including the book as a reference, or if you think the article is slanted. The 'conflict' only matters if it results in the article not being as good as it could be otherwise. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Originally just the book ... but since the team showed up here to bad mouth me for my good faith questions... both. Seems to me it is slanted. Overtly so. Example of reffing U.N. material http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 Granitethighs book is written out of the lens from U.N. One team member identified themselves as working with or for that group. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Nick_carson&diff=prev&oldid=275742185 then erased it as it became an issue. People in this team are darn right hostile to another editor. I have added outside information that is neutral and mostly they have protested and fought every single little aspect all the while baiting and being generally hostile. The book... is published yes.. but notable, no. A coincidence of the thousands of books that are known and notable a team of four editors is promoting this one into the article which is also a kind of advertisement for the authors employers?

Very difficult to edit with these people. They have controlled the article for months on multiple sub pages. Very unfriendly bunch. Seems they are on a mission to control the article. I can see the U.N. material covered in a credit or two or three maybe... now the article revolves around the U.N.- It did not before they got hold of it in their team... which you sign up for... and which is controlled very explicitly. I am not pro or con U.N.- It just seems kind of ridiculous the extent to which reffing to it has gone... and other social political commentary call to action admonitions are promoted by the team. That includes the recently published and non notable... to my knowledge, book by editor described. The team will also not allow me to tag the article recently as to neutrality, which I believe it needs other and more eyes and editors working on it... so that is a problem also. skip sievert (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip, I suggest that this be closed as a COI issue. The thread has become so enormous it is hard to get a clear point from it. Whether someone is getting publicity for a single book in an extensive article doesn't seem like a very big deal, when the article (if it could be neutrally written) would have value and be an addition to Wikipedia. I do think that both articles would benefit from rewriting and should use a less promotional tone about sustainability, but that is not clearly a COI problem. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But they have been rewriting this article for many months, and it seems to me that using the recently published book, of a relatively new editor with an ax to grind (my opinion) that the team shares... is a conflict of interest. Plus the author did not reveal them self when linking their book. So be it. skip sievert (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overture Films

Overturewiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been editing Overture Films and the films connected with the production company. Overture Films contains numerous problems, including an inappropriate, ad-like tone; copyvio issues; unsourced statements, etc. An IP address, 66.151.166.5 (talk), has also been editing Overture Films (among other articles), inserting promotional material. A whois on the IP address reveals that the edits are coming from Starz, a subsidiary of Overture Films. BuddingJournalist 03:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I note COI is usually considered as a COI in favor of the subject of an article, -- but dpes COI apply for an editor who owns a .org website which is directly antithetical to the interests of the subjects of the articles he edits almost exclusively ? The .org's only ad is for Amazon.com -- is that sufficient to make it "commercial" in any sense? Sort of iterating -- is there such a thing asn an anti-COI? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI doesnt apply just to the articles subject it can also apply to anyone that benefits from the existance of the article. IF as an example a museum has an article then employees of the museum have a COI. Like wise if an organisation is funded by the museum then the organisation also has a COI as does anyone who represents the organisation. COI doesnt necessarily mean a positive spin the family of a murder victim would have a COI if they were to edit the article about the person convicted of the murder. Bank manager Mr Xyz would have a COI if he edited article about competitors, so yes anyone can have a COI because they gain from the article content whether its positive or negative is just perspective. Gnan garra 12:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would an SPA from an owner of a site which is specifically anti "cult" be a COI if he writes (usually in a negative vein) on every religious figure he has edited on, and has written for various ezines (including ones which are specifically anti "biblical America")(though they do not indicate whether he has been paid as such). He was able to get two editors booted for less of a COI than this may be if what you say is true. Whois is a wonder -- he also owns one of the ezines -- the one which is specificlly against "biblical America". A double COI? Collect (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like POV-pushing (see WP:NOTCOI) -- samj _in^out 22:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasal irrigation

Grockl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a long-term, low-key problem centred at a single section of Nasal irrigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User is unwilling to collaborate and often reverts to their own preferred version, in the latest instance undoing removal of a spammy mini-lede to the section, completely irrelevant references and proper reuse of references. (Section was improved by WhatamIdoing, then removed by 67.170.1.167, then reinserted in an old version by Grockl [11].)

