Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:COI/N
WP:COIN
Notice Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place.
Archives
Add new incident reports at the bottom of this page.
Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics. It is for conflict of interest issues which require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material which can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

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

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

  • Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored.
  • If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them.
  • You can tag COI affected articles with {{COI}}.
  • You can warn editors about COI concerns with {{uw-coi}}.

All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest.


To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
  • Create a new section with the article name
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~
  • Add new entries at the bottom of the page
To close an incident
  • Add Template:resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature
  • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot

Contents


[edit] Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

[edit] Requested edits

  • Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

[edit] Category:IRC networks

Resolved.

<- how?

This may be the wrong place to report this but I'm unaware as to where to go. I am generally worried about most of the articles under the IRC_Network Category. A good portion of them seem to be just an advertisement of the network consisting of a description, sometimes even a list of staff, and an official link to their website. Almost always there are no references and most of them are already tagged. For example UniBG, ShellsNet, PaintballChat, NetGamers, LinkNet, IRCnet, etc. Networks such as EFnet, Freenode, Quakenet, DALnet are some of the biggest in the world making them credible but I believe this entire Category is an abuse of wikipedia. If it were only a few IRC networks advertising I would discuss locally but I believe this Category should get attention from admins in some way for the sheer amount of articles that should be reviewed. Virek (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In a quick look, I didn't see anything that seemed over the top. Maybe you could pick one of the articles that you think has the least credibility, and nominate it for deletion? Such a debate might help decide if the others should be challenged as well. Most of these articles are short, dense with information, and they are not promotional in style. If you could rank them by membership, maybe the smallest networks could be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am scrutinizing too much. I see things a bit differently. To me it looks like over half on the list are listed there because the administrators of the network made the page for advertising. I'll post specific articles and details.
  1. AbleNET - Article has references but they seem to be mostly blogs (or references that don't really indicate notability of the network). Network only has 150-300 users which is not notable at all.
  2. Abjects - Follows normal logic of info about the network, its services, and how to connect to it. Reference is dead.
  3. AfterNET - Not a large network, no notability defined, only reference is its own webiste
  4. AustIRC - same as above
If I continued I'd probably just list them all except 5-6 which are actually notable networks (100k+ users, first server ever, etc). Are these entries appropriate for wikipedia? PaintballChat for example has only 50-100 users and I will probably propose that for deletion. I would just like some more opinions because as I see it now most of these pages shouldn't exist. Perhaps there are (or should be) guidelines on what determines an IRC network to be notable. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to know where to look for them though. Things such as is it appropriate to have a list of staff and administrators? Appropriate for a list of popular channels? A list of services the server uses? What kind of user base would make a network notable? I would say freenode is an example of a notable IRC network (70,000+ users, article from the registrar). I think others agree with my stance considering there are notability tags on many of them. I'm also worried about discussion because it seems like it's an unpopular area. Furion for example has been around since 2007. One person put wikify tags on it which were removed by the creator. Has about 8 edits in a year. Virek (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not propose the deletion of any IRC articles that lack reliable sources. List the names of those articles here in case anyone disagrees with your evaluation. I would support the deletion of items #1-4 that you listed above. Even some of the articles on the smaller networks tell the stories of interesting disputes. I'd still dump them if they have no sources, however. (A list of staff and administrators should not be included unless those people are notable). If you are willing to go through all the references, that would clearly be a service. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The following have been proposed for deletion: Abjects, ablenet, afternet, austIRC, austnet, brasnet, blitzed, byxnet, Crunge, Furion, GamesNET, Global Gamers, IRCHighway, IRC-Hispano, IRCLang, IRCnet, Linknet, NetGamers , PaintballChat, shellsnet, UniBG. Because the users are normally internet savvy I would expect some prods to get delete without cause at some point. Articles have been prodded before. I also looked at some IRC statistics and some user counts are much lower then suggested. For example unibg claims ~50,000 while their own statistic site shows ~4000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virek (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Low or high user counts have no bearing on how noteworthy an IRC network is. Not to sound the drama queen but what you are discussing I think is a fundamental part of what Wikipedia is or isn't. Frankly if there is a need to remove pages on IRC networks etc., based on "noteability", there is a need to stop having pages on IRC networks all together. The same applies to newsgroups, websites, companies, brands, television shows, movies, artists. Anything that "are" or "is". Wikipedia has sat on the fence for too long and this is just an example of the result. How do you define a reliable source, or noteability, for the list of "things" I just listed? How do you completely remove "Conflict of Interest" when the majority of people that read, and hence edit, these things do so because, gasp, they're "interested". I look forward to the day more users dig into the discuss and special pages to discover how much of an ugly kludge this all is, in the meantime.. well :) 203.122.246.87 (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
203.122.246.87 (talk · contribs) has contested the PROD on AustNet. I observe that our article on AustNet cites no reliable sources at all. The PROD on PaintballChat was contested but it now has an AfD nomination. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Since 203.122.246.87 (talk · contribs) only has edits on the AustIRC/Austnet IRC articles I'd assume they are a user or administrator of the service. My reply to him is that he is right about popularity not being a sole reason to be noteworthy. The point is those networks aren't noteworthy in any other way, so your point proves your article is not noteworthy. If an IRC network is notable, which is possible, it deserves a page. An article on "IRC Networks" would be appropriate because their existence is notable for the sheer amount of users and uses across the internet. Individual networks should not exist unless they are themselves notable. Simple as that.Virek (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually my point was that the noteability requirements are simply not suitable for some scenarios, nor is "reliable source" or "conflict of interest" relevent for any realm you can draw your own experiences and interests from - i.e. something current and something that "is" - by 'being' it is obviously worthy of notice to somebody and by any somebody creating and editing the article they are obviously of the opinion it is noteworthy here. So feel free to become a 'reliable source' for these articles yourself, understand that a 'conflict of interest' is inevitable for something you become interested in, and shake your head with me when people spout on about a magical 'noteability' litmus when what they really need to be questioning is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. I do not agree that if you do not find an article noteable the correct course of action is to delete it, do you rip the pages out of a paper encyclopedia if they do not interest you? I feel it is absolutely no reflection on an article if you do not find it noteable, but a reflection on yourself and this website that the reaction is to burn it rather than better it yourself. I guess that's why I contribute so little to this site, but is it because I'm a hypocrite, because reading these special pages shows which direction this site is headed, or because I'm utterly and completely wrong and just don't "get" Wikipedia? Simple as what? :) 203.122.246.87 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that IRC is a very active and important component of the internet. It was one of the first means of group communication, along with newsgroups, and remains a vital mode of communication on the 'net. To call a big network such as efnet noteworthy because lots of teens talk about their sex life there, but other smaller networks where current and leading edge discussion and dissemination of information takes place are not, is a shame. The user who raised this apparent 'problem', Mr. EdJohnston, said that he's unaware where to go. He's generally concerned. Well, a lot of these networks have been around since long before wikipedia existed. They've been around long enough to see and contribute with interest to wikipedia's new idea, and see it slowly get bogged down by exactly this type of political bullshit. 'i think it's a conflict of interest' 'not enough users means it's not notable to be on here' Dude, it's wikipedia. There already are large encyclopedias with draconian standards, the world doesn't need another one. This site isn't supposed to be about popularity contests etc. And if you want a reference for irc sites, use something like netsplit.de. Before you get 'concerned' and start deleting shit, why don't you think about how long it was up here and why someone took the time to add it. There is some important and interesting history of the internet that you are busy trying to delete. And finally, what's with the 'watch this page' not emailing when it gets deleted? Fix that.
   re: Byxnet.  Byxnet seems to be one of the most well known irc networks that's deeply associated with quakecon, and the original Quake 1 community.  I find it odd that it doesn't meet notoriety requirements when links like this exist. http://planetquake.gamespy.com/fullstory.php?id=65319  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.147.179 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:8bitJake


