Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bibby Line Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Marbella Apartments Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Edits made by user with username redirecting to page

• User:Waynegerdes - A new user with the name "Waynegerdes" has made 10 edits so far and counting to the article Hypermiling. Some of these edits have already been reverted. The article, which was created beforehand, describes Wayne Gerdes, and Wayne Gerdes already redirects to this article. Though there is no evidence this user is really Wayne Gerdes who is behind this user, the account so far is a WP:SPA. Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Update: User:Waynegerdes has now written on the talk page of Hypermiling, and admitted that is who he is. He signed his comment at the bottom: Wayne Gerdes - Owner/Admin of CleanMPG.com Sebwite (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

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.

Texas Tech University Press is advertising on Wikipedia

User:TTUP - User:TTUP is going around to random pages and adding bibliographic entries to Texas Tech University Press publications: [[1]]. The entries are in some cases relevant, and in other cases only tangentially relevant. This user's editing appears to be a form of advertising by this press.Verklempt (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• In no way were we trying to simply advertise our books. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good place to list reliable references for anybody interested in a particular field. However, we will be more careful about this in the future. Sorry. TTUP (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Your excuse seems disingenuous to me, given the fact that you're only adding references to your own employer's product line. This is evidence enough of spam advertising. If your employer's books turn out to be useful, they will be added in due course by other editors without your efforts.Verklempt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If they're directly relevant, why not allow it? I would draw a stern line at anything not clearly relevant, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.104.91 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Standard link/user info and tracking URL follow. MER-C 09:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.ttup.ttu.edu

• ttup.ttu.edu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Account: TTUP (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)

Indian Society for Trenchless Technology

Resolved

 – Article deleted; user page fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Indian Society for Trenchless Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Niranjanswarup (edit | [[Talk:User:Niranjanswarup|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- promotional user page
• Niranjanswarup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The creator and principal editor of this article, Niranjanswarup (read his user page - I'm tempted to create a "Best CV masquerading as a Wikipedia User page Award"), states that he is the Executive Director of the subject of the article. The article was once prodded, and the {{prod}} removed by this editor. It may well be that the subject is notable enough, but this kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. Philip Trueman (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If a COI-affected editor creates an article that is informative, neutral and well-sourced we usually don't mind. The problem is that such an editor is more likely to write a promotional and unbalanced article. That's what seems to have happened here. I suggest that you nominate this article for WP:AFD. We already have an article on Trenchless technology that seems worthwhile, but this Indian Society does not seem to have inspired any full-length articles in any reliable sources. It's notability can't be shown. When I Googled I only saw a few passing mentions, and one press release. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Added WP:PROD. Since the creator of the article has been recently active, we will soon know if he can come up with any reliable sources. User:Niranjanswarup has been notified of this WP:COIN discussion but has not yet responded. I agree that the promotional nature of his User page is also a concern. If he responds here we can discuss that with him as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear All, First I would like to mention that the remarks on the page had asked that if I was the creator of this page I should not take offence and edit the text to address the concerns and remove the deletion notice. Was the webmaster required to edit that comment & I understood it incorrectly? I am sorry if that is the case. Regarding the promotional nature as has been indicated, it is clarified hat Indian Society for Trenchless Technology is a not-for-profit organization promoting Trenchless Technology in India. There are numorous Trechless projects under execution in India presently. Government of India is executing a complete project mission titled Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) which is using Trenchless in a major way in 63 cities across India. Total proposed investment in this mission is exceeding US$ 28 billion. (http://jnnurm.nic.in/) In addition the Gas Transmission and distribution company GAIL India Limited is Investing US$ 50 billion in major pipelines. (http://www.gail.nic.in/homepage/homenew.htm) In addition to these there are several other oil & gas companies developing their infrastructure where they require such technology. Telecom sector is another user sector where a major investment is being made. To verify the need one can google jnnurm/jnurm or 'trenchless in India'. The results would speak for themselves. With such huge demand it is natural that WP should provide information about Indian Society for Trenchless Technology to its visitor.(Niranjanswarup) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Really you should find press accounts of these activities that you can add to the article. If we don't see legitimate references there, the article may wind up being deleted. Even if trenchless technology is being used, according to your personal knowledge, we need to see an extremely specific URL so that it can be confirmed. A web site like http://jnnurm.nic.in is not very persuasive unless you tell us what page to look at. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ Nelson

Russ Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of a conflict of interest by User:Damiens.rf. He asked for a citation for something. Fine. I'm not editing my own article WP:COI (although I have added negative material about me; presumably not a conflict of interest), but I think it's reasonable for me to provide a citation when asked, no? He didn't like the citation I provided. It was a pointer to one of a series of interviews by Dr. Bernie Aboba initially published on the webzine Internaut.com (which domain name now points elsewhere). Damiens called it a blog and reverted it. Well, whatever. I provided a different citation to a bio published on the non-profit board of which I am a member: The Open Source Initiative, presumably a reliable source. Not according to Damiens; he reverted it. I asked him to stop reverting these citations and to allow someone else to express an opinion about their quality. He refused and continued to remove these citations. I found a citation to a O'Reilly book (again, a reliable source), a chapter of which I am an author, which details the cited material. He reverted THAT also. I claim that he has a conflict of interest since nothing makes him happy, and he is not willing to let it rest and give another Wikipedia editor a chance to chime in. Anybody agree? Disagree? RussNelson (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Though I think Damiens might be removing too much, he is correct that online biographies don't carry much weight unless they are published by a reliable source. According to our Wikipedia policies, Russ Nelson is in fact a COI-affected editor, while Damiens is not. If the argument is that Damiens is going against normal article policy, Russ should wait for the assistance of other uninvolved editors rather than reverting Damiens.

Another concern is that there is not much sourced information to show the notability of Russ Nelson. Since he's played a long-time role in the open source movement, he has probably done more in actuality than what this article manages to say.

