Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 106

Pterygium (conjunctiva)
Dear editors, Thanks for your feedback.

Deli nk has accused me of adding promotional content. I would like to respond to this, commencing with the following quote from the NPOV policy page.

“The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias."

I am a qualified ophthalmologist and have been researching Pterygium for 25 years, and as a result have published over 100 peer reviewed journal articles and research papers based on solid and scientific research methodology. The ophthalmology community consider me as a subject matter expert, with journal editors regularly requesting my revision of any research into pterygium. As a result of my cumulative research on pterygium, I have been awarded the highest degree that the University of Queensland awards, a Doctor of Science in 2015.

As a respected member of the global ophthalmology community, I supported all my edits on Wikipedia with research which is published in books or journals. In the instances I have referenced my own research, again, to remind you it is scientific, therefore neutral, and published research, it is because it is the only research available on the topic. All of these referenced works are in peer reviewed journals and in fact the principal article which describes the world’s largest prospective series of pterygium surgeries was the lead article in the highest ranked clinical ophthalmic journal in the world, “Ophthalmology”.

My goal with editing the Pterygium page was to remove the dangerous content, ie claiming that radiation was a form of treatment, when in fact it is dangerous to the patient’s vision and has long been banned as a method of treatment. And to update the content to reflect current standards and procedures. Yes, I have referenced my own research, but it is, as stated in the NPOV, ‘properly sourced bias.’

My apologies for the unintended result of appearing promotional. And I request any advice for avoiding that in the future.

Lawrence Hirst (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Lawrence. A few things that will help you adjust to the culture here:
 * (1) Don't talk about your own qualifications and the high regard in which you are held within your specialization. First, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia's policies. Second, it won't impress anyone. There are lots of senior academics editing here (including myself) so you're just one of a crowd.
 * (2) Don't cite your own work. Ever. Propose such citations on the article talk page using neutral language (i.e., without asserting your own importance) and let other editors evaluate it.
 * Wikipedia works frustratingly slowly but over time it asymptotes to the correct result. Well, usually. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Micro-Star International
note: I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia procedures.

According to http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/59.125.101.61, User:59.125.101.61 is a Taipei "confirmed proxy server". Since 2013, this IP has exclusively edited the Micro-Star_International page (a company based in Taipei). by removing vandalism and adding awards. In addition, it has removed Template:Advert tags twice:
 * double-undo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micro-Star_International&diff=prev&oldid=679216685 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micro-Star_International&diff=prev&oldid=679216994
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Micro-Star_International&diff=prev&oldid=734540599

I suspect this is MSI PR attempting to "preserve" their image by removing advertisement tags. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * confirmed proxy ≠ open proxy. Only the latter is strictly prohibited here. – Brianhe (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's an open proxy or not. It might be a MSI network. Is removing advertisement templates without discussion prohibited behavior? Should I slap on a COI template? Jimbo1qaz (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that apparently someone pasted in a huge chunk of text, and some citations are mistakenly appearing below this section. I don't know how to fix it, though. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Trimmed the article, removing most of the hype. Please check; I may have overdone it. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed the citations issue you noted; they were falling down from an earlier conversation. - Brianhe (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did another round, removing duplication and rewriting the timeline into paragraphs.  DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Pterygium (conjunctiva)
User:Lawrence Hirst has been adding promotional content to Pterygium (conjunctiva) using references solely authored by LW Hirst. I have trimmed some of the promotional wording, but it could use another set of eyes I think. I'll notify WikiProject Medicine of this report as well. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SPA-
 * SPA-
 * answered here?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump


An IP editor representing themselves to be a security officer with the Trump transition committee has requested the street address of the Trump transition office be deleted from the article due to safety concerns. I have opened a RfC here to resolve the question. LavaBaron (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, that goes right to Oversight. MSJapan (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WhereverTV


The editor listed above (see their edit history) has somehow gone three years undetected continually adding paid links to the WhereverTV service to a litany of around 50-75 television network articles in their external links sections as 'official live stream' links without calling out the provider, along with turning the article List of Internet television providers into their own advertising playground where links to Wherever replaced the official sites of foreign and U.S. domestic television networks. The user was already warned twice on TWiT.tv about their spam this month; discovering this through my usual travels on television network articles and finding their entire editing history revolves around promotion Wherever is insidious, especially when a COI has never been declared. I am also deliberating taking Wherever to AfD, as having a questionable notability; the majority of these networks are free, but WhereverTV seems to charge fees for accessing all of their streams on one site, which makes this look like a COPYVIO source which has no business being linked here. Their other effort with Harvey Kaltsas seems to be creating a puff article involving an Eastern medicine practitioner.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 09:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor has now made this edit to Westerns on Televison since my final warning to them. At this point, AntonioTelevize is a net negative to the project who is clearly only here to spam their workplace.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And another one to Canal Sur. Can someone please look at this?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , my apologies for not looking at this sooner. The editor is a clear WP:NOTHERE case. I suggest adding the links to the spam blacklist. In the meantime, I will try cleaning up some of them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much; you found even more than I did when I did my clean-up and I probably will do a blacklist request, along with the AfD.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Neuber Software
I'm way out of my comfort zone reading about software, but I was slightly struck by the tone of Security Task Manager and see that it was created by a user with few edits who also created Visual TimeAnalyzer; both of these programs were developed by Neuber Software (our article about this company was deleted at AfD, and apparently had some spam problems: Articles for deletion/Neuber Software GmbH). Could someone more au fait with this kind of thing than I please take a look? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stale account - the articles were created in 2010, and the user hasn't been back since. Did some digging, found nothing, AfDed both of them. MSJapan (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Articles deleted at AFD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Probable self-promoting sockpuppetry


I have been cleaning this up. VCHunter added many, many cites to Bishop's work (Bishop added many of his own of course). Most of these are either from his own websites or published through a journal run by IGI Global, who Beall characterises as extremely low tier, stating that he himself would never publish in one of their journals even though they are in his field. The number of users adding cites to Bishop's work is tiny, and in many cases the edits advanced an obvious agenda (see the websites above for why this is not a surprise).

Posting for review and discussion. Guy (Help!) 16:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Markus Rothkranz (again)
This article was under scrutiny at COIN archive 101§Xandyxyz (undisclosed paid editing). An editor in the case named Xandyxyz was indeffed as a sock of. Now an SPA is at work on some rather odd edits. By the way this is the second time today I've been working on something that bears a connection to Orangemoody. - Brianhe (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - his sock
 * - his sock
 * - his sock
 * I've mentioned this at FT/N. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ... And it has vanished. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016


Some input from other editors would be appreciated in this case. The question concerns what endorsements to list for the Green Party leadership election. User:RogerGLewis has added various endorsers for one candidate, David Malone, but describes a relationship with Malone's campaign on the Talk page. I have twice removed the material as I felt the endorsements were not notable and insufficiently supported. Is there a COI issue here? And, irrespective, what endorsements should be listed? Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally in a situation like this I go with 'Is the endorser notable?' as an easy cut-off. Basically, do they have a wikipedia biography. Otherwise you just end up with a list as long as your arm with non-notable endorsements. The question of 'should endorsements be listed' is a content discussion for the article talkpage really. As assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou Only in death does duty end Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play''. It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. ''The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs''. A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * '' if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable.

On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks.


 * All the endorsements added by User:RogerGLewis are individuals who do not have Wikipedia pages of their own. Most of the other endorsements listed in the article are individuals with their own Wikipedia pages (with a few exceptions discussed on the Talk page, which I wouldn't contest the removal of). I have explained my reasoning, along the same lines of yours, on the Talk page, but RogerGLewis has repeatedly re-added material and so I've left the article with those endorsements in until getting more people involved in the discussion.
 * I'm not that clear as to what RogerGLewis's involvement with the Malone campaign is (you can see his description on the Talk page), but he argues that he should not be picked out for it (see User_talk:RogerGLewis). Further opinions on that question also welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RogerGLewis is making a lot more edits to the article now. Input to aid this editor contribute most helpfully would be much appreciated. I am concerned about WP:NPOV and WP:RS as well as WP:COI. The editor is, shall we say, unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. Bondegezou (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate some further input regarding noteable endorsements, I have made my arguments on the Talk page and clearly :Bondegezou and i can not agree what is noteable with respect to seniority within the green party. Regarding what position an official of the party must hold to be considered noteable in a bottom up party with high democratic ideals Local Party Chairs are notebale and influential in the party more so than in other parties. The Wikipedia Page argument is in my opinion not strong enough to hold as an absolute Ian fraser is an award winning Journalist and Broadcaster for instance and does not have a Wikipedia Page the link to the Glasgow Herald Biog page for Mr Fraser is however clearly indicative of his journalistic standing. I also make the Argument that linking to the original endorsement page for the Bartley/Lucas campaign is an edit made from an untraceable IP address in Bromley, the indiividual endorsements are not supported by independant varifiable sources. I am not saying they are not genuine endorsements but the link offered falls foul of WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.. RogerGLewis (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Alleging that links to actual endorsements on endorsees twitter and face book acounts and personal blogs is not sufficient evidence of endorsement is In my own opinion creating a double standard and also an un attainable standard given modern communications, sworn Affadavits clearly are not practical, the links provided point to the evidence the evidence is clearly not false. This is a stub article which needed a lot of work. Under the campaign section all that was mentioned was Brexit and the campigns for leadership of other parties nothing of the Green Party Leadership campaign and its issues and discussions. There are several edits I have ffered in that regard which Bondegezou has removed, The Section is very very weak and nothing I have offered actually idicates a preference for other candidates I have stated that I am doing what I can to promote Malone, Ali and Womack as the Green Leadership team, I am not a member of the Green Party I do not have a vote and Isupport David Malone as his economics accords with my own Monetary reform activisim and I have been an advocate of the green policy EC661  since the 2015 Elelection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you review and consider WP:V and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:COI. These explain what material should be on Wikipedia and how it should be presented. It would also be valuable if you would respond to the points made by those editors who have joined the discussion and offered the third opinions you asked for. Bondegezou (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC

Brianhe I acknowledge your input and agree it is a content dispute and I have read the relevant articles on Notability and the cited comparable articles such as the Scottish Indie referendum and Jeb Bushes campaign in 2016. The Green Party is a sui generis case in a sense in that the number of candidates, the voting system and the RON option in STV AV systems are all quite different to other first past the post or single issue campaigns in referenda. Distinguishing the Green PArty of Engalnd and Wales as a specific class of campaign and the make up of the green party itself with co leaders or co deputy leaders and gender balance as well as LGBT inclusion policies with also the Greens of Colour BAME grouping means that each of these contituencies as well as the local party constituencies do have key roles that make party officers noteable.This structure in the US Democratic party would seem lowly given their Hierarchical top down constitutions of old fashioned patriarchal establishment parties. The Green party simply is not like that and one of the campaign questions is it it worth adopting a patrifocal structure to get elected or should Matrifocal and grassroots up ideals prevail as a point of principle. I will endeavour to work out a workable solution and metric with Bondegezou and continue my efforts to improve the article and get it into some sort of balance based upon consensus I have asked other greens interested in Wikipedia to get involved as well, of course electroal reform is a core issue in Green Party politics.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC).


