Gordonofcartoon (talk | contribs) →Break: another COI confusing issue |
→ArtInfo and User: JPLei: comment |
||
Line 445: | Line 445: | ||
The user has, without exception, used artinfo.com as the source for all his sourcing. As some warners have said, it seems to be a not-so-subtle way of linking the art info website when any other source could be used. I'm not entirely sure of its standing as a reliable source either, but it doesn't appear to be a bad source. I can't find concrete proof of COI, but my radar is going off. <sub>[[User_talk:Travellingcari|TravellingCari]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Travellingcari|the Busy Bee]]</sup> 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
The user has, without exception, used artinfo.com as the source for all his sourcing. As some warners have said, it seems to be a not-so-subtle way of linking the art info website when any other source could be used. I'm not entirely sure of its standing as a reliable source either, but it doesn't appear to be a bad source. I can't find concrete proof of COI, but my radar is going off. <sub>[[User_talk:Travellingcari|TravellingCari]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Travellingcari|the Busy Bee]]</sup> 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Most if not all of the contributons from this editor, back to their first edit, have revolved around adding simply enough information to require a cite/ref to the ArtInfo website. I have inquired about this on their userpage. While it is not against policy to have a single purpose account, it does call into question possible COI. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay]] ([[User talk:Tiggerjay|talk]]) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
:Most if not all of the contributons from this editor, back to their first edit, have revolved around adding simply enough information to require a cite/ref to the ArtInfo website. I have inquired about this on their userpage. While it is not against policy to have a single purpose account, it does call into question possible COI. [[User:Tiggerjay|Tiggerjay]] ([[User talk:Tiggerjay|talk]]) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
http://spam.artinfo.com |
|||
*{{spamlink|artinfo.com}} |
|||
I don't know about COI, but it's unquestionably spam. We've had [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek|similar cases before]] of citation spam. Cross-posted to [[WT:WPSPAM]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:23, 21 May 2008
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
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:
|
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.
Guido den Broeder vs. others
There is a lingering dispute between Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and GijsvdL (talk · contribs), which has spilt over from the Dutch Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder has filed a 3RR report (WP:AN/3RR#User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result) and two Wikiquette alerts (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:GijsvdL and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#nl:Wikipedia) on several users, including myself. Mediation by Scarian (talk · contribs) has failed, because the mediator withdrew. This dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has violated WP:COI by adding books he's written, published by his own publishing company (Magnana Mu), to articles. The user has also created articles for an organisation he's the treasurer of and for an organisation he founded. Being semi-involved to involved, I will not assess the merits of this allegation. What I'm here for, is to ask the visitors of this Noticeboard to intervene in this dispute and perhaps cut the Gordian knot. AecisBrievenbus 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Aecis. I'd like to add that user:GijsvdL has refused to participate in the mediation for reasons provided at [1]. Furthermore, the vast majority of my edits is on other topics. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is one other self-reference at Types of unemployment.[2]. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me summarize my take on this.
- WP:COI applies to these cases, except where the references were reinserted by another user as in Melody Amber chess tournament.
- WP:COI is a guideline for user actions. It has no bearing on the references or articles themselves. They should simply be neutral, reliable etc. as always.
- WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing.
- WP:COI can only be violated by a user, not by an article or a reference.
- WP:COI is violated if the user involved introduces a bias in the article.
- The identity of the editors has no bearing on the neutrality of the article.
- If a violation of WP:COI occurs, the response should be (a) to remove the bias, as always, which does not necessarily imply a revert or deletion, and (b) to check whether the user involved behaves in a disruptive manner.
- As time passes, especially when the article is edited by other users without undoing the edits by the user involved, COI for these edits diminishes and eventually disappears.
- If a self-reference is deleted and the reference is reinserted by another user, it is no longer a self-reference.
- With regard to providing sources, there is no difference in guidance between ordinary references and self-references. Where providing a source is mandatory, it is also mandatory to do so for a user with a COI.
- Self-referencing does not equal self-promotion, original research, or vandalism. Users claiming that it does, behave in a disruptive manner and should be dealt with accordingly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Users should not make any major edits to articles of which they are directly/indirectly related to.
- By writing books about the Melody Amber chess tournament you have put yourself in a position where you are related to the articles topic. You must've done research on the tournament which thus would have put you in a bias position.
- By creating articles about organisations that you are related to you are seemingly trying to promote them. Even if you say otherwise, you should have NOT created those articles. WP:AfC and WP:REQUEST, the former being a section of Wikipedia I have vast experience in, are perfect for that. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:AfC is for unregistered/anonymous users, so your experience relates to a different area. Am I correct to assume that you no longer claim the articles and references themselves to be tainted, and that you are withdrawing your accusation of self-promotion? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you can submit articles even if you are a registered user on AfC (as, in my vast experience, I've seen it numerous times) :-) - But stop avoiding my point. You should not have created those articles. WP:REQUEST fits perfectly though! And I never actually said that the sources were tainted, you've obviously misread me. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. Any denial of this is, well, just pure denial. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to see appropriate action taken against user:Scarian for falsely accusing me of promotion.[3] Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, another user from the same mob at nl:Wikipedia has just joined the harassment team here, user:Migdejong.[4][5][6] Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you can submit articles even if you are a registered user on AfC (as, in my vast experience, I've seen it numerous times) :-) - But stop avoiding my point. You should not have created those articles. WP:REQUEST fits perfectly though! And I never actually said that the sources were tainted, you've obviously misread me. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. Any denial of this is, well, just pure denial. ScarianCall me Pat! 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For clarity, I would like to say where I stand on this one. To be blunt, the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI has some merits. He has referenced himself, he has listed his own books, he has written about organisations he's involved in. But I think that's not the main issue. The main issue is that Guido is so emotionally involved in these subjects that he takes anything that doesn't match how he feels about something, as bad faith, inconstructive cabalism and vandalism. From dickish comments and misleading edit summaries to downright arrogance, there's only one way for Guido, and that's his way. Both here and on the Dutch Wikipedia, he has shown himself combative and uncooperative, to the point of becoming disruptive. To summarize, the problem is not the fact that he may have a COI, but the fact that this issue has led him to disrupt two Wikipedia projects. AecisBrievenbus 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I find the above comments highly offensive and kindly ask you to withdraw them. I would appreciate an independent admin to step in at this point and see to it that this procedure follows due process. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, there already has been an indipendent admin involved but he didn't do what you wanted. Aecis just discribed your doings here perfectly and supported by edits even, you are not willing to behave in a normal way and you slander people who do not agree with you. Like I said before, this is not a fit behaviour for a man your age. You are only making it harder for yourself to be taking seriously... Jorrit-H (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Being an admin is no big deal on the English Wikipedia. Admins have some tools, but no special rights in content questions. However, wikilawyering aside, "due process" on Wikipedia involves an open discussion of the issues at hand. That is exactly what I see here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, I am done here. Nobody seems to be the least interested to discuss the merits of this case, so what is the point? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- We were, even I was (still after more than a year) but you ignore comments, you trow mud and you are not open for another opinion. The problem lies within your own borders, do a little selfreflection now and then.. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you're ready, stop throwing mud and comment on my 11 points above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I'm the one trowing? I see it's hard for you to take criticsm but fine I will react on your points above as long as you promise to take my reaction seriously, otherwise it has no use. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any comments on my points will be taken seriously by me, Jorrit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet when someone does, you find those comments defamatory, offensive and even highly offensive. AecisBrievenbus 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- To my regret, I do, except that these comments are not on my points above. I'm still waiting for Jorrit though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- External view: I think one problem is that you're trying to engage in a form of discourse that just isn't how things work here. No insult intended, but I've seen it a number of times with editors whose background is in analytical rule-based genres (e.g law, programming, tax, championship-level boardgames, etc). As Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY points out, Wikipedia is not a moot court, and this kind of "I put it to you: point A, point B, point C... which implies ... etc" discourse is viewed negatively as wikilawyering, and in any case is pointless because policies/guidelines are interpreted by custom as well as strict wording.
