Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40

What direction to take?
An editor has indicated that he does not like the views of the subject of an article. I believe the article fairly reflects the RSs, a point the editor hasn't disagreed with. Nor, IMHO, could the editor disagree with that, in good faith. Still, he doesn't like the reflection of the RSs in the article.

He has now added a COI template to the article. I removed it, writing there's simply no basis for it. Nor has any been suggested, despite many requests by me that he provide one. He has restored the template, however, and warned me that I am not allowed to remove his COI template.

He also affixed a neutrality template. But hasn't provided a basis for it, despite requests (and IMHO none exists). He has also cautioned me not to remove his neutrality template.

What course to address this? I don't seem to be able to discuss it with him and reach a reasoned resolution. The discussion is here. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Probable COI: Bryan Calhoun
As frequently happens, I've run across as COI concern while working copyrights. There don't seem to be any lingering copyright concerns, but I wanted to drop it off here in case anybody wanted to review it for neutrality.

The article was originally created by now blocked user User:Akin.adebowale, who by his own statement was "trying to create an article as authorized for my mentor Bryan Calhoun", based on the subject's Linkedin profile, which Akin.adebowale claimed to have authored. The new article was created by User:Akin.base, just two days later. Coincidence? Probably not. :)

The individual probably is notable, but I lack time to investigate to see if it's a puff piece or not. There are two claims of board membership which I could not verify which I've removed. I'm back to the neverending backlog of copyvios. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kgrantwhitford at Parkinson's disease
and are adding marketing material to Parkinson's disease regarding the American Parkinson Disease Association. With no effort, I found that User:Kgrantwhitford is Associate Executive Director at American Parkinson Disease Assoc. and therefore in a clear COI. I don't know how notable the APDA is but I advise that Ms. Whitford be mindful of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Wknight94 talk  17:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely inappropriate for her to promote her own organization on Wikipedia, no matter what the organization is. However, it was only one edit, if there's a pattern of editing from this account then I'd be concerned. --  At am a  頭 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible CoI User:DarbariP
Article in question Darbari family. Article created recently.'' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And is removing maintenance tags without fixing the problems. Level 1 and 2 warnings given.
 * And now just reverted a third time with an absolutely meaningless statement Article is verifiable under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, and is supported by the references that suffice the Wikipedia's terms and copyright policies. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick Googling for verification suggests the article has multiple issues; it seems to be one of those aggrandizing pseudohistorical caste origin articles that invarably prove through an intractable mess of sources that some family has noble origins. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think AfD is the proper course of action here. There may be something to this, but it would take a lot of work to verify it without inline citations. Some of the references in the list are available online, but the burden should be on the article creator to point us to the actual pages and to show what is being verified. The only easily-available references I could find, which don't involve reading through long books to hunt for a snippet to verify claims made in the article, are blogs, which we obviously can't use to verify it. --  At am a  頭 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

YourFutureDating

 * Clear COI; created article and userpage promoting subject. Jhbuk (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User name reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Natasha Wheat
This BLP of a US-based fine artist was, likely by a close associate of the artist. The creator has no user history prior to creating the BLP̦ and all subsequent contributions were either to edit and, or to defend it on talk pages 1 2.

This webpage, linked to , shows that as the creator, SandyPortland, shares names with a coworker and workplace location of the subject. If the subject of the article and the article creator are in fact coworkers and artistic collaborators, this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.


 * Additionally, there is an apparent lack of good faith editing on this article. The creator has an absence of personal association with the artist; —in spite of being the article's creator; and . The user JASON6752 has only one edit: the removal of the WP:!, WP:NN, and WP:SOURCES flags, which was . The opening of JASON6752's edit comment: WIKIPEDIA EDITING ABUSE. (caps not mine) looks like wikilawyer practice number 4 to me. Likewise, in defending the article,,  'I like this, Wiki rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia ignore it".' 

The artist Natasha Wheat may meet WP:NOTE, but the circumstances of this biography's introduction into Wikipedia represent a likely controversion of WP:CONFLICT and a potential threat to WP:NPOV. —Infoporfin (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't establish notability but the notability tag keeps getting removed. This is being discussed on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion at Articles for deletion/Natasha Wheat (3rd nomination). I am not convinced the editor has a COI. Rees11 (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see that the coincidence of a first name indicates a COI, and pointing it out comes close to violating WP:OUTING. If both the first and last name matched, then yes, I'd say that's a solid indicator. But regardless, the article itself should be deleted (I've said as much at the AfD) and if the discussion concludes as it looks like it will this will all likely be a moot point. --  At am a  頭 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

LTSally
This editor reflects a strong anti-Jehovah's Witness bias in both his editing, his "undo" edits, and in his talk page. His talk page has what might be consider "hate speech" towards the Jehovah's Witness organization. I had asked a few times that it might be edited. But the user is pretty adamant about keeping it as it is.

"the senseless parroting of stock phrases and ideas and the smugness of Witnesses about their own religion and their arrogant, derisive dismissal of the lifestyles and life choices of non-Witnesses.

I became sickened by the mindless acceptance and sometimes ecstatic reception of empty and.."

"...I realised after some time that within their closed community — a claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community they describe as a “spiritual paradise” — gossip and backbiting are the norm. One is always watched by other Witnesses, who are always waiting to judge, criticise and condemn the people they call their "brothers and sisters".

And so, after enduring much unhappiness, frustration and silent anger as a Jehovah’s Witness — for one cannot voice these criticisms, even to one’s closest friends, for fear they will report you to elders as an apostate and a murmurer — I chose to cease associating with the Witnesses."

He writes strongly about Jehovah's Witness "apostates" and uses them frequently as sources, fights attempts to remove negative comments about Jehovah's Witnesses. The result it, it becomes very difficult to bring a neutral point of view to the Wikipedia article. LTSally fights it every step of the way, and knows the system better than most, so he has undone, deleted about all of the comments that I and others have made to try to balance the article out.

He states on his page regarding the Jehovah's Witneses, "But such is the power — an intrusive, insidious, malevolent power — of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

His views are not balanced, they are biased, have an extreme point of view, not just a point of view, but his view is extreme, by any standards, and his editing reflects that extreme style.

The Wikipedia article as a result is negative, and strongly biased. I've read parts of many books, articles and websites on Jehovah's Witnesses such as Andrew Holden's 2002, where he presents what might be termed the positive and controversial, from the perspective of an outsider, but the wording and accusations in the Wikipedia article are extreme in their view of Jehovah's Witnesses, in many areas, because of the bias by this particular editor in large part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naturalpsychology (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from your talk page, you may have a COI yourself. Plus, you have not proposed any changes nor answered my questions at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses -- Neil N   talk to me  16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You brought this up about two months ago on this same board Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37. What's changed? -- Neil N   talk to me  16:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In answer to the above question, about bringing it up 2 months ago. LTSally stated that he deleted my comments from the pages where they were posted. I didn't know the system them, didn't know how to work with the Wikipedia, and at that time it was too much for me to deal with, so I opted out of the editing for the past 2 months. So, now my schedule is a little better where I can spend some time to understand the Wikipedia system.


 * I had thought to request that the LTSally talk page be deleted. I asked him a few times to modify it to take off the hatespeech, and so on, but he was pretty firm in keeping it.


 * I feel that in addition to a strong or extreme POV on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, he also has a measure of COI, which he openly states, and doesn't want to modify. If he was receptive to modifying his page, I wouldn't have posted this, but he pretty much refused to make any changes to his editing, and keeps on blocking my attempts to try to balance out the article. There are two on the current editing that are pretty much anti-Jehovah's Witness in their POV, LTSally and one other.--Natural (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as before, there's no COI here. Bias, yes, possibly some problems maintaining a neutral POV, but no conflict of interest. And NeilN is spot on when he says that any potential COI would equally apply to yourself. --  At am a  頭 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had alreay modified my Talk page to take away any potential COI, and plainly stated the purpose of my editing is to promote a neutral point of view, not a pro-Witness point of view. I'm not opposed to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as it is fair and from reliable sources, and truthful. Statements about 1914,1925,1975 I'm not opposed to that on the page, even though it is revealing errors of the Witnesses. That type of thing is factual and well-documented, the issue I'm bringing up is a clear anti-Witness editing bias, and in openly stating the oppostion and conflict of interest on the talk page. That's not appropriate for an encyclopedia discussion group or editing group and leads to problems among the editing team.


 * This is the second complaint at this noticeboard by that user against me. On neither occasion has he advised me of the complaint to enable me to defend myself. I have strong opinions about Jehovah's Witnesses, which I discuss on my user page in the context of explaining my motives for editing JW articles. User:Naturalpsychology also has strong opinions about the religion. I don't believe either of us have a COI. We are both interested in the religion, but for different reasons. I strive to ensure that all material I add to the page is accurate, fair, neutral and based on reliable published sources. I remove material from articles that fails to be neutral or based on reliable sources. I have asked this user at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses to identify material that breaches of WP:NPOV and am happy to discuss those. LTSally (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I published 2 notices last week on LTSally's talk page about plans to post a complaint. LTSally deleted both notices. I don't fully know the system yet, so any help with procedure is helpful also to me. Some of the other editors have been helping along with that.--Natural (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no official procedure, some noticeboards like WP:ANI have a template that you can post to a person's talk page but this one doesn't. Basically, after you open the report leave a message on the person's talk page that you have created a report about them on this board (linking WP:COIN is helpful). That's really all that's needed. --  At am a  頭 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that there is a conflict of interest, because LTSally is personally "hiding" from Jehovah's Witness elders in his congregation, stating, that if they found out what he was doing on Wikipedia he would be disfellowshipped, and he states in his talk page that he doesn't want to be disfellowshipped, because then he would not be able to associate with his old friends. So, I feel that he is partially using comments on the Wikipedia article about disfellowshipping, and trying to promote anti-Jehovah's Witness books and apostate literature, partly to cover his own tracks.

Before looking at the comments here, I changed my user page, so that my motives in editing are clearly stated. It's not my purpose to at all promote Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm not adverse to criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses, but rather to present factual information on the Wiki article which supports a neutral point of view, rather than a hyper-critical or negative point of view, or an extreme point of view. In other words, part of the editing by LTSally purposely is worded in such a way as to present Jehovah's Witnesses as being overly-authoritarian, and extreme. The editing style is purposely blunt. I added it to the COI page for the above reason, at the advice of one of the other editors. I didn't think of doing that until advised by one editor about that.--Natural (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the user making the complaint against me has, in his usual blundering style, inserted some unsigned comments immediately before my response, creating the impression that some of his comments were made by me. They were not. LTSally (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed some material from my userpage that was clearly causing offence to a couple of users who are Jehovah's Witnesses. I stand by my earlier comments that I have no conflict of interest in editing articles about that religion because of my views about it. I abide by all Wikipedia policies on neutrality and reliable verifiable sources. The complainant is a newcomer who is unfamiliar with WP policies and etiquette and assumes that reversions of his edits that fail to abide by those policies is demonstration of bias or article ownership. He has made a number of extraordinary allegations against me that I answer at User talk:Naturalpsychology. What else can I say? LTSally (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisation of Demonology and Demonologist
few months ago he/she already had waenings, now and again Revision history of Demonology: (cur) (prev) 04:05, 9 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Getting rid of redirecting link.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:07, 9 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,706 bytes) (now it is not a redidirect!) (undo) (cur) (prev) 16:31, 8 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (Removing a link that redirects here.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:55, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) m (21,706 bytes) (orpho) (undo) (cur) (prev) 08:53, 8 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,705 bytes) (agree) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:46, 7 January 2010 Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) (21,632 bytes) (This article isn't about the demonologist class in some games.) (undo) (cur) (prev) 03:35, 7 January 2010 Idot (talk | contribs) (21,663 bytes) (Undid revision 336140734 by Gordon Ecker (talk)) (undo) (cur) (prev) 04:28, 6 January 2010 Gordon Ecker (talk | contribs) m (21,632 bytes) (removing from the character classes category) (undo) the sitation is following: 1. the Demonologist is a character class in D&D 2. Ian.thomson removes any info abot that fact from Demonology and Demonologist articles which is a kind of vandalizm (Idot (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC))


 * There being a demonologist class in a number of games does not justify that the article about demonology in our world be messed with (as you have done in the past), nor justify that they have a separate article (which you have repeatedly tried to create with original research and some outright misinformation). Also, it is a lie and nothing more to say that I got any warnings from your actions in the demonologist and demonology articles.  Adhering to notability guidelines and trying to ensure the quality of articles is a conflict of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Idot. Please read WP:VAN for what constitutes vandalism in Wikipedia, and WP:COI for what constitutes a conflict of interest. Ian.thompson's edits don't come close in either case. This is a dispute over whether or not the "demonologist" character class is relevant to the demonology article, and should be discussed on the talk page of the article. Bringing the issue to this board was not productive. --  At am a  頭 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI /
Hello, I'm a new editor & would like some advice on something I have noticed. Whilst reading an article Walid Phares I saw that some months ago removed some sourced info that I guess he thinks is bad, Phares writing for Jerusalem Post, FrontPage, representing the Maronite community. Also on Clifford May, he removed sourced info about him being a past vice chair of the Republican Jewish coalition, and other sourced relating to being neo-con & similar. This editor has also workerd on Mark Dubowitz, and has also probably edited as.

All these articles are associated with Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and googling finds an interesting linkdin profile. I've re-added some of this info ( not all) with some more sources for the Phares.. after all why should someone hide info about being a Republican Jew or writing for JPost / FrontPage??

Is it okay for this user to be editing these articles in this way, being new(ish) I'm not sure of the protocol here...it took me a while to find this noticeboard. Thanks for any advice. Rootless Juice (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty blatant COI. We do have an anti-outing rule as part of our harrassment policy, but that excludes revealing a person's identity based on information voluntarily provided to Wikipedia, and since he has identified himself through his chosen usernames I don't think there's any problem with your report. A "Communications and Technology Manager" sounds like someone paid to improve the image of the Foundation on the web, and he shouldn't be making any controversial edits to articles related to it. Now, as he hasn't edited since December, he may no longer be editing any of those pages but if he continues to do so we may want to consider sanctions. I've left him a notice on his most recently-active account about this report (my guess is that the older account was abandoned, perhaps he forgot his password). --  At am a  頭 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the advice, following your lead I added a template on the older account, although he might not see it now if he's using the newer account. Hopefully he will refrain from removing these sourced and (to me) uncontroversial details, and discuss why he thinks it should be deleted. Cheers --Rootless Juice (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Page used to advertise theater company
There is a user called Smatprt being an acronym for Stephen Moorer AT Pacific Repertory Theatre. He is the founder of the Pacific Repertory Theatre. On 22 July 2006, he created an article about himself and such was the concern that it was put up for deletion on 20 July 2009 but the decision then was "keep". At that time the article was 34,000 bytes. However, it has now grown to 46,000 bytes and recently he has uploaded a photo of himself. It now seems clear, if it wasn't then, that this article is intended for self-promotion. TermiteGo (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OUTING. If the editor has not disclosed the information about themselves on Wikipedia, we generally put our fingers in our ears and shout "I can't hear you" no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary. Note also that WP:COI does not prevent editors from writing about themselves, it merely suggests that it is not a good idea. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I see past discussion of the Stephen Moorer article has been acrimonious. All I'll say is that it looks promotional to me, and excessive in length for an actor with a small regional company. Surely an article that only quotes positive reviews of an actor is in breach of WP:NPOV? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the article, and the editor proposed for discussion by TermiteGo:
 * The article on Stephen Moorer survived an AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Stephen Moorer, and I don't believe there is much doubt about the subject's role in writing the article. The new photo seems OK to me. I hope that TermiteGo or Gordon will specify some changes they would like to see in the article. Termite's stats on article size don't seem correct. The article on Moorer is currently at 17,000 bytes and has changed very little since July, 2009. There may be an occasional turn of phrase that is promotional and possibly every single production doesn't need to be listed in the article. But generally, I agree with the verdict of the July, 2009 AfD that the article should be kept.  User:Smatprt has some blocks on his record, though none since July, 2009. I hope he will be careful in the future.  Local theatrical productions are often covered in the press and I believe this is a claim to notability, in the cases where coverage can be found. AfD participants pointed out that the subject easily meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Papers cited include the SF Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All I would like to ad is that TermiteGo is the most recent sockpuppet of banned user:BarryisPuzzled [] who has a personal agenda at play here, which he even announced here []. After being banned over a year ago[], he reappeared with 3 (now at least 6 - see his threat here []) more puppets which I uncovered and had banned. He is living up to his threat and this appears to be payback. Unfortunately, the original AFD was also filed by an editor who I had edit conflicts with (as evidenced in the AFD discussion). Such is the lot of being a strong editor who does not endorse bullying and is not afraid to call a spade a spade. I will also add that the growth of the article was directly because of the AFD and was contributed to by numerous uninvolved editors.Smatprt (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking the two accounts per WP:DUCK. One is a pretty much self-declared sock (compare StanIsWell to WellStanley) and the other one creates a COIN discussion as its 3rd edit, after creating a user page and talk page. The declaration that they will continue socking over and over again from different Internet cafes is no worry to me; it's a lot easier to block an editor than to find a new cafe. --  At am a  頭 21:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As to the original complaint (which shouldn't be tossed out despite the intentions of the original reporter), the COI is pretty obvious and seems to be acknowledged, I'll echo EdJohnston in saying that Smatprt needs to be cautious. I don't see any evidence of current problems right now, but if someone can show diffs of recent problematic behavior (ownership, removing negative info, etc.) then we might have to do something. --  At am a  頭 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the caution. Let me assure you that I have, indeed, been extremely careful in editing this article (which as noted above by DeliciousCarbuncle is, indeed, allowable) and I would hope that you have noticed that I have not been the main contributor. In fact, I have added approx. 6,000 bytes and that was limited to only the bare verifiable facts - no praise, no reviews, etc - strictly the bare facts, dates, play titles, and any references that were requested. The remainder (over 11,000 bytes) was added by other uninvolved and unaffiliated editors. This material included all the review quotes, by the way. And I have never deleted ANY of the prose and will not (excepting Sockpuppet edits, of course).Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am disturbed, however, at the comment that it is "easier to block an editor than to find a new cafe". This awful Sockmaster does not even need to find a new cafe - he can sit in the same cafe every day and simply make up puppet after puppet after puppet (he created 3 more in the last two days). Surely Wikipedia can do better than allow this kind of blatant violation to continue. Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Account creation has been blocked from his IP (which is standard practice when blocking a sockpuppet). If he tries to create a new sock at the same cafe he'll be prevented from doing so. That doesn't prevent him from ever making a new sockpuppet anywhere, but it makes it inconvenient. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have the technology to prevent people from making sockpuppets over and over again, so the best tactic is revert, block, ignore and eventually they'll give up. --  At am a  頭 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am disturbed, however, at the comment that it is "easier to block an editor than to find a new cafe". This awful Sockmaster does not even need to find a new cafe - he can sit in the same cafe every day and simply make up puppet after puppet after puppet (he created 3 more in the last two days). Surely Wikipedia can do better than allow this kind of blatant violation to continue. Smatprt (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Account creation has been blocked from his IP (which is standard practice when blocking a sockpuppet). If he tries to create a new sock at the same cafe he'll be prevented from doing so. That doesn't prevent him from ever making a new sockpuppet anywhere, but it makes it inconvenient. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't have the technology to prevent people from making sockpuppets over and over again, so the best tactic is revert, block, ignore and eventually they'll give up. --  At am a  頭 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Todtanis and Ceebraid-Signal Corporation
User is an SPA posting articles about properties developed by the Ceebraid-Signal Corporation. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - (now Highgrove, Stamford) at AfD here
 * - (now Highgrove, Stamford) at AfD here