 * User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request.
 * While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone:
 * "Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff
 * "I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff
 * But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff
 * The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign?
 * O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks.
 * PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also) I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia, and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable, in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub, that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership, UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewdwilliams#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016  Andrew Williams asked to comment.invited to comment ?RogerGLewis (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No comment on the substance of the matter at the moment but can people please stop starting big paragraphs with a space - the Wiki converts this into a very hard to read font and it's painful on the eyes. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * RogerGLewis, thank you for taking the time to answer me. As a minor point, I would echo Timrollpickering's point and suggest you look through some Wikipedia formatting tips because it can be hard to follow what you're saying! I also suggest sticking to one point at a time. Here, on the conflict of interest noticeboard, let's focus on the COI issue. Other issues can be discussed at the article Talk page.
 * It seems to me that you have some small relationship with the Malone campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. COI is often not an all-or-nothing affair, nor is having a small conflict of interest a barrier to contributing. To quote WP:COI: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity." I hope others more experienced with COI issues can weigh in here with their thoughts.
 * I do not wish to banish you from the Green Party leadership election article, but I do urge you to read, consider and take to heart WP:COI and to acknowledge that you have some small relationship with a candidate's campaign that does constitute a small conflict of interest. Most people editing the article have no relationship whatsoever with any of the candidates. (Despite your insinuations, I have zero relationship with any of them.) Given the situation, it would be wise, I suggest, for you to tread carefully with the election article. Make use of the request edit template as appropriate.
 * I disagree with certain edits you've made on other grounds, regardless of COI or no COI, and will continue those discussions on the Talk page, and I thank others here for their input on those discussions. However, I note that you are currently pushing content that others have opposed and that, it seems to me, goes against standard practice and policy, and that content promotes Malone's candidacy. Given an attested relationship with Malone's campaign, albeit a small one, that looks questionable to me. Bondegezou (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk Hi, on the COI I disagree with you I have given full disclosure and do not accept that I have a conflict of interest or that the edits I have made are partial to the Malone Campaign over others, the evidence in the history bears me out on this and I am suprised that you should alledge that. On the Insinuation regarding your ecclesisika edit history, I havenot made an insinuation I asked you out right you stated your position and I accepted it in good faith. I pointed out that Wikipedia policy as I have quoted at legnth advises Good faith. On COI the position of Brianhe (talk did not change regarding COI, he said there was no evidence of COI, he did agree for you to seek other input on the question to which I have no objection and I have set out my position at legnth and remain happy to make representations to other editors regarding COI, even small COI concerns. There are a number of points I have made regarding the issues that remain unanswered oin the talk page, I look forward to discussing them and i am trying to get other Greens to pitch in to raise the standard. See you at the Article Talk page I look forward to learning from you there, I am the first to admit that my skills in formatting with this platform are rudimentary but I promise to be a good student. RogerGLewis (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The principle dispute has been your addition and repeated re-addition of 5 endorsements for Malone. You have not added endorsements for any other leadership candidates (except within a revert of my edit). Most of the deputy leader endorsements you have added have been for candidates Malone supports. Many of your other editors have been critical of the rival Lucas/Bartley leadership candidacy. You have added and re-added disputed material that promotes Malone, while having some connection to the Malone campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talkThe reasson I have undone your edits is fully explained on the talk page and making an entry and re instating it with cogent arguments does not support a conflict of interest argument.Adding endorsements for other candidates is quite equally your responsibility if it is to be mine again this is covered on content and does not go to conflict of interest in any way. On Policy of inclusion and editing on articles which people know about I offer the case of Peter Kropotkins entry on Anarchism in the Encyclopedia Britanica. Between 1882 and 1886, in France, Prince Kropotkin, Louise Michel and others were imprisoned.here the authour of the entry refers to himself. "ANARCHISM (from the Gr. av-, and apxi?, contrary to authority), the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government — harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being." Full text of "Peter Kropotkin entry on 'anarchism' from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh ed.)" With respect to my editing on the article I am an Expert observer interested in a policy area of monetary reform in which I am also an Expert, whilst I support and have declared support for David Malone I am not interested in any conflict of interest sense in the outcome of the Green Party Election. Any other arguments as stated here "::With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage.´´ - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC . 08:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

Resolution
Discussion largely moved to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and a resolution has since emerged at Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2016. I suggest closing here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sevurud Associates
This user was cautioned on August 16, 2016 about a conflict of interest regarding Severud Associates. On August 18, 2016, BarbaraDD disclosed to User talk:199.188.67.126 that she is employed by Severud Associates, and "my client asked to have their Wiki page updated as well". Several articles have had Severud Associates added to them by this editor (after being cautioned), seemingly in a way that cherry picks this engineering firm, while neglecting other engineers and architects that should have been mentioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to look through these edits today. I had a look at this one and realised that the citation doesn't support the content. I noticed that the editor is now willing to comply with our guidelines. As such, it would be good to let them know that we need reliable third party citation for claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

CLSA


I've just reverted four promotional edits, the only edits this user has made. The talk page hasn't been used in nine years, so I thought I'd note it here. Suspect I'm watching because of this board, not sure. Could somebody take a brief look, thx. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of more accounts which were active on the article earlier. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore (COI & SPA)

 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)
 * - paid editor with incomplete disclosure(s)

These 4 (now 5) IP and IPv6 accounts were created to revert changes on DataCore page and add DataCore references to other pages as well like f.e. Software Defined Storage. One of the IPs confessed on the Talk page he has interest in DataCore while others are pure throwaway ones. NISMO1968 (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I think other editors on that page who have an interest in competitors of DataCore should disclose their COI also. Editingwords16 (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am dealing with this, per an OTRS request., ticket Ticket#2016081110014741   DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted once by an anon editor geolocating to the vicinity of corporate offices. More eyes on this article might be needed. – Brianhe (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I e just added one more IPv6 and one acc reverted you. NISMO1968 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The buzzword level in that article is excessive. "Hyper-converged Virtual Storage Area Network"? This turns out to be a real thing, and there's a definition of it at Hyperconverged.org.. There's Convergence 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0, although these are marketing terms, not accepted terminology like RAID levels. There's "The Gorilla Guide to Hyperconverged Infrastructure Implementation Strategies", and a self-published "Hyperconverged Infrastructure for Dummies". The technology is interesting, and could use explanation on Wikipedia. Preferably with diagrams. But this article isn't helping. It's a collection of buzzwords in search of meaning. I put a note on Talk:Storage_area_network asking that someone add a section on that subject. An section or article on the technology with a mention of the vendors (there are others beside DataCore, including Microsoft and VMware ) would be appropriate. Basically, these guys are one of at least 13 players selling various new approaches to connecting up disks/flash drives, servers, and virtual machines in large data centers. They didn't originate this stuff and aren't the biggest player. Someone needs to tone the marketing language down a lot. John Nagle (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * to make things worse most of the content is a definite copy-paste from some marketing bs and pretty much every sentence or claim needs citation source added. IMHO of course! NISMO1968 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A declared paid editor,, has been at work recently on this article. I have asked him for clarification on his status article-by-article, which doesn't appear to have been disclosed yet in accordance with ToS. - Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Text is getting better obviously but is still peacock language and no reliable sources given. Datacores attempts to push their content to Wikipedia using all possible and impossible transports like sock puppets and paid editors are encouraging at least and best. NISMO1968 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Article-by-article disclosure is now available on my talk page. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 21:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm getting this right, your disclosure says this edit to Human was paid? Who was the client/employer? - Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disclosures are available on the talk pages of every article I've done paid editing on. In the case of the Human article, the client went by the name "Goro Goro"; I never got his/her real name. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you double check what you just said? I see no disclosure at Talk:DataCore Software for instance. - Brianhe (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided disclosure on that page as well now. Davykamanzi → <b style="color:#0AE;">talk</b> • <b style="color:#ED2;">contribs</b> • <b style="color:#264;">alter ego</b> 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Scrovegni_Chapel
This recent addition looks like puffery and excessive weight/recentism on one scholar's opinions ("discoveries"). It looks like a possible COI, and I don't know enough about art to judge it any other way. What should be done? Geogene (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , would you able to provide the diffs of the edits? It would be helpful to identity the editor/IP responsible --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ,, , , . For all I know, Pisani might be the greatest genius in the field of art history. Then again, this is a very famous painting and it's always suspicious with so much material being referenced to one person. All the warning signs are there. Geogene (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

BT Group


The BT Group page has had duplicated and what appears to be advertising added by User:Sonambhola. Their user page shows them to be a BT employee. The edits have been reverted (once by me) and I left a message on the user's talk page explaining why I reverted them and asking them to leave the article. My revert has again been reverted by an IP geolocating to India. I'm requesting help on removing this conflicted and advertising material. Thanks.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * IP in question is . Also note the activity at Talk:Sumit Mitra.  Prod originally contested by Sonambhola (and no COI declaration on that talk page or the BT Group for that matter), and then the IP contests it.  Both have their message after their signature.  Strongly suspect this is Sonambhola logged out. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Image (or not) of Jeremy Strong


Today, user Philipdeluca96 first changed then removed the image from the article about actor Jeremy Strong. User claimed to represent Strong and has since clarified that he is an intern working for the management company that represents Strong (diff). Checking the article's history, another editor—Princevarughese, who also claimed to represent Strong—removed the image yesterday.

So, it would appear that two people from Strong's management company have tried to remove an image of Strong—even after uploading a free image to Commons of Strong today! (File:Jeremy Strong.jpg) There have been no edits to the text, just the image. Can I get some assistance on determining what to do with the article in terms of leaving it without an image or placing one back? Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed there was another previous account Jaystromboli doing the same. Let me have a look. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've readded the picture and left a terse enough note on the users page. In doing so, I removed the COI tag, since image-warring seems to be the only COI contributions. I strongly suspect an intern or staffer has dropped a bollock by adding and licencing the image in question. Whether one can revoke a CC licence once granted I know not, though if one were not in a position to grant a licence but did so, then I guess there would be grounds. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the original image File:Jeremy Strong 2014.jpg per status quo. I don't see why we need to remove it - CC licenses cannot be revoked at will, particularly if it was given by an adult. In any case, the source of image shows it has a CC-BY-SA 2.0 license - although it may need to be verified if the uploader is the photographer. The new image which was uploaded by Philipdeluca96 File:Jeremy Strong.jpg contains no evidence of permission, so I have restored the status quo. I guess OTRS would need to step in. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a phone number I could get to pass along to the manager so he can contact the right people about the situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No. We're open to listening to a reasoned argument from you, though. Here would be good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, I am just an intern asked by my boss to do this. They want to not have a picture up of Jeremy. That's what the situation is and they would like to speak with you via phone about the situation. I am relaying the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * , we work transparently on Wikipedia and everything happens by discussion. Do you have a reason for not having an image of Jeremy Strong? Please state your reason here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