- For example, your point 3 - "WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing" - does not have the corollary that such editing can be done with impunity; the custom is that it should be done with serious caution and always deferring to community opinion.
- The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- In my view, the bottom line should always be the quality of Wikipedia. We are not a community, we are a project team, and I will weigh other people's opinions in that light. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- To my regret, I do, except that these comments are not on my points above. I'm still waiting for Jorrit though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet when someone does, you find those comments defamatory, offensive and even highly offensive. AecisBrievenbus 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Any comments on my points will be taken seriously by me, Jorrit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I'm the one trowing? I see it's hard for you to take criticsm but fine I will react on your points above as long as you promise to take my reaction seriously, otherwise it has no use. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you're ready, stop throwing mud and comment on my 11 points above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- We were, even I was (still after more than a year) but you ignore comments, you trow mud and you are not open for another opinion. The problem lies within your own borders, do a little selfreflection now and then.. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{undent}Wikipedia can be improved without self-promotion. You can place your books, your websites, your suggestions on talk pages, where they will be reviewed by other editors and if there is merit, they will be added. If there is no merit, if it's just self-promotion, changes, sources and suggestions will be rejected. The template {{request edit}} can gather attention from other editors, as can requesting edits from editors known to you or active on the relevant pages. Though this may be slower than making the edits yourself, there is definite advantage to wikipedia using these methods - there is no taint of COI, and no concern over WP:NPOV violations or self-promotion. Ultimately your suggestions will rest on their merit rather than your perception of their merit and the quality of wikipedia is not improved by adding information you inherently can not be neutral on.
I have had contact with GDB on the CVS and VBI verening pages. My interactions suggest to me that he does not truly grasp the importance or essence of policies and guidelines - I'm not sure if it's deliberate or obtuseness. If it is obtuseness, then it is a very strange blind spot - GDB writes well, his spelling is adequate, his presentation of ideas is generally readable, but he does not seem to grasp what policies are saying and why. See User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Vereniging_Basisinkomen in my archive, and in particular the curious discussion under the subheading User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Notability. He seems unable or unwilling to understand which guidelines govern content (RS, NPOV, OR), and which govern article existence (N). Further, the two pages I was involved in were riddled with coatracking. On the VBI page, I removed the coatracking without incident and GDB has not tried to re-add. Which is it, unable or unwilling? I assume unable, which still suggests problems. Bluntly, GDB should not be adding his own work to pages. He has enough experience on wikipedia, and sufficient discussions related to COI that he knows this is problematic behavior. This isn't a matter of 'needs to be warned'. He is well aware of our position of COI and there is no excuse for violating it by adding sources he wrote and published himself. He is also by now aware that he should not be creating pages for organizations he is a major player in. He has sufficient tools available to him that there is no excuse for creating pages or adding information that may be problematic.
I do not doubt his sincerity, I do not think he is a vandal, but I do think his actions in many cases are well beyond questionable. My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks. --WLU (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate, that nobody is interested in discussing my arguments, but all would rather discuss me. But how can you think to understand my motives and ideas, if you do not first try and grasp what I say? If none of you ask me even a single question, but simply keep repeating your own mistaken interpretations?
- I know that there are many people who think the same as you, but you are not helping Wikipedia, you are killing it. The project is already declining, and its average quality deteriorating. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've reviewed your arguments on all the pages we've interacted on. The above is my opinion. My two archives point to issues you've had with a policy and a guideline and the difference between the two. COI is another area - several users have weighed in. WP:COI#Examples has several examples. You've cited yourself (note the statement "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."), adding books that you have written and published raises concerns over financial benefit. You've created articles that are of extremely tenuous notability - one has been deleted, the other has been AFD-ed and is on the borderline. Perhaps you might want to consider that other editors have a point and certain contributions should be filtered through uninvolved editors. If your expertise is truly formidable, then demonstrate this by citing sources and suggesting changes rather than editing directly. Text created on talk pages and sub-pages can be reviewed by other editors and if issue-free, pasted wholesale. Other editors find your edits problematic and tinted with COI concerns. So, rather than insisting, use alternative methods to draft sections. That would be my recommendation. WLU (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- We are talking about a full total of 3 articles here, and a tiny fraction of my edits. None of which were found problematic by anyone until some users, all of them Dutch, had a disagreement with me about ME/CFS. So no, I am not in doubt. In cases where I was in doubt, I did post on the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am removing this page from my watchlist, so there is no point posting here again. If anyone wants a real discussion, instead of slinging opinions, post on my talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Response seems typical of that being commented upon and disagreeing with a consensus of other editors, in fact worse, he dismisses other views out of hand and with arrogant bold ignore message - all reminisant of his block in December for 3RR violation [7] where I observed "wikipedia is a collaborative process, so repeatedly stating in talk page discussions that various editors are on your ignore list is also disruptive". I support WLU's conclusion "My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks"... David Ruben Talk 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it's typical - even if GDB doesn't think he's got a COI or conflict problem, others do, and you can't always get what you want (or think is right). Enough people have had problems with GDB's edits that it's arrived here and there's obvious issues with understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines in my mind. WP:SPS says they can be used with caution, and in the areas discussed (obscure chess problems) there may not be an alternative, but if someone else is objecting to you adding your own source, adding it anyway isn't a good idea. The first example in WP:COI is citing oneself, and ends with the sentence "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" - yep, I think that applies here. Since GDB isn't watching the page anymore, should a line be dropped on his talk page? In fairness towards his potential expertise, {{request edit}} should probably accompany the message (his original posting would have been timed when the template was a redlink - I've just corrected now). WLU (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's yet again removing the COI tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen. Does anyone have an opinion on that option? Guido appears to be tone-deaf to the strong concerns expressed by the community. He has even less right to remove the COI tag when he has taken the COI noticeboard off his watchlist. I would warn him on his Talk page before doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Discussion above applies as a community view & Guido den Broeder can't be excused from it by deciding not to listen. I've therefore posted a WP:Banned notice on his talk page specific to Vereniging Basisinkomen and limiting non-collaborative talk page wikilawyering.