Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

←

→

Anchor – Resolving on article talk page. – 09:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Anchor `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Defense: Refer to incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Wikipedia's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict. Addressing 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) post) Not "revenge act": See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.

After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In view of user Badmonkey's own three-revert rule violations, I have reported them and requested that Russeasby be unblocked. — Æ. ✉ 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV editors: Research summary posted 20:37, March 30 2007 (UTC) by Hoof Hearted. Article protection is scheduled to expire tomorrow. — Æ. ✉ 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good style, link to your favored diff of the talk page! Try Talk:Anchor instead. bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Note User:Badmonkey is back at it, reverting removal of link spam (4 out of 5 links on the Anchor page link to POV and COI rocna.com website. He has also removed breif mention of competitor anchors. Russeasby 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake what is there is not link spam! They are two magazine articles, one Coastguard handbook article, and an essay by an anchor designer - all of which have been published by independent parties. It's interesting that there used to be a dozen or so links there, but someone went through and cleaned them all up - leaving all the ones that happen to be hosted on the Rocna website, plus only one other... Perhaps you could contribute to some content instead of campaigning against that which you don't like!

Regarding other anchors, see the talk page. Brands should not be mentioned unless they are unique and noteworthy. The simple mention of those three implictly demands the mention of hundreds of others, which is neither worthwhile nor, probably, possible.

bad·monkey _{talk to the {:()} :: 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Article is now listed for WP:RFC, it had previously gone through a third party opinion. See Talk:Anchor#Request_for_Comment. Russeasby 03:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See my suggestion in the RFC that we should de-commercialize the article. This would cause very little loss of content that is actually useful. If you look at an external link to a paper on anchoring problems that's already in the article, you'll get perspective on the big issues (e.g. total loss of badly-anchored boats in a storm due to a lack of common sense) that will make you less worried about whether you should buy a 32-pound or 22-pound anchor from a small but aggressively-promoted maker of anchors in New Zealand. If you agree that de-commercialization should be considered, please add a comment on Talk:Anchor. EdJohnston 19:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – See Anchor section above. – 09:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Third opinion request in late March 2007.

User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest which compells him to violate civility and no personal attacks policies, to edit war and to add commercial company linkspam. Examples: this and this.

Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (recently unprotected) is one of the articles on which the user is active. The user has a pattern of disingenuity, misrepresenting the issues and editors who oppose COI edits as well. — Athænara ✉ 08:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And again at 08:51, April 16, 2007 (UTC).

The user, in a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, called the reversion of Rocna company linkspam "vandalism" and claimed that such Wikipedia:policies and guidelines-respecting edits are "mostly manipulated by commercial stakeholder."

The user was warned of 3RR and reported on WP:AN/3RR. — Athænara ✉ 09:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This WP:COI editor has returned and is back to his behaviour, he is trying to blank talk page content from Image talk:Anchor holding power graph.jpg and others' contributions to Image:Anchor holding power graph.jpg. Russeasby 15:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reported that graph, Image:Anchor holding power graph.jpg, as a copyright violation, because there is no announced connection between the uploader, User:Badmonkey, and the Rocna company. Since he insists on complete anonymity on Wikipedia, it's unclear he has the power to release any of the copyrights of Rocna. EdJohnston 21:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: The copyright complaint for this photo is in the file Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 April 26/Images. EdJohnston 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two images uploaded by User:Badmonkey credited to C. Smith[1][2], not to Ronca. Craig Smith is the name of a Rocna employee, it would seem a far stretch for this C. Smith to be a different one(especially since one photo is of.. a Rocna!). Would the same copyright violations apply? Or did User:Badmonkey manage to be vague enough to get by with this? Russeasby 21:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You could report these photos if you want. The only catch is that they don't appear on line anywhere, and the usual {{imagevio}}} template requires you to state where the original appears on the web. EdJohnston 22:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on with user Badmonkey now? He has made no RFC/U statement and hasn't edited since April 28. Did he see the writing on the wall, or is he biding his time until Anchor is unprotected again, hoping everyone else will have forgotten about his COI issues, or what? — Athaenara 04:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Christopher L. Hodapp – Inactive. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Christopher L. Hodapp `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Christopher L. Hodapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frumious Bander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - From his contributions, I have figured out that this user is the subject and primary author of his own article, as well as tthe primary author of the now deleted Knights Of The North article (I thought he was someone else before - I was sure of the connection but not the identity). He knows too much uncited info about Hodapp (such as where he went to high school), and every article he has edited or created has had something to do with Hodapp as a contributor or factor: Masonic Magazine, Templar History Magazine, KOTN, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, plus he added himself to List of Freemasons. Most of the additions have been rved, but the problem with the original article remains. Hodapp has written enough books to just be notable, but he shouldn't be writing the article, of course. MSJapan 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've full protected the biography article for a month. Recommend other editors follow up with a COI message to the user talk page. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it will make any difference, but I left a message for user Frumious Bander a few hours ago to suggest that he participate in this noticeboard discussion. — Æ. ✉ 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User 71.197.70.177 - Tim Riley – Resolved. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs) - Tim Riley

Linksearch for timriley.net
Linksearch for accountancymodel.org
Timhowardriley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User [3] has been pasting links to own accountancy book and site throughout any related articles. Sites include http://accountancymodel.org and http://timriley.net/appahost/accountancy_model.pdf . There has been some improvement in at least linking to relevant pages/articles rather than blunderbuss approach, but I am concerned the linking borders on linkspam and certainly self-promotion. Grateful others also take a look and see if my concern is overdone.--Gregalton 07:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Accountancy is very difficult to learn. (I know because I'm in school now trying.) Moreover, my research using Google and Wikipedia has not been at all helpful. Only when I realized that accountancy should be taught like a math class did I realize the academic deficiency. However, since no accountancy math book exists, I'm writing one. And for every chapter that applies to a Wikipedia article, I think other Wikipedia users would also benefit from my research. I resent the "blunderbuss approach" statement. Every Wikipedia article linked from was chosen because it contained the exact subject of the book (GAAP) or a chapter. Previously, the links went to accountancymodel.org, which is a page on my commercial site introducing the two-book-set -- the math book and the corresponding examples. However, I have since moved all of the links to the math book itself. The reader will then read the prefix to see that the corresponding examples is also available and where to go to get it. Still in limbo is the Wikipedia article on the Statement of Cash Flows. Would someone who understands the difficulty of producing this statement please visit the talk page and decide the external link would be valuable? 71.197.70.177 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Tim Riley

Please read WP:SPAM. MER-C 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Mr. Riley, your book does not yet qualify as a WP:Reliable source because it is not yet published. And it does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links because it is a personal website. I appreciate your eagerness to add specialized knowledge and information, but because we are striving to become a reliable encyclopedia we cannot link to such information. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.

If you manage to get the book published at some point, I'm sure other, unbiased editors will cite to it where appropriate. -- Satori Son 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Best would be to simply add (referenced, sourced) text to the body of the main article.--Gregalton 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Timhowardriley (talk · contribs) left the following message on my user talk page:

"I have "undone" your removal of the links to "The Accountancy Model" because Wikipedia users were selecting this link seeking the type of information contained in the book. Whereas all Wikipedia editors appreciate the efforts to keep the "External Links" sections clear of commercial links, "The Accountancy Model" is not a commercial link. Instead, it is a link to copyrighted information useful to accountants. So please, consider not undoing my "undo"s. Timhowardriley 08:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)"

I forwarded it here because this is where the discussion is. The user seems not to understand the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Athaenara 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above two linksearches no longer find any occurrences of the respective links in WP articles. I suggest that this COI be closed. EdJohnston 21:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

GoConnect – Resolved. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

GoConnect `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

GoConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gcnacc01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The author of the article, Gcnacc01 (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. I'd like some more eyes on this article to see if it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for COI and CORP. Thanks, Metros232 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The author claims to have made edits to make a NPOV, but I still can't tell what they've done. It reads like an ad, and a poorly written onbe at that. It might be notable. Bearian 14:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The creator of this article has already contested a prod. I suggest an AfD nomination. The same person has already *twice* created ToKillFor.com, which has been speedy-deleted both times! At this rate, he is looking for a block at AIV as a spam-only account. The GoConnect company seems to be an ISP based in Australia that had revenue of about $600,000 US in the last complete year, according to its own web site. EdJohnston 03:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dance Party USA – Inactive. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Dance Party USA `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Resolved

Dancepartyusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has been warned about COI guideline, but persists in replacing article content with their own POV version. Whpq 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Block that user. I can't, as I'm not an administrator. Bearian 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The user seems to have stopped as of April 30. Let's close this one and hope that the user has wised up. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Endal (dog) – Resolved. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Endal (dog) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Endal (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Original article and up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endal (dog)
Endal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Article recreated durring AFD, though inappropriately created I think it was done so in good faith to make a more encylopedic version.
Allenandendal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Admitted COI editor, seems to be the "Allen" in this dog/human pair.