He simply doesnt like that picture and doesnt want anything posted, but if you really want something posted can we put up a picture that better reflects his image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdeluca96 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We'll always go for the best image, so yeah, maybe. Come up with a good one. In view of the various shenanigans, I think you'll have to add the image and licence, and then go through the w:c:Commons:OTRS process to validate the licence, so that we're super-sure that it is validly provided under a free licence. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not a good reason for simply removing an image immediately. If you have a better image - you can upload it. Make sure you explicitly verify that the photographer has agreed to release it under a CC licence (otherwise, the photographer may be eligible to pursue legal actions against your firm) In addition, I suggest you to stop editing the article - if you continue you will be blocked. You can make your requests here. Wikipedia's terms of use strongly discourage parties who have been paid, from directly editing an article. However, we do listen to requests. Your first step btw is to declare your employer (who is paying you) and the client (which I assume is Jeremy Strong). Could you please declare? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Muneeb Faiq


Muneeb Faiq is essentially a hagiography. The article is full of puffery and WP:PEACOCK and probable self-promotion. The content of the article is entirely the work of a single-purpose account, Wikiwetwo, and an IP address that belongs to the subject's employer. Other editors, myself included, have added appropriate cleanup templates such as peacock, POV, and COI but the above editors just promptly remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.195.202 (talk • contribs)
 * This needs a hard look from someone with a medical background. The article subject proposes a new theory of glaucoma as "brain diabetes". They have published many papers, but they're not in big-name journals.  Is this fringe science, per WP:FRINGE, or is this legitimate new work?  Checked the glaucoma article, and no one has been putting this theory into that article. John Nagle (talk) 05:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the problem at WT:MED, the medicine wikiproject. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a truly horrible article. I have moved it to Draft:Muneeb Faiq for now as it cannot possibly stay in main space. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that on 23 August this was moved to the main space as Muneeb A. Faiq. There are serious problems with this article. I added an improvement tag today, which was quickly removed without any explanation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't moved, it was copied and pasted which is not permitted due to loss of author attribution. The copy was deleted by an admin. - Brianhe (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I give up. The 48 refs are truly  awful  to try to wade through - they are basically bare URLS slotted into citeweb reference templates.  The refs leave off all parameters other than url & title, including all those useful parameters that refs are supposed to include like author/publisher/publication/date/website/accessdate/etc./etc.  Normally I would run reFill but (of course) that does nothing because reFill thinks the refs are just "fine"...  For me, honestly, that is a large part of the problem - the refs really need to be fixed but I don't think anyone else other than the creator or the other SPAs associated with the Muneeb Faiq/Muneeb A. Faiq article/s should have to fix its referencing problems. Shearonink (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Konrad Mizzi
and the following are possibly the same person as above or also CoI users:

I have good reason to believe that this user is involved in a case of CoI on this article. Almost all this user's Wikipedia contributions are on this article and there seems to be a edit war of sorts going on in terms of removing sources I and others have cited in terms of details relating to this BLP. The subject of this article is involved in the 2016 controversy known as Panama Papers -- I highlighted this on the article talk page several days ago. I don't think that this user is acting alone or the same user is may be using multiple accounts. I'm not an admin and therefore cannot CheckUser. I am hesitant to revert/undo/rollback the edit again. I have no desire to persist with an EW on this article. I have placed a coin-notice on the user's page. --ToniSant (talk) 19:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , they are an WP:SPA for sure. Whether they have a COI is a bit hard to determine. Nevertheless, I think it would help to get some more eyes on the article. As a suggestion, if you feel that multiple SPAs are POV pushing, start an RFC on the article talk page. It helps to get some more eyes on it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's very helpful and useful. I'll get on it soon. --ToniSant (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Event Cinemas


Event Cinemas page has been a pretty extreme example of conflict of interest. All users listed above don't appear to have made neutral or encyclopaedic edits, but instead appear to be single-purpose accounts engaged in advertising puffery, unnecessary external links, biased promotion, and there's a company account. On 5 October 2015 informed them of Wiki's conflict of interest. I just made a huge edit to the page to bring it up to standard. I think something should be done. Thanks everyone.E ribbon toner (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tgeairn should not be included on that list; the one edit that looks like it's adding promotional material looks, with further investigation, is really just saving that one portion from the user's next edit, where they deleted a large listing of locations. And their edit history is far from SPA. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that on Tgeairn, have removed user from this list. I still think that some parts of Tgeairn's contributions were more advertising than encyclopaedic as per the WP:PROMOTION template message that was introduced. Also took down Versova as user doesn't seem to be SPA. Do you think that the other accounts are SPA/COI, or is someone else better positioned to answer that? Thanks!

More info on apparent COI. All only made edits to Event Cinemas page: User Eventcinemas undid XLinkBot revision and adds puffery in User 124.149.67.42 changing founded dates without citations User 121.223.97.165 changing number of seats User 103.244.228.75 adding location details without citations User 49.199.98.46 changing location without citation User 121.90.132.73 adding promotional material with puffery and no citations

Hello. Sorry if my edits constituted as promotion or advertisement. That wasn't my intent. I have been interested in the topic of cinema as well as their technologies and hence all of my recent edits occurring in that subject.Versova (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi ! So sorry! I realised my mistake before when I checked your history. I made a comment on the article talk page about having deleted the Experience stuff, I think there's stuff that obviously isn't advertising that I deleted that I think you wrote. I think we should have a section that's more about cinema technologies. Super sorry, would love to keep working on this page with you? E ribbon toner (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. That page did need a clean up and update.Versova (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

DataCore Software (Part II: Resurrection)


These are new IPv6 and one recently registered user account all trying to bring recently deleted DataCore Software and DataCore Software Corporation articles back. IPv6s are just bully, and User:JessicaH123 is making random pointless edits Special:Contributions/JessicaH123 to some other competitors pages to imitate good faith. NISMO1968 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

+ IP 77.243.183.90 SPA NISMO1968 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

+ IP 103.199.155.193 SPA NISMO1968 (talk) 06:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not an SPA account for DataCore. Im sorry you feel this way. I guess i should have never got involved in those edits because it seems that anyone who does gets attacked. This is clear bullying behavior on your end. I will refrain from editing on DataCore if this will make you happy. I did notice on your history as well that you have done few edits outside of the DataCore discussion. Are you an SPA as well? JessicaH123 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I also not an SPA account for DataCore. I'm just restoring the contents from a grave danger. Some IP's and accounts are messing with the page and contents. That's why it is raising questions. I have checked your history. You'r adding TAG's on the article without any consensus.Please help improve the page. It's clearly a notable company. Latest version has reliable references from The New York Times, Business Wire, The Register, even Forbes and Reuters. What's wrong with the " Resurrection" ? --Behaver (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to let you people know that multiple bad faith attempts to repeatedly recreate a company article usually doesn't help. If you want that article up follow the rules here: first declare your conflict of interest, second start a draft and use high quality references and third let it got through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also noting here that since this case was opened, a contributor to at least one re-creation of the DataCore article, has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock of . Both accounts' contributions may need to be reviewed for COI, ToS violations, etc. - Brianhe (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I already took good care of another article created by about some non-notable person. Could it be another paid edit? NISMO1968 (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note - the DataCore article has been advertised on Upwork, hence the involvement of multiple paid editors. - Bilby (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Writerlauren


Undisclosed and persistent COI editor. Almost every edit from this account is blatantly promotional, to a greater or lesser degree; I've seen a single apparently useful edit. I've just been going through cleaning up the spam from this account from the past two years. Has been warned multiple times on their talk page, though you won't see the ones they've removed, e.g., and that's not even mentioning the many AFCs declined as blatant advertisements or CSD G11s; there's way too much evidence against to sustain the assumption of good faith. I'm posting here to ask if there's any reason not to ban this editor forthwith for blatant long-undisclosed COI - which will also help forestall the many aspiring spam pieces in Draft:, which I've taken care to watchlist - and look out for any account also editing these spam articles in the future - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators article that I prodded and was just deleted seemed blatantly promotional to me. Repeated warnings and deletions appear to have not accomplished anything. Seems like a promotion only account. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely hard blocked in every possible way. I've watchlisted the favoured promotional pieces to see if anyone tries to recreate them - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Silver sulfadiazine


Despite multiple discussions re perceived bias (see talk page of article) user above is unwilling to compromise by simply placing refs to a Cochrane review outside of lead of article. Same user is a contributor to editorial about Cochrane and Wikipedia. Apparent COI, possible arbitration needed. The majority of the article on this drug is dedicated to a Cochrane study on it at this point. Jackbirdsong (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Cochrane is one of the most well respected organizations in medicine. They produce high quality independent systematic reviews and meta analysis.
 * You are also removing the 2016 review from the journal Burns from the lead.
 * Instead you are proposing the use of 40 year old primary sources? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS is a very stringent and highly respected content guideline, widely endorsed both internally and externally. Cochrane passes it handily. Editors on a talk page of a medically-related article can't really just agree to locally ignore it - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With respect to COI, are you saying because I have spoken at the National Institutes of Health I am not to use NIH resources like pubmed? Or that I spoken at the World Health Organization that I am not to use World Health Organization resources, or that we have a publication pending in the Lancet I am not to use Lancet publications? Sorry that is simply crazy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Recommend closing this as a meritless claim of CoI against Doc James. Any content issues can be worked out through the usual means including the RfC proposed on article talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC) Possibly a pointer to WikiProject Medicine/Evidence based content for medical articles on Wikipedia? ... there's no conflict of interest here that I can see. I've read the article talk page and looked at the edit history. Doc James preference gets my vote; one of the more important things to say about this product might well be that which is said by Cochrane. Given the absence of COI, I suggest this thread now be closed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Can someone take a look at this article? Someone saying they are from OSHA is making some enquiries. More eyes would be appreciated. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the pruner was overly happy with the shears. Some of the material removed was certainly encypedic, eg: "Except for earlier laws specific to the mining industry, the OSH Act was the first federal legislation to give workers the right to a safe workplace." - a useful and pertinent fact but was unsourced, "Most of OSHA’s PELs were issued shortly after adoption of the OSH Act in 1970, and have not been updated since that time." - This also seems encyclopedic. The fact that the (set) permissible exposure limits have not been undated in what, 45 years? Despite advances in medicine etc and the understanding of the effects on the human body? There is some other stuff that needs checking as well. It looks like lots of overly detailed information was removed, but it was not really promotional, it seemed fairly balanced. Just excessively detailed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * New editor was an possible violation of the WP:ISU policy against shared user names.  But the new user was perhaps bitten too hard. See WP:BITE. Someone should have told them that, for example, "OHSAUpdater01" would be acceptable. I put a note on their talk page.  John Nagle (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Geronimo Guerrero


Editor's contributions consist solely of articles and content additions related to this artist. I've AfDed two mixtapes already for failing WP:NALBUM, but I'm opening the discussion here to perhaps get some disclosure from the editor as to what is going on. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Abhishek Verma (arms dealer)
Efforts continue by his law firm to write the articles about him and his family. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems to be focused on this family and their businesses. It reminds me of  from Archive 103. - Brianhe (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am neither directly nor indirectly connected to the subject in question i.e. Abhishek Verma nor his lawfirm or whatever. I suggest aspirations should not be cast on my work on wikipedia unnecessarily. Besides Abhishek Verma, I have edited other articles on Wikipedia and made significant contributions. Thank you. mainstreamwikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Furthermore, if I am editing an article, wouldnt I cross reference other articles and citations? Editors and contributors should have editorial independence and freedom when contributing. Unnecessarily restricting and casting doubts on the integrity of the contributors would stem the growth of Wikipedia. For the benefit of all participants in this discussion, please be advised that I am a freelance journalist and professor a reputed University. Should you require my credentials or phone number to validate, please feel free to email me and I will reply privately with my contact details. Thank you. mainstreamwikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mainstreamwikipedia (talk • contribs) 14:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note -See my remarks here on 's page. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, should that article title be 'Arms Dealer'? Yes he was arrested for corruption regarding arms deals, but the article seems to imply this was as a result of his career/access as a politician? Or was he actually a Nicholas Cage like figure? I doubt his CV states '1996 - 2012 Personal Protection Hardware Salesman' Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

IFSwiki


Probably no action needed right now, but this user name suggests a connection to International Field Studies. I think all articles and images created by this user have been speedy deleted. I asked on the user's talk page if they had a COI, and got no reponse. User had continued to upload images and create articles after I asked. Ping who requested speedy deletion (just FYI, no action needed). Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely no action needed. User has been blocked, after I started writing this report and before I hit "Save changes". Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan Eisenberg


I would like to start an investigation on the behaviour of Dan Eisenberg. For a year already he's been involved in the deletion of information from the number of articles related to antisemitism, on grounds that the information he's been deleting is in fact news and lists (and persistently linking to NOTNEWS, NOTLIST) and therefore doesn't belong to Wikipedia.