[8] Failure to heed community request not to disrupt should be reported to WP:AN/I for an uninvolved admin to block. David Ruben Talk 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Response seems typical of that being commented upon and disagreeing with a consensus of other editors, in fact worse, he dismisses other views out of hand and with arrogant bold ignore message - all reminisant of his block in December for 3RR violation [7] where I observed "wikipedia is a collaborative process, so repeatedly stating in talk page discussions that various editors are on your ignore list is also disruptive". I support WLU's conclusion "My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks"... David Ruben Talk 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've reviewed your arguments on all the pages we've interacted on. The above is my opinion. My two archives point to issues you've had with a policy and a guideline and the difference between the two. COI is another area - several users have weighed in. WP:COI#Examples has several examples. You've cited yourself (note the statement "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."), adding books that you have written and published raises concerns over financial benefit. You've created articles that are of extremely tenuous notability - one has been deleted, the other has been AFD-ed and is on the borderline. Perhaps you might want to consider that other editors have a point and certain contributions should be filtered through uninvolved editors. If your expertise is truly formidable, then demonstrate this by citing sources and suggesting changes rather than editing directly. Text created on talk pages and sub-pages can be reviewed by other editors and if issue-free, pasted wholesale. Other editors find your edits problematic and tinted with COI concerns. So, rather than insisting, use alternative methods to draft sections. That would be my recommendation. WLU (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
{undnet}Lovely, now there's an arbitration case. Sigh (reaches for a nice merlot). WLU (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Context, context2. WLU (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've completed my RFAR statement, but I am unclear whether as an alternative WP:AN/I should have invoked or this COI/N is sufficent admin authority in itself to review partial bans & my own handling of this... Presumably this now needs await ArbCom decission on the RFAR before any alternative actions taken ? David Ruben Talk 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I will be very, very surprised if the RARB goes forward - there's a wealth of conflict resolution options that haven't been tapped, Guido didn't seem to understand what arbitration was, and it seems grossly overpowered and complicated for what is really a fairly simple dispute. WLU (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've completed my RFAR statement, but I am unclear whether as an alternative WP:AN/I should have invoked or this COI/N is sufficent admin authority in itself to review partial bans & my own handling of this... Presumably this now needs await ArbCom decission on the RFAR before any alternative actions taken ? David Ruben Talk 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- RFAR been declined, suggesting that WP:AN/I seek further input, which is an appropriate means of reviewing editor actions, admin actions (and to be fair, also how I as an admin approached an issue), lets await views at WP:AN/I#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions.David Ruben Talk 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- AN/I discussion closed & archived after a couple days of no further input to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions. No support stated for article ban, and GDB therefore free to resume editing - I note Jossi offered some sensible advice on approach to take in editing where the potential for COI. David Ruben Talk 11:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- RFAR been declined, suggesting that WP:AN/I seek further input, which is an appropriate means of reviewing editor actions, admin actions (and to be fair, also how I as an admin approached an issue), lets await views at WP:AN/I#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions.David Ruben Talk 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
After having steered clear of this issue for about a week, I find the way the discussion has ran since I stepped out of it typical of the problem at hand. Our position on COI is very clear: be cautious, and when challenged, be even more cautious. All have acknowledged that Guido has a COI and that his editing is problematic. Guido ignores the concerns, and continues as if nothing has happened. He doesn't appear to be willing to even consider the idea that others might have a point. Every time an independent editor in good standing (Scarian, WLU, me) came to a conclusion Guido didn't appreciate, he assumed bad faith, questioned our impartiality and aptitude, and made vague accusations of cabalism, vandalism and incivility, as I've outlined above. AecisBrievenbus 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Outlining does not make it true, and my own standing is not less than yours. Fortunately, other editors have since arrived to different conclusions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Who? Where? Provide a diff, please, saying you have no conflict of interest and your editing is problem-free. Please provide a diff, as your depiction of other's statements is generally not accurate. You have been warned repeatedly and most of your conflict of interest problems have been resolved not by your statements but by third-party editors being willing to make a change for you, which is invariably the advice you have received and you would do well to simply follow this advice on all future incidents where you have a conflict of interest - being a member of an organization whose page you are editing and adding a source you have written or published. Diffs are meaningful. WLU (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your own standing is indeed not less than that of others, but I have never said anything to that extent. What I said (and I will make it more clear this time) is that the editors who have indicated that your editing was problematic are not passers-by who have no idea of how Wikipedia works. If so many editors in good standing indicate that your editing is problematic, you should take it seriously, very seriously. They should not be ignored and discarded as you have done. You should listen to them and try to incorporate those suggestions/recommendations. We're not saying this out of a grudge against you, or anyone. If so many people see a problem, please consider the possibility that there really is a problem. AecisBrievenbus 11:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you: please stop mispresenting my statements and the situation. We just had an RfC where opinions were mixed.
- @Aecis: The users that claim my editing to be problematic, are those that themselves do not contribute to the articles. The users that work with me on articles, do not report any problems. I'd rather trust their judgement, instead of that of passers-by, and I find it typical that you dismiss their opinions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering this situation, some of the links where Guido den Broeder was involved in were added to several wikipedia, and some of these links got meta-blacklisted.