The stuff about the reason for Russ Nelson leaving the presidency of OSI seems excessive; it could be summarized more briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(RussNelson added this comment about EdJohnston's first paragraph:)

I agree with that .... but Damiens initiated this edit war by removing text. I think the text should remain until someone less emotionally involved than himself can edit the article. People have a bias against the unseen, so if Damiens removal is allowed to remain, it's likely to carry the day, and I think that, given his non-neutral edits (who removes three citations neutrally??), the text in question should remain for someone else to judge. The current state of affairs is that he hasn't removed the citations, so maybe he's seen the light? RussNelson (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

IMO some blogs should be considered reputable sources. I have not looked at internaut.com, so I have no opinion as to how reputable it is. But I am absolutely mystified how anyone could claim, in good faith, that an O'Reilly book is not a reputable source. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the O'Reilly book should be cited. My own concern is that the statements attributed to the O'Reilly source may not be backed up there, so it's not exactly a reference. E.g. to serve as evidence for the statement that he has been making his living from Open Source since the days of Freemacs. There is no independent third-party confirmation of that, from an article authored by Russ Nelson in an O'Reilly collection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if someone would ask Damiens.rf to stop removing this text and its citations, for the reasons I stated above. He simply REFUSES to abide by my request that someone else do this edit, and he CONTINUES to edit my pages even though he has an obvious (non-neutral) interest in my work. There are plenty of pages on wikipedia that need editing. The fact that he obsesses on me says that he should not edit the page describing me. I think this is within my rights to ask. RussNelson (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, I believe that I see a fundamental problem with WP:COI. Let's say that two wikipedia editors, one notable and editing using his real name, and another editing using a pseudonym, have a conflict over an edit, e.g. on Eric S. Raymond. The editor using a pseudonym has full freedom to make any edits to the bio page for the notable wikipedia editor. He is free to enforce Wikipedia policy down to the letter of the law, and the notable editor has no recourse other than whinging on the Talk: page. It may be that the wikipedia policy violations are nigglingly small. The notable editor can do nothing. So, my advice to notable people is: "Never edit wikipedia with your real name", which seems harmful to Wikipedia. Should the policy be changed so that editors who have conflicts with notable editors should be banned from editing their pages? Cuz Damiens.rf is still editing my bio page, to no good efffect.

I'm encouraged that other editors are moderating Damiens.rf evil influences (I'm WAY past assuming good faith on Damiens.rf's part). RussNelson (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "notable editor". There is, indeed, information attributable to reliable, verifiable, independent sources. --Damiens.rf 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ, I am most disturbed by your failure to understand our policies, your sense of ownership, and your personal attacks, like this edit summary:

• "What the fuck is wrong with you? LEAVE THIS REVERT FOR SOMEONE ELSE. IF YOU ARE RIGHT, THEY WILL AGREE WITH YOU."

That's way over the top. You are the subject of the article, hence YOU are the one who has a COI. Just because Damiens.rf apparently has an editorial conflict with you doesn't mean (s)he has a COI in the Wikipedia sense, as described here.

You have simply fallen victim to Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:

Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you engage in an edit war in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you may have your editing access removed, perhaps permanently. In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

You need to calm down and explain things dispassionately at the talk page. If you aren't getting anywhere, maybe you don't understand our policies, so refrain from editing the actual article and seek help. Your edit warring and abuse of other editors (in this case Damiens.rf) will only get you into trouble. You are the one at a disadvantage here, except if you have a serious WP:BLP issue. Then you would need to share your concerns at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Fyslee / talk 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've explained things dispassionately. I understand that Damiens.rf a priori has no COI. I'm explaining that the evidence shows that he has developed an interest and cannot edit neutrally. There are plenty of Wikipedia editors and plenty of Wikipedia articles. I don't understand the lack of support I'm getting here. Why NOT suggest that Damiens.rf NOT make edits to my bio page? RussNelson (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because that's not how things work here. You have no right to make such demands of other editors, but he might make such demands of you if your COI is interfering with you ability to neutrally edit the article, simply because you are the one with the COI. Of course he can't do that without getting support from some admins who can be convinced that the article needs protection from you, and that might be hard to get. Now if Damiens.rf breaks the rules here, then in some situations a topic block or article block can be used to protect the article, but that isn't the case here, or at least "yet". Until then you'll have to learn to hammer out a consensus together, or you'll have to seek more help. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What amount of evidence is needed to show that an editor has gained a level of interest in an article such that they can no longer edit neutrally? I can't be the only person with a stalker following him around and changing his edits. RussNelson (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. Since you have the COI, look in the mirror and ask it.

You have also just accused a fellow editor of stalking and that can get you in trouble for making an uncivil personal attack, if that editor makes a formal complaint. That's multiple (but usually combined) policy violations at one time. Be more careful and assume good faith. If the charge is really true, you'd better have watertight evidence of bad faith and real wiki-stalking. I think it's good you have stopped editing the article and are confining your activities to suggestions on the talk page, but keep them civil. For example, this edit summary isn't good at all!:

• "Stop. Obsessing. On. Me. Damiens.rf. Go. Away."