I am not biased against historical fiction, it is an interesting form of fantasy. I am a problem with "Historical Fiction" being mixed in with fact in an article about a historical event. I don't think that minor works of fiction should be included in an article on a historical event. Every little Hollywood pop-culture reference is UnEncyclopedic. It is a slippery slope if you let fantasy and fiction to mix in with an article that is trying to inform about a historical event. I don't have a problem with a link to the fictional movie in question I just think it should be labeled unambiguously as a work of fiction.--8bitJake (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the WTO protest was something that I lived though gives me a sense of reverence and respect for the dignity of the events. I don' t think a B-movie of the week should be held up to the same light as a historical record. --8bitJake (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also that ban was for political figures. This is an historical event and a work of fiction being included in a historical article. I don’t have a bias against fictional works of art loosly based on the event. I just don’t think that they should be included or passed of on the article about the historical record. I am sorry wanting Unencyclopedic content out of historical articles is considered biased toward factual verifyable information. --8bitJake (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're under probation. Because of that, you can be banned from any article you disrupt. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Merely being at the protest/riots doesn't create a conflict of interest, IMHO, and I'm not sure how such an application of COI could be applied here. As far as the disruption go, if you feel 8bitJake is being disruptive, then WP:AE is the proper venue to take, not here. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Rus (User:Jacobolus) promoting his website and his friends at Comet (programming)

Comet (programming) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - User:Jacobolus uses this article about a buzzword/web-technology to promote the technology itself, the website he works for, his friends and himself. I've tried to clean up the article from the pov, original research and advertisement tone, but he (and some anon ips) insists of reverting to his own version.

In the article version he wrote (and insists on maintaining), he shamelessly quotes (in big fonts) his job-friends like Joe Walker, Alex Russell, Alessandro Alinone, Michael Carter, and himself (Jacob Rus), and puts them as big luminaries of a technological future.

See http://cometdaily.com/2008/01/09/comet-on-wikipedia/ for Jacob's description of his work on this article. --Damiens.rf 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted Damiens changes, due to the fact that he comes and pushes trough his changes even when being challenged to discuss them... no matter what and with a very uncivil tone. Accusing Jacob working on his "pet project" and "ownership" is quite unfair as he was immediately cooperative by taking up a discussion and by willing to rewrite/cleanup the article, I absolutely don't see what is wrong when an expert on a field is contributing to an article. I have done similar to technology articles that I am familiar with. I would have wished to engage in communication than playing hard ball with an "alleged enemy". - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I have been completely open about my role editing the Comet article on Wikipedia, and welcome collaboration. Unfortunately, Damiens.rf insists on destruction rather than cooperation. These people are not my “job friends” but rather form the community of professional experts working on Comet full-time. As such, they have useful things to say about it. I have interest in neither advertising nor original research, and welcome constructive edits and advice. Accusations of “shamelessness” are offensive and absurd. —jacobolus (t) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
To further explain, Damiens.rf removed 85% of the article in a series of 40 edits, each of them justified by a one-line edit summary, most of which looked something like “remove non-notable blogger comment,” or “overly detailed.” The result was an article which explains neither what Comet is, nor how it works, and has none of the original citations which linked to several excellent sources for further reading. I (rather reasonably, in my opinion) bulk-reverted this destruction, and asked him to take it to the talk page. Unfortunately, he took this as a challenge to fight a revert war, rather than discussing, and has since re-reverted to his butchered version 5 or 6 times. I really do not understand how this reflects a conflict of interest on my part. As far as I can tell, he is now attempting to exploit this COI page, as a way of forcing through his disruptive edits. —jacobolus (t) 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While Jacob has strong potential COI for the article, this is partly because he knows so much about the subject, and I do not think he is intentionally doing anything wrong. The article does have serious problems (one of which is dispute over the length) but hopefully we can work those out. If both Jacob and Damiens can agree to work on the article while being more careful about sounding like an advert/opinion, being more civil, and attempting to gain consensus with other editors rather than simply battling each other, I think we can avoid taking things any further. Restepc (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Initially not agreeing with Damiens, he made some very good points on the Comet talk page for his edits and that the current article is promoting a certain "terminology" (possibly it's a neolism, buzzword or synonym for another web technology). At this point I think that Jacob has a conflict of interest, we need to decide where to go with the Comet article and how to bring it back to a neutral point of view. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This article has been reduced to a stub, and is now all but useless for a reader trying to understand the term. I am for the moment giving up on the article, as it is not worth my time any more. Another couple of knowledgeable new editors attempted to lend their own wisdom, but as far as I can tell Damiens’s disruptive editing style and abrasive, condescending discussion style have driven away every user with any interest in productive editing. None of the remaining editors have, as far as I can tell, any prior knowledge of the subject, and there has been no evidence any are interested in researching it. So I expect that the article will now remain a useless stub for the foreseeable future. Most unfortunate. Cheers. —jacobolus (t) 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

