Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BassandAle (talk | contribs) at 16:30, 27 April 2010 (→Ongoing Conflict with ChrisO and BLP subject Don Murphy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    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.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:Aspen Dental
    Talk:Atlantic Union Bank
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Edward J. Balleisen
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Pamela Chesters
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Adela Demetja
    Talk:Doncaster College
    Talk:Foster and Partners
    Talk:Richard France (writer)
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:List of PEN literary awards
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen
    Talk:Laurence D. Marks
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Optum
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:SolidWorks
    Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Tencent Cloud
    Talk:Tiger Global Management
    Talk:Trendyol
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Alex Wright (author)
    Talk:Xero (company)
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    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.

    Narayana Engineering College

    Would someone mind having a quick look at Narayana Engineering College where I am pretty sure you will agree with my assessment on the talk page (a new editor is attempting to use peacock terms and an excessive number of external links in a new article). An IP has now reverted my edits and I would like a third opinion. No need to monitor the page unless you want, but there's only me and the author at the moment and I would like another opinion to justify my continued removal of the peacock text. It's very likely a COI issue (and the IP is probably the author) but I don't think it's worth getting bitey at this stage. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted them again, I concur with your opinion about the language. The IP is making the same changes that the other account was doing so I'm sure they're the same person. I'll keep a watch on it and I'll see if there's some way to get the editor to communicate. -- Atama頭 16:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadowbhia

    Resolved
     – Author outed himself, but articles deleted. -- Atama頭 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this editor did basically out himself as the candidate. However, both articles he created have been deleted, so there shouldn't be much of a concern at this point. -- Atama頭 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Phreaking

    On this page, an editor named Venushka made this edit adding the name Venushka H S to the list of notable phreaks. Obviously the reference was to a dead link--the article was A7 Speedy Deleted. I reverted this second edit, now from an identified user with a fairly obvious COI. Earlier today, an edit with the exact same content was added by an IP address. Presumably it was the same person. I reverted that too as being unsourced to a non-notable person. This has the looks of a potential edit war with someone with a COI trying to post something on WP.Trackinfo (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think they've given it up, they even requested a name change to distance themselves from it. Hopefully now they'll find something else to do. -- Atama頭 16:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Argtalent and Ronni Ancona

    User:Argtalent both logged in and as an anon (I presume they are the same person) has been removing a lot of information from the Ronni Ancona article, without explanation.

    They now claim top be Ronni Ancona's agent and to be editing per her request. Some of the changes are fair enough, e.g. changing the description of her nationality from Scottish to British. However, there is also a large amount of information that is being removed, including some that is referenced. If they are Ms Anonca's agent, then it seems there is quite a conflict of interest. Could someone more experienced than me please advise them about what they should be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ARG Talent is a talent agency in London (ARG stands for Artists Rights Group). The agent chose a name in clear violation of WP:ORGNAME. I'm softblocking them, they're free to create a new account that conforms to our username policies, and I'll also give them some advice on how to conform to our COI guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahindra Satyam

    There is apparently persistent deletion of negative information from the [Satyam] page. User [[2]] hasn't edited many other pages, and has received other similar complaints. Edits are predominantly to remove damaging info about financial troubles, but also include actual information like a twitter account for the company. Seems like PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carleas (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Former Volunteer/Employer

    Proclaims to be a follower or a close friend and uses his own site/book to support the bio. Wikidas© 08:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Streak Security

    See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Streak Security.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the "ad" in "Adlok" is a coincidence. For one thing, "Adlok" is sometimes used as a surname (just Google the name). Someone using the username "adlok" used to post on the forums for Blue Streak Technologies, but their forums are broken and I can't see the nature of the posts. So the connection for this person to that company is there, but the nature of that connection is uncertain. -- Atama頭 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog

    We have an editor in the Dog Whisperer article who has introduced staged photographs of their own dog, in poses to suggest disparagement of the television program. The editor's dog appears to be an ACD or Australian Cattle Dog — an article which the editor contributes to heavily.

    The editor arrived at Wikipedia with a full blown ability to edit articles, only edits primarily a few articles about dogs, especially the article about Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog. The editor has heavily reworked the Dog Whisperer article, mostly finding ways to include not so much balancing information but disparaging information, going so far as to suggest that a proper intro to the History of the television program lies in retelling the facts of a lawsuit disagreement with a disgruntled producer — and now adding the staged photos of their own dog.

    I really don't know what's going on here, but, I'm reluctant to get into it with the editor. In the past the editor has brought up anything possible that be construed as negative about me, including that I once participated in sockpuppetry — which is true, was a long time ago, and doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. The reason I engaged in SP was because I didn't know how to handle a disagreement (not with this editor) appropriately. Which is what I am trying to do here. For the most part, I stay away from the Dog Whisperer article, coming back now and then to see how the article has been "shaped."