- Links (follow the Meta XWiki link to the report):
- globalincome.org: 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
- pl.net: 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
- basicincome.com: 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
- globalincome.org: 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
- bepress.com: 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
- usbig.net: 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
- freiheitstattvollbeschaeftigung.de: 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
- search.japantimes.co.jp: 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
- planalto.gov.br: 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
- urss.ru: 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 (spec: urss.ru/cgi-bin/db.pl?cp=&lang=en&blang=en&list=14&page=Book&id=34250)
- yale.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 (spec: yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/wallerstein)
- fordham.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 (spec: fordham.edu/halsall/mod/wallerstein.html)
- binghamton.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 (spec: binghamton.edu/fbc/cmpg.htm)
- youtube.com: 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 (spec: youtube.com/watch?v=mO7mSiZaZkg)
- Users:
- 92.32.95.87 (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)
- Guido den Broeder (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)
Reports were put together in m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/globalincome.org. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am not involved in these blacklisted links and this has absolutely nothing to do with a COI. I merely encountered the problem when I tried to edit the article, and asked for the basic income links to be delisted since there seems to be no good reason for them to be on the blacklist.[9] My request is still unanswered. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason is clear, there was excessive linking across several wikipedia by an IP in Scandinavia (Sweden?), creating sometimes massive linkfarms (see e.g. diff). I see that that is probably not you, still, since you are also using that link (as can be seen from the linkreports) I think that it is good to see that part of the situation as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see any connection, so I suggest moving this to talk:Basic income. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- GDB asked for my thoughts on link blockage. Given since the time when this COI/N was started in early April, there has been a full and frank discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder which is now on pause whilst everyone takes a breather and we see how well future article work progresses... I have to agree, going back now 4 weeks to relook at link usage seems probably unnecesary - PS the LinkSummary output is quite incomprehensible :-) I have to agree with GDB that there needs be a time when restating the same past link activity does become historical and irrelevant to the present time, the concerns have been stated and GDB is aware of this (irrespective of whether he agrees the edits were problematic COI or not). He clearly is now aware (its been stated often enough) that COI edits are not permitted if other editors state their is a problem with them. So, unless anyone can show good cause, IMHO this COI/N, like the RfC, probably now needs to pause. What counts now is how GDB works in the future, which links added, manner of interacting with other editors and how he responds to contrary views - if no future problems then COI/N RfC served their respective purpose, otherwise they form basis for AN/I review :-) David Ruben Talk 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Let's all be aware that I am not this Scandinavian anon. I did not know that these links were blacklisted until I found that I could not edit a page that had them. Anyway, they have now been delisted on my request. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- GDB asked for my thoughts on link blockage. Given since the time when this COI/N was started in early April, there has been a full and frank discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder which is now on pause whilst everyone takes a breather and we see how well future article work progresses... I have to agree, going back now 4 weeks to relook at link usage seems probably unnecesary - PS the LinkSummary output is quite incomprehensible :-) I have to agree with GDB that there needs be a time when restating the same past link activity does become historical and irrelevant to the present time, the concerns have been stated and GDB is aware of this (irrespective of whether he agrees the edits were problematic COI or not). He clearly is now aware (its been stated often enough) that COI edits are not permitted if other editors state their is a problem with them. So, unless anyone can show good cause, IMHO this COI/N, like the RfC, probably now needs to pause. What counts now is how GDB works in the future, which links added, manner of interacting with other editors and how he responds to contrary views - if no future problems then COI/N RfC served their respective purpose, otherwise they form basis for AN/I review :-) David Ruben Talk 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Possible COI edits on the Viktor Rydberg article. Thread #2
The COI reported earlier in the Viktor Rydberg article has never been resolved. The editor who is controlling the article to promote his self-published paperbacks has responded to my request for mediation with an ad-hominem attack on the Talk page, including posting a link to my employer's web page. Is there any action that can be taken to protect the Rydberg article (and other editors) from this guy? He is now posting as "JacktheGiantKiller," instead of using multiple anonymous IPs. Is there another forum I should go to for assistance? Rsradford (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone reviewing this matter should note that both parties allege COI, quite possibly correctly on both parts. Doc Tropics 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification: the editor who has been controlling the Viktor Rydberg article has repeatedly promoted his vanity-press paperbacks in the article, where they are currently listed in the bibliography alongside the real books. OTOH, I have never, at any time, posted a link to my own article on Rydberg, specifically because I recognized it would violate Wikipedia's COI policy to do so. (Nor, of course, have I stalked and attacked other editors on the basis of their non-Wikipedia, RL employment.) Rsradford (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Rydberg suffers from having few English translations of his work. Reaves' translations of Rydberg are printed by a vanity press, but we are not relying on them for the truth of any matters of fact, so WP:SPS does not bite us here. I have no personal awareness of the quality of the Reaves translations, and some people consider those works of Rydberg on mythology to be silly, but that may be something we can allow our readers to sort out. A number of regular editors including User:Dbachmann have been making steady improvements on the article and they seem to be allowing the Reaves' translations to remain listed in the bibliography. There may no longer be a big problem to solve here. I left a note at User talk:Jack the Giant-Killer urging him to observe WP:CIVIL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- As a point of clarification: the editor who has been controlling the Viktor Rydberg article has repeatedly promoted his vanity-press paperbacks in the article, where they are currently listed in the bibliography alongside the real books. OTOH, I have never, at any time, posted a link to my own article on Rydberg, specifically because I recognized it would violate Wikipedia's COI policy to do so. (Nor, of course, have I stalked and attacked other editors on the basis of their non-Wikipedia, RL employment.) Rsradford (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for investigating. Although it seems odd for a Wikipedia article to list as references self-published "translations" by a person who can neither read nor write the original language of the texts, that is really a side issue. The problem is, to help convince Wikipedia readers to buy his books, Reaves has persistently violated NPOV by excising from the article all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg. This is the core issue, which no one will be able to address so long as Reaves is allowed to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Is it a big problem? Only to those who attach some special value to the historical version of Norse mythology, as opposed to Rydberg's racial-nationalist fantasies. Rsradford (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion that Reaves is attempting to bias the Wikipedia article as part of some promotion campaign for his books is completely baseless. The fact of the matter is, that regardless of who printed the books, he has made available in English works of Rydberg that were not available in English before, and inclusion of such works is completely relevant to readers who would like to know more about Rydberg. The substance of your comments suggests that your viewpoints are biased in such a direction that you would rather not have anyone reading such works, based on hand-picked theories about what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology. Reaves' portrayals are balanced and inclusive of criticism, but if he is slanting the editing of articles, perhaps it is to counter another editor who clearly has an agenda, an agenda that has little to do with a fair and balanced portrayal of Rydberg. And once again, "racial-nationalist fantasies" is a charge that has yet to stick, let alone be proven. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- You may be right that the article is unbalanced, since it covers Rydberg's myth work in such positive terms. I'm especially dubious about Ref. 19 of the article, which says that the point of view expressed in Hamlet's Mill is becoming widely accepted. (There was recently a big furor on WP:ANI about poorly-supported theories of Archaeoastronomy). If you can make a focused proposal on Talk that includes reliable sources, which explains how to restore balance about his theory of myths to the article, I would welcome it.