Get outside help from admins (not canvassing) if you need it. This happens to be a good place to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing that would help here is a return to WP:AGF and a little patience with each other. RussNelson is obviously familiar with WP:COI and trying to abide by it, but that doesn’t mean he’s equally familiar with WP:V, WP:RS and any other policies and guidelines that may apply to this situation. Accordingly, Damien.rf might make the extra effort to further explain why one of Russ’ posts is problematic and cordially guide him to the relevant guideline so he can become better informed about it. I’ve been editing here two years and there’s lots I still don’t know simply because I haven’t yet had to deal with them – so no matter how long anyone has been active on Wikipedia, there’s always some aspect of it were still newbies about, and WP:BITE still applies. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Now play nice with each other. No more personal attacks. Figure out the rules and abide by them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF is a starting point, where you assume that someone is editing in good faith even though you think their edits are wrong. I believe that that assumption is refuted by the facts of Damiens.rf's editing of pages I've edited. I also simply do not believe that when two editors have had a conflict, that one editor should be able to get revenge on the other by editing his bio page and insisting that every Wikipedia policy be followed to the letter in spite of WP:IAR. That's something that should be against Wikipedia policy. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but it's happening in this case. Damiens.rf has even admitted to stalking me over to Freemacs, and he didn't edit my bio until THREE DAYS after an edit disagreement at Eric S. Raymond. I've only stopped editing my bio page because it's clear to me that 1) Damiens.rf will continue to edit it and 2) Y'all won't stop him. His obsession scares me. Did you see him asking me for a photo? Creepy! RussNelson (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following your own advice about AGF. Once an editor has edited across from another editor, their edits will often begin to appear in the editor's watchlist, and that's not wikistalking. He will naturally hold an eye on your actions, just as you do his, and as he does on the articles you have edited, and that too is accepted here. There is no such thing as private editing here. Your actions here are a matter of public record. Asking for a picture in this manner is perfectly normal, since we like to illustrate our articles. It's good you removed your outing, as that can get you banned in short order. Leave any conflicts with this or other editors at the door to Wikipedia. Don't bring them here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ, you’ve been around the internet long enough to appreciate that it’s a limited form of communication in which motives and intentions are easily misread by presumption simply due to the lack of intonation and body language cues – that's one of the main reasons we have WP:AGF. FWIW, my recommendation would be that you both take a deep breath, forgive and – if not forget – ignore. Maybe later you can both sit down and enjoy a cup of tea over it, having recognized it for the mistaken impression it (probably) really is. If you really can’t come to terms, the more appropriate place to take your issue is to Requests for comment, as this is not really a COI issue at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one comment. I didn't stalk you over to Freemacs, neither have I admitted doing so. Following the "admitted" link you provided, one can read my response about how I did reach that article: "There's a link from this article to the freemacs one, and that's probably how I got there." --Damiens.rf 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, then since we're back to assuming good faith, then how about restoring the text you deleted from my bio page? Cuz I'm sure that you didn't mean to delete something with three reasonable citations -- one of which is a published interview with me from 1994 written by Dr. Bernie Aboba (which you mistakenly called a blog -- but I'm assuming good faith, so I'm sure it's an honest mistake on your part). It appears to be a blog because the webzine (Internaut.com) at which it was originally published was decommissioned. But of course you wouldn't know that, so it was a perfectly good faith deletion for you to make. But now that you know better -- and you have no undue interest in me and are editing neutrally, you'll restore the removed text. Right? RussNelson (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nelson. I happy we're back to teamwork editing, and sorry if I failed to put myself gently in any prior occasion. About that published interview with you from 1994, I sincerely don't believe it classifies as a reliable source, at least not for the information you tried to source: the piece of the article that said "He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then". This is so because that website/webzine doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking. Indeed, the text makes no attempt to endorse what is said on the interview. It's just a copy of whatever you told them so, even written in the first person. The text is explicitly labeled "Russ Nelson, as told to Bernard Aboba" (sic). It may be ok for a webzine to publish what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia is not interested in an article "Russ Nelson, as told to Wikipedia", that would be your version about your life and achievements. That's why we have policies requiring independent sources and some etiquette about writing articles about oneself.

Please, understand that this is not to say that you an unreliable person. Or that you're known to lie at iterviews and the like. This is really not about you, but about Wikipedia's reputation. Anybody can edit the articles here, and we're one of the most visited websites in the Internet. Without that rules, we would be too vulnerable to self-promotion attacks (we're already a being targeted). I hope you understand it all. If not, please just let me know. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit summary from you, that may indicate I'm still failing to get my message to you. I wholeheartedly repeat, this is not about you, Russ. Saying you're not about a reliable source about yourself is not the same as calling you a liar. --Damiens.rf 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You know nothing about the Religious Society of Friends, do you? Members of the RSoF in fact ARE reliable sources about themselves. If they aren't, they won't be members of the RSoF for long. If you doubt that, then you should go to the member's meeting (in this case Ottawa Monthly Meeting, and lay out your case for the person's unreliability, and ask for a Committee of Concern. If in fact, I have said anything which is not true, then I WILL BE KICKED OUT OF MY MEETING. THEY WILL DISOWN ME. This is a fate far, far worse than any benefit I might gain from misrepresentation. RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Russ, what you seem to be saying is that we should accept someone's statements as verifiable because they have taken a religious oath to tell the truth. Surely you can see the practical problems with that as a policy, no? It's not a case of trusting you personally -- heck, I'd take your word for practically anything, having known you from Usenet since the 1980s and sharing many of your political and social opintions, but if you step back from what you seem to think is an attack on your personal veracity, and spend some time with WP:V and WP:RS, I think you'd understand why Wikipedia requires established, reliable, third-party sources with an editing or vetting process. --MCB (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we now have this dispute narrowed down to actually being a reliable sources issue. May I suggest you bring your particular points up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where this may best be resolved. And please keep up the AGF. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, I still maintain that there is a problem with Wikipedia's COI policy. A and B have a fight, A has a bio page, B goes and edits in a picayune manner, B has a conflict of interest, A has NO recourse at all. The policy should say that if A and B have a conflict over an edit, then B should refrain from editing A's bio page. There's millions of pages; why should B be editing A's page? No reason to allow it. I expect that AT VERY LEAST, ONE PERSON should have ALREADY said to Damiens.rf "Don't edit Russ Nelson -- it's a WP:COI for you to be editing his bio three days after having a fight with him over Eric S. Raymond." Can you see how I would feel this is wicked unfair? Can you see how this breaks the assumption of good faith? RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of "interest" here is at odds with that covered by WP:COI. An "interest" is typically a real-world advantage so some kind. Were damiens.rf a business competitor seeking to diminish your community standing in order to gain a competitive advantage in some market, that would be a WP:COI: "annoying Russ Nelson" is not an "interest" of this sort. Furthermore, I should note that damiens.rf's edits to Eric S. Raymond were of exactly the same nature as his edits to Russ Nelson (removing sources not established as reliable), so it would appear evident that this isn't about you so much as it is about damiens.rf's notions of notability in biographies of free software personalities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hguols and Diadem of Maunstraut

Resolved

 – No article => no problem. MER-C 13:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hguols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created an article of a computer game titled Diadem of Maunstraut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user made the game himself/herself as shown in a posting on a forum here. This was discovered during a relisted AfD discussion for said article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diadem of Maunstraut). MuZemike (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cimbali

Resolved

 – per Travellingcari Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Cimbali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created by someone from the company, using the company name so not hiding it, first edit summary says (Cimbali page upload). Doug Weller (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

user is blocked as a spam user name TravellingCari 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Casella Waste Systems