complaining won't change the fact that your preferred version of the article was completely unsuitable; it would probably be extremely helpful if you do indeed 'give up' on the article and let people get on with it. I suspect that it will develop a lot faster without everything turning into an argument.
You do have a point about Damiens demeanor, although it is slowly improving...if you do want to complain about it try WP:WQA, not here.
Obviously, for now this issue is ongoing, but perhaps resolved soon if Jacob really does step out of the article this time. Restepc (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
For the COI page, what's interesting to note is that these "couple of knowledgeable new editors" that Jacob mentions are all, just as Jacob, Comet Daily's contributors:
These users are being cooperative in the main namespace, so far. But we should keep taking a look, since they have the same COI problems and lack a broader understanding of Wikipedia's core policies (for instance, they are reluctant to accept that published books are more reliable sources than their blogs[1] [2] [3]). --Damiens.rf 12:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Gregwilkins has started promoting Comet in the push technology article [4][5] and Martintyler (Chief Software Architect at Caplin Systems) has added an external link to his own Comet product [6][7]. - 83.254.208.192 (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It's obviously reasonable to be concerned about these people, but I suggest assuming good faith for now. Restepc (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Round Table

PigeonPiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - an SPA active only on Oxford Round Table, appears to have a close association with the Oxford Round Table, Inc., and is editing disruptively. At present this consists of adding unsourced material, as here, here, here, here, despite discussion on talk page here where failed verification is noted. A new instance of different unsourced information is here.

PigeonPiece is perhaps a reincarnation of User:Obscuredata (banned for sockpuppets); User:PigeonPiece's second edit showed surprising (for a newbie) knowledge of policies, in citing WP:NPA with "no personal attacks" substituted; that edit also showed awareness of an AfD about this page.

A central point is that PigeonPiece appears to have information about the ORT not available on the internet, first introduced here; PigeonPiece has never explained how he/she found that article (it does not appear in search engines). It is likely that the organization has a clippings file and PigeonPiece (assuming association with ORT) has access to such a file. Another instance is here.

This user's approach to editing the page is to conform to what the ORT says about itself, as noted here. It has been difficult to make progress on this page, with entirely reasonable edits/proposals obstructed for extended periods. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the lack of any response here. What is supposed to happen next? Sure, PigeonPiece hasn't been active in the last few days, but I doubt he/she is gone for good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PP's edits appear innocuous. They mostly contain merely the names of the officers of the group at various periods. Some of it was slightly excessive detail, and I reduced it to the normal amount a few days ago. Most of it seems to have been sourced acceptably. I do not see how this is other than constructive, though the editor very probably is associated with the group. This is however certainly an article that needs watching. DGG (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
PP's very first edit was to delete the corporate history section of the article. I think part of the problem is simply PP's refusal to acknowledge her/his COI. S/he repeatedly said the article Nomoskedasticity referenced above (here) could be found on search engines, which it cannot. I have a subscription to premium Nexis and it does not come up. I had to get it on microfilm. There is really no other explanation than her/him having access to a clippings file at the ORT. But the other big problem, as Nomoskedasticity said, is the constant obstructionism and absurd arguments PP continuously resorts to on the talk page, as you can see easily. We had to go through an RfC to add one sentence! Academic38 (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
my observation is that just about everyone who participates more than a little at Oxford Round Table has a COI or a very strong POV. Some like Academic edit responsibly, others, less so. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Rocksanddirt, if you think there are editors on the page who have a COI, perhaps it would make sense to warn them on their talk page? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
They've all been warned, threatened, some socks blocked, read the afd from a couple of months ago. I've lost most of my pateince for the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not true that they've all been warned, unfortunately. I started this section precisely because PigeonPiece has not been warned, despite an obvious association with ORT itself. Given my previous interactions with PigeonPiece, a warning shouldn't come from me; the question is simply whether others reading here find what I have presented convincing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falun Gong related AfD with COI problem (Arbcom related)