- I'm disturbed that there are so many personal attacks on Talk:Viktor Rydberg; this could lead to admin action if it continues. New opinions expressed on that page which contain personal attacks may be removed without further ado. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kudos with regard to the policy on personal attacks. Enforcing it will be absolutely essential if NPOV is to be restored to the Rydberg article. I am preparing the focused proposal you requested, and will post it for discussion on the Rydberg Talk page when it is completed. Rsradford (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Editors following this COI case may want to go to Talk:Viktor Rydberg and give their opinion in the latest thread. User:Rsradford gave a well-organized proposal and User:Dbachmann has offered support for adding a link to Radford's web site and making some of Radford's changes. I would say Radford's new text is almost ready to put in the article, give or take some copy editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Kudos with regard to the policy on personal attacks. Enforcing it will be absolutely essential if NPOV is to be restored to the Rydberg article. I am preparing the focused proposal you requested, and will post it for discussion on the Rydberg Talk page when it is completed. Rsradford (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- If there are no further comments on the proposal to restore NPOV on Talk:Viktor Rydberg, I will proceed to implement points I and III. I will leave it to others to deal with the unverified quotes from foreign-language sources, if anyone else finds that issue to be sufficiently troubling. Rsradford (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Admin action needed? An editor named Jack the Giant-Killer is deleting a newly-added section containing criticism by later scholars. The section was added per the COIN discussion above, in the effort to make the article neutral. Since COI editing can lead to blocks, per WP:COI, please comment here if you see any other course of action than warning User:Jack the Giant-Killer about admin action.Summarizing:
- Jack the Giant-Killer is an enthusiast for one of the English translations of Rydberg's work on mythology, to the point where common sense might indicate he is either the translator or his good friend.
- After adding what are possibly his own books to the reference list, he seems to be reverting out any criticism of Rydberg's myth work. For example, see the reverts here, here and here. He is reverting out what many of us believe to be a neutral version.
- The previous archived COI report has more detail on the authorship of the translations.
- Unless anyone objects, I will start leaving warnings of admin action on Jack's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It seems like a neutral point of view issue, whether or not there is a conflict of interest. If the editor persists in povpushing after sufficient warnings, they may need to be blocked. Let me know if it comes to that point. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- U2charist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — repeatedly edited by U2charistTeam, including edits using the first person pronoun and including unverifiable material, such as the thought processes of members of the parish of St. George's in York Harbor. Usually adds links to the website of that parish. Editor may be a member of the "U2charist Team" of St. Georges, York Harbor. Editor MKinman's username is similar to that of Mike Kinman, executive director of Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation, an organization promoted in MKinman's edits.
Naked short selling
PatrickByrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Patrick M. Byrne is the president, CEO and chairman of Overstock.com, an internet retailer. Overstock (OSTK) stock prices have declined in value recently, and Byrne has made accusations and filed lawsuits to support his claim that a number of funds, financial analysts, journalists, etc have colluded to engage in the practice of naked short selling of Overstock shares.
Now, Byrne claims that persistant naked short selling against Overstock, rather any financial issues, artificially depressed the share price of the company. In other words, if you accept Byrne's claims at face value, (his) Overstock stock is worth more than its market value. It seems inappropriate that an individual with possibly the most major interest possible (bar, say, Richard Altomare) in the controversy regarding the importance of naked short selling is editing our article to push his fork as a replacement for our main article, despite a number of issues that have been pointed out by editors with more financial chops than me and a distinct lack of glaring conflicts of interest. John Nevard (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Returning to the real world for a moment... My changes were simply to rearrange the sections of the article, which are so scattershot as to be unreadable, into a cohesive structure. All the NSS-apologist arguments that were there before are still there, and in fact, are featured more prominently than ever. They are just not scattered with apparent randomness through the article. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- As the article still includes obvious misquotes and uncited editorial comments that were there before you forked it, even this is untrue. John Nevard (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the possibility that your edits were warranted and don't constitute a conflict of interest, it might be best, Patrick, to leave editing of this particular article to others, in the interest of alleviating such concerns. If you have suggestions for the article you should express them on the talk page instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Equazcion that User:PatrickByrne should not edit Overstock.com. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland to get an impression of how sensitive all these issues are. See Remedies for the rules that apply to editing the Overstock.com article. Patrick can make requests here if he thinks his concerns are not getting proper attention. He risks getting beaten up at WP:AE if he doesn't go through proper channels to make his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Despite the possibility that your edits were warranted and don't constitute a conflict of interest, it might be best, Patrick, to leave editing of this particular article to others, in the interest of alleviating such concerns. If you have suggestions for the article you should express them on the talk page instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
(originally I called this section Adil Najab by mistake. Corrected. Pashute (talk)
I was not aware of Professor Adil Najab until reading about negotiation. Found the page was deleted twice, but the reasons given were "Self advocacy". In Wikipedia there are several articles which cannot be done without him. I looked up the person on the web: Thousands of entries in various media outlets, quotes from books that he wrote, articles and quotations, and wrote a very short entry with some links. 5 minutes later, when coming to add something I found the article deleted. Looking further I found some controversial sayings of his. I have no personal or other interest in this person, but it seems the people deleting him do. Pashute (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any deletion log for that specific spelling. Could you double-check and make sure you've typed the name correctly? Equazcion •✗/C • 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I found the article you're referring to - it was Adil Najam. The article was originally deleted as a result of this discussion, and was deleted again recently because the new article was apparently a recreation of the material that was originally deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- So in conclusion, you could begin a new article on this person if you like. Just make sure it's well-sourced, establishes notability, and isn't a mere recreation of the deleted article. It might also be a good idea to inform Ragib, the deleting admin, that you intend to re-create the article from scratch. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, meant Adil Najam. I cannot start a new article. Rajib seems to be claiming I'm only recreating an old article. Please see my answer to Rajib below.