As of now the COI issue is not huge, Allenandendal is not hiding their affiliation, but he does seem to attempt to add unencylopedic information to the article, though not in bad faith. But it is still worth placing on the noticeboard for now, especially considering the AFD and the creation of a duplicate article. This user may also be a few of the anonymous IPs involved in the edit history as well, though I suspect this was not done out of any sort of deception, but rather just not initially registering and occationally forgetting to log in. Russeasby 16:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Live Free or Die Hard – Resolved. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Live Free or Die Hard `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Live Free or Die Hard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Davimarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Recently, an editor claiming to be David Marconi (a writer given WGA story credit on this film) has begun removing sourced information on the production history of this film, replacing it with unsourced information that promotes his own involvement. He has edited both from an anonymous IP address, as well as the Davimarc account. This editor has been trying push his version for several days, and refuses to discuss his changes with other editors, or provide a source for his claims, with the exception of an aborted Request for Arbitration. TheRealFennShysa 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved both versions to Talk:Live Free or Die Hard for discussion. Trouble is, your version doesn't appear to be backed up by the reference cited. Now that he's provided them, Davimarc's sources look good. (Not that it excuses the COI and edit warring). Tearlach 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Productive discussions on User talk:Davimarc#May 2007 indicate that Marconi and other editors have reached agreement on the policy and content issues involved. — Athaenara 09:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Whitby Public Library – Resolved. – 05:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Whitby Public Library `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Whitby Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blotto adrift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this article while searching newpage patrolling. I thought it was an excellently written article and was on my way to congratulate the user for the article when I noticed the user was from the same area in Canada as the library. I alerted the user of the possible conflict of interest, and the user confirmed this by stating that he worked in the library. I suggested that if the user wanted to keep the article, the user should look for a third-party to re-write the article, but the user refused to follow the suggestion. I would re-write the article myself, but I don't think it is really notable. Should I request that the article be deleted? Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to. I won't stop you. MER-C 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you described this as an excellently written article. If you really believe that the material in the article is valuable, you could try to fix it up to satisfy Wikipedia standards. In a case like this we would not be terribly upset that a staff member wrote it (at least I would not), but the article is kind of rambling and it seems to have a lot of material in it that is not documented in the sources. Do you have the patience to look at one or two other articles on local public libraries that you think are better written (by normal WP standards)? From the exchange on User:Blotto adrift's talk page it sounds like he might work with you if you show him some good examples. Take a look at New York Public Library and Toronto Public Library, just for starters, though those are larger cities. Even Whitby Psychiatric Hospital looks better written. EdJohnston 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked two other editors to take a look. I don't know if they will, but I have asked. There doesn't seem to be any point in editing to address the "rambling" nature of the article if the COI will be questioned anyway. A couple of references have been added. Blotto adrift 19:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be taking the guidelines too seriously. It is not dangerous to the encyclopedia to have an article on the Whitby Public Library. Even under the most severe interpretation, the most that could happen is that the creator of the article would be asked to keep his hands off completely, and other editors would fix it up. We would not totally discard the original material simply because an employee of the library created it. Feel free to make any improvements that occur to you. If we truly can't get any sources we might have to use AfD, but the creator of the article may be able to find more sources. EdJohnston 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've shortened the article somewhat and added more references. Someone else removed a portion that I can live without. I'll await the review and (hopefully) contributions from others. In terms of notability, there are a number of articles on public libraries on mid-sized cities, many smaller than this one. Thanks. Blotto adrift 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Blotto adrift for the shortening. I tweaked the style of some of the references. Anyone object if we remove the NPOV tag and the COI tag? Possible concerns: still too much like an advertisement. Maybe we could drop one or two of the architectural awards? I don't actually seen any big problems that remain. This is a public library, not an internet spam company. Also the blow-by-blow of the history may not all be necessary. Your views please. EdJohnston 23:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with EdJohnston's comments. I'll see what else I can contribute to the article. Thank you. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User Sabhlok – Resolved. – 11:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

User Sabhlok

Sabhlok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles related to Liberalism in India. I noticed the edits when COIBot reported a link-addition by the user. In this edit (diff) a disambiguation page is converted to a 'personal' page: "This encyclopaedia entry is a collaborative web page designed to help Biji's family to explore her history, and to write her biography."

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

COIBot is keeping an eye on the situation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Question - is there a way to edit out personal referemnces in such a page? Bearian 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. Do you mean that we could stub it down and wait for other editors to edit the page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The user has addressed the situation in an email to me, I have answered on his talkpage and asked him to add a remark here, I suggest the case can be closed after that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to add a comment to this page. I hope this works.

I wrote to Dirk thanking him for his correction of my errors, and explaining my misunderstandings. In brief,I tried to create a page called 'Biji' but couldn't figure out a way to do so, so I accidently - and that is a major error, I admit, overwrote something that I couldn't understand. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biji, and as I read it now, I realise my error even more clearly. That clearly won't happen again. No accidental deletion of anything.

My implicit assumption for thinking of using wiki was that it was a tool to be used by people across the globe for creating a collaborative output of ** some significance**. It wasn't obvious to that a person had to be particularly well known for their entry to be placed on wiki. Wiki has surely enough 'capacity' to be able to accomodate even the more common, but extraodrinary life.

My grandmother, whom we called Biji, died last month. She wasn't known worldwide but she lived a life that is by all counts extraordinary. I have been building contributions in her memory and tributes are pouring in from all my relatives. Maybe such a person qualifies to have her own web page on wiki, but I won't push that in any way. I think I'll leave it all to my own site, at http://www.sabhlokcity.com/biji/.

If what she lived by, and said even as she died, is followed more widely, great peace will prevail on earth.

But that is beyond the point. I hope this will clarify my position, and that I won't be accidently deleting anything from wiki, henceforth.

Regards, Sabhlok (talk · contribs) 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:Jtalbot@mac.com – 2 articles deleted – 09:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Jtalbot@mac.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Murad, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Howard Murad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jtalbot@mac.com (talk · contribs) seems to have a conflict of interest in regards to Murad, Inc. and related article Dr. Howard Murad. They both seem a little spammy and could use some eyes looking at them. Thanks, Metros232 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Seems to have"? A "little" spammy? Metros, you are a master of understatement. This is blatant commercial promotion which in effect hijacks the encyclopedia (see "Corporate vanity policy enforcement"). There should be a {{prod}} template tailored for these. I'll look for one and hope another editor finds and uses it first. — Athaenara ✉ 10:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedied the two articles. Murad, Inc. may be notable enough, but when I would stub it down it would only leave one sentence and one link, maybe it is better written from scratch. Dr. Howard Murad is (was?) a spammy bio. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yippee—{{db-spam}} is the one. — Athaenara ✉ 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Arbuthnot family – WP:POINTish, bloated, quasi-resolved. – 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Arbuthnot family `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Resolved