A current AfD Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (2nd nomination), has very few contributors outside of myself who are not vested in some way (for or against) Falun Gong related articles. Several of them were party to an Arbcom case, and have also been contacting other members with edits to a similar range of articles to come in to comment on the AfD. I think a neutral party should have a look at this for any potential COI which may affect the outcome one way or the other. MrPrada (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Falun Gong articles are all very polarised, appear only to attract devotees or cranks, and are constantly plagued by edit-warring from same. I am pretty fed up with both sides, and agree with the above that there may be a more deep-seated problem which needs to be examined, not limited to the action proposed above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Ohconfucius and MrPrada: this should be investigated. I also believe that some of the revert-warring that initially plagued Falun Gong has moved on to other related articles, which would be in violation of the ArbCom decision regarding these articles. However, all this WikiDrama gives me a serious headache -_-. Anyway, I would support someone coming in from the outside to determine if a COI exists (I am no longer qualified, having launched myself into the AfD...). I still wish we were here to build an encyclopedia, not push "the truth". nneonneo talk 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This noticeboard is most effective when it is given a specific article to improve. Can MrPrada designate an article that he believes is non-neutral, and list the specific problems? If this issue has already been to Arbcom, then we can make no promises of miracles. But we could have a discussion. This must be the Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was referring specifically to the AFD discussion. After Ohconfucius made me aware of the previous Arbcom case (which was in May of '07, imposing a 1-year topic ban that expired last month) I noticed that several of the people involved were commenting on the AFD. It was later brought up that there is an endemic bias from both sides amongst Falung Gong related articles. I make no claim that I have any familiarity with the subject matter, I was just party to this one particular AFD—which is I why I had hoped some other neutral editors would come along and make comments. I think the Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong could be a specific example, the specific problems are described within the Talk page and the AFD. I can list them for you if you'd like, but they come from other editors. MrPrada (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: the Afd closed with no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Athaenara ✉ 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That it did, but Ohconfucius and nneonneo both brought up that this is occurring on a weekly basis on the article itself, as well as other FG related articles. I sent a note to some of the major contributors to hear what they have to say. MrPrada (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


I'm trying to input valid criticism since the FG page appears to be overwhelmingly positive praises of the organization. I believe the page requires criticism to balance out the viewpoints, otherwise the article would be heavily POV in support of the Falun Gong. Addressing the criticisms and both sides of the issue would be logical. Intranetusa (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

POV issues have been with that article (and related ones) since its inception, unfortunately; they stem from a systemic bias introduced by tens of editors with the singular goal of pushing their own viewpoint, whether it be pro-FG or anti-FG. The Arbcom case managed to find and remove two of the more tendentious anti-FG editors, however, they haven't apparently stopped sockpuppeting and there are still many more editors on either side. I wish that someone who was genuinely neutral could help out with this article (I cannot offer to, since I know that my personal biases will make it impossible to be perfectly neutral on the subject). nneonneo talk 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I too agree with Ohconfucius: "Falun Gong articles are all very polarised, appear only to attract devotees or cranks" then of course the next best thing I think it's what MrPrada said: "I sent a note to some of the major contributors to hear what they have to say.". Now really if there would be enough interest or enough mediation, guidance on the Wikipedia rules and spirit, we could really have a constructive environment and that my friend, would be just excellent! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually by major editors I hope you mean major Wikipedia editors ..., not necessarily admins, but people who are not biased and interested to keep on eye on this article and on the contributions from both sides. Recently I saw Fuzzypeg doing this for a brief amount of time. Thank You --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I have much to contribute to the discussion. I think the only way for this to be adequately resolved is for people working on the pages to demand of themselves to be polite, courteous, to listen to others, to consider the high-quality encyclopedia aspect, and to try to understand things from more points of view. All this can be difficult, no question. Ohconfucius and I for example, have traditionally worked quite well together. We discuss things and compromise, and where we cannot compromise one of us inevitably then just gives in to the other, for the purpose of progress etc.. At the moment you can check the edit histories of the articles, they are not in crisis as seems to have been suggested. I'd say they are more-or-less stable. Problems arise when people from either side start making radical edits, a la Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions#Neutral point of view (and associated principles): "Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem." -- this happens less than once a month at the moment. The long term editors, or let me just talk for myself (I think confucius plans to stick around) are committed to making serious, high quality articles. Of course, I have my own views on this subject, but who doesn't. If I didn't think I could make a quality contribution, I wouldn't bother. Wikipedia policies are good, and referring to them and sticking to them gives an objective measure. One of the pages was elevated to good status some months ago. It would be great if a slew of uninterested parties came in, read heaps of the literature, and started working. That hasn't happened.

Just a final point, to ohconfucius, because I'm sure he's reading: please think twice before you c&p a rant. It will make a fourth or fifth time, and I for one am finding it a bit dull. Try to say something constructive. There, I hope that wasn't a harsh comment, but I feel it's important to discourage unhelpful and venting remarks, and to encourage good ones. Of course, if you think that is a good approach, then you should do it.

About The Epoch Times and CIPFG pages... I don't know. There was a WSJ article about Falun Gong founded media earlier this year, someone should dig that up and refer to it. There's a bit of a dearth of resources on some of these topics. Epoch Times is peripherally related to the Falun Gong pages. Anyway, the articles generally have slowly improved, and I think they will continue to do so. Mostly I'd say they suffer from neglect, but check out Falun_Gong_and_live_organ_harvesting, Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident, and Persecution_of_Falun_Gong -- they are well sourced, neutrally written, and generally of a high standard. --Asdfg12345 01:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. After reading the three articles you mentioned, I must be honest in saying that they lend far too much time to the Falun Gong perspective, and not enough time to how the Chinese government or other external agencies interpret and respond to the comments generated. For example, in this section, rather than fully explaining McGregor's point of view fairly, the article immediately cuts to a takedown of his argument; this is the only argument presented which refutes the claim, despite the fact that there are numerous other sources (e.g. US Dept. of State report(s)), making the singular "doubt" an easy strawman. This section reads like a conspiracy theory (analogous to accusations that 9/11 was performed with explosives in the building, with camera crews readily available to film the incident). Now, I'm not going to act on this information, because I don't believe that I would personally be able to do a good job with such a controversial topic, and I'd rather not fan the flames. I'm simply letting you know of some serious concerns I have with these apparently neutral articles. nneonneo talk 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Here's my personal experience with balant DE by editor Asdfg. Bobby fletcher (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate that. If you have any other comments, and don't want to edit yourself, please leave them on the talk pages or whatever. The more specific the better. Next week I wanted to have a close look at the organ harvesting page; expanding on McGregor's article might be a good idea. I wrote that part, so I take responsibility for it; I think I attempted to distil both his article and the response to it. I didn't add the Amnesty part, though, someone else put that. Originally there was a paragraph for Mcregor, a paragraph from Kilgour/Matas, and a paragraph about how the CMS sponsored him. Now Amnesty was added in. I think Amnesty can be moved elsewhere, Mcgregor strengthened (if possible), Kilgour/Matas directly follow mcgregor, and the claim that the CMS sponsored him can be shortened. I am not aware of a US State rejection of the Kilgour/Matas report. They didn't find evidence to substantiate the Sujiatun stuff, which was prior. There is the CRS report by Lum though, which raises doubts specifically about K/M, and perhaps that doesn't get enough airtime--I will check. Re-examining Mcgregor would be a good idea; thanks.