User now resorts to meatpuppeting and personal attacks. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Grockl/Archive for extensive evidence of the long term problem, and User talk:Grockl#Sockpuppet investigation for today's personal attack. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Adler is simply trying to own the article. He is neither an expert nor authority on the subject. I have provided many published medical references on the efficacy of nasal irrigation. If you folks want to settle this once and for all simply have an authority review the peer review published medical reports and this can be resolved once and for all by educated well respected medical professionals and not some ego driven academic that is attempting to own an article. I would suggest that this type of practice would be better suited for the communist version of Wikipedia where I am sure censorship is respected. There is no commercial aspect of my posts simply an effort to advise consumers of an alternative more effective method of nasal irrigation much more so than the anecdotal reports on the benefit of neti irrigation which has not changed in 5000 years. I find it ironic that many of the studies referenced under Neti have been sponsored and promoted by physicians and their companies that manufacture and promote neti pots. Others actually used pulsatile irrigation on test subjects in their studies but are being used to promote neti pots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grockl (talk • contribs) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as personal attacks I simply brought up the fact that the poster is a math teacher and an academic which he posts himself and not an MD. I am questioning his role as an academic and his lack of knowledge and authority in this area to unilaterally censor material I posted. Maybe this is the way they conduct themselves in the UK but I am an American and have the right to post relevant informative material every bit as much as Mr. Adler.

As far as using my IP or my login when did that become a requirement? Instead he is looking for red herrings and deception where none exists. Based on some of the comments I have seen it is Mr. Adler and his unilateral censorship that appears to have upset the common folk--Grockl (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Hans is doing good work here. Grockl's identity is fairly easy to discern. He is the physician that created the product that he persistantly advertises on wikipedia. Look at his edit history and it will become clear. Also do an IP lookup on him and other suspicious posts, and you will notice an interesting trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.1.167 (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say I am not a physician, but my mother would be pleased you think I am. You are ridiculous. I am obviously biased I believe in this but no I am not who you think I am. I thought it was improper to assume someone’s identity on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should sock puppet yourself. To resolve this matter I have requested that a medical authority figure rule on the matter and the relevency of pulsating nasal irrigation within the article on Nasal Irrigation. I will abide by the decision as long as you folks will.--Grockl (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

67.170.1.167: I have told you before not to speculate about the real-life identity of Grockl. There is precedent that it can get you into trouble even in a COI investigation. Grockl: Your long-term obsession with a product that is the object of an astroturfing campaign elsewhere [12] [13] (notice the user id in this case) is so obvious that it is very hard not to make the obvious connection. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that having "a medical authority figure rule on the matter" is not how wikipedia works - you need to get consensus based on information gleaned from reliable sources. -- samj _in^out 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

employee of car company removing faster cars from the Nurburgring article.

Editor Sauron22 Special:Contributions/Sauron22 has been removing faster cars from the Nürburgring lap times article. Upon looking at his edit history, I noticed that he only edits this article and the Dodge Viper article. (removing the Radical SR8 would make the Dodge Viper the fastest production car around the Nurburgring)

To me that is wrong, it is mildly disruptive - but overall nothing more than an OR and edit dispute..no big problem.

Well it was not a problem until the editor failed to log in and edited the talk page with his IP, instead of his account. Upon running whois on his IP, I found that the IP is registered to Chrysler Motors Corporation, the company that makes the Dodge Viper, the car that he is trying so hard to keep as the fastest on the list. One of the edit summaries used by the IP states # 04:34, 12 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Chrysler Headquarters and Technology Center ‎ (I changed the square footage from 4.4 million square feet to 5.4 million square feet. I work here and its posted everywhere.)

The IP in question is Special:Contributions/129.9.163.106 and the whois result is here [14]

I am not suggesting that there are any sock puppet/IP issues, there have been no attempts to use the IP to get around editing restrictions, form false consensus etc, however there is a clear conflict of interest and seeing that the Sauron account has only made edits to this article and the article of the Dodge Viper it is clearly a single purpose account with a clear agenda and an equally clear conflict of interest.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they feel they are justified in doing so based on the classification of the faster models, though they also reference the laws of a specific country. Surely there is a reliable source for the offending lap times (even if primary) and also a source to rule on the categorisation issue? -- samj _in^out 06:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana L. French

Article Dana L. French is currently subject to a deletion review. Had previously been deleted as Dana French and got restored out of process by Dana French himself. There is currently an edit-war in which Dana French (as User:Dfrench and IPs beginning 12.) and the main opponent have both violated 3RR, though both have been warned and thus shouldn't be blocked unless they re-offend. It does however need more eyes, which is why I'm bringing it to notice here. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm about 1/3 through documenting the defects in the page. More eyes (and fingers) would be useful to get the material to where a deletion review would make sense. Tedickey (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete the page, it is self-promotional uncited un-notable crap. The only references to Dana L French online, are a self submitted resume and the wikipedia page. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the DRV was that the article was restored, but anyone who wishes may nominate the article at AfD. If a proper AfD is launched, that would put off for a while the need for any investigation at this noticeboard. I agree that there is a lack of 3rd-party sources that comment on his work. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana L. French on grounds of the sheer absence of third-party sources demonstrating notability. Most of the citations are just entries in linkfarm directories.