    Here is the editor's comment on the photos, from Dog Whisperer's discussion page:

    The images are just adding a bit of interest. I searched for existing images but could find a good one with the required permissions, so I taught my dog to "watch tv" and "cover your eyes" and snapped the piccies. There is one watching with interest and one not watching so I think it meets NPOV Guidelines. Happy to discuss inclusion/deletion. Marj

    The photos are actually pretty funny, but when asked to remove them because they're not NPOV, the editor suggests in their "edit remarks" that they somehow make a balanced article: "Showing both sides is exactly npov)" 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the point is that to stage piccies of your own dog covering its eyes... or not... isn't an attempt at creating an encyclopedic, neutral, balanced article. It is a way of furthering your own interests, a disparagement of the television program and a promotion of the breed that the editor, owner of an Australian Cattle Dog, just happens to write (with glowing peacockery and without reference) is a courageous and tireless worker, an intelligent and athletic companion and a loving and playful family pet. in the intro to Australian Cattle Dog. 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thoughts? 842U (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia isn't the case for lolcats (or loldogs in this case). The closest guideline for this situation is WP:NOTBLOG. I'm not sure how much WP:COI plays into this, except that the editor is posting their own dog's pictures on the page. The other editing of the articles doesn't seem to have any kind of conflict, although NPOV may be a concern as you've said. I had expected this to be a new editor based on your description of the situation, but this is an editor with over 500 edits who has been with Wikipedia for more than a year, so it's not just a case of someone misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. One final thing, when you create a report about an editor on this noticeboard, you're encouraged to let them know, in almost every case it's much more helpful to have the other person's perspective and to ask them questions, not to mention that it's just courteous to do so. -- Atama頭 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Courteous as it may be, I can't bring myself to go head to head with the editor again. I end up getting personally attacked and nothing changes. After bringing up the issue on the discussion page, the editor hasn't offered a single reason for including the photos, instead choosing to attack the messenger. I've deleted the photos from the article, citing NOTBLOG — we'll see what happens. 842U (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Please add your own comments in your own paragraph and do please do not intersperse your commments into mine. I have moved the interspersed comments to your own paragraph. 842U (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO EDIT MY COMMENTS? MY RESPONSES WERE PLACED UNDER THE POINTS THEY RESPONDED TO, INDENTED ACCORDNG TO THE CONVENTION AND EACH LINE SIGNED. YOUR EDIT OF MY WORDS DESTROYS THE INTENDED MEANING. Marj (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I'll inform the editor, and then they can attack me. I'm an administrator, getting attacked comes with the territory. -- Atama頭 04:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At a reviewer's suggestion these statements were repeated from within the article where they are referenced. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Australian Cattle Dog was reviewed by Casliber, an administrator with 67,000 edits, who determined that it was a fair representation without bias and that my photographs (of my own dogs) were appropriate images. Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I also being accused that my photographs on the Dog page are a Conflict of Interest? Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User842U removed them, pseudonymously, without discussion. There was no request. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    At a reviewer's suggestion these statements were repeated from within the article where they are referenced. Marj (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Australian Cattle Dog was reviewed by Casliber, an administrator with 67,000 edits, who determined that it was a fair representation without bias and that my photographs (of my own dogs) were appropriate images. Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I also being accused that my photographs on the Dog page are a Conflict of Interest? Marj (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have yet to attack anyone, and am not about to start. I have no vested interest in the images - if they linked to ACD breeding kennels (I don't have any dog related business) I might be justly accused of COI but what are the interests that are supposedly in conflict. I have nothing to gain from the promotion of the breed, if these photos do in fact promote the breed. I asked for a discussion of the photos - but there has been no discussion, just removal and accusations. I thought the photos were funny, and added a bit of interest to the page. No disparagement was intended, and while you might possibly read that from the eyes covered image, how can it be said of the first? I noted in the caption that they were staged. But if anyone had asked for them to be removed I would have done so. I objected to an editor using an IP address as a pseudonym to delete them without discussion. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Smith and Corder have publicly stated that they originally promoted Millan as the "Dog Whisperer" and produced a pilot program by that name. This information is given in the article as an "allegation" but it on the public record so is part of the history of the program. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the accusation "arrived at Wikipedia with a full blown ability to edit articles" Can someone explain how this is a problem? I coordinate two wikis, and contribute to three others and did so before editing wikipedia. Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a dog owner, with a large collection of dog books, and a Professor in Film and Media studies. I edit articles where I have some expertise. How is this a problem? Marj (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my point is that if you have — not a novice, but a a knowledgeable, capable editor — inserting highly promotional but unreferenced conjecture, puffery and peacockery into the introduction of an article about Australian Cattle Dogs, for example, and then inserting their personal pictures of an Australian Cattle Dog for no reason (other than they are personally interesting to that editor) into virtually the only other article they edit, then there may be a conflict of interest. Especially when the editor stages the photographs to be disparaging, to show the dog covering it's eyes at the subject of the Dog Whisperer, an article about which the editor has already worked extensively to introduce a gracious plenty of disparaging information (e.g., introducing the history section with lawsuit information) — then it seems possible that the editor has a specialized interest in dogs, their personal dog, the Australian Cattle Dog breed... and is using both articles to promote their personal interest. At the very least, the knowledgeable editor could just leave their personal disparaging photographs out of the article in the first place... or understand that the photographs by virtue of the guidelines of Wikipedia don't belong... or understand that removal of the photographs does not have to meet their personal mandate for discussion... especially when the "discussion" immediately takes on a tiresome, attacking, contentious quality. 842U (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask, again, that you not interject your comments into mine. Please respond chronologically by placing your comments at the end of the section. This will make it easiest for everyone to follow the conversation &mdash' and will show other editors the same courtesy you'd like shown to your edits. See WP: Discussion Page/Talk Page Use: "If you wish to reply to a comment that has already been replied to, place your response below the last response, while still only adding one colon to the number of colons preceding the statement you're replying to" 842U (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion here mirrors the contentiousness of the Dog Whisperer Discussion Page. Why is this discussion so aggravated and contentious? It's probably not because of Australian Cattle Dogs. It's important to point out in COI and POV disputes, underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. When an editor has a COI, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden. Thus, for example, if I'm a university professor and my university has a curriculum where my colleagues routinely use this television program, Dog Whisperer to demonstrate a particular point of view... or of I make my living teaching a class that uses the Dog Whisperer this way... then I have a conflict of interest; I would, in good faith, declare that COI, and... refrain from editing. 842U (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me start by acknowledging that Marj's work in helping at least two dog-related articles to reach GA status is very much appreciated. I'll admit that I've tried getting more than one article to that state and haven't managed to succeed yet, so your article development skills are better than mine. I'm not sure why there would be a concern about your editing the Australian Cattle Dog article, the improvements you've made to that article are wonderful.
    The photos added to the Dog Whisperer article, on the other hand, are confusing because they're not encyclopedic, and we usually don't try to make articles funny to make them more entertaining. We do have humorous essays but article space is supposed to be developed to be informative, rather than entertaining. (Well, we do try to avoid making things boring, but we don't need funny pictures to do that.) I think that's why this concern was raised. But while I think the images don't belong, I also don't think they're that big of a deal.
    Now that we have both parties here discussing the matter, I think some of the burden has to be put onto 842U. You claim that there is a COI, and that Marj has "inserted highly promotional but unreferenced conjecture, puffery and peacockery" into the ACD article. I really need to see diffs showing that, because I have trouble believing that an editor who has improved an article to the degree that it has passed a quality review could be considered to have edited in such a disruptive manner. Furthermore, you claimed earlier that you were "getting personally attacked" by Marj; do you have evidence of that as well? I haven't been able to find Marj being anything but courteous. As to the COI, I don't see it at all, owning a breed of dogs and liking that breed is very far from having a COI. You might argue that showing your own dogs could be self-promotion, except that Marj doesn't identify the dog or the dog's owner in either of the pictures, so I don't see how even that weak claim could be made. -- Atama頭 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Marj certainly has done a great deal of work on the two articles, and many of her edits are incisive and spot on. On the one hand I can agree that the photo's aren't that big a deal. As I said, they're funny. On the other hand, the reason we're even discussing the pix is because they can be construed as gratuitously disparaging the subject of the article, because they serve no purpose in clarifying the article — and because without providing any reason why the photos should be in the article, Marj had not allowed them to be removed. These are important issues... but the photos also serve as the tipping point that throws the conflict of interest into transparency.
    For the record, Marj added captions to her photos that actually did identify the dog in the photo's as an "ACD" (without piping the abbreviation to the Australian Cattle Dog article — for whatever purpose that served).
    And for the record, the specific example of conjecture, puffery and peacockery was cited above. Here is her unreferenced edit: [3].