I do take offense at the comment by Pashute above. This article is in my watchlist since I had prodded it as NN bio in the past (the article was deleted following an AFD a year before that, and was re-deleted due to the NN content/G4). I did look into the "new" content Pashute is claiming there, and it is simply a rehash of the old content with no update on the notability of the subject (with a few new Youtube or blog links). So, this falls under CSD:G4. Apart from nominating the article based on the NN of the subject, I have no idea / interest etc. about the subject. So, I find Pashute's suggestion of any hidden agenda quite objectionable. Any other admin is free to look into the deleted content again and decide for him/herself. By the way, Pashute first recreated Adil Najam, then following deletion, created Adil najam. I deleted both under CSD:G4. --Ragib (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I did not mean to offend, please forgive me, but on my talk page you left a message that there was no place to discuss this. I don't understand how my article can be a reproduction, when I never heard of the man before, until reading about Negotiation on wikipedia, and created it from scratch from the first 100 or so google posts that I found about him, and included good sources to each of the five or six points that I wrote! I felt its a cultural war to eliminate this person, since my post was very short, and well sourced, with media of all sorts and locations showing credibility to the person AND notability. Still don't understand how it can be NN. In your talk page, and above I wrote the full scope of notability I found. (about the Adil najam: without capital I created the page as Adil najam FIRST, then saw it had a small leter in it, and thought that if I post the capital, the small letter would change. Thats good you deleted it. So you are claiming that it was NN the SECOND time. I did not see that, and would like to. According to Equazcion above the second was deleted because it was a reproduction! My short entry CANNOT be a recreation of the first entry. A few minutes after entering it, it was deleted. I then started searching to understand if there is any controvercy around him or his sayings. I found that there definitely is, but could not bring any of it to Wikipedia, because you erased the entry altogether. Rajib, maybe you could put up a page with what you think IS relevant, or tell me which points to remove/change/add. But the remaining question to you Ragib is: Do you still think the man is non notable?! Pashute (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I have already instructed you to take deletion related requests to deletion review page. The article has been AFD'd as non-notable ... and if you want any review regarding the AFD, Deletion review is the proper place. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Bob Thompson (musician)
- Bob Thompson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BobThompsonMusic (talk · contribs)
The subject of the article does seem notable. However, the referenced user's contribution to the article are mixed, and seem to have both a Non-NPV and a mildly spammy feel. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Tiggerjay (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
User:64.230.71.197 is making dozens of edits on tenuously connected articles, all with very similar text promoting a new book. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- This IP is promoting books by Opal Carew. The article about the author looks non-notable and has already been prodded. I believe that the May 8 edits by this account are all promotional and should be rolled back. I invited this editor to join the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted this earlier on a wrong page, so I'm just cutting and pasting everything including the replies: A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- "Whilst Colonel Warden can have his moments, in this case I think he's right. A proposed merger of Multiplayer video game and PC Multiplayer is fine (and even necessary), but Multiplayer game has nothing to do with either of these articles, bar the fact that the video game element could be mentioned in that article. Regardless, this is a content dispute, which is on the third door down on the left." QUOTE:Black Kite 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the opening definition of the term ("A multiplayer game is a game which is played by several players.") that is not correct. "Several", according to the very same Oxford dictionary quoted by the user in question is "more than two but not many". Multiplayer game is a more than one player game, period (both from dictionary definitions and common usage of the term). That is, a 100-player game and even a 100,000-player game would still be called multiplayer. The problem is that the user consciously reverts this edit with no regard to the dictionary references and other arguments, and I see this form of tendentious editing as a personal act that has nothing to do with facts or objectivity. Rankiri (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read WP:COI? this is the noticeboard relating to people writing about stuff they have a personal connection with. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I went with "such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time". If it's not tendentious editing and it doesn't count as vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where do I have to go and should it really take me an hour to ask for a third opinion about replacing a word according to its direct dictionary definition? I'll just have to do that tomorrow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Though this isn't a COI question, I can't resist adding my opinion anyway. The dictionary indicates that 'several' implies more than two. The actual usage of 'multiplayer game' that you can find on the web does include two players as a frequent case. This question should probably be moved over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games where you can find people with the proper expertise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I went with "such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time". If it's not tendentious editing and it doesn't count as vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, where do I have to go and should it really take me an hour to ask for a third opinion about replacing a word according to its direct dictionary definition? I'll just have to do that tomorrow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Reiner Hartenstein autobiography and COI edits
It appears this person created and/or heavily edited an article on himself and created/edited a large number of other articles that seem to have COI problems. I can't tell if he satisfies the notability requirement. He has previously been found to have used the following user IDs: RainierH, RainierHa, Rainier3 and Rwdh, although they don't seem to be used for the purpose of sockpuppeting because of their obviousness. He may also have edited under the user IDs of Karl-tech and Huebner.
He has also created resume-like articles on Wolfgang Nebel, Karl Steinbuch, Helmut Metzner and Nick Tredennick. Notability does not seem established for at least the first 3.
My biggest concern is the long list of articles he created for what are essentially technology terms, many of which mention him directly or his concepts. Several are redundant with each other and most would be orphans if it weren't for the fact they link to each other though wikilinks. There are also articles on organizations with undocumented notability. Questionable articles include: Structured VLSI design, Structured hardware design, Morphware, Configware, Flowware, A Block diagram Language, Anti machine, Domino notation, Auto-sequencing memory, Super systolic array, KressArray, Configware Compiler, Data counter, Generic Address Generator, Auto-sequencing memory, Reconfigurable datapath array, Data path unit, Von Neumann syndrome, EUROMICRO, CSELT, Weikersheim Think Tank and Lernmatrix. He has deleted PRODs on his articles, but at least two have been deleted: KARL and Xputer.
I suggest that most of his terminology articles be merged into the Reconfigurable computing terminology, which is a glossary article. Unfortunately I'm not knowlegeable enough to know which terms are truly industry jargon. OccamzRazor (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I checked the first three bio articles that were questioned for notability. In my view, they do pass the threshold for keeping, though the articles need a lot of work and more references. I took the liberty of removing notability tags from those three articles. Others are welcome to review my changes.
- Reiner Hartenstein looks notable, though the article might be improved.
- The creator of all these articles, who we must assume is Reiner Hartenstein due to the many clues from the user names, may be hard to reach since none of his accounts have edited for many months. Somebody might check the German Wikipedia to see if he is still active there. It can't hurt to add to our coverage of German computer scientists.
- The topic articles seem weaker to me and I bet some of them might be deleted. Computer scientist editors are invited to look them over and give their opinion. If I get some time, I may go through them eventually. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
76.190.176.65
- Tom Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- TKO Radio Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- contributions
IP address whose contributions have been entirely to the Tom Kent and TKO Radio Network articles. In the Tom Kent article, user wrote a rather peacock-like biography, while also removing links to the TKO Radio Network. On the TKO Radio Network article, the user has repeatedly removed any reference to Kent (who founded the network but later left). Strong suspicion that this address is Kent himself or one of his close associates (edited). J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even though this is COIN, we must be careful of WP:OUTING, lets just assume that the address has a strong COI in our discussion, rather than assign a RL identity. MBisanz talk 16:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Duly noted. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