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is a member of the Arbuthnot family, specifically Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. The editor has made a large amount of edits to the article about himself or his family members, and also included a link to his own website - www.kittybrewster.com on a significant number of articles. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of edits, rather than amount. Broadly true, including a number of article creations. The links are relevant to the articles. My reaction is, so what - it is a field I know about. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find amount is correct. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Amount of sugar. Number of edits. You weigh the first and count the second. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Amount - the sum total of two or more quantities or sums. I have created a page here detailed some of pages about his own family Kittybrewster has created, articles such as Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) need a good look at in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the editor familiar with WP:AUTO and WP:COI? Is there a reason they wouldn't apply to these articles? -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor has been editing for a long time so I'd expect so, but I'm sure he can answer that for himself. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Both are guidelines not policy. At least three are wholly unrelated as far as we know; they are all notable. The articles are not biased but factual and verified. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of those articles seem to qualify for speedy deletion, even if nominated for AFD they dont seem like they would come out alive. Now I have not looked at all of them (wow there is a lot) maybe there is a couple notable ones in there, but none that I saw so far. Some of them are rather old too, suprising they have lasted this long. Seems this editor thinks WP is an appropriate place for his family tree. Russeasby 23:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That was my train of thought as well. However my problem is that I'm involved in a sort of dispute with this editor over another matter, so nominating a significant number of articles wouldn't be looked on in a positive light. If you look at the ongoing AfD there are bad faith accusations flying left, right and centre, and I'd like to avoid more of the same which is really why I've brought it here so someone else can give their opinion and see what needs to be done. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well considering the ongoing AFD I would wait to see the results there before touching the other articles. If this article fails then the rest could probably be deleted with a single RFD. But since this debate is so heated I wouldnt touch the other articles just yet, that could make a mess even messier very quickly. Russeasby 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet does appear related to the editor. The editor appears to have started the article and continued to edit it. Is there a reason that WP:AUTO and WP:COI don't apply? Even though guidelines, there should be a reason for ignoring them. It would be better if editors didn't work on articles about themsleves or closely-related individuals. -Will Beback · † · 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The editor is Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. If you look at User:Kittybrewster/Home/About me it clearly states the editor is a baronet. Also not included on my COI page is information I found in this AfD, that states other Arbuthnot pages were created by the same editor when IP editors could create pages. There are a couple of articles that weren't created by the editor and/or are notable enough for inclusion (for example James Arbuthnot). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

True. And why is there a perceived COI re John Arbuthnot, Mariot Arbuthnot, May Hill Arbuthnot, James Arbuthnot, Charles Arbuthnot, etc? They are supported by numerous RS. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll just take one of those, as an example, and assuming you mean John Alves Arbuthnot? The sources are your website (not independent), a book by Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot (not independent) and a peerage website, which according to the entry also includes information supplied from an email address at your website (so questionable independence). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume he means Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet (his father?), who is of course notable as a Member of Parliament. JavaTenor 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, there's that many it's difficult at times. There's no dispute there are some, if not many, notable members of the Arbuthnot family, it's just that the wheat needs sorting from the chaff in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I meant John Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster , aside from the unrelated Arbuthnots, what is your plan going forward for edting articles abuot yourself or your close relations? Are you asserting that WP:AUTO and WP:COI don't apply or don't matter? Are you willing to stop directly editing those articles? Have there been any problems with defamation or POV that requires your involvement? -Will Beback · † · 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good questions. My policy would be to create articles for Arbuthnots who in my opinion are sufficiently notable to survive afd. And for those who puzzle me (eg Arbuthnot Road where I wanted to know after whom it was named and discovered as a result of the entry - which survived afd). Second example is Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) where I know little about his job and nothing about his relations. I have posted questions on the WikiProject:Scotland and on the Humanities Board and hope someone will help me/us. There was a discussion about what I am up to on that board on 15 April 2007. Given the comprehensive survival of Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (afd), I thought WRA, 2nd Baronet was just a bad faith nomination immediately consequential on a heated discussion between me and ONIH and VintageKits on the Village Pump (murder vs. killing). This has happened before where VK particularly waded in with numerous "nn" tags relating to Baronets and Arbuthnots following his failure to stay on topic in other legitimate debates. There is no requirement to WP:AGF where bad faith is shown. My contention is that WP:COI is very important where relevant -e.g. this present afd for WA, 2nd Bt. So I don't vote. But I read the page with great interest. I see no COI in editing my brother's entry because I know the facts better than most. As for WP:AUTO I think it should apply except where the subject is not notable. That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter. I had no problem correcting the dates of a directorship I had renounced.

There have been no problems whatever with POV or defamation re my WikiArticles. I don't state opinions - just sourced facts. Factually I have said derogatory things about two Arbuthnots (both long dead and both fully sourced). My policy is to paint things as they are or were without imposing my own judgment. I have been accused of POV by Vintagekits re Irish Republicans and Mountbatten, etc. He refers to him as Mountsplatten and "Dandruff" which are phenomenally poor taste "jokes" if not breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He also reduced the image size on WRA 2nd Bt without reference to MoS on Image sizes (which he knows). - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion here is not about VK. It's about your editing with a conflict of interest. With all due respect you don't seem to have read the guidelines in question. There's nontihng WP:AUTO that says it only applies to non-notable people. WP:COI specifically warns against participating in AfD discussions on articles about oneself. You are quite active in the AfD discussion on your autobiography, and have engaged in revert wars over it too. Nothing in those guidelines say it's proper to edit autobiogrphies so long as only sourced facts are added. I strongly urge you to stop editing these articles in topics closely related to yourself in violation of our clear guidelines. You are a valued member of the community but that doesn't mean these standards don't apply to you. On the contrary, you should set an example for others. -Will Beback · † · 02:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that other conflicts of interest are not being revealed. You proposed a change in our Manual of style that would affect your brother's article without divulging the connection. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes No.2 I think there's a problem here. -Will Beback · † · 04:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it is not about VK. I was seeking to respond fully on the POV point. That is the only case where I remember POV being raised although I think I was NPOV. On the Rt Hon thing, maybe I am aware that PC as a postfix is jut plain wrong where others are not. but I have never hidden my ID or that relationship both of which are fully in the public domain and stated on wikipedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where you identify yourself. Not on your user page, not on your "about me" page, and not when you've been actively engaged in discussing topics related to your conflicts. I had no idea as a participant in the "Rt Hon" matter that the proposal would affect the proposer's brother's article. Does everybody reading your comments on the AfD on your autobiuography know that you're the subject? As I review your contributions I see that a large percentage of them are devoted to recording the history of the Arbuthnot family. While the information may be factual, Wikipedia is not a genealogical encyclopedia. I again ask you to stop editing articles about yourself and your family, per our long-standing policies on autobiograohy and conflicts of interest. There's no demonstrated reason why you need to be editing them. If these topics are notable then other editors will take care of them. Your defenses of your actions do not convince me that there's any reason you should be ignoring WP:AUTO and WP:COI. -Will Beback · † · 09:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter" - can you please post that on the AfD, to stop the endless "bad faith" arguments so it's possible just to focus on the article? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a look at a few articles, and I've found some good examples of what happens if you have a conflict of interest. Please note I'm not suggesting you did this deliberately, its probably happened to everyone that's writing about a subject that they're close to.

