Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23

Paul Wall
A user editing under name claims to be the father of the rapper Paul Wall and is changing the birth name and date of the biographical article contrary to what reliable sources have cited. I have tried finding whatever claims that "Otherbrothergideon" has put up, and so far no reliable source relays them. Thus, I have warned the editor about the "conflict of interest". Chances are that this user may be an impersonator. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did the right thing. Given he's been at this over a year and seems persistent, I might point him towards OTRS which can better evaluate his identity, etc.  MBisanz  talk 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the user needs to be blocked for a while because he just hacked the Paul Wall page again today, as he has done far too many times. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Actually, if you'd like to assist the user, go to the editor assitance area. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

National Taxpayers Union
- appears to be editing from the organization itself. See also, which is almost undoubtedly NTUwikiproject given the timing of their edits. WHOIS confirms that 70.90.81.61 is used by the National Taxpayers Union. NTUwikiproject continues to edit the article without discussion despite two COI notices on his talk page. · jersyko   talk  18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No edits after second notice. No anon IPs either, so maybe they got the message.  MBisanz  talk 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlson Wagonlit Travel


- Linked-In says Jerome Marinovic is Carlson's Global e-Media Director. This user is reverting to a version of the Carlson Wagonlit Travel with lines like "CWT is dedicated to helping companies of all sizes, government institutions and non-government organizations, optimize their travel program and provide best-in-class service and assistance to travelers. By leveraging the talents and know-how of its people and providing leading-edge technology, CWT helps clients around the world drive savings while enhancing service and security." Warned for both WP:SPAM and WP:COI. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

User:ArborBooks
is a WP:SPA responsible for Oasis Entertainment (along with ) and Derrick Ashong. The latter has had speedy declined under db-bio, and there is a potential notability argument, but in present form the article is pretty much vanispamcruftisement, and the Oasis article isn't a lot better. --Dhartung | Talk 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure why Oasis Entertainment isn't being speedied for recreation of deleted material - the deletion was by AfD for lack of reliable references, and all the references in the "new" version are just self-written press releases. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have noted also that some of the referenced press releases are written by an author called "Arbor Books". Am tagging the user's page with a COI tag, and think that should resolve this problem for now. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ashong is notable - I've rewritten the article. Neıl ☎  13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Artist May be Editing His Own Article
A user named User:Julio Ducuron has redid some editing I did some time ago [|here]. I have reverted because if the user is in fact the artist in question, then it would be a rather blatant example of WP:Conflict of Interest. I have left a note on the user's talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. :) Zidel333 (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article appears to be closely based on this biography at World Art Gallery. With due caution about systemic bias (i.e he shouldn't be viewed as non-notable simply because he works primarily in Argentina) he really needs assessment for notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He appears notable due to his museum presence (although this would need verification). He's had some museums shows outside of Argentina, in Italy and the US. This would need more sourcing, as I'm guessing there's not much in English. The article itself needs some major editing.  freshacconci  speak to me  02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems he hasn't edited since the COI warning and I don't see a suspicious IP edits afterward either. Maybe just a spot on someone's watchlist for the future and some nice copyediting tags?  MBisanz  talk 08:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

American Apparel
→ See also : WP:ANI discussion Potential COI / sockpuppets / meatpuppets again at American Apparel



Executive employees of American Apparel repeatedly edit, and edit war, in articles for their own company and its founder to add PR-style marketing fluff and downplay sourced reports of sexual harassment lawsuits, sexual activity, and a unionization fight at their American factory, and criticism of sexuality in advertising, months after being caught doing this before and being sternly warned not to do it again. When caught, express contempt for Wikipedia, its policies and editors, and vow to continue. They seem to be operating sockpuppets and/or engaging meatpuppets as well. Please see Suspected sock puppets/American Apparel and Talk:American Apparel for additional information and evidence. Wikidemo (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is further information on American Apparel in a thread at AN/I. EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Björn Again


is replacing this brief article with an even briefer " the reduced definitive history without outdated incorrect info" and appears to be identifying himself in an edit summary as Rod Liessle, listed in the pre-existing article as a co-founder. John Tyrrell's role as co-founder gets written out although it seems to be widely documented. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted a uw-coi warning on User talk:Caymanarosa. That single-purpose account seriously butchered the article, which needs to be restored.  — Athaenara  ✉  06:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Postscript: I reverted Caymanarosa and added two citations. — Athaenara  ✉  06:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Caymanarosa is a YouTuber (profile). — Athaenara  ✉  07:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tegan Summer


This looks like self-promotional editing. Nesodak (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles tagged and user cautioned.  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tegan Summer Productions. I'm not sure about the notability/verifiability of Tegan Summer or his TV show. MER-C 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He looks notable, maybe just lacking sources and the show I'm on the fence about. Its not a huge COI and could be notable.   MBisanz  talk 23:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm working with the user to vet his sources and assertions.

Clarification of COI policy
I would like to start an article on the Three Dimensional Black Board. I would like clarification first on policy to make sure that I won't be violating any Conflict of Interest Policy. Your comments on the matter are appreciated in advance. Phineas J. Whoopee (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have reason to believe that you may have a conflict-of-interest? If so, what is the basis for said belief?  If you are in doubt, it might be best to err on the side of caution and ask, instead, that the article be written by someone else.  This can be done here. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 3DBB and Professor Phineas J. Whoopee are from Tennessee Tuxedo and His Tales. One Night In Hackney  303  09:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Three Rs (website)--anyone care to comment on this situation?
→ See also : Articles for deletion/The Three Rs (Website)
 * user
 * user
 * user

I recently posted the following to the related VfD: "Dee4leeds and Melaisis wrote the article. The article is about a blog where Dee4leeds and Melaisis are two of the main contributors. The article not only mentions Dee4leeds and Melaisis, but links to their Wikipedia user pages. Then, when the article is nominated for deletion, the only KEEP votes thus far come from--ta-da--Dee4leeds and Melaisis. This should be archived as a tutorial example of WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

SubCulture (webcomic)


A clear case of conflict-of-interest as Kfreeman13 is almost certainly Kevin Freeman, the creator of the webcomic in question. Complicating the matter, it seems, is the question of whether the webcomic even meets Wikipedia's standards for notability of such material. The conflict-of-interest and self-promotional nature of the article, however, are rather clear. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  02:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

KSEE
Ran across an odd edit war on a California TV station article that has apparently going for months under the radar. (possibly Geoff Roth, the news director who is mentioned in the article) and have been reverting each other since January on whether an anchor named Bud Elliott resigned or was "forced out". Possibly a candidate for WP:LAME. Nesodak (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Mitch Gaylord
Resolved.

Update:
 * (25 Feb 2008)
 * (17 March 2008)
 * (2007)
 * (2006)
 * (22 March 2008)

seems to be under the tight control of Gaylord himself and someone close to him. A recent edit was reverted with this explanation:

"Mitch & I keep having to update this information. Why does anyone change it?"

Also, the article reads like an ad for Gaylord's commercial website and his wife's as well.63.202.124.213 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Recent edits in response to this notice have just been reverted with the following explanation: "Mitch & Valentina Gaylord updated this page. Please stop changing it."63.202.124.213 (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a uw-coi notice for the main account, Fitness4fun, with an invitation to participate here. Barek left a COI notice for, the most recent IP editor. Gaylord, as an Olympic medalist, is notable enough to deserve an article. As of this exact moment, the article looks OK to me. We'll need to reason with the COI-affected editors if they won't stop beautifying. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The user returned under a new IP. I warned them again on the new IP's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All the IP edits in 2008 appear to be COI edits and are adding inappropriate material. The logged-in editor, Fitness4fun, has not resumed work. How do people feel about a month of semi-protection to defeat the COI editing by IPs, and allow this report to be closed? I doubt that blocking the IPs would do much. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best option available. The IP edits appear to be a single user, but using a dynamic IP address, so it's impossible to get their attention on this issue.  At the frequency of their edits, I suspect a two-week semi-protection should be adequate, but I have no major objection to extending it to a month to be safe.  I agree that blocking the IPs wouldn't be effective, and would risk impacting unrelated editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. 3 weeks of semi-protection as a compromise between our two recommendations. Will resolve this complaint, but reopen it if COI editing resumes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sobolsoft
The sole employee of Sobelsoft wants to pay someone to get an article on Wikipedia about the company.

http://spam.sobolsoft.com http://spam.petersobol.com

Spammer:

Most likely article title:

I'd expect to see this "article" some time in early April. See original RentACoder post. MER-C 09:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's here. Speedy delete was contested: I've created Articles for deletion/Sobolsoft on grounds of failure to demonstrate notability via reliable independent sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And... spam request withdrawn after the spammer (above) was "unable to work on the project". Not quite resolved yet, as the "article" needs to be deleted. MER-C 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency)


In this edit on March 3, IP editor replaced the entirety of the article Harry and Louise with a rewritten version that replaced the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removed both sources/citations and the reference section, and removed a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiablity problems as well as the obvious COI.

The IP address 66.208.15.194 is registered to GC Strategic Advocacy, a part of ad agency Goddard Claussen, who created the commercial and own the Harry and Louise characters.

I reverted the edits several times, with a COI warning. Then the same word-for-word rewrite was made by whom I assume to be either the same editor or someone else from Goddard Claussen. A discussion ensued on her user talk page, focusing on COI, removal of sources and sourced material, and article style and format.

Since I was involved in writing and sourcing the article, and reverted to my own language, I have refrained from any administrative action regarding this (blocking either user or protecting the article), however, I believe this needs some administrative attention. --MCB (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Hilarykoehl responded on her user talk page with the following:


 * There is absolutely no conflict of interest here. The article is written from a NPOV and does not endorse anyone or any company. It simply states the facts. I asked for help in referencing it because I could not get the references to display properly. I can cite every sentence in my revision as fact, and will happly do so. Unforunately, you feel the need to revert back to your version of the article which remains factually inaccurate, and portrays each company in a specific view. There are two major fact errors in the article, and other minor ones. Furthermore, I find it appalling that you would place my IP address for all to see with a company that doesn't even exist - I do not work for GC Strategic Ventures, have never heard of it, and frankly, couldn't find a reference to it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilarykoehl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My response:
 * You have a conflict of interest because you work for, worked for, or have an affiliation with Goddard Claussen, the creator of the Harry and Louise commercials. ("Hilary Koehl ’03 is a communications consultant for Goddard Claussen Strategic Advocacy in Washington, D.C."). The IP address 66.208.15.194, which made the previous rewrite which is nearly word-for-word identical to your draft, is registered to the organization "GC Strategic Advocacy", which is part of Goddard Claussen. Having a conflict of interest is one thing; attempting to deny it when the record clearly shows otherwise is a serious breach of Wikipedia ethics and conduct guidelines and may lead to a block or ban. --MCB (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Hilarykoehl changed her username to Hkr13 on March 24, possibly in an attempt to conceal her identity as a Goddard Claussen employee, or disassociate her COI edits from her name. --MCB (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Crystal08 request re: COI issue


I am a new user seeking help with a COI issue. I recently read the article on The Hunger Project, which is, in my opinion, poorly sourced and POV. For transparency, I established a username Thpcomm and described myself as an employee of The Hunger Project to make it clear that the COI guideline would apply to any edits I made. With an administrator’s help, I changed my username to Crystal08 to comply with the naming standards and announced on The Hunger Project talk page that I am the same user as Thpcomm.

I made edits to the introductory sections and infotable of the article that I believe are non-controversial and make those sections more accurate and well-sourced. Although another editor of the article and an administrator commented favorably on these changes, two users reverted the edits to the previous inaccurate and poorly sourced versions solely because of “COI.” This appears inconsistent with both the COI guidelines, which permit editing (especially of non-controversial material) and the arbitration decision (Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger/Proposed_decision) covering the article.

I would appreciate if a neutral editor would assist in editing to help make this article accurate, well-sourced and NPOV and consistent with all WP standards.Crystal08 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeffer72
- repeated addition of fan club links in various singer articles, such as Kenny Chesney, Los Lonely Boys, etc. These fan clubs all require registration to view their content, and thus seem to be in direct violation of WP:EL. Editor has made no other edits outside of link addition, and claims in edit summaries to be a representative of singers' fan clubs too -- clear indication of COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and his followers
Hi all,

A while back, through a convoluted series of events, I somehow became the steward of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi--an article concerning a fairly little-known religious figure that has a small band of devotees. The organization founded by Shahi, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam (ASI, currently up for AfD), has been making concerted efforts to increase its profile and that of Shahi across Wikimedia projects.

Users (the "Press & Information Secretary" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) &  ("office bearer" of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) are clearly organization officials. also appears to be a devotee. Between them, these editors have created a variety of articles that concern the religious following of Shahi, very transparently promoting their religious order. I am far too unfamiliar with the topics to confidently evaluate each, but they all likely suffer from WP:V, WP:NPOV & WP:N deficiencies--I've not yet been able to get these folks to fully grasp our policies and guidelines. I've tried to enlist help from the Islam wikiproject, but I think the subject may be too esoteric to gather much interest. Here's a list of articles that are worth checking out for these concerns: The organization like to claim a large international presence, but given their meager presence in reliable sources, it's unlikely they number very greatly. They've certainly been busy creating articles everywhere they can (see Phaedriel's comment here and all the versions of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi authored in other languages by the same accounts). Can I get a little help reigning this in? &mdash; Scientizzle 22:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Deen-e-Illahi
 * Menara-e-Noor
 * Baba Gohar Shah
 * Dhakir
 * Laal Bagh
 * Qadri Al-Muntahi

[Header redacted]
This was only hurting the subject of the article, something we should avoid. Given the high-profile nature of this page (including its' archives) and its' search engine rank, we should give consideration to this fact and move any further discussion, if needed, to user talk pages. The previous contents of the thread, which could be considered "resolved", can be viewed here.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Garson
I noticed that has added a number of articles related to musician Mike Garson (album articles, discography and the like). I tagged some of these with notability concerns, and posted a COI warning on the user's talk page. I'm not sure whether anything further is required, but I wanted to let you know. --B. Wolterding (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on CAMERA sourced to CAMERA's office
→ See also : Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-20 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America



Gni has been edit-warring on the CAMERA article quite heavily lately. Gni's reverts against consensus resulted in a 3RR block. Gni also edited under IP 67.158.119.138, which ARIN shows as belonging to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Gni acknowledged editing under that IP here. Gni has also edited the CAMERA article under the IP 24.91.135.162, a Boston IP (CAMERA HQ is in Boston). Upon returning from the 3RR block, Gni began a round of contentious edits on the Joseph Massad article, attempting to again insert the CAMERA position.

CAMERA/this editor seem to have a clear conflict of interest on on the CAMERA article. A review of other edits by Gni show an effort to often contentiously insert CAMERA reports into those articles and the CAMERA POV in general, e.g., here, here, here, here, here (a CAMERA associate), etc.