 * This is a blatant COI, see here where it shows that Tod Tanis is the "Sales Coordinator at Highgrove Sales and Design Center". I must say, Linked In comes in very handy with COI issues, as long as the editor is kind enough to give us their real name (otherwise we're violating outing policy). The articles themselves seem to merit inclusion, as this AfD shows, but I'm not comfortable with Tod editing them. I'm also uncomfortable with Tod's removal of the COI templates from his talk page, without responding to them. He's perfectly within his rights to do so, as removal of such notices implies that he has read and acknowledged them, but I can't help but feel that he isn't being totally transparent. Not only this, but he continues to add promotional information, such as this series of edits which is completely promotional. I've left him a warning about that, generally even with a strong COI I'll look the other way but when a person is making inappropriate edits as a result of the COI, then it's relevant to treat such edits as disruption. --  At am a  頭 19:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a note, Tod has contacted me on my talk page to ask my help on getting the information added to the Highgrove article in a neutral fashion, so this may not be a problem after all. Any editor who wants to cooperate with others on articles should be welcome in Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Linear programming editor has acknowledged repeatedly adding own thesis
An [| experienced editor] [| warned another editor] about conflict-of-interest concerns, etc., following the editor's repeated inclusion of a thesis and an unpublished manuscript by Jalaluddin Abdullah. Today, the cautioned [| editor] [| "outed himself" as being Jalaluddin Abdullah].

Dr. Abdullah has an IP address similar to those of all the other (anonomyous) editor(s) adding this material, all of whom seem to come from (like him) from Malaysia.

The [| senior editor] suggested that I consider bring our concerns about possible conflict of interest to the attention of this bulletin board. (I had asked for help previously on the bulletin-boards for reliable sources and notability. )

(Caveat: I seem to be the only editor of the Linear Programming article who has recently commented on this problem.)

Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Hjjalal for 48 hours, since the promotion of his own thesis work was quite blatant, and people had vainly been attempting to explain our policies to him for some time. He and his IP socks were quite busy restoring mention of his work to the article, after being reverted by regular editors. Any support for the inclusion of his work by regular editors at Talk:Linear programming talk page would of course change things, but so far he is the only one who believes his work merits notice in the article. (This is an introductory article, after all). My own impression of User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, though I don't know him, and Kiefer.Wolfowitz does not seem to be his real name, is that he appears to be an expert in the field. Editor EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (I would be happy to discuss my qualifications privately, if asked by any senior editor. My first extensive editing was on the article for the optimal design of statistical experiments, field in which the Kiefer-Wolfowitz Theorem is central --- also, I thought that Jacob Wolfowitz's name needed good press after his son's behavior in the Bush Administration! ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I did some editing on Linear Programming and George B. Dantzig this weekend, to give some evidence in support of EdJohnston's generous words.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been (at least) 3 other cases of similar editing, presenting a conflict of interest:
 * [| Similar editing] occured at the Convex optimization article, but it was successfully removed without so much fuss.
 * [| Similar editing] also occured at the Nonlinear programming article.
 * [| Similar editing] also occured at the article on Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Another anonymous IP editor (also from Malaysia, apparently) [| added Jalaluddin Abdullah's manuscript as a reference] to the article on convex optimization today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor EdJohnston semi-protected Convex optimization. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor EdJohnston semi-protected Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Jalaluddin Abdullah's manuscript was again added at Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions by an anonymous IP editor (another Malaysian sock).

Billy Drummond
Resolved - Repeated COI/POV edits from a new user (User:Tessa Souter) on this page, no response to talk page warnings/inquiries. Tessa Souter is a musician who has played with Drummond - she has added herself to the discography, as you can see. Chubbles (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * User has replied on talk page; looks like the issue has passed. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

John H Abeles
Article was deleted as a copyvio of http://www.plaxo.com/profile/show/17179963604?src=myProfile&pk=46eb322c33780caf3999aa8250ec50fda5f16402 but restored following verification of permission through OTRS. The contributor was cautioned before OTRS permission was logged that the content would be subject to community review and provided various links, including Autobiography and especially WP:YOURSELF. He chose to verify permission anyway. Since I handled the OTRS ticket, I think there's a kind of conflict with my taking part in the community review, but I believe it pretty clearly needs some cleanup. I'm dropping it off here in case somebody else can handle it. I'll get back to the copyright stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did some copy edit, and it looks like other than a copy paste of a non wiki-stylized content, he has done no additional editing. Probably not a lot needs to be done along COI at the moment unless we see more editing from this user. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citizens United
I just happened upon a user named editing the article about the organization Citizens United apparently to promote some products. So, let's keep an eye out for line-crossing policy violations. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like a clear user name violation to me, reporting to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CubeSpawn


This editors edits appear promotional to me, along with this edit which I reverted as spammy, but was then reverted by another editor who didn't agree. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Spammy, yes, actual spam, I wouldn't go that far. Is there a COI with an editor named CubeSpawn creating an article called CubeSpawn? Possibly. The username itself is problematic, as it might be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. Since raw linking of external web sites is discouraged, I've converted the link to a reference. I'd like to know what relation the editor has to the project, and it would be a good thing if they were to choose a different username (one that represents them as an individual, not the project).


 * My other concern is that I see zero notability for the project itself. I know that the editor who reverted you had expressed that he likes the CubeSpawn concept, but that doesn't mean we ignore WP:N. For now, I don't oppose mentioning it in the open source article (that's why I went through the trouble of cleaning up the link) but I don't see any potential for a stand-alone article. --  At am a  頭 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this notable yet? Probably not (Incidentally, I'm the editor who initially reverted ArcAngel). Looks like a case of a highly interesting project, but it's still too early for WP coverage, according to WP:RS. However, my concern isn't with deleting the article (which, let's remember, didn't even exist yet outside userspace!) but with deleting the user through a heavy-handed WP:BITEY welcome. MFD isn't for flogging well-meaning newbies who don't yet underside groupname policies, it's for wiping out real problems. What does it feel like for a new editor to start out in a fairly discrete manner with a clearly GF creation, then have the whole weight of the wikicops descend upon them? Congratulations mission accomplished. We've driven that editor away 8-(. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that my interpretation and implementation of various policies and procedures doesn't match up with other editors. My approach may appear to be heavy-handed (it's not meant that way), but I am simply trying to keep the advertising/spamming to a minimum as best as I can.  I guess what I see as spam or promotion isn't always the case in other points of view.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 03:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawood Group
This seems to be a classic case of Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences. Last May, Kashifpisces created Dawood Group about a Pakistani group of companies; he is an SPA editing only Dawood-related articles. Other users have since added sourced material unfavourable to the company, and Kashifpisces has been edit-warring to try to remove it; he was finally blocked for 31 hours, when Kashi786 appeared and carried on, finally requesting deletion WP:CSD, which I declined; he is on a 24-hour block. It is likely that one or both, or others, will be back; a report to WP:SPI may be necessary. JohnCD (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A sock puppet investigation case has been submitted already. See Sockpuppet investigations/Kashifpisces. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be worth semi-protecting the page if the user attempts to circumvent the block again. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * removed sourced information; if it happens again, I will semi-protect. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It happened again. . -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 117.20.28.66 belongs to DawoodGroup according to whois, apparently a COI. Rees11 (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for a month. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the semiprotection, but have some concerns about reference 5, which currently links to scribd.com, a host for self-publication. The scribd page claims to be a reprint of an article that appeared in a more mainstream source in 1972, but somebody might want to read it carefully to see if it is legit. This reference 5 is the only source for the following sentence in the article: In the 1970s the group was accused of poor labour practices and using violence and torture to repress organized workers[5]. If these people are really sleazy, wouldn't something have appeared in the press more recently than 35 years ago? EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion should maybe move to the talk page, but I think that sentence should come out. Rees11 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that reference is perfectly fine since it was typewritten (we don't discount printed sources), though the sentence could use a re-write. It may just have been a localized incident not picked up by any of the major news agencies of the time. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We're accusing people of torture based on what could be a self-published manuscript? It reads like an editorial. What exactly is the Pakistan Forum, even if that truly is the source?  I urge that the sentence be moved to the Talk page until someone has the time to find better sources. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Adigiorgio

 * I cant even get this link to work. Looks like a nice, intelligent person trying to set the record straight by writing about his family's history, which may well be very notable for all I know. Some experienced administrator should probably offer to help him.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly, Smokefoot, I think you've done a pretty good job already of letting this person know our COI guidelines and they've accepted them, and this editor also seems very well-meaning and honest, so I think everything is good. But it was good to bring this up here anyway, in case there does become a problem in the future people will be aware of this. Thanks. --  At am a  頭 16:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hello1237
- See the currently open case Sockpuppet investigations/Usgpo. I ask that this user who is still active be barred from editing any article with relation to the GPO Sole Soul (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well you cannot block a specific user from editing a specific page. You can only totally block a user or protect a page. Blocking the users will likely come out from the sockpuppet investigation. And only a total page protect will block these auto-confirmed users, but will not likely be done since it has been spanning time, and a user block is more appropriate. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I've closed the SPI (reasoning). Should you believe there's a current COI, please elaborate on it here for consideration. Thanks, NJA (t/ c)  12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

User:209.208.191.8 New York Film Academy COI

 * - 55 edits on New York Film Academy. 12 edits on NYFA owner Jerry Sherlock. IP WHOIS results show internal.nyfa.com.

Other notable (sock puppet?) Users: User:212.123.163.146 with 28 edits on NYFA (no other wiki edits), User:Kalinpmoon with 26 edits, User:Obilon 26 edits about which User:Colfer2 at one time "reverted a bunch of adspeak by Obilon and a not-notable NYT article about the school's TV commercials". Also User:Kalinmoon and User:Nyfa w/ 3 edits apiece. Many of these Users also edited Jerry Sherlock, w/ User:Oblion being that page's creator. Badcamera (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This sounds more like a sock report than a COI concern. If that's true, place your sock investigation at WP:SPI please. Thanks, NJA (t/ c)  11:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is COI for all of the usernames involved. Was unsure if I was supposed to start a new section for each name. I found the main source to be User:209.208.191.8 with an IP registered to internal.nyfa.com and 55 revisions to New York Film Academy. The other names listed may more accurately be meat puppets, and employed by User:209.208.191.8. Thanks. -- Badcamera (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of company article


(moved from the WP:POV notiveboard --Enric Naval (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

As I have mentioned on its talk page, much of the article on the company that I represent (and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding), Hill & Knowlton, is POV and requires references and citations from reliable sources. So far, none of the article's editors have responded to my call for the article to be checked for its neutrality and references improved/unreliably sourced material removed.

I can therefore only assume that the editors of this article are trying to make my organisation look bad by not presenting either a neutral or well-balanced point of view, supported by reliable sources.

As my COI restricts me from directly editing the article, I am therefore reaching out to this community of editors in the hope that someone with an independent position will review the article for POV and edit it accordingly.

Niall Cook (Hill &amp; Knowlton) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.196.114.169 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please take this matter to the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. That board is reviewed by people who usually deal with this type of problem. Please register an account in your own name so you have a permanent User talk page. This allows others to have an ongoing conversation with you. Temporary IPs are not good for that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I was following the guidance here which suggest that the WP:POV noticeboard is the place to go. Thanks for moving it. As far as I know, I am using my real name and have a permanent user talk page. However, I first posted this whilst not logged it and subsequently updated it. Thanks to everyone who has edited the article. I note that "Notable Clients" only contain controversial ones. How do we go about getting some of the non-controversial notable clients included? Or does notability actually mean controversial? Niall Cook (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you provide me some notable clients along with what makes that engagement notable and sources on the talk page I'll work it in. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been away and just seen your reply. Will do exactly that. Niall Cook (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger compensated editing


User:TonyTheTiger recently created the article SitNGo Wizard, which User:DegenFarang nom'd. In the AFD discussion, User:TonyTheTiger :"Disclosure I have written the article in exchange for a free registration (which would cost me $99 after the 30-day trial ends).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)" This appears to be against WP:Conflict of interest, which says editors shouldn't edit WP if you "derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia." I tried to, but was by the editor in question. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I nominated that article for deletion and got involved with an edit war with TonyTheTiger over it today - I would like to say that he volunteered that information (without even being accused of it) and appears to be a good editor with a long history. 95% of editors would never have said that and I don't think he should be punished for being honest. A warning at most is in order in my view. DegenFarang (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Imo, it's also reasonable to disregard his !vote at the AFD, and to scrutinize any other articles he's created. He said he wrote the article and then approached the company for compensation in exchange—has he done that for other articles as well? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He put a great deal of effort into PokerTracker and it is a similarly extremely detailed article (very atypical of even the most famous poker brands) - it wouldn't surprise me if he received compensation or approached them about it - that said, it is without question a notable product, though I'm quite sure it would never have gotten so much attention without him. This is not an accusation, just an answer to your question. DegenFarang (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this editor should be severely reprimanded. Having dozens of stars, banners and bangles does not permit an editor to approach a commercial company and make a financial arrangement with them to expertly spam Wikipedia (and then brazenly tell everyone about it like it's no big deal). Hazir (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend the severest censure possible under current Wikipedia policy be imposed on this user, up to and including permanent account deletion if that option is available. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem. Wikipedia currently has no policy involving paid editing. Look at WP:Paid editing, it's a disambiguation page for two proposals; one a guideline, the other a policy. There has been a long-running debate about the subject, and some people say that paid editing should be forbidden because it turns Wikipedia into an advertising vehicle, and the others say that whatever improves the encyclopedia should be allowed whether or not the editor is doing so for profit. As it stands right now, editing Wikipedia on behalf of a person who is paying you is not a blockable offense. If you happen to cause problems while making those edits, such as BLP violations, or creating spam, as just a couple of examples, of course that editor can be blocked for those reasons. The debate above between DoriSmith and DegenFarang echoes exactly what is being debated elsewhere. For now, the COI should be acknowledged, but absent any actual evidence of disruption there's not much anyone can do. And maybe that's okay, if the editor is making positive improvements despite the COI. --  At am a  頭 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis Globe-Democrat Article Conflict of Interest
An editing war has broken out on this page. A new startup company has begun using an expired trademark from the defunct St. Louis daily newspaer the Globe Democrate. This company uses the old trade name for a news web site that has no affiliation with the old newspaper.