Felicity Arbuthnot - is a journalist, writer and political activist, renowned for her articles

I don't endorse her political perspective but there is no doubt she has been consistent, controversial and in the public eye. I have never met her. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Harriet Arbuthnot - is famed for having been a particular friend of

Well she was famous for her friendship with Wellington. Some people wrongly thought her his mistress. She was a society hostess. Also for her Diaries. She is probably far better known than her husband, a diplomat and MP. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

May Hill Arbuthnot - a distinguished writer - She was the author of the well-known text

She is hardly known in UK But is extremely well known in USA as an educator and specialist in children's books. Try putting "May Hill Arbuthnot" as a search on ebay ..... - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

They use weasel or peacock wording in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to have a look at WP:PEACOCK please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found some good examples of what happens if you have a conflict of interest

This is about the fourth time I've seen conflicts with editors writing about their own ancestors, and the problems are always the same (and I'm sure unconscious). It's not just about aristocracy; you get exactly the same with, say, American family historians writing about their pioneering ancestors. * Lack of objectivity about notability. * Hype (upping what notability exists): "famed" is, say, Lady Hamilton being mistress of Lord Nelson. Harriet Arbuthnot's friendship with the DoW is not remotely in that league. * Iffy sourcing in insider-written histories (with all the risk of bias that implies). I'd view it as sufficiently a problem to merit application of WP:COI. Tearlach 02:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A guide acting the part of Harriett takes you round Apsley House. Nevertheless I welcome all improvements to articles. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As a point of information Kittybrewster has been identified as Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet on the article talk page since 20 May 2006.[4] It is of course permissible to use "insider" sources per Wp:v#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves. The peacock terms in themselves, I think are more a matter of minor departures from strict wikipedia editing style than any COI puff, and not in themselves unjustified e.g. Harriet Arbuthnot.[5][6][7] Kittybrewster is generally a restrained editor, not given to the excesses that normally accompany COI. Though COI exists on the article about himself, his brother and immediate family, it seems counterproductive that it should be seen as applying to anyone with the same name, especially historical figures, when it is acknowledged by all that worthwhile articles have been created by him. This would deprive the encyclopedia of such articles. I am sure he has already taken all of these comments on board. It should also be noted that the COI guidelines have come into force in their present form during his editing time here. Some of the issues here are not limited to his edits, but are generally unresolved about the use of certain sources such as Debretts and the notability or otherwise of e.g. Baronets. Tyrenius 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the major COI problem is with editing the articles about himself and his immediate family, and that there shouldn't be a problem with him editing the articles of more distantly-related Arbuthnots. A more minor issue is adding links to his own website and using it as a source, which is also covered in WP:COI and WP:ATT, I believe. Lastly, it would be helpful if he'd add a link to his biography from his user page. -Will Beback · † · 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is of course permissible to use "insider" sources...

True. All I mean is that books written by people about their own families tend to 'accentuate the positive'; it's worth cross-checking with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography where possible. For instance, the section on Sir Robert Arbuthnot, 4th Baronet in Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot's Memories of the Arbuthnots is fine for basic detail, but is a total hagiography in relation to his actions at Jutland. The ODNB concludes that in his naval career, while undoubtedly courageous, he was generally viewed as a martinet whose talents were held back by his obsession with following regulations to the letter, and that the destruction of his ship at Jutland was down to a major error of judgement on his part. This is the kind of bias-by-omission to watch out for. Tearlach 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this is something to watch for, but did User:Kittybrewster overlook this point? Also, the present form of the article doesn't quite say it this forcefully, so if this matter is important maybe you should tweak the article some more. And, while this observation is interesting, it doesn't seem like a reason to disqualify Kittybrewster from working on the more remote Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 05:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

HMS Defence (1907) has even less details, and that wasn't written by Kittybrewster. Maybe some of the new info could be included there also. (As an editing point, it would be better if Kittybrewster left out words such as "unfortunately" and let the facts speak.) Tyrenius 07:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As a person who often adds my opinion on COI/N issues, I have mixed feelings. Obviously, User:Kittybrewster is an experienced editor, with 17,000 edits on Wikipedia, and does not seem to be a dangerous ruffian. As we poke around in the details of the edits, it's hard to find a lot to complain about. We seem to left with either (a) accepting User:Will Beback's rather strict interpretation of the COI rules, or (b) letting it go. A third alternative (c) might be to press Kittybrewster on adding more information about his real-life identity to his User page, since he declares it is not a secret, though when other editors look at his edits, they may not be aware of the situation. More comments here? Otherwise it will probably go away with no specific action. The AfD mentioned above ended with No Consensus, though with poor civility, not much credit to either side, and not many useful comments that I could see. (User KB did not vote in the AfD). Other COI commenters, please let me know if you saw anything useful in the AfD comments. EdJohnston 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask if we now have the full Arbuthnot family, or are more articles going to be created? I still think the existing articles might need a bit of scrutiny to be on the safe side as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: EdJohnston's comment above, I don't think I'm proposing a "rather strict interpretation of the COI rules". Editing articles (or participating in the AfDs) about oneself or ones immediate family, and adding links to ones own websites, fall well within the WP:COI and WP:AUTO guidelines. I haven't proposed that the editor refrain from editing articles about distant relatives, which would be an overly strict interpretation. This editor consistently avoids directly mentioning his involvement in or conflict with articles, nor does he identify himself anywhere on his user pages. -Will Beback · † · 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

existing articles might need a bit of scrutiny

Yes. Even with articles relating to distant relatives, there's a faint whiff of promotion. For instance, would the article List of Provosts of Peterhead exist - mayors of towns being the example cited in WP:HOLE - if the first two hadn't been Arbuthnots? Tearlach 16:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this the role of this noticeboard (pushing 120 kb a few minutes ago) in this issue been played out yet? If not, what remains for the noticeboard to do? — Athaenara 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am closing this one since it seems to be going in circles. If there are further problems, please file a new report, and keep it brief. Admins, if discussions get out of hand like this, mention WP:POINT. This page is for concise incident reports, not long debates. Take it to the article talk page, please, those of you who feel the need for lengthier discussion. Thank you! I hope this helps. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Sydney University Liberal Club – Inactive. – 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Sydney University Liberal Club `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

LibStu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Libstu who originally created the entry, is none other than the Communications Director of the club in question. The text of the original entry http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sydney_University_Liberal_Club&diff=prev&oldid=100654203 is identical in text to page 7 of this http://www.alsf.org.au/alsf/docs/230435.pdf written by none other than Ben Potts. User denies he is this identity, now denies he is even a member of the club. DCNeutraliser 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

vifsm.org – Resolved. – 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

vifsm.org

User vifsm is adding links to vifsm.org, a site of the Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine to several forensics related articles. Closer examination shows that the link has also been added by an IP that resolves to VITA, Virginia Information Technologies Agency, http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=!VITA&server=whois.arin.net). Link is only marginally related to the subjects (in short, all universities with a forensics department could add a link to their homepage).

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

By:

vifsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
165.176.123.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (range: 165.176.0.0/16, Virginia Information Technologies Agency).

Additions save one (on Virginia Institute for Forensic Science and Medicine) have been reverted. Blacklisted and monitored by COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Debbie Kasper – Resolved. – 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Debbie Kasper `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Debbie Kasper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by Kasperdeb3535 (talk · contribs). Also an ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Kasper Sancho 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete all as per above comments, obvious COI; non-notabl person in the entertainment field. Bearian 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I didn't know what the correct thing to do about this was, but I didn't think deleting it was the correct route, especially since the consensus as the AfD discussion appears to be keep. Did you look at the AfD discussion? Actually because you say "delete all", maybe you've responded to the wrong COI notice. Did you mean to reply to this notice? Sancho 07:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The format of the post looks like Bearian meant to post it on an AfD page, though not necessarily the one for the Kasper article. — Athaenara ✉ 11:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The AfD above has many Keep votes, and the keep votes appear logical. It seems that the article is currently very weak and stubby, but she is notable enough to justify a real article. I suggest that further discussion be moved to Talk:Debbie Kasper, and this be closed out as a COI issue. If the efforts to create a truly informative and balanced article break down completely, then nominate it for deletion one more time. EdJohnston 21:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User William M. Connolley (2) – Speedy closed, disrupting noticeboard – 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2)

→ See also 87-kb William M. Connolley (1) section in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6.

Hockey stick controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Connolley is now a repeat offender in his WP:COI relating to Michael Mann and RealClimate.org.[8]

Evidence establishing the relationship

Connolley is a known to be an associate of Michael Mann. Both Connolley and Mann volunteer their time with a global warming website, www.realclimate.org,[9] hosted (all expenses paid) by the public relations company Environmental Media Services with links to Al Gore.

On RealClimate, Connolley makes this statement regarding Wikipedia: “more constructively, the wikipedia project is developing into a useful resource…” [10] showing that Connolley thinks of Wikipedia more as an extension of this public relations/political project than as an objective source of information for readers.

