Hosta

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

• 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.

• 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.

• Idiomag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Marginally notable website, created by single-use editor Idiogirl, written much like an advertisement.

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

Look at this user's user page where he brags that he has "won the battle" over cold fusion. I think he should be banned from editing in article space per his obvious conflict of interest and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

ScienceApologist (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explicate your argument for COI a little more? I'm sorry, but my first take is that this is an unusual COIN listing by someone who states on their own user page that they are "tired of silly drama on Wikipedia." Dppowell (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I read it, but I still don't see a conflict of interest. Are you suggesting that writing about an instance of Wikipedia processes on a news site disqualifies someone from editing here? I agree that talking about "winning the battle" on one's user page is perhaps unnecessarily triumphalist, but I still don't see a COI (and certainly not a reason to ban the editor, not that this is the right forum for that discussion). Dppowell (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a sufficiently close relationship to the topic to count as COI. That said, the edit history certainly looks SPA and tendentious, with a sole interest in being here to overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion: see also this New Energy Times piece - "many of the prominent individuals known to New Energy Times who are observing the field are keeping mum though a few observers such as Ron Marshall and Pierre Carbonnelle have tried their best to participate") and other off-wiki discussions [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never tried to "overturn the article's reflecting the real-world sceptical consensus about cold fusion". Actually, I have fought hard for the article to represent precisely that view, instead of the view of rejection and pseudoscience that some editors have tried to impose without appropriate sources. I have asked editors to stick to what the 2004 DOE report was saying. This is also clearly described in the article I was asked to write for New Energy Times. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't come across that way.

"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research ... I now have a lot of respect for all paradigm-shifting scientists, like Copernicus, Galileo, Fleischmann and Pons, and the other courageous cold fusion pioneers".