BTW, we should add

Shell curses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
65.203.91.35 (talk · contribs)
Business continuity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (interesting - other people's self-links are spam apparently [15]).

Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the obvious socks, listed Shell curses for deletion and tagged Business continuity with {{COI}}. Given the sustained abuse I think a block may be in order - socks, coi, 3rr, npov, soap, etc. violations aside this user can be quite uncivil. -- samj _in^out 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Startstop123

User:Startstop123's editing of Lou Pearlman and their Edit History shows a conflict of interest. In particular see Employment Website where an entry for a non-notable website applicanttree.com was added on 12/12/08 and on 2/2/09 and a deleted page User:Startstop123/Applicant Tree. These web sites are operated by a former associate of Lou Pearlman's. Subsequently, Startstop123 removed a large amount of material on 3/19/09, including a reference to the owner of applicanttree.com. The edit history shows a connection to Orlando, the same city that applicanttree.com operates from. I conclude that Startstop123 has a personal interest in removing material from Lou Pearlman's bio. Munchkin78 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

DaleLeppard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to repeatedly make major edits to this organisation that he has admitted to being a senior member of. This has included WP:EDITWARing to remove templates and restore sources found by a WP:CONSENSUS on article talk (and a recent AfD) to be unreliable and restoring an unpublished (and thus unverifiable) source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unkind statements regarding non-regnant royal houses in the discussion page for this article and then pretends to be unbiased in attacking an article about a royal confraternity protected by one non-regnant royal and patronized by another. I made no secret of my involvement in the organization covered by the article and only took such an active role because user Hrafn continued to make reversions overlaying improvement and additions to the article and challenging every source even demanding at one point inline citations for every sentence in an uncontroversial opening paragraph as well as tagging every section with nuisance tags while effort was being made to improve the article in question. The alleged WP:CONSENSUS regarded a Spanish book citation. He applied it to a similar but different Spanish book and both sources had in the interim been updated to include author names in addition to publisher. The authors are accepted reliable Wikipedia sources already. I have not yet seen a challenge to the authors yet user Hrafn apparently still contests the reliability of their work. User Hrafn has been disruptive and has been reported for WP:EDITWARing by myself already after more than ten days of constant warring. And for the record the recent AfD initiated by user Hrafn resulted in a non-consensus. Easily confirmed. DaleLeppard (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also a No-Consensus AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio in which some participants expressed concern about COI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

trendlines.ca

207.189.237.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Fredhutter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:207.189.237.183 has for months been posting links to trendlines.ca over many articles, especially to election- and oil-related articles. The Trendlines Research site is a donate-for-service forecasting site run by one Freddy Hutter, located near Whitehorse according to its contact page. Whois shows a geographic match. The insertions were made in topic-appropriate areas as references and external links, but it still raises COI concerns in my mind. If my post here is improper, any admin is welcome to delete it.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A User talk:Fredhutter appears on its face to be the same person/business.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the summary of links to his site in all of Wikipedia:

trendlines.ca: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

He has 43 links to his own self-published website in Wikipedia at the moment. Most or all of those links seem inappropriate. He also does election projections, but unless reliable sources have commented on his work, it seems unlikely that his projections belong in such articles as United States presidential election, 2004. There is no Wikipedia article on him or on his website. At the moment he is also being criticized at Talk:Peak oil#207.189.237.183 deletions for making large changes to that article that lack proper sources. He commented, Kgrr, i helped write the original Peak Oil WP article. The page has obviously been hijacked by agenda-driven zealots. Sorry, but i have neither the time nor the patience to play with neophytes... EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Neither that IP nor Fredhutter appears in the early history of the article edits. Another?LeadSongDog (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable external links