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Casella Waste Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MichaelCasella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.254.40.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Clear COI, new account likely previously editing as the IP who was also repeatedly inserting copyvio PR spam and deleting without explanation. User welcomed and warned, but worth keeping an eye on if someone has the time today. TravellingCari 14:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The article seems neutral and not promotional now, last edit on the 27th. Arakunem^Talk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Metznblitz and Merchant Empires

Resolved

 – Article speedied as below Arakunem^Talk 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Metznblitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Merchant Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) who is also the creator of the online game itself as well as an admin on the game's forum here. User has declined both a speedy deletion of the article (per G7) and a prod; the article is currently being AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merchant Empires. MuZemike (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i am not the creator of this game but a player since 2000 actually playing it
I am not an admin of this game and / or forum game, just an old player helping to
create an guide for new players at wiki document and
well seems that i dont got "lucky" trying get an article about this game here as is
Ogame article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 

Article has been speedily deleted per G12 (blatant copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher George Kennedy

Resolved

 – per my below comments Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Christopher George Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has recently been significantly revised by Communications MMPI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the name of the company of which Kennedy is President. Some of the additions are OK, some not. Rather than revert, I've done some cleanup and NPOV work, but more is needed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just realized I misread the dates. For "recently" read "quite a while ago". . . Still, another eye on the article would greatly be appreciated. Thanks again. Chick Bowen 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That user has been banned as a promotional-only account. Your edits to restore NPOV look good, though additional cleanup is needed as you say. I'll tag it as such, so it shows up in the appropriate categories for the little wikignomes to have at it. Arakunem^Talk 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible PR campaign to be investigated

• Vantage Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I suspect articles on clients of this company may need to be considered for COI issues and some potential spamminess. This morning, I came across changes by MarieLG (talk · contribs) at Asphalt plant that inserted some information about Intelleflex Corporation, which was also created by the same user. The changes involved adding to discussion of control involving RFID, and a reference to an obvious product release placed in a trade magazine. Some poking around suggested a connection with Vantage Communications, and with some investigation I turned up this blog entry from earlier this month indicating that the company is "leveraging" Wikipedia to benefit its clients. Quote: "We use it as a platform to develop a simple, easy-to-understand definition of what our clients do and to give them a stronger online presence." While some of the connected articles are okay, I'm uncertain about the notability of Columbitech, for example, and Vantage itself. Other related users appear to be MIvantage (talk · contribs) (created Xelerated), Marshall.rachel (talk · contribs), and probably others. I suggest some editors knowledgeable about COI take a look at these editors and at other Vantage clients (there aren't many listed on the website, but there's some) to ensure we don't have some surreptitious marketing going on. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War

I've been looking back into the edits of two users, who keep arguing with other contributors to various wiki articles on southern topics (states, cities, govt) in the American Civil War. They carry on edit wars, and work as a pair, effectively blocking normative contributions, and then harrasing contributors to back off or abandon articles. User:JimWae User:North Shoreman

The conflict of interest for us as Americans in the American Civil War pages lies in the fact that these pages should simply contain historical accounts of what was a two-sided war, treated in an academic way. These two editors have been tweaking southern articles with questionable POV material and views. Their user profiles indicate they are from New York and Ohio respectively. Given this particular topic, that can represent a COI. Of course where a user is from is not usually a problem, but in this case it can be. I caught wind of this last year with harrassment about a page I originated and created:

Winchester in the American Civil War - attempts to insert Lincoln quotes, having nothing to do with this topic

And then caught major flak when I added a secession date (small edit) in this page Confederate States of America - deletion of secesion dates for Arizona, followed by additions of what Lincoln is doing

Whereupon I found these two users also ganging up on other users in such pages as these: Declaration of Independence - trying to cite Lincoln as the most notable publicizer of this document Articles of Confederation - threatening and ganging up on various contributors

Generally I have moved on with other things I'm working on, but eventually these users will need to be dealt with in some way. I have made many contributions to Wiki, and plan many more Civil War topics and pages. I don't want these two stomping on top of this topic and the legitimate task force users out there who are diligently working in this topic area.