Beyond the apparent serious COI, this editor, working on behalf of CAMERA, has been fairly disruptive. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea that the first letter of someone's first name and last two letters of someone's last name reveals the identity of a Wikipedia author when cross-referenced against their Wikipedia pseudonym is a bit of a stretch. But putting that aside, I will point out that Wikipedia's policy, expressed on the COI page, is that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." Gni (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will also add that I strongly deny that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest. It in no way shows that I don't "place the interests of the encyclopedia first," and indeed, the history of my edits and thorough comments on various discussion pages -- even if Boodlesthecat is personally opposed to my edits -- show a consistent adherence to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines, which seems to be the relevant and determinative factor. Moreover, Boodlesthecat seems to believe that he has the right to unilaterally ban my contributions (see this diff, even though this clearly violates the principle that "using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon." Should he not desist from reverting reasonable edits, which had been discussed and argued over long before this round of disputes (including by NYScholar, who initiated this change and whose edits and discussion make quite clear that he's no cheerleader for CAMERA), by claiming COI? Especially since this issue has yet to be resolved in various COI forums? Gni (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing my Wikipedia log-in identity referenced above, I want to make clear that I have not been actively involved in editing the article CAMERA since approx. 29 November 2006. Gni came to my talk page last week and posted a message to me which is currently now archived in my talk page archive 20 at the following link: User talk:NYScholar/Archive 20.  Gni--Gni) (talk)--expressed understanding about the fact that I have no current interest in or time to participate in editing this article (see my "N.B." on my current talk page); he asked that I explain my ref. to "diffs.", which I took the time to do.  Please do not make reference to me as an ally in this dispute.  I am not involved in any way with it.  I have not edited the page since approx. 27-29 October 2006 (over a year and a half ago  now)--which I found when replying to Gni's request last week; and one other time around 29 November 2006, which I just located.  See the "diffs." (posted in my archive page 20 reply to Gni) and diffs. (which I just located).  After I archived my recent exchange w/ Gni (in my talk archive 20), it appears that Gni deleted all of the content from Gni's own current talk page; it is now only accessible in its history: history.  (As requested in my archived talk page 20 exchanged): Please do not involve me in this COI report/editing dispute.  I do not have the interest or time to deal with any of it.  Thank you.
 * Please take it easy. I did not describe you as an an ally. (In fact I clearly suggested above that we tended not to agree on content.) But your edits and discussion are, and should be, part of the record, and shouldn't be ignored when it suits certain editors. That said, you certainly shouldn't feel obliged to weigh in on this current absurdity.Gni (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [If Gni does work with or at the organization CAMERA and if Gni is editing it at times from a CAMERA IP, and if Gni may have a "conflict of interest" (COI) with editing this Wikipedia article about it, then there is an appropriate template for indicating that. Perhaps it should be added to top of the article.  See Template:COI .  Just a suggestion.  For discussion by others see above and below.] --NYScholar (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [If the language used in the section heading "Praise and criticism" is leading to edit warring, perhaps a more neutral heading, like "Perspectives on CAMERA", could be a viable replacement? (See Talk:CAMERA and CAMERA:#Praise and criticism, currently featuring a template indicating such a problem.)] --NYScholar (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [Directly after I posted the above suggestion, I see that the section heading has been changed to Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, so the above link to "Praise and criticism" no longer goes directly to the section. I would still suggest "Perspectives on CAMERA" over "Views on CAMERA", which is not idiomatic English (It is "views of" not "views on" in idiomatic English.).]--NYScholar (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) [But "Views of CAMERA" would be ambiguous; therefore, "Perspectives on CAMERA" is, I believe, both more idiomatically correct and clearer. --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)]
 * Ah serendipity, just saw your suggestion while making the rounds on all the places this drama is posted. Agreed "Perspectives on..." is better (more woody sort of word, as Monty Python would say), will do. Thanks for you suggestions. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Record
Boodlesthecat, I think this is starting to get a bit silly. I predominantly stand accused of adding material from CAMERA to an article about... CAMERA? It sounds like I'm being charged with trying to expand and improve the article. Guilty as charged. The remaining few examples you found here show that at various times in the past 2 years, I've added to articles commentary by CAMERA directly relevant to the topic of the article. As I've mentioned on various other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade against me, I welcome all to study the entire history of my output. They will find a)it's hardly limited to using material from this (legitimate) source; and more importantly, b) it lies firmly within the policies, guidelines and spirit of Wikipedia. Gni (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How many "other COI forums" are there? I'd be interested to see what I've posted on them. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my relative lack of familiarity with these more-advanced Wikipedia pages. I meant to convey that you've raised this charge here, on the Admin noticeboard, and on the discussion pages of the CAMERA article. Gni (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you brought it to the admin noticeboard, not me, so please don;t make false claims of "other COI forums here on which you've launched your crusade"--I brought it to the proper forum--after you denied working for CAMERA. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gni wrote above "I will also add that I strongly deny that I have been editing on behalf of CAMERA. Additionally, if I had edited a couple times from a computer with an IP address listed as CAMERA, this in no way proves a conflict of interest." I'm not sure what to make of that. --John Nagle (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure either what to make of it either given his resuming his pro-CAMERA edit warring again either. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to know how to respond to Boodlesthecat, a relentless edit-warrior, accusing others of edit warring. It's truly Orwellian. As to Nagle's question, what I meant is exactly what I said. I suggest the two of you closely read WP:COI.Gni (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

An email that may be relevant
> Subject: CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia > > Shalom CAMERA E-Mail Team: > > What if you could ensure accuracy and fairness directly in > one of the Internet's most visited Web sites, without relying > on reporters, editors or publishers? In fact, you can. > >  > > Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia site, can > be edited by anyone. The idea behind Wikipedia is that if > thousands of well-meaning and informed volunteers collaborate > on an online encyclopedia, the result would be more accurate, > up-to-date and inclusive than any print encyclopedia could > possibly be. > > The bad news is this allows anti-Israel "editors" to > introduce all kinds of bias and error into the many > Israel-related articles, even the entry on CAMERA. The good > news is, individual volunteers can work as "editors" to > ensure that these articles are free of bias and error, and > include necessary facts and context. Assuring accuracy and > impartiality in Wikipedia is extremely important. If someone > searches for "Israel" on the Google search engine, for > example, the top result returned by Google would be the >   > > Wikipedia page on Israel. > > CAMERA seeks 10 volunteers to help us keep Israel-related > entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel > editors. All it takes to be an effective volunteer is a basic > comfort level with computers. Call or email me, and I will > train you on how to become a volunteer Wikipedia editor. > >  > > gilead@camera.org  or call 617-789-3672 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.111.245 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the above email is genuine, Wikipedia may have a problem with the CAMERA organization and not just with editor Gni. They appear to be doing off-wiki solicitation of people who will contribute to Wikipedia to offset the work of those they term 'anti-Israel editors.' I may be jumping to conclusions since the email is not attested, but it may deserve a posting at WP:AN if this can be shown to be real. It appears to be a form of manipulation of Wikipedia for partisan ends. I wonder if the newly-recruited 10 volunteers will be kind enough to identify themselves as volunteers for CAMERA on their user pages, or if they will seek advice at WP:COIN on how to edit in accordance with our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An April 2007 "Battle on the Wikipedia Stage" forward of an e-mail (including "All it takes to contribute is a basic comfort level with computers, time, and persistence" and "Let CAMERA know if you edit an entry on Wikipedia" signed "Gilead Ini Senior Research Analyst www.camera.org") posted on blogspot.com is similar. — Athaenara  ✉  06:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The e-mail is archived here. (For information about Emet, click here.)--68.253.50.109 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note for transparency: I asked User:MBisanz, a fellow admin who often looks at COI issues, to give an opinion on the neutrality of User:Gni's editing. The same offer is open to all who wish to comment. Advice is especially sought from any editors who have left comments on this noticeboard about other COI issues in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, I welcome editors to scrutinize my record and determine whether I'm violating any Wikipedia guidelines, policies or principles. I especially urge uninvolved admins, who don't already have a relationship of correspondence with Boodlesthecat (my chief accuser) to do so. And I'd also hope that my history and behavior on this article is looked at in the context of Boodlesthecat's history and behavior on the article. I think it will become clear that I am by far the less disruptive editor; that my request of help from the mediation cabal was declined by Boodlesthecat; and that Boodlesthecat admitted to reverting a change that I took great pains to explain on the discussion section without so much as reading the discussion.


 * As to the COI issue, I've already made my case on the WP:AN, the COIN and the discussion pages of the CAMERA article, so I won't repeat it all here. I'll just note that the fact that I've on two(?) occasions made edits from an IP address linked to CAMERA is absolutely no reason to bar me from editing the article. The WP:COI page makes clear that this in and of itself is hardly proof of COI; is hardly proof that I edit on behalf of CAMERA; and, although I stand on the opposite side than Boodlesthecat on certain issues, is hardly proof that I'm not committed to participating as a Wikipedia within the spirit of this encyclopedia. I am. So again, please do scrutinize my record, responsibly and without assumptions bad faith. Gni (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gni's defense here is transparently slippery. He claims that having "on two(?) occasions made edits from an IP address linked to CAMERA" does not indicate a conflict of interest. However, despite his sleight of hand, what the editing history actually establishes is that Gni has edited from CAMERA's offices, and that Gni—who we know has edited from CAMERA's offices—has made hundreds of edits on the CAMERA and CAMERA related articles with many of those edits pushing the CAMERA POV, most recently, with extreme contentiousness.Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that as someone with a demonstrated, entrenched position in this dispute and about the organization, Boodlesthecat's reference to "pushing the CAMERA POV" should be read with a bit of skepticism. It certainly appears that he wrongly equates the posting of documented, cited info he doesn't like with "pushing a POV."Gni (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To Gni: Can you explain why you were editing the article from CAMERA's office? As a regular contributor to the CAMERA article and someone who has edited from CAMERA's offices, do you know anything about the e-mail from Gilead Ini? --68.253.50.109 (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the first question, my privacy takes precedence. There are many many reasons why this could have happened that don't equate to a COI. On the second issue, no, I don't know anything about that email.Gni (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, after reviewing both editors on and off wiki comments, I believe that we agree broadly to a 30 day voluntary cooling off period of CAMERA by the currently involved editors. As I indicated, it appears that the article is not-NPOV currently and has been edited by editors with a COI.  So I'd appreciate leaving those tags up and I'll contact the uninvolved experts I mentioned above to try and work it out.  Hope this works and happy editing.  MBisanz  talk 20:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
I've reviewed the situation and have some general and specific comments.

1. Attempts at WP:MEATPUPPETING off-wiki to create consensus on-wiki are prohibited and may result remedies ranging from page protection to prevent edit warring to user blocks for disruptive editing.

2. While CAMERA is notable, I question the notability of its statements on other individuals. In particular I caution involved editors against adding section relating to CAMERA to other articles, especially biographies.

3. While I will abide by WP:OUT and thus not speculate on the identities of particular editors, I do believe editors (anon. or registered) have substantially contributed to the articles in question, creating non-Neutral Points of View, especially at the CAMERA article.

4. I therefore propose that Boodlesthecat and Gni avoid editing the CAMERA pages and other pages' content on CAMERA for a period of 30 days. Suspicious edits by IPs should be reported to the appropriate forum. Users should remember that WP:CHECKUSER can link a user to their IP and that if users attempt to edit disruptively via anon. IP accounts, it will not be viewed favorably.

5. Any user who has an issue with edits made to the article, should discuss them on the talk page. I would also recommend User:IZAK, User:DGG, and User:Lobojo as editors with experience in Jewish issues who tend to be fair and even-handed who could be asked to review the issue to ensure it is NPOV. If one of them were to clear the article as not being biased, I would support removing the COI tag.

Hope that helps.  MBisanz  talk 05:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An addendum to point 2: will all involved please remember that WP:BLP applies to any biographical material or opinion about a living person, even on talkpages or articles that are not themselves bios. Relata refero (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made a general comment on the article, though I dont really want to follow it up for a long period. I notice that many other articles on organisations with an interest in the same topic may need a similar check for balance. Is reasonable for a reader to be quickly told the orientation of a politically active body, not need to infer it--we're supposed to provide that sort of information.DGG (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's restriction of Gni:"* is restricted from editing the article Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America due to problematic editing behavior in the context of an apparent conflict of interest . The restriction applies to the article only; he may post freely on the associated talk page. MastCell Talk 16:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)" The above text is copied from the Log of Blocks and Bans in Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (see the bottom of the page). See also User talk:Gni. Any violations of restrictions that are imposed under Arbcom cases can be reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Working terriers
Single-purpose account:

Articles:

This user edits pages about terrier breeds of dog using multiple user names. We have had a disagreement about his citation of the web site www.nationalterriersclub.com which I believe he owns as well as his non-neutral tone in changes he makes to articles. He appears to either be plagiarizing articles from the site www.nationalterriersclub.com or claiming that source material from the site is his own, such as photographs as can be seen here: Old_English_Terrier. His edits to the article on the Old English Terrier appear to have been copied word from word from this page: Old English Terrier along with the photographs. Other users have had disagreements with him about content on that article as you can see in the discussion page here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. On that discussion page other users also complain about his edit warring and editing under multiple user names as you can see here: Talk:Old_English_Terrier. I think the tone and content of the edits made by the four users listed are similar enough that they could come from the same person.

In the discussion page on the article for the American Pit Bull Terrier he admitted having the ability to modify the content on www.nationalterriersclub.com as you can see here: Talk:American_Pit_Bull_Terrier. You will also see on that discussion page that another user has raised concerns about his being a COI and posted to the Reliable Sources Notice Board about the National Terrier Club here: RS/N. I suspect that he is actually the owner of National Terrier Club LLC to whom that domain is registered and that he is editing articles to promote his dog registry which he references as a source liberally in every article he touches. Dablyputs (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Camenker
Brian Camenker is being edited by both and, both of which seem to have conflicts of interest. Both users are also editing MassResistance. Corvus cornix talk  23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also a 3RR report on MassResistance about an edit war in which both  and  participated. A request for checkuser  has been filed to detemine if Bcamenker and BD.Harvest are the same person. BD.Harvest was blocked 31 hours for violating the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

American Biographical Institute

 * user
 * anon IP
 * article:

Two single-purpose accounts (links above) began editing about ten days ago. Cautions about conflict of interest edits have been posted by four or more npov editors on Colonelz's talk page, but the user does not seem to have taken them seriously.

Several other COI SPAs (see Talk:American Biographical Institute) plagued this article last year. This seems to be a recurrence of the same problem. — Athaenara ✉  14:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with subject of page editing it

 * article:

Does this have a conflict of interest? I started the article a few months back but I think the real person is clearly attempting to promote themselves in the most recent edits. Could this be a username block? Rudget . 14:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A username block is formally justified, but I don't see the need if the editor cooperates. Others have already notified the author about this thread. If the author won't acknowledge our concerns then a username block seems OK. The author has added some useful info, but the article needs some copy editing and should be converted to proper WP style. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Dettmer
User:Bob Dettmer has created the Bob Dettmer. I must admit I don't know enough about COI to know how to correctly deal with the situation, hence this post. Thanks George The Dragon (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing how the user has not inserted any POV assertions, the proper place for the tag is on the talk page, not the article itself. I have updated it accordingly. MrPrada (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Persistent COI problems on Albert Camus and similar


Plenty of COI edits relating to an alleged Greek journalist named Christos Papachristopoulos, who was deleted as non-notable (and totally unverifiable) per Articles for deletion/Christos Papachristopoulos and has recently been recreated by DimisNasis before being speedied. There's edits like this inserting mentions of himself into the Camus article, supported by an unreferenced mirror version of the Papachristopoulos article. This was brought up previously at Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 1 in addition. Any suggestions on dealing with this other than reverting? One Night In Hackney 303  16:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with what One Night In Hackney has said above. I wish only to add the following: A look at the contributions shows a clear pattern of attempting to connect Albert Camus, Nikos Kazantzakis, Henri Bergson, Jacques Maritain, Gabriel Marcel, and Marshall McLuhan with Christos Papachristopoulos, as in the following addition to the McLuhan article made under the name DimisNasis:
 * Now, this X of the tetrad can be applied and enhanced also in the media theory of Marshall McLuhan itself, forming a square between, for example, McLuhan and his "associates" Albert Camus, Gabriel Marcel and Christos Papachristopoulos.


 * No evidence is offered that these men were, in any way, "associates," or that any of them knew this Mr. Papachristopoulos. Rather, the point is simply to bring attention to Papachristopoulos and his theories, as in this addition, also made by DimisNasis to the McLuhan article:
 * Nowadays, the heir of McLuhan's legacy is the Greek journalist Christos Papachristopoulos with his Insensé theory which relates synaesthesia and Mass Media (for more information, see NationMaster Encyclopedia).