In addition, Connolley and Mann co-authored (along with others) an article web published (and potentially syndicated) by OpenDemocracy.[11] OpenDemocracy is a not-for-profit organization funding by large philanthropic institutions. They also syndicate the writings they publish and the profit is split between the authors and OpenDemocracy. I quote: "We assume your permission to syndicate your writing around the world for one year, and will offer to split revenue generated by this activity 50/50 between openDemocracy and the author." [12] This shows Connolley and Mann coauthored an article with hope for splitting revenue.

In her conclusion for the first COI, Durova writes: “So I advise Connolley to exercise care with regard to WP:COI where edits regard colleagues with whom there might be an appearance of impropriety. Specifically, please bear in mind that some editors are unaware of the significant differences between professional collaboration and general audience authorship. It would help to provide talk page edits at a general readership level. To an editor whose background is more political than scientific, some of these actions appear to hint at real impropriety. Although it is not my opinion that meaningful impropriety exists, our common goal is to avoid long procedural debates such as this one and get back to writing an encyclopedia.” [13]

In addition to Durova’s comments I would say that (for the purposes of COI) there is no difference between professional collaboration and general audience authorship. The guidelines for COI do not apply only to co-authored peer-reviewed articles. The essential point is whether or not an editor can be seen as objective when they make controversial edits and have a working relationship with a person or group who is the subject of an article.

Evidence Connolley is disregarding NPOV guidelines

Connolley has consistently deleted from Hockey stick controversy certain information published in reliable sources. [14][15][16][17]

This specifically relates to a journal article Mann published in which he withheld information that was contrary to his conclusions. Let me illustrate how this is important as a crime against science. If a researcher tried out a new cancer treatment on 35 subjects and 25 subjects died from the treatment and 10 survived, could he claim to have “cured 10 out of 10 patients.” Of course not. Scientists are required to report data or tests of their data that do not support their conclusions. The facts about how this was learned were reported in the Dutch science journal ‘’Natuurwetenschap & Techniek.’’

The article is Hockey stick controversy and it is clear that Connolley represents the interests of Michael Mann, a key player in the controversy. It is completely POV for Connolley to attempt to control what information the other side in the controversy says is essential for understanding the controversy.

Connolley’s only goal appears to be to protect his colleague, Michael Mann, from criticism. This is the same information Connolley deleted that caused the first COI to be filed. I was truly surprised Connolley was willing to be known as a repeat offender.

Also, I want to make it clear that I am not expecting Connolley to stop editing every paragraph that may relate to Michael Mann or other colleagues. I am requesting that he show some restraint and consider appearances. I am asking that he refrain from suppressing information that may be embarrassing to his “side” in the controversy. Connolley has made some good additions to the Mann article, including this one. [18] I had asked for someone to provide that information and Connolley did.RonCram 16:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I think this complaint clearly shows RonCrams bias: hosted (all expenses paid) by... is just pointless; Connolley thinks of Wikipedia more as an extension of this public relations/political project than as an objective source of information for readers... is twaddle; a crime against science... is POV-pushing. Etc etc.

I also believe that is now a repeat offender... is unjustified, since the original complaint was largely dismissed. This seems to be little more than a re-hash of the original complaint

William M. Connolley 16:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

William, this is not just a rehash of the first COI because you have deleted the same material multiple times since then. Durova requested you not to make these kinds of edits to protect your colleagues. This is not a rehash, this is a second offence. Regarding your claim I am "POV-pushing" in this COI, I am not trying to write an encyclopedia at the moment- I am stating my case - so of course I have a POV. People like Durova have to understand how others are going to see your behavior. You are treating Wikipedia like it is an extension of your PR work to promote the cause of global warming. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. You are supposed to put readers first and give them all the information so they can make up their own minds about a controversy. You are constantly suppressing facts you do not want people to know, but in this case it is clearly a violation of the WP:COI guidelines. RonCram 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a remarkable misunderstanding of Durova's comment ("it is not my opinion that meaningful impropriety exists..."), a misrepresentation of the conclusion of the earlier COI discussion, and a ridiculous accusation that William is editing in bad faith. I urge RonCram to contemplate "how others are going to see [his] behavior"--not in a positive light. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

User:RonCram has stated that Mann made claims in a published article that he knew at the time were false,[19][20] an extremely serious allegation which raises concerns regarding WP:BLP. WMC is following Wikipedia guidelines by reining in User:RonCram's excessive zeal on this issue. Others of us have also tried to advise User:RonCram that his claims must be substantiated by reliable sources. The "reliable sources" that he cites are mostly from the blog or personal website of one of Mann's attackers (Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick) -- the possibility that these could be considered objective, reliable sources is absurd. User:RonCram seems fixated on this issue and ignores all such advice. An RFC on User:RonCram relevant to WP:TE and WP:BLP concerns could be merited; this baseless COI accusation is beginning to move into WP:POINT territory as well. Raymond Arritt 17:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Raymond did indeed provide me with links showing "UNCENSORED" could describe a dataset without unethical conduct by the researcher, but that is not the point. It is not the name of the subdirectory that proves Mann was not honest, it was the information found in the subdirectory that proves Mann was not honest. Raymond's claim that I did not provide a reliable source is unfounded. The source was the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek quoting Steve McIntyre. See page 9 of 12. McIntyre says: "Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to their claims." [21] In addition to this source, McIntyre has repeated the same claim on his blog. Comment 187 says "It is beyond doubt that Mann witheld adverse verification statistics and misrepresented the lack of robustness to bristlecones." Comment 196 says "Let’s start with the positiin that Mann knew that the reconstruction was not robust to the bristlecones from the calculations in the CENSORED file i.e. that without the bristlecones, you got a high 15th century. The statement from MBH98 that this is "relatively robust" is false." [22] The edits I have made are in accordance with Wikipedia policy. RonCram 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider this completely baseless. Ron initiated the first COI, and now consistently mischaracterizes it based on a single, out-of-context quote by Durova. Also, claims like "This shows Connolley and Mann coauthored an article with hope for splitting revenue" above border on libel - it's unlikely that there will be serious revenue from such a paper, and both authors have a long record of volunteering their time to increase the public understanding of climate science. Inferring a monetary motive here is completely unwarranted. William has not been involved with the hockey stick research at all, he works for a different institution than Mann (and lives on a different continent), and he and Mann are just two of 11 main contributors to RealClimate. Moreover, as far as I can see, they have not published a single common article there. On the topic at hand, Ron has tried to introduce at least misleading material into the article, and various other editors have objected. This is a simple content conflict, and bringing this supposed relationship here again is near harrasment. --Stephan Schulz 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, your comment is mainly an attack on the messenger and does not deal with the issues. My quote of Durova's comment was not out of context at all. She saw an apparant COI and requested Connolley not to suppress information just to protect his colleagues. She did not see his behavior as something terrible but as something that distracts from writing the encyclopedia. You claim I wish to include information that is "misleading," but you make no attempt to justify your assertion. What could you possibly say that would show it to be misleading? Are you going to claim McIntyre did not find this subdirectory? Are you going to claim that Mann did not test without the bristlecone pine series as a proxy? Are you going to claim that Mann did not make the claim that the result was robust and not dependent on any proxy? Of course not. There is nothing misleading in the entry Connolley deleted. If there was something misleading, Connelley could have modified the entry so it was not misleading. But there is no way to do that so Connolley was left with the only other choice possible, to delete it and assume I would not file another notice on the COI board or that he would "win" in any event. RonCram 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"[Durova] saw an apparant COI and requested Connolley not to suppress information just to protect his colleagues."—more blatant misrepresentation by RC. Actually Durova wrote (emphasis mine to indicate parts relevant to this discussion): "To an editor whose background is more political than scientific, some of these actions appear to hint at real impropriety. Although it is not my opinion that meaningful impropriety exists, our common goal is to avoid long procedural debates such as this one and get back to writing an encyclopedia. ... My advice to Connolley's critics ... A generous serving of WP:AGF would do wonders for global warming-related topics, particularly on the conservative side, and I'm more than a little concerned that a phenomenon I've observed in various topical disputes may be operating here: editors who have any vehement POV are prone to construing misconduct into the actions of opposing editors, then once they convince themselves that the other side has breached policies (whether or not it really has), the vehement POVers begin violating policies themselves. Sometimes they violate policies blatantly. Other times they seem to misread policy or fail to appreciate when they apply an unequal standard." [23] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nethgirb (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