About the False Fire section, do you have any specific ideas about how it is not credible or unencyclopedic, and how it might be improved? The second paragraph of that article was previously in its own box on the right, but later changed. It is all taken from NTDTV's video analysis (a Falun Gong linked station) -- they won an award for the video. As far as I understand, the statements it makes refer to the contents of the video that was publicly broadcast; I don't think it refers to things that cannot be independently verified, such as perhaps 9/11 with explosives. Many of those specific claims were repeated in different media; for example, one media might refer to fire extinguishers, one might refer to the security cameras. I seem to recall this kind of thing. Does it not sound right because of the tone, or because of the information or views it presents? I'm not saying this is the case, but perhaps if one were already convinced it was a bona-fide Falun Gong immolation, arguments to the contrary may not be readily admitted. I suppose the key is to present what the sources have said and let the reader decide. If there is any specific way this might be improved I'd be interested to hear it. Thanks again.--Asdfg12345 05:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harry and Louise, redux

In response to MCB's comments from Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Harry and Louise and edits by Goddard Claussen (ad agency)

Again, why is this so called administrator so worried about COI when the original Harry & Louise articles contains FACTUAL ERRORS. There are major errors to the entry yet someone who pertains to be a champion of Wikipedia doesn't care. He just cares that I work for Goddard Claussen. I said that I was happy to rewrite parts he thought were from a GC POV, and I also said that I wanted to cite portions of the article, but that I did not know how, and I asked for help. All I received was a reply stating I worked for Goddard Claussen and that he was thinking about blocking me. All I would like to do is have the Harry and Louise article updated to be factually correct, and cited properly. Wikipedia claims to be a verifiable online encylopedia, yet it condones MCB's actions of preventing a truthful edit to an article. I should be able to make edits to an article that contains misleading and inaccurate information no matter who I work for or don't work for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkr13 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are the original links from the first WP:COIN listing:
To reiterate the issues, Hkr13 (formerly Hilarykoehl) attempted to rewrite the Harry and Louise article several times, replacing the lead paragraph with an unencyclopedic magazine-style lead which was laudatory/promotional to the creators of the commercial, removing sources/citations and the reference section, and removing a sourced paragraph regarding re-use of the Harry and Louise characters in a subsequent commercial and resulting litigation in which Goddard Claussen was involved. The rewrite cites no sources, and has NPOV and verifiability problems as well as the obvious COI.
In addition, she denied working for Goddard Clausen, the producer of the Harry & Louise commercials, which was trivially rebutted by a Google search on her name.
Again, if she has relevant, reliably (and independently) sourced material for the article, it should be posted to the article's Talk page and proposed, on a sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line basis, with the sources cited (they don't need to be in the correct format, just verifiable). But removing well-sourced information (regarding the litigation), removing the sources themselves, and being deliberately untruthful about one's employer and a conflict of interest, show bad faith, and I recommend that Hkr13 be banned from directly editing the article, and restricted to proposing specific changes on the Talk page. --MCB (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to ask for help before you will listen. I can ABSOLUTELY 100% give third party references, I just do not know how to get it to display properly. You think are this great wikipedia cop patrolling for errors, but you have contiually ignored the fact that 1. I can source each and every fact in the rewrite; 2. There is factually inaccurate information in the current article.

You are not helpful, but bullying me into leaving the Harry and Louise article incorrect and factually UNTRUE. I have since the beginning done what you have asked and posted changes to the talk page, and asked for help in citing the sources. I have received nothing but unhelpful malicious feedback, splashing my name around as if I have a criminal record. If you are a true encyclopedia then it should be a no-brainer to fix the information and help me to include the citations. None of which has happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.218.127 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, I NEVER denied working for Goddard Claussen, you never asked just googled my name. I did deny working for GC Strategic Ventures which I have never heard of. You should get your facts straight before accusing someone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.218.127 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of rewriting the article or worrying about getting the third party references to display properly, just post a list of specific issues you have with the article on its Talk page, line by line, with your sources. Don't worry about how they display; others will take care of that. You have been asked many times to do that, but have not complied, and instead, you removed sourced information and the source, and replaced the article with a laudatory/promotional rewrite for Goddard Claussen.
In addition please sign your postings here on this page and on Talk pages. It is also better if you sign in to your account so that we can keep track of who is posting what. --MCB (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Wilde