I first spotted him today on the discussion page of "Antisemitism in Russia". What he has done is he deleted all recent incidents of antisemitism (starting from ~2000) on grounds that the article is not a list. The reason I have visited the discussion page was that article was overly optimistic on the issue of antisemitism, citing the same source saying basically "everything is good about Jews in Russia" thrice. And that's hardly the case, especially considering that Holocaust denialism was outlawed in Russia only as recently as in 2014. So that's where I suspected Dan Eisenberg may be an antisemite.

Then I went to his contributions page which clearly showed me he's most interested in the deletion of information from the pages related to antisemitism, which constitutes the bold majority of his editorial contribution to Wikipedia. In fact, on the discussion page of "Antisemitism in the United States" someone requested a "good editor" for the article because Dan Eisenberg's been deleting information from it. That user also referred to Dan Eisenberg's account as "single-purpose account", and with this claim I tend to agree. This is my impression too. However, Dan Eisenberg's been accurate and also created a bunch of minor edits in medical articles. These changes are mostly visual and minor and nowhere as large as his edits in the articles related to antisemitism. I have also got a very minor impression that he is somewhat interested in Anthropology and races, since few of his edits are in the articles related to this topic. And his name seems like a overly obvious username for a Jewish person, which may have also be done on the purpose of drawing attention away from his edits, with an argument that a Jew cannot be antisemitic (which is not true, but nevertheless is sometimes used as a tactic by antisemites).

To justify his edits in the articles about antisemitism he has created an RfC (weak RfC in my opinion) in the Antisemitism in the United States article which passed with three votes, but even then he was so eager to delete information from that article that he started doing so before RfC ended, of that he was notified by one of the users who participated in that RfC. I also don't think this RfC may be the last instance in the case since, for instance, the articles about Islamic terrorism do not have such RfC, and list recent terror attacks. The second argument against that RfC was presented by some editor from New Zealand, a rather small nation, where antisemitic attacks are rare, and the attacks go to all headlines, so the case of the US article MAY NOT be the case of the article about New Zealand. Third objection to that RfC is that Dan Eisenberg once dropped a line about that "most of these attacks will not pass the 10-years test". However, I am deeply unsure how a thing described in reliable source in the age of Internet "may not pass the 10-years test". So I raise the concern that his behaviour may be antisemitic. And the questions I raise in this case are:

1. Is Dan Eisenberg's account a SPA?

2. Is he an antisemite under cover?

3. Should he be blocked?

4. If he shouldn't be blocked, should someone patrol all his recent changes?

As for me - I am an anonymous reader. 178.121.228.214 (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what conflict of interest is being alleged I have? My interpretation of NOTNEWS, NOTLIST is that these sort of recent events should not be on these pages. It was supported by an RFC and I felt it should be applied broadly--especially since this seemed to be a problem with a lot of these pages on antisemitism. An ongoing RFC on Antisemitism in 21st-century France seems to be going against this first RFC and is making me think that my fellow wikipedia editors might have a more complex or changed view about NOTNEWS and NOTLIST than I previously appreciated. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (The following is a copy of a posting I made on the user's talk page) Looking over your edits, it appears to me that, while you have a valid point about avoiding long lists of individual incidents, the solution would be to summarize these with references, rather than delete them completely. Wording such as "A number of well-publicized attacks took place in 2015 and 2016..." with some descriptive text and references leading to related newspaper articles would allow readers to follow up for more detail on individual incidents. Based on the reactions you have been getting, I would strongly recommend avoiding any further wholesale removal of large sections of text without inserting some such summary text.  Cl ea n Co py talk 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Please first bear in mind I don't have anything to have against you in the first place, nothing personal. These are your deletions of the incidents from Antisemitism in Russia article that brought my attention to the issue. This contribution left that article overly optimistic and unbalanced. If you look at references, 5/9 of them are expressing strong pro-Putin view of current situation with antisemitism in Russia, namely: FEOR (state institution subordinated to the regime), MK newspaper (censored and pro-Putin), and the words of an orthodox Patriarch which is associated in a long-term controversy about having ties with Putin. And at the same time while they say Russia is very peaceful for Jews, the number of neo-Nazis in Russia is probably the highest in the world, traditional antisemitism never disappeared from Russia, people like David Duke go to Russia to present their new books, and Holocaust denialism was only outlawed 2 years ago in 2014. So you may now see that deleting the list of antisemitic incidents in the 2000s-2010s brought this article to the state where it basically says everything is good for Jews in Russia, while this was clearly contradicted by the list of incidentes you have deleted. And that is not objective -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What a load of horseshit! An obviously logged-out editor makes a completely unfounded complaint that an editor is an antisemite because he insists that Wikipedia articles comply with policy? The IP editor's first edit ever was to an obscure noticeboard, and she or he notified everybody in the world before notifying the editor against whom the complaint was lodged? I say we require the IP editor to log in or we throw this baseless accusation in the trash where it belongs. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a political content dispute, not a conflict of interest issue. The editor being complained about has edited on a broad range of subjects, some controversial, some not, so they're not an SPA. This isn't really an issue for WP:COIN. The anon can complain at WP:AN/I if they so choose. John Nagle (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. First I wanna say WOW cause we were taught your algorithm in the uni and it is kind of nice to meet you here. Second, please explain to me what is the most correct way of bringing this issue to the AN/I board. I don't see a point of bringing it there TBH and thats why. I found this board perfect for this discussion as this user seems to edit other topics solely to obstruct his original aim of editing articles about antisemitism. His contributions on other topics are mostly minor and nowhere as large as the deletion of content from the antisemitism articles. So if those edits are a distracting maneuver then Dan Eisenberg has some personal interest in the deletion of that information about antisemitism and this constitutes a Conflict of Interest between his point of view and the point of view that was present in those articles before he deleted anything from them. If you have thoughts why it is better for this thread to be at AN/I, which is, in my impression, dedicated to one-time violations (like MShabazz's incivility above) rather than to posssible/obvious long-term violations, please bring those thoughts up here. Thank you -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the original poster who started this thread and I urge you to avoid the language like that. I am a reader, I don't have a Wikipedia account, nor I want to create one as this is allowed by the rules. I live in Belarus, and if you have problems with that I again urge you to re-read the policies of Wikipedia saying that anyone can participate in making Wikipedia better. As for your abusive language I urge you once again to rephrase your point of view in adequate terms or else I call for nullifying your assertion in this thread as an obvious personal attack. Best regards. -- 37.44.65.39 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I want to point out that "Dan Eisenberg" (I noticed him while editing on Antisemitism of Belgium or France, don't recall which one) has been editing since the summer of 2015. Although new, he is a facile editor familiar with Wikipedia policies and practices; his first deletion on an antisemitism page read: "wikipedia is not a newspaper."  .  Although he has made only 317 edits: 60 are to "Antisemitism in the United States," and many of the rest to pages on Antisemitism and their related talk pages, others to the anti-semitism sections of pages such as History of the Jews in Belgium, here  is a typical edit of his.  I called him an SPA because antisemitism is the main topic on which he edits, and his editing on this topic consists primarily of going to antisemitism-related pages and removing large sections of material.  It is true that pages in this category seem to accrete  recountings of anti-Semitic incidents.   But Eisenberg has been removing such sections in pages covering on a wide range of Jewish communities without making constructive contributions to such pages by, for example, replacing the material he removes with brief summaries of the incidents, keeping the sources on the pages, or adding material from the many reliable sources that exist on antisemitism in these countries.  Repeated, mass deletion on a targeted topic is not constructive editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have always found the NOTNEWS rationale laughable given its a policy with no real teeth, being routinely flouted in practice - wikipedia routinely creates new articles based on News stories, has an 'In the News' section on its main page etc etc. RE Anti-semitism, going to an article that lists anti-semitic attacks, removing sourced anti-semitic attacks based on 'notnews', seems on the face of it, pointy and/or odd. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, many of this editor's top edited pages according to X!'s tools are involved with this singular topic, and I have added them at the top of the case. - Brianhe (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I remain happy to discuss why NOTNEWS, NOTLIST do not apply as I think they do (and as backed up by the first RFC I filed). If I am misinterpreting wikipedia standards then let's discuss that and I'll work on changing my editing style accordingly. So far I have mainly encountered that some other editors want this information in, but that they show a lack of engagement with wikipedia standards or the reasons for my deleting this material. This is a COI board and the alleged COI seems to be that I am an anti-semite. I don't know how to productively respond to this charge and doubt my denials would help to further the conversation. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just learned that User:37.44.65.39, the self identified original poster, has been blocked as an obvious sock-puppet. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, while anons can edit Wikipedia, if you're going to be heavily involved in disputes in controversial areas, it's best to get an account and become known. Anyway, this really is an WP:AN/I issue. They deal with excessive enthusiasm on the usual subjects - religion, politics, abortion, homeopathy, and the Israel/Palestine mess. This COI department is more about promotion of businesses and individuals, and toning down hype. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Should this discussion be moved to WP:AN/I, because while that IP can be dismissed, User:Dan Eisenberg's editing is problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * God no, because anything anti-semitism related is a massive timesink but mainly because I dont think there is a behavioural case to answer. I dont think Dan Eisenberg is removing content from anti-semitism based articles because he is an anti-semite, I think he is removing them because he has a policy based reason to do so and there is no consensus (on the articles or within the topic area) not to. Nor any real discussion anywhere that states his interpretation of policy is incorrect. I think his reason is wrong and an overly harsh interpretation of notnews etc, but thats a content/policy issue that should be hashed out either at the articles concerned talkpages, or in a centralised discussion on either the relevant policy talkpage, or at a relevant wikiproject. I understand why he is doing with it, I disagree with the justification. For example - an article will commonly contain items that are not (by themselves) individually notable, but can be reliably sourced - 'Antisemitism in Russia' is obviously going to be a notable subject, not all reliably sourced anti-semitic attacks will be individually notable for their own article, but would be included. NOTNEWS is applied to where you are assessing notability of a subject, not individual content about that subject to be included in the article. You would reject the notability of an article about a recent anti-semitic attack based on NOTNEWS, you generally wouldnt oppose the inclusion of an anti-semitic attack on an existing article specifically about anti-semitic attacks. Regarding list content in articles - WP:NOT says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." and refers to the relevant guidance for list-based content, MOS:EMBED which really doesnt make any comment yea/nay except it has to be related to the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really hard for me to say that this is not a COI case... but I find myself strongly agreeing with Nagle that this sort of thing isn't what the COIN board handles most efficiently. Given what Only in death says about ANI, I don't know if there is another venue that could sort this out either. I think the best advice now is for this editor to heed WP:OWN and give this topic a rest for a bit. - Brianhe (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To shorten my response: I dont think Dan has a COI because I dont think his motive for editing is anti-semitism. I do think he may be classed as a SPA - however that is not in itself a bad thing. As the dispute is inclusion/exclusion of content, talkpage discussions on the relevant articles would be more productive. Or a broader discussion on the application of NOTNEWS at WP:NOT - given many administrators and longstanding editors will have that on their watchlist - would probably be a better, faster, and less drama-filled opportunity to discuss it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that. Dan, since I can see that you are watching this page closely and responding to comments diligently, I trust that we can rely on you to cease deleting well-sourced attacks on Jews from pages on Jewish communities and on anti-Semitism?  A sort of Gentleman's agreement?  Although, if you actually want to show good faith, you could return to the edits of this type that you made and restore that material to those pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And why should he do that? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of antisemitic incidents, and there's no rationale for including today's news in every article about antisemitism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The key word you used there is 'indiscriminate'. It is not 'indiscriminate' to have details of historic and current antisemitic incidents in Russia in the article Antisemitism in Russia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the problem is we're talking about newspaper reports of incidents. Those aren't necessarily indiscriminate, but their relevance remains doubtful as long as they are momentary interpretations of singular events. Some incidents may be vandalism. Some may appear to be antisemitic but cover up another crime or motivation. That's why it is not, generally speaking, a good idea to use newspaper reports to make lists that suggest support for broad statements. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