The staff and ownership of this start up web site has been editing the wikipedia page on the Globe Democrat to state falsely that it is affiliated with the old Globe, to list the new website's entire "staff", to link to the new website and otherwise advertise its new web site. Reporting on this new web site should not be made by any staff or ownership of this website as it violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danocooper (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On 23 January, User:CIreland placed a edit-protection on the page due to edit waring. Please use the talk page to resolve this issues from here. If there still appears to be a conflict of interest, please specifically state which users or IP's you believe to have a COI with this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I edit-protected it and will try to mediate this, I just haven't had time as yet. Will get to it in the next day or so. -- Flyguy649 talk 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nthellworld

 * - aka nthellworld.com this article is a clear case of conflict of interest. The people who run the organisation also created the article and guard it for any changes they don't like.

This is an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article.

Furthermore, the supposedly consumer group for Cable users in the UK is populated by people who themselves have a conflict of interest.

When I last attempted to edit the page I started receiving anonymous threats by email.

Some of the threats contained my full home address - I have no idea where they got it from, possibly from my past membership of their forum.

They will of course deny all this, but I kept all the email threats on file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.129.67 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Nthellworld. If you are getting person threats it is best to report them here ANI.  Get more traffic by admins who can help resolve issues. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the article being discussed is Nthellworld. A redirect called Cable Forum points to it. I changed the title of this COI report accordingly. Here are the article links:
 * Looking over the article history of Nthellworld, I see only three edits by anyone in the last 12 months and they are all of a minor nature. So I don't see "an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article." Where exactly is the abuse?  A complaint about the Nthellworld article being biased was raised on the talk page at Talk:Nthellworld back in early 2007, but it did not continue past that time. Someone who was very discontented with Nthellworld did raise some COI complaints on Talk, and they were reminded of our policy on WP:Original research.  The Nthellworld.com site, despite its free-spirited name, is owned by one of the major media companies in the UK so it would hardly be expected to be a beacon of independence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking over the article history of Nthellworld, I see only three edits by anyone in the last 12 months and they are all of a minor nature. So I don't see "an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article." Where exactly is the abuse?  A complaint about the Nthellworld article being biased was raised on the talk page at Talk:Nthellworld back in early 2007, but it did not continue past that time. Someone who was very discontented with Nthellworld did raise some COI complaints on Talk, and they were reminded of our policy on WP:Original research.  The Nthellworld.com site, despite its free-spirited name, is owned by one of the major media companies in the UK so it would hardly be expected to be a beacon of independence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rother
Possible conflict of interest by creating the page Mike Rother and adding related references and publications on various pages -- 85.180.41.195 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've welcomed him with info about the COI guideline, and informed him of this discussion. --  At am a  頭 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Geier article being edited by multiple socks of Mark Geier
The talk page of this article:



lists just some of the accounts Mark Geier has used to edit his own article:









One of them was blocked for very abusive socking (impersonating one of his major critics). His use of these multiple accounts is a violation of the very basic principle of editing under one account. (Yes, there are specific exceptions allowed, but none of these are allowed exceptions. He's spreading his edit history and that's "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".

This issue has been reported at BLP/N once before, but apparently nothing happened.

The edits are frequently deleted as very controversial, peacocky and self-promotional. It's a biography, not a resume, and there's a big difference. The worst infraction is removals of criticisms mentioning his dubious practices and "intellectually dishonest" testimony, etc.. What can be done about this? There are serious COI and sock issues involved. He (IOW all his accounts and IPs) should be topic banned from the subject. If allowed at all, he should be forced to edit under one account using his own name and be limited to the talk page. The abuse needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit history of User:Justice2day speaks volumes. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed! Geier has no respect for Wikipedia policies, and has instead used it to promote himself, his dubious and dangerous ideas about autism and the vaccination controversy, and to whitewash his biography of properly sourced criticisms, thus violating our most sacred policy, NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that the removal of Dr. Geier as a Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics is incorrect. It can be confirmed by any at the following link:


 * http://www.acmg.net/source/members/cmemberdisplay.cfm?section=Find_a_Geneticist&id=1906


 * This is part of an endless effort by certain individuals to refuse to allow placement of acurrate details regarding Dr. Geier's qualifications on this entry. Those who are intentionally deleting accurate information regarding Dr. Geier have not respect for Wikipedia policies, and have instead attempted to use Wikipedia as a means to promote their attack agenda on Dr. Geier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice2day (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Geier, misuse of multiple accounts is forbidden here. You also have a colossal COI and shouldn't be editing your own biography. Use the talk page. If you aren't willing to follow the process of collaboration and consensus that rules here, your edits will be deleted like the edits of any other sockpuppet. While you should be treated fairly, you don't deserve any respect as your editing history here reveals you aren't here to edit an encyclopedia, but to promote yourself and your agenda. Your agenda can be presented neutrally, but you aren't doing that. Leave it to other editors who share your POV AND who also respect our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, since what you mention is a content issue, I'm taking it to the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In referring to himself in the 3rd person above, Justice2day seems to be denying sockpuppet charges. Ultimately IP checks and IP blocking might be the only way to deter what is -- IMO -- blatant and obvious POV, COI and SOCK violations.  These sort of disruptions are despicable and those responsible deserve neither patience nor sympathy. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously wanting Justice2day blocked for having a sock that was indefinitely blocked 3 years ago? Not going to happen. For one thing, there was already an SPI run back then, for another, I think it's technically impossible to run a check on an account that hasn't edited for years. If the IPs do belong to Justice2day, there's no violation of WP:SOCK because sockpuppets are alternate accounts, and editors are allowed to edit anonymously as long as they aren't trying to gain false consensus by using an IP address in a discussion and pretending that the IP is a different person (as in an RFC or AFD). So there aren't any sockpuppet charges to deny. As to the COI, do you have anything to support your outing other than the fact that Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner? If you don't have any on-wiki confirmation that this is the same person, then I'm going to have to ask you to stop the accusations or risk being blocked. I may have to get an oversighter to remove your posts as well. --  At am a  頭 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of your comments are helpful and appreciated, but you end on a note I disagree with strongly. Dutiful editors consider it a responsibility to ferret out WP:COI where it exists.  Sometimes editors can be overly enthusiastic in their anti-WP:COI efforts, and it’s good we have conversations in which our understanding of policies is discussed.  As you note “Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner” an article which has had COI issues in the past.  The fact that this has alarmed several Wikipedians shows that they care and that they are paying attention.  The statement that these editors “risk being blocked” for voicing their suspicions seems entirely inappropriate at this time.  Yes, at some point if someone persists in accusing someone of WP:Sock after the matter has been discussed appropriately, then the good guys do become the bad guys.  That point hasn’t been reached, and editors need not fear they will be blocked for identifying (correctly or incorrectly)  COI/Sock issues.  I agree with you that due to the three years that have passed, we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves.  Thanks.  --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't care if you "disagree" or not. We have a harrassment policy on Wikipedia, and every time you post to the conflict of interest noticeboard you see the following information:
 * "Before editing, please read:"
 * "When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors."
 * "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline."
 * That must seem familiar to you because every time you post on this board it is prominently displayed at the top of the page. I'm going to try to get this oversighted to clear this out. --  At am a  頭 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post the following but had an edit conflict with User:Atama: I need to ammend my comments. The outing policy is actually pretty specific and stringent, and User:Atama's comments make more sense to me now that I've reviewed that policy again (thanks for bringing that specific policy to our attention, Atama, sorry for my misfire.) Standing by my statement "we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves", and recalling again Atama's statement that "Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner”, User:Justice2day has no reason to celebrate. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my comment above based on this apology, no worries. --  At am a  頭 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Christina Mendez


Unexperienced editor Christina Mendez is reverting the page to original form. Doesn't use wikilinks, but instead pastes the entire web link. Is utilizing copyright photos when I have warned him not to. Is making article look like a vanity page/resume. Adds links that look like wikilinks to Spanish Wikipedia article when I informed him this in English language Wikipedia edition. I have given him instructions on how to create wikilinks and also not to use copyright photos without permission. He reverts page after I made extensive grammar, structure and Wikipedia-related edits. Have removed external links and categories that have nothing to do with subject. Subject has ignored warnings. Also, I need opinion if subject is notable for Wikipedia article. Many Thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, Christina is a "she".... -- Brangifer (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The user's original is Carlos. He changed it to Christina yesterday. Unless he's a transsexual, I am sure user is male.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So are we dealing with sockpuppetry and misuse of multiple accounts to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors", COI, or what? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's sockpuppetry, just a confused editor (or possibly more than one).
 * User:Christina Mendez last edited WP October 2008.
 * User:Carlos5053 has recently edited the Christina Mendez article, but
 * User:Carlos5053 redirects to User:Christina Mendez and
 * User talk:Carlos5053 redirects to User talk:Christina Mendez
 * Things became more confused when XLR8TION copied the contents of User talk:Christina Mendez to Talk:Christina Mendez.
 * Something is definitely funky here. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get the impression that User:Carlos5053 has done anything sockpuppet-y except perhaps accidentally due to inexperience. I would concentrate on curbing this user's misuse of links and copyright photos.  They seem to be editing in good faith, albeit not correctly. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a longer explanation of the confusion between the two accounts at User talk:Carlos5053. This editor, presumably Christina, is now the owner of two accounts. I've undone the redirect between the two talk pages. I've recommended that she stop using User:Carlos5053, and am hoping for a response. Presumably, we still have a COI situation, even after we sort out the account confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't presume User:Christina Mendez is the person discussed in the Christina Mendez article. I suspect instead that User:Carlos5053 is a fan of Christina Mendez and the "User:Christina Mendez" username reflects that. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kids Help Phone
and are making potential COI edits to the previously existing article. Some of these have been reverted. Tckma (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article itself is promotional in tone, the edits by Kids Help Phone have been mostly helpful (no pun intended). I'm going to try talking with the editor about changing their username rather than doing even a softblock for the name. The article also needs references, but they do exist so I don't think it should be deleted. --  At am a  頭 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to find some third party references, but very view. I did some minor copy edit to wikify, and added two references. I also re-sequenced and removed a peacock word or two. I think Atama is doing well by talking to the editor and the article itself isn't bad for being COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize if I didn't follow protocol very well. Contributing to this article was a new thing for me and I should have been more thorough in reading how things are done and what's allowed. I've requested to change the username and can also provide reference links if there's a need for more information. There's a lot of information about Kids Help Phone on their website: http://org.kidshelpphone.ca/en/about-us/ but more specific info is available. Again, really, really sorry! There are other charities referenced on Wikipedia, so I thought it was ok to have a positive tone (but didn't mean to make it sound bias). Kids Help Phone (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoming paid article


See MER-C 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching out for that one for a few days now. Nice to see others doing the same.  Them From  Space  04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A pox on them. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have them on my watchlist too, so if and when they are created I'll be available. --  At am a  頭 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping - User:Blackash
User:Blackash is the co-creator of the "Pooktre" techniques given prominence in the Tree shaping article. He is shown in a photo added to the article in which text has been superimposed. Despite repeated attempt by various editors to get User:Blackash to respect Wikipedia COI policies, this user continues to use this article to promote himself personally and professionally. This user makes few edits to other articles, and most of these are related to efforts at self-promo, his preference for the term "tree shaping" versus "arborculture", etc. Finally and most damagingly, User:Blackash is extremely resistant to other editors' efforts to improve this article and seems to be making every effort to control and micromanage it's content. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this is where I should reply, if not please tell me where. Blackash is co-creator of pooktre. In this verision of the page (before 208.59.93.238 started editing) I had added the other practitioners (except for Arborscuplture and Pooktre, I didn't add these) I have actively found references for other artists, I also got permission to put up Dr Chris Cattle image. The placing of the first photo was not done by me. When editing other articles that are related to Tree shaping I will add Tree shaping text, links and images, so as to display Tree shaping in context to the related article. This type of editing I would not class of self-promotion. I endeavoured to always discuss any changes I make or that I object to. I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborculture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been change from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I created this comment on the Tree Shaping talk page, before 96.233.40.199 I thought I better add it here as well.


 * (They) have failed to explain why they are exempt from the WP:COI guidelines which have guided the creation of 14 million articles on Wikipedia. Editor after editor have asked them to read this policy and to please comply out of respect for everyone involved with Wikipedia.  Is there anyway to make these people understand that they should not be editing this article at all and that they certainly do not have the right to micromanage it and to control the nuance of every phrase within?  --96.233.40.199 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a potential COI is not a reason to ignore my points or revert my edits without discussion. I have now read the whole COI page. Have you guys? If not please read this part at least How to handle conflicts of interest from the COI My comment above, was to illustrate my editing style, so that people checking it can decide weather I am editing from a NPOV Blackash (talk)


 * @96.233.40.199 "Editor after Editor" ? Hardly, in point of fact we have had editors comment about the fact that we are open minded and editing from a NPOV Blackash (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blackash has stated openly on Wikipedia that they are a person mentioned by name in this article. They are half of the "Pooktre" team.  This person and their partner charge money for their services, and they are in competition with other tree shapers even if a spirit of collaboration rather than competition prevails in the tree shaping community.  Although I am disgusted that that this person insists on editing this article despite WP:COI guidelines, I have not categorically rejected their edits.  Rather, I have rejected edits based upon specific points of contention.  For example, when it comes to matters of word choice versus content, I reject edits which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language.  I also reject Blackash's attempts to categorize "arborsculpture" as the specific term for the work of one person -- Richard Reames -- noting that Reames himself considers "arborsculpture" a term for the practice in general and not a term for his own work specifically.  Blackash is more or less a single purpose account, and the attempt to micromanage this article is essentially their only involvment with Wikipedia.  Blackash feels they edit with WP:NPOV in mind.  Part of the basis of WP:COI is that when writing about one's self, company, wife, house, or whatever, NPOV is almost impossible.  I care about Wikipedia, they care about tree shaping.  That is the essential difference between NPOV and COI.--96.233.40.199 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As can be seen in this edit user Blackash wrote "I am one of the practitioners (Pooktre) mentioned in the article. Understanding that there was a potential for a COI I have always endeavoured to edit from a NPOV. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees.(Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" Repeat: "My...agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture".  If there is anyone besides Blackash who doesn't read this as admission of WP:COI and misuse of Wikipedia please speak up.  --96.233.40.199 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My reply form the talk page.Blackash (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one to categorize arborsculpture as the word for Richard Reames work. I am just the most recent Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange you still haven't given what criteria you have used to justify the use of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You still haven't said what you didn't like in the content my suggest sentence Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again with the implication that I only edit this article. not true. Repeating an argument doesn't make it true. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * About your comment to NOPV has a section on Bias "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." In an effort to ensure that I am being as neutral as possible, I have requested editorial assistance. To check and advices how I can improve my editing. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My reply form the talk page Blackash (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I touched that you deicded to change the heading from "Not clever enough to lie?" to the above.Blackash (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The link you give is where I asked for editorial assistance to improve my editing and to check that my editing is neutral. Since we don't wish to be branded with some else's method I gave an example and used the word Arborsculpture, to better allow the editor to decide whether we are being biased in our editing or not. Blackash (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that you didn't realised that I had already answered this. I have always stated that we don't care what the name of the artform is as long as there is not a method attached to it. There had been a consensus that Arborsculpture has a method link to it. In the books on the subject it gives "Arborscuplture techniques", which is the instant method of shaping. Blackash (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * RECAP - In 1995, Richard Reames published a book in which the word "arborculture" was coined. Reames doesn't claim this as a brand name nor as a term for his work alone.  Some feel this term is synonymous with the phrase "tree shaping" as used in the title of this article.   "Arborsculpture" has about 29,500 Google hits and the word has often been used to describe the tree shaping efforts of people other than Reames.  A specialized Google search for "arborsculpture" without the word "Reames" still produces about 25,200 hits, one of which is "arborsculpture.org".  However, a certain amount of antipathy exists between Reames (aka User:Slowart) and fellow tree-shaper/arborsculptor Becky Northey (aka User:Blackash) and Northey has stated rather plainly that her agenda is to not have the word coined by Reames applied to her work.  According to my understanding, Northey led a campaign to have "tree shaping" rather than "arborsculpture" as the title of the article.  That campaign was successful and, to some degree, Northey interprets this as a consensus that the word "arborsculpture" should be attached only to the work of Reames and those who use similar methods.  Northey has made numerous edits to keep the word "arborsculpture" out of the intro and to assure that the word "arborsculpture" is used as the heading of the section in which Reames work is discussed.  This is the primary issue.  The secondary issue also centers around word choice, essentially whether "relationships between methods" versus "distinctions between methods" is the way to go.  This secondary word choice issue is only contentious because Northey seems determined to be the one making these choices despite what some identify as a WP:COI.  Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person (me) and that I'm a Wikipedian not a treescuptor. Reames has expressed approval that I've turned my attention to the article but has lately taken a very "hands off" approach citing his own WP:COI.  No other editor has been involved recently, leaving me and User:Blackash to conduct what is basically a "slow-motion, no 3RR edit war" over these issues.  I admit I've had trouble understanding some of Northey's arguements during this disagreement, and Northey herself has implied that written verbal expression isn't her strongest quality.  At this point, however, I think I understand that Northey believes that the term "arborsculpture" should be confined to methods (such as those used by Reames) in which the bending of live trees, rather than more subtle or time instensive methods, is an important feature.  I don't see evidence that Reames, the arborcultural community, nor the world at large makes this distinction.  I hope I have represented Northey's position correctly. I'm annoyed at this time-wasting impasse and I'm sure Northey/User:Blackash is too.  I really wish experienced Wikipedians would chime in. Sorry for the unattractive length of this message; thank you if you have read this and triple "thank yous" to anyone willing to offer a fresh opinion.  --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't lead anything please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping and Pooktre AFD
 * I already explained the differents between relationship and distinctions. It not up to me to justify, as the editor who wants to make the changes you need to justify why they are right.
 * Please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping quote "it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary." John Gathright, quote "Mr. Reames has made extensive use of my material and sources in the development of both his craft (‘arborsculpture’) and his books. Still, I do not characterize his work as ‘Botanic Architecture’, nor would I associate my work, or Erlandson’s with ‘arborsculpture’. That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Wikipedia to support such efforts." MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) for more plese read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping Blackash (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A tricky one. Not sure what the overall name for tree shaping actually is. Am not familiar with the term tree shaping as such. Need to have a look at some of the surrounding articles as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are one and the same person. They outed themselfs in the section Recap "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person." Blackash (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Sock seems to be yet another policy which Blackash claims to understand but of which no understanding is evidenced. Anyone interested (really?  why would you be?) in this spurious accusation can refer to Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199.--208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey


An IP editor,, stating that he is the subject, made several changes to this biography. I reverted, asking for talk page discussion, and placed a personal COI notice on the IP's talk page. The user reverted back. A discussion (IP and I) has begun on the talk page. I don't wish to be a bully and would certainly appreciate the continued involvement of this editor. Since I have in the past made several edits with which this individual apparently disagrees, advice from other users would be helpful. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although editing one's own articles is not forbidden by Wikipedia, I really hate the idea of people doing this and I approach this question with an instant emotional bias against Aubrey de Grey's edits of the Aubrey de Grey article. I was therefore surprised to find de Grey's edit's almost acceptable.  Replacing "scientific community" with "Some sections of the scientific community" isn't bad because the community isn't monolithic (although I think "sections" rather than "some sections" is a better word choice...the "some" seems to minimalize  it).  The way in which mention is made of the SENS Foundation's signed endorsement is problematic as the endorsement of de Grey's own cadre shouldn't really be presented as a counterbalance to the prevailing opinion.  Mention of that endorsement made elsewhere in the article seems okay to me.  Elsewhere de Grey replaces "a critical article in MIT's Technology Review" with "two highly critical editorials accompanying an article".  Here he seems to be both clarifying what format the text in question appeared and (perhaps surprisingly?) letting us know that the folks at MIT think even less of him than the first word choice indicated.  Elsewhere he has replaced "validity of the de Grey's theories on aging" with "legitimacy of de Grey's proposals for combating aging."  This latter word choice is probably more appropriate, and the difference is relatively minor, but I believe that a person named in the article should not be the one determining these verbal nuances.  In summary, I don't think de Grey has done much harm with these edits and with a little additional tweaking (by someone besides de Grey) the alternative content/word choices can remain.  Conversely, since there was nothing about these edits which was urgent, factually vital, or otherwise really necessary, I feel that de Grey should have resisted the urge to make what even he characterizes as "trivial corrections."  I do commend de Grey for revealing that he is the one who made these IP edits as we probably wouldn't have known otherwise.  De Grey asked for a discussion of this matter via email.  My guess is this wasn’t a shady attempt to keep the discussion public but rather indicates a degree of unfamiliarity with Wikipedia culture.  If de Grey is unfamiliar with Wikipedia culture then I also embrace the “no hard feelings” attitude User:Keepcalmandcarryon  seems to express towards de Grey and definitely thank de Grey for his efforts.  It is people who have been versed on WP:COI  but who maintain a “oh but my edits are NPOV” that are tumors poisoning our best efforts.  --208.59.93.238 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Dr. de Grey. I thank you both for your balanced remarks and your toleration of a Wikipedia newbie. Three brief points, of which the last is the most important:

- Concerning resisting the urge, I only made the trivial edits because I was anyway making the non-trivial edit to the first paragraph.

- The Technology Review edit clarifies what is already noted more accurately in the Technology Review Controversy article.

- I think you misunderstand the mention of the endorsement by SENS Foundation's RAB: it was only out of modesty that I did not mention in my edit the fact that the RAB members are not just my own cadre, but are at least as credentialed in scientific fields relevant to SENS as the authors of the EMBO Reports article (as can be seen from their one-line affiliations at the referenced page). Accordingly, their opinion does indeed entirely counterbalance the skeptical one, and any new edit that you or others may make would be wrong to remove this implication. I think it's fair to say that the neutrality of any article's first paragraph is particularly important and that lack of it is not adequately excused by compensatory text lower down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.164.81 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Note my statement "as I understand it the majority of the sci community rejects much of de Aubrey's ideas for various reasons" is open to correction. However if publications coming out of MIT -- by far one of the world's most respected scientific insitintuition -- give no credence to de Grey's claims let's see some good evidence that it is the "skeptics who are now outnumbered." --208.59.93.238 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I changed "de Aubrey" to "de Grey" in the text of my previous post. Apologies for the typo; if I missed any occurrences of this error I give blanket permission for anyone to correct them. My main point: Someone besides de Grey should be the one arguing for how well or how little excepted de Grey's theories are. The fact that this conversation is happening between de Grey and me, rather than between two Wikipedians whose first interest is Wikipedia, is a bad thing. Of course Wikipedia policies allow de Grey to participate, but not just because something isn't forbidden doesn't mean it's good. We should all recuse ourselves from discussion of articles about our selves, our companies, etc. Heck, three years ago I wrote an article about a notable 18th century person and I still feel a little "dirty" about it because he happens to be my ancestor. My intent was to comment on WP:COI issues and I'm not the appropriate person to assess how well de Grey is received in the scientific community. Neither is de Grey the appropriate person to make this assessment, so further conversation between the two of us on this matter is inappropriate and pointless. Best wishes on your work, Dr. de Grey, it seems very interesting and valuable. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was being a little bit playful in chosing the word "cadre" but as de Grey is a co-founder of SENS Foundation the structure of that part of the article should still be changed per the reasons I stated earlier. They might be very respected scientists, but they are still a relatively small group who count de Grey himself among them.  If opinion about the validity of anti-aging methods was split down the middle that would be one thing, but as I understand it the majority of the sci community rejects much of de Grey's ideas for various reasons, right or wrong (scientific conservatism, paradigms shift slowly, etc.)  I agree that the article should not give undue attention to de Grey's detractors, especially in the intro paragraphs, as long as the article is crystal clear about the fact that the majority of the sci community doesn't accept de Grey's ideas if that is the case.  Right now sentences like "Some sections of the scientific community have expressed skepticism of de Grey's claims" (emphasis added) are muddling this.  --208.59.93.238 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic would be compelling if there existed evidence to buttress your view that the SENS skeptics greatly outnumber the SENS supporters, but the RAB is in fact merely a selection. Support for the legitimacy of the SENS approach has been growing (and skepticism withering) rapidly since the "skeptical" article and the Estep-led entry to the Technology Review challenge were written (2005 and 2006), to the point where I am quite sure that it is the skeptics who are now outnumbered. (The RAB "statement of principles" is only a year old.) If you know of evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.164.81 (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * MIT Technology review does not "come out of MIT": it is (to quote Wikipedia) a magazine published by Technology Review, Inc, a media company owned by MIT. More importantly, the critical editorials (which were written by the editor and his staff, not by scientists, and which are worth a read if you want to understand the passion underlying the attacks being made on SENS at that time) gave rise to such a wave of reader protests that the magazine chose to run the "SENS Challenge" to answer the question once and for all. The outcome of that exercise is well documented on another Wikipedia page, and constitutes rather strong evidence that even back in 2005/6 the only skeptics who were willing to put their logic where their mouths were were in fact unable to mount a persuasive case. Also, who is this "de Aubrey"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.32 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rtol
User Rtol has a conflict of interest, and a problem with BLP with respect to the Rajendra K. Pachauri article. He has written an op-ed calling for this living person to resign his position, and is now attempting to use wikipedia to further his goal.

The following is in date order: Given that Rtol cannot recuse himself from the debate that he stated he should recuse himself from, I suggest he be recused from the debate by force. I would ask that he be topic banned from Rajendra K. Pachauri, and certainly all of his future contributions should be carefully reviewed to determine if they are unduly self-promotional, and in sync with our policies. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rtol states he is Richard Tol on his user page.
 * first post by Rtol on the issue - states that "It is significant, because Pachauri may well have to resign if the allegations would be true."
 * German op-ed on the issue by Richard Tol. I don't speak german.
 * Rtol links to the german op-ed, stating it is the "First call for Pachauri's resignation in a major, by an academic, not anonymous" There is no note that he is the author.
 * Rtol notes Richard Tol wants to have RKP removed.
 * KDP notes Rtol is an author of the oped.
 * Rtol notes he "should not be involved in debating whether [his calls for Pachauri's resignation] should be reflected in Pachauri's article."
 * MN states that Rtol should have said he was a co-author.
 * Rtol notes that he was aware his peice would be publishd on Jan 24 around noon. (non responsive?)
 * WMC calls Rtol's pushing the piece and not mentioning he signed it "very poor faith," and calls the whole thing "tawdry."
 * Rtol states his opinion was clear for all to see.
 * Rtol states that the reason he did not mention he was the author of the piece before it was published was that "I never write about unpublished material." He further states that WMC should provide evidence of someone else's bias.
 * Rtol adds others who called for resignation to a list he curates.
 * continues to refer to himself in the third person.
 * Hipocrite, could you possibly simplify this for those (like me) who might like to opine but are too lazy or stupid to really digest the whole conversation that has happened so far? Do I understand correctly that the primary point of contention is that User:Rtol would like to introduce certain criticisms published in Daily Telegraph but that you feel he should not be the one to decide whether the Daily Telegraph article is important enough to mention or not because he's the co-author of said article?  --208.59.93.238 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Anon ip guy, it was in der spiegal not the telegraph. This call for a topic ban is massively wrong, richard has not taken part in the debate to include new text since he removed himself from the debate, just so there would be no COI. All he has done since then is add new links and answer a question which kim asked. He has done noting wrong here and calling for a topic ban is ridiculous. Hippocrate`s above timeline is also wrong, as i pointed out to him already. He has chosen to ignore that and uses the same timeline here. If necessary i will provide the diffs to prove it.--mark nutley (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mark, it is incorrect that Tol hasn't involved himself since i asked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC) [note: the links i provided are in the above --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)]

Note: Not a single diff presented by Hipocrite or Kim is an article edit - they are all from the talk page. RTol has indicated he will no longer edit Pachauri's article, now that he has written about him publicly. Talk page edits are not forbidden by COI. In fact, from WP:COI: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair."

This request should be closed. If Tol edits the article (as opposed to the article talk), this can be revisited. ATren (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trying to influence a WP:BLP article in a certain direction, in a conflict where you are an direct active participant is to me a significant conflict of interest. But i agree that WP:COI doesn't mention this particular circumstance. But i do think that the BLP concerns combined with the COI is very problematic. We are talking about trying to push a BLP out of Office. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors with potential COI are encouraged to reveal themselves and participate on talk pages. That's what RTol has done. There is no COI here. ATren (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. And the fact that William M. Connolley now entered the discussion, accusing other people of COI, says it all. --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the "conflict of interest". I wish the IPCC defined COI as strictly as Wikipedia does. I have not edited Pachauri's page since I decided to go public with my call for his resignation. I have no intention to edit his page. In my mind, this procedure is just another tactic to further delay an update of Pachauri's paper with recent events that have been reported by just about every newspaper in the world. Richard Tol (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no harm in delay. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and we'll present the facts once we know what they are.  The problem here is that you seem to have been abusing Wikipedia to advance your opinion that Pachauri should resign.  Your argument that you haven't actually edited the article doesn't change the fact that you have tried to build up the appearance that there is a general call for Pachauri's resignation.  Since you yourself are one of the few people who have made this call, there is a potential problem for Wikipedia in your doing so. --TS 11:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The facts are that there have been calls for Pachauri's resignation which have been reported everywhere but on Wikipedia. Richard Tol (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. (a) this isn't a newspaper and (b) it is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your COI. Whether you are *right* or not is also irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(That comment is not by me.) WMC: I accept that I have a COI in this case, and I have not made any edit to Pachauri's page since. I did that of my own accord, before this bogus accusation was made by Hypocrite. I do note, however, that the silliness that is going on here seems to detract from the discussion on a balanced and accurate article on Pachuari. Richard Tol (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you refer to this case as bogus? You acknowledge a conflict of interest and here again you are using even this page to advance your case against Pachauri. --TS 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @RT: you have a COI. That extends a little bit further than editing the page, though. As someone with a COI (and, in this case and other related matters, as someone with valuable opinions to contribute which we should encourage, and I do) you should be contributing *facts* to the talk page, but leaving discussion and interpretation to others William M. Connolley (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * COI does not forbid talk page discussion. He has a right to make arguments, just like all the pro-AGW POV pushers do on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read it, WP:COI specifically allows editors with a potential conflict of interest to present their case in the talk page. There, Tol's ability to influence the article will be limited by the soundness of his arguments.  Frankly, I think this whole thing is an unnecessary distraction. J. Langton (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I applaud Rtol for voluntarily abiding by the strictest interpretation of the COI guideline and limiting contributions to the talk page of the article. There's really no more that anyone can ask for, as long as no other policies or guidelines are being broken and Rtol is abiding by WP:TALK as all editors must. --  At am a  頭 19:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Central Washington University
- This editor is editing Central Washington University and I think the COI potential is obvious. I dropped a note on his or her page but received no response. Can someone else take a look at this and perhaps try talking to him or her, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The username is a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME. I've softblocked the editor, which means that they are blocked from further edits unless they create an account with an appropriate username or request a name change. Some of their edits were borderline disruptive but not enough for me to consider a hardblock (restricting them from editing Wikipedia at all). --  At am a  頭 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max


Now that Theserialcomma has effectively "outed" themselves, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors and administrators with BLP experience would have a close look at her edits to Tucker Max. Theserialcomma aka 'V' has a long history of bashing Tucker Max on her blog as Tucker Max writes a competing blog with a similar "rant-like" style. While I am uninvolved in anything related to Tucker Max, his blog, and had never even heard of him until I discovered Theserialcomma's blog and edits to the BLP article, because I have been the victim of both off-wiki and on-wiki harassment from Theserialcomma for months, I do not wish to become any more involved in matters relating to the Tucker Max article other than posting this notification of Theserialcomma's COI. Thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am coming here as an administrator reading WP:AE. The above request appears to be an allegation that has another identity (on- or offwiki?) as "V", but does not provide any evidence for this. Taking into account Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf, which held that "Tothwolf has made allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them, and without pursuing relevant dispute resolution in cases where substantiating the allegations could not be done publicly", and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf, which states that "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", I am blocking Tothwolf for 48 hours as an arbitration enforcement measure pursuant to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf.   Sandstein   08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should note that during the Tothfwolf case I had to warn Tothwolf about outing. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tothwolf uses a denial of identity as self-outing, in some backwards form of logic. I think we can consider this resolved, per Sandstein. --  At am a  頭 20:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hurrell Moseley Dawson & Grimmer
I just deleted User:Hurrell Moseley Dawson & Grimmer, as it was an advertisement for a business. I have also warned them that their username does not conform to our policy of one account per person. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now indefinitely blocked them from editing. Sending this here for review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing to review, clear case on both counts. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taxie Production
Taxie Production appears to be a username used for a company called... Taxie Productions. I have already speedied their user page as a blatant advertisement. I have informed them of the problem with their username and COI issues. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed the user name link above (no "s"). Nothing to review, clear case. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Gorgi
Autobiography by. I gave him an autobiography welcome message when I discovered it and tagged the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely uncomfortable with the autobiography. I wonder about the notability of the subject, there are real claims to notability but I don't see that his songs actually won anything of note or charted anywhere (and he was the writer, not performer of such songs). I also can't find any coverage of him in any independent sources. I wonder if it's worth taking the article to AFD? --  At am a  頭 20:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Gary Goldschneider
I'd appreciate it if someone could tone down the commercialism and promotion in this biography - it seriously needs that. - Biruitorul Talk 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very much needed, I've done a bit of clean up and I think that I've removed the worst POV offenses. It could use some fact-checking and there may be some promotional stuff that's not necessary. --  At am a  頭 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

BioSlimDisk
The creator and main editor of this article is who appears to be the Business Development Manager for Ritech, the company producing this device. I've done some work on the article and mentioned COI on the user's talk page after an editor brought it up at Administrators' noticeboard. I suspect it will need more attention. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * After further editing and the addition of appropriate tags by another editor, vernonheng has reverted it to the promotional version. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like a pretty straightforward issue of spam, the COI is incidental really. He has been given a final warning, any further promotional editing and he'll probably be blocked indefinitely. --  At am a  頭 23:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sassy Pandez


Could use some additional feedback here.