Liz Wilde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - continued editing of the article by it's subject (Lizwilde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)). This editor has been warned numerous times on her talk page.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides COI, it's also now well beyond 3RR. I've even gotten close to 3RR myself now. The359 (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, it seems possible that 199.200.243.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the same person due to their edits so far today to Liz Wilde and a related Liz Wilde image. The359 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ummm, no. If you look at my edits, you'll see I've actually tried to improve the article and brin another viewpoint. I agree though, that perhaps Lizwilde should stop editing her own article. 199.200.243.253 (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another viewpoint is fine, as long as it includes citations and helps the article meet WP:BIO. This article is fast heading towards an AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • AfD sounds good. The alternative would be to rewrite the article in a neutral style, but for that you need to have reliable sources that contain detailed information about the person. Given the lack of sources, and the difficulty of meeting WP:BIO, deletion sounds like a good option. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've sent it to AfD after looking at the references. I can't see any notability, if the best she could do was a handful of links like the ones on the article, the last one to a failed radio network, that's not very good. Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't, it's protected. Doug Weller (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Shall we get this unprotected and AFD it? I added those references before the edit war started.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I unprotected the article to allow an AfD nomination. Any admin should restore the protection if BLP problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I've raised the AfD. Doug Weller (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Herb Chambers Companies

Herb Chambers Companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - this corporate article is being repeatedly sanitized by company surrogates in order to cleanse it of unpleasant, but verifiable facts. One fact is the Boston Globe story about questionable campaign contributions. The other is a blog article (written by a reputable national journalist) where several hundred customers and current and former company employees discuss its conduct. To me both articles are noteworthy and relevant.

Beyond all that: their other, less substantial edits (such as listing every single model of car they sell) create an article that probably qualifies as a corporate vanity / spam page. The discussion page for the article has more detail. We could use some objective help over there. Thank you. BostonBrew (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The article could be clearer on how the contributions to the atty general campaign are of concern. Also, which editors do you have a COI concern with? Have they been warned on their talk page?--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary film "The Sons of Eilaboun"

Article:

Notability:

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) deleted the article about an award winning documentary, which describes persuade of Palestinians by Israeli government in the earlier ages of the state establishment. The user Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) himself is a UK-based Jewish man. Tried several times before to delete the article and bio of its director. Call for politically-neutral administrators to participate in this case. Mordka (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) shows in his profile that he is a pro Israeli, and he tries always to change and delete anything connected to Palestinians, He deleted the film the sons of Eilaboun, a film that won an award and the Arabic press including Aljazeera.net. The director/visual artist Hisham Zreiq (or Zrake) is a respected an important Palestinian artist. And his art can be found all over the internet. (Please see links bellow)

I think this is vandalism from Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

http://www.badil.org/Publications/Press/2008/press461-08.htm

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/897/sc3.htm

http://media.www.coyotechronicle.com/media/storage/paper1326/news/2008/05/23/MultiCultural/Remembering.60.Years.Later-3375335.shtml

http://windowintopalestine.blogspot.com/2008/05/al-awda-convention-highlights.html

http://al-awda.org/alert-eilaboun.html

http://www.3dlinks.com/HishamArt

http://onefineart.com/en/artists/hishamz/

http://hishamart.artremains.com/

http://www.artwanted.com/HishamArt

http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/60years.htm

http://tadamon.resist.ca/index.php/post/1404

http://galerie-zukunftslabor.de/hishamzreiq.html


ARABIC LINKS:

http://www.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=1070538

http://www.panet.co.il/online/articles/71/73/S-87251,71,73.html

http://www.palissue.com/vb/palestine112/issue47052

http://www.assennara.net/article.asp?id=8793

http://www.badil.org/Arabic-Web/Publications/Press/2008/pressA-12-2008.htm

http://www.7baybna.com/Default.asp?ViewArt=1&MenuID=2&NewsId=30487


Just look for "The sons of eilaboun" , "Hisham Zreiq" or "Hisham Zrake" in google

"Num666 (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)"

The above users are right in one respect - there has been a conflict of interest. However, it is that of Hishamzr (talk · contribs) who created the articles on himself and his films. Zreiq [12] or that Zrake gets less than 100 ghits, most of which are social networking sites or linked to the (deleted) Wikipedia article. Most of the links above are self-publishing.
I've also filed a RFCU on the two editors above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Number 57 is really bad in numbers. If you want to count ghits then consider that Hisham Zreiq (530 ghits) or Hisham Zrake (1700 ghits). And good luck with RFCU. Mordka (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Try scrolling through the hits. Once you get to 70-80 there aren't any more. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Try clicking the "repeat the search with the omitted results included" link. Mordka (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? It just lists more hits but on the same websites; the total number of websites remains the same. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. MER-C 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This text is from Wikipedia about admins like Number57:
  • Criticism of Wikipedia - Administrator actions: "In an article on Wikipedia conflicts, The Guardian noted criticism that administrators of the site, who have "special powers to lock down vulnerable articles from further editing, and temporarily block problem users from making changes to the site",[107] have occasionally abused those powers to suppress legitimate editors. The article discussed "a backlash among some editors, who argue that blocking users compromises the supposedly open nature of the project, and the imbalance of power between users and administrators may even be a reason some users choose to vandalise in the first place."

The proof can be seen in his behavior in ignoring facts and other user in the following link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sons of Eilaboun. It is obvious he is discriminating the article about the film only because it is a Palestinian film, and he is eager in any price to delete it. JFCK (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note I think User:Number 57 should be blocked. He probably will try to block me, like he did to others. JFCK (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University Bible Fellowship is being discredited