This article, once nominated for deletion for promotional and notability concerns, has for the past few weeks been subject to changes from various IP editors which seem to originate from the subject or an affiliate (see edit summary). After I addressed the COI issue with that IP editor, here, a newly registered user appeared to make the same changes. I've tagged the article with {{COI2}} since I'm quite sure at this point that the article is not promotional (or white-washed), and I've reiterated some of the points to the newly registered editor, here, but I would be very grateful for additional eyes on this. As my revision of the article to provide sourcing and eliminate bias was cited as one of the reasons it was not deleted, I feel a responsibility to prevent its being used for misrepresentation, but as I revised the article I do not wish to give the appearance of ownership issues. Uninvolved feedback and/or reinforcement here as necessary would be very much appreciated. I am very accustomed to dealing with BLP issues, but am far less familiar with COI conflict. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, one more point: Please also note that the edit summaries may be somewhat misleading. Note that the most recent indicates "Removal of inaccurate references", among other concerns, but of the references altered, one has not been removed, only relocated. The others are this article in the Manchester Evening News and an external link to a review in The Mirror. (That EL, frankly, doesn't add much to the article and was only included to help substantiate widespread coverage of the individual. The fact that it is critical of the subject, though, as is the Manchester Evening News link, makes its removal somewhat suspect.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Your actions seem correct to me. There is certainly a recent blaze of activity on this article since May 1st. You left the appropriate queries for the editors who were removing information. If there is any genuine BLP concern they should be able to explain what it is. If we can't get anything coherent out of the reverting editors, another AfD is something to consider. When COI-affected editors continue to revert without discussion we can propose admin action, but we usually wait to see if we can get their attention first. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look. The individual is now discussing his concerns with me, and it may be that this thread has helped him to realize my purpose better. Hopefully, we'll be able to reach a compromise that will make everyone happy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Chad Thibodeaux
- Chad Thibodeaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Subject of this article appears to be the creator and primary contributor of the article. Rtphokie (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
MaxButterchuck
MaxButterchuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This account's only contributions consist of adding mention of the book The Midnight Show: Late Night Cable-TV "guy-flicks" of the 80's to the article of every movie that was reviwed therein. Mike R (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I left a polite notice for this editor. He's on thin ice at this point, but reform is always possible, and is certainly to be hoped for. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- He undid his edits on request. Can we close this? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest with this User's contributions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samanthabox0817. The User has created several articles about photographers, all related to contactpressimages.com, with no sourcing other than links to the photographers' works at that website. I'm concerned about notability for a number of these people, as well as the user's conflict in creating them. Corvus cornixtalk 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Status update: Most of the articles have disappeared, the only one that remains is Olivier Rebbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MER-C 07:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- That one looks reasonable. Corvus cornixtalk 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User:BuffFans/iModerate (edit | [[Talk:User:BuffFans/iModerate|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:BuffFans/iModerate (edit | [[Talk:User:BuffFans/iModerate|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I DIDN'T SIGN THE BOTTOM OF THE PREVIOUS POSTING WITH A TIME AND DATE...THIS ONE IS, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
Editors,
I have been working to put a page on Wikipedia for iModerate Research Technologies. I have written an article that if possible, I would like previewed by you to make sure that I can submit this page to put on a main page and not a sub page. I want to make it clear, yes I do work for iModerate, but in no way am I trying to advertise or exploit this encyclopedia. I want to put up this page for people to read and be able to learn from. An encyclopedia is a book, or in this case a website, that educates people of all ages, and by putting the sub page that I have created up, I feel that I will give people the opportunity to learn more.
I am asking for the editors help because I want to make sure that you feel the same way about this page as I do. If you would please give me feedback on things that you would like see changed, added, or the go ahead to make it a main page. Please respond on my talk page.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing what you have to say.
BuffFans (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just did a quick review and it appears too much like advertising and spam, while it does appear to have 3rd party sources. I just performed a quick cleanup of the reference links so they appear normal - however they are still not completely proper. My viewpoint is this is not yet ready for mainspace as it is and will be PROD for spam. However, I'd be happy to try and copyedit the article tomorrow for you. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just performed an initial copyedit and it looks much better, however I discovered that the company is far less notable than it first appeared. This will need to be address first, please see the article talk page. Input from other editors would also be appreciated. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(u/d) It appears that this article is ready to post to mainspace - other editors, please chime in. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Da Costa's syndrome take #2
- Da Costa's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Posturewriter (talk · contribs)
Can we revisit this one, as it seems unresolved?
The previous discussion is archived here: Posturewriter self-identified [10] as MA Banfield, an author with a known strong interest in a particular "postural compression" theory relating to this and similar conditions. [11] He argued then that we should put this information "back in the box" because he was forced to disclose it during an AFD; I'm not sure this washes, and in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name [12].
The problem is his refusal to act by COI guidelines and his continuing SPA activity on Da Costa's syndrome with edits that, although not explicitly naming his theory, have an ongoing focus on the respiration and chest issues central to this theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder, and IMHO their mere mention in no way hints at his personal theory for explaining them. In fact, from the information provided in the article, I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder
- They may well be; but having a known involvement in advocacy relating to those issues means that COI guidelines should apply: editing with caution and deferring to consensus. I'm not seeing that.
- I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause
- WP:NOR please. (None of the many studies came to this conclusion, and it was common in civilian life too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reading is hard. And no, this is a postwar syndrome. The fact that similar medical problems (e.g. from pesticides or chronic infections) also occur in other situations, does not change that. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest that if you think due caution was not exercised, you provide the diffs to back that up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Compare the text of Da Costa's syndrome with that at Banfield's website References which were used in the development of The Posture Theory, and which are useful in assessing it. For instance:
- Banfield site:
- "In 1951 the fourth edition of his book "Heart Disease" contained a chapter on "Neurocirculatory Asthenia", because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".
- Wikipedia article:
- "In 1951 the fourth edition of Paul Dudley White’s book “Heart Disease” contained a chapter on “Neurocirculatory Asthenia”, because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".
- Problem sufficiently demonstrated? With diffs such as these [13][14][15][16] he's adding large verbatim dumps of material from his own website: not neutral stuff, but summaries of papers selectively collated and commented to support Posture Theory. He's turning the Wikipedia article into an annexe of his own references section, and it needs to stop. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- The added material does, however, not support his theory at all (note that if it did the theory should rightly be mentioned in the article, COI or not). I don't think that there exists a reliable source that does, so there is no danger here. Using the same words to refer to a publication as on his own website is by itself permitted (we can't, but he can). That said, the article, while IMHO neutral enough, could profit from some tidying-up. Some of the references are not fully on-topic, others not very significant, and they are discussed in I think too much detail for Wikipedia purposes. I therefore suggest that you try and improve the article first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I never thought of that...
- But seriously: it's been tried, and he keeps adding the stuff back in. I'd appreciate more opinions: I'm not sure I agree with you that it's no problem for someone with a COI to add material predominantly duplicating their own website. That they appear in this context is reason to have concerns about the neutrality of selection. Is the syndrome largely about respiration and breathlessness (as opposed to, say, pseudo-cardiac symptoms such as chest pain and palpitations) - or does it appear that way because the references are cherry-picked to focus on those aspects? The thing was, after all, called "Soldier's Heart", not "Soldier's Chest".
- But I agree with you whoeleheartedly about the excess of detail, hence the current tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Chest pains and palpitations are the consequences of many respiratory disorders. However, if these references are cherry-picked, it should be easy to find others that say different. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at where Da Costa's Syndrome wound up in ICD-10, it is labelled F45.30. That is part of a section called F40 - F48 NEUROTIC, STRESS-RELATED AND SOMATOFORM DISORDERS. So what exactly is a Somatoform disorder? Our article says
So ICD-10 has bracketed this possible ailment, Da Costa's Syndrome, as what sounds like (to me, a non-doctor) a psychosomatic problem. If you read the diagnostic criteria (from ICD-10) that drills you down to F45.30, it takes you through a bunch of symptoms that are reported by the patient. So this is a far cry from the original American Civil War ailment, and it still appears to be a catch-all for stuff that is not well understood. So there is apparently no pill to take for Da Costa's Syndrome. Our current article, I think, makes it sound too much like a real, tangible disease. I think the view of the disease in Paul Dudley White's 1951 book is extremely dated. That material should either be taken out or labelled historical. The lead of our current Da Costa's syndrome article I think needs to be rewritten to present this as more of a historical item. At a minimum it should track the ICD-10 understanding of the phenomenon more directly. The rules of WP:MEDRS should be applied to the sourcing of this article. I hope when the article is finished most of its references will be post-1980. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Somatoform disorder (also known as Briquet's syndrome) is characterized by physical symptoms that mimic disease or injury for which there is no identifiable physical cause...