– I find that the best way to solicit good faith from people is to try to have good faith in them (not to request it). Because of this, it is a little hard to assume good faith under a COI discussion predicated on me being an anti-Semite (an idea started by a now banned sockpuppet). It seems there remains legitimate disagreement in the interpretation of how NOTNEWS, NOTLIST and SYNTH here. I just re-read NOTNEWS and contrary to “Only in death..” my reading is not that this only applies to the notability of the subject, but also to the content of an article. My reading of the discussion here and of the closed RfC is that I am not alone in thinking this. If “Only in death..” has more info on this interpretation, please share. A previous RFC supported me on this (Talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States), but I recognize that the feelings about this in articles more directed towards the present and with less extensive lists such as Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France might be different, and the open RFC on that page seems to be going in a different direction. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

J. M. Pearce
While cleaning up citations to predatory journals I found a number of citations to Joshua Pearce (Pearce, JM). Other references in the same articles were also tot he same author, in different journals. I went through some histories and found that in each case the reference was added by a single-purpose account. I suspect there are a lot of them, here's a brief sample:
 * Pearce, J.M.

I understand that Pearce is an authority, but this is stretching credulity: every single article I find with citations to his work, the citations were added by accounts that appear only to edit articles where he is cited, and which usually add those citations themselves.

This will take a while to check through and clean up. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't heard of J.M. Pearce in my domain: the economics of technology. He is definitely not an authority.EconomistfromtheFuture (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am new and did not understand how to screen for predatory journals. I added his paper to the economics of digitization because of a paper I was writing on how to value open source hardware - he is known in that field and I thought it was peer reviewed. How can you tell the difference? --Gihiw (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

EOMA-68


The EOMA-68 article covers a technical standard. It also covers the first publicly-available implementations of that standard, which are intended to arise out of a crowd-funding campaign. Lkcl claims to be the author of the EOMA68 standard and also to have run that crowd-funding campaign. Lkcl has also made numerous edits to the EOMA-68 article. Even though they have not been entirely uncontroversial (they have included reverting others' edits, and changing the scope of the article), I believe Lkcl's edits to the EOMA-68 article have been made in good faith.

Nevertheless, my understanding is that Lkcl ought to acknowledge that a conflict of interest exists here, and ideally ought to do so by using the template. I have discussed this with Lkcl, but we have been unable to reach consensus. It appears that either Lkcl has not understood WP:COI, or else I have not: we cannot both be right. Therefore, I would be grateful for other editors' assistance.

Full disclosure: I ordered an EOMA-68 computing card during the crowd-funder, and therefore would like the crowd-funder to meet its production goals. I also now participate in the public mailing list ("arm-netbooks") used by the EOMA-68 project. Additionally, many months ago, I met somebody at a conference who was demonstrating EOMA-68 prototypes and who I believe to have been the author of EOMA-68. zazpot (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * the edits by non-technical individuals not familiar with the material have been 100% inaccurate and misleading. if you review the history logs, you can see a total of something like *five* contributions by people who are well-meaning but in no way qualified to write the actual technical content of the page.  these include basic mistakes such as calling the "standard" an actual physical item that can be held in your hand. some of the misleading information was more subtle. Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * i don't "claim" - i *am* the editor (and guardian of) the EOMA68 open, Creative-Commons-Licensed Standard. the history on the elinux.org wikipedia web site for the page may be verified, as may the arm-netbook archives on lists.phcomp.co.uk.  Lkcl (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * i have understood it fully.... you are not "wrong" - the review has not been fully completed (and when it has, chances are high that the wikipedia COI policy will be found to be incomplete / inadequate to cover this specific instance). there are three totally separate and distinct "roles".  one of those roles has been demonstrated not to be applicable (but is understandably easy to misunderstand that it *MIGHT* be applicable - this would be the NORMAL "COI" business-related "role", which, if it were applicable, i would have signed a "conflict" declaration immediately). that leaves two roles that are not in conflict (that of "OPEN wikipedia editor which is on a Creative Commons Licensed wikimedia site" and that of "Guardian and editor of the OPEN EOMA68 Standard which is on a Creative Commons Licensed wikimedia site".  the Wikipedia COI rules are insufficient to cover this case where it is clear that both documents are Creative Commons Documents, both are "public documents", the "editor" (myself) has a 20+ year track record of working in the public eye (software libre projects), the "editor" (myself) FULLY UNDERSTANDS that when working in the public eye you cannot "hide" anything, the "editor" (myself) does not WANT anything TO be quotes hidden quotes, i WANT people to see even the quotes bad stuff quote so that other people can learn from the "mistakes"... and so on and so forth.  there are a huge number of similarities, there *are* no conflicts (as there would be if it were a "business"). i will *not* make a false declaration (i.e. make a DECLARATION that there is a CONFLICT when there is NO conflict.  to make such a declaration would bring both roles into disrepute, to the detriment of both wikipedia, the EOMA68 standard, but also to myself and to any people who continue to *ASK* that i make a false declaration. Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * expressing both remaining roles in a form which makes it absolutely clear of the similarities: <wikipedia editor | guardian and editor> of the EOMA68 open Creative Commons Licensed <wikipedia page | Standard> on the wikimedia site <wikipedia.org | elinux.org>. Wikipedia's COI policy document is full of examples where COI exists.  it contains zero examples where COI does not exist.  Lkcl (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * the last experience that i had of dealing with wikipedia "reviews" like this, i witnessed the "reviewers" blatantly violate wikipedia's terms, conditions and charter. unfortunately, the circumstances were such that i had accidentally not logged in (so my IP address was recorded instead of my name), when editing a highly-technical page.  the level of verbal violence and lack of trust was so high that i cannot reveal to you either the page, date, or my IP address, for fear of reprisals and recriminations.  other technical documents that i have edited which are in extremely specialist areas have also resulted in people trying to basically do "science by consensus", with the individuals claiming to be "experts" doing near 100% reversion. so far, i've found that wikipedia's "crowd-based" ability to handle highly technical specialist areas of expertise is a 100% failure rate.  my recommendation is to not have one (or even two) editors "assist" in this COI evaluation - that's not going to work here: one or two editors are not authorised to clarify (or modify) COI policy: it's too big a responsibility.  my recommendation is to move this onto a public (archived) mailing list, cross-referenced here, where the people on it are authorised to review (and potentially modify or clarify) wikipedia's COI policy.  at present, it's inadequate... as are the procedures for dealing with highly-technical wikipedia pages.