Brief backstory: I've been keeping an eye on this article since clearing it of spam at AfD in March 2008 (Articles for deletion/DJ Sassy). Since May 2008, there has been intermittent contacts from her manager, who is very interested in the contents of her article. I managed to engage him in conversation after a previous COIN report. Some of his issues have seemed reasonable. For example, the article at one point included her real name and hometown, but this was not widely reported and he indicated she had safety concerns as a result. The article no longer contains this. Also gone is some tabloid reporting about an early romance. He expressed himself satisfied in January 2009.

However, he has since returned and edited the article several times, here and here, removing some sourced material and adding considerable self-published information. I was recovering from surgery at the first edit, but noticed the activity the recent time. I restored the earlier version, but added back the reliably sourced reference to her new affiliation with Apple Bottoms. I've since found a reliable source to support one other detail & added that, along with another news reference. I suggested at his talk page that if he can supply reliable sources to support other information it can be added. I've also advised him again (as I had done previously) that reliably sourced content related to her notability should not be removed. (The latest removal involves her job as a columnist & her appearance on a television show.)

Conversation at User talk:AquilaUK makes clear that her manager is not happy with the current state of the article. He proposes that if we stub it to the text "Sassy Pandez of London is an international Hip hop, RnB, Reggaeton, Dancehall and Club Classics DJ and model." and a few of the links, "the issue of my Conflict of Interest will not arise."

I would appreciate review of the article by anyone interested and feedback at User talk:AquilaUK. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Still hoping for some feedback here. :) Please? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that WP:LUC applies here. The manager is allowed the ability to request changes to the article, and we even encourage such input for BLPs because we do want to take the subject's personal comfort level and privacy into consideration (that is, in fact, the biggest concern about BLPs aside from the desire to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits). But they cannot, and will not ever be able to control what is in the article. The relevant portion of the Law of Unintended Consequences is, "If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually." There's precedence for squelching personal info that is available in reliable sources (such as Star Wars Kid's real name) but an artist's former stage name is a different story, and is as far from "personal" info as you can get. The request to move the former stage name out of prominence in the lead seems a reasonable compromise, the request to strip the article of a large amount of sourced material is not. --  At am a  頭 02:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Baer Supply Company
Added 02/01/2010 and may be a COI as the editor works at Baer Supply. The article is historical and objective in nature. Please correct it to keep it objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwojdak (talk • contribs) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that I have tagged it for speedy deletion per criterion A7, no claim of importance or significance. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Justo Almario

 * - Stub article has been replaced with a non-neutral press release/official biography. Attempts to revert back to stub have been undone, and engaging editor(s) in dialogue has been unsuccessful. Whpq (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the spam, cautioned the IP and semi'ed the article. I'll leave a note for the logged in editor explaining how to work within this situation. If it continues, blocking or additional protection may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Intellicus Technologies

 * - Created by User:Intellicus Technologies. Nominated CD#A7, which I declined (notability asserted).  I would normally delete as spam and block user with spamusernameblock, but the article is only what I would consider borderline advertisement, and does include some notability. I thought I would mention it here and see what you good people think. Stephen! Coming... 10:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Borderline spam? Looks pretty blatant spam to me (full of Marketing 101 words and phrases) and prodded as such. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Going by some of the articles I've recently deleted, that was mild! Cheers for looking into it. Stephen! Coming... 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Janis Ian - D'Aquisto Flattop Guitars article
Apologies if I'm doing this wrong; I saw the messages from OrangeMike and can't figure out how to respond directly. I've edited the article about myself only for factual corrections. This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Aquisto_Flat_Top_Guitars incorrectly lists my D'Aquisto guitar as #111. It is # 112, as correctly referenced in an article by Dr. Peter Ilowite in "20th Century Guitar". @ January 2007. (And also to my own eyes about 5 minutes ago, looking in the guitar.) I'm not sure if it's all right for me to make the correction myself, or to add more description to the article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janisian (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Janis, thanks for bringing this matter here. It helps show that your intentions are good, which is critical when conflicts of interest are being discussed. Just for the record, the previous report regarding your conflict of interest can be seen here. Do you have a copy of the magazine you'd want to use as a reference? I can help you format the citation properly and I'll even make the change to the article myself if you can give some info about the article, that will help ease any concerns anyone might have about the accuracy of the change. Again, thank you for coming here for this and I'll help you as best as I can. --  At am a  頭 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Skillstrain
— there is an edit war on this page between two editors, both of whom seem to have an agenda (one of whom I suspect works for the company, the other obviously has a beef with it). It is currently up for deletion and in my view deleting it isn't a bad idea, but there hasn't been much participation despite a relist. If it's kept, I really think it should be written from scratch by a neutral third party. Any volunteers? Thanks. Chick Bowen 04:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of WASA Architects
WASA Architects is located at 740 Broadway, New York City. The user's edits, example here, promote this firm. CliffC (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit conflicted. If nothing else, the username should be changed, as it seems to be self-identifying as the company in violation of WP:ORGNAME. But I'm not sure whether or not the edits are uniformly disruptive. Your diff shows a clear attempt at advertising, but I see older edits from this account that are less problematic (though still a COI concern). --  At am a  頭 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with types of blocking, if the "hard block" you mention in your edit summary is the same as "hard block, which disables all editing whether logged in or not, other than administrators and other IP-block exempt users – used when the level of vandalism or disruption via creation of "throwaway" accounts is such that editing from the IP is to be prevented other than after individual checking of requests", that seems a bit extreme. IMO account 740Broadway should be warned about WP:PROMOTION (I have not done so except via edit summary) and told to pick a new username.  But you're the boss.  Best, --CliffC (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ack, I'm no boss, don't put that label on me! :) But you have it right, basically a hardblock is saying that the person behind the account is blocked from editing Wikipedia. If that person is only on Wikipedia to promote their company, then they should be prevented from participating. I concur with you, after more thought, that a hardblock isn't warranted, while an argument could be made that every edit might be done with the intention of promotion, I can't say that nothing they've done has been an improvement. A softblock, on the other hand, lets them create a new account from that IP address (one that conforms to the username policy). I might not even bother with that though. --  At am a  頭 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor's most recent activity has been cleaning up after a vandal. I just noticed that there was no note on their talk page about this report, so I'll invite them to participate. I don't think this is an SPA or spammer, so this might not be much of a problem. --  At am a  頭 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not a SPA in any event. I trust you will encourage or enforce a name change as you mention above.  --CliffC (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do plan on that if they don't participate in the discussion here. --  At am a  頭 01:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since they refused to do so, I've put a softerblock on this account. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:靳亚杰 on Yingli
The user appears to be an operative of the company in question, and has made edits to the page which, although they provide content, appear to be of a promotional nature. I have commented on their talk page letting them know some of the issues, but am unsure how to proceed. Clearly the page needs cleaning up, but I'm not sure if I should be rolling back all of their edits or trying to pick through it. There appears to be a large number of sources available, and I would like to improve the article, but am looking for a little guidance as to what role User:靳亚杰 should play in that process. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For that editor, I strongly suggest that they stay off of the main article and participate. If they can contribute info, that's good, but their contributions so far don't give me hope as to their potential for direct contributions. As to the article itself, I've made efforts to clean it up, but it needs more work. --  At am a  頭 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming the AfD results in a merge, I've offered to add sources and rewrite. It (the AfD) doesn't seem to be getting much attention.  After its conclusion, I'll start the process.  Wouldn't mind some help, though. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I ignored the AfD because it seemed like a no-brainer. In fact, I'm going to speedily delete the article and close the AFD. We have a CSD criteria specifically for this situation A10. I probably should have done that to begin with. --  At am a  頭 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that (I CSD'd it when I first came across it) so long as you see that the subject is notable, and the article is duplicated in three different places. After talking to tbsdy, it seems the best idea is to leave Yingli Solar and make the other redirect there. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I didn't think the main article was notable, I wouldn't have tried improving it. :) I look forward to seeing what improvements yourself and others can make as well. --  At am a  頭 22:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. So what version are you leaving, and which ones are you deleting? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I only deleted Yingli Green Energy Holding Company.Ltd., which was a very improbable search term, especially the way it was formatted. Yingli Solar seems like a very probably search term, as that is the name of its web page and brand, so I left it alone as a redirect. Yingli itself is what I've been trying to improve, as that is (I believe) the only intact article for the subject at this time. I'm not sure about Yingli Green Energy but I guess it doesn't do any harm as a redirect, and has been around for years. The same goes for Tianwei Yingli. --  At am a  頭 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'd prefer to merge to Yingli Solar, but seeing as everything else in the world redirects to Yingli, let's just focus our efforts there. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation
There have been concerns about some of the editors at Transcendental Meditation are associated with this movement. User:Littleolive oil may be one user however I am unsure. Wondering about the appropriateness and how one would verify this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that they're associated with the movement, it's that they are making non-neutral edits to promote the movement's POV and to minimize negative material. Using Wikipedia for advocacy is a problem.   Will Beback    talk    22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) It does not appear that this is a conflict of interest, per se, but rather someone who is passionate about the subject matter, and perhaps a fan. It does not appear to be a WP:SPA but they are editing in a non-neutral way, with bias/pov. And it appears that you have been in an edit war with the editor, including violating 3R yourself. I don't believe that WP:COIN is the best place to have this resolved. Try to continue to work it out on the talk page, or take a wikibreak from the page, and come back after a month of not even looking at the article. If edit warring continues, request page protection to help encourage an open discussion on the talk page. Failing that, please checkout WP:Dispute and then open a request over at WP:DRR. Good luck. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks tigger. Was recommended that I post here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a neutral editor. Please, look at my edits, discussion of those edits, and especially their context to understand the editing environment. I can also, if necessary discuss and provide diffs to  describe the agendas, biases, and harassment carried on by editors on the TM article pages, if that's needed.  I am not an aggressive editor by nature, but enough is enough.(olive (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The problems are more significant than can be seen from a cursory review and they concern a group of editors, not just one. Olive has repeatedly suggested taking this to the ArbCom and I'm afraid that she's probably right.   Will Beback    talk    23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How often do editors come to to this Notice Board and again and again be told there is no problem, then again bring the same issues, the same editors back. How much in between times is an editor supposed to take of almost every day personal attacks, incivility, and constant claims that they're edits are COI edits no matter what the edits are. What is that called and is there a point where an editor has recourse to defend not only herself, but Wikipedia against editors whose biases and agendas will undo neutral collaborative editing processes. Do I want to bother ArbCom with this. No . Does this have to stop. Yes.(olive (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I never said you did have a COI just that you "might". Was just inquiring about clarification on this matter.  This is sometimes a concern with users who edit primarily on one topic. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Olive, what biases and agendas are you talking about?   Will Beback    talk    00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that in a forum that is more appropriate for that kind of discussion, like ArbCom.(olive (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Unless policies are being violated, biases and agendas aren't relevant to the ArbCom. In any case, it'd be hard to argue that folks at the Maharishi University of Management are free from bias on that topic.   Will Beback    talk    01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not clearly see any COI, but rather a dispute which has lead to uncivil behavior. I highly recommend you open this at dispute resolution request, or Arbcom. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tiggerjay, the details of the COI cannot be discussed openly here because the editor has requested that her previously disclosed personal information be kept private. However the problem of the COI still exists, and it concerns more than one editor. If you'd like more information I can contact you by email. However I don't think that there's likely to be a resolution of this problem on this or any other noticeboard.   Will Beback    talk    01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will to release personal information one will need to go through the proper channels. Well Tigger is here to help he is not an admin / checkuser which by the sounds of it would be required in a case such as thus.  I was just hoping to get some clarification here on methods to verify COI.  Now that I look back at the history I see that this has been brought here a number of times before as Olive mentions.  I guess ARB might be what is required with arguments potential similar to those that involved Scientology? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many previous ArbCom cases that deal with advocacy, which is a violation of core polices. As I wrote above, COI isn't a problem in and of itself--the problem with COI editing is that it tends to include behaviors like POV pushing and other forms of advocacy. The reason that this issue keeps getting raised here by new editors is that it's never been resolved. I raised it with another editor, to try to make him see that his COI was apparent, but Olive stepped in to deny there was a problem. That kind of team behavior is another aspect of COI editing that's unhelpful to the project.   Will Beback    talk    01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just a new editor on the TM entries and it's obvious to me that there are multiple COI's going on, esp. if one looks at past history. It's obviously a very concerted effort. If something isn't done, these entries are compromised.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. But what to do about advocacy in the project, when it takes the form of every content dispute being portrayed as a schism between "my side" and "those with the battleground mentality," to summarize a commonly seen dichotomy?  If there is evidence that an editor has outside interests that undermine the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and yet people deny a COI exists, it seems to show that the problem is widespread and ill-adapted to being solved by policies that target one editor at a time.  Blackworm (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Issues with a single editor can be addressed in an RFC/U, but I've never seen one that concerns six editors. There's no rule against it, though, so perhaps that's the next logical step.   Will Beback    talk    01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the adamant insistence of the TM-Movement employed and/or affilitated editors that they are free to ignore the prior clear findings and directions from administrators that they are not to edits these articles, but instead confine themselves to the talk pages, I frankly have no idea what anyone is supposed to do about this untenable situation. Is a series of arbcom discussions, similar to the ones on Scientology-affilited editors leading to account, IP and topic bans the only way to bring sanity to these articles? Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for administrative action, instead of community assistance, you should post over at WP:ANI, but there is so much accusation of unstated or undefined edits, that you are really making resolution harder. It appears that the desire by both sides is for sanctions or disciple against the other party, instead of working to have the best article. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the previous postings here have resulted in clear comments from editors that the COI was a problem and that the editors should stop editing the articles directly, but that community input has been ignored by the involved editors.
 * Creating the best articles is the goal, but if a hardcore bunch of editors is parked on the article then any one-time effort to make the articles neutral will fail. I came across an example of this in regard to a reference to the song "Sexy Sadie" in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography. The song is on what is called one of the ten-greatest albums of all time, and it was written specifically about the Maharishi as a rebuke by one of his most famous disciples. Two uninvolved editors were concerned that it wasn't included in the article and after a long talk page discussion the "pro" editors agreed to include it. But a while later, and without explaining his actions, another "pro" editor came through and rewrote the section, again deleting the song. When I recently noticed the song missing and asked about it, the "pro" editors simply said it was deleted properly and I'd need to get their consent to restore it. So even if we succeed in bringing the articles into compliance with NPOV, etc, unless they are continuously monitored I don't think the edits will stick. That's another problem with COI editors - they are dedicated to their POVs and drive off or simply wait out the less-involved editors.   Will Beback    talk    02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the editor Will is referring to here on the issue of the Sexy Sadie reference in the MMY article. He and I have been through this on the MMY article talk pages. I have demonstrated that I clearly followed good Wiki editing policy, putting a draft in a sandbox, requesting feedback and participation from editors, giving people time to respond, and moving material from a sandbox to a live article after a reasonable amount of time elapsed. What's all the fuss about? --BwB (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not the editor. If there was only one editor then this would be easier to solve. Several editors, all with apparent connections to the movement, have deleted this material. The uninvolved editors have all said it's an important detail to include. I don't see BwB giving his reason for deleting this fact, nor defending its repeated exclusion. Nor do I see anything that would make me believe it wouldn't be deleted again in the future. This is exactly the problem.   Will Beback    talk    14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that in your review of what happens some of the time. And are probably correct about it in regards to this article. However, I've been around here long enough to know that persistence pays off. The POV pushers will pop up every now and then, and you must constantly monitor the page, but the articles are a moving target anyways, there is no setting an article in stone. The best way is to not take it personally, or get too involved - that is when you need a break for your own sanity. But specific usage of page protection and editor blocking, along with consensus in the talk pages will go a long way. Another tool is to simply agree to remove controversial information - instead of fighting over which wording is more appropriate, simply don't include it. Edit warring makes these issues worse. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the POV pushers have their way for a while - leave the article for a while, then after they've gotten it out of their systems, you can go back and make NPOV changes. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good advice for many COI/POV pushing problems. But since these editors have been working on this topic for over three years, and have collectively made about half of all edits to the articles, I don't think that those suggestions will work in this topic. If there are a team of editors who exert control over an article and its talk page, and who ignore outside input and engage in tendentious editing, then just letting them get it out of their system isn't an option. This is a topic that involves pseudoscience, fringe theories, and remarkable medical claims. If the advocates of those control Wikipedia articles then the entire project's reputation is harmed.   Will Beback    talk    04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, the information on Sexie Sadie is a mischaracterization of what happened, and it shocks me that after the number of times I tied in good faith to explain, that you still hold to a notion that has nothing to do with what really happened, and drag it out again like  some old shoe. The assumption that editors are POV pushers is not fair but is based on more mischaracterization . I have no desire to go to ArbCom or to in any way have sanctions placed against any editor, and no editor here should assume that is the case. If people could stop making assumptions and just edit the damn articles,  but I am dealing with editors who immediately deal with any edit that doesn't jive with their own opinions as if the edit is a non-neutral edit, and who assume their position gives them the right to attack. I will assume these bahaviours are based on preconceived notions, and deeply held biases or beliefs rather than being truly personal but they effect the project, and the articles. I am beyond tired of mischaracterization and incivility and being harassed. I can't see what else to do. I have never in my life dealt with the kinds of attacks and prejudices I have here, and I have dealt with some nasty situations. I won't take this to ArbCom myself, but if that's the next step I will lay out what I know and have. What is going on is bad for the articles and bad for Wikipedia, and it needs to stop. And yes, I did support an relatively inexperienced editor who was being confronted  by an experienced admin in what I thought was an unfair way. I would  do that for any  editor.(olive (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what happened. I don't know what you mean about me dragging it out again and again since I haven't mentioned it outside of the relevant thread. I don't know why people from the Transcendental Meditation movement keep coming here to delete the fact that Lennon wrote a song which rebuked the Maharishi. You deleted it twice yourself. (The second time with a misleading edit summary.) So did a user called Maharishi International Publications Department. (Did he or she have a COI?) So did an anon using an IP registered to the movement. No COI or POV-pushing there either? Removing relevant, well-sourced negative material that is presented with the neutral point of view is a form of POV pushing. Several otherwise uninvolved editors have discussed this exact issue, but the TM-related editors are still insisting that they improved the article by deleting it. Part of the problem with COI editing is that when we're too close to a topic we don't even realize we are pushing a POV, or what neutral means. As for myself, I assure you I have no prejudice against the movement but if you have evidence of that I'd be interested in seeing it. Making unsubstantiated allegations over and over is a form of harassment, so please either give your evidence or stop making the charge.      Will Beback    talk    05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some previous examples of the same behavior:


 * I had these links posted to me:


 * . This one is the most recent. Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. --Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion concerning John Lennon, February 2008, in which I clearly state I have removed the Sexie Sadie content and why, mischaracterized above. This is not a sneaky removal as implied, but in context of a larger discussion. I, as well, add another quote as suggested by the editor. Please note this was BLP at the time, (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has since died), and part of the discussion played around concerns with text that was possibly in violation of a BLP.

"We could say Lennon was clearly bitter about the split... which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)"

"Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Wikipedia standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:"

"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'." "The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Wikipedia does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk)"


 * As well, I did not accuse you or anyone specifically in terms of behaviour on the articles, and in fact you are a civil editor. I am referring to a general environment and the behaviours of other editors which I really don't want to get into here.


 * Since you bring up the recent Sexie Sadie issue, this is what happened.


 * Sept26: BWB...Suggestion section is too long. Asks for comments. No comments


 * Oct.8 :BWB...Advises he will rewrite. One comment to go ahead


 * Oct 28, and Oct 30: BWB....Notifies of rewrite in sand box, twice asks for feedback . No comments,


 * Nov 4: BWB....Notifies he has moved rewrite into main space. No comments


 * Nov 23: Kbob... edits to satisfy concerns about controversy of the section


 * Jan 14: Will Beback.... asks why Sexie Sadie section has been removed.


 * Olive says multiple times she is fine with re adding the Sexie Sadie content, whatever her opinion is, if its fine with all editors.


 * Today in the middle of this COI Kala Bethere suggests this on the Sexie Sadie thread referred to above.

"Will to flesh out the Sexie Sadie reference it might be helpful to include some quotes from one of the Maharishi's former close assistants, Conny Larsson, who in his book Behind the Mask of a Clown wrote "Maharishi’s sex life, for example, was extensive, to say the least. That a man in his position had a sex life I regarded as quite incongruous. As I had been very close to him I was often in charge of the key to his room, which he asked me on various occasions to hand over to one of the young ladies."--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The way in which BWB a relatively inexperienced editor was treated in this discussion was not in my opinion, appropriate, and I did defend BWB and the procedure he went through on the "Sexie Sadie" rewrite and discussion I felt he had made an honest attempt to get input on what he was doing. I did not edit the content in or out of the article, but agreed to go with whatever was decided by the other editors. Where is the COI editing here? For an obvious starter there was no editing.


 * And Will, I am in no way responsible for an IP, or something that comes from Maharishi International Publications Department, whatever that is, and I would assume you wouldn't make the mistake of making such an implied accusation, especially here.


 * And being brought to the COIN several times with out any evidence of COI, and this kind of statement  that has come from multiple editors is harassment too. If more diffs of that kind of comment are needed,   I can certainly supply them. There are lots.(olive (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The fact that Keithbob agreed with BwB about the deletion is more evidence of the problem. And your view that the material could be restored "if its fine with all editors" is an indication that you thought doing so would need the consent of the "pro" TM editors, which is a curious view of how editing on Wikipedia should work. I don't think Olive is responsible for other editors, I was pointing out that this same material has been deleted repeatedly by accounts linked to the TM movement, and restored many times by editors with no such association. The problem is with editors linked to the TM movement advocating for that movement and pushing its POV. The problem is with the virtual ownership of the topic by TM-related editors who have made half of the edits to the articles about TM.   Will Beback    talk    23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kbob supported the deletion? How do you read that in, I checked the rewrite because the content is contentious. And Will you are insulting my integrity and honesty. Lets be clear. When I said I would go with the other editors that's what I meant. I have no history of doing what you suggest, so why would you say such a thing?   I find your comment incredibly  disturbing and have no idea what one does in such an online forum when  this kind of untruth is passed around as it its a given fact. (olive (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Olive, I don't think I've ever said you are dishonest. What untruth are you talking about?   Will Beback    talk    00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Little Olive Oil I have no intention to harass you, nor do I believe do other editors; it's simply that other editors claim COI, gave a reason for it and when you are asked you do not answer. I certainly have zero interest in outing you, but am interested in having the best editing we can on this topic.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BWB is an inexperienced editor in need of your protection and defense? With over 6700 edits? If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a personal attack; I suspect that if I said such a thing, you would eagerly accuse me of incivility for maliciously maligning BwB. Moreover, I am utterly mystified as to what in all of this you regard as involving mistreatment of BwB by other editors. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many of BWB's edits until recently were copy edits... this was a first time use of sandbox and rewrite, as I remember, and since I remember being in that position myself I know that it requires some learning and understanding. Sorry, Fladrif i'm not going to get into a wrangle here on who I can and cannot support. I've supported Will to for his extensive addition of content on the TM article, too. I've said how I see things.  The thread is available for anyone who wants to look at it, and can be interpreted in any way you want. That's all I have to say.(olive (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
 * You can support whomever you want. You and I agree and support each other more frequently than either of us might imagine. But, I have read the thread, and I understand both from what you posted there and your statement above that you believe that BwB was not treated appropriately. But, I have no idea from any of your posts what the basis for that belief may be, nor what conduct and statements from other editors you think was inappropriate toward him.Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time this came to COIN Atama concluded that it was a content dispute and suggested that it's healthy to have editors with opposing views involved: " I've always felt that it is actually healthy for people with opposing POVs to work on an article, as long as they are willing to collaborate constructively. -- Atamachat 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)" I think it can safely be said that Doc James himself has a strongly held point of view. Evidence includes his Arbcom restriction and edits such as this where he deletes a 2006 randomized controlled trial published by the AMA and conducted by independent researchers and then a few days later adds material sourced to a blog.. TimidGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe it was an error to leave out the Sexy Sadie stuff in the rewrite. My mistake. Nobody added any comment at the time. when I invited them to participate. It was overlooked for several weeks before Will caught it and made a big issue out of it. I think the Sexy Sadie stuff is back in the article now. Wiki is a fun process. --BwB (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all Timid please read WP:MEDRS. Consensus for my edits may be found here  and  along with a number of other places.  So my POV is that we should follow wiki policy.  The papers you provided are primary sources.  They are not to be used especially in a controversial topic like this.  I am an expert in medical literature having my profession on my user page.  I edit on over a 1000 different pages.  Have brought a controversial articles to GA Obesity.  I do edit on a number of very controversial topic and have been accused of all sorts of things.  Please see WP:V and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Tim is that you who has commented there btw http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-positive-study-meditation-for-childhood-adhd/?  Would be happy to discuss the merits of this page on the talk page.  BTW my ARB com restriction has expired and if it had not had nothing to do with this topic but pertained to ADHD.   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * User:TimidGuy [] and User:Littleolive oil [] seem to be WP:SPA. I have read evidence that TM actively sends out teachers to edit the internet to get the right point of view about there organization across.  I have serious concerns about the distortion of the medical literature.  As was as concerns of WP:COI. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The forum shopping that olive and TG engage in to try to avoid the clear directives of three separate administrators not to edit the TM-related articles, and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence that somehow that never happened or, even if it did, can be ignored is unacceptable.
 * Another response: TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Durova posted: "TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental meditation-related articles."
 * Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book.
 * Wikipedia does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?
 * This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected.  Will Beback  talk  09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles. Will Beback talk 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ''The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway. Will Beback talk 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Wikipedia's policies on NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough already. This keeps coming up again and again because the conflicted editors simply ignore it again and again, to the dismay of anyone who has looked at these articles for any length of time, and to the astonishment of anyone who comes to the articles with a fresh eye. Fladrif (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fladrif, as in the last two COI cases you do not present any kind of argument that shows editors have had restrictions placed on them. And Will Beback's position on this holds no more weight than any other editor right now as he is a editor highly involved in  both the editing, and contentious issues.  I see also you completely ignore Atama's comments in favour of accusations.(olive (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC))
 * One of the reasons I got involved in the topic was that it had unresolved COI, POV, and ownership problems. When I made those comments I was not involved.   Will Beback    talk    00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. If that isn't a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I don't know what is! You seriously can read what Durova, Athænara and Will posted at COIN and your own talk page and say that no one ever told you and TimidGuy to not edit the TM-related articles but to instead confine yourselves to the Talk Pages? As for maligning Will, and claiming that he can be ignored, as he points about above, when he was active at COIN and told you and TimidGuy to conform to the decisions previously made by Durova and Athænara, he was not involved at the TM articles.  I didn't ignore Atama's comments - I pointed out that your attempt to rely on Atama's comments is nothing but forum-shopping on your part. You are not a neutral editor. You do not follow Wikipedia policy on the TM-related articles. I would venture that you do genuinely believe that you are neutral and follow those policies, but that belief is so warped by your COI that it is nothing more than an article of faith having no basis in fact or reality and which no evidence to the contrary can shake. The diffs in the prior COIN discussions and above prove the contrary to anyone not so blinded. Fladrif (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And, I might point out that, Atama was not an administrator as of the time those comments were made, so, you can hardly claim that those comments could have trumped the direct instructions of three different administrators. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now Doc James (whose six-month restriction for edit warring has just recently expired) has again deleted the 2006 study published by the AMA and reinserted the material into the article sourced to a blog. Okay, let's test WP:COI. I should be able to request a neutral editor to make a change to the article: I hereby request that a neutral editor remove the material sourced to a blog. I would also point out that of the editors posting here, Fladrif is the one who has been persistently disruptive. He's been blocked three times and has been given innumerable 3RR warnings, and isn't above violating 3RR. He's been warned so often that he frequently warns other editors not to warn him when he's at 3RR. And Will. To his credit he noted on the TM Talk page that Space City Skeptics is a blog and said it shouldn't be used. But would he ever revert such material? No. I can't remember an instance where he has deleted material that was put in by an editor whose point of view is aligned with his own. And in regard to Durova's comment, it's taken out of context, of course. And Aethenara also took my comment out of context. I would point out that in that particular COIN action, Dseer posted 6,000 words of accusations. How many mainspace diffs did he include? Zero. Both Ed Johnston and Durova told Dseer that he needed to present evidence. Durova told him that if he thought he had a case the next step would be an RfC or Arbcom, but that he must be sure to present evidence. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear colleague: The article talk page is the right the place to request edits of that type. The material that falls under WP:MEDRS is a special case and this isn't the forum for addressing it. As for the blog, that's an obvious case and I've already expressed my view that we shouldn't use it. I've deleted it now and I'll delete it again if it reappears. It's interesting that you raise the issue of alignment between editors. It's a topic on my mind right now in regard to this topic and COI. I'd like to ask again, with a sincere view towards resolving this finally, that all current and former members of the movement desist from editing the articles actively. They're good enough already.   Will Beback    talk    13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect no less from TimidGuy. Avoid the issue? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Try to change the subject? Check. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate? Check. Check. Check. Conform his editing behavior to the unequivocal direction of three different admistrators at COIN? No way. Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion of were a number of editors IPs originate from can be found here  I second Will request to have all editors who are associated with TM desist from editing.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm late in replying here, a combination of "tl;dr" and being busy elsewhere. I believe that the last time we went down this road, I had opined that I didn't see evidence of disruption, and that people being in the same town and sharing interests weren't necessarily a problem if disruption wasn't occurring. But I had also suggested back then that a sockpuppet investigation might be helpful in sorting out some of the accusations being made (particularly by Fladrif). I am glad to see that such an investigation is now taking place, and hope that it either settles the problem one way or the other, or allows matters to proceed to another venue where a resolution can be found (such as an RFC or ArbCom). By the way, my administrator status shouldn't change the weight of my opinion, I'm the same person I was 6 months ago and being given a few tools doesn't give me any more actual authority than before. --  At am a  頭 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to add to this lengthy and repetitive section, but I wanted to point out something that hasn't been said explicitly: while it may be true that some editors have a strong pro POV and edit the article to reflect their POV, no one has pointed out that the opposing editors in this fight are just as keen to see the article reflect their con POV (that TM is worthless fringe pseudoscience quakery). That's also just a POV and an opinionated one at that, not truth handed down by some Science God. (BTW, since I am mostly pro TM, I do not edit the article directly. I only contribute inside information about TM on the Talk page and urge the editors to get along better.) David spector (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few holes in that logic. First, we're talking about six editors (those listed at WP:SPI/TM editors) who appear to have a conflict of interest and are editing with a pro-POV. On the other side of it, there are perhaps two editors who are here to promote the "anti-POV". The rest of the involved editors, including myself, appear to have no prior connection to the topic, and are just participating to get the topics back to NPOV. Second, not only are there more pro-POV editors than anti-editors, they're also much more active. For example, there have been about 5300 logged-in edits to Transcendental Meditation. These six editors have made 2431 of them, and some other "pro" editors made another 625 edits, amounting to well over half. (Not counting 19 from David spector.) Or take Maharishi University of Management, which has had just about 1000 edits, 614 of them from these six editors, some of whom may work at that institution (hence the COI complaints). Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health has also had about 1000 edits, 568 of them from just three of these editors. It's also possible that some of these editors are engaged in promoting or even selling those products. In any case, this matter has moved to the sock puppet investigation page, so I suggest we close this thread.   Will Beback    talk    04:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope this is the right place to mention this, but known TM Org editors TimidGuy and BwB are making non-consensus edits to the TM article and/or related articles. [] Is there anything that can be done to stop this? It seems like a blatant COI to me. Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the SPI is proceeding? It seems inactive. I'm wondering how that will turn out. --  At am a  頭 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A clerk has approved it for the next stage. We're just waiting for someone with Checkuser access to report their findings. One checkuser has already given preliminary findings that six accounts are using IPs registered to the same organization. Yet to be determined is whether there's enough other evidence to point to sock/meat puppet violations.   Will Beback    talk    22:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One detail that has come out in the investigation is that TimidGuy admitted that he was the user behind the anonymous edits made by 76.76.* which were the topic of a lengthy discussion here last August: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35.   Will Beback    talk    22:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

58.172.28.54
- These appear to add commercial links. The users contribs make it appear that perhaps the account was created for this purpose. JPatterson (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there isn't any account created. It's an IP. The IP's entire history is a 6 minutes of activity to add spam, which has already been reverted. They haven't edited since and if that person edits again, it will possibly be under another IP. Nothing else can be done at this point, or needs to be done. --  At am a  頭 18:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. I wasn't sure these additions violated policy and brought them here only because I didn't want to go off half-cocked and remove them if they were legit. Wasn't expecting any further actions. Regards. JPatterson (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ELNO, "links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" are prohibited. That link certainly falls under that criterion. --  At am a  頭 21:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NoSneezeZone
introduced a potentially COIN-ish link to. Tckma (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was completely in violation of WP:EL as being a web site devoted to sales, and was blatant spam. There were a few other problematic external links in that section that I removed. I welcomed the editor with a spam warning, but it's likely that it was a drive-by spam and the editor won't be editing any more. --  At am a  頭 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed a few more commercial sites. I agree that this is more of a spam problem than a COI problem.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edward Vinatea
The user Jrod2 argues not to delete the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Vinatea but in fact they seem to be colleagues in the music business. Compare info from http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Vinatea_Edward_4777161.aspx with the info from Jrod2's user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jrod2 They appear to be running a music studio together which could explain why the article about Edward could use some clean up. Looks like selfpromotion. Magisterbibendi
 * Note to WP editors for consideration: User "Magisterbibendi" (talk • contribs) appears to be another reincarnation of user "Hsatanicus" (talk • contribs) or his meatpuppet account. He is probably also acting in concert with someone else. The timing and edit styles as well as the reasons for editing confirm this (look for word "Vinitea" ). Also, Magisterbibendi a/k/a "Hsatanicus" came recently to vandalize WP with proxy IP addresses (, engaged in an edit war to remove Vinatea's name at the Gearslutz article which had to be protected, and to Wikizic (first & fourth posts ) where he used my username to post slander. On February 5, the owner of Gearslutz, Julian "Jules" Standen sent an email reply to deny the allegations that Edward Vinatea has been banned.