Thanks for your attention to this matter. Grayghost01 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This accusation has very little bases in reality. I have several articles on my watchlist to which JimWae and North Shoreman are regular contributors. Rather than inserting POV into the articles, what I've seen in their edits would more accurately be characterized as insisting on reliable sources for dubious assertions. Because they occasionally deal with some other editors with hard-core POVs, the discussions are sometimes contentious. One small indication of the real bases for the accusation can be seen in the phrase Grayghost01 used here: was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. (emphasis added). Seems the problem may be more mistaken sense of ownership. older ≠ wiser 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need to dig a bit deeper on this one. "Ownership" of the article is not the issue at hand, and I have zero issues with contributions from all wiki contributors. Like the majority of us I, too, "watch" pages I've created or contributed to, mainly to help monitor either vandalism or contributions which need fixing up, or checking for quality. The issue is that the American Civil War envokes strong feelings and POV's. I was first attracted to Wiki when reading on this topic. Back then, much to my dismay, I found serious POV problems in some of the articles. As a former professional military instructor, I have extensive experience writing curriculum, including Civil War topics for the USMC. I understand thoroughly the difference between historical documentation, analysis, and facts, compared to "blogging" that I've seen in some of these articles. The aforementioned users, without a doubt, have some good contributions to Wiki. However, they have a natural conflict of interest, and their obsession on editing articles which cover Confederate topics in particular has led to the banning of well known historical facts, which just so happen to conflict with their POV. Generally, they have a view of only allowing reference to historians with either a Northern view of the war, or a view in alignement with their POV. So, in the name of good reference work, a POV or conflict of interest can be easily meted out, all very disguised. I have asked these folks to be a little less hardlined in their POV, given their COI, but to no avail. Finally, the moniker "gray ghost" is within the bounds of individuality allowed by wiki, and keeping with proper respect for diversity. Similar monikers such as "north shoreman" are veined in the same way. Seeing how that point has alluded the commenters here, shows the systemic nature of only seeing things one way. In conclusion, references such as the famous "Confederate Military History" or "Make Me a Map of the Valley" are valid historical references, and within the bounds of what wiki allows. The attempt to disclude these and others, by the aforementioned users, is, indeed, a COI and POV issue. Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• If one reads Grayghost's user page, one can begin to see that it is HIS agenda that is the problem, and it is his stated agenda there that is evidence of any conflict of interest. He wants to insert Confederate POV as fact in articles, & it is HE who wants others to abandon further edits to the article. He does not understand that articles are co-operative projects, & that articles on the Confederacy do not "belong to" its sympathizers. Other editors have repeatedly remarked that the date he wants to insert could very well find a place in the article, but each time he inserts it, he includes as purported fact other material that is clearly Confederate POV, while ignoring mention that the process of "secession" in Arizona on that date was simply a convention held by Confederate sympathizers who had not yet held any vote throughout the territory (thus, even less "process" than the other "secessions"). He repeatedly inserts claims that states seceded BECAUSE the North had "invaded" the South - which is not only unsourced editorial comment but flies in the face of the facts that they "seceded" before any movement of federal troops took place. --JimWae (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• I wish to add the remark here that the complainant did not do me the courtesy of notifying me that he had posted any complaint anywhere --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand how any editing on Civil War articles can be a conflict of interest, unless someone is promoting a book, article, etc. Corvus cornix_talk 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who cares to read through the endless edit trail, you will find that I have contributed many well-composed pages, which are fairly good in overall style and content for good wiki quality. I do not cruise Civil War pages to insert blogging-nature POV of secession argumentation. The conflict of interest for this topic lies in revisionist editing, and Wiki has no category for reporting that. Given that these revisionist editors are mainly editing blog-materials into pages on southern states, locales, topics and articles of the ACW, it became apparant that the users doing all this were from Ohio and New York. Generally that's not an issue. But if a Russian was editing the Georgia website, constantly saying that Georgia is part of Russia, and a Georgian kept deleting out those edits, showing that Georgia is its own nation, one can see why home-of-record becomes a conflict of interest. Since the Older-Wiser user has the same conflict and POV, the outcome of his position is completely predictable. Nevertheless, I stand firmly on the principles that the various pages on southern states, topics and issues need to remain on-topic, straight-forward, and helpful for historical information. If two conflicting views need discussion, then a separate page should be created. In this case, those secession-reason oriented pages already DO exist, but the editors with the COI and POV are not content to keep the materials topically on those pages. Grayghost01 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The Russia-Georgia analogy falls totally apart -- Virgina is very clearly part of the United States. What you actually have is two Americans who spend a great deal of their time editing articles relating to arguably the most significant event in American history -- the Civil War. The professional historians working on the subject do not limt themselves to working only on matters within their own section and neither should wikipedia editors.

Despite the fact that this is clearly a content issue, Grayghost has repeatedly accused the two subjects of this complaint to charges of vandalism such as this [[2]], this [[3]], this [[4]], and this [[5]]. Like the frivolous vandalism charges, this complaint is equally frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy with his putting two user names on this talk page with the wording "Users with POV Violations, for further documenting:"

User:HughTheA4AndFriends and Hugh The A4 and friends

HughTheA4AndFriends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hugh The A4 and friends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The COI is self-explanatory. User also made an extraordinary (and blatantly uncivil) threat on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh The A4 and friends to delete all Wikipedia articles (this will be reported in other venues). MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wandsworth Parks Police

Wandsworth Parks Police (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - TopCat666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a constable employed by Wandsworth Borough Council. Article talk has long running disputes over almost everything. User ignores reports from other councils used as references though clearly relevant, personally attacks (myself and others) and launches general accusations of POV pushing (though unable to tell me what my alleged POV is...). ninety:one 18:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User 91 has tried everything he can to get his personal view endorsed onto the article. He has reported TopCat666 to his employer, he has solicited other Wikipedians in a campaign against TopCat666. This is now the latest example, he has added numerous templates accusing various problems with the article and TopCat. He has been warned by admin for his POV's and accusing the Wandsworth Parks Police of breaking the law. Which he has done again. He appears to have made another username up, TOA63 in attempt to give Wikipedians the false impression this is someone independent. I suspect he is using both names because of only a three minute gap between two postings on the discussion page between the two usernames. He also falsely reports replies on the discussion page and is ignoring independent edits from admin Chrislk02, McGeddon, Timothy Titus and others. User 91 is bulling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying) in his edits and this should not be allowed to continue. I am actually quite new to Wiki as an editor if this needs to be forwarded to another area of Wiki, i.e. complaints etc please point me in the right direction. Wandsworth Police Officer (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Total BS. I have never complained to Wandsworth council. I have done exactly what I am supposed to do in this situations, and gone to RfC and the relevant WikiProject. I was not 'warned by an admin', we reached consensus over a misunderstanding on my part. I brought the matter up on his talk page, it was most certainly not a warning, and it had nothing to do with him being an admin. Please, exactly what on earth does 'falsely reports replies on the discussion page' mean? And when have I been 'ignoring independent edits'? Accusing me of having a sock is one of the most serious accusations you could make on Wikipedia, and totally untrue. Just because there is more than one person who disagrees with you doesn't mean they are all socks. Feel free to go to WP:RCU and ask them to investigate. If your accusations weren't so widespead and serious, this would be amusing. ninety:one 17:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you report TopCat666 to his employer? That is an entirely unacceptable action. Corvus cornix_talk 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

absolutely not, though it's an allegation i've now had thrown at me twice. the reactions of the various wandsworth officers have been disappointing (not least the wild accusation of sockpuppetry above), but not something i could complain about to the council. ninety:one 20:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hammes Company

Hammes Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article is written by User:Hammes, whose sole contributions is to this article. I and other users have attempted to mark this page with {{Template:COI}}, but two users whose only edits at the time of this writing are at this article, User:66.162.118.90 and User:Fernandez315, are claiming that there's no conflict of interest apparent and are reverting any edits to add the COI tag to it. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Article is up for AFD now, for COI and notability concerns. If it survives, we can re-visit it to ensure that the editors abide by NPOV if they wish to continue editing it. Arakunem^Talk 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Life Ministries