 * Finally, as is alluded to above, all of this is designed to advance a "fringe theory," perhaps best described in this addition to the Maritain article:
 * So, the term Nuclear/Perennial Philosophy of Media is introduced, based on the perennial or integral theory of Jacques Maritain in close relationship with the nuclear discoveries of Albert Einstein and the revolutionary theory of Albert Camus. The justifications are found in the Stoic philosophy -the internal or perennial wisdom of river Styx- and the doctrine of Pythagoras of Samos. In the symphysis of the "Spartoi" or "Spartans" group also belong Nikos Kazantzakis, Simone Weil, George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Karl Jaspers, Hannah Arendt, Lev Shestov, Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevski (See the book "The Nuclear Philosophy of Media: Connaturality" (2007) in NationMaster Encyclopedia).


 * I can make neither heads nor tails of this, there are no notable references provided, the promotional nature of all of this is rather apparent, and the indications of conflict-of-interest are, at the very least, troubling. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, guys. These look like socks of banned User:ChrysJazz who spammed Albert Camus articles with his own theories about synaesthesia (among other things) and IIRC presented English Wikipedia with a 200k article made up of his own translation of a Camus work into Greek. Since he's an indefinitely banned user, his socks can be banned on sight and any information he's added should be removed. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (In a nutshell: if you're an admin, please ban any socks of this guy on sight and destroy any information he's added. He's had his breaks, he refuses to get policy, he keeps coming back in multiple incarnations. All we can do is save the encyclopaedia and our own sanity from his crankery. --Folantin (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Aahhh! Thank you, Folantin, for that information and for setting a course of action. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I've slapped a lengthy semi-protection on Albert Camus, which will hopefully have some effect. Moreschi (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should help. But, if, as Folantin has argued, this is a block-evading vandal, should not further action be taken against the IPs? ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  20:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The IPs are dynamic based on the quick turnover so blocking is a bit pointless, but could do with blocking I think?  One Night In Hackney  303  20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Moreschi (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * quick question before this is ofer -- is NationMaster some kidn of mirror or copy of Wikipedia, and if so can wikis like that ever be used as sources? im not involved in the whole Papacristopoalus drama but i have seen NationMaster and other Wikipedia-similar copies referneced elsewhere before and I was hoping if someone here can clear that up for me. Thanks for your time. Smith Jones (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * According to NationMaster, it "uses the content from Wikipedia along with commercial advertisements... The site appears to specify more restrictive terms than (and thus be incompatible with) the GNU Free Document License (GFDL) of the original Wikipedia content." — Athaenara  ✉  09:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In a message left on my talk page earlier this evening, the IP 77.49.91.133 refers to himself as "Christ" and "Christos," which, I would argue, answers any question as to whether this is really him. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal Health


This article has seen the repeated insertion of large blocks of text which clearly violate WP:NPOV (the opening sentence is Cardinal Health is a premier, global healthcare company dedicated to making healthcare safer and more productive, and it continues in a similar vein). Much of the text is taken verbatim from the Cardinal Health website. The revisions were initially made by user Gdowdy, but latterly from the anonymous IP after a number of warnings about copyright and NPOV were posted on Gdowdy's talk page. Both contributors would appear to possess conflicts of interest: this Linkedin page states that a Gary Dowdy is Vice President, e-Business/New Media at Cardinal Health. IP address 199.230.203.254 is registered to Cardinal Health. Re-insertions of the text have become more frequent of late and the user(s) have made no attempt to respond to the messages left on talk. Gr1st (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Allegiance Healthcare, which is a subdivision of Cardinal Health. Corvus cornix talk  01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The three lines of history are good. The rest is spam IMHO.  Once the copyvio tag gets resolved, probably a COI template, and maybe semi-protection.  And of course stern warnings on copyvio and coi to the IP and Dowdy.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries
→ See also : Articles for deletion/Real Life Ministries ( closed as keep )
 * Article:
 * user: ( wrote original article )
 * user:

This issue involving two edit warring users, both single-purpose accounts or nearly so and each with an apparent conflict of interest, showed up on Third opinion.

User Bg357 wrote the original article and claims (as here) that user 1TruthTracker represents users who are critical of the subject's pastor. — Athaenara ✉  06:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate any independent review of this matter, I certainly have no desire to continue the editing battle that has ensued on this article. I would like to respectfully disagree with your characterization of my account as "single-purpose". My contribution history shows a wide array of articles I have been involved with over the last couple years. I try to be a constructive member of the WP community and have tried especially hard to maintain the quality of the one article I have written. I was also fairly active before I registered an account, only doing so when I realized it was necessary before I could write an article.
 * If I had known what a lightning rod this article would turn out to be, I probably would never have written it in the first place but, like they say, hindsight is 20/20. Over the couple of years since I wrote the article, I have dealt with a few actual "single-purpose" accounts, so I know what they look like. 1TruthTracker (talk|contribs), EyesOfFire (talk|contribs) and Mountainview (talk|contribs) are good examples of single-purpose accounts.
 * I will continue to do my best to maintain the verifiable sourcing, NPOV and general readability of this article.Bg357 (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Also discussed here. — Athaenara ✉  09:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also on:
 * WP:AN here
 * 1Truth's talk page
 * Bg357's talk page

The AfD was semi-protected due to nonsense and the article is currently full protected (see here because the rv wars were getting ridiculous. This article has also been speedied x 3 and I think once before under another name because Bg references there having been a long time lapse between his/her work: A cursory review of the history log will show that the tag to delete this article first appeared on March 5th, I had not edited this article for over 7 months, at that time. I first discovered that the article had been tagged for deletion on March 10th, (point 2 here). Just some more context for anyone trying to sort this out. I've been involved with the article in a) cleaning up citations b) taking it to AfD and c) requesting page protection, but I have no connection with the church and have stayed out of the edit war. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ETA: here since they've migrated TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 06:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Migrated?? Is this some kind of a duck joke, Cari? [[Image:Nuvola apps kopete.png|25px]] Bg357 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * an unintentional one, but hey I'll take credit for a funny ;) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

another agenda emerges. I worry that we're going to go right back to rv wars once the page is unprotected. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully request that either Travellingcari or Athaenara review my responses to BG357 about my deletions of the continued growth on the article; and make a decision if possible from a neutral third party point of view. If my arguments are correct, please reflect that by reinstating my last corrections on the article. If not, please tell me where they are wrong. I have made several attempts to show BG357's errors in his citations and references; but with no valid response, except for accusations, and with his/her continued removal of my revisions. He/she hasn't proven that his/her citations are factual and non-biased to validate removing my corrections to the article. I, however, have proven that his/her citations are not factual and biased to validate removing his/hers. There would be no editing wars if BG357 would reasonably address the discussions and questions directly instead of throwing accusations and name-calling and avoiding the valid points of discussion. Thank you.--1TruthTracker (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I posted the problem here so that resolution may be aided by additional input from npov editors who are experienced in dealing with these issues in a wide variety of articles. I am not going to be involved, as a referee or in any capacity, in the dispute itself.  — Athaenara  ✉  17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The following is a review of the issues involved in this dispute. It was originally posted on the discussion page for Real Life Ministries and I have reposted it here for the benefit of those involved in the resolution of this dispute.Bg357 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1TruthTracker (talk) removed a long-standing claim that there has been continued growth in this congregation, saying that it was unsubstantiated. Edit History


 * I reinstated the phrase and added three citations to independently verify the claim. Edit History


 * The following citations are more than enough to independently verify continued growth:


 * http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2005.pdf (#24)
 * http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2006.pdf (#35)
 * http://www.outreachmagazine.com/docs/top100_2007_fastest.pdf (#13)


 * 1TruthTracker (talk) has again removed the claim and deleted the citations. Edit History


 * Travellingcari (talk) has recommended I pursue Third opinion if this cannot be resolved here. Bg357 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I followed Travellingcari's advice and pursued Third opinion. The discussion was subsequently escalated to this noticeboard.  I remain committed to an unbiased resolution of this dispute.  I have stated my case as clearly & succintly as possible, but so far no administrators have commented on the validity of the sourcing or how Wikipedia policies would apply to this dispute.  I believe my editing has, for the most part, conformed to Wikipedia standards, 1TruthTracker's has not, as evidenced by a lack of verifiable sourcing for her/his claims, the single-purpose nature of her/his account, and the general style of the editing involved.
 * As always, I appreciate any unbiased review of this issue. Bg357 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I did show that the Spokesman Review isn't factual. Their population number that they used to show the population of Post Falls wasn't even acurate. They didn't verify factual information from a current census [1]. They used the numbers that RLM gave them. Just like they used only the information that RLM gave them about their attendance. They didn't verify the numbers. Same thing with the Outreach Magazine. They used unverifiable numbers that RLM gave them, as shown in their own article [2]. It's RLM posting their numbers by proxy, which is not to the standard of Wikipedia; and not from a factual, verifiable, unbiased source with a NPOV. BG357 cannot base his/her claim of CURRENT growth on 2 year old information given to the source by RLM themselves. I am not posting on the article that their growth diminished because, I have no current proof of an outside, unbiased source just like you can't post your assumuption that they have continued growth with outdated, biased information posted, by the company themselves, on another forum such as a newspaper. If that were the case, then I could take out an ad in the local newspaper stating diminished growth for the church and with your own reasoning state that as a reliable source to add to the article. BG357 removed a reference to a blog on the CDAPress newspaper stating that it wasn't a reliable source. I, however, did show, with the same "reputable source", that BG357 used, that it indicated that RLM's attendance was diminishing, currently, for the simple fact that the new building to be built on the new property, seated 100 LESS people than the current property's new building they wanted to build. Wikipedia's rules have to apply to everyone equally. BTW, I do not edit under any other name or IP address but "1TruthTracker", no matter what BG357's discriminiating, assumptions indicate. --1TruthTracker (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you're trying to claim diminishing attendance based on auditorium size. If you want to pursue such a silly argument, let's at least note the relevant facts. The current auditorium is 1700 seats, the planned auditorium at the new site is 3500 seats. You're trying to create a discrepancy based on an old master plan?? The only relevant fact is the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium (3500 seats). Bg357 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't even rationally argue what you call a "silly argument". The relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). They are more likely to build on their current site than their new site considering there are no water rights and no septic/sewer hookup on their new property. However, please check your user talk on a solution I suggested to travillingcari. --1TruthTracker (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevancy of your assumptions about where the church is more likely to build. They have clearly stated, as verified in numerous reliable news sources, that they intend to build a 3500 seat auditorium at their new site, replacing the 1700 seat auditorium at their current site.  Obviously, the water & sewer issues will be resolved as they move towards construction.  What any of the water/sewer/building permits/etc. has to do with an encyclopedic article continues to escape me. Bg357 (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, the relevant facts are the current auditorium size (1700 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on their current site (3600 seats) vs. the proposed auditorium on the new site (3500 seats). RLM has also clearly stated, as verified in numerous reliable news sources, that they intended to build a 3600 seat auditorium at their current site. How can you say that the water & sewer issues will obviously be resolved as they move towards construction? Only someone on the inside, or someone involved with the church would know that.--1TruthTracker (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Common sense would dictate that if construction commences, the water & sewer issues would have already been dealt with. Before beginning construction, they will need building permits, permits that will not be issued until water & sewer issues are resolved.  Therefore, "Obviously, the water & sewer issues will be resolved as they move towards construction."  It's not a difficult concept.Bg357 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Break
 * And outdented for clarity. This still continues at User:Bg357's talk page and that of the article. Regardless of anyone's ties or not to the church, I believe Bg and Truth are making very good faith efforts to move forward but seem to be at odds over the church size, etc. as indicated above and all over. Mountainview and the IP seem to have some agenda against the church and I get the feeling that anything as simple as 'the church is a building' is probably cause for dissent depending on who says it. To be honest, I don't know where the definite COI lies, nor do I know how t move forward with this. Suggestions from anyone? Is there where to take it next? TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Chenfeng.zhou
Created, apparent autobiography. I left him a welcome message, however there seems to be little context or notability. MrPrada (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User:198.77.13.115
I put a level 4 warning on this IP's talk page. He is going through and burying links to www.syndicateradio.tv, generally by inserting it as a pseudonym for another website or link. He also has vandalised the website information for Sirius TV, apparently a competitor.Kww (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.syndicateradio.tv
 * MER-C 06:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker
Tragedy Striker is Zachary Jaydon usuing either an alias or a stolen name (I am no longer sure). Looking at his edits all he does is edit pages about himself in a PR style with no citations claiming to not be himself. Why would someone be so obsessed with an unknown entertainer as to edit a bunch of pages about him? I left a detailed message about how and who he is here. In addition to that he has been slandering people he once worked with and spreading my personal info all over Wikipedia. In addition he has also edited and used the ip 74.215.40.191. Please do something thank you. --Thegingerone (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above may well be true, but I think we're only getting half of the story, as there also appears to be a feud going on between Thegingerone and whoever is posting the Zachary Jaydon material (see ) and
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TragedyStriker has contacted me by email and I have advised him to create a well sourced article in a personal sandbox. After a bit of to and fro about what makes a good source he has provided sources acceptable to me by email so I suspect that we will be keeping an article on Zachary Jaydon. My opinion is that if an article is well sourced is doesn't matter who writes it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * TragedyStriker has been re-creating the article (now with inline citations and a references section but without categories) on User:TragedyStriker. — Athaenara  ✉  07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott put it in a user sandbox (good move). — Athaenara  ✉  21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Elcock007
, who may be Terry Elcock, is making massive changes to Demob (band), replacing a sourced, wikified article with an unsourced text dump that changes some of the history of Terry Elcock's association with the band. Corvus cornix talk  01:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

seems to be the same person as, or else a meat puppet, reverting the article back to Elcock007's preferred version. I have issued the anon a level 4 vandalism warning. Corvus cornix talk  18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any responses on this and I need help. He's now using a different anon account to revert to his favored version. What is my option? Just keep playing whack-a-mole, ask for the article to be protected, or just have every account he uses blocked on sight? Corvus cornix talk  21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Finnegan Henderson

 * article:
 * users:

This entry about a law firm has been modified such that it has the tone of an advertising/PR piece. I have tried to revert it, with no success. Frankg (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Welcome and given a COI note. It's fairly blatant. Actually think that's a username worthy of UAA TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * and blocked, I reverted to your version as it was much cleaner. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 20:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another one popped up. Have warned re: COI TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and blocked. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