    Today it is a versatile breed: a courageous and tireless worker, an intelligent and athletic companion and a loving and playful family pet.



    That is exactly the kind of statement that isn't allowable under verifiability guidelines — the kind of edit she wants so clearly to avoid (see quote below) in the Dog Whisperer article. As another example, the ACD article ends with a news section, crafted by Marj beginning here, that offers a plethora of pro-breed anecdotes... but Marj couldn't find a single item critical of the breed? E.g., an ACD biting three children... the editor who indicated on her user page that she is a member of the Association of Internet Researchers? She certainly has had no difficulty finding critical information about the Dog Whisperer.
    And here is perhaps the crux issue. Marj indicated that she is a professor, using the Dog Whisperer article in her classes :

    Hi. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but I think it is important that the page on the program is as objective and 'scientific' as possible. I will not touch the Cesar Millan page, it can be as sycophantic as you wish. Indeed I have given you information on the discussion page that you can use there in any way you wish. I have only added authenticated research, including recent awards and other positive comment. I have been deleting unsubstantiated opinion.
    I am a University Professor in Media and Cultural Studies, and we study Dog Whisperer in class so I have a vested interest in ensuring this page is accurate.



    So she writes an article so she can use it in her livelihood? That is precisely what defines Conflict of Interest. The insistent inclusion of her own disparaging and unnecessary photographs of her dog and her favored breed was a tipping point... and somewhat blatant given that she insists the Dog Whisperer article be as objective and 'scientific' as possible, while allowing the Australian Cattle Dog to begin and end with puffery. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, there was some kind of tacit suggestion in the above quote about the Cesar Millan article, a quid pro quo of sorts suggesting she'll stay away from an article I had edited, and essentially warning me, attackingly, to stay away from Dog Whisperer. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The contrast in editing by Marj between Dog Whisperer and Australian Cattle Dog is an application of double standards, fueled by a conflict of interest. We do not encourage professors to write articles so they can use them as they see fit in their livelihood, especially while puffing up articles devoted to their pet interests, no pun intended. 842U (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that the dog pictures are necessarily disparaging; on the one hand they're cute, and on the other hand they're confusing. I don't know that the second one is trying to imply that the show is causing the dog distress, or if the dog is reacting to a "command" from the Dog Whisperer...? Either way, the photos don't seem to belong and I don't think that Marj is raising a big stink about keeping them so I think that as long as they're kept out of the article that it's not an issue.
    I'm not sure about the COI with the Dog Whisperer. An argument could be made that if Marj's interest in editing the article is to benefit a class, then that might be considered a conflict of interest. But at the same time, what is the nature of those edits? If the goal is to make the article "accurate", then this might rather be a situation where an editor's outside interests coincide with the interests of Wikipedia. That's certainly a stronger COI than complaints that Marj is promoting their own dogs, or is a fan of the breed. I'm not sure that it's a concern at this point. I don't read a quid-pro-quo from the quote you gave, but it does at least hint at a bit of ownership, in declaring that "this is my article and that is your article". Whether that was intended or not, I don't know, I'll allow Marj to clarify.
    As to the Australian Cattle Dog article... There may be some peacockery there. Later on in the article the breed's virtues are mentioned with citations, but in the lead it seems to stand out as giving an opinion about the breed. -- Atama頭 20:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edited) There are many aspects of this that are confusing, but the COI is openly declared. By Wikipedia standards, when approaching an article where one has a vested interest, one would be completely open in that declaration, and assume tremendous care in editing an article..(edited)
    As confusing as this is, if there were a shred of good faith left on Marj's part, she would let me remove the positive comment that I once made on her talk page... before she accused me of sycophantic editing... which she has twice replaced, citing that her talk page... is hers.842U (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually bordering on a personal attack, those words were never stated by Marj and you're attributing ill-intent that I don't see a justification for. I think you're taking this far too personally. The statement about "sycophantic editing" was uncivil, and she should probably apologize, but your response is far, far worse. I'd suggest redacting your false quote in italics. -- Atama頭 21:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Marj did eventually apologize for the sycophantic comment -- I use it here because I believe the behavior she was accusing me of is the very behavior that seems currently blatant in Australian Cattle Dog. And, thanks, you're right, I can see where the quotes are a way of attributing something that is not there. What I am saying is that in my opinion there are some problems: a declared conflict of interest, a deep negative bias toward the television show, misplaced ownership of the article, a reluctance to accept guidelines on neutrality, and lack of good faith. 842U (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment (since removed) is openly offensive. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My history. In December 2008 I undertook a staff development course through the University of Manitoba Emerging Technologies in Education One assignment for that course was to edit the Lifelong Learning page, which I did. Twelve months later I was teaching a course Digital Culture which included several weeks looking at collaborative information which included wikipedia. The focus was the process; students didn't need to learn how to edit wikipedia, so I picked a couple of pages that needed improvement, where I had access to references, and I started editing. Students followed the process, and reflected on it. Much of what I was doing was locating and formatting references. But on Dog Whisperer I encountered an editor who just deleted anything they didn't agree with, without explanation, let alone discussion. While I know this happens, it was de-railing the discussion on collaboration. In addition in my work on references I found many that were bordering on fraudulent; misrepresenting the source, and not referring to the information cited. Again this happens, but in this course I wanted students to be reflecting on majority practices. When the editor deleted the same authoritatively referenced information without explanation for the second time, I wrote the quoted note. The tone of my note does reflect my frustration at that point, with 842U editing my talkpage, changing my comments in other forums to ridicule me, and arbitrarily undoing any edit I made on Dog Whisperer, though using various IP addresses to hide their actions. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have 7,500 images on a photosharing site that are all licenced Creative Commons and are hence used in a large number of Wikipedia Articles illustrating everything from European cities to Australian birds Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Good article criteria A good article is illustrated, if possible, by images. Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What is 842U's interest in Australian Cattle Dog other than WP:Hound? Marj (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • At what point does continued accusation and personal criticism, repeated across a number of Wikipedia forums, without substantiation, become harassment? Marj (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, the biggest problem I see is that the two of you have a problem assuming good faith about one another. Most especially on 842U's part, but a couple of comments made by Marj (born of frustration I'm sure) haven't been constructive either. I'd almost suggest a mutual non-interaction, but you're both trying to contribute to the same article so that wouldn't work. You're both good editors, 842U has had a number of DYK acknowledgments, and I think you both have good intentions at the article but just different points of view. Have either of you considered dispute resolution? I see commentary on the talk page of the article just begging for the opinion of other people but you two are the only significant contributors this month, and I see what almost looks like cabin fever causing you to go for each others' throats. Getting more eyes on that page should be a healthy thing. -- Atama頭 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good idea. Ugh is right. The point of this is discussion manifold, and I really appreciate you're being willing to somewhat arbitrate, Atama. I'll cool down and take a breather. My point in opening this discussion was to go around Marj to have a discussion about problems I see — strongly feeling this situation would not come to light any other way — and while feeling immense frustration, knowing this would be the smartest way to get counsel.
    I have been basically fed up with unproductive discussions with Marj: from her attacking me at the outset, refusing to answer direct questions on the discussion page, and her openly laughing at my opinions on the discussion page. I don't think it's at all fair for an editor to openly, for example, state they believe Cesar Milan "is almost universally criticised by the scientific community of animal behaviorists, by veterinarians, by animal welfare groups, and by modern dog trainers including worldwide members of the APDT,", refuse to offer any support for the belief (which is as about as far from neutral as you can get when approaching an article about his television show) and then proceed to nevertheless shape the article about his television show. And then have that same editor use the article it in their livelihood — without openly declaring that? To the point, again, where after seriously returning to the article after staying away for nearly two months.. I find Marj introducing the history of the television series that went on the air in 2004 with information from a lawsuit in 2006. It just feels to me that Marj has been gaming the system.
    Like you said Atama, there have been very few eyes on the Dog Whisperer page... but when the discussion breaks down, there are not many good directions things can go in.
    I'm not suggesting I am or have been perfect here — but I'm not framing a Wikipedia article and then using the same article in my livelihood; I haven't failed to declare a possible conflict of interest — which may have played a key role in the the level of heatedness here (see WP:COI). I haven't taken near Ownership of the article, introducing photos of my pet into the article for no clear purpose.
    Where I think I've failed is in getting upset. I am guilty of being very frustrated, for expressing myself poorly — and I apologize for my earlier harsh comments. My instinct to come here and get assistance was good. I will consider whatever advise you might have for me, Atama. And I'd prefer if, in the process, my issues with Marj and the direction of the article were considered respectfully. 842U (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post which doesn't make any more sense now that the previous times you posted it, but: What is this Conflict of Interest that you are still accusing me of? Is any teacher who uses Wikipedia in their classes unable to edit? Marj (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The question isn't whether teachers may edit articles. The question is whether teachers who declare a clear bias against the subject of the article, who plan to use an article they craft on Wikipedia in their classes, should A) Declare the exact nature of how they plan to use the articles and the nature of their point of view...so that they don't indulge in unintentional bias, and should B) refrain from making edits that thwart the articles neutrality, and C) give due respect to other editors' specific questions and concerns. From WP:COI:
    If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.
    If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.
    These are Wikipedia rules. And you've resisted, circumvented and thwarted nearly every single concern and suggestion I've made. You must know by now that the intro History section of the Dog Whisperer has been crafted in the worse possible light. You yourself questioned whether your photos belonged in the article. Why be tendentious with me about this? Is it possible that you so want the article to reflect the point of view you have in mind for your students, that you are unwilling to yield to another point of view? That would be the very danger of a conflict of interest.
    Back in February, picking one point with you, I had grave misgivings about your insistence on including the Lisa Jackson Schebetta information in the article — it certainly wasn't obvious on the face of why anyone should care about this source... she's not notable, the source wasn't linked, her qualifications and associations weren't disclosed: on the face of it, the only reason to include her was because she was critical of DW. I tried every possible route to have you understand my point of view: that including the article written by a "theater major" writing for the an animal rights group (associated with Libnow.org, Steven Best and the Animal Liberation Front) was problematic without disclosing those points and possibly not a reliable source... you finally acquiesced, by including in the article at my insistence the nature of Lisa Jackson's Schebetta's qualifications and associations. To show my good faith that I had no problem with including the info while disclosing her background and associations — I went so far as to make your source a hyperlink. And now, today, as the article stands, you deleted that information about her background and association. Why? Because you don't want to the reader to be informed completely about the nature of the criticisms of the show? Because no other editor but you gets to participate?
    I included the quote which you see adjacently in the article, which you subsequently withdrew, because it wasn't notable. My contribution is a direct quote from the central figure of the show, about the show, speaking about the program format and with references... and it isn't notable enough? But you can include photographs you staged of your ACD turning away from Cesar Millan... because they are interesting?