Resolved

 – per below Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's back, it's been here and just about all over the wiki before. New COI allegations. I'm unfamiliar with the org outside the March shitstorm here that resulted in the protection of the article. Don't have a ton of wiki time to devote to it. It definitely needs an eye if someone can help. TravellingCari 18:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh jeez.... *rolls up sleeves* Arakunem^Talk 15:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Peace seems to be restored. All sides express a desire to not edit war and stay within POV and COI guidelines. Arakunem^Talk 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan Productions-related articles

• Users recently active:

• Csheppard1 (talk · contribs). Last edit Sept 5
• Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 29
• 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 28

• Users not recently active:

• Maryland homework (talk · contribs). Last edit Aug 19
• Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs). Last edit July 30

• Articles affected:

• Kevin Sullivan (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables (1985 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Avonlea (1987 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables: The Continuing Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wind at My Back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Users Sullivanmovies (talk · contribs), Mschwartz311 (talk · contribs), Csheppard1 (talk · contribs), Maryland homework (talk · contribs), and 64.119.97.178 (talk · contribs) all appear to be single purpose accounts that edit articles related to the company Sullivan Productions. User:Sullivanmovies is obvious; the IP is actually sullivan-ent.com according to the WHOIS; and User:Mschwartz311 is very likely Michael Schwartz of Sullivan Productions. Recent edits include adding large amounts of copyvio promotional material about a line of books to an article about a movie. I'm bringing this here as suggested in this ANI report, which contains earlier examples of deliberate link-breaking and possible sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added links to the report header. At COIN it is usual to attempt to negotiate with editors who may have a COI. Delicious carbuncle, if you know of any attempts at Talk discussions with these editors, I hope you will make a note of that. It would also help to list the recent improper edits to narrow down the problem. (Some of the information these editors have added, while over-promotional, may conceivably be adding value). Blocks are sometimes considered if COI-affected editors persist in improper edits and refuse to engage in dialog. A very quick look suggests this is what is happening here. But we need to show that all dialog has been rejected before taking further action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. User:Sullivanmovies was left a message regarding COI, among other things, in July. User:Mschwartz311 was left a message regarding COI in August, following my ANI report. None of the users appear to have ever responded to warning or messages left for them, nor did they participate in the two ANI discussions ([6] & [7] ). There may have been some dialogue on the now deleted Sullivan Entertainment, but I can't be sure. Yet more promotional material has been added today here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently active User:Csheppard1 has not responded to notifications of this discussion, nor to EdJohnston's personal request. It's clear that these editors are not interested in discussion. Meanwhile, these articles are turning into mini Sullivan Productions websites. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Csheppard1 offering to userfy the article on Sullivan Entertainment, after seeing the comment at Talk:Sullivan Entertainment. She seems to have removed the stuff from the article that was previously flagged as a copyvio, though obviously she should not have removed the speedy deletion tag. Let's see if there is a further response. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the comment was: "I am an administrator working for the Sullivan Entertainment Company---I was under the impression i could use company created information. I will rewrite the content.". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Csheppard1 has re-started the article with different copyvio material, and has yet to directly repond to any of the messages left. Can someone please try getting their attention with a block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No answer to the last two admin messages, and there was yet another copyvio in main space, so I blocked Csheppard1 12 hours. Let's hope for an appropriate response on her Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Although blocking got the attention of one of the editors involved here, nothing has been done to address the earlier issues. I've started removing some of the more overtly promotional material that has recently been added, but much copyvio material still exists. The synopses for each film are easily confirmed copyvio; the "production notes" sections are very likely copyvio; and the season synopses on Wind at My Back are also likely copyvio. Adding {{copyvio}} tags for a section seems to break the rest of the article, so I've left it as for now, but I'd be grateful if someone could help me with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't my usual hang-out, but the copyright problems board is. :) To tag a section, use {{subst:copyvio|url=whatevah}} and end with </div>. Alternatively, you can just excise it. I've done so for Wind at My Back, with a note explaining why at the article's talk and how to verify permission. I'll look at the rest and see what I can identify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize that copyvio is a big issue for us, but it would also be helpful if someone would just read through the articles listed at the head of this report and say whether they are good or bad articles. Indicate if any of them seem over-promotional. COI-affected editors can sometimes provide us with good material. We can work them over later to make them neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A good point, Ed. These articles are not new and have been quite happily sitting there, bothering no one until fairly recently when much of the promotional and/or copyvio material was added. Anyone reviewing them should take a look at the history, especially given my recent excisions and Moonriddengirl's likely future trimming. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on copyright issues but having trouble identifying some sources. The section on production notes, here, is either a copyright violation or original research, as it even includes uncited quotes from Sullivan. I've tagged the section as lacking sources. The plot summary at Anne of Green Gables is duplicative of part of this site, but it has been in our article since 2006, and there's no archived version of that external site that would allow me to verify that it came first. Given the date of copyright at the external site, it could well be us. Some material though is clearly duplicative, and I am revising or removing that with a note at the article's talk pages how to clear the material for use on Wikipedia. As far as neutrality, I have seen some obvious issues that arise naturally from the fact that PR text is generally promotional. For instance, from Anne of Avonlea (1987 film) we have "Sullivan loved the incredibly talented ensemble of performers he assembled...." If that's not gone by the time I get there, it will be soon. :) At a glance, I didn't see any problems with the Sullivan bio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Again? I'm sure we've already been round this loop at least twice now. I can't imagine why this disruptive self-promoting spammer is not banned by now. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Player82 spams with external links to a defunct blog on printing

Resolved

 – WP:RBI as spam. Arakunem^Talk 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Player82 spams with links to a (now deleted) blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VasileGaburici (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really know there's a COI here, unless we can positively tie the user to the blog, company, etc, though I will invoke WP:DUCK here. In any case, his links are spammy and irrelevant (being dead links), so your revert was appropriate. If they continue, they should be reverted as spam links and the user warned appropriately. If they continue past there, WP:AIV is the place for the next escalation. Thanks for your vigilance!