S-MorrisVP


Edits by S-MorrisVP and those made before a user account was created are clearly slanted towards the perspective of the organization the user stated she works for. Additionally, revisions by the user are consistently supported with citation's from the user's organizational website. I am concerned about the veracity of the user's claims made within their edits, as well as the validity of their contributions to multiple topics, including children's rights and Paternity fraud. • Freechild   'sup?   00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I would still like assistance. I replied directly to the editor on the article talk page, and with the absence of the other editor's response it seems clear to me that the editor was disrupting WP to prove a point with edits violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI. Any suggestions? • Freechild   'sup?   16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From a very quick look at Talk:Children's rights it appeared to me that S-MorrisVP was incivil. She was recently blocked for edit warring on that article. As I said regarding your request over at WP:EAR I don't completely agree with your own analysis of WP policy. I hope there may be ways of bringing more eyes to that article, but when I looked around for a WikiProject that could be interested in the topic of Children's rights I couldn't immediately find one that was active.  The Children's rights article has been full-protected until April 2. If we were bold indeed we could ask for an article ban against User:S-MorrisVP editing this article. If there is anyone here who understands article bans, and has an opinion on this idea, please join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

to another user sinc e even though you wree only joking the other user might nto realize that and might think that you were not bieng serious about the issue that you raised regarding the username. Smith Jones (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [REDATED]]
 * I think the quotation from User talk:DougsTech picked up a nonsense remark from some impolite contributor. So after discussion with User:Smith Jones I replaced the offending link in Freechild's comment with one that zeros in on the remark they wished to highlight. Revert my change if incorrect. 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The pattern of edits/commentary by follows those of the previously associated IP and username as well. • Freechild   'sup?   21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears the same editor logged in as to respond to Yamla's decline to unblock at their original talkpage, as well. •  Freechild   'sup?   23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest this account doesn't actually exist. It has no edits, and does not show up in Special:Listusers. It could be here by mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And not to be overly concerned, but it looks as if this anon editor's edits correspond with each of the other IP's edits, as well. •  Freechild   'sup?   03:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave notice that he is now limited to one account. If he continues to use varying IP addresses or accounts to edit the article, please inform me. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:64.228.110.137, one of the aforementioned IPs, is at it again here. • Freechild   'sup?   15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Policy question
There is currently a discussion ongoing (started by me) at WP:AN on COI vs anonymity. Some are arguing that the COI policy doesn't allow the outing of real names. But, looking at some of the threads above, I see some real names being thrown around, without, apparently, any recriminations for the editors doing so. So, even though WP:Harassment and WP:Block don't explicitly state that outing is ok if done for COI reasons, it's already strongly implied by word and deed? Cla68 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The only time I can see that a persons real life ID should be posted anywhere is IF they are seriously violating policies. I can't see any reason to post the ID of anyone who wants to remain anonymous and they are not violating any policy.--MONGO 02:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you raise a good point here. COI is currently a guideline, not a policy, although we block and ban using it as a rationale all the time.  Should it be a policy?  If not, should we stop blocking in its name and delete this noticeboard? Cla68 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What you seem to be leaning to...(excuse me if I am mistaken)...is the effort to make wikipedia a website that does not support the right to edit anonymously. Unless the COI is egregious and obvious, then I can't see why we would ever reveal the real life ID of any editor.--MONGO 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the key question, is 'are we allowed to mention real names in asserting violations of the COI guidelines' - there certainly seem to be many such examples above, so the answer, at least in practice, would appear to be 'yes'... Privatemusings (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which sections do you mean? Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The ones above! this one is not a bad place to start - Privatemusings (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a userid is editing a specific BLP of a not-overly famous individual in what is alleged to be a promotional way, and someone suggests that the userid might, in fact, be the subject of the article in question. And you don't see the difference between that, and saying "I have discovered that User:Sunshine99999 is actually Jonny Smithers of 123 Main Steet, Palo Alto, California"? Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, the policy doesn't draw that line, and people have been blocked for cases a lot more similar to the former than the latter. - in fact, "a userid is editing a specific BLP of a not-overly famous individual in what is alleged to be a promotional way, and someone suggests that the userid might, in fact, be the subject of the article in question" fits the Mantanmoreland situation almost to the letter, whether he really is GW or not. --Random832 (contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI is advice for editors on how they should edit, not advice for others on how to out people they suspect have a COI, and it certainly doesn't trump the WP:BLOCK and WP:OVERSIGHT policies. WP:BLOCK says "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate". That's policy. WP:OVERSIGHT says "This feature is approved for use in three cases: 1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." That's policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not really grasping your point Jay - sorry.... it does seem to me like the practice here is to mention 'real world' identities..... Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really grasping your point, PM - you don't appear to have actually responded to anything I've said. Did you perhaps intend to respond to someone else? Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quit stonewalling. The policy, as written, and as you have quoted, appears to forbid associating "TragedyStriker" with "Zachary Jaydon" as surely as it forbids anything else, and you've provided no explanation how it doesn't. --Random832 (contribs) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with leaving a talk message for an editor if you believe his speculation about someone's identity is out of bounds.
 * Generally if anyone outs *himself* (or herself) in a comment they leave anywhere on the Wiki that's fair game, unless they are too new to know better, and need help removing the info. (Address and phone number information can always be removed and may even be oversighted).
 * With rare exceptions people shouldn't out *anyone else* using info that's not on the wiki. (WHOIS information about IP editors is sometimes considered to be on-wiki for these purposes, since there is a Wikipedia screen with a labelled 'WHOIS' button).
 * I have seen off-wiki canvassing campaigns mentioned during AfD discussions and people sometimes trace those campaigns back to specific Wikipedia editors. The practice of detecting these campaigns seems necessary to me but I don't know how it fits with the other policies. It seems to be a case where off-wiki information about an editor can legitimately be used.
 * We also have a bot that compares editor names and article names and generates a listing for use at COIN. I think that bot is legitimate even though it might lead to some identities becoming known.  That doesn't seem to be a problem because the pseudonym that an editor chooses for himself is on-wiki information.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to have a set process for trying to determine COI in an editor that tries to avoid outing the editor's real name, if that's possible. But, this process needs to be written down somewhere, such as in the COI guideline and then referenced in the WP:Harassment and WP:Block policies. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular chat may have died down a little - but I thought this recent post might be pertinent when considering what current practice actually is..... Privatemusings (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

TTTech
It appears that edits are being to the TTTech article are being made by an IP address (195.230.58.11) that Whois shows is registered to TTTech. Information about the Joseph Mangan controversy keeps being removed. The changes are not cited and appear to be a corporate advertisement similar to db-spam. Since I've already reverted 195.230.58.11's and User:Gnalk's changes about the controversy a couple of times, I went to the Editor assistance page, where User:Pastordavid said "I would note that, based on the comment on the talk page, User:Gnalk and 195.230.58.11 appear to be one and the same person." and he suggested I follow up here. Suggestions are welcome. Cxbrx (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplification of the problem
I think at this point a lot of us are talking past each other.

At this point, the following questions need to be answered: --Random832 (contribs) 18:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) What policy, if any, allows this thread and ones like it to exist?
 * 2) Should we allow such threads to exist?
 * Neither question above was rhetorical. --Random832 (contribs) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

James The Funny Funny DJ

 * - Personal bio, username implies association with individual,  MBisanz  talk 05:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * - Personal bio, username implies association with individual,  MBisanz  talk 05:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Tylman
This biographical article on a Vancouver illustrator is almost exclusively the product of and a number of IP addresses tracing back to the Vancouver Public Library. In the course of an ongoing exchange with Poeticbent concerning copyright and verifiability issues, I came across a “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” on Richard Tylman’s website. This list matches those originating with Poeticbent. My queries to the user as to whether he and Tylman might be one and the same have gone unanswered. To be fair, Poeticbent has asked that I email him concerning this issue. I prefer discussing Wikipedia matters within the pages of the encyclopedia itself and have written as much. Thus far, no email exchange has taken place. I am concerned by the presence of references which either fail to support associated statements or – supported only by Tylman’s writing on his website – do not meet the verifiability policy. Poeticbent has removed my citation requests without explanation. I am particularly troubled by a new source which was added to Tylman's site, then linked to the article shortly after I questioned the lack of sources for the associated claim. Victoriagirl (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've copied this over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, where they have experience of what counts as acceptably sourced from an artist's own site and what demands external sourcing. That said, Poeticbent comes across strongly as wikilawyering on the matter of inclusion. If a detail is unsourced, or there's a discrepancy between what different sources say, it's well within policy to remove it pending verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources. I see no bias or self-promotion; if a subject is willing to provide additional information (such as the document uploaded above) the better for our project. With regards to copyright, if the artist wants text (images, etc.) from his website to be used on Wikipedia, he should license them under a compatible free license. PS. Personally I oppose anonymity, but it should be noted it is accepted within our current rules. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject seems notable as verified by independent sources
 * Actually I'd like to see some - and in fact some general proof of this guy's notability (we all set up mimeographed mags when we were at uni, and anyone can self-publish poetry). We're placing far too much reliance on material on this artists's own site. I could set up a site saying I'm Lord of the Universe, but I hope you'd need more than that as verification. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, with all due respect, I have never once addressed the issue of notability - not here, nor in the now lengthy ongoing discussion. My concern is what I perceive to be a conflict of interest, hence my report on this noticeboard. Given the history and content of this now twelve day old discussion, I think the time has come for me to be a little more blunt. Although Poeticbent refers to Tylman as "the subject", to Tylman's writings as "his Narrative", and has made statements such as "I hope you’re not suggesting that the subject might have attempted to misinform the reader?", I have come to the conclusion that Poeticbent and Tylman are one and the same. How else to explain the “Selection of articles written for Wikipedia” featured on the Richard Tylman website?. And so, this whole matter grew from my defense of Tyman's copywritten material when he, in fact, was the person who introduced it to the article. That said, the issue of copyright was laid to rest with my rewrite of the material in question. This same edit, introduced several citation requests for reasons I outlined on the discussion page. All these citation requests were removed without explanation by Poeticbent. While I respect your opinion concerning the document uploaded on Tyman's website, then linked by an anonymous user to the Richard Tylman article (after I'd raised concerns as to citations), I remain troubled by the sequence of events. I must add that the document in question did not match that described by Poeticbent; it was not a "First Prize award for Illustration" he received, but an Award of Excellence presented to a team of which Tylman was a member. I have corrected this error. It is for reasons such as this that verifiability is so very important... it is for reasons such as these that the now removed citation requests were placed. Whether bias, self-promotion or not, I find myself wondering why it is that a seemingly minor 17 year-old award is accorded such significance, why 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention, and why a long, wholly unsourced list of corporations for whom Tylman has provided artwork must be kept intact. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It was never my intention to misinform or create false impressions. Selected DYKed articles I wrote for Wikipedia are listed at http://richardtylman.atspace.com/index.html with a link to my User page. Everything is self-explanatory. Please try to “walk a mile in my shoes”. I’m interested in what agreeable solution can be found to end the edit-war and reclaim all that energy invested in bad karma. Originally, I provided reference to webpage about professor Strumiłło and his art because he does not have an article yet. I removed that link later along with his commentary, because no independent sources requested by Victoriagirl are available. Yet, Victoriagirl reinstated her request for confirmation. Why? Piotrus already said in his edit that new ref would be unnecessary because the remaining information is noncontroversial.


 * The same can be said about the citation request for “the most prominent young professional artists” statement. What's wrong with the source already given? It includes minute detail about the state-owned publisher fully supporting the claim. If this is just the matter of a word for word accuracy, your input would be appreciated. There are editors who express their thanks on Victoriagirl’s Talk page for her contributions to biographies of Canadians. I’d love to be able to do the same since I’m already impressed with how much research she’s done for this one article out of many. However, it takes two to tango. There’s no need to belittle national graphic arts competition. Graphex offers two types of awards: an Award of Excellence and an Award of Merit in 21 separate categories. I won the top one in one of them in 1991 not because I was a part of a team, but because I paint. What documentation “error” was there in the article?  By the same token, I’d like to suggest to User:Gordonofcartoon to please do a more thorough research on the concept of self publishing under communism. That sort of illegal activity used to be called Samizdat, but I was not a part of it. --Poeticbent  talk  16:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve nothing more to add on the subject of |declaring one’s identity, the issue of addressing oneself in the third person, referencing one’s work as that of another, or the fact that a good deal of time as been wasted defending copyright from a user who, in the end, turned out to be the copyright holder.
 * Noting that the plea to "walk a mile in my shoes" links to the "Writing for the enemy" essay, I hasten to write that I in no way consider the subject my enemy. However, I do recognize the allusions to vandalism, bad faith, and a repeated suggestion  that my request for clarification as to the identity of a user somehow counters talk page guidelines (when it doesn’t).
 * That said, I accept the above as something of a breakthrough and do hope that it might lead to something of a collaborative process. So, in that spirit, allow me, for a third time, to address my issues with the two citation requests mentioned by the subject.
 * ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. This statement, added by the subject on 28 February referenced a link which makes no mention of Richard Tylman’s name. It may have been the subject’s intention to simply provide a reference to Andrzej Strumiłło himself, but it appeared and was read otherwise. While I appreciate that Piotrus may feel the statement is not controversial, I point out that this is not a valid reason for simply removing a citation request. I look forward to the thoughts of others on this matter.
 * ”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” The reference provided, a translation from a catalogue found on the artist’s website, does not support the claim that the subject “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”, nor does it support the assertion that he “was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists.” In fact, the quotation features no mention of Richard Tylman at all.
 * It was not my intention to belittle the Graphex award. I continue to find it odd that no independent source providing information on the 1991 award has yet been found. It is for this reason that I used the word “minor”. My apologies.
 * I believe my use of the word “error” in reference to the original description of said award to be appropriate. The subject had described the award thus: “He received First Prize award for Illustration at the 1991 Graphex competition…” In fact the subject is not a “First Prize award”, but an “Award of Excellence”. While I don’t doubt that the subject won the award for his illustration, it would appear that it was shared by several others. Minor distinctions, perhaps, but I would argue that it is for reasons such as these that verifiable sources are so important. Victoriagirl (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Victoriagirl, please note that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion (how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright??). A little more good faith in the future can go long way. We have all agreed that this is a notable person and there is no indication of any self-promotion (indeed, the editor in question surely deserves an apology for some heavy handing of this situation). The issues you raise above regard noncontroversial borderline issues. WP:V is all nice and good but if the person in question clarifies something noncontroversial (ex. year of births, etc.) that is not easily found elsewhere it is rather safe to assume they are correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Piorrus, you write that there were few issues until they were created in this discussion. Though I fail to see the relevance, I point out that the issues that have been raised here, whether by myself or others, all made their debut at |the Richard Tylman discussion page.
 * This issue began with an edit in which, amongst other things, I removed material under copyright lifted from Richard Tyman's own website. As such, I unknowingly entered into a prolonged debate in which I was defending said material with Poeticbent who, as it turns out, is Richard Tylman himself. You ask "how could have the copyright holder attacked his own copyright?", to which I must respond: how was I to know that Poeticbent and Richard Tylman were one and the same? In our exchange Mr Tylman refers to himself as "the subject", his work "his Narrative", chose not to answer my queries concerning his identity (even when I made it clear that my reason for asking concerned copyright), and chose not address the issue in private email (though I welcomed him to do so).
 * I write, with all due respect, that your comment concerning good faith has left me shaking my head. I have made no insinuations, no allusions, no suggestions; in fact, I allowed a good deal of time to elapse before deciding to write of my conclusion that Poeticbent and the subject are the same person.
 * We have not agreed that the subject is a notable person; indeed, I've never addressed the matter. Again, my report filed here concerns what I perceive to be a conflict of interest. I respect your opinion that the statements l've queried (”He received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts (ASP) and was chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists” and ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”) are not controversial; however, I hold my opinion that verifiable sources should be provided, particularly as the latter concerns a living person. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A minor addendum to my last comment: Piorrus, I've just noticed that you write we have agreed that there is "no indication of any self-promotion". In fact, I have made no such statement. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have provided the new third-party reference as requested by User:Victoriagirl confirming statements made in Mainspace. They're both written in the Polish language and can easily be confirmed by Translation. I decided to always ask other editors to edit the article on my behalf in the future as suggested by policy guidelines. I was unable to fulfil the remaining request for citation simply because I do not understand its purpose. It is a well established and long standing practise among artist and artisans to reveal the names of their teachers, chiefly out of the feeling of respect for their professional guidance. Such statements hardly require confirmation unless they're made about modern art icons, which is not the case here. I’m willing to let go of the whole mention of Andrzej Strumiłło if you insist on printed proof of our academic link Victoriagirl. I also took the liberty of removing your confirmation tag and hope you don't mind my doing so. Above and beyond, I’m not interested in uploading scans of my university transcripts to Wikipedia or see a notary public in order to satisfy your inquisitive interest, especially under a pseudonym. Teachers' names serve only a customary purpose and are added usually for the benefit of other professionals. Even so I'm most interested in bringing this matter to closure and have the WP:COI tag removed. --Poeticbent talk  17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Above and beyond, I’m not interested in uploading scans of my university transcripts to Wikipedia or see a notary public
 * Anything only available through such channels shouldn't be included anyway: the criterion for verifiability is reliable third-party publication - with the assumption that such publication is reasonably accessible to anyone who wants to verify it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Poeticbent, if you are indeed saying that the two new references  confirm:
 * that you “received a Masters degree in Painting from the Academy of Fine Arts”
 * that you were “chosen to represent Krakow at the national juried exhibition of paintings by the most prominent young professional artists”
 * this is good enough for me. My “inquisitive interest” does not extend as far as some users; I have no interest in pursuing translation.