    Q:What happens after you've rehabilitated the dogs, trained the people and turned off the cameras?
     A: They can't blame the dog anymore.

    Cesar Millan, 2006 interview[1]
    So, I'm left with the impression of an immovable object. Yes it is frustrating and I have said things that could offend you. I apologize if I've lots my cool at times. Nonetheless, rather than my making my point any further that you may have a strong COI, why don't you be completely forthcoming here about your point of view as a teacher of the Dog Whisperer, how you use it in your classes, what those classes are, (aside from just Media and Cultural Studies), and if you have or may be inclined to craft the Wikipedia article to substantiate the subject matter/point of view of your classes — possibly thwarting other editors and the Wikipedia guidelines in the process?
    And now, you place a POV Check on Cesar Millan. Is this just a coincidence — or is this some kind of retaliation for my putting a check on Dog Whisperer? 842U (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no coincidence. They should be examined together, given the connection between the subjects of the two pages. Marj (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My occupation is on my talk page, and I told you personally what I did for a living.
    • I used the editing process with my Digital Culture class, not the content of the article. We were discussing the collaborative construction of information and the authority of knowledge. I was not teaching students about the Dog Whisperer.

    Course Description: Wikis and blogs, podcasts, YouTube, Facebook and iEverything; increasingly our culture is mediated by information and communication technology. This course will examine the ways that the new technologies are affecting everyday life, culture, institutions, communities and identity. Grounded in cultural studies, the course will explore a variety of case studies from several methodological approaches, using specific projects to connect theory and practice.

    • A Ph.D. in Theatre's article published in a peer reviewed journal is a reliable source of information on the program format. You took the matter to arbitration, but would not accept the decision. I wanted to include it because it was the only article I found that dealt with the program as a "television program" talking about its format... until you found the article by the program's scriptwriters, when I reduced the information from Lisa Jackson Schebetta to a sentence.
    • I asked in the discussion forum (keeping the quote there so it could be returned) whether the quote was sufficiently notable to be on both the Cesar Millan and the Dog Whisperer pages.
    • I don't have a bias against Millan or his methods. I have William Keohler's and Vicki Hearn's books, The Monks of New Skete, Karen Prior, Jean Donaldson, and many more. I believe that the more you know about the tools available for a particular task - like dog training - the better decisions you can make about which ones to use.
    • My goal, as I state on my user page, was to make the Dog Whisperer page about the television program. It was an almost exact copy of the Cesar Millan page when I began editing.
    • My major problems with you were that you would just delete what I was adding, without discussion, (your stats show only 6% of your edits are on talk pages, so it's not just on Dog Whisperer) and I believed your selective use of references to prove your point, even if it misrepresented the pont of view of the author, was unethical. Marj (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I used the editing process with my Digital Culture class, not the content of the article. We were discussing the collaborative construction of information and the authority of knowledge. I was not teaching students about the Dog Whisperer.