A former member (User:easternroot) of the University Bible Fellowship is using Wikipedia to promote his view of the organization as a destructive cult. The Wikipedia article for University Bible Fellowship was started by a former member as a clever way to discredit the ministry, as can be seen by the erratic talk page on the article. This is a clear conflict of interest in authoring Wikipedia articles. Help is needed to make this article a proper entry in Wikipedia, and not a forum for slamming the organization, nor for praising it. User:easternroot is constantly separating all of his viewpoints into his own sections or subsections that give the article structure undue weight on his fringe theory about the organization. Bkarcher (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This appears to also be an edit war, and perhaps some sockpuppets are involved as well. Multiple single purpose accounts with edits almost exclusively to this article with similar argumentative edit summaries. hmmm. This will take some significant digging into. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • At present, the response to criticism section has been removed, but not the criticism section. .DGG (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I summarized the criticism section and also made a proposed replacement in the talk. How does the article look now? Bkarcher (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears that this issue may be resolved. Can you confirm? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mark this as resolved yet. I have first-hand knowledge of UBF, since they recruited heavily at my graduate school, and I find the current state of the article to be a whitewash. I'm not going to edit the article, since I have a pretty negative opinion of the group, but I want to point out a few things. UBF has been kicked off of several colleges and universities throughout North America due to aggressive recruiting tactics and controlling behavior. They enforce arranged marriages among college-age members, and dictate career paths members take, and pressure members into severing ties with family and friends. There are some good sources that document this here[13], particularly this article[14]. This is far from a "fringe theory", as Bkarcher asserts - academics and mainstream media have discussed these aspects of UBF in verifiable sources.
Skinwalker, particularly which article? Easternroot (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I meant this one[15]. Hopefully the link works now. Skinwalker (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, Bkarcher is likely to be Brian Karcher, a minister in UBF.[16][17] This is a clear conflict of interest, and the fact that he is issuing COI notices to other parties in the dispute is particularly obnoxious.[18] This needs admin attention, and would benefit from disinterested editors who can properly source the article and prune the obvious hagiography. Skinwalker (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see now that Bkarcher has acknowledged his COI[19]. He should not be editing the article, candor notwithstanding. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Er, yes, since I am also a former member of the group (UBF), I should and will gladly also refrain from editing the article. I didn't start the article, nor do I wish it had been created. I saw my role as reverting the clean deletions of critical views of UBF. Easternroot (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, Skinwalker, in my identity. I have a clear conflict of interest in this article. My issue though, is that so do the three userid's above, being former members of the ministry. I think the article is fine as it is currently. Bkarcher (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That final comment naturally has the effect of making an outsider uneasy. In any event, I'd like to make here a point I made in an edit summary on the article: a COI-burdened editor should under no circumstances remove a COI or NPOV template from an article (as Bkarcher did yesterday). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My mistake in removing the COI flag... I will gladly refrain from editing this article. My concern however is that it does not become a criticism soapbox. It would be fair to also include the third party assessments from verifiable Christian authors and organizations. Can an admin prevent a criticism soapbox? If not, the article may well end up like the talk page. Bkarcher (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick R. Bieber

This article was created by and has thus far been the only edits of User:Dariamorgendorffer as well as the IP User:170.223.146.123, which resolves to somewhere inside the Harvard network. Clearly, Daria is someone who knows a lot about Bieber (if not Bieber himself, though his age makes it unlikely for him to get the TV show reference), and given that the IP listed Bieber as a Freemason on List of Freemasons as of 2007 (not cited in the article), the IP is likely Bieber himself. MSJapan (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I just started some copy editing to clean this up a bit, more work to be done later. I also left a few notices on the contributors talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xplor international

I am hesitant to bring this to this COI noticeboard: I believe that the reaction to COI edits is often excessive (sometimes they can be a good thing!), and it can drive good contributors off. However, after a discussion on my talk page, the Xplor international page still appears very spammy. Someone might want to use kiddie gloves with the authors, who are members of the organization (though they don't work for it). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A world wide organisation of people whose job it is to send people bills and snail mail spam....you'd think they wouldn't want to advertise too much....
It's possible the guy has good intentions; though right now he's a SPA...I'll just start editing the page and see how it goes.Restepc (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I just performed some copyediting and it's much better now, but it still lacks sources and perhaps notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KEWL Magazine

About a couple weeks ago, I came upon the article for the teenage-targeting KEWL Magazine and noticed that it was improperly written as if to suggest a promotional article. It was full of puff PR about events the magazine did, a superflous cover gallery, and a long list of blue-linked celebrities which had pictures in the magazine which seemed only designed to puff up their WLH numbers (and was a forgone conclusion; if you're 14-25, sing, or appear on TV or a film, you'll probably be in this magazine). I reverted the PR and the gallery and formalized the writing, explaining it so in my edit summary.

However Sk8trchick, who beyond a couple edits has only contributed to the KEWL article, reverted my changes saying my edit does not conform to wikipedia rules. The user removed sections without properly reporting in their edit summary and will be reported if another attempt is made. However my summary was rv overly promotional writing of article, take out pictures which add nothing to the article, which I thought was pretty clear. I re-reverted the changes, but then Poetsroad, also only editing the KEWL article (and adding a link to it in a band's article), reverted my changes, claiming the cover gallery was informative and conforms with NPOV rules, when it's more of a copyright concern since I assume the agencies selling the pictures to the magazines strictly prohibit them from being used anywhere else but in the physical magazine. The two accounts editing only that article also suggest COI and SPA's in my eyes.

I just wanted to make sure I was right in reverting these changes. I'm not in WP:3RR jeopardy, but I don't want to revert and then be shot down again even with extremely specific reasons for reverting the edits in my summaries. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left uw-coi warnings on both users' Talk pages. I have also puidisputed the images in the image gallery, since Sk8trchick claims to own the copyright, but the copyright on the images specifically claim to be created by Mike Bundie, a name which doesn't sound like a "chick" to me. Corvus cornixtalk 01:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Alden

Appears to be largely original research by the subject of the article, copied from his self-published bio on other sites.

For example, the phrase "the world's largest blogging company" seems to be Calden's own. I can't find notable research that supports phrases like "an innovative RSS feed reading service".

The external links in paragraphs at the end of the article seem to be a non-standard format for Wikipedia.

Some of the details may not be encyclopedic, but I may be biased.

The company I work for is largely considered the competition the subject is the CEO of, so it is inappropriate for me to update the article myself. Lloydbudd (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) (I changed my username from Foolswisdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)). I previously reported this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and User:Corvus cornix suggested I report it here.