He has access to a wider range of proxy IP addresses provided by privacy tools. Here is a short list of IP numbers gathered from him:

216.245.202.34 / 208.53.130.102 / 199.71.213.116 / 199.71.214.205 / 76.172.72.212 / 76.73.36.58 / 95.211.30.36 /                    69.10.33.202 / 69.115.9.147 / 68.196.91.82 / 67.160.47.85 / 67.159.45.54 / 67.159.5.76 / 67.159.44.139 / 67.159.44.134  / 66.96.128.64 / 66.45.240.66 / 64.191.64.181 / 63.223.127.68 /

I also know the identity of this user but I choose not name him publicly in order to protect his mastering business and his personal name. As far as the article goes, I am too busy doing things of importance and I am not opposed to a clean up, but it's obvious that's not the reason why this user came to that page. Jrod2 (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no obvious violation of WP:SOCK going on. In particular, I don't see block evasion or attempts to votestack. Hsatanicus was blocked once for violating WP:3RR but that block was removed 5 minutes later because the blocking admin realized that there was no warning yet. As such, even proving that they are the same account is probably not going to result in sanctions.


 * On the other hand, the conflict of interest is pretty clear here. Based on information you've voluntarily provided at your user page, you do have a COI at the article; do you acknowledge this? Keep in mind, this doesn't automatically ban you from participation at the article. --  At am a  頭 20:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments: Hi Atama, you don't see this user's vandalism?? Oh, I am sorry, maybe I should just give you the two main sock accounts: 68.196.91.82 which did this (see:) and this 67.160.47.85 (see: Between those IP's he abused WP big time. Ask Ged UK if you like. Sorry for the confusion and as far as OPUS MUSIC PROD, I was straight from the get go, I bought it off him, do you really believe that I am promoting *OMP* on his own biography article? Jrod2 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be worth an SPI report then. Using IP addresses to vandalize in order to protect your registered accounts is certainly in violation of policy. --  At am a  頭 22:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atama, I'd be surprised if it comes to that. Jrod2 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Creda Showers
A good number of photos on the migration list show up in this article, which seems to have only one or two major contributors (with no other contributions). The article is far too long for its significance, and most of the article could be tagged NPOV. I'd AfD and start from scratch but I don't want to jump the gun. Anyone else concur? RabidDeity (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I deleted the parts of the article not related to Creda itself, and tried clearing out some of the POV language. There's not a lot left. I've searched for coverage of Creda Showers and haven't found anything but a single press release in a plumbing magazine (which is worth zilch). Oh, by the way, Yrichardson (one of the two editors who developed the page) is undoubtedly Yvette Richardson, Marketing Assistant (see here, and here, and here). Or just Google her name, she's all over.


 * COI aside, despite the efforts of marketing here at Wikipedia or elsewhere, the article clearly doesn't meet our notability requirements, I'd suggest bringing it to AfD. I considered a speedy deletion per G11 but honestly it wasn't that hard to clear out the most promotional parts, so it didn't really apply. --  At am a  頭 16:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

COI in Tabasco sauce pop culture section?
Someone recently added this blurb to the "Popular Culture" section of the Tabasco sauce article on Wikipedia:


 * In 2002 & 2003, President Gary Opper of the Florida Association of Mortgage Professionals: Miami Chapter used "Red Hot" as their organization's theme. During that time, Opper exclusively used Tabasco sauce products to promote the chapter.

My first thought was that this reference seemed too trivial to warrent inclusion in the article.

I then checked to see who added this information, and found that their Wikipedia username is Gary Opper -- presumably the same Gary Opper mentioned in the blurb in question.

Is this note a case of COI?

--Skb8721 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, as is the user page which is an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged per WP:AUTO. Just an FYI, you're encouraged to notify an editor if you create a report here. --  At am a  頭 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for advising me to inform an editor if I create a report here. Should I remove the COI material, or will an editor do so?  Also, should I post a WP:AUTO notice, or will someone else do likewise?  --Skb8721 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Sincerely,
 * I've done both. I haven't touched the userpage, the userpage policy is very flexible and userpages are rarely deleted unless they have grossly inappropriate information in them (such as something offensive, or something very promotional). --  At am a  頭 20:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Movement (Italy)
The article was created and is principally maintained by User:Lib3rtarian, an SPA who writes for the organization's website and appears to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote the group and publish its manifesto. The article was deleted from Italian & French Wikipedia for the subject's lack of noteworthiness and the article's promotional purpose. --RrburkeekrubrR 18:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

COI postings at Culture of Europe

 * , as soon an article he created was deleted, for lack of notability but it also had significant WP:OR and WP:COATRACK issues, has re-posted what looks like the entire article in Culture of Europe. I am reluctant to tackle it myself as it will probably just result in further unpleasantness -- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 20:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the material. I also left a warning at the editor's talk page. I admit that I don't understand exactly where the conflict of interest is, but it's definitely inappropriate to reintroduce deleted material in that way. --  At am a  頭 20:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've looked at the editor's talk page history and the COI comes from promoting material written by "Bob Gillespie". --  At am a  頭 20:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Queensland heritage masonry
- Clear COI - created Queensland heritage masonry. Jhbuk (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Festivalsontario


New SPA engaged in editing material sourced to festivalsontario.com. I suspect COI, possible promotional user name and/or group account. Edits have been reverted and user warned. Rees11 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenmere mansion
- page has been repeatedly edited by IP who states in an edit summary "I OWN GLENMERE MANSION"; edits have included removing material critical of the owners/developers, and removing a link with summary "the second external link of photographs of Glenmere is NOT sanctioned by the  Glenmere Estate for use", as though article must only reflect items so sanctioned. Also, at least COI-looking editing (from an opposing viewpoint) by SPA, repeatedly inserting WP:BLP-violating insinuations against mansion developers, incorrectly accusing other editors of "vandalism" for editing, and demanding linking to a local conservation society's homepage rather than the relevant page of their site (photographs of mansion). Has also repeatedly deleted the page's COI tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has kindly pointed me toward another bit of apparent COI editing on this article;  is a SPA whose edits included linking to the site strausnews.com --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I've decided to retract this report, not due to accuracy, but out of desire not to squish a newby who I'm already addressing on username concerns. He was not the first user to introduce strausnews source into article, anway. - Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

CrossFit
-, a single purpose account, has been editing the CrossFit article for months now, refusing to allow criticisms of any stripe. I had never heard of this article, the subject of it, nor this editor until I happened to run across the article today during Recent Changes patrolling. As soon as I read the promotional nature of the article, I added an template on it, which was immediately removed by Florian 47 as vandalism Woogee (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. Judging by the edit history, the article is a long-running battleground of multiple single-purpose (and even single-edit) accounts, either promoting CrossFit or attacking it. Currently they're fighting over the inclusion/exclusion of a photo showing the embonpoint of the founder of this fitness regime... I call WP:MARTIANS on this one; if it were up to me, I'd put a topic ban on anyone editing the article unless they have a long-standing edit history on unrelated topics.
 * PS; I've asked for page protection to stop the edit war. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS Could someone who knows Wikipedia image licensing lend a hand? One mole to whack on the attacker side is File:Greg Glassman.jpg, an image selected in clear bad faith to show the founder in a disparaging light. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP
I would appreciate a second opinion on this article. It has been extensively edited since 2008 by, an employee of the firm. I recently removed the more promotionally-toned sections, some of which was a close copy of their website, and have been reverted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now reported this at WP:CP. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed all the content you tagged as a copyvio as it was a clear cut case of copying and pasting from the website. Smartse (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Noah Kadner

 * - Article is a self-promotional piece which was originally created by the subject himself ("Vfx2k4" - a quick Google search confirms that the username VFX2k4 is in fact, Noah Kadner himself). The subject is otherwise non-notable in his field of profession, other than the fact that he wrote a book for a camera product and sells training DVDs for video software products ASmith2009 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Our outing policy trumps any COI concerns you may have about someone. Doing sleuthing like you did, connecting a user name to a real life name using information located off-wiki (not voluntarily contributed to Wikipedia in any way) would be harassment. BUT, in this case he already outed himself, no sleuthing necessary. Look at the history of Noah Kadner, when he created the article he said, "Creation of page by the subject- Noah Kadner". So he already admitted it openly on Wikipedia.


 * He has a COI with his autobiography, clearly. But he created it months ago, and hasn't touched it since. I've left him a template about creating autobiographies, but I don't think there's much else of concern. Just an FYI, I Googled him, and there's a surprising amount of coverage for him, so he actually does seem notable. --  At am a  頭 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing
See User:InterCasino (blocked for username), now User:Shonaghosh and also User:88.96.59.14. 'Shona Ghosh' states that she works for RMM a 'social media company' on behalf of 'clients including Music Choice, Estee Lauder, InterPoker, InterCasino and the British Council.' here:. Accordingly, all the edits by these three users are paid editing on behalf of Intercasino. 86.176.35.215 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a checkuser to look for other accounts that are connected, perhaps COI editing on behalf of other clients.86.176.35.215 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that all their edits were problematic. I've reverted their edits that hadn't been undone, tagged a few unnecessary images for deletion, prod2d InterCasino and notified the IP and User:Shonaghosh about this thread. Hopefully they now realise that promoting companies on wikipedia isn't tolerated and they will stop. The checkuser isn't needed, take a look at the other companies articles if you need to but there's no real need to see if there are more accounts IMO. Thanks 86.176 for bringing it up. Smartse (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that I am associated with InterCasino and I apologise for not declaring my interest on my user page and the talk page of InterCasino. My intention was not to promote and I would appreciate any help in making the page neutral. Shonaghosh (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here and on Talk:InterCasino. The article has been improved somewhat now, I guess as it has a reliable source saying it was the first online casino where real money could be used it meets WP:CORP. Regarding my previous comment, I felt the more problematic edits were adding links to the article into articles for example saying that so and so is sponsored by them. If you only use third party sources to write the article then it shouldn't stop you being able to write a neutral article. I removed one reference as it was a press release which we can't use. Smartse (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, there's no policy or even guideline on Wikipedia that specifically prohibits someone from being paid to edit an article. If they violate other policies or guidelines in the process of editing while paid, there can be sanctions due to that, but right now we don't take action against people just because they were paid. There are some proposed guidelines and policies to address the issue (see WP:PAID), but nothing has been approved by consensus yet. --  At am a  頭 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User Pharaway
Since November 2009, has made a broad pattern of edits that almost exclusively adds a citation from EIinsiders.com &mdash; or content from same source; this has now occurred in more than a hundred articles.

Discussions have occurred within numerous article discussion pages &mdash; and now extensively on [|the user's discussion page]. The user hasn't responded to discussion on the matter, asserting that EInsiders is a valid reliable resource... a better resource than the New York Times, for example, in the Pernell Roberts article &mdash; ultimately and only after protracted discussion, allowing the New York Times citation to remain, along with the Einsiders.com citation.

Some discussion has centered on whether Einsiders is a valid reliable source, but the bigger issue seems to be an editor making innumerable insertions of Einsiders.com content into articles &mdash; such that the primary purpose in editing appears to be a de facto campaign to promote Einsiders.com.

I'm hoping an experienced editor can shed some insight on what's happening, and how best to proceed.842U (talk)


 * I've reviewed their edits and agree that it is strange that nearly all their edits are referencing http://www.einsiders.com - there are 236 links to einsiders on the whole encyclopedia, User:Pharaway has made 316 edits in total. Not all those links have been added by Pharaway but many have been and it does make me question whether this is REFSPAM. They do seem to be contributing productively though and there could be no particular reason for them always using einsiders as a reference. It would be helpful if Pharaway could explain why they are using mainly one website as a reference in articles, is the information you cite not available anywhere else? Smartse (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a couple of users who don't like EInsiders for reasons that have not been explained. When I first started editing in Wiki, I came across EInsiders as a reference, mostly in regards to Celebrity deaths (my main area of interest) but also in some indie film/actors articles. I was familiar with EInsiders as a long-time visitor to their website and I have had the opportunity to meet some of their editors at various indie film festivals where they were in attendance as certified press, interviewing & reporting on news-worthy events there. So, since they were already being used as a reference on Wiki, I started using them as well.
 * To answer your question on why use them, #1. EInsiders has one of the longest running databases of Hollywood death notices that I have ever been able to find on the internet, going back 10 years on the site and longer in their archives. Notice that I do not edit Wiki deaths on anyone other than celebrity/Hollywood oriented individuals. The death notices on EInsiders corresponds with that and it would take much longer for me to dig the information from other publications that post all kinds of obituaries. #2. I know from my conversations with EInsiders and also from comments on other press members that EInsiders verifies their information before posting and that other press members use EInsiders to verify information before THEY post it. #3. EInsiders is often on the leading edge of an obituary announcements. For example, with the Pernell Roberts edit that 842U complained about. There were NO cites listed at the time I added EInsiders and, of course, there needed to be some. EInsiders was one of the first to break the news - which they often do - so I put EInsiders as the cite, added additional information and went on about my business. The New York Times article about that death came out later. I fail to see why I should then go back and replace an early cite with a newer cite when the information didn't change.
 * In regards to if EInsiders is a credible source or not, as I mentioned, I already found them cited repeatedly on Wiki without problem. I'll also add what I know about the source as it pertains to Wiki guidelines: #1. It has longevity - been around since 1996. #2. Has editorial oversight and respectability in its field - The editors at EInsiders are all members of the Film Critics Association. One is an attorney, published author and filmmaker. Another is a high level animator at Pixar. One is a producer for Access Hollywood. One is a professor teaching filmmaking at a major university. There are others, but I haven't met them or spoken to them personally. #3. The film critics and editors at EInsiders are approved with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes includes EInsiders in their T-meter which is made up only of approved film critics. #4. EInsiders is also on 2 television stations, 1 radio station and, one of the critics, has a TV show with Access Hollywood.
 * Taking into consideration everything that I have written here - I know it is long - I respectively ask that my contributions to Wiki not be deleted or cites be changed and that EInsiders be allowed to continue as a reliable source. I do use IMDB also very extensively and I will try to use additional references if that is what is deemed necessary. Pharaway (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It just seems quite odd to me that you are "new" to that site as you "just found it recently", yet you know everything about the site, the history, the editors background (when other editors here couldn't find a background of their editors on the site), how they "often are always the first to break news", etc. I don't even see an "About us" on that site. No bios for the reviewers. This review on Valentine's Day looks like it's just being reviewed by ordinary people?    The issue here is not really if the website is "reliable" (there's already an open case on that here), it's how you are using it on Wikipedia.  —  Mike   Allen   04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced by Pharaway's explanation, and i think this is refspam. However, assuming good faith and noting Smartrse's comments above, my suggestion would be: EInsiders not to be used as a source (see also Reliable_sources/Noticeboard); insertions of EInsider references to be removed; Pharaway can then continue editing freely, but not using EInsiders as a source (just as other editors should not use it - this isn't intended to target Pharaway). hamiltonstone (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After hearing those reasons I too now agree that it is refspam, there is clear evidence of some inside knowledge - I tried finding information about einsiders on their website and couldn't find anything that Pharaway has been able to say. Pharaway should not use einsiders as a source in the future. Smartse (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A precipitating event:
 * I offer the following sequence of events, using the Pernell Roberts article as a very important example.