 * I have written numerous times, both here and at |the Richard Tylman discussion page, explaining the reasoning behind placing a citation tag after the statement ”He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło”. To reiterate: the original link provided no support for this claim. As it concerns a claim made about a third party, I had felt that the citation request was appropriate. I recognize that you have removed this request. Wishing to avoid an edit war, I am letting your change stand. It is my hope that a pair of fresh eyes might look at this – those not belonging to a friend or (as you’ve seen fit to imply) “enemy”.


 * In defending your decision to remove the citation request associated with your claim about Prof. Strumiłło you write: “Teachers' names serve only a customary purpose and are added usually for the benefit of other professionals”. This reference goes to the root of my concerns with this article. It is my opinion that it contains elements of self-promotion. How else to explain the alterations made to one’s own website – seemingly in order to respond to queries made in the Wikipedia article - and then linking the new or revised page to said article? Why, one wonders, are 22 year-old ads run in magazines are deemed worthy of mention? Finally, why the unsourced list of clients (and why the insistence that this long list not be shortened)? These are not new questions... but they have yet to be answered. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I’d like to have this matter resolved and am willing to make the necessary concessions to put your mind at ease Victoriagirl. I believe your initial concerns have already been addressed thanks to new third-party references and a number of editorial changes made in the process. I’d like to thank Piotrus for his participation in our discussion. He’s one of the most prolific Wikipedia editors ever and his opinion means a lot to me. The article has been substantially improved, so much so, that it inspired my desire to improve on my personal references as well. For example the alterations which you noted were made because the original link didn’t work, go double-check if you want. I wouldn’t mind having at least the first one of the two new references translated, because the information provided by the book publisher extends far beyond your request for citation. It is a reliable third-party publication thus justifying the addition of a new paragraph to the article. However, I will not be translating anything myself and would rather have someone else do it. Please forgive the repetitious nature of some of my explanations. The assignments listed in the article refer to high profile clients and can help the reader draw their own conclusions about my reputation in the graphic arts community as well as talent, except without the article having to lay it out. Listing just one or two names would prove nothing. Besides, the list follows Wikipedia’s "objectivity over subjectivity" guideline to the letter. In a way, it also replaces an earlier statement which you removed as unverifiable. Please be assured, you could never be perceived as an “enemy” for as long as you're willing to show that you care. --Poeticbent</b>  talk  15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I, too, hope that this issue can be put to rest, which is why I am hoping for an opinion by someone other than myself or a friend. In short, I am hoping that a seasoned editor or administrator might provide answers or at least an opinion on the following questions:
 * Is it appropriate to feature the unreferenced claim "He defended his master's thesis at the atelier of Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło” as it appears to be "noncontroversial" and benefits "other professionals", or does its inclusion run counter to WP:BLP?
 * Is it appropriate for a subject to edit his own website in order to respond to queries made in his Wikipedia article - and then link the new or revised page to said article?
 * Should the lengthy list of companies for which a subject writes he provided artwork require a citation, particularly as it involves claims made about third parties? (As an aside, which statement was it that I removed as "unverifiable"?)
 * Is such a list necessary in that it helps "the reader draw their own conclusions about my [Poeticbent's] reputation in the graphic arts community as well as talent"?
 * Do any of these matters indicate a conflict of interest?
 * Finally, you'll note that I've restored the COI template to the article. While I do try to assume good faith in such matters, I note that the IP address that originally removed this tag has provided a total of two edits in the past 15 months. The first - made just 40 minutes before the removal of the tag - was an act of vandalism. Given this, and the fact that the user has provided no comment in related discussions here and or at Talk:Richard Tylman, I felt that the return of the template was appropriate. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like Victoriagirl is harassing this man and edit warring. 76.10.147.147 (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've again restored the COI template, which has been removed three times by IPs - and  - tracing to TekSavvy Solutions Inc. I have discussed the edit history of the former in my previous post. The edit history of the latter user, which begins 23:08, 22 March 2008 consists almost entirely of personal attacks  and unsubstantiated claims . Given these facts, the fact that the issue is currently under discussion, I believe its return is appropriate. While I acknowledge that the subject disagrees, I also recognize that I am not alone in my opinion. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The repetitious nature of questions asked by Victoriagirl in her long, drawn-out speeches (thus challenging my intelligence) and her unyielding attitude with regard to what has already been said only confirm the observations made by anonymous IP user (really, not that much different from someone hiding under a pseudonym for the purpose of edit warring). We’re no longer dealing with a genuine concern regarding verifiability, but rather with Victoriagirl’s increasingly evident harassment of my person. I’m beginning to wonder if this is the right channel for seeking answers. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents: I'm still getting a strong feeling of being Wikilawyered here. The close relationship between Poeticbent's edits to the Richard Tylman article and those to Tylman's official site may not be technically wrong, but it seems way out of the spirit of WP:COI guidelines. Generally, I think Poeticbent is being far too pushy in relation to the article: the expected role in COI situations is to take a back seat, guiding via the Talk page, with the right to remove outright falsehoods. But taking a leading role in writing the article, especially in ways that override the views of other editors (such as insisting on inclusion of material without independent verification, and removing citation requests and a COI tag) is unacceptable. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: having looked more closely at the citations for poetry and essays, I'm increasingly convinced that this article fails to prove notability, and have nominated it at AFD. See Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman. This will also, usefully, bring it to a wider range of external opinions, which might lead to improvement by independent editors rather than deletion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'd expected my post of 22 March and the questions it contained to be my final words in this matter, Poeticbent's most recent post calls for a response. There seems to be a misunderstanding in that with one exception the questions I've asked have been directed, not to the subject, but at the community at large. Indeed, as I've written, I hoped that my final questions might be answered by a seasoned editor or administrator. Although I cannot take the "observations" of a vandal IP - - at all seriously, I do the reference to edit warring. Seeking to avoid such an exchange, I have not been editing Richard Tylman, preferring to discuss the issues here... hoping that some common ground might be found. The sole exception is my return of the COI template. Over the past two days, this template has been removed by two IP vandals (who, judging from the respective edits are the same person) and the subject himself. It has been restored by another user. I, too, have returned the template, which was first placed at the suggestion of this very page to accompany this very process. Finally - and most importantly - Poeticbent  has written that I have been harassing him. I can assure him that has not been my intention. If indeed he feels this to be true, I suggest he repeat the charge and present his evidence in the appropriate forum.Victoriagirl (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Poeticbent asked me for my opinion. First, Wikipedia allows users to be anonymous and takes their privacy seriously. See Privacy policy. Wikipedia also takes conflicts of interest seriously. So how many of us, if any, does Poeticbent need to tell his real-life identity? Fortunately, I don't need a Wikilawyer because you've already agreed, almost. Poeticbent agrees to reveal his identity, if Victoriagirl emails him. Victoriagirl says "I prefer to discuss Wikipedia articles, policies and other matters on the relevant talk pages. However, if you would like to send me an email, you are more than welcome." This debate presents several complicated arguments, but the email sounds like an easy one to start with. Am I missing something, or is this really an argument over who should send the first email? Isn't that a shape of the table argument? Could it be solved by something as simple as emailing each other at the same time, or emailing thru me&mdash;or printing emails, rolling them up into balls, and juggling them between each other until somebody drops one? Of course Poeticbent's identity should be revealed only to Victoriagirl, or perhaps to others with a demonstrated interest in the conflict of interest issue. It shouldn't be openly displayed on a talk page without Poeticbent's consent. Does Victoriagirl promise not to tell just anybody? Art LaPella (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the response by Art LaPella to Poeticbent's request, I think several posts have been overlooked. In fact, Poeticbent wrote in his post of 14 March, on this very page, that he is Richard Tylman. As I see it, the discussion since that time has revolved around whether his edits to the Richard Tylman article constitute a conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that implied admission. I'll study it again. Art LaPella (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying again. I am a "seasoned editor" and "administrator", but unfortunately I was made administrator for my patience with Main Page typos and such, not to settle debates like this one. That said, this still sounds like an easy issue - if I'm not missing something again. Poeticbent said, "I decided to always ask other editors to edit the article on my behalf in the future as suggested by policy guidelines." He then avoided editing for several days, but the Conflict of Interest tag remained anyway. There can be no conflict of interest without editing. This partially excuses the unpleasantness that came later. Victoriagirl wants answers to her 5 questions, but if Poeticbent doesn't edit, then Victoriagirl is free to answer her own questions as she likes without being reverted by Poeticbent. Piotrus might intervene, but we don't know that yet. So I propose: Poeticbent agrees to stop editing the article except on the talk page, and Victoriagirl resumes editing but removes her tag. Is that agreeable to both? Art LaPella (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. I told Victoriagirl already on 22 March 2008 right above: “Please be assured, you could never be perceived as an “enemy” for as long as you're willing to show that you care.” So, this is just a matter of proverbial mind over matter since I intend to keep my word if taken seriously enough. We need a basic proof of good will before we can improve on what has already been given. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Except the COI tag doesn't only apply if the article is being currently edited by editor with COI:
 * The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
 * If the issue for cleanup remains - and I think it does - the tag is still appropriate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the tag might be accurate, but how is it helpful? Everyone here remembers we had a conflict of interest problem, so why do we need a tag to remind us, when the tag is the main remaining source of conflict? Poeticbent has already agreed not to interfere with the cleanup you want, so why can't you just clean it up as you and Victoriagirl see fit, rather than prolong the issue? Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My thanks to Art LaPella for looking into this matter. That said, I do disagree that the presence of the COI template is the only remaining source of conflict - my concerns with unverifiable claims (Prof. Andrzej Strumiłło, client lists) and website manipulation remain. As the article is currently the subject of an AfD, I'll await the outcome before contributing further. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this matter and bring it to an end? Acknowledging conflict of interest I have not edited this article since nine days ago and intend to leave to the discretion of other editors. The article went through a failed AfD and is being kept in a state of limbo in spite of subsequent edits made by Gordonofcartoon (-2,812 bytes). The editor who made this report refrains from editing it and insists of keeping a COI tag instead. I appeal to administrators familiar with this case including Art LaPella and Piotrus, to please decide what is appropriate for the benefit of Wikipedia and help close this discussion dragging since 11 March 2008. How about a helping hand from EdJohnston so that consensus may be reached? Please read the article, look at supporting information and remove the punitive flag. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections, I've replaced the COI tag with a clean-up tag. It seems Poeticbent has respected the COI issue and in good faith has refrained from editing for 9 days or so. Gordonofcartoon has done a bit of clean-up. Some still remains, but notability seems to be established by his publishing record, as the default of no consensus at AfD is usually (always?) keep. If Poeticbent agrees to not edit the article and bring any necessary changes to the article talk page, perhaps this issue is resolved. I'm not certain if the issue on this page is resolved or not, but I feel the COI tag is no longer necessary.  freshacconci  speak to me  15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on un-resolving: Recently I placed a 'resolved' banner on this report, thinking that removal (by consensus) of the COI tag showed that editors in this thread were now satisfied with the article's neutrality. Gordonofcartoon queried this on my talk, saying there was not yet agreement on neutrality and that the cleanup had yet to be performed. This is a valid point, since the cleanup may be contentious, and the editors in this thread should have a chance to discuss its progress. So I undid the 'resolved' tag and suggest that the effort to rewrite the article should continue until 'cleanup' is satisfied. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I wasn't contesting the closure itself, just the part of the summary that said all concerned were happy with the neutrality. That it'd gone on "the record" in that form could prejudice the remaining cleanup (which is well covered by the scope of the cleanup tag). For me, the remaining issue is whether, in some areas, the quantity of detail in relation to notability is appropriate or aggrandizing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rent to own
and keep reverting all edits to  negative of the industry. According to MaxMind, they’re both from Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I suspect they’re IP socks of Griffaw, since it is his edits that they are maintaining. It looks like he has a conflict of interest (see User_talk:Griffaw and Talk:Rent to own), and his edits significantly biased the article. It looks like the article will have to be semi-protected to stop them. I’m requesting a checkuser at the same time as post this – most of the relevant diffs are over there. —Wulf (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This does appear to be an issue. I've watchlisted the RFCU.  Some of the edits are suspicious, and overall the article is in desperate need of wikifying.  I'll also note that the IPs appear to be aware of 3RR as they edit to 2RR and then stop for almost exactly 24 hours.  MBisanz  talk 08:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of this dispute when I added some material yesterday that sought to add much-needed balance the article. Perhaps I'll go look at the earlier edits out of curiosity.Calamitybrook (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: if an admin looks at the deleted contributions of User:Griffaw he posted a now-deleted article for RTO Online, headquartered in Jackson, MO (just ten miles up I-55 from Cape Girardeau) by Roy Griffaw. I think this is open-and-shut COI even if the IPs don't match. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

this seems to be the best previous version - it looks like they want to remove any (sourced) negative comment about the schemes from the article. -- Fredrick day 19:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Simply reverting to that version cleans up the problems beautifully.Calamitybrook (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got some academic sources I'll be adding (once I've worked out wikis stupid tag system). -- Fredrick day 20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

24.182.146.232 has been at it again, despite that town getting over 12" of rain. I’ve requested semi-protection for 1 week. —Wulf (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser declined due to age of Griffaw's edits, but added if the IPs geo-locate to the same area and are making similar edits, their probably the same person. Can someone confirm (with Whois/etc) that these IPs are similarly located?  MBisanz  talk 07:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Like Wulf says, they're both Cape Girardeau, Missouri, which is very close to the physical location of RTO Online, managed by a one Roy Griffaw. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, just wanted to make sure a second party agreed on that. Then we warn and/or block if the warnings are ignored.  Leaving now, but I'll check their activity level tonight and see if this is still an issue  MBisanz  talk 19:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[The following comment was copied from my talk page —Wulf (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)]

I hope this is the right place for discussion. I'm going to violate my own rule about engaging bloggers and ask a few questions and making some comments.

Why is it a conflict of interest to bring some balance to the RTO page? Why is the opinion of consumer advocates any more noteworthy than trade publications? As it exists today, this page could have been written as a press release from Ralph Nader. Is that "balanced?"

An example is the reference to the DODs stance on RTO. You fail to mention that RTO was added to the DOD list only at the request of outside interest groups. The article also fails to mention that DOD revised their view of the industry after doing research. The information can be found on RTOonline, but apparently pro-industry (any industry) material is off-limits in the Wiki universe.

PS: I haven't place a link on the page since I was advised not to do so by you many months ago. The link that is there now is being added by someone else.

Thanks and I look forward to your reply. Griffaw (sorry, not sure how to insert my user info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffaw (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote the top of this page:


 * "“COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus."


 * "The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.”"


 * Oh, and you can sign your comments by pressing the signature button, or by typing four tildes (“ ~” ).