reads as a distinct agenda of Righting a Great Wrong re cold fusion. We all have biases, but if your aim is push a new paradigm into Wikipedia, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:SOAP definitely apply. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My particular concern over this is that New Energy Times is all over that article, with several citations and external links. It's not just a conflict of interest, it's self-promotion.[2] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating on-wiki disputes and off-wiki advocacy is never a good idea. While I think there is a bit of Pot-Kettle-Black going on here, I think an apology is in order, Pierre. However, you have been a strong contributor to this page and a topic ban is overkill. Ronnotel (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that I'm not interested in a topic ban. I just want links that are promotional removed, and for the article to be reliable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to have the NET article mentionned in the cold fusion talk page. I just wanted SA to know about it, and I posted my message on his talk page. It's unfortunate that Seicer brought it to the cold fusion talk page. I wish I had sent it by e-mail to SA, as we would have avoided the whole thing. As I did not bring it up, I don't see what I have to apologize for, but welcome any suggestion. I wish someone would ask SA to apologize for the many personal attacks that me and others had to endure. This episode is nothing compared to the incivility that he has been blocked many times for. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My response to another comment above: If the Great Wrongs is inconsistent with published, reputable sources, and if it is published on wikipedia, it is a service to wikipedia to Right it. The DOE does say it is an ongoing scientific controversy, not pseudoscience. Bragging about it out of wikipedia does not change this. I stand by what I wrote in the NET article and on wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched this unfold and it has been very frustrating. It was not helpful at all to the encyclopedia to have Pcarbonn boasting in an external publication that he has managed to influence it. SA's behaviour has been challenging at times as well. Full page protection should be extended and perhaps some editors should voluntarily turn their attention to other articles for a while. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have apologized to ScienceApologist by private e-mail on July 14. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am absolutely not surprised that Pcarbonn turns out to be part of the NET POV-pushing cabal, he should have declared this COI up front, and I support a topic ban. That article has been completely hijacked by proponents of a minority POV, to the detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation. From the article: "Ihope that the revised Wikipedia article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers." - this is a clear abuse of Wikipedia for advocacy. We are not here to "correct" problems which exist in the real world. The real world views this as a pariah field, Wikipedia is, thanks to Pcarbonn and his very determined friends, blazing a trail in "fixing" that. This is a perfect example of how Wikipedia is abused by thiose who want to promote a fringe view, and an admission of how important it it to get Wikipedia to reflect your fringe view. I think it's unforgivable, and if we let them continue to get away with it as they have then we might just as well ditch WP:NPOV. Compare the current version with the FA version and see for yourself how much more the current version reflects the fringe view. And fringe it absolutely still is, though they fought tooth and nail against references which pointed this out. In fact, it went through months of mediation and Pcarbonn never once thought it might be relevant to mention that he was hoping to change the real-world view of this field. The apology above is incredibly hollow. "I'm sorry I abused the project to advance a fringe POV, but by the way I'm actually rather proud of it and am not going to back down". We shold return the article to the FA version immediately and wait for some editors who do not have a vested interest in promoting the frienge view of this subject. Guy (Help!) 06:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI says "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." I am certain that the interests of Wikipedia remained paramount in all my edits. That's why I wrote many times "for the enemy", unlike many other editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of a hitherto completely uninvolved admin, could you provide some examples of where you've written for the enemy on cold fusion? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarbonn, I am sure that in your own mind the interests of Wikipedia are best served by helping the real world to find out that it is wrong about cold fusion. Unfortunately, that conflicts with our core mission and non-negotiable policies. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any COI issue here. Guy needs to go check a dictionary or something. You want to topic ban someone because they dare hope that a truth they believe in gets spread? He might be wrong about the information itself, he might not be, but what the hell man. No really, what the freaking hell. You are just spazzing out here. "It's unforgivable" and "detriment of neutrality and the project's reputation". Are you sure you didn't get your web browser windows mixed up? -- Ned Scott 09:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Guy's started a thread about Pcarbonn at WP:AN#Cold fusion, which he didn't bother to mention here (or to Pcarbonn). -- Ned Scott 09:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So which bit is OK by you, again? The violation of WP:NPOV or the crowing about it? Guy (Help!) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if he's violated NPOV or not, but the COI accusation seems unfounded. If an editor wants to gloat about getting an article to a version that they honestly believe is within our policies and guidelines, and is in the best interest of the wiki, fine by me. -- Ned Scott 00:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldnoah (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest in regard to the Large Hadron Collider page. In the interest of not publicly "outing" the user (as I promised in an email to him), is there an email address to which I can send the evidence to be vetted? When I requested confirmation of the COI by email, he threatened to "out" other editors that contribute to the page, so I think this is a somewhat delicate situation. -- Mark Chovain 06:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, more than one editor of the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider are CERN employees including a Wikipedia admin. The shear numbers of pro-CERN editors and lack of equal respect for the opposition cause me to no longer feel comfortable contributing to the safety article. CERN has a direct interest in the outcome of the legal action in US Federal Court in Hawaii beyond any safety interests jointly shared with the plaintiffs. --Jtankers (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to be even fairer, the user you refer to is open about being from CERN, and has never used the tools on the article. That editor discusses all changes on the talk page, and never edits against consensus.

OldNoah on the other hand, refuses to take any part in discussions, edit wars against consensus with a clear intention of personal off-wiki gain, and threatens to "out" other editors.

Let's not pretend these two editors behaviour are anything like each other. -- Mark Chovain 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the statement "never edits against consensus". The CERN employee editor removed references to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the probability that Hawking Radiation might exist against editor consensus. I was personally reported by this editor as an Administrator Incident in what the editor later acknowledged was clearly a content dispute when I followed rules to the best of my ability while clear rule violations by another editor were ignored. I do not think the characterization that one editor is saintly and one is not is fair. --Jtankers (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop hijacking discussions? If you want to report a conflict of interest, there's a "New Section" tab up the top of the page - you don't need to wait for someone else to click it for you. This section is regarding Oldnoah's disruptive editing where an undisclosed conflict of interest exists - period. To bring this back on topic, I'll repeat my points here:

• Oldnoah has a serious, undisclosed conflict of interest.
• Oldnoah has never (not once) taken part in the discussion of his contentious edits.
• When discussion occurs, Oldnoah continues to edit against consensus.