This seems to boil down to a complaint that RonCram wants a sentence in the article, which other editors don't want, and anyone who disagrees with him he claims has a conflict of interest. So when William removes the material, Ron calls William Mann's representative; when Raymond Arritt (a notable climate scientist) agrees with William, Ron claims that because Raymond agrees with William, he isn't "objective" (but somehow Ron, who consistently edits against consensus, is?)
Quite simply, if you read the source (which is not a journal article), it present's McIntyre's allegations, and Mann's explanation. Mann's explanation is entirely reasonable ("censored" in a data analysis context means something entirely different to what it means in a free speech context - the "censored" data was a subset of the broader pool of data). The text that Ron inserted (and William removed) was (a) one-sides (since it only presented McIntyre's discovery, and ignores the explanation from Mann, which is present in the source) and (b) Ron claimed that McIntyre also claimed to have found unreported data, which is, quite frankly, false (it was an unpublished analysis of a subset of the data). Anyone who has done data analysis knows that people usually generate dozens of analyses that they don't publish, and not for any sinister reasons.
The whole issue that McIntyre raised looks like a red herring - it's impossible to put into any sort of context. McIntyre speculates on the meaning of analyses he found in a folder of Mann's. It isn't something the average Wikipedia article includes. Ron's presentation of the material is both biased (since it only presents one side) and misleading (since it misrepresents what McIntyre claims he found). Any diligent editor has two choices - correct the incorrect information and add balance, or remove it. Leaving it as it was would be the only wrong choice...after all, we are talking about accusations of misconduct (being made by Ron, not McIntyre) about a living person. Williams actions are covered by BLP, quite frankly. Ron's actions, on the other hand, deserve a stern reprimand. Guettarda 17:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried several times to explain to User:RonCram what "censored" means in the context of data analysis (most recently here), alas to no avail. Raymond Arritt 19:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, the unethical way in which the hockey stick was created is a major part of the controversy. You cannot have an article on the controversy and only give one side. I am more than happy to include any response Mann may have made about the contents of the subdirectory. I have never seen a published response but if there is one, it should be included. Raymond, I responded on the Talk page and above. It is not the name of the folder that is damaging to Mann. It is the contents of the folder that showed he had tested without the bristlecone pine series and did not get a hockey stick. This is an unethical action by a scientist and you know it.RonCram 23:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the comments of Raymond Arritt, Stephan Schultz, and Guettarda are right on the mark. William's actions fall well within the scope of WP:BLP--the source RonCram wants to include isn't a reliable source, and he's misunderstood the substance of the controversy anyway. This looks to be yet another in a long series of frivolous noticeboard posts whose goal is to restrict William's editing on topics related to Global Warming. RonCram may be sincere in his belief that there's a conflict of interest here, but that doesn't lessen the fact that this is a tendentious misuse of process. I have to agree with Guettarda that RonCram should be reprimanded, or that a user conduct RfC should be opened. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good faith report by User:RonCram, it looks very much the opposite. He doesn't seem to have even studied WP:COI properly and I don' think it is worth the time to take seriously. --BozMo talk 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the source for the entry is the Dutch science magazine Natuurwetenschap & Techniek. This is a very reliable source. My goal (if you read above) is not to limit Connolley from making edits on global warming. In fact, I even praised him for bringing info to the article that I did not have available. My goal is to stop his suppression of reliable information that he just does not like.RonCram 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, the only citation you supplied is to a pdf on someone's personal website. If this material was published in Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, you need to provide a proper citation. Even if this article turns out to have been published in a reliable source, other commenters here have raised a serious concern that you are not accurately reporting what the article says. Then, of course, there's the problem of whether this material even belongs in the article. At any rate, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page (and it seems like these issues have been extensively discussed there). How does this even matter to the COI allegation? It doesn't, really--what you're saying is that William is suppressing information "that he just does not like", apparently because he's such good pals with Mann that he can't exercise impartial judgment in this area. That's absurd on its face. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RonCram, you are being very pointy. WP:COIN isn't the place to litigate content disputes. Go to the appropriate forum and stop disrupting this one, please. I see no reason why you shouldn't be blocked for persistent disruption. You stand alone against numerous, uninvolved, respected members of the community. Help yourself now. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, my goal is not to litigate a content dispute. The goal is to get Connolley to change his behavior. He has to abide by the rules just like everyone else. This is only one example where Connolley is suppressing information he does not want readers to know. His actions give Wikipedia a bad name. RonCram 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am appalled by this abuse of process. In all the above paragraphs, I find only one actual diff presented in support of the allegations. The lonely diff. This edit is clearly a non-controversial removal of original research, which was placed there to damage the reputation of a living person. There is no legitimate objection to this edit. Even if Mann himself came here and made this edit, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest. Read the guideline, but I am quite sure what it says because I've written and revised much of it myself. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 19:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Jehochman. You make a number of unsupportable claims. I did not realize I needed to provide more diffs. I can amend my original posting. Here are other examples of Connolley's deletions. [24][25][26][27] And here is one for Raymond. [28] Connolley's deletion is hardly "noncontroversial." During the first COI, some editors suggested that this information did not belong in an article on data withholding, but suggested it would fit here. I am simply trying to provide readers with a full understanding of the controversy. You cannot call my entry WP:OR since the source is a well respected science magazine. You cannot say it violates WP:BLP because it is all accurate and well sourced. RonCram 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This thread is already starting to descend into pointless wikilawyering, and it should be obvious even to RonCram that this discussion will not lead to a consensus behind his position. We could save ourselves a great deal of time if we closed this discussion right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Let me quote something posted a few hours ago in closing a similarly bloated section:

"I am closing this one since it seems to be going in circles. If there are further problems, please file a new report, and keep it brief. Admins, if discussions get out of hand like this, mention WP:POINT. This page is for concise incident reports, not long debates. Take it to the article talk page, please, those of you who feel the need for lengthier discussion. Thank you! I hope this helps. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 20:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)" [Emphasis added.]

Please. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. — Athaenara ✉ 00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Count Estruc – Article deleted. – 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Count Estruc `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Count Estruc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Estruch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This looks a difficult one: possible sources are in Spanish and Catalan, and main editor's English isn't so great so it's going to be a PITA to explain policies. I have a suspicion that User:Estruch is actor and author Salvador Sáinz and that this Count Estruc exists exclusively in his fiction. See his Estruch page and also the Spanish, Catalan and French Wikipedias. Tearlach 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can speak Catalan pretty well, and as far as I can see there is no mention of this 'legend' anywhere on the Catalan language internet except for these articles. Self-promotion. Kijog 17:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much (I also posted for help at Talk:Catalan language). It appears I'm probably wrong in assuming User:Estruch to be Sáinz, but given the popularity of vampire topics on the Internet, I'm deeply suspicious that I can find no references to this Count Estruch (under whatever spelling) outside these Wiki articles and the works of Sáinz. Tearlach 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Guifred Estruch and Alfonso lived in the king's time II of Aragon (the Chaste one), and it would have been very well considered in the Court of Barcelona from Ramón's times Berenguer IV as winner against the Moorish king from Valencia, and decisive collaborator in the taking of Tortosa in 1148, and those of Lérida and Fraga in 1149.

Another tradition oral Catalan picks up the existence of the vampire in the district of the Ampurdán. He/she would have been the count Strucc, a nobleman of German origin of the court of Pedro II king of the Crown of Aragon that had stood out in the battle of The Dales of Tolosa. Already old man, correspondent went to the Pirineo to pursue witches and pagans, in his castle of the High Ampurdán and there, for the action of dark malicious forces, he would become a pacifier of blood.