 * After Pernell Robert's death, and after CNN and the L.A. Times both had reported his death, Pharaway inserted a EInsiders citation (here) into the introductory paragraph of the article.


 * Notably, the Pernell Roberts article already contained the citation of the L.A. Times announcement &mdash; brief, but professional in it's tone, near the end of his article, where his death was mentioned.  Hence, there was no urgency to add the EInsider's reference.


 * The EInsiders reference article added no further info on Robert's death except for the the personal reminiscence of the writer, Kathy Stoval, including this paragraph: "I, like a entire generation, grew up watching "Bonanza." As a girl, I had a crush on the younger brother character in the show, Little Joe, played by the late Michael Landon. But Pernell Roberts' role of Adam, well, he was everything that the smart, sophisticated big brother should be. Roberts, I thought, would always be that stylish, more "grown-up" character in my young eyes."


 * In other words, the EInsider's citation was more personal than professional.


 * CNN had published an extensive, professional obituary two hours before Pharaway inserted the EIinsiders reference.


 * In a subsequent change by another editor, Pharaway's citation was vandalized &mdash; to suggest Roberts died in a celebrity tug-of-war event from emphysema (untrue). I later deleted the corrupt EInsiders reference here.


 * Next I added in the Pernell Roberts intro paragraph a reference to the CNN obituary &mdash; extensive and professional in tone.


 * So at this point the article sat with a bona fide CNN reference and without a corrupt EInsiders reference. Unless the purpose of editing is to promote Einsiders, there is no urgency to go back and re-insert a reference to a blithe, chatty, incomplete EInsiders article.


 * Which is precisely what user Pharaway then did with this edit.


 * Taken with the hundreds of other examples of Pharaway inserting EInsider references as the first citations in an article, this single Pernell Roberts edit strongly suggests that Pharaway was acting to promote his EInsiders references over other references.


 * A series of back and forth edits between myself and others on his discussion page suggest that Pharaway has fought to have Einsiders citations included at the head of the article. Numerous editors pointing out the nature of the problem &mdash; to no avail. 842U (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This user has also created many biographies just to say the person had "passed away" and to add Einsiders.com obituary., , , , , , , plus many more. — Mike   Allen   06:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I checked around twenty of Pharaway's contribs and saw that each involved the promotion of einsiders.com. We cannot tell if Pharaway has a COI, and we cannot determine the motivations behind Pharaway's edits. We can, however, confidently say that Pharaway is indistinguishable from a polite and skilful editor with a COI who is here to promote a website. On IRC, I obtained some information from COIBot:
 * The top 10 editors who have added einsiders.com are: Pharaway (133 times), ClueBot (42), SteMicha (18), Pinkadelica (15), 202.177.97.131 (10), Rms125a@hotmail.com (10), 80.192.57.31 (9), WWGB (9), Star Garnet (9), Einsiders (8).
 * Pharaway has added links to: einsiders.com (133 times), imdb.com (18), tehrantimes.com (1), galactica.tv (1), backstage.com (1), images.google.com (1), italica.rai.it (1), cnn.com (1), sundance.bside.com (1), johnnyseven.com (1).

In other words, Pharaway is focused on einsiders.com. Note that the merits of einsiders.com are quite independent of whether an editor is abusing Wikipedia by promoting a website. I think that edits like these two (a paragraph is added with a ref linking to einsiders.com, and text "Film critic Jonathan Hickman of EInsiders.com ...") indicate that Pharaway most definitely has a COI. I believe that almost all links to einsiders.com should be removed; established, non WP:SPA editors may choose to re-add some of them. User Special:Contributions/Einsiders was active last July. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnuiq thank you so much for including that information. After reading this, and going by the writing styles, there are some strong similarities.  Also both accounts compare Einsiders to Rotten Tomatoes (over and over), they "both" claim that Einsiders have been used on Wiki for "years".  The Einsiders account was blocked in July 2009 and the account was asking to be unblocked in August and lastly in September. Pharaway appeared in November.  A SPI may need to be filed, I'm not sure if this is enough evidence though, but I strongly believe that Pharaway is none other than, Kathy Stover (the author to all of the "obituaries" on Einsiders).  Thanks again for supplying such compelling information.  —  Mike   Allen   07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:KathyStover. That user has no contributions remaining (apparently the user created EInsiders.com which was deleted 12 August 2009 "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion"). Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, hadn't see COIbot before and I think this is pretty clear cut now. Is there someway to speed up removing the links? Smartse (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now what?842U (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As in, with that evidence it is pretty clear that Pharaway is promoting einsiders and that the links should be removed. Smartse (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we go in and manually remove them? What about Pharaway, if they were blocked, then they are not supposed to be here.  Do I need to file a SPI? —  Mike   Allen   19:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about an SPI, however User talk:Einsiders has a username block, so pursuing SPI may not be productive. Re the links: I count five editors above who have expressed a negative view regarding the links, and one who favors them. Accordingly, I suggest we start removing the promotion of einsiders.com. That has to be done manually. There are actually 272 links to einsiders.com, although about 50 of those are to things like talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started. It shouldn't take that long.  It does require care.  Some of the ref's are single, some articles have five or six references.  I go back and check after I've removed the citations that the page doesn't have any open citations afterwards.  842U (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for 842U for getting into the drudgery of fixing this. A response to Johnuniq, though: this is not only a COI issue: EInsiders appears not to be a reliable source. I suggest all uses of it be ultimately removed, and it should not be reinserted by others just because they don't have a COI. See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I've started from her first edits and working upwards. So far it's just obituaries and most already had a source there to begin with, she just stuck her site in the front.  About the SPI, well it's pretty clear that Pharaway was the Einsiders account (see my above comment).  I told 842U that I won't file unless she starts editing again.  I've never filed a SPI as I try to stay away from that, because they usually turn out to be witch hunts.  But this case is different, as it's pretty clear what their agenda is.  Thanks. —  Mike   Allen   01:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making your decision based on false information from Mike Allen. He reports that I stated that I "recently" came across EInsiders, when it is very clear that I wrote that I have been a long time visitor to the site and I've met and spoken with several of the editors at more than one film festival. Mike Allen has some kind of agenda. I don't understand a lot of what has been written here in regards to other users but I do understand that you think I have posted as someone else. That is false.


 * EInsiders is used a lot because of the nature of what I usually edit - celebrity deaths. I was told previously to broaden my edits which I have tried to comply with but obviously I haven't been doing that as long as had been adding just EInsiders so the numbers haven't caught up yet. I think it is bad form for you to take this position when according to your own numbers I have been complying with the previous request.


 * As far as Pernell Roberts is concerned, maybe the reference you cited was dated TWO HOURS before I posted the EInsdiers cite, but does that mean anyone, including me, could find it in the search engines yet? When I posted that cite, EInsiders was one of only a handful that was coming up on a Google search.


 * You have already stated that the information that I've posted to Wiki as good information, valid information and often the only information on a celebrity death. I fail to see where the problem lies. Why does the cite matter when it proves to be accurate over and over?


 * So, I guess the bottom line is, you are removing all my cites but not the articles I wrote? Doesn't really seem right that you will use my efforts and then not let me post.


 * One more thing, when you checked the amount of time EInsiders was used on Wiki, did you also cross reference it with Entertainment Insiders? That is the full name of the website.


 * I checked with how much EInsiders was used on Wiki and came across substantial amounts of photos pulled from EInsiders as well as cites going back quite a number of years. I don't think the number information is accurate. Here is a link with just some and there are hundreds more. Pharaway (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In further investigating how much EInsiders has been used on Wiki especially in regards to the .jpg photos, it looks like Wiki is actually pulling bandwidth from Einsiders for those photos some of which go back to 2002. Is this correct? Wiki is actually stealing bandwidth from EInsiders but won't allow EInsiders to be used as a reliable source??? I am floored.Pharaway (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is discussed on your talk page as it's unrelated to the COI issues. Smartse (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it may indeed be related since most of those were added by Pharawy
 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(indent) I'm coming in late into this debacle but since a lot of article are popping up on my watchlist and pointing to this discussion, I'd like to know if anyone plans to actually look for additional sources instead of just up and removing this link because one person appears to have a COI and decided to spam it throughout Wikipedia. I can certainly understand if the links the user(s) added were removed but I'm not sure I understand why all the links are being removed. I actually don't think I've cited the website in quite some time, but not all of us that have included the link have a COI or have spammed it throughout articles. Some of the links have been in place for quite some time and to my knowledge, no one has deemed the site unreliable (if there is a consensus that states otherwise, my apologies). If it's not, I think some of the links should be retained because in some cases, no additional sources can be found or else I would've cited something else.  Pinkadelica ♣  05:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pinkadelica, please cite examples of your last point, that "in some cases, no additional sources can be found or else I would've cited something else." This would be very helpful to your point, and to the discussion here.842U (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pinkadelica and 842U. To recap: there are two issues in play. One is being dealt with here: user Pharaway and their possible COI. The second is whether EInsiders is a reliable source. I think i've linked the second issue twice to date, but here it is again: please see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. My strong view, and that of some others, is that EInsiders does not meet WP standards for reliability. None of us should be using it. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of the articles, not all, are articles that really don't get much traffic, so I'm sure that's why this has gone unnoticed for quite a while. Come to think of it, a lot of those articles that she created just to add her website on could probably be removed, per NOTABILITY. Pinkadelica, please give some examples and I will do my best to find some sources for it, since I'm the one that removed it.  Thanks. —  Mike   Allen   05:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, WP:BIO requires multiple reliable sources to have mentioned someone, therefore if only einsiders has details on them, they shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia. Smartse (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Pinkadelica: that an editor doesn't have sources to substantiate an article is prima facia evidence that the subject of the article isn't likely NOTABLE.842U (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, User Pharaway has received their REFSPAM Final Warning for Refspam. They deleted the warning from their discussion page, and I reposted it, given the gravity of the situation. A link to that repost is here.842U (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, again? In removing the offending refspam, there seem to be some obvious contenders for an SPI. I noticed some similarities with this user creating a few articles and using einsiders.com. User Maplewoodrive created this article, similarly Maïa Simon, the editor having been banned as a sockpuppet here. In other words, there is a long history of users refspamming with Einsiders.com. An SPI seems more important.

Not been mentioned as far as I can see but the IP 65.6.145.96 recently made some edits on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard, seems to clearly be Pharaway (forgotten to log in). This IP's edit's are related to EInsiders and seems to have also been the IP of the original EI account as two edits were direct follow ups to edits made by that account. Though thought I'd point this out, nothing concrete but certainly casts doubts on his claims of no COI. Rehevkor ✉  17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh..I'm not going to sit and ask a load of questions or argue because it's clear you guys have taken it upon yourself to remove the link because one (or multiple people, I don't know) have taken it upon themselves to spam this link all over the place. If this is the supposed consensus for the link being unreliable, so be it.  Pinkadelica <sup style="color:black;">♣  18:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC
 * I reported Pharaway back in December to AIV, and asked if the website should be blacklisted. The admin said he didn't think so, just warn.  Is this grounds to blacklist the website now? —  Mike   Allen   20:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the best way to proceed with information that essentially proves a conflict of interest. Should this information be emailed to an administrator? Because it's clearly inappropriate to 'out' a person here. This information will potentially block references from ever appearing on Wikipedia from the source of interest, and block certain editors from editing. Or do we just lay it out for everyone to see?842U (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend caution since we would not want your efforts to backfire. There is no rule saying that having a COI is bad – there is just a guideline indicating acceptable methods for COI editors to follow (the ideal being that they only add suggestions to article talk pages). I suspect that admin action would only follow actual disruptive editing, such as repeatedly ignoring consensus. If someone turns up and starts re-adding links to the website, I think the next step would be to file a report at WT:WikiProject Spam. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI: The IP address referenced above shows as located in Atlanta, GA; which also happens to be where the headquarters for this company is: http://www.brightnightmedia.com/about-us/who-we-are.html - who just so happens to own einsiders.com - which may - or may not - be entirely coincidental. I would bet on not coincidental though.


 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree with what Johnuniq wrote above in theory, what would cover changing existing refs to einsiders.com? Would that be some sort of policy violation for pushing some sort of agenda or using Wikipedia as a tool to increase his/her company's awareness or search engine rankings? Asking because I am rather new at this and interested in the answer in general as well as how it applies to this specific situation.


 * Best,
 * RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a guideline at WP:LINKSPAM, and editors are routinely blocked for violating it. --  At am a  頭 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Atama! :-) Best, RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Klar sagen
- Just happened to notice an edit by Klar sagen(contribs) to the Medical Imaging article that added a link to http://www.snark09.com/. In addition to placing more of such links on other pages, this user almost exclusively and regularly (>20 occurences) adds references to one particular book on medical imaging (Herman, G. T., Fundamentals of computerized tomography: Image reconstruction from projection, 2nd edition, Springer, 2009), which mentions this piece of software according to. www.snark09.com is affiliated with the Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group of CUNY as evident from the link at the bottom and it appears that Gabor T. Herman is as well. This was probably done in good faith, but it still constitutes refspamming and clear WP:COI continuing despite an earlier warning. Smocking (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was invited to comment here by User:Smocking. I had previously posted at this noticeboard regarding much the same sort of issue.  At the time, the user's substantial contributions consisted exclusively of adding references to books by Gabor Herman to a swathe of articles related to medical imaging.  The complaint was ultimately  dismissed because no one could find a conflict of interests.  Although I do rather object to the summary manner in which the original complaint was dismissed: adding references exclusively to the publications of a single author is a fairly clear indication that one has a COI, is it not?  I did not pursue the matter further at the noticeboard, although I would like to comment for the purposes of this discussion that "Klar Sagen" is almost certainly a pseudonym, meaning "say clearly" in German.  So the fact that "Klar Sagen" is not the name of the author of the added references means nothing.  In connection with my own dispute, I ultimately sought outside input from User:Billlion, an established Wikipedia editor whose opinion I trust, and who also at one time or another (I believe) worked on the mathematics of medical imaging.  He assured me that the edit to the Radon transform article was a good one.  Perhaps someone should again solicit his input, since I am sure he can comment more authoritatively on the overall suitability of these references than I can.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * About the usefulness of his references and comments: I happen to be a graduate student and also used to work in another institute in the same field. Note that I do not have a COI as I do not work there any more since December. It's rather hard to check the references as he never mentions on what page of this 300-page |book (google books: ) his claims or reason for adding the reference are supposedly verified. In practically the only non-trivial edit beyond adding the suspected refspam, he (after adding the ref to another phrase) outright deleted a sentence that outlined a major limitation (speed) of Iterative reconstruction without much explanation . He only said in the edit summary that it is outdated. As far as I know, this is still a limitation and it is frequently reported as such. In fact, a PhD in the SPECT group of the aforementioned institute always ran these computations over the weekend! There are some newer algorithms that can improve things, but they have drawbacks and none of them are nearly as fast as traditional filtered backprojection. If an algorithm exists for doing this as fast as FBP with all the benefits of iterative reconstruction, making this disadvantage "outdated", I would certainly like to know about it. Gabor T. Herman would definitely know better than to just dismiss this; he really is an established member of the field. This looks more like a student or PhD of his. In any case his affiliation to the Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group of CUNY seems glaringly obvious. Such a COI is just as severe as a corporate COI in my opinion, because groups and institutes often receive funding based on how much their publications are cited. It is also an increasingly widespread practice among researchers to use Wikipedia to get a quick glance at a concept and look for related scholarly literature, which may then in turn be quoted in scientific publications. Although it is strictly prohibited to cite without reading the source, such things are alarmingly common and rarely caught by reviewers (New Scientist reported on this trend in 2002 ). Smocking (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to get some clarity (no pun intended, for speakers of German): is the evidence of affiliation to the CUNY group just based on the exchange at Medical imaging: ?  Besides referencing the book by Herman, are there any other edits that would suggest an affiliation with the CUNY group?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I explained in the first edit, www.snark09.com (proprietary software that Klar sagen has linked from wikipedia several times) is affiliated to the CUNY DIG group as clearly evident from the phrase "Page designed by Joanna Klukowska for Discrete Imaging and Graphics Group (DIG)" on the footer of its webpage (http://www.snark09.com/). His other edits consist mainly of adding the aforementioned references to many different articles and editing Gabor Herman (yes, the very same CUNY DIG researcher), an article full of peacock words. His only edits not directly related to the CUNY DIG group are a few minor changes to Marilyn Kirsch. There might also be a COI with her, but that is not the subject here and there's no evidence beyond her also living in New York. Smocking (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add that Gabor Herman is the head of the CUNY DIG group, according to his bio . I've copied all these external links from contributions of Klar sagen, so this does not fall under WP:OUTING. Smocking (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)