-- Mark Chovain 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JanetNguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user had been editing the article Janet Nguyen with POV text taken verbatim from her official website. Efforts to contact the user did not cease her activities. DHN (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's at it again. DHN (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user now seem to have a sockpuppet to do the edits. DHN (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Janet Nguyen article has been protected. Dppowell (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

• Puget Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [added — Athaenara ✉ 23:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)] [reply]

Hello, COI affected editor here. I'd like to see an article about my employer, Puget Systems. After reading through WP:CORP I believe it's notable, and have compiled a list of evidence in userspace here. I've written a draft article here with the idea that if I do the bulk of the work, it's much more likely to actually get posted. I've tried to adhere to NPOV as well as I can, feel free to discuss or make changes if you see problems. Because of my COI, I don't want to put the article in mainspace myself. If someone could look over what I've written and put it in mainspace if it passes judgment, I'd greatly appreciate it.

By way of background info, Puget Systems was known as Puget Custom Computers up until earlier this year, there was an article created under that title by a Puget employee as part of a well-intentioned but misguided SEO campaign. It was eventually deleted at this AFD [3] as a combination of notability concerns and spam. Since then it appears to have been recreated and speedied as spam twice, and the page has been salted. I don't know if the creation of those articles was tied to Puget or not. This is a rather regrettable background, especially since businesses are often guilty until proven innocent on Wikipedia. I hope that Puget can be judged based on current notability rather than past articles.

Thanks,

Fire67 (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Dppowell (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• After checking out Fire67's draft and its references, I concluded that the subject fulfills WP:CORP and the article is ready for mainspace. I am willing to put it there. — Athaenara ✉ 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been created by Athaenara at Puget Systems. My thanks to everyone who helped out, especially User:Moonriddengirl at the drawing board. Fire67 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: I didn't create it, I moved it to mainspace :-) — Athaenara ✉ 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ronn Torossian‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 5W Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits by:

• 64.52.47.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 207.237.137.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Ip addresses have repeatedly deleted unpleasant edits from the above articles. The first IP address belongs to 5W, so it's an obvious WP:COI. The second is a standard residential ISP, but considering the edits are identical, it's safe to conclude that it's the same person, or at least people associated with each other. The detail that keeps getting deleted refers to a 5W exceutive, (who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor), astroturfing and impersonating a Rabbi on the internet. Mosmof (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to add, looking at the edit history for the article, there have been several edits by single-purpose account, and both articles were initially created by an exec at the firm. --Mosmof (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emetman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a SPA editing exclusively Ronn Torossian, 5W Public Relations, articles of their clients and articles pertaining on them, often removing referenced information, which shed unpleasant light on them.--Atavi (talk) 07:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Very large number and volume of edits made to this article since beginning of June 2008 by David gv ray (talk · contribs) and more recently by 84.57.66.42 (talk · contribs). Some editors suspect this is a conflict of interest since the new material is referenced to a book by David G.V. Ray (see talk page). In addition most of the material is written as if it were a textbook or a training course. I have tried to be bold and revert this to the "good" version, but it was immediately reverted back. I've also left a message for the anon IP, but there has been no response yet. Another editor has left a message for DVGR regarding this article, also with (as far as I can tell) no response. What do you suggest is the way forward for this article? -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gerald Guterman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I strongly suspect a COI by user NetHistoryBuff5 (and previous socks). NHB5 has only one interest on WP and that is keeping the above page safe and nice. Rejects all mention of Guterman's troubles and controversies. Refuses repeated requests to disclose COI. Please help. Smilo Don (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RelentlessRolento (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The current version of the Friends With You (FWY) article is written in a very flattering style. It has been expanded by RelentlessRolento alone, going back to May. (this [4] was the last version before he began expanding it.) There is some evidence that RelentlessRolento is affiliated with FWY: he has uploaded and seemingly licensed images from FWY, and he has not edited any articles besides the FWY one. I am a pretty inexperienced editor, and I'm not familiar with the subject matter of this article, I just came across it looking through toy articles. It seems some of the material RelentlessRolento added would in and of itself make decent additions, but as it stands right now, the entire article is very POV'd and I don't know how to handle it. Siawase (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous editor who declared himself to have a conflict of interest in a recent AfD has been editing Glenn McGee in a way that minimizes sourced negative information about the subject, with edit summaries that imply that the "keep" outcome of the AfD gives him a license to reshape the article as he wills it. There was also at least one single-purpose account in the AfD who seems to prefer a more negative version of the article, but that isn't the problem right now. It hasn't escalated to the point of being an edit war but it could probably use a few more neutral eyes. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added it to my watchlist. You appear to be handling the situation nicely. Dppowell (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• MerchantCircle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I suspect a COI by MerchantCircle engaging in removal of factual, sourced but perhaps inconvenient information from its own page. Initially, a user Kleubay joined WP, and has only one purpose- that is removing factual but negative links and entries about MerchantCircle. When this was brought to attention, Kleubay was abandoned and several IP addresses were used to edit the page (208.54.15.125, 68.166.184.187, 12.226.182.113). The effect was the same: removing facts such as Alabama's Better Business Bureau report on MerchantCircle. Advice appreciated. Zsmith721 (talk) 05:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Bone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tomasz Rut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scott Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jean-Claude Picot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anatole Krasnyansky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Park West Galleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Park west gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Park West Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • deleted once before
• Charles Lee (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alfred Gockel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • deleted twice