Regrettably, most of the relative historical documentation to this gentleman got lost during the Spanish Guerra Civilian: the town of Llers, where he/she was, it was destroyed by the aviation franquista. The legend enjoys two versions.

This legend seems to be derived of some previous facts, happened in the year 1173, the king's time Alfonso II. This faced problems of religious normalization in their territory: he/she feared that the followers of the paganism, even common among people that lived in the Pirineo, can cooperate with the Muslims of the south to defeat the Christian gentlemen. In collaboration with the Bishop from Barcelona, Guillem Torroja, requested the Count Guifred Estruch that throws a campaign of residents' non Christian persecution in the district of the Ampurdán, for what gave him the castle of Llers. This Guifred Estruch was very well considered in the Court of Barcelona from Ramón's times Berenguer IV, because it had triumphed against the Moorish king from Valencia, and collaborated decisively in the taking of Tortosa in 1148, and those of Lérida and Fraga in 1149. The betrayal of the captain of their army Benach who poisoned him for spite of Nuria, daughter of Estruch, it was continued in turn by the murder of several accused people of witchcraft. In the process, the murdered count would have become a no-dead.

The historical documentation on the Count's adventures Estruch shines for its absence, and it is not even possible knowledge if it was the hero of the Dales of Tolosa or the winner of Tortosa, and there are fifty years of difference among the two events. The annihilation of Llers made him to be only the oral tradition that he/she speaks of vampires and figures demoníacas strolling for the Sierra of But Career during several centuries. Even until the present time. [29] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Estruch (talk • contribs) 06:01, April 28, 2007 (UTC)

Good Morning:

The text in Spanish about this legend is: moved for conciseness to Talk:Count Estruc.

My Englsih is very bad for translated this, sorry. --Estruch 08:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The historical documentation on the Count's adventures Estruch shines for its absence

El perro comió mi preparación!

It may be an oral tradition, but we need some reliable non-oral confirmation (not web forum posts) that it existed before the works of Sáinz. Tearlach 12:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted old books for send material .--Estruch 16:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I regret that the documentation 'shines for its absence', but we can't really keep an article in the encyclopedia without it. Trying to surmount the language barrier, I went and looked at the other versions of this article. The best version of this material, probably by the same author, is in the Catalan Wikipedia and it's at [30]. Unfortunately even that one is not properly referenced. If we just decided to go ahead and translate the version from the Spanish Wikipedia, we could get one in good English, but lacking sources. So regrettably I think that AfD is the best course, or maybe 'prod' if we can persuade the author that this is not a win. EdJohnston 05:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exist references before Sáinz in books about Catalan Legends. --Estruch 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC) You can write to author from Estruch, he have web [31]. [32] He work in the movies. "Estruch" (the novel fiction is a cinema project). The problem is the Spanish references copied the article from Sainz book and not mentionnet your references. --Estruch 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am from Spanish Wikipedia (my english is poor). The user Estruch in my wikipedia is the author Salvador Sainz. Now is bloked fron one month for SPAM. He write references to his books in all the vampires articles (see here) Blocked for SPAM and Selfpromotion. Then he create other user (Aconito) and try to write again his books, and Aconito is blocked for ever. He atributes itself the partnership of Count Estruch and says that the spanish article use his sources without references (false) Salvador sainz is , very probably, user Estruch in wikipedia Spanish (sure) Catalan(sure) french and English (really probably) Last, sorry again for my poor english.--Britzingen 12:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Britzingen's post supports what Tearlach stated in the original report: "I have a suspicion that User:Estruch is actor and author Salvador Sáinz and that this Count Estruc exists exclusively in his fiction." — Athaenara 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In catalan Wikipedia this article now is being considered for deletion In Spanish wiki is delete.--Britzingen 17:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Resolved. - 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC) – 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

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

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Meyer (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stacy_Meyer|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
COFS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor, understood to be one of several meatpuppet accounts involved in editing scientology related articles, which are organized from the same scientology headquarters. Thus this editor cannot be considered to be "acting independently" or with NPOV. This meatpuppet account has voted in the AfD discussion of the Stacy Meyer article. The article discusses the death of the subject, who was a member of the organization and the daughter of the organization's long-standing and current legal counsel. The scientology organization considers the death of their follower while in their care and within their compound unflattering and negative to its PR interests. Please note this editor has been previously cited for uncivil behavior and operating with a COI, and there is an extensive history regarding this meatpuppet account's activities in attempting to remove or suppress reliably sourced material unflattering to scientology.

Please also see:

User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Scientology sock puppet ring found

Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser#Can a confirmed case be re-listed?

User talk:205.227.165.244

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#COFS indef blocked

As can be seen, this is a complex issue. I request administator intervention and advice. Orsini 07:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No violation There is no "undeclared" about it. COFS' username would clearly indicate a connection and the user self-identifies as a Scientologist on his user page. Combined with the use of the Church proxy we can assume that he is a Church staff member (I do not remember if he said that already). As far as voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Meyer; COFS is the first user of the Church proxy to vote there so no COI violation. There is no evidence that the Church proxy users are acting in concert and so the "meatpuppet" charge is unwarranted (the proxy is used by Church members worldwide). I will say that any other editors that are Scientology staff members should not now vote there and should only comment to the extent of adding material not yet presented, not to reinforce material already presented. I mention, of course, that AfD is "not a vote" and if another Church proxy user has something new to contribute then they are welcomed. And finally, Orsini, based on your edit-history, I could as much claim that you are a meatpuppet; one of a number of off-wiki critics of Scientology that work together to present a false "consensus". --Justanother 12:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The proxy is not used worldwide. COFS and CSI LA both live in Los Angeles. It would be pretty weird if the proxy was worldwide yet the two accounts that originally set off suspicion turned out to be in the same city. CSI LA said the proxy is used by approximately 1,000 people. That number would be a subset of Scientology staff members in Los Angeles. It is quite obviously a local proxy. ··coel acan 18:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Clear COI violation - Justanother is a scientologist editor who shows pro-scientology bias, and has a history of supporting other pro-scientology editors who have disrupted Wikipedia and violated Wikipedia policies in the attempted process of purging Wikipedia of any unflattering data about scientology, specifically that which is reliably sourced. To reiterate, I believe a clear COI exists by reason of User:COFS either being a staff member of the scientology organization, or using the resources of it, in attempts to whitewash the image of that organization by the removal of reliably sourced unflattering material about scientology. Again, I request an admin examine the citations above. Orsini 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Its COI because he works for CoS? It seems that you are suggesting that no editor can contribute in their field of expertise without having a COI? Interesting concept, but I'm not sure it flies. Wikipedia is open to all contributors. This means that anti-CoS experts are there to counter CoS experts. WP:OR & WP:RS prevent either from adding false information or COI opinion. Sorry, your arguement here does not support your claim of clear violation. At least I don't see it. using your logic, wiki articles can only be written by people with no involvement in the subject matter. He may be biased (I hope he would be) but bias does not equate to COI. Lsi john 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Its COI because he works for CoS? asks Lsi john. How much more of a conflict of interest can there be than with a member of scientology staff attempting to suppress negative information about scientology? And no; I am not suggesting expertise in a subject is a conflict of interest. Please review WP:COI, in particular the last sentence of the first paragraph. Orsini 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