    Conflict of Interest is well defined, and using the WP talk page, as well as other pages such as RS amd NPOV pages in a class — without advising other editors that you are doing so — is a conflict of interest, and in my opinion a breach of trust. As with any COI, you could easily have, perhaps unintentionally, heightened the contention on the DW talk page for your class's purposes and not the expressed purpose of Wikipedia.842U (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have quoted me as advising you. I was not using the talk page, as I said we were looking at the construction of knowledge, not at discussion and contention. The class worked from print-outs of the content page. Every time I answer your accusations, instead of apologizing you launch a new round of accusations. Marj (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a "new round of accusations." It's an ongoing discussion about your possible COI. You said on my talk page only that "I am a University Professor in Media and Cultural Studies, and we study Dog Whisperer in class so I have a vested interest in ensuring this page is accurate." You did not openly disclose, until this discussion, to me or anyone else that you were using the editing process somehow related to the Dog Whisperer show (but not using the article or talk page?) in a class about "collaborative construction" or "authority of knowledge." It seems to me like a COI — but that's precisely why we're here discussing this. It would seem less possibly a conflict to study the editing process in an article... that you are not editing. And I hope I'm not the only one here who can see that if you're studying "authority of knowledge" that it might get even inadvertently tendentious.
    Just like you said about DW: "Tension, conflict, fast dramatic change, winners and losers, make for great television." I guess that if you have a class to sell, it's not a huge leap that these elements might make for a great class.
    My concern about possible COI remains — so I am not apologizing for continuing this conversation. If you want to collaborate further, and that's what Wikipedia is about, then it is in your interest as much as mine to clear up the COI concern. In particular though, I thought I had apologized above when I yesterday said "I apologize for my earlier harsh comments" — which I had already deleted. I also thought I had offered you the olive branch this morning both here: In good faith and here: Neutrality... 842U (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am interested in uncovering conflicts of interest, yes. Marj (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dog Whisperer and Cesar Millan

    User:842U has edited 1,424 unique articles in wikipedia, with a total of 14,772 edits. Of the 2,535 pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs 842U has edited 5.

    This pattern of edits would seem to suggest a special interest in Cesar Millan on the part of 842U - which could potentially be a vested interest. Marj (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done: My work is unrelated to the field of dogs or television. I work in a field related to engineering. I don't use any Wikipedia pages to promote my work. I own a dog. And three cats. I had a dog when I was kid, before CM was born. It was a mut. The dog I have now is not a Pit Bull or a Rottweiler. I've watched the Dog Whisperer (with CM), It's Me or the Dog (with Victoria Stillwell where I've made less than a half a dozen edits — would that help my percentages?) and Dogs 101 (sometimes featuring N. Dodman, the man who says CM set dog training back 20 years). My dog is pretty well behaved, but I got the dog before I'd heard of CM. I don't receive the network that Dog Whisperer is on; I received one of the DVD's from a past season as a Christmas present. I've watched the Dog Whisperer on Hulu before, too... maybe five or six times. It's a pain. I don't work for a company that has anything to do with CM's work, the show, etc. I do not use the page on the Dog Whisperer or CM in any way, shape or form with my livelihood — nor any other page — although I have referred to articles sometimes to get answers related to work questions. I'm not Mexican, nor am I a naturalized citizen. I don't have any associations with dogs through my work — except for sometimes, on occassion I take my dog to work. One of the three articles I've edited related to CM is about his dog that passed away. Marj gave me the idea for that with her edit here. I recently read a book about a dog, and made an article about it: The Art of Racing in the Rain. I also edited heavily the article about the movie that inspired the book, State of Dogs as well as the article about Garth Stein, author of The Art of Racing in the Rain, which was featured on DYK. My interests are pretty wide broad. I have a special interest in cars and motorcycles. My work is completely unrelated to either of those fields. Of all my edits I am most proud of the section of the Augusta National Golf Club article dealing with the 2002 membership controversy which for a section about controversy has been itself free from controversy — and which, I think, really demonstrates how to write about controversy in a balanced way. I don't Golf, live in Augusta or know Hootie Burke or Hootie Johnson. I'm also very proud of the Chicken Tax article I created, which scored something like 14,000 hits when it was featured in DYK. I eat and like chicken. I tend to get interested in something, go whole hog, and then improve and follow the article. I like hogs just fine. I try to often read the Wall Street Journal we get at work; you'll see a lot of references I insert come from the WSJ. I once indulged in Sockpuppetry, it was brutal all the way around, and learned a lot from the experience. I recently found a sockpuppet in an article. I recently found a company that was Refspamming also. I've eaten Captain Crunch and SpaghettiOs (not together) and then turned around and edited those articles. Lock me up.
    I will answer any questions anyone would like to pose me about the interest I have in CM or any connection it could possibly have to my livelihood. If all this fits a pattern of special interest or vested interest in dogs... I'll be a monkeys uncle. In the meantime, I'm going to take a two-day rest from this. 842U (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NatDemUK