WebKit, Google Chrome pages

Resolved

 – No COI here Arakunem^Talk 16:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As of this writing, both pages claim that Google has released a beta of Google Chrome for Windows. Haven't checked on who or when on the Google Chrome page, but the diff says September 2 for the WebKit page, made by an anonymous IP address user, origin Deutsche Telekom. The Google Chrome Wikipedia page claims in the article that the release was made on September 2. Whoops! The page was just changed to say the release was made September 3, but the download is still not there on the Google Chrome web site.

However, at the time of this writing the Wikipedia article link to a Google Chrome page where the app release is supposedly to be found leads to a site where the download link for the software still points back to the site home page. My understanding is that Google Chrome is in fact due to be released later today, September 3. But it has not happened yet.

The Google Chrome page on Wikipedia also currently has a screengrab depicting Wikipedia displayed on Chrome running on Windows Vista. The source of the screengrab is unattributed. And there have been a flood of changes in the last few minutes while I was writing this post. Notice the dates of the footnote references.

These factors cause me to suspect that the two pages are being edited by persons with conflicts of interest preparing for the launch of Google Chrome later today. I discovered these page anomalies while researching for source materials on Google chrome because I had acquired information the product was scheduled for beta release today. Unfortunately, I lack the time to correct information that may well be accurate by the time I am done editing in any event.

But I suggest that these pages be critically examined for advertising and conflict of interest editing. I am not an enemy of either WebKit or Google Chrome. In fact I am genuinely interested in them and plan to take Chrome for a test drive as soon as it is released. However, I believe that events should not be described as having occurred when they have not yet happened. Wikipedi, ideally, is always accurate. Marbux (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was released on September 2 (September 3 in Australia). http://www.google.com/chrome and if that redirects to Google's home page then it must be cached on your side (I have it on my system already). Bidgee (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The link in the Wikipedia Chrome article is to the same URL you give. However, on that site, the software download link is on this page and still links back to the same URL you link. I never visited that URL until a few hours ago and I have repeatedly refreshed the page in my browser (Firefox 2.x). Since reading your post, I have tried the same URL in Opera and get the same result. I had never before visited that site in Opera. I am not being referred to Google's home page. I apologize for my sloppy use of the phrase "home page." From here, the download link points back to the same URL you identify, which I more accurately should have referred to as the "product home page."

I cannot verify either the information in the article or in your post using the link that you provide and that is used in the Wikipedia Chrome article as the source of the information that Chrome was released on September 2. When I view the page at the URL you provide, I see no mention that Chrome was released on September 2 and the download link for the software on the "further information" sub-page points back to the same URL you provide.

I do not wish to question your word and do not rule out the possibility that there is some internet trait I have never heard of that might produce an ability to download the software from Australia from the same site that has no download when viewed from the U.S. However, the diff page I linked says in the pre-edit portion that the release was scheduled for September 3, not September 2. Likewise, the Webkit Wikipedia page states that the release happened on September 3, but the referencing footnotes, 31 and 32, point to sites that contain no such information.

Cutting in the other direction, there is a Google press release datedlined September 2 from Mountainview, California (same time zone as me), stating that the product was released. And there is a very short [8]post on Google's blog] dated September 2 stating that the product was released and pointing readers to the same URL we both are discussing to download it.

All of this information cannot be accurate. The software either was released or was not and if released it was on a specific date. The Chrome article gives one date. The WebKit article gives another. I cannot definitively determine either whether or when the software was actually released with contradictory evidence and an inability to download the software from the URL we discuss or its subpages.

However, I can state definitively that I cannot verify the accuracy of the relevant information given in either of the Wikipedia articles using the information sources referenced in them; I can find no download link for the software on the site all seem to agree is where it should be other than a link pointing back to the product home page of the same Chrome site; and the two Wikipedia articles give different dates for the same event.

Given the contradictory relevant information and my inability to verify any of it, I would appreciate it if you might post the URL for the specific web page from which you downloaded the software. Something, perhaps more than one thing, needs fixed somewhere. :-) Marbux (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about? Chrome was available since around 2008-09-02 18:50 UTC, when the page http://www.google.com/chrome/ (which includes a download link) was activated. Simply do a search on any news source and you will probably see most of them mentioning Chrome and the release date. Maybe you are confused by the fact that Google planned to release this on 3 Sep but ultimately released in earlier? SmilingBoy (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Viewed from here in Oregon, there is no download URL link on this page. Sub-pages of the page at that URL have a download link title in the left sidebar, but the URL in that link points to http://www.google.com/chrome rather than to a download. But I am encountering more and more evidence that the software has in fact been released. My current guess is that there is a cache of pages on the internet somewhere between me and the Google server that has not been updated since before the launch, or another glitch between me and the page server. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This really should be discussed on the respective articles' talk pages. I looked through the editing history of both articles, and I don't see any evidence of a COI in either case (edits made by someone at Google corporate, for example). If there are, please provide the diffs showing the relationship between the editors and the topics. This looks more like a concern over the verifiability of the dates listed, which is really for the articles' editors to work out on the talk pages. Arakunem^Talk 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm now leaning in the direction of proclaiming a technical glitch outside Wikipedia that is showing different versions of some web pages with particular URLS in different regions of the world. See above. For some unkown reason I am still getting what is apparently a pre-Chrome launch version of those pages in my browsers that linked from the Download link title to the parent page rather than to a download.

I believe my original post here was justified by the fact that folks are getting different results from the same URL in different parts of the world. From here, along with the information that was on the WebKit page that the launch had been scheduled for September 3, the fact that there was no download at the URL linked from Wikipedia created the appearance to me that folks were prepping Wikipedia pages for a product launch that had not yet occurred, saying that the product had been launched when everything I could see said that it was not yet available and was not scheduled to be available at that time. I don't think it was a giant mental leap under the circumstances to suspect COI and advertising. I agree that there is no obvious COI issue now and that the remaining issues should be resolved on the relevant pages rather than here. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone even speculates that google has intentionally leaked the browser. Alternatively, they are making the link available at some locations but not in others. In any case, there is no reason to believe there is any COI here on Wikipedia, just confusion. Vesal (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

More than confusion. Folks in different regions of the globe aren't getting the same version of a page at the same URL. I still see no download on the page others are downloading from. Just a Download link title but the link is a URL for a page rather than a URI for a download. My guess is that it's a technical glitch on the internet that is delivering me a pre-product launch version of the page. Google has a Firefox service that loads pages from Google's page caches rather than from the URL location to get faster response times. I'm going to turn that on and see if the page I get is any different.