Homeowners' association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edenrage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - At the above article and others (including Website), this editor has been adding links to this page; while it has information regarding the concept of homeowners' associations, it gets into homeowners' association websites. It's hosted by AtHomeNet, which produces... homeowners' association websites, among other things. It's clearly spammy, but the editor insists that it's a useful reference for inclusion in a number of articles. Interestingly, this diff from 2007, posted during a period when the editor in question was contesting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet, uses the wording "our CEO" - which suggests to me a serious COI issue. This fact has yet to be replied to in the editor's voluminous responses at Talk:Homeowners' association. I'd appreciate additional discussion here. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous editors had suggested how to add information if you were questionable for a COI, and the wikipedia guidlines outline a number of ways to do this. The idea that you had a past relationship or a present relationship to a company in a manner where you are not working for them persay, should not prohibit you from recommending a page as a resource if it meets the guidelines. BAsed on the feedback I have received from a variety of sources, I can see more clearly now where the lines are drawn. you have to understand though, if a user like me surfs wikipedia looking at pages and seeing so many external links that house advertising (including some under references on the homeowners association page in question) as well as examples like the comcast one i brought up, if leaves the inexperienced editor with the impression that nothing is black and white across the board, and rules seem to only be applied or enforced on topics where a lot fo attention is suddenly focused. Now I realize wikipedia is huge, and you all don't have 24 hours a day to police everyone on every page, but something needs to be said about the larger concept of consistency as well as this whole argument about notability of a company and what it is allowed to advertise once it meets that standard. Most of us are professionals in some industry, and we have knowledge and or resrouces related to our field, which will inevitably lead to us recommending those sources unless it is brought to our attention this does not meet the guidelines. Instead of simply accepting that, I applied my example to other examples to compare and contrast, and attempted to get an idea of how better to keep the good information in the page while pushing them to remove the bad. The larger concept is, just because a website sells products, if they have a page of facts about a product they happen to sell, as long as the page contains no links or portals to the fact they sell the product, should it be automatically excluded? I don't think that is what the wikipedia policies are stating, and if it is, please disucss further. I hope I addressed the issue in question here. I also think it is reasonable to assume a person who is affiliated with the hoa industry is probably a good expert on the subject. That being said, I suggested earlier that some of the information on the external link page in question, be absolved into a new wikipedia page specifically about homeowners association websites....that way the information is still there for all readers without any questions of advertising. I am still fielding responses to this idea, though I have not gotten much commentary on it.Edenrage (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Edenrage (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Also, I have repeatedly said that adding the link to the other related topics pages such as website, and virtual community, was clearly a mistake...and I have not tried to place them back nor encourage any other editor to place them back. I am only lobbying for the external link to hoa & hoa websites central and it's inclusion under the one page for homeowners associations. This debate should remain focused on that page, and the link content's relevance to that topic.Edenrage (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate should be focused on whether or not you work for AtHomeNet, the company that the page you're trying to insert is promoting. There are a number of links that run off of the page you're trying to point to, all of which go to AtHomeNet's HOA website service sales page. The more I look at it, the more it becomes obvious this is a marketing attempt. As for the creation of a page on HOA websites, I highly doubt that enough independent references could be found to make that viable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The points you bring up are the reason I specifically addressed those links, stating that if the hosting website removed all the links to said services...(as if you check in the beginning, the page actually had menu links and a logo, as obviously the designers of Homeowners association websites central were trying in good faith to provide a page of information. Other wise, they would have simply stuck the page in the midst of their normal sales stuff. When I brought it to their attention that I thought the link was good info, but it contained too many sales links, (they are aware that I inserted the page as an external link) the company removed the menu items and their logo (you can see this if you check the early comments and history of the ads, as I believe they want the page to be an industry resource as well. Whether or not they would agree with stripping out all external links on the page...I don't know, but I can say as someone who works (for myself and my own business I might add) in the HOA industry that the info on this page could help educate people on what happens on HOA sites, and what they usually contribute to communities, without endorsing any particular provider or seller of them. I add again, I inserted other external links to CAI as well, and if editors had contested those, I would have argued in favor of their inclusion as well...even though CAI does contain sponsored links as well on their site. If you look at the changes being made to the page to not only comply with wikipedia's guidelines, but also general guidelines for a website being considered a neutral authority of information...I can only assume that the site owners are trying to make the site more universal and less of a sales tool, which is the only reason I have been rallying for it's inclusion, or at least the inclusion of the information. I think there are a lot of sources on HOA websites out there floating around as well. Definitely plenty of articles written by nuetral sources, another reason I think having an independent page in wikipedia would be a good thing.Edenrage (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edenrage. Please note the 200-word limit for posts which is mentioned at the top of this noticeboard. It is possible that posts of more than 200 words will be placed in archive boxes to save space. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ed, there is so much to say about these multiple issues involved...I didn't direct this conversation here, we were actually having it on the homeowners association page, but it was redirected here for a seperate discussion by an editor. I will try to keep it brief though... thanks.