Note that some of these artists are likely notable; the articles in some cases appear to have been added as vehicles for links various Park West domains. I also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment asking for input on the notability of the more marginal subjects.

After reading a long New York Times article yesterdayday, "Art Auctions on Cruise Ships Lead to Anger, Accusations and Lawsuits", I was curious to see if we had an article. In fact we did: a slickly pretty article complete with "refs" and good compliance to our Manual of Style … it was also a blatantly promotional PR piece.

I've made a few changes to the article and tagged it for a conflict of interest; another editor added a small controversy section but it still needs more work. I dug up several other news articles that are listed in the external links and reference sections that could be potentially helpful with this.

One of the accounts, Sorlando, that produced the article has expressed willingness to make the article more acceptable; see our exchange at User talk:A. B.#PWG.

Accounts: I've left {{COI}} warnings for all of these:

• Abansee18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Sorlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • See this image licensing comment; the image is by Park West Gallery and Sorlando holds the copyright
• JimRicefortheHall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 66.170.139.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 68.60.34.248 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Wedrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Kb212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

A full list of domains is at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Park West Gallery: our article vs. The New York Times' (permanent link)

I originally listed this case at WikiProject Spam however after a closer look it probably belongs here. This one is more of an article-spam/conflict of interest issue than a linkspam problem. Also, the spammed articles that have not been deleted are about subjects that are probably notable; they should be reworked rather than deleted.

I'd appreciate any help you could give in getting these articles (especially the main one, Park West Gallery) up to our standards. You guys are much better at this than I am.

Thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor, Truthwithoutbias, just deleted the small controversy section I and an IP added to the article. He also alleges slander, bias and conflict of interest on the part of myself and the other editor. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Added to my watchlist. Dppowell (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• EdLudbrook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user is inserting his own POV into articles about business and entrepreneurship as well as creating articles for himself and his business LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent autobiography has been speedied and I expect it will be deleted soon. I'm talking with the editor. Dppowell (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Ecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Dark Matters Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A single user who appears to be the subject of the article is the primary contributor to Don Ecker and is the creator and only contributor to Dark Matters Radio. Appears to be a self promotion of a radio personality lacking notability. Both articles are in an AFD state currently. Rtphokie (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HydraIRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - has been modified by the creator (I believe, signed Hydra, not logged in) of the software. Re-added unsourced statements that were removed and made some other changes (may or may not be okay). Comment on the discussion page by him shows substantial lack of neutrality. Dsav (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its only references are primary sources, the software's own website. This is a good candidate for deletion if its notability cannot be established using more reliable third party sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone may want to nominate the article for WP:AFD. Recent edits by IPs do seem to be removing criticism. If you want to catalog the removals here, that might be enough to justify semi-protection. If the article is sent to AfD, it might well be deleted due to lack of reliable sources to show notability. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's definitely notable in the IRC world, but largely through word of mouth. A quick search turned up some references: fileforum user reviews, third party review, exploit in x-force database [5]. The article definitely needs some work though. Dsav (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Minnesota Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Problem editors:

• MnOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Marceldesade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I just put a prod on the Minnesota Online article. After the fact I found a marketing plan that included editing Wikipedia in the list of priorities. I expect that prod to expire and the article deleted because the problem editors have had no activity for over a year. However, this article should go to AfD if it is contested. Is there anything else to do about this blatant abuse of Wikipedia? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current form of Minnesota Online doesn't have much value. If we could get any reliable third-party sources, the topic could conceivably be of interest. (A state-wide center, presumably government-supported, that takes care of online instruction). I'll not object to the PROD, but hope that someone comes up with better sources before the five days runs out. Now, about the other article listed: Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System. I suggest that it be dropped from this report because I don't see any neutrality problems. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles should remain as part of the documentation. The latter was created by a single purpose account that has only edited these two articles. Because there is a formal plan that enumerates Wikipedia as a marketing tool, these related organizations should both remain under scrutiny. Additionally, if user MnOnline edits again, the account probably should be blocked simply because the username is unacceptable (could be considered promotional and is likely a role account). ✤ JonHarder ^talk 12:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping you can help me with a Conflict of Interest dispute I am engaged in with User: Zodon. I am a contributor of several articles related to HPV and cervical cancer. User: Zodon feels this is a conflict of interest due to the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN, the manufacturer of the HPV test. However, I am also a board-certified internist with broad medical experience in HPV, who also is a contributor to ABC Medical News. All of the changes I have suggested are backed up by recent citations from the medical literature. However, Zodon has not responded to the medical facts I was using to update the copy; he seems to be basing his opinions only on the fact that I have consulted with QIAGEN-which is one of a number of companies with which I have worked (as have many physicians).

I am unsure whether Zodon is a community member like myslef or a Wikipedia editor, and whether he has any medical background. I would welcome having a dialogue on the medical content of what I am proposing, and would be happy to make edits based on a common understanding of the data (see Cervical Cancer as an example). Can you help facilitate a next step, so that we can continue to serve your readers with the most up-to-date information available? Thank you. Drsavard (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A. Edward Moch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aedwardmoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Supposed autobiography of a supposed psychic. He keeps creating the article after repeated warnings. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: deleted again by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(hands up) That would have been me - was contemplating salting the page for repeated recreation, but wasn't sure as the recreation isn't persistent in a temporal sense. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Girard Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Windsor Vineyards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Both articles were created by Rmarcinkowski, he's the only one who has ever made additions, and they're the only articles he's ever edited.

Both companies are owned by Pat Roney and have Marco DiGiulio as their winemaker. Their "web guy" is Ray Marcinkowski.

There's an active question as to whether each has sufficient notability to have an article, but an employee of the companies in question shouldn't be touching the articles.