We're not voting here. If the account is run by an employee of the organization, and is trying to improve the organization's image, and at least one other reasonable editor is complaining, then this is a COI situation. I am going to issue warnings, and will follow up by requesting a block of the user persists. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 18:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that we are not voting and I apologize if my bolding made it appear that I thought we were. I bolded to highlight that I wanted to address Orsini's over-statement of the case. The Scientology series is rife with conflict-of-interest; most of it by off-wiki critics of Scientology that act in concert here. That said, I have repeatedly said that the Scientology staff members that edit here must be careful to avoid actual conflicts of interest. I do not think it is a conflict of interest for them to edit in articles that are not directly about their employer, the Church of Scientology and its various branches. So I do not see it as a conflict of interest for a Scientology staff member to edit the Stacy Meyer article or to vote in the AfD. Even though I said elsewise previously, I now think that they should be allowed to vote there but should refrain from editing at all in the Church of Scientology article or those of other arms of their employer. They should limit their editing to talk page discussion in those articles. As far as any claim that they whitewash or remove sourced material; such editing would be disruptive and can be addressed on its own merits. And I will refrain from flipping Orsini's last description of me to point it back at him. Just look at his edit history if you want to know the color of that cat. --Justanother 19:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As an additional outside view (ignore as appropriate): With regard to expertise vs possible COI, isn't that a reason to try and come to terms with a user? It may be in the best interest to caution users if necessary, but to alienate them with immediate blocks/warnings doesn't seem like the best idea. Mind you that I'm not involved with CoS or in fact any other religious group, but I'm convinced that even if some COI is obvious, such a user may still be an interesting source of expert knowledge we could use very well, if cautious. —Alde Baer 20:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:AldeBaer thank you for the outside view. While I agree that some editors and organizations can be an interesting source of expert knowledge, even where a COI exists for that editor or organization, I think each individual case has to be measured on its merits. If the editor or organization can edit or contribute to the project with reliable and NPOV data, I agree their input can be beneficial. However, this particular organization has a well-earned reputation for maliciously harassing its former members and its critics, and has used both legal and extra-legal means to silence them. The quality and accuracy of data from this particular organization has been repeatadly called into question, and the organization's doctrine calls for all of its members to be active in the elimination and destruction of all material which questions or opposes it. My personal view is that I don't believe this organization can be a reliable contributor to this project. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Usually what gets posted at this noticeboard would be (a) the name of a user, and (b) an article. Then we often look at the user's pattern of edits on the article to see if there is some evidence of non-neutrality. I'd say that this is an incomplete nomination, at least by what usually occurs on this noticeboard. Merely listing an AfD in which COFS participated doesn't seem sufficient. (COFS did not edit the actual article on Stacy Meyer, the COI has been made evident in the debate for review by the AfD closer, and we know that an AfD is not a vote anyway). Can someone give us a real article that User:COFS has edited in some way that we could examine for COI? Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that there is not yet a well-formed issue for this noticeboard to consider. EdJohnston 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies EdJohnston, for not following the usual patterns on this noticeboard, and now I know better, I will not repeat that mistake. This was a complicated issue and I was uncertain on how to best proceed or list a complex issue like this one on this noticeboard. After noting your concerns, the Kirstie_Alley article was one article which I was going to cite, however Jehochman has cited it and others already. Perhaps an examination also of Youth_for_Human_Rights_International would satisfy that criteria, [33] [34] [35] and [36] by the Misou account. It should be noted these edits took place before the meatpuppet was blocked. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Block Needed I've just dealt out the full range of NPOV warnings for these edits: [37] [38]

[39] Enough already. This user was previously blocked for abusive sockpuppetry. They are obviously here to push POV and defend Scientology from perceived enemies. The enemies should also be shown the door if they persist in adding their spammy, biased references to Wikipedia. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate "warnings" by Jehochman - The "full range of NPOV warnings" is utterly inappropriate. This editor has not edited since 05:26, 12 May 2007 and ALL your warnings were after that. You have issued one warning, please. And on a COI case that was incomplete and not even decided. What are you up to here? Please remove all except your first warning. Thank you. --Justanother 02:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is a conflict of interest. The point of investigation here is to see whether that amounts to a WP:COI violation. People can have actual conflicts of interest while editing within policy: declare the conflict of interest openly, then post suggested changes along with citations to the relevant article talk pages. If an editor has violated WP:SOCK, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV then warnings are quite appropriate. I hope Jehochman's warnings succeed. If not I'll issue blocks as necessary. Durova^Charge! 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I believe the COI violation has occured with the meatpuppet's entry in the AfD process, in attempts to remove unflattering materials about the meatpuppet's employer by this process. The edits cited above in response to EdJohnston would indicate the COI has been ongoing for some time. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I am not objecting to a warning. I am objecting to four warnings each escalating on the previous before the editor has even had a chance to see the first warning. The apparency is that the editor ignored all the warning and kept on editing when in actual fact he has not edited since the 1st warning and thus has violated none of the warnings, Surely you do not see using escalating warnings in that manner as appropriate? IMO, it amounts to little more than railroading. --Justanother 05:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Second the Block Needed

I second this Block Needed comment above by astute user, Jehochman (^talk/_contrib). For reasons I had further elaborated upon a bit, and posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS. Smee 08:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
Comment about blocking - please note the citations at the top of the page, which indicated the meatpuppet was placed on indefinate block, then appealed, then had the block reduced. I have asked User:Coelacan to look at the discussion here, as Coelacan was the original investigating admin of the x-puppets. Regards, Orsini 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been my habit to issue multiple warnings without waiting for the user to read them when I see a user on a determined campaign to spam or push POV. One bad edit could be a mistake. Two is starting to look fishy. Three is bad faith, and so on. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust those warnings. Since the user has previously been blocked for sock puppetry, and had received a COI warning, I don't think we need to give the full range of warnings anyways. This is an experienced user who knows that they shouldn't be pushing POV on Wikipedia and making COI edits. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, thank you for your efforts and for looking into this matter, and I support your actions in dealing with this issue. Kind regards, Orsini 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman, I was not able to find much in the way of policy related to the proper use of progressive warnings. However, if you feel that a "final warning" is appropriate then I suggest you remove all your warnings and simply use the Level 4 warning with a "first and only" note (since there is no Level 4im for that issue). That way it does not appear that the user ignored a bunch of warnings and that surely unintentional misrepresentation of the situation is what I object most to. I really do want the Scientology staff members that edit here to come over here and hammer out what they can and cannot do; where they can and cannot edit. I also find your previous comment about showing the door to WP:SPA and disruptive critics of Scientology very interesting and even-handed. --Justanother 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed with Justanother and left a single ~~block~~ warning (:-D) with an explanation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 03:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with COI blocking or when it's appropriate, so I'll defer that decision to any other admin who'd like to make the call. I was asked to give input here so here's what I see: User:COFS has not made an inappropriate use of puppets here. The puppet problem exists where multiple users are being used to inflate consensus. But I do not see User:CSI LA, User:Grrrilla, User:Makoshack, or User:Misou participating in the discussion. So there's no red flag with regard to puppetry. As to whether COFS is pushing too much POV, that's a separate question, upon which I'd rather defer judgment. ··coel acan 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bausch & Lomb – Issue resolved: warnings were effective. – 14:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Bausch & Lomb `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Resolved

Bausch & Lomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
137.238.82.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice removed a section including well referenced negative information about the company.
Mlmcdougall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just added a copyvio section straight from the company website.

Their contributions are both only to this article. It's hard for me to determine that these users have a conflict of interest, but their edits make me think that they do. Sancho 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep watching. The IP seems to relate to SUNY, so that's probably not a corporate COI account. The article is terrible. It's very one sided negative. I can see why somebody would want to try to balance things. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 15:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

User Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Christopher L. Hodapp (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs) - Tim Riley

GoConnect (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Dance Party USA (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Endal (dog) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Live Free or Die Hard (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Whitby Public Library (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

User Sabhlok

Jtalbot@mac.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbuthnot family (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Sydney University Liberal Club (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

vifsm.org

Debbie Kasper (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (2)

Evidence establishing the relationship

Evidence Connolley is disregarding NPOV guidelines

Reply

Comments

Count Estruc (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

Bausch & Lomb (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Anchor `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Christopher L. Hodapp `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

GoConnect `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Dance Party USA `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Endal (dog) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Live Free or Die Hard `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Whitby Public Library `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Arbuthnot family `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Sydney University Liberal Club `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Debbie Kasper `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Count Estruc `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Bausch & Lomb `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]