 * Wulf (talk) 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK...so what's the answer? Griffaw (talk) 17:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: request edit may be used on the article talk page. — Athaenara ✉  21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Griffaw, it’s not a conflict of interest to “bring some balance” to an article. The conflict of interest is that you edited the article at all. It’s against Wikipedia policy to edit an article about something you’re involved with. You’re supposed to discuss any proposed changes on the article’s talk page first. It’s also not that trade pubs are less reliable than consumer advocates (although I think they are), it’s that the version of the article that the IPs were trying to protect was clearly biased towards the industry. It didn’t mention a single thing negative of the industry… Finally, could you please explain why those IPs are so close to you? —Wulf (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand… They’ve been at it again. This time from Syracuse, NY – not that that means much with all the proxies running on residential connections these days… —Wulf

Avirab
Avirab is adding text with a source of Avi Rabinowitz (get it?) to multiple pages. I put a note on his Talk page when I noticed it in one article I was editing. Then I checked his User Contributions, and noticed that all the recent pages that Avirab has edited have a link to the homepage of Avi Rabinowitz. User talk:avirab Life.temp (talk) 10:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify claim:
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nathalie Handal

 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Resolved.



has repeatedly done complete rewrites of Nathalie Handal, including blanking all the templates. She has been told numerous times to explain her actions, yet every day (or few days) she does the rewrite without explaining herself. She's received a 24 hour block for it yet she continues. She's brought up the issue (briefly) at but has made no reply or any indication that she has read it. If she has, she has shown no signs of following through, as today she tried the rewrite again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Subject has not edited since 19 March, when she received the uw-coi notice. Some regular editors have helped to fix up the article, and it now looks OK. Perhaps this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject resumed editing her article on 1 April. I left a message at User talk:NatHandal asking for the reasons for the latest change, since sourced content was removed without any explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close? There have been further discussions with the author on her Talk, and JzG handled an OTRS complaint about this article. Since the current version of the article is reasonably neutral and BLP-conformant, I suggest we close this COI complaint for now. It can be reopened later if the author makes inappropriate edits. WP:AFD is also an option to consider if we can't come to an agreement with the author. EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

COI / Neutral POV Violations in Viktor Rydberg Article


I am fairly new to Wikipedia and have encountered what seems to be an ongoing violation of the COI/ Neutral POV policies. An editor who posts anonymously from IP 97.100.230.5, IP 97.100.224.7 and IP 97.100.235.115 has self-published three amateur translations of Viktor Rydberg’s 19th-century Romantic Nationalist variations of Norse mythology. He promotes these vanity works in the Viktor Rydberg article, which he also distorts by deleting all references to modern scholarship critical of Rydberg’s work. He has repeatedly deleted critical comments published by H.R. Ellis Davidson and Anatoly Lieberman, calling references to their scholarly works “vandalism.”  He has posted a favorable comment by Judith Moffett, but deletes critical evaluations by the same author. I have tried to reason with him and proposed mediation on the Talk page, but he always responds with personal attacks, including a sexual taunt in the comment accompanying one of his deletions. Is some kind of intervention appropriate at this point?Rsradford (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're looking at:


 * -- Edited only on February 1
 * -- Edited March 16-20
 * -- Edited only on March 23
 * -- Edited on March 28 onward
 * I agree about the tendentious editing: for instance, hyping Rydberg's status, and airbrushing out reference to his sexuality . But is there solid evidence that the anon has a conflict of interest? The urge to have particular books listed is suggestive, but I can't see any proof of identity as the author - which is what's needed to invoke COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the interplay between the COI policy and the anonymity policy, discussed elsewhere on this page. For my own information, I would appreciate clarification in this particular case.  These are the facts:
 * 1. Individual X has self-published three vanity-press translations of Rydberg's works on mythology.
 * 2. Individual X regularly participates in Internet fora outside Wikipedia, posting under his real name from the IP addresses listed above, almost always to promote Rydberg and his self-published books.
 * 3. He has never explicitly identified himself in his Wiki edits, but if you look at his contribution history you will see that his participation has been limited to (a) posting references to his own vanity-press paperbacks, (b) adding flattering material, much of it false or unverifiable, to the Rydberg article, and (c) deleting from that article any and all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg, or mentioning his sexual orientation.
 * My question is, given those facts, can the identity of the anonymous editor be inferred for purposes of blocking him from biasing the Rydberg article, or would that entail an impermissible "outing," in violation of the anonymity policy? Rsradford (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:COI has a clause for patterns of promotional editing that doesn't require identifying a specific person, if you find the current debate worrisome. However you'd still have to assert who the promotional editing seems to be in favor of (the name of the author whose work is being promoted). I also fine-tuned the list of IPs above to show who was currently active. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you raise the point, the amateur Rydberg translations that I believe are the underlying cause of the continuing NPOV violations were self-published by an individual named William P. Reaves, who promotes these books from the above IPs under his own name, outside Wikipedia. As he anonymously states on the Rydberg Talk page, he views his paperbacks as being of considerable value to "Rydberg scholars," while he simultaneously deletes from the article critical assessments of Rydberg's work by leading real-world scholars as "vandalism."  Does that meet the definition of promotional editing? Rsradford (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Larry Pressler

 * Editing of the Larry Pressler article in a likley COI/NPOV manner. Spiesr (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Username-blocked. Kelly  hi! 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: User may have returned as another account: User:Lpressler Spiesr (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lance Strate

 * - This page has primarily been edited by User:Adenu and this ip. This leads me to believe that the subject of the article himself or somebody close to him may have created and edited this page. I have also tagged the article for references and notability. -- Shark face  217  02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ❌ - wrong university. May be a research colleague or someone else. Appears notable. MER-C 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that he appears notable. The article reads like a resume and needs to be greatly shortened. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Enzo Fardone

 * - Edits by this IP appear to be by a non-neutral source. The page itself reeks of POV. -- Shark face  217  00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * based on technical evidence - resolves to an Adelaide based ISP, which is where (I think) the subject lives. MER-C 13:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Enzo Fardone. MER-C 08:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Samaggi Games

 * - Started and heavily edited by User:Vowpailin, whose edits seem to be solely for this subject. -- Shark face  217  03:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Donghee automotive

 * - Has been edited by only User:3sugar. This user also edited the article for the Kia Morning, which is produced by Donghee automotive. -- Shark face  217  04:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Iorio
Resolved.

External links added by User:Cryellow
This issue was originally reported on the talk page for Wikiproject Spam.

Looking at edits by Cryellow, nearly all contributions by this user have been for the purpose of adding links to multiple articles for members.cox.net/recallcalendar/ (a recall election calendar - dif), mothaway.com (an insect repellant - dif), or dianaring.com (Princess Diana memorabilia - dif). While the user claims to not be associated with these sites, it's interesting to note that "name redacted" (a name provided by the user within the Diana, Princess of Wales‎ article) shows on Google searches as associated with both the ring and the calendar; also, all three websites above contain the same contact phone number. Additional information on the user and the link is included within the Wikiproject spam talk page (linked above).

Also, the SPA Abedigot‎‎ appears to have now joined, whose only contribution to date has been to re-add the link for the Diana ring after Cryellow was warned of a 3RR issue. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Stirling Dodd‎
The article was created (in 2006) by user which appears to a contraction of the same name, and recently edited by, which a notice on that talk page indicates is a proxy for Philips Medical Systems, which the article identifies as the subject's employer. I realize it's a very old article, but no significant subsequent contributors other than maintenance edits. The project tags were added to the article by a bot, so I'm not sure how closely those projects have looked at this article.

Aside from the WP:COI issue, I would also question the notability of the subject. But, I'm not sure the best way to proceed. Does each wikiproject need to be notified or asked about it first? Or could an AfD be tagged on it for WP:COI and WP:N issues, then just notify the involved projects and the primary contributor? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about the notability issue based on the searches I have made, and have prodded it. That is the simplest way to start since I don't think it will be a controversial deletion. You don't need to inform projects unless you want to, and WP:TWINKLE has kindly informed the creator! --Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Motorists
- This user is an admitted employee of the National Motorists Association and is whitewashing efforts to clarify that the NMA is a closely-held for-profit and is not an association in any sense of the word. Nova SS (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Mat Nastos and associated articles
Totally unreferenced other than to primary sources, either created or majorly updated by User:Mnastos, including Mat Nastos, The Cadre, Bite Me, Fanboy and Nifty Comics. At a minimum, reliable sources for all of the subjects' notability need to be included. Corvus cornix talk  02:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Steve Poizner

 * It appears that User:Ogre900 has done a mountain of work on this page, including uploading a picture of the businessman and posting a link that advocates him for governor. I strongly suspect a conflict of interest, as this is the only page this user has worked on and Steve Poizner himself is rumored to be on the short list for California candidates for governor in 2010. -- Shark face  217  04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Poizner is clearly notable, but the article is too enthusiastic. I edited the article to remove some promotional language. Others are welcome to make further improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jacques Marchais Museum of Tibetan Art


User had edited the article back in 2007 but was not the creator. Over time it had been left semi-sourced and in half state. I cleaned it up, removed the promotional tone and added 2ndary sources. Today the user returns and removes sourced material that s/he doesn't appear to like and re-added the promotional material. It's not a BLP issue as the museum founder has passed, but it's a clear COI with intent to spam. The museum *is* notable, but the promo content is not. The user needs to go to UAA anyway, which I will do in a moment since it's a role account but it's worth keeping an eye on. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: User blocked TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: User has just [posted to me on my talk page via IP. It's a good faith comment, but I'm going to dig for sources to back up the claims, not museum published curator programs. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Money for writing article about a shopping site.


If anyone has an account there and wants to respond, please politely point to Requested articles and Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz. -- Jeandré, 2008-04-10t11:41z, -- Jeandré, 2008-04-11t10:57z
 * ... and post the name of the site here so that if/when the "article" does appear we can take appropriate action. MER-C 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Artpace


Editor appears to have a connection to the gallery, insistent on pasting in promotional material that appears to be a copyvio. Article is a stub and fine for the moment, does not need a brochure dump. User warned by multiple eds TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef for having a clear promotional/WP:COI agenda. Scarian  Call me Pat!  21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

H. Paul Shuch and User:Drseti

 * is a scientist and engineer (and singer) who has made 86% of the edits to his own article, mostly as User:Drseti. Of 164 edits to H. Paul Shuch, 118 (72%) are by Drseti and another 23 edits (14%) appear to be him as IP addresses (see contributions by user here). The article makes a few claims that seem to indicate borderline scientific/engnineering notability, but has only four references (two to Shuch's own work and one to the introduction to a book by a close student and friend of his, that he also contributed to).


 * is a Single Purpose Account that also started Dr. SETI, which is now a redirect to H. Paul Shuch. I left uw-coi and notices on WP:Autobiography and WP:SPA on Drseti's talk page and will add a link here next. I would also appreciate input on Shuch's notability (should the article exist at all?) as it seems borderline to me. Thanks, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update 1: User:Drseti made 6 more COI edits to H. Paul Shuch after COI and other warnings, with no reply to these concerns here, on talk pages, or even in edit summaries. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update 2: I searched a little and found that much of the page was originally (and chunks of it still are) a copy of Shuch's biography at (which he presumably wrote). Asde from copyvio concerns, the questions remain:
 * what should be done about the COI edits (this is essentially an autobiography) and
 * is Shuch notable enough, or should the article be sent to WP:AfD?
 * I would really appreciate any feedback - thanks in advance, Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update 3: Drseti has replied at Talk:H. Paul Shuch and removed the COI and Autobiography tags from the article about himself. I restored the tags and replied (see below). Thinking about all of this, I wonder to what extent the "The Seti League" is/was a one man show, as their copyright page says SETI League ®, Dr. SETI ®, and the SETI League logo are registered service marks of The SETI League Inc. here, so the League holds the servicemarks on its name and his nickname. I also note that the Seti League web page says at the bottom of each page entire website copyright © The SETI League, Inc.; Maintained by Microcomm, with Microcomm another Shuch website: http://microcomm.net/ On its Personnel page (not directly linkable) it says: Please note that Microcomm is a sole proprietorship, wholly owned by Dr. Shuch.... I copy Drseti's comment and my reply below:


 * My edits to this page hae been questioned. Indeed, the subject has edited extensively material posted by others. The majority of this activity has been to divide the biography (initially entered as one long paragraph) into logical sections.  Little new content has been introduced, other than to provide family background and add a photograph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drseti (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you reply - I have restored the COI and Autobiography tags to the article until the matter is resolved at the Conflict of interest / Noticeboard, here. I will also copy your comment above there, and invite you again to comment there too. I noticed that the current biography seems to be largely copied from your biography at http://www.setileague.org/admin/paul.htm, which I presume you wrote all or most of. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Update 4: Drseti has replied at the H. Paul Shuch talk page again - our latest exchange follows:
 * Yes, the bio borrowed heavily from the SETI League one, which was written largely by Heather Wood, the SETI League's secretary. I believe the bio was originally posted to Wikipedia by Yasmin Walter, a colleague then at Frankfurt University.  My edits split that rambling bio into sections.  In that sense, it is *not* an autobiography, though I added some personal material to flesh it out.  I am also pulling together additional (independent) citations and references, which will be posted within about a week (as I'm on travel at the moment).  I understand your tag restoration, and thank you for your efforts. Dr. SETI (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice on the COI/Noticeboard that you question whether The SETI League is a one-man show. Valid question.  The organization was founded in 1994 by NJ industrialist Richard Factor and his NYC patent attorney, the late Orville Greene.  The original board included two others (an attorney and an accountant).  They then hired me as executive director.  I was one of three or four paid employees for about a decade, before funding dried up.  There is a volunteer Advisory Board, which was (until 4 days ago) headed by Sir Arthur Clarke.  So, not a one-man show, though I have much influence.  I continue as executive director emeritus on a purely volunteer basis, and now serve on the Board, also in a volunteer capacity.  I put the Microcomm link at the bottom of the web pages when I stopped being paid, and began contributing website maintenance to the organization through that consulting firm, which I do indeed own.  Does volunteering one's services to a nonprofit charity constitute a conflict of interest??  Dr. SETI (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that everything is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. A conflict of interest arises when an editor with an interest in an article also edits it (summarized as Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.). So your work off Wikipedia can not be a COI here, but making edits about it can. Please see WP:Autobiography too. Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 15:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added to the bio several citations from disinterested authors, in both published books and academic journals, which should help to address some of the COI issues. More citations and references can be provided if required.  I have also discussed these issues further on the applicable Talk page.  Dr. SETI (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination The article has been listed at Articles for deletion/H. Paul Shuch Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD result was that the article was kept, with suggestions to prune the article for uncited / unverifiable / tangential material. I will try to do so. What else needs to be done here? Ruhrfisch <sub style="color:green;">&gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WSEAS
The bulk of the page seems to originate with WSEAS employees, and is completely uncritical of the subject matter, an organization of dubious quality and ethics. Not only is the original article smacking of corporate vanity, it is actually conveying thanks from the WSEAS management "The WSEAS Administration would like to extend a special thanks to its Reviewers..." to the largely non-existent reviewers. Those heavily involved in editing the page (including the talk section!) should disclose their relationship to WSEAS.

StaySeven (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also found World Scientific Engineering Academy Society‎, which was a duplicate article - so I converted it into a redirect to the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society article.
 * Their website is slow to respond; but from what I was able to navigate, much of the article content appears to be straight cut-and-paste from their website. There appear to be three editor maintaining the version that's ported from their site:, , and  - they also appear to share quite a bit of cross-over in creating and/or maintaining other articles which may have WP:COI and WP:N issues such as North Atlantic University Union‎ and Nikos E. Mastorakis --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Prof. Bose appears to be the same Prof. Bose whose lecture slides are hosted on the WSEAS server, , see also, a primary organizer of these meetings. Prof Kaczorek also seems to have many ties to WSEAS as invited speaker, editor of WSEAS journals, organizer of WSEAS conferences etc, see. Prof Juri is tentatively identified as Prof. Juri Jatskevich, see. To the extent that these editors are indeed the people benefitting from presenting WSEAS as a legitimate venue the COI is clear.

StaySeven (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A fourth user,, restored the COI version (removing appropriately sourced content and cleanup tags in the process). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I nuked this blatant spam. WP:CSD. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The original was blatant spam to be sure. But nuking (I think) is not the answer: this is an organization that deserves an NPOV page showing them for what they are, an organization bordering on the criminal. Many high quality pages like Ku Klux Klan are targets of highly politicized edits, yet WP would be poorer for not having them.