[edit] Pedro Pierluisi

This user who works under a obvious politically promotional username began editing the Pedro Pierluisi article earlier today, among his edits he included phrases such as "prestigious" when trying to push a POV and blanked a reference, which combined with a blantantly promotional username suggests a biased user, possibly part of the politician's campaing staff. 24.138.198.241 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sloan Bella

A few days ago I stumbled upon the article Sloan Bella (I was looking at some possible COI cases generated by AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult), created by User:Sloanbella. I did not request deletion, as the subject does appear to have some notability. I tried to improve the article a bit myself, but it is not really my subject. In addition, the subject herself (who apparently created the article) keeps editing it, despite the fact that I have tried to explain the relevant policies on her talk page (User_talk:Sloanbella). According to a message that she left on my talk page, the article was written by her management staff. Bella is a new editor and I don't want to bite her head off or discourage her, but I am unsure about what is propoer here. I would appreciate if some other editor with more experience in COI issues could have a look at this. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I explained to this editor that she should not edit the article on her herself, but put any suggestions on the talk page in accordance with standard policy and let other editors make any changes. Suddenly a new editor has popped up, User:Kristysixt, whose only edits are to this article. Serious accusations (such as alleged heavy drinking of her father) are "sourced" by references to her bio on her website, sloanbella.com. --Crusio (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mtc38118

Mtc38118 (talk · contribs) began life as Mahaffey (talk · contribs) and began creating several articles which were blatant ads for the Mahaffey company. The user changed user names, but continues to create ads for the company, with links specifically to Mahaffey sites. Several of this user's articles have been deleted as blatant advertising, but he/she keeps recreating them. Corvus cornixtalk 16:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Pakistan World's organisers' blatant spamming

I am filing a conflict of interest on various pages including the ones mentioned in the list below:

The above articles are totally biased and have been tagged for blatant advertisement zillions of times (figure of speech), but the messages are removed. Even notices prompting the editor to add citations, remove dubious claims and vague paraphrases are routinely removed. Edits made by users in the light of mending these problems are usually reverted or in the case of Miss Pakistan World "reworded".

Proof collected for COI
To summarise the conflict of interest issues, following is a collection of the investigations into the user's and their associates' editing MO.

  • The users Sonisona (talk · contribs), Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) and Tamara Daniels PR (talk · contribs) are put under scrutiny here.
  • User Sonisona has only ever edited articles related to the Miss Pakistan World pageant or its contestants from the time this account has been created.
  • User Danthompsonjr has been actively uploading pictures for the following articles only, almost always without a license and clear breach of copyright policies and has been warned as well. The user never cares to respond properly.
  • The third user, Tamara Daniels PR made an edit clearly acknowledging that they were hired by the company to edit their articles. This use so far has made only one edit as of this writing.
  • The website URL stated in the above mentioned edit points to the proprietors of the business being a one Daniel Thompson and another Tamara Atzenwiler. Clearly the user Danthompsonjr is Daniel here. The other edit using the other username Tamara Daniels PR was of Daniel's as well if the e-mail address is matched from his edit. It all makes sense.
  • User Sonisona denies the facts here saying their is no Daniel working for them contrary to Daniel himself. This claim is questionable as the PR agency's website features the company's working under their blog entry here. Notice the highlighted words in the address for the mentioned blog entry:
    www.tamaradaniels.com/what-were-doing/mrs-pakistan-2008-proves-progression-still-lives
  • The user Sonisona leaves a message on the talk page at one point. This message can be accessed here. Notice the words: "the team", "our true history", "mix our pictures". This was just after edits by Arunreginald proclaiming the company's associations with the Tamara Daniels PR agency. In this immediate post, these allegations were never condemned rather the user showed that there actually was a team working on the article, neither were allegations stating the user Sonisona to be the president of the company Sonia Ahmed challenged in any way.
  • It was only after the query by user Morenoodles that the user User:Sonisona changed her comments.

This is more than enough proof to state that a serious conflict of interest is being exercised on the article page. Consider this proof and tell me what needs to be done. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple new articles by Special:Contributions/Lnconnect

Over the past several hours the WP:SPA Lnconnect (talk · contribs) has created a number of new articles, all on the legal journals published by LexisNexis Butterworths Connect probably in the violation of WP:COI. I don't want to WP:BITE (since I was accused of that recently) and the articles have sufficent detail so that I don't feel comfortable just nominatiñg them for speedy as spammy. The articles include New Law Journal, Justice of the Peace Magazine, Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law, Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal, Construction Law Journal, Taxation Magazine. --Thetrick (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Bride Poor Bride

I'm an admin, but as the creator of the Rich Bride Poor Bride page I should not really be doing any admin actions related to happenings on that page, baring simple vandalism, which this is not. The page is on a cable reality TV show. The user listed above appears, by user name, to be one of the participants in one of the episodes of the show. They have twice now added to the page a section of text lifted from one of the network web pages (copyvio), and a couple of additional paragraphs highlighting the particular episode in which they appeared in fairly POV terms. They have also created a vanity page for themselves. Could I get some more eyes to assist on the page, and especially be willing to handle any admin actions there, if any should be required? As for the vanity page, I'm not sure it's eligible for speedy deletion, as appearing on a reality show is IMHO at least an assertion of notability, but I've seen plenty of (IMHO) more notable reality show participants deleted at AFD, so I'm pretty sure that this person would not pass AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

With Tony's latest edit the copyright issues are pretty much dealt with. He created a new basic description paragraph for the show that was not lifted from the series web site, and I have edited it into the main body of the article, and cleane it up for encyclopedic style. However, he's still insisting on adding a very POV paragraph about his specific episode. I'm at 3RR on that paragraph now, so I should not continue to remove it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)