Disclosing COI...no subterfuge intended, just unclear on the guidelines. I've reviewed the COI policies and will refrain from editing the above articles. Although I believe the winery histories and published references are sufficient grounds for inclusion, I defer to the editors determine suitability. Thanks. Rmarcinkowski (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Spinning cone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An employee (or perhaps employees) have been doing extensive edits to the spinning cone article adding distinctly WP:ADVERT language, even using a sales brochure (from possibly their own company) as reference. I've requested the editor(s) to post their propose changes on the talk page or to create a sandbox with a draft article so that editors without a COI can review and assist in editing the article in a NPOV tone. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all of the user's edits involve someone named Kevin J. Johnston, which are starting to look very like COI, possibly AUTO. Any additional eyes at the contribution history would be appreciated, as I have yet to be convinced that any of this passes notability standards. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cherry Wilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Bkonrad, who states on his user page "My wife's mother was Cherry Wilder, who spent time in NZ, Oz and Deutschland. (Shameless plug: Check out Cherry's posthumously published book The Wanderer ISBN 0312874057)." has been editing Cherry Wilder as seen here. This is a clear conflict of interest, and the promotion of the book on his user page is in violation of "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam" WP:LINKSPAM Ottava Rima (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava Rima, who has apparently taken leave of his senses, is beginning to look like a stalker [6]. I created the Cherry Wilder page long before I was aware of any WP:LINKSPAM. So I'm not sure what Ottava is accusing me of here. That I am guilty of violating a guideline that was still embryonic at the time. That having a link to the last book by my mother-in-law on my userpage makes me guilty of link spam? I've no problem with removing the blurb, that's not such a big deal -- but I find it hard to see that as spam -- I don't directly benefit in any way (I think my wife's sister may receive a few pennies in royalties every now and then). My reason for adding the link is that I thought it was an interesting book and something about myself that others might find interesting. Ottava seems to think I have some nefarious agenda. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about your personal attacks. You have persisted in such. Furthermore, Bkonrad already "asked me to do something about it". Instead of correcting their behavior immediately, they chose to use this forum as a means to personally attack me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Ottava will list out some of the problems he perceives with this article. At first sight, I don't notice a neutrality problem. Do we need better sources? The article does not seem promotional. The complete list of short fiction seems too long, and might be trimmed or summarized. I don't see any third-party reviews of her work. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only sources of the information is from his relationship, and the advertisement on his user page is troubling. There is no actual information on the person to provide notability, nor is there information except for a list of books. Is this article a "list" article? Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article had been created by someone else. Cherry is a published author. I'm not sure what notability criteria are in place for authors these days. I merely happened upon it a long time back and expanded it a bit. Most of the details I added can be found in the published interviews under External links. At the time, External links were accepted as a form of citation -- Wikiepdia's guidance and the mechanisms supporting citations have evolved considerably since then. I think the only detail I added that might not be sourced was to change the line She died in Wellington after a long battle with cancer. because it was not really "long" and the use of "battle" seemed a little clichéd. Considering that my substantive edits to this article were among my very first edits at a time when standards were still being developed for editing, I'm sure the article could use some improvement. But again, I'm really not sure what Ottava sees as the problem here. older ≠ wiser 00:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean created by someone else and then you happened to be the first one to find it after a few days and then start expanding? You are, after all, the primary editor on the topic, and it almost seems to provide enough evidence to warrant a checkuser to compare you to Jose Ramos to make sure that you two aren't the same person, especially with Jose Ramos no longer editing after that time. It would appear, by looking at the logs, with you starting and he ending, and there being the cross over at Cherry Wilder, that there is a relationship between the accounts. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, please do ask for a checkuser on myself and Jose Ramos. It is a preposterous and thoroughly baseless accusation. Aside from that edit, I don't believe I have ever crossed paths with Jose again. older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, the user quickly stopped posting after you joined, so claiming that you didn't cross paths again is a no argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And having edited the same article without any other evidence whatsoever is no basis for making accusations about sockpuppetry. You are the one who is engaging in incivility. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, stating that your wife would have an account, which would (I presume) would be using the same connection would already submit to the classification of puppet. There are reasonable uses for puppetry. However, it have a say on if you actually created the page or not. Regardless, other users say that the page is decent, but it will need third party sources to help verify notability and some other minor clean up. My major concern is with the promotional material on your talk page and to let the community know that there is a conflict in case anything in the future happens with the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To make accusations that two accounts by spouses (which occasionally, but not always) edit from the same connection are sockpuppets is a perversion of what the sock puppetry policy is about. To make claims about conflict of interest solely because you are peeved at me for daring to disagree with you about how disambiguation pages should be formatted and for calling you out for being rude and insulting to other editors -- well that is just puckish of you. Now that you've done your self-proclaimed duty to the community, perhaps now you might consider expending some effort in learning how to be just a little less obnoxious and annoying. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before, there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts. And making claims of conflict of interest? It is clear from your user page that there is one. You didn't have to post personal information about yourself and admittedly promote a book in conflict with WP:SPAM. By the way, you asked me to take action, so I obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that two different people (even if related) having accounts is not sockpuppetry and for you to insinuate that is wrong. Your understanding of COI also appears to be faulty. I edited the page a while back and have for the most part let it be, precisely because I did not want to edit a topic of such personal interest. If I had a mind to, I could have expanded the article at great length with all manner of anecdotes. But as you acknowledge, "other users say that the page is decent", so I'm not sure where you get off making such accusations. As for my user page, what is or is not SPAM is not a bright shining line. If impartial editors were to *politely* raise objections on my talk page, I'd be more inclined to take them seriously and not as an annoyance simply looking to hound me. Yes, I "asked" you to take action on my talk page -- primarily because I thought that perhaps if you did ask in a public forum and saw that no one else agreed with you, you might, perhaps, possibly come to your senses. But alas, that doesn't seem likely. older ≠ wiser 04:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talks about your (supposed) situation. Note: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit towards the same objectives. When editing the same articles,". Also, Wikipedia:CoI#Examples - "Close relationships ... Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest ... Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area." I think it is reasonable from the above to say that you fall under CoI and that you are united to your wife's account for Wikipedia purposes. Also, WP:SPAM is clear that you cannot advertise items, even on your own user page. If you still think that policy supports you, please say so now. I have already quoted policy that was quite clear on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, it is pretty obvious that you just don't get it and rather than beginning with one of the core fundamental principles of Wikipedia and assume good faith, you prefer to slice and dice the minutiae of various other guidelines and policies to justify making baseless accusations. Suit yourself. I'm giving up on the possibility rational discourse with you. older ≠ wiser 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also a conflict here, her "daughter" edits on the page too. Perhaps this would be the same daughter that Bkonrad's user page admits to being married to? This account seems also to be created about the same time as Bkronrad's. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah you got it Sherlock. That's my wife alright. It's really not an accident that our accounts were created at the same time. Is it now a crime for a spouse to also have an account or are you simply on a witchhunt? Or perhaps you merely enjoy mudslinging? It appears your interest in this article is entirely motivated by your animosity towards me. Perhaps you'd care to explain yourself? older ≠ wiser 01:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are extremely incivil and I ask for you to desist. Editing on topics that relate to yourself is frowned upon, and recent edits to the topic along with the promotional material on your user page are a breach. I asked you to remove the breach before, and you refused to. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you stop making stupid and baseless accusations. Talk about incivil! Criminy. I'm sorry, but you are the one who is out of line here. older ≠ wiser 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is reasonably written, and I do feel that the COI issues aren't too problematic here. Hobit (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Brhannan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editing Katie Reider, and somehow has access to her personal materials (as per his image talk contrib here). Is not only hiding his sig (oversigning as "Nomad 2"), but also misreading policy and spamming the article AfD. Definite COI and MEMORIAL problem, as well as no understanding of policies. MSJapan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Plexusnexus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another new account that somehow managed to come up with a "source" for Katie Reider posted on talk (9 minutes after account creation), knows enough to claim "critical mass" of sources, but has no other edits. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 38.112.25.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - likely sock of Brhannan, as shown bythis diff, where the IP edits Brhannan's AfD comment. MSJapan (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have to say that I disagree with this assesment. First, the "access to her personal materials" is a photo lifted from her web site? Don't we all have access to that? Second, being active in a deletion debate is not the same as "spamming." Finally, why should you be surprised that any new user is not familiar with or misreads the nuances of wikipedia policy? We don't exactly have a training program. -MrFizyx (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the contrib summary stated "the photo belonged to Katie"; that's not the same as "I got it off her website" (which is what the rationale said). And how would a random person know that it was her personal photo as opposed to a professional photographer's shot? Furthermore, we do have a training program; it's called the utilization of common sense, or "if you don't know what it does, don't touch it." We provide plenty of resources to use WP properly, and if people ignore them, that's their own problem. MSJapan (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daredevil0405 (talk · contribs) added a non-notable political scorecard (0% for everyone!) from this lobbying group of questionable notability to scores of congresspersons. Additionally, he created an article on the pledge, and is now edit warring to re include the scorecard on various congresspersons pages. He appears to be involved with the organization taking the pledge in some way - see also 09blonegan‎ (talk · contribs). The scorecard seems to provide no value to the various congresspersons he is adding it to, and seems, to my eyes, to be designed to publicize the lobbying group. Help! Carte Rouge (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor and myself are currently in an edit war. He or she was added several images to the KylieX2008 article. Because of the minimal content of the article, I have explained to him or her that numerous images should relate to the content (body text) whether than the subject. We are currently at two reverts each. I feel that him or her are taking this rather personally because it is their own work. In the External Links section, there is a link to the images in Wiki Commons and I think that is sufficient than slapping them in the article. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]