It's conceivable to me that Google is delivering the post-Chrome launch download page from its page cache service prior to going live on the real URL, to slow the Chrome download rate for awhile before putting the same content at the URL given in the Wikipedia articles. If I recall correctly, that Firefox service caches pages at different regional centers. Wouldn't surprise me if Google has a similar service for MSIE. I never looked. Tried the service for a few days, but turned it off because you get URLs in the browser location bar that are different from the source page's original URL. I create a lot of hyperlinks, and prefer linking to the source pages rather than to Google's cache of them.

Also might be that Comcast (my ISP) has cached pages and hasn't updated its cache of heavily used pages since before the Chrome product launch (Comcast does cache pages ). I've never knowingly experienced this before. Can't say that I know enough about the technical inner workings of the Internet to say there are no other technical possibilities to explain the problem. I just know that from here in Springfield, Oregon, I'm not getting the same page other folks are getting from the same URL. 24.20.204.191 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Bishop

The subject of the article and a bunch of obvious sock/meetpuppets are edit warring to spin this thing out of control. At the moment they want a succession box for his "office" as a community council member. For those who don't know, community councillors are normally elected unopposed and are the political equivalent of the PTA. Further, who he succeeded as community councillor is unverifiable. This is the latest in a succession of COI edits and spin. The article is being owned for promotional reasons.--Troikoalogo (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Still edit waring for preferred style on his own biography. Despite talk page consensus against him [9].--Troikoalogo (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• The article states that someone with a conflict of interest may of edited it. I don't disguise my identity, so people can clearly see which edits have been made by me - my interest in the article has been declared through the notable Wikipedian tag. What they can't see is the conflicts of interests of the other editors, who are of a different political persuasion to me, who are trying to discredit me, by deleting the article about me a piece at time. If you check the edit histories of the people that have edited the talk page, many of them have only edited the article about me, and many of them only started when an online community consisting mainly of Liberal Democrats (I'm Labour & Co-op) asked its members to vandalise the page about me. Of course I have an interest in ensuring the article about me is accurate, as others to in discrediting, defaming and diluting me --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The tag is there to alert other editors to a problem; the tag is not the solution to the problem. The solution to the problem is that you stop editing the article. No one would object if you limited your edits to removing false or insulting statements. But you are adding material that many editors think exaggerates your accomplishments. It gives the appearance that you are using Wikipedia as a way of promoting yourself. It's best to back off, avoid adding anything, and limit yourself to edits that remove objectionable material.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history and Talk, I think the whole article needs a spot of independent attention, as there are a number of other single- and narrow-purpose accounts involved...

• ColonelBuendia99 (talk · contribs)
• Pontyboy (talk · contribs)
• Cardydwen (talk · contribs)
• Politicool (talk · contribs)

... who all appear to have some political affiliation/antagonism perhaps close enough to be COI. It'd go a lot more smoothly if they all backed off and left it to editors who don't feel hot about the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have done a short survey of the articles about other University of Glamorgan Alumni articles. The Sue Bale article does not have her employer referenced. The Kevin Brennan (politician) article does not have his education and career referenced, nor does the article about Lorna Dunkley reference her early biography. Mention is made of referencing my Circle of Friends invention, whereas there is no citation of the claimed greatest novel of Dan Rhodes. The Darren Morris article doesn't have any references at all, nor does Catherine Thomas, which also has a succession box. It seems to me that the article about me is undergoing some unfair level of scrutiny. People are removing content from this article, while similar content remains on others. I believe there needs to be action taken by administrators to ensure that notable living people, and not deleted, diluted or defamed by editors not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia's readers. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Rubbish. There has been no "defamation" here. Merely people removing unverifiable assertions and general puffery designed to make you look good. There's nothing negative in this article, and no-one suggesting there should be, it's just that we want it to be neutral and not over-egg the cake, as it were. CV are for spinning every achievement to make it look like a noble peace prize, wikipedia articles are not. (Oh and I suspect sock/meet puppetry here, but I could be wrong).--Troikoalogo (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just toned down the lead, removing 'influential' and 'noted' (replaced that with 'known'). After all, Kevan Brennan isn't called influential in the lead. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've never seen a signature before with a link to the editor's web page. Can I do that too? :-) Doug Weller (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please don't. I've requested that he remove the link from his signature. --Versageek 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is problematic - all the sources seem self-authored or self-published. Past claims that Bishop is an important figure in the evolution of various fields of the Internet seem unsupported (and a search for sources came up fruitless). As now written the article is plausible in saying Bishop is a respected IT professional, but that is only borderline as far as suggesting notability. It seems to go awfully deep into resume-type items. Were the article to evolve on its own vie edits from disinterested editors (assuming people had the urge to do so) the tone and focus would probably be a lot more like a typical Wikipedia biographical article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at this, and am convinced that the claim to have developed a core technology for organizing online communities (the circle of friends claim) is another example of puffery. Apparently, circle of friends was a feature of a website that Bishop developed in 1999; it is similar to features in later websites such as Friendster. This similarity is used to make claims that these later websites used Bishop's technology (see the third sentence in the Friendster article). The two sources for this claim are written after the claim first appeared in Wikipedia, and it seems likely the WP article served as the source for these sources. My view is that the Circle of Friends (social network) article should be deleted, since it appears to have already created some mischief. Any thoughts?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Vallejo

Someone with multiple ips and sockpuppet accounts has been editing this article, whoever is editing the page is either herself or some people paid on her behalf. These editors continuously add information from her website and external links to it, with the intend of promoting her website and book. They have been editing the Spanish wikipedia also.

--205.181.102.108 (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Lissa Monet

Created by Tmtmanagement (talk · contribs) with a great deal of editing by Simpleelissa (talk · contribs). Besides the conflict of interest and bad article title, it's teeming with tags. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Missouri State High School Activities Association

MSHSAA (talk · contribs) - Removed criticism from article. The username is the initials of the association, making an obvious conflict of interest. Crossman33 (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)