StaySeven (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So write one (I'd suggest a userspace draft for this). A spammy "article" is much worse than no article at all. MER-C 13:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Pain
IP user persistently adds copy and pasted biography to this article.   

and appears to be affiliated with the band 

Attempts to explain and discuss these changes have been ignored. I have also reported this here here, though it seems the responder was suggesting that I take it here instead? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Clarke Award

 * - article has been edited by, the director of the awards, as well as , who is also mentioned in the article. I flagged the article with COI; subsequently both editors have contributed to the discussion on the talk page. I think that another opinion would be of use here, please. Mike Peel (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it was correct for Mike to place the COI tag. The article has been created and maintained by the COI-affected editors since the beginning. What it needs most, in my opinion, are style improvements and shortening. I don't see a big issue about neutrality, though we could ask for citations for any superlatives used. So far the COI-affected editors haven't reverted any improvements. Mike cites the example of Amateur Achievement Award of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, which is a Featured List, as a good example of an article on an award in a similar field. We might as well leave the COI tag in place on this article until someone has time to do a rewrite. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I just ask why it's necessary to say that "so far the COI-affected editors haven't reverted any improvements"? It's almost like you expect us to have done so.  From my experience regarding this article, it seems standard Wikipedia policy to automatically assume bad faith.  The article has been shown to actually hardly contain any COI-related content and what was perceived as such has been explained or an attempt has been made to verify.  And I don't see why anyone should feel the need to say such a thing unless I and JStone had a history of reverting edits.  All I want to do is contribute good edits and work hard to improve articles on Wikipedia - something I feel I have been doing for since 2005.  Howie  &#9742;  17:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ed Johnston agrees that there is no real conflict of interest and that the tone of the article is neutral, but that the style could be adjusted. In my comments on the Talk page, I pointed out that Mike Peel admits he has not looked into the awards in any depth, so his initial tagging was really a gut reaction.  As I have pointed out,  I am in a position to ensure accuracy - who would you prefer to have written the article?  What really worries me about these discussions is the implication that something is wrong because of our involvement, without any evidence being produced.  Mike said that my edits were "suspicious" but has still not explained why, and Ed says that "so far" we haven't reverted any improvement, implying that it's something that we're likely to do - even though the evidence is to the contrary.  As for the comparison with the Oscars, it was someone else - completely unconnected with the awards - who added the quote.
 * As to a style to follow, I'm not sure that the suggested article from the ASP is really a good example, as they only have a single winner each year, whilst the Arthurs have several. However, now that the awards have been going for a few years, I could take out the full detail of winners from previous years, perhaps instead mentioning "Previous winners have included ...".  As to other changes, if someone would suggest something specific, rather than the innuendo that has been put forward, I would take it under consideration.
 * One last question - do other articles written by people who are involved in the subject get this kind of treatment? I thought Wikipedia was to enable people to inform others, but this experience has been rather disheartening.JStone (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your willingness to join this conversation. Editors who work at this noticeboard tend to react to anything that looks like advertising or promotion, though as articles go, the one we are discussing is not too bad. If you could beef up the references on this article, and not give quite so many details, it would probably meet the standards perfectly. We do have a concern that COI-affected editors may revert changes by regular editors, and that is a concern that we have acquired through hard-won experience, though it evidently doesn't apply in your case.


 * The Clarke awards only deserve coverage here to the extent that the regular press and the scientific world take notice of them. We prefer not to rely too much on material created by the people who offer the award. If you had participated in Wikipedia much you probably wouldn't use the word 'innuendo' because we do have what we consider to be clear though very verbose policies, and at noticeboards like this one we are diligent in enforcing them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, but I am still confused. You say that editors "react to anything that looks like advertising or promotion", but where is this to be sen?  As I have said, there is no marketing or sales involved and I am not soliciting any payment.  I'm simply reporting what happens. So what makes this article different to any others?  You have asked me to beef up the references, but I'm not sure what needs referencing.  I could include various websites that mention the awards, but they are generally those of nominees, or are sites making use of the news releases that I send out.  I have referenced the original comparison with the Oscars; I don't see anything else in the introduction that needs references (The 1945 paper on satellite communication is covered in the linked article on satellites).  The rest is simply information for which I am the primary source.  If you can't rely on me then who else?
 * As to the the word "innuendo", I was not referring to your comment, but to the unfounded claim that my edits are "suspicious", which I find rather insulting.JStone (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been working quite hard over the past 24 hours to made the changes necessary - including citing sources, finding quotes and clarifying information where needed. If someone could be kind enough to look over the changes, I'd appreciate it. Howie  &#9742;  22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the COI tag has been removed, can this issue now be assumed to resolved? Howie &#9742;  15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Can someone still look over the article (as requested), and also add a "resolved" box at the top of this section then? Howie  &#9742;  16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome
Da Costa's syndrome is a historical ME-type disorder. Posturewriter has self-identified as Max Banfield, a lay author who promotes a particular "Posture Theory" on the syndrome and its descendants, involving chest compression, breathing disorder, breathlessness and the diaphragm.

In December/January he was warned about the COI of having inserted a self-reference into the article - see Talk:Da Costa's syndrome - and it was removed by consensus. However, his subsequent edits invariably add material relating to breathing-related studies, which comes across as WP:SYNTH supporting his own theory (even though it's no longer explictly mentioned).

Is this sufficiently close a COI to expect that he shouldn't edit the article directly? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon; regarding you referring to me as “self-identified”; there is no reference to my name in wikipedia anymore except for where you used it here, and where WhatamIdoing placed it in the opening section of the discussion page on 21-12-07    My User page is blank. Regarding the other issue, the breathlessness affects 93% of patients which is why I often refer to “breathing-related studies", as well as other relevant aspects.Posturewriter (talk)posturewriter 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Posturewriter, I'm finding that you identified yourself as Banfield in this edit from 30 November 2007, where you say "I am the author of the theory.." and sign your comment as 'M. A. Banfield'. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Edjohnston; Thank you for your comment; Regarding your reference to the 'Article’s for deletion' page; It was a page for contributors and editors to discuss policy issues, not a public article page; and was dated 30-11-07; I saw the same page when it was dated 28-11-07 [] and noticed that editors were going to delete another persons account of my theory due to breach of copyright, unless permission to use had been granted - re;. “Speedy delete. . . as a copyright violation. . . Hoekstra”. I couldn’t confirm that I had given permission confidentially by phone, so I registered with wiki and confirmed it with my wiki ID, but had to mention my real name and answer editors requests for proof of identity etc. It was “policy required identification”, not “self-identification by choice”. Does wiki policy allow for that distinction, and if not, why not? My name etc has not been mentioned by me anywhere else unless I have made a reasonable attempt to satisfy the appropriate policies, but it has been deleted again anyway, and there has been no reference to my theory since 14th January, except by editors. Please check your own reference for the date of 28-11-07, [] rather than 30-11-07, and then use the publicly available search box to confirm that my theory isn’t listed anywhere on current wikipedia article pagesPosturewriter (talk)posturewriter
 * Editors with a possible COI who are upfront about their situation are often very well treated on this noticeboard. If you want to retroactively protect your identity then we'll probably just have to go by the letter of your edits on articles related to the posture theory, a theory that people have been associating with you personally. Your edits to seem to fall under the 'pattern of editing' clause of WP:COI, which provides:"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."If you desire an exemption from this clause it would be to your advantage to be frank with us about your situation. There is also the small matter of the user name that you have voluntarily chosen. For practical purposes, it may be too late to unring that bell. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edjonston, I was not a member of wiki when I saw the words “speedy delete” so I naturally responded promptly, and I wanted to use the telephone to privately confirm that I had given permission to use the material. I couldn’t find a phone number or email address so I just registered, and chose a code ID which seemed like a good idea at the time. A phone number is not provided on-line for copyright confirmation. is that true? Also a lot of new information has been added to my site because the editors require me to prove everything about myself or my contributions on-line and there is no other way of doing that either. Regarding the structure of contributions, other editors gave the Da Costa page its title, a section on history, and some references, which I reviewed, and also added to them from other sources to present a chronological order of the research and controversies of this condition which still exists, but usually under different labels, and I am presenting it in plain English for the general reader. I will give the other matters of your enquiry some more thought before responding soon, but in the meantime can you please check the discussion page and look at the edit history and see that each time I comply with one wiki policy, two editors produce another policy, or varying interpretations of them to delete my contributionsPosturewriter (talk)posturewriter. —Preceding comment was added at 10:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edjonston; regarding your COI question, I am writing the history of Da Costa’s syndrome in plain English for the benefit of the general reader and to save space here i have posted more information in response to SuperTycoon on the discussion page on 9-4-08. In the meantime can you contact the editors dealing with the naming issue and let me know which is your main concern and give me a time frame so that I can deal with one group of editors, and one policy at a time. Posturewriter (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

Edjonston; You will be making your decision soon. Please consider that on 14-1-08 WhatamIdoing deleted one of my contributions on the grounds of COI, and wrote “I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article” etc. I have since been adding reviews of Harvard quality papers to the history section. I have also amended and added to my website to provide material for wiki, selected and now being abbreviated, otherwise it would still be much the same as before. It was not necessary for me, but was a response to editors requests, and not for the “sole” or “primary” purpose of promoting my website, or anything “close” to COI. I would also like you to consider the COI question in relation to the other editors preference for psychological explanations for symptoms as typified by twice attempting to delete my review of S.Wolf’s 1947 research which proved a physical cause of breathlessness, and is an important milestone in the research history. here (including Cohen and White) and here, in my comments on Rosen's 1990 study. The other contributors are replacing my edits with descriptions that include codes, acronyms, and jargon, etc., and unspecified references to “imprecisely characterized” ailments. I have been providing wiki with contributions which are consistent with the fundamental plain English policy so that the general reader can understand the subjectPosturewriter (talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Barkley


The article under question is largely being written by an account with the same name. In fact, much of the article is written with pronouns in the first person. The individual under question has a website should anyone wish to contact him in order to determine if the above account is in fact him. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Ronald Barkley. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Bennett
'''Note: I have moved this discussion from WP:AIN to here, as this now seems to be the most appropriate place for the discussion. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)'''

I'm consolidating several related requests here. First, I request that the semi-protection status of the Clayton Bennett article be resinstated. The protection ended today and the article's history reveals numerous vandal edits already today.

Secondly, I've asked Coz 11 to recuse himself from editing the article and all articles related to the Seattle Supersonics because he has a conflict of interest. I've also asked the same user in the past to avoid using inflammatory edit summaries regarding Mr. Bennett. Coz 11 has removed these warnings from his talk page, failed to discuss the issue, and continues to edit the articles. I think an administrator should require this user to explain his actions or should ask him to discontinue editing articles for which he has a conflict of interest.

I would also ask that this situation not be treated lightly. You can see for yourself the level of personal attacks that have been thrown at me regarding this issue. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Article semi-protected indefinitely. I couldn't see any obvious problems with User:Coz 11 - he may have a conflict of interest but that shouldn't necessarily bar him from editing the article - unless there's something I either overlooked or failed to understand (since I know nothing about North American sport). CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to state this complaint without possibly revealing Coz 11's real identity, but I'll try to do my best. He seems to be an important figure in an organization that opposes Bennett relocating the Sonics to OKC.  He blanks attempts to discuss his conflict of interest from his talk page without discussing it..  He has used edit summaries abusively when talking about Bennett.  As far as I can see, all of his edits regarding this issue have been in a light most favorable towards keeping the Sonics in Seattle while placing Bennett in a negative light.  He's also used edit summaries to attack people with opposing views.  There's not enough evidence to form a case of sockpuppeteering, but there have also been several accounts that have been created and IP addresses used that had the sole purpose of vandalizing the Bennett article and/or promoting the website with which Coz 11 is affiliated.  Chicken Wing (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You best be careful what you accuse people of without facts to back it up with. I edit with ONE account, ONE IP and I stand behind EVERY edit I make.  For you to even suggest that I could be one of the thousands that can't stand Clay Bennett is inexcusable.  There are enough people that are going to take their shots at him for his dishonest activities that do just fine without my help.  I don't participate in that kind of thing and I resent your attempts to discredit me because you don't seem to be able to handle just simply dealing with edits on a case by case basis.  You have a problem with an article?  Take it to the talk page on that article and we can work it out.  Attacking me is bush league.  --Coz (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to act on the basis of a "seems to be" and some slightly biased editing. Another reasonable interpretation would be "overzealous fan". I will watchlist the article and keep an eye on all changes, but you might prefer to seek more specialist help at the conflict of interest noticeboard or consider dispute resolution for unclear content disputes. CIreland (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said "seems to be" because I didn't want to be accused of outing his identity. The truth is, I know with reasonable certainty what his real name is and that he is, in fact, a co-founder of the most prominent organization that opposes Bennett moving the team from Seattle to OKC.  He also makes personal attacks against editors and article subjects as well as removing warnings from his talk page, things which would be controversial even if he didn't have a conflict of interest.  That such a conflict exists makes the violations even worse.  Chicken Wing (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz 11 has continued his streak of biased editing on the Clayton Bennett article today. This time he added, "Recent developments have shown that the agreement was violated." Given that this is a biography of a living person and nothing has been determined in court, the user should have said the agreement was "allegedly" violated. A small example, yes, but I shouldn't have to check an article day-after-day to see if Coz 11 has slipped another comment in to slant the article against Bennett, especially since Coz 11 is at the top of an organization that opposes him. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While Coz could definitely do with toning his POV down quite a bit and can be frustrating at times, I'm not entirely sure that his position within Save Our Sonics necessarily violates any of the guidelines set down in WP:COI any more so than any other "fan" of the Sonics would. Admittedly, I've been frustrated enough with Coz a few times in the past to question his ability to edit neutrally, I'm just not sure there is enough of a tie between what is really little more than a fan organization and the Sonics to prevent him from editing Sonics related articles. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The way I read the rules, a reading which is admittedly not definitive but also not illegitimate based on the text, is that Coz 11 has a conflict of interest based on the sections of close relationships (political) and campaigning. He is the leader of an organization that campaigns against the interests of Bennett.  I think that establishes the conflict of interest.  Almost all of his edits to the Bennett article are biased, which establishes the bias.  His deletion of comments from his talk page on the issue along with his attacks in edit summaries against Bennett and other users, basically ties it all together.  He's obviously not as flagrantly bad as the Sonics fans that send me threatening e-mails or openly vandalize the article, but his edits are nonetheless equally subversive.
 * As an example of how silly the biased editing by Sonics fans have gotten, despite all of the vandalism and POV editing, the only comment on the Bennett talk page (until my comment today) is an admonishment against me for allegedly being "uncivil" and disrupting the grammar of the article. The other comment on the page was also a complaint about my editing, but I removed it without incident controversy because it contained personal attacks.  Chicken Wing (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lack of using the article's talk page seems to indicate that perhaps you haven't taken enough time to discuss with Coz (and the other Sonics "fans") what you perceive as his biases against Bennett. Additionally, I have Coz's talk page on my watchlist and the only appearance you've made there is in the last few days to accuse him of having a conflict of interest and to tell him to cease editing the Clay Bennett article. If there really is POV editing happening on Bennett's article, you should not be limiting your discussion to edit summaries or taking it upon yourself to defend against the POV, but rather focusing on gaining consensus on the article talk pages or contacting Coz directly to work with you on coming up with wording that is at least acceptable to both of you. Perhaps I'm more jaded because of the crap I see on the political related articles I edit, but I'm just not seeing a big issue here. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a correct assessment. Look at the edit history on his talk page.  I have brought up the issue of his conflict of interest and his edit summaries as far back as October of 2007.  He has been deleting my comments from his talk page.  He has also deleted the comments from other users that have questioned him.  I have also recently placed a comment on the talk page.  I have to adamantly reject the notion that I haven't taken the time to discuss this with him given his actions in deleting comments.  It's hard to discuss with someone who deletes comments and uses edit summaries to attack people.
 * While political articles can get pretty heated, perhaps you would enjoy some of the threats I've received regarding the Bennett article. Consider also that the one comment on the Bennett article's talk page not written by me is a claim that I'm being "uncivil" and making Wikipedia a worse place grammatically.  That comment was also left by a Sonics fan living in Washington.  There's not really a group of people editing the article to reach consensus with.  There's me, a couple of other passer-bys with constructive edits, and then there's biased edits and vandalsim almost excusively from Sonics fans.   Chicken Wing (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, I missed two warnings you've left Coz's talk page telling him to be less inflammatory in his edit summaries, but haven't otherwise attempted to engage him (or any of the other editors on Bennett's article). Deleting warnings and comments from one's talk page doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's policies and is generally an indicator that they have seen the warnings.  I'm also unclear as to how a random abusive comment from an unrelated editor has anything to do with a COI complaint against Coz. If you are being overwhelmed by "fandals", then you can draw attention to your plight by requesting assistance from the wikiprojects listed at the top of Bennett's talk page or any of the other pages Wikipedia has established for combating vandals. I've added Bennett's article to my watchlist, so you've got at least one more set of eyes out of this. As far as Coz's COI goes, I've said my piece on the matter, but that plus $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.  --Bobblehead (rants) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I didn't say his deletions were policy violations. But, the issue was that I'm supposed to be engaging him in a dialogue. He has deleted at least four comments without responding to them.  He's the one not engaging in a conversation.  He's the one with the conflict of interest.  I've now tried to talk to him on his talk page and the Bennett talk page.  The semi-protection of the article should get rid of most of the vandalism.  If he doesn't discuss this, he gets BLP template warnings from now on when he adds biased information.
 * (2) The attack against me was just one of several, and it was an example of the heated rhetoric being used on the Bennett article, similar to the heated rhetoric used on a political article. It wasn't an example of Coz 11 acting out.  I never claimed such.
 * (3) I might be going McCarthy-style here, but as far as I know, you also are from Washington, know Coz 11 perhaps better than other Wikipedians, possibly from the outside world, have discussed his COI issues with another editor in the past, and are a Sonics fan. I'm still not sure I'm being presented with the most unbiased look at Coz 11's edit history.  Chicken Wing (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make this simple. I had no idea that Chicken Wing was being treated the way he is and it is unacceptable.  It also has nothing to do with me. I also get some nasty attacks (although not as vulgar as those attacking him) so I have compassion in that regard.


 * I make what I feel are appropriate additions to articles I have interest in just as most everyone else here does. After all why would most people be here if they were not interested in the topic?  I am open to editing as long as it does not change the gist of the addition or attempts to mislead or distort. I will work with anyone to get to a reasonable solution on any difference of opinion.  I like to say that everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, just not their own set of facts.  That in mind I am not very flexible when someone is trying to slant an article away from where it should be.  I try to be fair and often will edit things that shouldn't be there even if I personally wouldn't mind if they stayed if it is the right thing to do.


 * I delete all postings to my user page because I choose to. I wasn't aware of any rule against me editing my own page in any way I see fit.  It doesn't matter if it is positive or not.  I just prefer to have it be a simple page.  In his case I took his point to heart and felt that I hadn't repeated the "offense" he cited.  If I have I am sorry and i'll strive to do better.


 * I am sorry Chicken Wing has a problem with my style but from the attacks he is getting I have a feeling the issues are with him and not with me. --Coz (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

National Women's Health Network
It appears that the National Women's Health Network has a project setup for editing Wikipedia. Apparently called the "Base Camp project". See (softblocked as a role account/COI problems) and  (hardblocked as a repeat role account/COI problems). They have a stated goal of editing the following:


 * National Women's Health Network
 * Barbara Seaman
 * Breast Implant

And I would assume any other article related to this area, see their article. For the moment they are hardblocked. I have left a note on the latest account's talk page trying to open a dialogue and get them to understand/abide by the role account and COI policies. If they respond there and agree to abide by the policies I will change the block. Just an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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


 * William Casson should be removed from the list. He died in 1886 and so cannot be writing his entry. What is the procedure for striking items from that list? --Pleasantville (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I imagine you could put a strikeout through that line, and add your reason in parentheses and in the edit summary. See User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive4 for an archive where people were actively doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Take that Musical (multiple pages)
user lightdefender is busy adding material about the Take that musical (which starts a run in May) to multiple pages. Only problem is, he doesn't want any of the articles to acknowledge the tricky problem that take that have nothing to do with the musical and have made statements to that effect. Examples of his attempts to whitewash articles can be seen here, here, here, various more in history. I can only conclude he has a conflict of interest. --87.113.116.129 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

87.113.116.129 Is trying to sabotage an article I created about the musical with irrelevant detail. The musical is relevant to both the Take That and Gary Barlow articles. Light Defender (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * you think that it's irrelevant to note on a musical about talk that, that the band stated “There have been reports in the press today about a ‘Take That musical’,” it states solemnly. “The band would like to state categorically that this production is being undertaken with neither their involvement nor their endorsement. They would wish their fans and the general public to know that this production is absolutely and 100 per cent nothing to do with Take That.”1. That's irrelevent? Indeed, it can be mentioned on both the Gary Barlow and take that articles but to mention it without mentioning the fact that none of the band members are connected does not represent a NPOV. Why with the new show coming out next month, you'd almost think you were trying to do PR and wouldn't want people to know that the band were not connected. --87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a neutral party, I've looked at the edits suggested and read through these comments. It's apparent that a neutral point of view is not being put forward by Light Defender and that taking out chunks of text that would correct this is totally the wrong attitude.  If any article about Take That and the music based on their work does not also state that the band are not involved and do not endorse it, then something is wrong.  Wikipedia is not an advert.  It is here to state both the positive and negative facts.  The fact of this matter is that the musical based on Take That's catalogue is nothing to do with the band nor composers, and that Light Defender is trying to remove this fact from any article that says so.  If this continues, I think an admin should be asked to contribute to this matter.  Also, remember WP:3RR - don't engage in edit wars.  Howie  &#9742;  09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bpayne4001
- This is the username of Mr. Brendan Payne, who is a staff member at the Marketing/External Affairs department of Western New England College and Western New England College School of Law. Mr Payne has a clear history of removing cited information about his employer that could be potentially negative. These include removing newspaper accounts of on-campus crime, alumni who have been convicted of misusing their law degrees, and publicly-available information. Mr. Payne has also created most of the "significant alumni" Wikipedia articles. Thus he has created his own roster of individuals who would not otherwise have articles. The sole purpose has been to link from his employer's article. He has been warned via COI but the whitewash behavior continues. He has been told of this again and again on his talk page but still refuses to defer to consensus. 99luftbaloons! (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have made updates to the Western New England College entries in an effort keep them factually accurate and expand their content to fully encompass all relevant facts about the College. During the course of my work on this project, I have increased the content of the Western New England College entries considerably and have create several new pages for notable people, places, and things in relation to the College. I would like to continue to expand and update the entries so that they remain up-to-date with the changes of the College.


 * The pages I created for "Notable Alumni" are all elected government officials at the state level. Those entries are allowed on Wikipedia. As for Daniel Hynes, the law grad in question who was convicted of misusing his law degree. He is insignificant and does not deserve to be on the "Notable Alumni" list. Being mentioned on the blog "Above the Law" does not mean it is "international news" as these members have claimed.


 * Over the course of the last 7-10 days, there have been numerous edits to the Western New England College entries claiming the same thing by different new "users":


 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.
 * These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.


 * In addition, the Western New England College entry was "rickrolled" last week numerous times. I do not know if that has anything to do with this current situation. Bpayne4001 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001


 * I have to say the mass of SPAs there is far more concerning than the fact that you have a COI, which is not, in and of itself, actually a problem. I'm going to keep an eye on these articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that many of your edits are out-of-line and totally focused on making the college appear in a good light. Such examples include removing information from The Westerner student newspaper and the most pivotal moment in the school's last twenty years... namely that a student was kidnapped by an alumnus and then sexually assaulted many miles away before being returned to campus.  I understand that you are paid to make WNEC seem like utopia, but some of these edits smack of blatant whitewashing.  I am all for you editing so long as it is more the ADD information than to REMOVE it, which seems to be your modus operandi. You should also disclose your affiliation with the college on your user page. Also, learn to use Google.  D. Hynes made news in Pakistan. --Jajablanks (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Appears to be another SPA. I am willing to work with you to come to a compromise on what should be included on the entry. That incident certainly isn't the most pivotal moment in the schools last 20 years. Also, I don't hide who I am, it is clear in my screen name. Perhaps you should stick to one screen name in your edits and identify your association with the school since you seem to have vast amount of information on the subject. In regards to Hynes, just because some zoombie news agency in Pakistan picked up a wire story, doesn't make it international news. The Pakistan news agency didn't send a reporter to New Hampshire to cover the case. This incident doesn't pass the laugh test on importance. It would be deleted from the 2008 important events/news page.

Bpayne4001 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001

Havana Club
has historically made and edited many Cuba-related articles, not without controversy (See talk). He has historically copyvio'd Havana Club's website contents to make articles (speedied twice) and today he posted on Talk:Havana Club and my own talk the following:
 * Hi, I am working for Havana-Club and I would like to know if it is possible to develop this section. Havana has built a website www.havana-club.com discussing on cocktails, rum making process... Is that possible to create some article in this page telling for exemple that Havana recommand / suggest to make Mojito or Daiquiri cocktail in a special way (explain what ingredients to use...), that havana make its rum with in particulalry way...?


 * Thank you for your answer.

Although his edits on the article up to now is hardly COI, some watchout is warranted.-- Samuel  di  Curtisi  di  Salvadori  01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Springfield, Oregon



 * Last edit 17 April 2008
 * Last edit 11 April 2008


 * Last edit 22 October 2007
 * Last edit 19 September 2007

These users appear to be adding links and content relating to Anvil Media's (a search engine marketing (SEM) services company), client list: www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm, including Tumbleweed Communications, Genco Supply Chain Solutions, Auctionpay, reliableremodeler.com and Planar Systems. Last year similar editing was reported at WP:WPSPAM: here. Anvilmedia had managed to make some fairly neutral contributions, at least on the article ColumbiaSoft, most of his/her other contributions, including Retrevo, GolfNow.com, and Portland Oregon Visitors Association were deleted for being adverts/non-notable. However today content was added (diff diff) to Springfield, Oregon and Coburg, Oregon that clearly shows the Convention & Visitors Association of Lane County Oregon connection. I'm all for boosting Lane County's economy, but not on Wikipedia. I've reverted the changes and warned KimKnees about NPOV and COI. How do I proceed? Katr67 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of rearranging the user templates, to show which accounts are currently active. Revert if you prefer it the old way. While you've identified quite a few improper edits, there is some hope we can put this right by negotiation. I see a mixed bag of edits here. The travel-related edits look like pure promotion and have been correctly reverted. It is a concern that neither of the two currently-active editors has ever left a comment on a Talk page. Let's keep an eye on the situation. I left a uw-coi notice for the IP editor, and you've already notified KimKnees about the COIN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your rearranging is fine, I don't often post here. It's interesting to note that the company has a link to an article by Durova about just how to go about being a "white hat", and that the president of the company has written an article warning people who wish to contribute to Wikipedia to play by our rules. Hopefully they will start taking their own advice. I found the lack of talk page posts concerning as well. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on the situation. Katr67 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion happening on the article's talk page. Katr67 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greif


A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself    as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a uw-coi tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolve talk  21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * anyone can say anything about 'who they are' - that doesn't make it so. I have faithfully edited on a lot of pages (musical and religious), usually finding consensus on issues with the other usual editors. A Sniper (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello A Sniper. I don't perceive any bad effects from your editing, and the COI rules do allow you to participate on these articles, though with some caution. I'd still like you to say more about this edit, if you would. It seems possible that you are adding information to articles based on your own personal knowledge of events. Since you're an experienced WP editor, you're probably aware of our need for references. I'm concerned that you say, in the edit summary, that it would be 'vandalism' to remove the material. But we really don't have any reference for that information, do we? EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello EdJohnston. RE: the edit that you've referred to, the vandalism wasn't in the removing of the material but was in the replacing of the material with all-caps stating that a particular company was a bootlegger. I don't even know, frankly, if I was the editor who originally placed this material there, and that wasn't my reason for undoing the edit anyway. This edit you've pointed out was to undo what appeared to be personal anger by the editor against that record label. You'll also see that the same user added spanish-language notices against that record label, which I also removed. Just to make sure the edit was a good one, I checked with Google and saw a couple of references for this particular topic: . Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that the other editor is editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography that lacks verifiable inline citations of  reliable sources and as such, may not meet Wikipedias core policies of Neutral point of view and No original research. I hope you'll re-read Assume good faith, as accusing an editor of sock puppetry  with no evidence is not an act of good faith, please see Please do not bite the newcomers.  dissolve  talk  15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note for Jackmantas inviting him to join this discussion. I see plenty of material for discussion in the points various people have made above, without the need to immediately jump into the review of people's behavior. Referencing for our articles on musical groups is not always very good. One option is to try to get a consensus to remove all the unsourced material. Temporarily, that will leave the articles impoverished, but if these people and groups are famous, somebody must have covered them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I've only had a cursory look at the sourcing for Eric Greif, but there doesn't seem to be alot there that meets the strict sourcing guidelines for the Biography of Living Persons policy, specifically the section on sources. So my first concern is if the article actually meets the Notability and Notability (people) guidelines. If the article is indeed notable, then it should be based on what is verifiable in references that meet WP:BLP sourcing standards. Since WP:BLP applies to all biographical articles of living people on Wikipedia, the content of the related pages must also be held to WP:BLP standards for sourcing.  dissolve  talk  10:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. Dissolve, you are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies.

On top of this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda.

I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of nformation contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future.

That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again Ed, for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Jackmantas, and thanks for joining the conversation. I placed a show-hide box around some of your comments above, and ask if you would be so kind as to edit your own comment to completely remove that material. I think we have enough data already without having to be quite so explicit. If you agree to do this, it may help your case. I think we will get to the same point anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem Ed.Jackmantas (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole case is ridiculous. I have known A Sniper since October of last year and over those months he has shown himsefl to be a fine and non-biased editor, no matter who he is. I believe Dissolve is abusing his right to take up anyone on a COI. It specifically says in WP:COI that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." However, A Sniper has never displayed anything but neutrality on his edits and has never (as far as I know, and I do watch) made an edit that contributed to a lie. If he really was Eric Greif, he has only used his close knowledge of the above-mentioned articles to help those articles. It seems the only real article that is being greatly complained about is the Eric Greif article (where jackmantas has been heavily editing), but I must ask something. Just because A Sniper may be Eric Greif, and created the article (and heavily contributed to it) does that suddenly mean it's all wrong or biased? I think not. A Sniper has not displayed any amount of "vanity" edits on the article and it appears to be all factual. If you really think A Sniper is Eric Greif and that he has been messing up the neutrality of his own article then I pledge to personally see to it to watch over the page closely and maintain its neutrality and to find the sources needed for the things said. I mean, after all, if A Sniper really is Eric Greif, couldn't he just go to some site or something and post a whole story about himself which could then be cited for the Eric Greif article? I see no problems with this. As it is, I still think this accusation is frivolous and that A Sniper has displayed nothing but excellent (and more importantly, unbiased) editing on the small number of pages that he regularly edits. Thank you.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any disagreement that A Sniper has made many useful contributions and offers considerable expertise in the articles he's edited. However, when an editor makes statements about being the subject of an article he has created, and has added links to a book that the subject of the article has written to other articles , it makes me consider there might be a conflict of interest. Admittedly, we all start out as newbies on Wikipedia, ignorant of many of the policies, and so we assume good faith. Regarding bias: WP:NPOV exists to ensure that articles represent fairly, and  without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The articles mentioned are/were primarily unsourced. How is a reader or other editor supposed to determine what has been published by reliable sources vs. what is POV-pushing conflict of interest editing? My point in raising these possible issues here was to start a discussion, get some additional eye balls on these articles to get some sources on them. If the articles are sourced, the COI issue is largely irrelevant.  dissolve  talk  19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Jackmantas: Hello Blizzard Beast. In response to your post, I will say this: The Eric Grief article is clearly an autobiography and as such I can do no better than to point out Wikipedia's policy concerning such articles: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." "Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point-of-view." "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls. If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we strongly welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wiki users knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." "They (autobiographies) are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person)." "They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable." "They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia." Why these problems exist "Just because you believe honestly you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner." I believe the developers of this Wikipedia policy have stated very eloquently the dangers of users creating autobiography articles and I need say no more on this topic at this time.Thank you,--Jackmantas (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is hard to take Jackmantas seriously when he/she has resorted to bad faith attacks, criticism, innuendo and ridicule such as here: . Does this constant WP:single-purpose account barrage of edits not violate WP:Etiquette and WP:Trolling, illustrating WP:POINT? A Sniper (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)