    The above editor has a history of tendentious POV editing in regard to racist and/or fascist groups in Britain. Here the editor admits to being a member of the BNP, an article which has a long history of members and/or supporters editing tendentiously. I'm pretty sure this editor has also admitted to being a member of other organisations they edit, I'll ask Snowded (talk · contribs) to chip in as he has more experience with this editor than me. 2 lines of K303 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well he finally admitted what several of us had suspected, namely that s/he is a member. He can be a member of the party and edit, but needs to use sources and stop editing on the basis of his/her personal opinion. S/he tends to make a series of factual edits then suddenly throws in a couple of POV ones and therefore requires constant monitoring which is a pain! On the positive side, no edit warring. Not the most problematic editor but could improve would be my opinion. --Snowded TALK 01:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SHAZAM (software), edited by User:Wikieconometrician

    This editor added an article in software made by a firm he works for. He has disclosed this link on his user page. What troubles me, is his linking activities and an rv of my edits. 018 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Scoot

    COI and massive POV editing from User:Samir000

    He claims to be the owner of Compression Ratings, a person who is known to be the author of NanoZip as well. COI actions:

    • massively rewrote the benchmarking section of Lossless data compression to give WP:UNDUE prominence to his site, elevating it to same level as another better known site, and claiming that all other sites are unreliable. Note that he added a citation for that, but the reference does not verify his claim that other sites are unreliable.
    • He is also the author of NanoZip. In the AfD for that article he invoked his own benchmark site as an argument for keeping the software artile without disclosing the he is also the author of the software. I've informed him of WP:COI in that AfD, only to see the edit in the other article thereafter. Hopeless case.
    Wholly unintentionally. I also would have preferred to keep away from editin NanoZip due to WP:COI. I invoked the site because earlier, similarly Mahoney invoked his site writing article about his program PAQ which is similarly WP:COI. Samir000 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to revert him on the first article, but I don't have time for wikiwars. Someone else needs to keep an eye on him. Admin intervention is likely to be required. Pcap ping 22:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pcap mixes two separate things. Deletion of NanoZip everybody can understand since it's notable only in the context of file archivers, not in the context of Wikipedia. A wholly different matter is his editing of Lossless data compression by inserting links to various benchmark sites that are not transparent. My reasons for the corrections are very clear. Of course his benchmark sites are unreliable sources if we have no means to verify the results. I can document this further if there is any interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samir000 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mix them, I listed them. If you have a beef with the sources used to list those other sites, then argue that they should not be used in the article, but it that case all sites produced by a particular source should be removed, not just those you don't like. Your site is only listed in Mahoney's booklet, so if you have problem with his presentation/reliability (by his inclusion of sites you don't approve of), then there's no other source even mentioning your site, so it should be removed as well. Your cherrypicking of the two lists, and uncited claims that the competition has inferior benchmarks somehow are POV unsupported by either sources cited in the article. If you want to make the claim the other sites suck, add it to your own site, and perhaps someone will notice. Pcap ping 23:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm totally doing this non-profit. I wouldn't use the word competition. I was merely trying to point out that all the links you introduced use private test data making them unreliable source, it is simple as that. See http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/ for elementary guidelines for benchmarking. Furthermore most of your links are totally obsolete and unmaintained. My site is new one and so only the brand new Mahoney booklet mentiones it. Samir000 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that I didn't remove any of your links. I merely cut out the misleading introduction per link for reasons given in the article. Samir000 (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles relating to University of Wisconsin

    It looks like this single purpose account is on WP with the sole aim of editing University of Wisconsin pages to best promote the Universities.

    He has been warned twice here by an admin and here by me but contiues to edit in the area so would welcome someone with more experience looking at the articles.

    Codf1977 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not promoting. I'm adding well-sourced information. On the other hand,User:Codf1977 is taking every effort to delete the info that the artilcles should have. For example, [4][5][6][7][8] and many others disruptive behavior of his. In his eyes, Wikipedia school articles shouldn't have a "Rankings" section and shouldn't have subarticles. Revws (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly "promoting" and "adding well-sourced information" are not mutually exclusive;
    Secondly NONE of those edits of mine are disruptive and
    Thirdly you failed to address the question - do you have a WP:COI with the University of Wisconsin articles ?
    Codf1977 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    NO. I attended University of Illinois at Chicago. Revws (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Attending is not the only reason for a connection. It is worth noting that Revws's first off University of Wisconsin topic edit was 3 mins after the above post where he/she moved a {{too many photos}} tag from University of Illinois at Chicago to University of Wisconsin–Madison with his/hers very next edit. To me his/hers WP:COI just quacks. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Far Eastern University

    I just wanted to request extra eyes on this. The article is currently fine and the contents are neutral, but that's because I keep selectively deleting and dumping the copyvios into subpages. :)

    Nutshell: since 2005, this article has been disrupted repeatedly by rotating IP and registered editors with copyright violating text that is promotional and in some cases verifiably fraudulent. It was listed on the copyright problems board in late 2009, where it came to my attention. I worked with the contributors of the article (mainly User:Rmcsamson, who has valiantly tried to protect it for 5 years) to clean it up then and have several times since had to come back to remove the same material, much of which can be seen at [9] and [10].

    Extra eyes are requested because (a) I'm heading off for a couple of weeks in the middle of the month, and (b) I contributed content in the course of the earlier cleanup. I do not consider myself involved with the article and will handle copyright problems accordingly, but because much of the content currently in the article was written by me, I will not risk becoming involved by intervening with poorly sourced, promotional text (presuming it shows up in copyvio-free language :D). If I start defending the article against that, I won't be able to use my tools for the copyvio issues, and these recur frequently enough that my tools are needed. There aren't very many of us who work that department, so I can't just pass it off to somebody else. :)

    Anyone (admin or otherwise) willing to keep an eye on the article for a month or so until this latest round of effort to propagandize the article settles down? I'd really appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing Conflict with ChrisO and BLP subject Don Murphy

    Exactly one day after an explosive showdown between producer Don and author Erik, ChrisO inserted false information about Dons father-in-law into article Susan Montford. ChrisO has been the subject of a months long thread on Don's message board seeking a reward for his identity. Author ChrisO knows this and nevertheless chose to enter the false information, and indeed edit the article at all. A ban from all Don related articles is proposed, at least. BassandAle (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And you're aware of all of this because?   Will Beback  talk  18:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    why would it be hard to be aware of it? ChrisO is outed on Don's site. Susan's article is changed this morning with false informaton by Chris O. Why would I NOT be aware of it?BassandAle (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is of course complete bollocks. I edited and watchlisted Susan Montford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a person of independent notability - to update it after noticing that it hadn't been touched since January 2009. I got one detail wrong - that SM was the daughter rather than the second cousin of a famous sports commentator. BassandAle also got it wrong [11], claiming that she was the niece of said sports commentator. I checked and corrected the article.[12] There really is nothing more to it than this. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, the person being reported here (ChrisO) is probably the only person without a COI in this matter. Clearly Bassandale has a conflict. If there are problems with a person's biography, WP:BLP/N is the proper venue, not here. -- Atama頭 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity's sake, I should add that as far as I know Susan Montford has never complained about, commented on or otherwise done anything concerning her biography. I invite anyone to have a look at it to see whether there's anything that could be considered remotely objectionable in there. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem isn't what IS in there it is of course what people like you do next. That's why there isn't an Erik anymore. You are out to upset Don and should not be near anything to do with him BassandAle (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How, exactly, is this an "attack on Murphy"? --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that Erik account User_talk:Erik has retired. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would set a bad precedent if we say that biography subject can force an editor to stop editing by outing them. If the editor in question is making bad edits then that can be handled in other ways.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me get this straight, BassandAle... You come here essentially blackmailing an editor by mentioning that there are people trying to out them on an off-Wiki site and saying that they "nevertheless chose to enter the false information". I suggest you clarify that ASAP, because those kinds of threats have zero tolerance on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do. ChrisO has a conflict with Don. He inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article this am and only changed it when I forced him to. ChrisO should not be editing Don related article. Blackmail? As I said I am not an native English speaker. What's your excuse?BassandAle (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You inserted incorrect information into Don's wife's article, which I corrected. What's your excuse? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Except I didn't. She is his niece. BassandAle (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How do you know that? The cited source says that she's his second cousin. I'm not saying you're wrong - but we can't operate on the basic of undocumented personal knowledge. The biographies of living people policy specifically rules out editors' personal knowledge as a source of facts. We operate on the basis of what has been documented in reliable sources. That's as much for biography subjects' protection as it is for ours. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well I haven't changed it back have I? I know that because I know Susan. I understand that truth and accuracy is not your goal. But hey, go look at earlier versions of the article- it was correct back then. BassandAle (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "I am not a native English speaker but blackmailing requires me to demand something in return for something else you don't want to do." Yes, that's true, and you're demanding that ChrisO not edit articles related to Don Murphy, and have given no justification for such demands except that Don Murphy doesn't like him. That doesn't fly here. Also, have you previously edited Wikipedia as SharkJumper? I notice that your account was created just a day after that account was blocked, and your very first edit was to take up right where SharkJumper left over before they were blocked. -- Atama頭 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully ask you to stop antagonizing me. I have demanded nothing and proposed that a conflicted editor avoid conflict. The justification is clear- he has been outed by Don and therefore has animus towards him. Sharkjumper was Don. I am Gaston. Stop your unwarranted attacks upon my person. ChrisO isn't claiming blackmail, which is a crime. You are>BassandAle (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The History Press

    St.themill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been adding books published by The History Press to various articles, even when they don't meet WP:FURTHERREADING. Some of the users edits to The History Press article, have a promotional tone. I've added a COI notice to the user's talkpage, and a COI tag to the History Press article but the user has removed the tag and continued to edit the page. The username appears to be derived from the name of the company's HQ. Grim23★ 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras

    A new account, BYSO (talk · contribs), has significantly expanded Boston Youth Symphony Orchestras, adding uncited peacock information. Yes, it's one of the best youth orchestras in the United States, but we need someone else to say it before you put it in the article... As I once auditioned (unsuccessfully) for the group, it would be good for uninvolved people to chime in as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    MuZemike has softblocked the name as a violation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Johnson, Morieka V. (4 April 2006). "Dog's best friend". Cox News Service.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=358674065"