User:Nancykabat

Resolved. User blanked the offending page. -- samj _in^out 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty blatant advertising attempt here. I had put a notice at WP:UAA and was directed here. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User blanked the page so I guess this is fixed already. -- samj _in^out 22:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit: Overlawyered

Currently, a web site I used to blog for regularly (and do so still occasionally), Overlawyered, is a redirect to Walter Olson. I believe, however, that the site, which was the very first legal weblog, founded in 1999, meets WP:WEB and WP:N, and merits an article, rather than just a redirect.

Cite for status as first legal weblog:

Jeannette Borzo, California Lawyer magazine (May 2008) (unfortunately no longer on the web).
http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1202426527551

Some sources:

Criticism:

Miscellaneous praise and citations in passing, inter alia:

Google Books, Google Scholar. If someone has NEXIS access, there are many more news articles in the 1999-2005 time range that are no longer on the web.

Many thanks, Ted, 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Steintrikes

Steintrikes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Created a page called Steintrikes. Smallman12q (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's been prodded. I seconded the prod noting the COI. If the prod gets removed I doubt it would survive AfD. I also left the creator a message about our COI guidelines. Them From Space 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various competing softwares

I've just issued a (I hope, preventitive) warning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crammage. Observe the edit histories of the mentioned articles. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem be a bunch of IPs doing things like removing AfD banners and dissing the rival products in their edit summaries. I don't see any evidence of grown-up behavior by any of these IPs, nor any respect for Wikipedia's deletion policy. The place where the trouble is happening is in Category:Flash cards software. How about semiprotecting Crammage, SuperMemo and any other rival products until Crammage's AfD is over? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott

Gillian Hiscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Professed autobiography of playwright. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gillhiscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been spamming persons who discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Hiscott. She has also been erasing warning messages left on her talk page. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the only reliable source I could find is a bad review. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bad review, which was so tastefully rebutted by the playwright herself in the comment just below it, with remarks about the critic's hormones and lack of judgment. I have notified Gillhiscott of this dicussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys listen There is some confusion over things I said. Of the two articles only the latter was written by myself in an attempt to rectified a nonconforming article. And most of the things that I have done on wikipaedia have happened from lack of knowledge of the system and I apologise if anyone was upset. In fact the administrator who blocked me has been very helpful and recreated the article on a userpage Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott which I am editing and I would be grateful for anyone's comments, help etc. If it never goes up again, so be it As the article was deleted I am simply trying to put things right and create an article which meets standards rather than have a log which is not defended. And surely I am the one with the best knowledge of citations about myself. As you have already noted I am quite defensive of my work. It is a pity you picked up on the only bad review - but the reviewer was mainly criticising the direction and acting - but in fact she had commented that the writer had "picked up the key scenes" of the original, and I was not so much defending myself as the director. In fact in fact the Camden New Journal review on the same play is still around on the net and perhaps you would like to read that one. Reviewers are an odd conflicting race of people. I think it was Tom Stoppard whose first plays was completely slammed by the critics. I find Wikipaedia an ironic site - so stringent on citations etc. but dissallowed as an unreleable source by univerisities (British ones anyhow). At least that is my experience. Does anyone know of a university which allows Wikipaedia to be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 10:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry another mistake - forgot to sign it - now attempting to (User talk:Gillhiscott/talk} —Preceding undated comment added 11:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have been working with this editor to produce a sourced, NPOV article. The userfy'd (?) version now being worked upon in the editors space indicates good claim to notability, with references in hand. I can also confirm that a lot of the earlier seeming non optimum behaviour is mostly down to unfamiliarity with the WP environment. This is also being worked upon (by example, chiefly). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim5046 apparently a/k/a User:67.131.131.131

Flag of the United States - moved article to American Flag and added spamlinks to the United States Flag Store, a division of Online Stores Inc.. The IP has a history of editing the last-named article as well, and may reasonably be assumed to be connected with same. Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noodle snacks is a page to sell his photographs

Noodle snacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is being used as a marketing tool to sell licenses for his images; violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be deleted. As should his user page User:Noodle snacks/gallery

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards