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 81.100.64.222 (talk) at 17:11, 21 November 2010 (→Dwell (retailer)). 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:260 Collins
    Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi
    Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
    Talk:Pamela Anderson
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)
    Talk:BEE Japan
    Talk:Edi Birsan
    Talk:Adam Boehler
    Talk:Edouard Bugnion
    Talk:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    Talk:Charles Martin Castleman
    Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:DEGIRO
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:Michael Dell
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:International Motors
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Reshma Kewalramani
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:QuinStreet
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:TheSoul Publishing
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Tim Eyman

    EymanTim (talk · contribs) is either the subject of the article, or is violating the User name rules. Corvus cornixtalk 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If he has valuable information to contribute, it might actually be useful. He just needs to make sure that he is contributing in the "third person" from reliable peer-reviewed sources, not his own take or opinion...--Novus Orator 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, a persons own name is not a username vio. However, if you are impersonating someone well-known then that's a username vio. --Addihockey10e-mail 01:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Connor

    Resolved
     – No evidence of COI, coincidentally the editor created an article on someone of the same name SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Explanation of the situation = self-explanatory, from the links above. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Connor (talk · contribs) has been here since 2007 (although there was a long gap in editing), I think it's probably not the subject of the article, or they would have been editing the article all along. Corvus cornixtalk 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the first version of the article wasn't about this person (christopher james john xander connor was born on the 15th july 1988, he grew up in a musical family and from the age of 5...) Corvus cornixtalk 07:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question was asked twice by two different editors in posts at T:TDYK about COI - and failed to respond. -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems very implausible: Christopher Connor is a fifty-something American executive with Sherwin-Williams, and User:Christopher Connor is a British snooker fan with a wide variety of editing interests, none of which have to do with paint. And the article in question doesn't even read like an autobiography. Far more likely that the Wikipedia user had an interest in the famous person who shared the same name--a name that isn't all that unusual. Anyone who was following WP:AGF and doing a smidgen of due diligence would have no reason to suspect COI violation, so I'm not surprised that a longtime TDYK participant treated the COI inquiry as a joke. (And in the unlikely event that a multi-millionaire executive spent three years contributing to Wikipedia under a false persona but real name in the hopes of fooling me when writing his autobiography, that's still probably a net gain to Wikipedia that we shouldn't discourage.) THF (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He was asked by several people at DYK whether there was a COI and he just ignored the questions. So either there's a COI or someone is playing silly buggers. Not a good thing either way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    User:CC should have enough experience on Wikipedia to anticipate that other editors would overreact and done something to head off the overreaction. And given Wikipedia username rules, there should be a disclaimer on his userpage. We can fault him for that, but that doesn't change that the overreaction is still silly and a violation of AGF. If Cirt had spent two minutes looking at the article and the editor's editing history instead of WP:CANVASing, we wouldn't be here. Moreover, COIN is for when someone with a conflict of interest refuses to collaboratively edit a controversial article or is disruptive across dozens of articles. Even in the unlikely event that User:CC was taking time off of his Fortune 500 CEO schedule to make three years of edits to articles about race or snooker and then wrote a neutral well-sourced article about himself on the side, where's the policy violation? Cirt's overreaction was far more disruptive and violated the WP:COI guideline, which permits people to make non-controversial NPOV edits about themselves. THF (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think concerns about the DYK hook are valid. By not saying he's not that CC, he's giving the impression that he might be; people shouldn't have to pour through his contribs; he should just say no. In addition the hooks are pedestrian, and he has said that he's "particularly keen" to get it on the main page, so could we please overlook that the hooks are boring. [1] Maybe this is dry English humour, or maybe not; hard to tell, so some clarification from him wouldn't go amiss. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What are the concerns? He made the pitch, the pitch was rejected on the merits, he made a joke about the lack of merit of the suggestion. He didn't throw a tantrum that the consensus was against him, he didn't canvas to distort the discussion. If that's a "COI concern," there are far worse ones in TDYK on a regular basis, given the number of editors who promote their own articles for personal pride. And it took far less time for me to "pore through his contributions" (really, a glance at his user talk page is sufficient) than it must have taken Cirt to pursue this white whale. THF (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Meco and Meco (municipality) also have my username all over them, for the same innocuous reason as THF alludes to above. __meco (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth remembering that autobiographies are only a problem if the articles are POV and or unsourced - we don't have any policies saying that they are absolutely forbidden. In this case, even if it is an autobiography (which I doubt), there is no problem since the article is neutral and well sourced. That said, before this reaches the main page, CC would ideally let us know whether this is about him or not. We can't force it out of him however, as he has a right to remain anonymous. SmartSE (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can gather by reading the policies and guidelines, there's no obligation for me to say anything. Other people have commented that the article is within policy and so there's nothing more to be said in this thread. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Not helpful, Christopher. Wastes people's time for no good reason. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the one who started this thread or any other. I didn't go around solicitating people to comment on this. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sympathetic (WP:COI seems to be the most misunderstood guideline out there), but this is kind of WP:POINTy. THF (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm marking this as resolved as the article is neutral and CC has stated it is not about them. SmartSE (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yrsukrutt alt of User:LyfjahonnunGroup1

    Resolved
     – No COI. Editors are part of a university project SmartSE (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the Lyfjahonnun group has created a new account. Since we used a spamblock and not a softerblock for username only, that raises the issue about their new account and continued introduction of material. We may need a subject matter expert in order to figure out whether these contributions are constructive or not.

    Then there's the original article:

    Gigs (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? Why do you suspect a COI? User:LyfjahonnunGroup1 was blocked purely for having "group" in their username as far as I can tell, I've no idea why a spamblock was used rather than a softerblock. From my POV as a biologist, this looks like great work from a newbie. SmartSE (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This account represents the Icelandic equivalent to the FDA. I'm not sure what their motivation is to write their own version of the SNRI article, but it does seem suspicious. Gigs (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, not the easiest thing to work out. I think we should just AGF - it's looks well written and neutral and I can't see how the Icelandic FDA would have anything to gain from writing it. I've suggested merging it with the SNRI article, and dropped a note at WT:PHARM to get some more eyes to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that it's really someone at the agency? I just checked, and there's no "User:US Food and Drug Administration" or "User:EMEA". Anyone could create an account with those names. I've certainly encountered one perfectly legitimate, long-time editor whose username is the university he once attended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning. First of all the user Yrsukrutt does not represents the icelandic food and drug agency. This account was created for a university project (discussion). The students which created the account "LyfjahonnunGroup1" also created the account "Yrsukrutt" because of the conflict of having "Group" in their username. By mistake the other account was not deleted (user LyfjahonnunGroup1 can be deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrsukrutt (talk • contribs) 10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying that, not that it matters. The articles you've made look great by the way! For future reference though, each person should have their own account, rather than editing from one together, what we call a role account. We can't delete accounts, so LyfjahonnunGroup1 will remain but no one can edit from it as it is blocked. SmartSE (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    USER:Radarradio and 203.1.211.150

    I must admit, I am reasonably new to this, but I have been watching a few music related articles, and have noticed this user which is a radio station 1) creating articles about itself and 2) citing its own "blog" in support of the above articles. There are other examples which you will see when you look at the IP Contribs. I'm not sure if this is ok, but from the WP:COI it doesnt seem right... Teachingwedge (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just found this User: Auspeto who is clearly from the same employer and doing the same thing - Advertising and using Wikipedia as a Soapbox. Can someone please help me with what the correct process is, because this does not appear right - everytime you go to an article about music, this user (via numerous sockpuppets) has inserted trivial and non-notable information which also amounts to original research along the lines of "X recently revealed on Radar Radio that..." Teachingwedge (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No? No-one cares? Or have I posted in the wrong place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachingwedge (talk • contribs) 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    VG Chartz and Brett Walton

    Special:Contributions/TadjHolmes has a strong interest in the articles VG Chartz and Brett Walton (an article about the webmaster of VG Chartz that TadjHolmes created). All his edits have to do with VG Chartz, Brett Walton or related sister sites of VG Chartz, and he is regularly in dispute with other editors concerning the content of VG Chartz-related articles. Someone asked him some time ago if he has any connection to VG Chartz, to which he replied no. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Then I would also suggest a conflict of interest for Megata Sanshiro and VGChartz. Megata has a history of defacing the VGChartz article. TadjHolmes (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no defacing going on. The problem is that sourced information critical of VGChartz (which is not just hearsay - most people in VG journal know of the issue) should be part of the summary of the article, among the other changes being made. Tadj seems to be intent on hiding this and instead filling the article with favorable promotional material about the website (website sections, major contributors). We have to treat such sources without bias and that means covering the bad as well as the good, and not pushing either side too much. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly can I remind everyone not to out other editors, we should comment on contributions rather than the contributor, if someone has a COI it is apparent from their edits, rather than any other information. I've removed information from the previous posts and the versions of the page where outing was visible have been deleted from view. I agree that there is a problem related to these articles and agree that TadjHolmes may well have a COI based on the single purpose nature of their contributions, particularly ones such as this which is be arguing over whether VG Chartz is a RS or not and this where referenced material was removed with an edit summary of "removing spam". I've never heard of this site til today, but will keep an eye on the article and try to ensure it remains accurate and neutral. I've added JadamHosey to this report as they may also have a COI based on the edits they have made today, as a brand new user. If these users do have a COI, I'd ask that they follow WP:BESTCOI and only make suggestions on the talk page of the articles, particularly as editing the articles directly may have unintended consequences. SmartSE (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, sorry about the links and Google cache page I had posted. As for my "history of defacing the VGChartz article", I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean when I only ever edited the article twice[2]. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a general comment on this - I was the user that originally suspected and asked about the COI, but after receiving a negative answer, I took the user at their word and let it be. However, their editing pattern (only VGChartz-related articles) and aggressive removal of negative VGChartz coverage/content means I still have my doubts. Likewise with the second user (Jadam), who only appeared today, and seems to be even more aggressive in their removal of negative items. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Added another user. I'll leave to those who know better to see if it's relevant. --Teancum (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've also added an IP that is campaigning for it to be an accepted RS here. I'll try to look into this more later on. SmartSE (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Found this link earlier (an admin on the VGChartz forum saying he wants to get VGChartz in Wikipedia articles) - gimme a shout if it's taken down or something. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thread deleted , but still in Google's cache. - X201 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, I've reopened the SPI and reported the two users, they certainly pass the duck test and I'll add that link as evidence of meatpuppetry as it clearly shows they are trying to overturn a long running consensus. SmartSE (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what would the issue be with that if there is good reason to review the longstanding consensus? There is as much of a conflict of interest with those who fundamentally oppose VGChartz and do everything in their power to deface articles and claim the site is unreliable despite evidence to the contrary. Maybe some more senior Wikipedia editors (with no personal connection) need to get involved so this may actually be reviewed in a fair and neutral manner. Also it is not technically meatpuppetry - that would be an editor asking other users to support a given dispute of which there is no evidence in this case. The forum post merely asked for users to contribute to improve the article, bring it up to date and so on. There is no malice or meatpuppetry evident here.92.28.197.234 (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously consensus can change but it shouldn't be initiated by someone with a COI. The discussion you started seems to suggest it hasn't changed and in my opinion you have a COI because your interest is in VGC being accepted as an RS, rather than being here to improve the project as a whole. WP:COI makes this very clear: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." There are no "senior editors" here, but if you think those discussing it at the video games wikiproject have personal reasons to reject VGC as an RS, I could post at WP:RSN to get a wider discussion started. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion of an Author

    Chris Gair (talk · contribs) has contintued after a COI warning to Promote books relating to author Dominic Streatfeild whose BLP he created, putting links to it in multiple articles [3][4] [5] and BLPs [6][7][8]. Extra Scrutiny is welcome The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think there is any conflict of interest from what I can tell. The biography isn't particularly well sourced, but it doesn't have classic COI signs like unsourced DOB and family deals. Some of the links and references inserted into other articles violate the external links guideline, but I think that these were probably made in good faith, and I've removed those that I felt were not appropriate. The books appear to be sufficiently notable and the articles are neutrally written as well, maybe with a few too many external links, but I don't think that's a major problem. SmartSE (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SmartSE and The Resident Anthropologist - I read through the guidelines for external links (Links normally to be avoided) and thought that the source interviews that the author has released on his website could be interpreted as a 'link to an official page of the article's subject'. I guess that was wrong! So, as a rule of thumb I should always avoid linking to source material written by authors directly on their sites - even if it directly relates to the Wiki subject? Chris Gair (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2010 (GMT)
    The links are ok in the DS biography, but they should only be added where they are highly relevant to the article subject. Simply adding links to them all over the place makes you look like a spammer. If you add a reference, it should be because you've used the source to write the article, not just because it is in someway related to the article subject. Edits like this set off my reference spamming alarm, even though you appear to be adding them in good faith. Hmm, just came across this which changes things and is indicative of a possible COI. If you are indeed the developer of the site then you should not be linking to it. SmartSE (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I think that the interview with the Int Corps interrogator was pretty apposite to an article about Interrogation. It would be preferable to embody it in the article in some way, adding value to the article, rather than bolting on at the end.
    That said, there was no need to add links to every page.
    ALR (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi All - Ok, so I think I understand what I should be doing here (besides doing this at 19:14 pm on a Saturday evening). I think what you are saying here is that just because I feel that something (an external resource) may contain unique information, that absolutely does not mean I should just post a link to it - as a reference - that is spamming, and devalues the quality of the article. What I should be doing is reviewing the external content in detail and contributing highly relevant information only, to the body of the article. It is the quality of the information within the article that I should focus on rather than providing links to lots of external resources - this is the spamming thing that is not good. Ok. So, for example, just before writing this, I removed the references I added from the Stress and Duress Wiki entry and added them as 'External Links' at the bottom of the entry. However, on reflection, these are not actually valid external links for this article (although they may be related to the subject matter). What I should in fact be doing, is re-reviewing the content of the interviews and IF there is anything specifically related to the article, extract that text and include the facts directly - NOT just link to something externally. Thanks everyone for your advice - I think I am begining to understand here. If you'll excuse me, I have some editing to do! Chris Gair (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2010 (GMT)
    Put simply, yes, because we're an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. It's not necessarily so simple though, because you have a COI with the site you're linking to also and as primary sources, interviews may not be the best place to get information to use in articles. As I said before, I'd ask that you do not link to the site. SmartSE (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    COI, BLP, edit warring--it's a grand slam

    Reported single purpose account KingCast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism; request denied with the explanation that this user's edits don't constitute vandalism. Before I could respond request was removed from AIV page. Taking it here, pissed. It requires some fine hairsplitting to not accept a history of edit-warring, COI violations with links to unacceptable sources, and likely violations of BLP as block-worthy. Hell, I'll report this at improper usernames page, since it's the same as the blog being promoted. JNW (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this interesting [9]. Regardless of one's thoughts on the politician in question--and to put it tactfully the senator elect holds very little appeal for this contributor--the continued posts are unacceptable without the presence of objective reliable sources. Given the blog from which this emanates, the accusation that Wikipedia is censoring posts, the name of this account and its single-purpose agenda, I expect this will merit further attention. JNW (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Sir or Madam: Why are my sources not objective or reliable, most of them are COURT DOCUMENTS or Kelly Ayotte's OWN REPORT when you go to the requested pages. I have a law degree, got an A in Constitutional Law, have changed First Amendment Law in Nashua, have a Mayoral Commendation from former Mayor Bernard Streeter for so doing. I changed the link when it was not acceptable for me to use tinyurl, so what gives?

    How can things be more objective than a court document?

    And by the way, I don't commit Defamation, I have worked for the Indianapolis Star as a reporter and Editor at the Ohio Call & Post many years ago so I don't play around with inaccuracies folks, I bust on bad journalists who DO:

    Read the Joanna Marinova v. Boston Herald post and watch my short video on that. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/11/kingcast-gets-another-visit-from-joanna.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1x3dn_YGnU

    Now gosh dang it, I'm going after a very powerful person, and I am doing it with accuracy or she would have been all over my arse already but she can't because there's nothing inaccurate about what I am reporting. You guys are getting in the way of Justice, heck if you read the comments in my blog I was going to seek a vandalism complaint before my accurate posts were themselves stricken.

    I respectfully request a well-reasoned response on Monday at [redacted], thank you. Christopher King, J.D. http://KingCast.net -- Reel News for Real People 617.543.8085m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.33.26 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a welcome template to 68.184.33.26's talk page to help the user, who apparently is evading the block of user KingCast, better understand how Wikipedia works. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr. King: One thing I appreciate is your honesty, which makes it easier to pinpoint the issues: There's nothing objective about your mission, as you say, in "going after" a person--as an attorney and journalist you know that, and understand that you can surely use your blog to that end, but not an encyclopedia. You're citing yourself and editing under a clear conflict of interest--if the proceedings you reference have received extensive coverage in newspapers or journals they're okay, but my guess is that this individual is a party to thousands of court documents....as well, Wikipedia's goal is not the achievement of justice, a noble and subjective cause. It is concerned with reliably sourced factual content, without personal or political agenda. In other words, neutrality. That is why I may find the subject not at all to my taste, but attempt to honor the guidelines regarding her biography nonetheless. And it's not unreasonable to wonder if there isn't a little self-publicizing here, too. Again, your background suggests you understand these distinctions already.... JNW (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I agree that more eyes on this would be good, particularly as there are major BLP issues with the content being added. For others, the article in question is Kelly Ayotte. I have it watchlisted and will certainly protect/block as needed, but hopefully it won't be.
    Chris, it appears you are watching this. Your blog and website is a good place to publicize the material and concerns that you have about Ms. Ayotte. Unfortunately, until what we call secondary sources (mainstream newspapers, magazines etc) publish about the matter, it cannot and will not be included on Wikipedia. This is because of our non-negotiable policies about WP:Verifiability, no original research and in particular articles about living people. This last specifically forbids us to use court documents in articles about living people unless information has been published elsewhere in the media, for example. You may feel that WP is standing in the way of justice, but we are not in the truth or getting-the-word-out-there business. --Slp1 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your response. I was not aware the Court Documents were not permissible. How could that be reasonable across the board, I could see that with respect to Pleadings but what about Court Orders by a Judge or a Jury Verdict? Also, "going gfter" Kelly Ayotte in my lawsuit and publishing facts about her on Wiki are two different things, are they not? If the facts are true the motivation is wholly irrelevant as others are free to submit counter facts, no? WP is in the business of presenting verifiable information about public figures, so WP is indeed involved in "getting the word out." I'll respond more fully soon, but we are clearly at a negative sum game with respect to waiting for mainstream press to report these matters, you know they are lapdog media who never once covered my RSA 91-A Right to Know case against Kelly Ayotte and the Town of Franconia, but Littleton Courier did and they totally agreed with me so do they count? From my online journal I asked:

    27 September 2007

    KingCast asks the Concord Monitor and Union Leader when they will cover the pending RSA 91-A lawsuit of KingCast v. NH AG Kelly Ayotte et al.

    So I guess by virtue of the fact that I no longer work for a large daily because I went to law school, what I say is not valid despite the fact that I apply all reasonable standards in verification of my claims.

    So for the record is the Littleton Courier mainstream enough? They agreed with me that Bruce McKay violated town policy on pursuit and OC Spray and Kelly never investigated that.

    So for the record may I use document generated pursuant to Public Records Requests to the NH Department of Safety?

    So for the record may I use the NH legislative record to show that Bruce McKay Highway Bills HB 1428 and SB 154 were kicked to the curb?

    So for the record may I state that I testified at both hearings as that is a matter of public record?

    Lastly, as to "self promotion" I am promoting the First Amendment and accuracy about government not published in the major media, so to that extent WP is indeed standing in the way of Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would assume then that if I resubmit with links to other media sources that my material will stay, correct? Because my motivation is irrelevant and if others are concerned then they can counter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.89.115 (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixing my own high school article

    I've been working on a slew of high school articles in Arizona of late: 13 school stubs and three district articles, mostly in the past few days.

    One of the schools on my target list to improve (many are stub creation efforts for schools with enrollments that are pretty high: 1,500 for instance, with the exception being Camp Verde High School) is Seton Catholic High School.

    This article needs a bit of work – and I know because I attend said institution:

    • The school changed its name (added Preparatory in the middle) in mid-2009. (At least the athletic titles seem to be better cared for!)
    • Some information on the building project reads incorrectly.
    • Accreditation information and a recent honor from the Catholic High School Honor Roll project.

    Would it be OK to make this information change (in line with work I have done for other school articles), provided I keep to WP:NPOV etc.? Today marks my 5th anniversary as a Wikipedia editor, by the way, so I think I can do this. Raymie (t • c) 05:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think so. It looks like you won't be adding any "greatest ever" commentary, so I don't think you even need to declare a COI on the article talk page, although that might be the best-practice approach. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Luxury_Stranger

    Article is written by the person/entity it is describing, with few references and sources. Also, no indication as to the entity's importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.52.18 (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing that out. I've reverted the edits made by TrueLuxuryStranger (talk · contribs) as they were unsourced and probably based on their own knowledge rather than being verifiable. If they were still active they would be blocked for having an inappropriate username, but since they haven't edited in a few weeks there's no point. I'll keep an eye on the article to make sure it doesn't happen again. SmartSE (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PR representative

    User:Lawrencewarwick declares himself to be part of a "partner in Websketching.com which is a website developer and online marketing firm." He also says he has "permission from Author Wolk to write about him". He has edited almost exclusively the bio of Arthur Alan Wolk. Is this okay per WP:COI? Tijfo098 (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It certainly hasn't been neutral editing. For example, in the first version: "As a result of his seasoned courtroom skills, aviation industry savvy and technical aircraft knowledge, Arthur has been named to the steering committees of every major airline disaster ..." [10] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I had missed this section when I posted at a new section below but we are talking about the same problem. Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lawrencewarwick and Arthur Alan Wolk

    This user had admitted that his firm is being paid to "represent" (in a non-legal sense) Arthur Alan Wolk on the web. He had promised to stop editing these articles. He has restarted making edits that "spin" this article to minimize criticism of its subject. I suggest a topic ban on Arthur Alan Wolk. Racepacket (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am certainly allowed to edit this article especially to correct "spins" designed to maximize criticism of the subject as Racepacket has done. My recent edit of Wolk filing a lawsuit against NTSB was unbiased and reported the facts about the suit the facts were obtained from the source cited this was not a spin but fair reporting of the facts reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer on December 19,2000.LEW (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Before deleting content that I add I suggest you discuss it firstLEW (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. If there is something wrong with an edit, leave it to someone not involved to correct. (By the way, LEW is actually User:Lawrencewarwick.) Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are proper ways to edit with a COI, and thousands of people here have done so. there are also improper ways, and many times more than that have tried to do so. The involvement of Wolk's admitted representatives, and that of someone whom Wolk has been singularly unhelpful in discussing this and related articles. In particular, a party to a lawsuit against another editor (or their representative) should not under any conditions whatsoever be editing an article about the other party or closely related articles. This is the grossest sort of COI editing possible. It is of course better to edit with an admitted than a concealed COI, but that is not enough in cases like this. The most the parties should do here is place comments on the talk pages of the articles in question, and on the talk pages of any afd's or other Wikipedia process concerning those articles. The edits will then be evaluated by neutral editors, of whom thee is no shortage. I therefore ask that LEW and THF and any other editors similarly involved from editing article space or engaging in deletion/merge/etc. processes regarding this & related articles, and from editing each others talk pages or otherwise commenting on each other. As mentioned in earlier discussion it is in any case foolhardy for a party to a lawsuit to comment on it in public. A person who would do that should not be editing the article here, for their passions have clearly superseded their judgement. If consensus approves, we can record it as a formal topic ban. Otherwise it is my warning that I (& others if they choose) will block any of them ediing this material. If either party thinks they have been libeled here, the recourse is OTRS, not editing the pages. If there is actual libel, OTRS can be trusted to remove it and hide it. In order to insure fairness and avoid unconscious bias, I myself will not edit the article, and I think that should apply also to anyone else enforcing this. I will proceed from this point if there is support for my position. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawrencewarwick should definitely not be editing it, and the same applies to anyone who has real-life conflict with Wolk. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with DGG and SV. There are plenty of eyes on these articles, so any suggested changes on LEW's or THF's part should be brought up on the talk page. ArakunemTalk 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but our guidelines don't forbid any editing of articles and this isn't the correct venue to seek consensus for a topic ban. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with DGG's position, and support formalization as a topic ban if necessary. VQuakr (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree strongly with DGG. And while Smartse is correct that policy on its own doesn't absolutely forbid COI editing, someone who has been warned by an admin against carrying on -- a judgement emerging from observation of previous editing on that article -- would be quite foolish in persisting after such a warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I should add that any attempt to influence edits by asserting OWNership and asking that people check them with someone else before posting is , in my opinion, harassment at the very least, and must not be repeated. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly concur with everything DGG, Slim and Nomo have said here. This nonsense must stop. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree as well. Articles are not owned by those who pay for them. There is a clear conflict of interest here.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that we formally topic ban LEW and THF from this article, and any related pages, such as AfD discussions. Neither one seems willing to drop the matter, so we must drop it for them. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is my name being dragged into this? I've never edited any of these articles, and have voluntarily agreed not to so much as discuss them on wiki over three days ago, despite the fact that I haven't violated a single guideline. Please stop WP:HOUNDing me. THF (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, THF has not been editing in this area, and was mentioned only because he would have a COI *if* he did. He should definitely not be under consideration for any topic ban or other sanction here. ArakunemTalk 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, amended to LEW, and a warning that it will be extended to anyone editing on his behalf, and to THF if he returns to the articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please correct: "return" suggests that I was previously at the articles. Which I wasn't. THF (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Return" is appropriate given your participation in the AfD (indeed, your initiation of it -- which requires an edit to the actual article). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't nominate the Wolk article for deletion. I nominated a forked article for deletion that everyone on Wikipedia agreed should be deleted and that Wolk's representative requested deletion of--and it was about a lawsuit that I won, which I disclosed in the nomination, so it was against my interest to nominate it, so I fail to see the problem. My participation in the AfD complied with WP:COI. Change WP:COI if you think there is something wrong with someone following it to the letter. The only disruption has come from people bringing frivolous complaints about my guideline-compliant behavior. THF (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it a rest, THF. You claimed that you hadn't edited any of the articles. This is untrue, and you carried on in the AfD after being advised not to do so by an admin. So you have no basis for claiming that people are treating you unfairly. Do you really want to continue discussing this? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He was treated unfairly. Admins may advise people on better practices, but unless they are actually enforcing policy they have no grounds to demand someone stop doing something. In a grey area like this you can't expect someone to simply hop to it the minute an admin tells them to stop doing something that the relevant guideline does not ban them from. Also THF complied even with the advice not to edit this area at all after very little discussion. Compared to what he actually did, and in the context of what he quickly promised not to do the amount of negative attention he's getting on this could easily be construed as WP:HARASSMENT. I suggest everyone lets this go.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - I would oppose a general topic ban of LEW but would support one as construed above by DGG. If we ban him from all related pages we likely drive a known COI editor into anonymity. It is preferable to limit his participation to the talk page, per current WP:COI recommendations. If he is actually the representative of the BLP subject, then this is an appropriate extension of how we would treat that individual on his own entry. It also makes LEW's involvement with the topic transparent, something we ought to protect as long as we can. You topic ban him and he'll just return anonymously. Perhaps someone spots this down the road but that will only lead to more drama.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    right, and my proposed topic ban recognized this: I suggested banning from article space on the topic, not article talk space. ~ said this. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I didn't realize you proposed a "topic ban". Jehochman specifically proposed a "topic ban" after you made your comment which did not make any such specifications, and I was responding to that. I would of course agree with the ban that you are proposing but I didn't realize that was what others were responding to. I've altered my comment to reflect this. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for assistance

    I've come across a pattern (e.g., 1, 2 and 3) in which another editor has given himself credit as the developer of various software products, sometimes even more prominently than given to the original authors. None of the articles are tagged to indicate his involvement. Due to some past interaction with this individual (4 and 5) I do not feel it would be wise for me take any action. I'm hoping a more experienced editor might be able to take a completely independent look at the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ralph Drollinger

    Both accounts admit to being the subject of the article. Only the first account has edited the article; the second account is now demanding the deletion of the article because it's not being edited to his satisfaction, including the exclusion of an unfavorable article he doesn't like. Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Now see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK Drollinger! --Orange Mike | Talk 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ross Richie

    The user name is the same as the article name who is also a founder of Boom! Studios. User has been warned. -Triwbe (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse Stay

    The user has noted at Talk:Wetzel Whitaker that he is the grandson of the subject in Jesse Stay. The article, which was originally speedied (A7) in 2007, was recreated recently and tagged for notability. However the editor has removed the tag without fixing any issues, simply claiming that his grandfather is notable. Nothing further yet but it might be worth following. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My rule of thumb is that if the creator of an article removes a legitimate notability tag without fixing any issues, it's an affirmative statement that the creator thinks the article is good enough to survive AFD, so I nominated for AFD and we can let the community decide. I'm removing the COI tag; if the article meets N, there's nothing wrong with the article other than MOS issues. THF (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sassy Pandez

    Hi, guys. I'd like to request extra eyes on this for a while. This article has a looong and embattled history where it has been subverted for promotional reasons and efforts have been made to whitewash it. It's been going on for years. See User talk:AquilaUK for some prior conversations. See also this recent note at my talk page where her webmanager refers to vague concerns about the content of the article. It does not seem unrelated that a new user called User:Lawyers 13 has now attempted to remove sourced information, [11], under claim that this is "false." It is, of course, demonstrably not. I've added more sourcing to prove it. If there were any doubt that she is the same woman, her legal name is mentioned in the article, there are pictures, and one of the promo pictures at this management website is the same one used in this profile at the Sun. I don't believe we should reference articles from The Sun (this 2008 article, for instance, is not included.) But that she worked for them for years is well and thoroughly documented.

    We've attempted to address their reasonable concerns in the past, including removing her real name from the article because she emphasized that she had stalker concerns. Her real name has been publicized in the press, but she is of marginal notability. Information related to her well-publicized, long-term personal relationship with Sol Campbell was trimmed for the same reason. ([12]). I believe, though, that as she is evidently attempting a bit of a separation in her career ([13]), that we may see some efforts to rewrite history. I am long involved in this, and it really needs additional eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Her handlers are trying to get us to split her past history from her present history into separate articles, arguing that having the truth in Wikipedia is interfering with her efforts to rebrand herself and making her a less saleable commodity, and that we should therefore falsify her history by splitting her into "Old Coke" and "New Coke" and pretending there is not a single human being underlying both brands, because otherwise the problems to her of having an article here outweigh the benefits (besides, her PR people didn't even get to approve the article's creation). This is accompanied by mysterious and ponderous mutterings about "legal issues we can't discuss in a public forum" and the like (not to the NLT level; just hints and whines). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Samuel Sangshik Han

    Obvious one -- advised against autobiography, has ignored this advice and carried on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another one to keep an eye on too, since he is the current president - Berea University of Graduate Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).Griswaldo (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about the autobiography tag. What's not neutral about the writing? Did the editor delete mention of a controversy about himself? Is he edit-warring? The COI tags are to notify editors of a potential NPOV problem, not to punish editors who happen to have a conflict of interest but are complying with the guideline. I don't see anything controversial on that page other than the lack of sourcing. (The Berea University of Graduate Studies article is certainly more problematic.)
    If the issue is that the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then the proper response is an AFD nomination. THF (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that both articles are very suspect. The weblink provided is broken and the only links that turn up on Google to to the blacgradsdavis.com site, which appears to be claiming a non-existent association with UC-Davis. Not only are there no reliable, verifiable sources for either article, I don't think there's evidence any of this is real. Msnicki (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a working link for the university - [14], but we need someone who reads Korean to sort this out.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some additional links that might be helpful (note that there has been a name change to Berea International Theological Seminary) - [15], [16], [17], [18]. It is a start, but I think the school is real at least. Maybe not notable though.Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first and fourth of those are Wikipedia mirrors, so aren't appropriate to bootstrap the article. The other two aren't really RS, though are certainly counterevidence against a hoax. I've added a {{notability}} tag. If Berea isn't notable, then Han isn't, either, and both articles should be deleted. THF (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rharles

    Rharles has created a few pages on Bloomberg media personalities, such as Julianna Goldman. However, User:Rharles states: "Rob Harles is Head of Social Meida for Bloomberg LP. He leads Social Media strategy and is responsible for building and managing customer communities and social channels globally." Furthermore, Julianna Goldman is basically a copy-and-paste job from Bloomberg's own website: [19] In addition to the Julianna Goldman article, Rharles has also created articles for Bloomberg employees Christine Harper, Jonathan Weil, Craig Torres and Michael Liebreich which are identically formatted. I don't see any edits that don't relate to Bloomberg employees. GabrielF (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that mandapanda22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also edited articles about Bloomberg media personalities and her user page is a bio of Bloomberg anchor Deirdre Bolton. I don't know if she is actually claiming to be Bolton or just put that content on her user page as a test or by mistake. GabrielF (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found GMichele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a similar editing history. From the looks of this it's a long term problem which needs a lot of clean up. Regardless of the COI, there are also big problems with the unsourced BLP information that is clearly based on OR, rather than sources. This obviously needs to stop and editors with a COI to Bloomberg should follow WP:BESTCOI, which involved not creating any pages related to Bloomberg, as well as only commenting on the talk pages of articles. SmartSE (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic voice phenomenon

    Tom Butler (also using an IP) is the creator of this whole subject and the controller of the phenomenon's organisation, as well as it's major promoter, together with his wife Lisa. He has been warned repeatedly since the creation of the article to be careful because of his obvious COI (including financial), but he's edit warring to keep out notable criticism of his nonsense. We need more eyes on the situation as there are other editors and IPs who are also trying to remove criticisms from notable individuals and organisations. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As for the IP edit, I simply forgot I was logged out.
    I did not create the article--tried to get it deleted--and I am no longer a leading authority in the field. As a 501c3, we do not make a cent on the subject, and in fact, study many subjects. The article is grossly in error and I have not made an effort to change that. The only edits I have made concerns vandalism, and unfair ganging up by the skeptical editors.
    A passing editor noted that the Randi bit did not seem relevant. Two skeptical editors came to shoo him away. If you look at the edit, he has a good point. The only support of relevance for the Randi challenge is a link to a Randi blog ranting about someone. While Randi's website may manage to be taken as a reliable source (Only Wikipedia skeptics would agree), a blog rant certainly does not qualify. I have invited the editors to find a better reference. Instead, they prefer to run to mommy. Tom Butler (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the RS/N. You have a massive COI and your repeated editing of the article to protect your interests isn't proper. If you only stuck to fixing facts and fighting vandalism it would be a different matter, but you don't. You have been warned many times during the years and yet you persist. A topic ban would be a suitable way of preventing you from protecting your interests. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have forgotten your own words, which are the wise approach:
    • "...I really should not contribute to any of the paranormal articles beyond things like logical errors and such because I am involved in one [http;aaevp.com] and am a Spiritualist. So I focus mostly on consensus and helping others who are trying to keep things at least reasonable...."[20]
    This version of your talk page, before being cleared, reveals many warnings about your COI, incivility, personal attacks, noticeboard reports, etc.. This isn't a new situation and it needs to stop. A topic ban seems to be the only way. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems clear to me that you just want to avoid having to use good editing practices by eliminating anyone who might force you to do so. My topic ban would only support the skeptical editors and would not serve the need for balance in Wikipedia.

    If you think I am so COI, you should inform yourself a little. ATransC is funding a study to determine whether or not radio-sweep (frank's Box) actually produces EVP. If I was so determined to influence the EVP article, why would I defend their right to include reference to technology I think is bogus? Tom Butler (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that a topic ban from electronic voice is the best solution. Even looking at the recent edit history of Electronic voice phenomenon, it appears that Tom and his IP are both edit-warring. When a COI-affected editor uses an edit war to promote the significance of material that he identifies with in real life, it gets into WP:Disruptive editing, which is blockable. If he would agree to confine his activities to the talk page he would not be in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP thing was an oversight. I always try to compromise, but please note that three of the long-time skeptical editors have now gathered to assure out voting the editor who originally questioned the Randi item as inappropriate. I try to assure that none of my edits are in support of point of view. The article is poorly written and I make no effort to change that. We have long since changed the name and web address of our organization but I have made no effort to update the information because it would seem to be self-serving.
    On the other hand, the skeptical editors are clearly promoting a point of view.
    I will stick to the talk page. Can I come to you to help make corrections, such as vandalism or unilateral edits such as those made by Lucky? Tom Butler (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Using the talk page is perfect, since Tom's input is still valued. Balance can still be achieved with his input. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the person who made the original modification, which I have rationalized on the article's discussion page. I have no interest in EVP, beyond wanting to read something about it after seeing it referenced elsewhere, but I am annoyed by the "Prove a negative" nature of the description of the Randi prize, demonstrable by the text added to this article. Blanket promotion of a point of view seems as disingenuous as what this fellow is being accused of.Adjensen (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IIRC, you have made this objection before. What do you have against content that expresses a POV? As long as it isn't editorializing injection of unsourced POV, but documentation of POV in RS, we're just following what we're supposed to do according to NPOV. Our articles are full of POV, and if there are conflicting POV, we are supposed to document them. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have NOT made this objection before. I have little interest in these paranormal things and put little to no faith in it. But I have an objection to anyone claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is what the statement "The prize remains uncollected" attempts to claim. If there are specific instances of the Randi Foundation evaluating whatever this is, it should be included in the article as criticism. Saying that a general skeptic group is a relevant organization to this (and every other paranormal claim) is as honest as saying that the American Atheists is a relevant organization when discussing the Jewish Defense League or St. Nicholas. And claiming that Randi specifically addresses the issue by posting a blog rant by someone whining because some proponent of this won't come play in Randi's sandbox is not a valid claim.Adjensen (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah hem....you have indeed made that objection. Here's an instance in an edit summary where you object to the inclusion of "non-NPOV" content":
    • "Removed irrelevant organization with a non-NPOV, added comment regarding this to the discussion page." diff
    If we don't include content from sources and organizations with a POV, especially an opposing POV, we'd lose much of our content here, violate NPOV, and our articles would be "duh" and fail to document the sum total of human knowledge. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I made that objection before... about an hour before. I took the comment "you have made this objection before" as meaning in the past. Prior to this article, I have had nothing to do with your Randi foundation.Adjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. BTW, it's not "my" foundation. I have nothing to do with it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, kindly defend the statement that, similar to what you're trying to do here, every article on religion needs to have a reference to the American Atheists, with the notation that "No one has proved the existence of deities." Putting Randi's foundation reference on the page regarding paranormal studies in general, fine. Putting a specific instance of Randi debunking this particular subject (and debunking is NOT whining about someone who won't play, or refusing to test someone because they won't agree to your rules -- there's nothing wrong with either, but it is evidence of nothing) would be fine as well. Throwing this reference as a relevant organization, along with the "discrediting without a shred of evidence" statement that "The prize is uncollected" is shabby scholarship and criticism without basis.Adjensen (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You object too strongly. You are again using strawman arguments. I'm not going to defend a statement that neither I nor other editors have made. Your further statements likewise are strawman arguments not born out by an examination of what has actually transpired. No editor has claimed that EVP has been debunked by JREF or by the fact the prize "has never been claimed". That phrase was simply placed there by someone, presumably as a description of the nature of the prize and the facts surrounding it. Since the way it was placed could be misinterpreted by readers, I have removed it, but not for the reasons you are stating. No editor was making any claims about EVP being debunked by JREF. JREF and the million dollar prize can still be mentioned without that happening, simply because there are believers in EVP who have applied for the prize. That shows the Randi million dollar challenge applies to claims like EVP. They are considered so much bunk that JREF is willing to risk a million dollars if it can be proven. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than criticizing me, how about if you address the question that I raise? You defend a generic statement applied to a specific instance, please address the generic statement applied to a specific instance that I raised, or simply accept the fact that you've applied a generic statement to a specific instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjensen (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? Haven't you read anything I've written? That one phrase was one little part of the content about JREF in several spots which were all removed by those seeking to remove criticism from the article, and that was part of it. The content got restored, but with improved specificity. I then noted the objection to that one phrase and removed it. So you see, you actually did get what you wanted, at least that part of it. Why are you still bitching? Are you dissatisfied that all the criticism hasn't been removed? That would violate NPOV. Why not just stop. Really. You've gotten what you wanted. Be satisfied. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not against criticism, I am against implied refutation by means of supposition. However, the purpose of this thread is your faulting this Tom guy for backing out the change that you now agree was valid. I don't know him, I don't know you, I don't know what history there is, but in this instance, I removed something that struck me as irrelevant, and he defended said removal. But I'm the one who made that change and argued the basis, not him. Adjensen (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    William Spindler

    This smells of autobiography, and I don't like the unexplained removal of notability tags diff nor the large undue-weight chunk added to Magic realism. He may well be notable, but the bio article at least needs cleanup for OR. 217.44.19.162 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. A lot of self-references, flimsy on actual objective sources that support notability. JNW (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Adnan Oktar

    The article has recently been radically changed and become one-sided and non-neutral (see diff). Criticism has been removed and the legal issues have been represented solely from Oktar's point of view with no context for what the complaints against him were in a number of the legal cases. Alternative or critical viewpoints have been ignored or appear to be deliberately removed from the article. Single purpose accounts with likely conflict of interest include User:Geoffry Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Mark201202 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

    Refer to Talk:Adnan Oktar#Neutrality and proposal for rollback. An independent assessment and recommendations would be useful to reduce conflict if rollback is needed. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there are some neutrality issues here, but a better place for those would be NPOV/N I think. We can't discuss unsubstantiated hunches about COI here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and I see it's also being discussed at FTN so I don't think there is anything to be done here. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to dispute Fæ's claim of conflict of interest. He has brought incorrect information. CONTRARY TO HIS CLAIMS. I do NOT knows any of the other authors. I have not deleted any references from the original text. The case was discussed AND CLOSED before even giving me a chance to REPLY. --Geoffry Thomas (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark a hillman

    Resolved
     – Deleted via WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Conflict of interest from single purpose account, with only apparent intention promotional. JNW (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Longevity

    Since the prior report closed with no direct result and with an eventual escalation to ArbCom, I would like board regulars to be aware I have set up a workgroup section for further discussion of COI in the longevity topic area. Comments on this thread will be kept in mind there. Incidentally, all identities are per self-disclosures. JJB 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

    Potential problem with about to exist article - Steve Mycoe

    This advert asks for somebody to create an article for an author who seems to be called Steve Mycoe. Someone should keep an eye on it I guess... Malick78 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for letting us know. I've watchlisted Steve Mycoe and Steven Mycoe. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer

    IP editor claiming to be a co-worker of Elmo Shropshire made a number of unsourced edits to the article, leaving only an e-mail address. Since the user was editing from an IP, I wasn't sure that a uw- message would get to her. At the same time, I hate to simply revert because chances are good the information is largely accurate, if in need of editing for style and neutrality. Powers T 03:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested edit

    There's a WP:UNDUE problem at the outdated Ted Frank, where there are 80 words devoted to Usenet and only 118 to the legal work of Frank's law firm (and zero to Frank's current think-tank affiliation), even though the most substantial secondary coverage of Frank (as opposed to passing mentions) are in articles about his legal work: [21][22][23] (and many more listed at [24]). Center for Class Action Fairness is in similar need of updating. I don't think that these would be controversial changes to the articles, but given that some complain about WP:COI violations when I edit mainspace of subjects that have a tertiary relationship to me (or even subjects where I simply have a publicly-stated opinion), I'd rather not rely on the claim in WP:COI that it is alright to make non-controversial changes in mainspace. I've had first-hand experience with lazy reporters relying on inaccurate Wikipedia articles, so you can understand why I'd like to keep this article up-to-date given that the community has decided that this BLP should exist.

    Thanks in advance for a neutral editor's work on this BLP: I'd be happy to reciprocate by putting in some time beefing up a non-controversial law-related article of your choice. THF (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Crakkerjakk

    Crakkerjakk (talk · contribs) and Sigma0 1 (talk · contribs) created Kipp Marcus , IdeaConnection and have been editing in conjunction.These articles are listed on Elance are being done by a single firm called Bluebike Terminologies .Here is the advertisement for IdeaConnection and here is the Advertisement for Kipp Marcus .This is clear Conflict of interest and possible paid editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dwell (retailer)

    I noticed the article back in June 2010, and placed a WP:REF tag on it due to a lack of inline citations. Since that point on an irregular basis, the anon 81.100.64.222 has either reverted to earlier versions, or placed a series of escalating threats on my talkpage when I have flagged issues/inserted items, even though I have offered to assist in creating a suitably referenced article. This afternoon, I have had three threats placed on my talkpage, the last of which was removed by Wayne Olajuwon, who also had comments placed on his talkage. I am convinced that Dwell does meet WP:NOTAB for companies, but the effort required to both create a suitable article and educated a newbie Anon in WP:COI is beyond me in this case! All and any assistance would be appreciated. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    81.100.64.222 seems to be making a legal theat here as well as in other posts that use forms of the word 'libel'. --CliffC (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and also to ban me. The legal threat is associated with moving the HQ hundreds of miles, but their own website seems only to refer to Milton Keynes. Hence why I concluded stepping away and placing a discussion here was the best for all. Dwell is worthy of an article, but desperately needs third party refs. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For my part, I think it is appropriate that a person understands their legal obligations when placing information in the public domain. Specifically user Trident13 may not claim Dwell has it's head office in Milton Keynes because of a confusion on his/her part from the website. This is NOT stated on the website, and negligence may not be used as a defense in the UK legal system. It is technically an act of libel to make a false claim in writing. I am sorry user Trident13 does not like this; perhaps he could lobby for the law to be changed with his local MP.

    With reference to Dwell article, all external links are third party links not written or collaborated on by Dwell. They merely document factual occurences in the history of the company. User Trident13 repeatedly vandalises the article by the removal of these links, due to a personal feud/grudge against myself, seen by him as a 'newbie'. Insulting others aside, there is nothing nonfactual in the article, and it attempts to be a source of quick facts on the company for those who seek them.

    The Dwell article should be allowed to grow; with factual data placed there by those who know their source(s) are accurate, and their facts correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.64.222 (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dwell retail, company website, Terms & Conditions - write to Dwell Retail Ltd, Milton Keynes. I hope others can now see the "opportunity" here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That's cute... That part of the website pertains to returned goods and/or order queries. Dwell's head office is in London. The point is not up for debate. No matter how much you think your error was justified, or justifiable, let us not confuse fact with fiction. The law does not, and I like to think of Wikipedia as a place that contains fact, not fiction.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrovector_space

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 24.85.145.159 (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC) The article appears to have been written as a self-promotion by Dr. A. Ungar. Most references are to his work. His views on dark matter, as expressed in this article, are not shared by professional astrophysicists, however, no clarification or disclaimer is provided.[reply]

    The article requires heavy editing from a neutral point of view.

    Billy McEwan

    User appears to be a single purpose account, making point of view edits relating to a controversial football transfer deal involving Clayton Donaldson, a player managed by McEwan. The account appears to be pushing the point of view of the agent involved in the deal, Andy Sprott. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=398081927"