 * http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/2016-September/011945.html Lkcl (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have added the connected contributor template to the article talkpage. When the creater of the standard is heavily editing the article page, and amongst other things, including claims on ecological benefits sourced to the company they are employed by, there is a clear conflict of interest. Article def needs some more eyes however. A number of speculative claims with only primary sources. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * there's no "company", and i'm not "employed". i fundamentally disagree with the *principle* of employment, as i view it as being slavery by a different name. i have sponsors (from the free software community). agree it needs more eyes, but it's really REALLY important that those "eyes" not replace what's "in development" with totally misleading and false information! there's been *six* such edits by *six* totally separate people so far that have provided utterly false statements! Lkcl (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Echoing the above, why is this notable by Wikipedia's standards, especially when the major contributors are a person who supported the campaign, and the person who created it? MSJapan (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * after someone else (whom i have no idea who they are) created the page, it contained so much false and misleading information that i was forced to correct it. i've dealt with heavily-technical subjects before (see LMDB page). Lkcl (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Toned down the hype. Mentioned that this "standard" is not endorsed by any standards organization. Mentioned prior EOMA-68 product which was offered for sale in 2014 but may not have shipped. John Nagle (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * i had to revert what you did, john, as you were "person number six" who replaced statements that have multiple sources (yet to be researched and links provided) with factually totally misleading statements. Lkcl (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some claims and language you removed may be controversial (e.g. “EOMA-68 is designed to reduce e-waste”) but I don’t see why other, ostensibly uncontroversial claims like EOMA-68 being an *open* standard and being based on PCMCIA could be affected by COI and need to be removed. Also instead of deleting controversial claims, maybe they should just be changed to make clear that there is such a claim and the reasons behind it. Pelzflorian (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * as john correctly points out below, it's not "based on" PCMCIA at all, pelzflorian, it's "reusing PCMCIA physically manufactured stuff". however, john's replacement words are completely false and misleading ("EOMA68 is a CPU board standard") - it most definitely is NOT. i forget how many times i've had to revert false and misleading statements like that. Lkcl (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article mentions that it uses the PCMCIA format and connector, but is not electrically compatible. Whether or not it is "open" is complicated; see Open standard. It hasn't been through any standards organization, and there are not multiple vendors offering interchangeable products. It's not even fully defined yet; the configuration EEPROM format is "yet to be defined. Arguably, it isn't even a standard, just the description of one vendors' device. John Nagle (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you have reasons for removal. I agree that the wording about PCMCIA was misleading, but I don’t see why EOMA-68 may not be open. This should be discussed on Talk:EOMA-68. Either way; I do believe your edit has also removed controversial claims/wording (like EOMA-68 being designed to reduce e-waste) made by Lkcl. Noone should make controversial claims without a reliable source but a COI apparently makes Lkcl more likely to make such claims. It therefore seems appropriate to call for extra caution as per WP:COI (which IMHO needs no additional examples because a discussion should take place if “common sense” is not sufficient). Lkcl, do you disagree? Note that I’m not very familiar with Wikipedia policy and that I have made pledges to the campaign in question and do believe in the claims, but I agree they are controversial. Pelzflorian (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * i wasn't the one that added the initial statement about it reducing e-waste. i added a link to the whitepaper which explains the logic (JzG removed that), and added the beginnings of a section "Eco claims" which is there to be filled out (needs citations)... this is complex. i've yet to see evidence that there's a COI between the two main roles. am taking too long to read this, sorry, too much to answer Pelzeflorian Lkcl (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * RE Open, without a standards organisation or something similar as per John Nagle above, claims of openness are just that, unsubstantiated claims. If you look at Open standard it arguably fails a number of definitions (but also fulfills others) depending on who defines 'open standard'. Given the weak secondary sourcing and over-reliance on primary/associated sources, this is an issue. Not so much with the 'open' part, but the 'standard' bit is more obviously problematic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you can't get much more "open" than using a wikimedia-based site, publishing the standard as a Creative Commons Document, and having 20+ years experience working in Software Libre to call on, Oid! but i get your point: would something like "de-facto open standard" be more appropriate? Lkcl (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The change is “open technical standard” → “proposed technical standard”. Your arguments support adding “proposed” but they do not support removing “open”. Pelzflorian (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the word "open" is removed it implies automatically that it's "closed", which is factually misleading. it's actually finalised (*sigh* i still have to put the bits in about DRM not being permitted on Housings... argh so much to do). if this standard is considered "not to be open" because it's not "ratified by a standards group" then that classification needs to be added to *all* other de-facto open standards on wikipedia. big job. Lkcl (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I just took a quick look, liliputing.com doesnot seem to me to be a WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * i had to revert the factually misleading edits that had been made over the past couple of days: a number of people (not me) have been adding in references to the (fifty or so) news articles that were up as part of the crowd-funding campaign. someone *else* appears to have reverted the removal, so when i reverted the misleading edits i left that one in... if you feel it should definitely go please either remove it (or confirm that it should go, and i'll do it) Lkcl (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ok so i note that you issued a "warning" which unfortunately has so many things wrong in it (assumptions, incorrect facts) that it's just too overwhelming to even go over them all. what you *did* do which i feel is totally inappropriate is revert the page back to some totally misleading and plain wrong statements.  i trust that this was an oversight on your part and, as an Administrator you do *NOT* intend to be involved in Wikipedia providing false and factually misleading information!  i've therefore reverted what you did, and (because i agree that it's not RS, have removed the links to liliputing, replacing them with "citation needed".  there used to be four or five references, here, they've all been removed: don't know why, but it means that the statements there now need a citation. Lkcl (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. How about "proposed open interface standard"? As for "liliputing.com", I agree that's weak as a source. It's just echoing CNX-Software. That article seems to be mostly based on PR. The article on BoingBoing by Cory Doctorow, who got to try the device, probably qualifies as a reliable source. The references to eLinux.org, which is a wiki, are mostly to material written by LKCL there. Haven't looked at the crowdfunding issue. John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a dearth of sources meeting the test of being both reliable and indepednent. Lkcl's arrogant tone and WP:OWN appears to be standard, I find a lot of evidence among the relatively small number of edits this user has made to Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Roosh_V
and have a very longterm unhealthy pro-RooshV obsession, adding commercial links to rooshv commercial website where Roosh V is selling his sex guides "Bang".

They both keep adding rooshv.com direct links to his commercial websites, and their history of edits are all for protecting these commercial links directly to the commercial website of RooshV, with the clear intent of redirecting the high traffic that Wikipedia receives, to Rooshv.com commercial websites where he sells his sex guides.

The references in wikipedia pages must be Neutral.

Their actions are similar to let's say a wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler would contain direct quotes from Mein Kampf, and saying that Adolf Hitler was the saviour of Europe, and the hero leader that Europe needed.

Users Kendall-K1 and EvergreenFir collude into keeping RooshV wikipedia page not neutral, and they keep adding commercial links to RooshV sex guides directly linking his commercial website.

Their actions are completely against Wikipedia rules. They should not be able to continue editing Wikipedia page of RooshV, as they have proved they are not neutral at all.



Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Mercadix (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BOOMERANG please.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS, never received a notice on my talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Second the boomerang, and I was also not notified on my talk page, although I did get the "mentioned you" alert. The "commercial links" are actually source citations. See Citing sources. I have no connection to Roosh. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * For note, this user was indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Montage Hotels & Resorts


Single purpose account who has only been editing on topics related to Montage Hotels & Resorts and their founder since 2014. Language used in Montage article in particular appears to be POV-y, raising suspicions in my head as to whether a conflict of interest may exist. -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 04:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Toned down the hype at Montage Hotels & Resorts a bit. There may still be too much detail about each property. Searched news for lawsuits or bankruptcies, and didn't find any negative info. Coverage in WSJ and LA Times, so passes notability. The Alan Fuerstman article still needs work. John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Toned down the hype at the Alan Fuerstman article a bit. Reasonable press coverage, including NYT, so passes notability. The image File:Alan_Fuerstman_Profile.png clearly comes from the subject of the article (it matches his Twitter feed photo) and there's a deletion request at Commons. But that could probably be resolved with an ORTS ticket. John Nagle (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bonnie Burton


The article appears to be much-tended by the subject; a lot of it consists of non-notable and unsourced career credits. This is ten years after the editor was advised not to use Wikipedia for promotional reasons. 2601:188:1:AEA0:E562:BE4F:6CEE:A08D (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as comment, this person seems to be posting on social media asking for help to put this information back on their page. I tend to feel that the material on the article was excessive, although I could see some of it being restored with sources. Blythwood (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, just posting here to note I've edited the page. I've done what I can to remove stuff I couldn't find cites for, though most of it seems legit and just difficult to cite (without citing the primary sources). Definitely would encourage giving it a once-over if anyone has a spare minute, but hopefully it's looking better now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Fulvio Melia


Adding a lot of self-referenced publications to the subject's biography. Experts in their fields of endeavor are necessary here, but sometimes we're not terribly objective about our own work. May require some guidance and oversight. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still ongoing as of 29-August, I added a warning to the talk page of, pointing to WP:SOCK as well.  Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The BLP has been sorted, it seems. There has been no further recent editing after I cleaned it out, and nothing for a few weeks on the Sagittarius article.  MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jake Cawsey


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Hi, am having trouble at the Jake Cawsey article, first of all an ip removes a big chunk of cited factual information about his career without explanation which I revert, then I get this message on my talk page : Cawsey Representation[edit source] Hey Jim, Thanks for the message. I'm new to Wikipedia but I currently work as a representative to Jake Cawsey. As an agency we feel the information you've provided, as good as it is, it's too much. We are trying to keep it short and concentrate on his main achievements in soccer. Within the next day or two, we will be making the correct adjustments to his page and we kindly ask that you leave them alone. We respect you taking an interest in Jacob, however, we just want him to be represented in the way we feel will help him reach his goals.

Thank you, Sydney Wilhelm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.26.130.94 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories (++): (+) They are trying to remove correct content about his playing for low grade clubs in order that he looks better for promotional reasons. Have asked for semi- protection of the page but perhaps it should have full protection. please advise Atlantic306 (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up here. We don't usually start with article protection, but with working with the conflicted editors first. Based on the message you posted here, the anon editor stating they "work as a representative" of the subject is not only a COI issue but possibly an undeclared paid editor as well. I don't have time to work on this right now but other COIN regulars surely will notice this. In the meantime be careful of the three-revert rule at the article. - Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, in the interest of full disclosure, according to his team stats page, Cawsey played all of 15 minutes in six games in 2016. I've added that to the article, and if this so-called representative removes the edit, I'll simply have him blocked. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

More than 10k of mostly undisclosed paid edits and copyright problems
Per here. Indeffed the user in question for the copyright problems. Help with cleanup appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - currently indeffed
 * - at AfD
 * - see also users - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - see also users - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * - at AfD
 * I'll start by listing the articles here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved quite a few of the articles to draft space. They need a lot of work and must go through AFC. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For future retrospectives and input to ongoing discussions, this editor stated that they were hired through Fiverr since mid August. One wonders about all the film contribs prior to that, though. - Brianhe (talk) 05:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrative questions for the community concerning this user. 1) I added the COIN notice to the user's talkpage. Should a note also be left on their talkpage that they are now indeffed? 2) Should their userpage be courtesy blanked? - Brianhe (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are still working on cleanup of the copyright issues. I just deleted the obvious image uploads. Waiting on the users reply to the concerns I have raised and disclosure. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Check his sandboxes against draftspace - he lifted someone else's draft out of AFC for sandbox3, so I speedied it, but I will bet there's others. There's a WALLEDGARDEN as well with Summer Nicks. MSJapan (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Character theory (media)
Hi,

I reverted an edit on this page which removed a section referring to a character theory I am noted for. I have been subject to significant cyberbullying and harassment in my occupation as an Internet trolling and cyberstalking expert and I think this page should be semi-protected as the section relating to me has been wiped by many people who breach WP:Civil and WP:COI by doing so. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you describe the conflict of interest? - Brianhe (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I provide services to victims of cyber-bullying, including raising awareness of those who have trolled them. In the past this has included 'PontyTown', 'Urban75' and most recently 'Kiwi Farms' and 'Quackometer'. Immediately following people from those websites have vandalised this page. In terms of Kiwi Farms the actions of the users have included contacting my local newspaper and saying they will mutilate babies in local hospitals. The conflict of interest is there for based on retaliation against me because of those victims I help. The following links highlight the timing for the current vandalism: --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I note that two of the users deleting the content at present are associated with the skeptic movement so is likely that they do not like the fact I am helping highlight the actions of Andrew Lewis of Quackometer, whose worldview they share - User_talk:Ravensfire User_talk:JzG. -- Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You just have to look at the reasons given to remove it. They are saying my theory must be removed because there is no independent source, even though there are peer-reviewed sources. That criticism could equally apply to Character theory (media) - mine has been cited more by others than theirs has, proving the removal is malicious and biased because they are applying different rules to my character theory than they are to others on the page. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just deleted the other character theories which had sources that related only to articles authored by those who described those character theories. I'm sure this is fine because if mine was deleted for not having independent sources it is fine for these to be deleted for the same reason? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's normally no issue witht hat, though doing so out of obvious spite at your theory being removed is clearly a problem. You'd have been better off suggesting their rmeoval on Talk, where I doubt it would have been especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The main COI here is Jonathan Bishop, who has clearly abused Wikipedia for self-promotion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Character_theory_(media)&diff=prev&oldid=739867511 is particularly egregious). Apparently - and I knew nothing of this until his comment on my talk page - he has been supporting Angel Garden and Steve Paris, two people who have been on a crusade against skeptic Andy Lewis for years because he oppressed them by taking a while to approve a comment on his blog (yes, really, that does seem to be the root of it). I have never met Lewis. We have a small number of mutual acquaintances, and one mutual friend. That is not a COI in any meaningful sense.
 * I did remove a number of citations to Bishop's websites all added as far as I can tell by Bishop himself, or by user:DigitalDisconnect, who I strongly suspect is an associate. This was a straightforward janitorial matter. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So I am not allowed to make allegations but you are? I have no idea who user:DigitalDisconnect is. But if they have done anything that could be considered favourable to me I'm certain according to you Guy it will have broken at least one of Wikipedia's rules --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? Because I have been exposing him people have turned on me, even going to the trouble of sending death threats to people that know me. If you have gone to the trouble of removing content about me, what reason have you given? Have you removed other content meeting the same description? No you have not, because you have decided to harass and bully me. You should not be editing any form of encyclopedia if you cannot be fair and objective! --Jonathan Bishop (talk)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, I have never communicated in any way shape or form with Jonathan Bishop, my interest in political pluralism (where I have made a few edits) is purely incidental/philosophical DigitalDisconnect (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanbishop (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins may also be interested in the deleted history of . The debate at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) says enough for non-admins to understand the issue. Look at some of the archive COI and spam reports linked at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jonathan Bishop, e.g. . Guy (Help!) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins may also be interested to know that Guy is making reference to content that Admins blanked for me as a courtesy. This proves to me that Guy has a vendetta against me and Admins should not take anything he says seriously as he is going against a decision they made previously. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Courtesy blanking is merely intended to keep the material from being found in search engines. It is not intended to remove the material from consideration when the historical editing record needs to be publicly considered; administrators fuller forms of redaction when that is the goal. There is nothing inappropriate in referring to courtesy-blanked material in this way. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The material in this article seems to be covered, better, at Personality type. There's a huge literature on this subject, going back at least to Carl Jung's Psychological Types. I put a note on the talk page suggesting a merge. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and all of it sourced to vastly more reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! What better way to keep Jonathan Bishop's character theory off Wikipedia than to merge the article into one where his won't be notable enough to be included? You genius you! Pat yourself on the back for targeting me while presenting as objective --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logical fallacy is: begging the question. It's not notable enough for this article either, so the merge is irrelevant. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , your paranoia is showing. I assume you are friends with Joshua Conner Moon then? On Wikipedia, as everywhere else, the law of holes applies. I had never even heard of Joshua Conner Moon - but looking at your links above, he is just about the last person in the world I would defend. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Update: I had forgotten just how surreal the "harassment" claim against Lewis by Garden and Paris was. It's relevant here because Bishop apparently considers this to be an entirely legitimate claim. As an "expert" in online harassment, he considers Lewis to have harassed and bullied these two. In reality, the shoe is firmly on the other foot. Even knowing that he wanted nothing to do with them, they still turned up at an event where he was speaking, forcing him to leave to avoid a scene. They sued him for libel because he failed to publicise their claims of a victory against a Waldorf school in New Zealand. Now I thought that must be a bit of rhetorical exuberance but in fact the judgment supports the statement absolutely. Their chief source of grievance against lewis is that he did not give them a platform, and then that he made a couple of tetchy comments when they would not stop demanding that he publicise their claims. Bishop considers himself an expert on online harassment. I do not know anybody with any expertise in this who would agree with him that Lewis, rather than Garden and Paris, were the problem here. Note that they fired their legal representatives - this is rarely a good sign. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed several cites to Bishop's websites. These sites have in the past claimed to be affiliated with Swansea University. Turns out they aren't. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. You have removed them because you claim I have been editing Wikipedia with sockpuppet accounts I have not. You are bullying me and it is you that has WP:COI not me. You are relying on WP:COI to remove mention of me from articles that other people have added me to. You are thus committing WP:Wikihounding by proxy, because you have removed multiple edits because you think they were made by me when they were not but in any case that action still breaches WP:Wikihounding because the intention was still WP:Wikihounding of me, even though it was not me you were WP:Wikihounding! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And being a cynical bastard, I think is very likely a sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are harassing me again. In the last month I was cricised for always posting in my real name or when I use "Anonymous" linking to my real name. Now I am being accused of sock-puppetry. Which is it? If people want to abuse me - or send death threats to people who know me as they did last week - they could at least keep a consistent narrative --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with you, Guy. VCHunter's contributions look a lot like he/she/it wishes, fairly singlemindedly, to shoehorn Jonathan Bishop into articles. Rather than flannel and misdirection, Jonathan, you could usefully state one way or another whether VCHunter is one of your accounts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "VCHunter is one of your accounts" - clearly if there is anyone on Wikipedia that does something to my benefit then they must be me because it seems the whole world wants to make me suffer one detriment or another. In fact, no VCHunter is not "one of my accounts." Maybe I should write to my MP and ask them to pass a law to make it illegal for anyone to do anything that might be to my benefit and introduce a defence to any crime that it is fine to do it if the person it is being done to is me. That way no one will edit Wikipedia to refer to any of my work in a positive way because they would so afraid in case they are caught --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a matter of standard practice, in cases like this sockpuppets and meatpuppets are generally treated as one anyway. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * : And why did you remove them? You removed them because you do not like the fact that I have been helping people recover from cyberbullying from radical skeptics. Bullshit. I removed them because I concluded they were WP:REFSPAM. And your comments here have pretty much confirmed it, thanks. I didn't even bother checking the fake institutional affiliation and other problems with them: the fact that crocels is not a WP:RS was enough. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The majority of the sources are primary sources. See Character_theory_(media). Recommending AFD or merge to Personality type. QuackGuru ( talk ) 01:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So where the ones referring to my character theory! The reason they were removed by Guy was out of malice. The fact you are called talk  suggests to me you have the same WP:COI which is you want to cause me serious harm because I dared help people who were cyberbullied by Dr Andrew Lewis --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If these websites are making false claims that they are associated with a University and we can reliably show they are false, then whether they are primary or not isn't as important as the fact that they are unreliable. If they are continuously added to articles, I would suggest blacklisting them as spam, as the intent is to sell an idea using a fraudulent premise to lend credibility to those claims.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What you fail to realise is it is being claimed I added these references when I did not. Stop accusing me of things you have no proof of. Prove I have made these edits. You cannot because I have not! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you didn't make this edit?? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I made that edit, with my own account. I have not made the edits that Guy claims I have though. I don't think WP:COI applied in that case because I was adding a page to a company that has a separate legal identity from me and I did not try to claim that this system should be seen as above all the other applications listed there. The Q-Methodology community is a close-knit one without the competitiveness seen in other disciplines. Everyone knows each other. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The COI guidelines cover a wide range of relationships, not merely being the specific legal entity that is invoked. That edit is a clear example of COI, as are the edits where you reinsert material about yourself to articles (and that is true whether or not some other also has a COI.) I suggest that you carefully review the COI guidelines to better understand what is being addressed here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I could name to you a Canadian Professor who uses a sockpuppet account to edit his own Wikipedia entry. However, because that professor is not called "Jonathan Bishop" I'm sure what he is doing does not breach WP:COI --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are free to review the archives of this noticeboard and see that we do, indeed, find many people in breach of the COI guidelines who among them have a wide variety of names. If you wish to bring up COI concerns on this noticeboard regarding that supposed Canadian professor, I would recommend reviewing the rules at WP:OUTING before doing so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will do, and I will check and the same time whether this conversation falls within WP:OUTING because Guy has tried to claim accounts that are not mine are me. Is there are policy for determining whether an account is a sockpuppet account that runs in parallel to WP:OUTING? If there is I think Guy should have followed this before assuming accounts that are not mine are linked with mine as it is quite clear he has attempted to out accounts that are not mine as if they are --Jonathan Bishop(talk) 17:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I did what you said Nat Gertler and it was reverted. It seems when others like Guy make allegations about me it is not outing but when I do it is! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I shall try to be clearer in the future. You should review and follow the rules at WP:OUTING. You claimed that because he had typed a name, that means that he outed himself; I have typed your name several times now, and am not claiming to be you. Any "bobby did it first" excuses are things I would not accept from my school-aged children; don't expect them to be taken seriously here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also while this is a COI/N and we will consider COI issues, the particular issue surrounding those websites isn't dependent on people adding them having a COI. If the website is unreliable it shouldn't be used as a source no matter who adds it. (Now if the website is being added by people with a COI, that may suggest a block of these editors if they keep up at it, but that's just in addition.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The removal of me from Character theory (media) and whatever other pages I was on is in effect WP:Wikihounding by proxy by Guy. Guy thinks all the pages he has removed me from were edited by me using sockpuppets, when this is not the case. He holds a gripe that my professional life has included helping people who have been bullied by people he supports. So even though I did not add myself to all the articles he has removed me form he has broken WP:Wikihounding because he assumed I did and that was why he removed me from them. Either Guy should provide evidence I edited these pages or he should revert all the edits he made in bad faith, contrary to WP:AGF. Guy is the one with the WP:COI not me. It was Guy that removed references to me because of his devotion to Dr Andrew Lewis and other skeptics. Guy has not acted in an objective manner. Guy has systematically removed mentions of me by claiming I am using several sockpuppet accounts that I have not! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Literally no one here is going to do anything about the material about you/your pet theory being removed from articles when it was sourced to your own website - a site that has in the past falsely claimed association with a University to the point where the University had to cease and desist you, its fringe/non notable material of zero impact. You also insist on claiming harrassment/bullying when no reasonable person would consider it such. To the point where you mightily resemble Garden/Paris. Even should Guy in some fit of mania decide to reinstate the material, I and any number of other editors (who are now aware of it because you have escalated this beyond all necessary reason) would rip it out again with the same justification. You need to do 3 things - learn what a reliable independant secondary source is, find one to support the material you wish added to the article, propose its inclusion on the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To help abbreviate a long argument I foresee occurring about five years from now, it's likely that more than just one supporting source will be needed, giving the likelihood that any one source provided will be a borderline phony paper in a cryptovanity journal.  E Eng  06:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for me to know which pages referred to me and thus which I was removed from unless I go through each one of Guy's edits. The only pages I knew I was on was the Character theory and Cyberbullying page. You can see from the Cyberbullying page I was removed by Guy saying it was self promotion. It is my view that Guy is saying I am editing with an account I have never used so he can remove any mention that has been made of me on Wikipedia. He is removing content he things I added not because he cares about the integrity of Wikipedia but probably because he wants to get at me because I helped a couple overcome the abuse they suffered by a skeptic whom he knows --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you cannot be bothered to actually find the edits that you are apparently complaining about, you should at least take a real look at the one edit you linked to and specified. In the edit summary, Guy is not "saying it was self promotion" as you claim; the edit summary is solely "WP:SELFPUB", which is a comment on the reliability of a source that was linked to in the deleted material, where a document placed on jonathanbishop.com was being used as a reference. It is not a comment on the editor who placed the material. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To avoid any doubt, this and your earlier statements means you are explicitly saying that you are not and, is that correct? Are you also saying you have not used any other accounts besides  and editing anonymously (without signing in) to edit wikipedia? P.S. I'm not sure if anyone actually thinks your the same editor as DigitalDisconnect, but it's useful to get that out of the way since it appears you are volunteering that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I am saying! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not Jonathan Bishop, and have never been him either. I do not appreciate my edits being removed from people who assume I am and have a personal vendetta. --VCHunter (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A bit of calm is indicated here. Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor and has no idea how Wikipedia really works. That's not unusual. To Mr. Bishop: what's going on here is this. Wikipedia is very widely read, and many people trying to promote their business, product, or self try to put material into Wikipedia which appears promotional. Wikipedia does not allow this. If it did, it would read like PR Newswire and would be useless. So Wikipedia has defenses against promotion. One of them is this Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. There are regulars here who deal with what looks like promotion, editing articles to achieve more of a neutral point of view backed by reliable sources. Both of those terms have specific meanings on Wikipedia, established after years of argument. See WP:NPOV and WP:RS. There are also policies against editing articles about your own work. See WP:COI. The people who are dealing with your issue here are not harassing you. Most of them have probably never heard of you. It's just a routine part of the Wikipedia process that makes Wikipedia a useful curated encyclopedia rather than a collection of random junk. You might have more success writing for Medium, and like anyone else, you can promote your ideas on Reddit or various blogs. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Either I am a new editor or I use sockpuppets to self-promote - which is it? Any references I have made to my own work with my Jonathan Bishop account are open and transparent. It seems that Wikipedia operates a different conflict of interest policy to the dozen or so professional bodies I am a member of who are more concerned about not acting in a way to other's detriment for oneself, friends or associates. The fact that Guy has acted not in the interests of WP:COI but solely to get at me would breach my professional bodies codes of conduct, even though it seems what he has done to make me suffer a detriment for malicious reasons linked to accounts that are not mine seems to be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * '' Clearly, Mr. Bishop is a new editor...
 * "No" to the former, since his first edit was in January of 2006. I think ten-and-a-half years is long past the point of calling someone "new".


 * ...and has no idea how Wikipedia really works
 * No argument there. See his contributions at:
 * Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (2nd nomination) (August 2008)
 * Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination) (Sept 2008)
 * Articles for deletion/Circle of Friends (social network) (Sept 2008)
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive51 (August 2008)
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_26 (Sept 2008)
 * Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_67 (January 2010)
 * Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73 - (April 2014)

Also informative: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive174


 * So why do you think your explanation will work this time, as opposed to all the other times it hasn't sunk in? --Calton | Talk 07:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it is time Mr. Bishop was shown the door. His differently-rational assertions of malice as the only possible justification for removing his vanity text is, for me, the clincher. This is not someone who is here to build a great encyclopaedia, it's someone who is here to boost his reputation. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You removed content produced by accounts that are not mine thinking they are. You are still referring to my "vanity text." I know it might be inconceivable that there are people out there who care what I have to say, but you had no right to unilaterally remove content posted by accounts you believe were connected without first establishing whether those accounts were connected. You cannot prove those accounts are mine so you should not have sought to diminish other's contributions relating to me without proof they were self-promotion. For something to be "self" promotion it has to be done by oneself. They accounts you are claiming are mine are not, therefore it cannot be self-promotion but other-promotion, if that! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Notes: Yes, Bishop is not a new editor. I should have checked that. AN/I just took a look at this (see WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents), decided Bishop was forum-shopping, and sent the problem back here. So we have to deal with it, which means fixing the content problems.
 * Over at Talk:Personality_type, I proposed merging Character theory (media) into Personality Type. One opposed vote comments that this would make a mess of Personality type, which is a high-importance article. They have a point. Looking at the Character theory (media) article again, it seems to combine two unrelated subjects - characters in literature and user behavior in online environments. The main article for the first is Character (arts).  That starts with Aristotle and goes forward.  It could be expanded a bit, perhaps using the types of characters already listed at Vladimir_Propp. There's no definitive list of literary character types; various sources list from 4 to 16 types. Anyway, the literary angle should be covered at Character (arts). That's a standard topic students are assigned to study, so we need to be clear and mainstream there.
 * Once the literary angle has been dealt with, user behavior in online situations may deserve mention. There are lots of Wikipedia articles about "users" in various contexts. Not sure where this fits. There's Cyberbullying, which might be relevant. Comment? John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, vanity text. Your pet theory which you edit warred to include alongside theories by credentialled academics - it's that edit warring and this argumentation that make it vanity. As to whether there are people who care what you have to say, I have no opinion. All I know is that nobody has written about it on Wikipedia other than you and a couple of your mates. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did some work on character roles at Character (arts). There's already an article on character theory: Actant. These articles now cover the literature-related material from Character theory (media). Do we still need that article? Comments?  --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Goffman section from Character theory (media), as after inspection I fail to find anything even close to this in Presentation of Self.... You have dealt with Propp. Bartle has its own article. I have added Campbell et al to Online_community. That being the case, I give you Articles for deletion/Character theory (media). --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Other accounts
In the second AfD, the following editors !voted Keep: I do not think these are socks, but I do think they are associates of Bishop. Politicool, for example, promoted an agenda against a Welsh politician citing Bishop's websites:. Politicool's 11th edit, less than 24h after his first, was a Keep !vote on an AfD for the article on Bishop:. Politicool also made non-NPOV edits including to WP:BLPs citing Bishop, e.g.: ,. Politicool added Bishop's work to two high profile articles on legislation:,. I believe that Politicool and Bishop are associates, and it was Politicool's ref spamming that I found first when reviewing the links to crocels. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (WP:SPA)
 * (WP:SPA)
 * (WP:SPA)
 * For the record, as a former SPI guy, I did some research on those and agree they are more likely associates, and not likely to be the same person. There is too little meatpuppet on that bone to worry ourselves with it as the amount of real crossover approaches zero.  The behavior is the core issue, and I'm beginning to agree with Guy's assessment above.  This is starting to look like an issue of WP:NOTHERE, with the unfounded attacks on Guy being a prime example, and his contribs backing that up.  I would also like more consideration on simply blacklisting that unreliable website, which would prevent future issues.  I think there is valid reason (and likely support) to do so.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And consider the most recent edits from which cite Bishop: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. There are more but I stopped at four. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, all I have done is point out that Guy removed content relating to me in order to get at me. Guy motives are not in the spirit of Wikipedia's rules they are malicious towards me because I have helped victims of one of his heros - Dr Andrew Lewis --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "It seems the whe world wants to make me suffer" -- can we all just go back to ANI and ban this prickly?  E Eng  17:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A ban isn't warranted. I'm debating unilaterally blocking. I'm more interesting in blacklisting the website first, something that would need more support.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are going to ban someone because they have strongly criticised the way they have been intended to be treated by another user? Guy's intentions have not been to act in the interests of Wikipedia but to bully me because my professional life involved helping someone bullied by Dr Andrew Lewis whom he identifies with. Even if this were not the case, the fact is that Guy has removed content placed by accounts that are not mine because he thought they were. He has removed the content of accounts that are not me using allegations of sockpuppetry that he cannot substantiate. Are you saying there is no process for editors to establish accounts are sockpuppets before they unilaterally remove content they believe is self-promotion even though they have no proof the accounts are linked or connected with the person they believe is self-promoting? --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is it. And the accounts don't have to be linked to be self-promoting or promoting.  They are separate issues. I'm trying to figure out why I shouldn't block you under WP:NOTHERE, particularly when I've read that Swansea says you have no part of their school, and I see you claiming it  in more places than your website, which you are trying to use as a source.  I'm about at 95% towards blocking you and just being done with it, but wanted to hear why I shouldn't, what you have contributed besides links to your own work.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The editor in question has announced his intention to abandon Wikipedia on my talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Keep your encyclopedia to yourself - it doesn't deserve to be associated with me in any way whatsoever," sayeth the great man. Finally he's getting some clue.  E Eng  20:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That has no real effect here. People claim they are leaving, then come back all the time.  Not saying that he is using it to evade sanction, but it is done regularly.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I still thought it worth noting in terms of setting expectations of response from him, and pointing to it as it was not where on would normally look for a resignation announcement. He has continued to post to my talk page since. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you make sure all my domains are permanently blocked so they can never be used ever? Thanks --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That isn't how it works. We don't just blacklist on your request.  I was talking about blacklisting one deceptive website. Any blacklisting will be done per our standard methods, we aren't a jukebox.  And for the record, I have NO idea who you, although you seem to think you are pretty darn important.  I have no idea if Guy does.  This "Wikipedia is out to get me" is a bit of self-aggrandizement.  You haven't been treated any different than anyone else doing what you are doing.  With all due respect, you need to get over yourself.  We have editors who really ARE someone outside of these walls.  They get treated the same as everyone else.  You aren't a special little snowflake here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works. The sites that Guy removed meet the criteria for WP:RS to at least the same standard as others on that page. I don't want you linking to any of my websites. If some of my content is not good enough for you then from my point of view none of it should be! If I wasn't notable enough for you in 2009 then from my point of view I never should be! Crocels's publications at at the standard of other academic organisations with ISBN numbers and ISSN numbers. If they are not good enough for Wikipedia in 2016 then in my view they never should be! My current CV is equivalent to that of most Associate Professors and start-up entrepreneurs so if I am not good enough for Wikipedia between 2009 and 2016 then I never should be! --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a simple matter of fact, no the don't. Not even close. You have provided only one thing of value to Wikipedia: you have alerted me to the fact that IGI Global is a print-on-demand vanity press, which gives me another list of crap sources to clear out. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're telling us how "it" works???  E Eng  20:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So Alexa's 980,616th ranked website is too good for the 6th ranked? Okay, got it.  If you are leaving before you get blocked, now is a good time.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Guy, you know all the material, can you craft a list of topics for a tban at WP:AN, as well as filter out a few choice diffs? I can review and will personally make the proposal there since I'm uninvolved. It would include "in all spaces" but I can sweat the nomenclature, that's what I do.  My talk page is fine.  A tban at WP:AN is guaranteed to stick whereas a block can be debated or lifted by a single admin.  I'm not going to debate any more, it's a fools errand.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Columbo moment
Just one more thing...



The plot thickens. Or perhaps congeals would be a better word. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the connection at first glance. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of cites to Bishop, and blocked for personal attacks after a retaliatory removal of content. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sanction proposal

 * Please leave this section for use of admins collecting evidence for presentation. Comment in a section below. Thank you.

Users affected:

Topic area:
 * Online harassment and trolling, broadly construed.
 * Any citation to Jonathan Bishop, by name, or through his various websites.

Diffs for Jonathanbishop:
 * In mainspace: reinserts self-published material removed by others; retaliatory removal (WP:POINT). Self-citing:.
 * WP:ABF when his pet theory is removed: 2014, 2016. Establishes that this is a long-term behaviour.
 * See user contributions for evidence of edits suppressed due to outing, in obvious and admitted (see ) retaliation.
 * WP:NPA: (noting edit summary),, ,
 * Bishop rarely edits articles at all, at least under his own name and in fact he has come to admin attention only as a result of his spectacularly inappropriate reaction to removal of his name from an article.

Diffs for VCHunter:
 * ,, , , (last 3 are consecutive edits to mainspace, three separate articles, all promoting Bishop), then a hiatus for over a year followed by these first edits in 2010: , , , et. seq. Only two mainspace edits in 2011, this is one: . Another hiatus, first edit back: , followed by  spamming Bishop's websites, and so on and so on, continuing to his last mainspace edits  and

Postscript
Bishop is trying to bleasure the Wikimedia Foundation:. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Shocking. As a so-called "expert" in Internet Trolling we shouldn't be surprised that he is good at trolling. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He's also preparing a special editiong of his International Journal of Me, Me, Me, It's All About Me: . Guy (Help!) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe he's just inspired by Doofenshmirtz! <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 02:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)