- A Wikipedia article is never finished. :)
- As I understand it, this diagnosis is not used anymore, it has been replaced with one that on first sight seems to be close: 'neurocirculatory asthenia', a diagnosis that is not restricted to post-war. That diagnosis presently also falls under F45.3. However, the basis for this classification as well as for the replacement is very thin. It is, by its definition, not possible to prove that someone suffers from a somatoform disorder (or even that such disorders really exist), and there is a long and expanding range of known physical causes of the exact same symptoms. Now, one logically expects that diagnoses will be reclassified away from somatoform disorders as knowledge progresses and causes are found. For a dead diagnosis this will of course not happen, but it is a good reason not to see the classification as absolute, and rather focus on what research has found. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The added material does, however, not support his theory at all (note that if it did the theory should rightly be mentioned in the article, COI or not). I don't think that there exists a reliable source that does, so there is no danger here. Using the same words to refer to a publication as on his own website is by itself permitted (we can't, but he can). That said, the article, while IMHO neutral enough, could profit from some tidying-up. Some of the references are not fully on-topic, others not very significant, and they are discussed in I think too much detail for Wikipedia purposes. I therefore suggest that you try and improve the article first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reading is hard. And no, this is a postwar syndrome. The fact that similar medical problems (e.g. from pesticides or chronic infections) also occur in other situations, does not change that. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest that if you think due caution was not exercised, you provide the diffs to back that up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(Undent) I've been off Wiki for a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started when I made major changes to the history section on Da Costa's syndrome yesterday. You can find the contested version at this link.
Yes, I believe that User:Posturewriter's primary, if not sole, interest in Wikipedia is for the opportunity to promote his pet theory about how the body works (or doesn't work). He finds a parallel to his idea in Da Costa syndrome and hangs his idea on that peg. This is his hobby; he doubtless believes his ideas are accurate; he wants to help sufferers around the world by sharing his knowledge. That's all very noble, but completely inappropriate for Wikipedia: it is definitely original research.
I think it is particularly important to note that Posturewriter's first edits to Da Costa's syndrome were six days after The posture theory, which is his actual theory, was deleted through AfD for being non-notable (e.g., "promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general"). Over the last six months, he's tried to turn Da Costa's syndrome into a dumping ground for the non-notable original research that was originally stuck in The posture theory and deleted after the AfD discussion. (The author is the only editor who opposed the deletion.)
Since then, I and other editors have repeatedly discussed our concerns on the article's talk page. Three editors have left five separate requests on his talk page that he not use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting his own ideas. We have asked for help in removing his original research, or to stop adding information that tends to promote his personal ideas, but he has generally declined, opposed, or ignored these requests. We have removed sections, only to have them reappear, or to be replaced with even longer lists of tangentially connected publications.
Just about any publication that has similar keywords, BTW, and doesn't directly contradict his idea is likely to be included as support. N.B. that PubMed lists only 12 papers since 1951 that actually mention "Da Costa's syndrome" by name -- and some of those merely mention it in passing (e.g., PMID 15274499), or only to claim that it is really some other disease (e.g., PMID 3395533 for hyperventilation) -- so available evidence for any side of this story is rather thin. As for cherry-picking: he lists a BMJ (Heart) paper that discusses the history of the syndrome, but skips the letter published in response that says it's all a bunch of garbage. The general belief among those who "believe in" DCS is that it's a familial/genetic tendency, probably anxiety-oriented, with no physical/mechanical/postural/cardiac component at all. If you will read the last paragraph of this paper (by a "true believer" in DCS, although not someone who believes that there is any postural component), and ask yourself what sighing respiration indicates, you will probably have an excellent understanding of the actual condition.
I'm pretty much at the "give up" level with this editor. I do not think that Posturewriter has an interest in contributing anything to Wikipedia other than his original research. I've even given up on him figuring out simple things, such as the fact that I removed his favorite bold text formatting from the article (a direct violation of the Manual of Style) purposefully, instead of accidentally.
Overall, I think the practical solution is to settle on a version of the article that basically works for all of the other editors, and then steadily revert any addition of original research by Posturewriter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- An assumption that it is a form of hyperventilation is also original research, so be careful not to replace one with another. Edits should always be based on consensus, and original research should always be removed. I see no need to single out one editor in this manner, just focus on the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Guido, that is spoken like someone who has not been doing exactly that -- repeatedly, exhaustingly, and frustratingly -- for the last six months in this article. Note, please, these uncontested facts:
- The editor has a conflict of interest: he has published and is trying to sell a book based on his WP:FRINGEy interpretation of this phenomenon.
- The editor is using Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting the interpretation in his book.
- The editor has proven repeatedly unwilling (or unable) to restrain himself from adding his personal OR to this article.
- Guido, that is spoken like someone who has not been doing exactly that -- repeatedly, exhaustingly, and frustratingly -- for the last six months in this article. Note, please, these uncontested facts:
- Your solution is, in effect, "y'all play nice now, y'hear?"
- If that were possible, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. If the editor in question was willing to work towards a consensus, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. If the editor in question would quit adding his original ideas to this article, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. Pablum about not including original research and working together for a consensus has not solved this problem.
- The editor's repeated actions are consistently opposed to both the spirit and the letter of many WP policies and guidelines. We are "singling out" this editor because this editor refuses to follow your advice on original research and consensus. Educating him about the nature of Wikipedia has proven ineffective. He does not want to stop it. He wants to use Wikipedia to promote his original ideas.
- The question is no longer how we can all contribute happiness and joy to the project. Now the question is, how do we force him stop adding his original ideas to this article?
- I think what I would like out of the COI process is an agreement that this editor will not add any information to that article. (Suggestions on the talk page are fine with me.) I am open to other suggestions. I am not open to spending the next year deleting original research from a stubborn editor with a clear-cut conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care what he may have done half a year ago. He does not need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding any original research to the article now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Break
User:WhatamIdoing, if you think admin action is needed, it is good to provide diffs showing that the COI-affected editor is actively obstructing progress toward a better article. In fact, User:Posturewriter has only edited the article twice during the month of May, and he does participate on Talk at least occasionally. There are several editors active in this COI report who should be able to review any changes. If you have ideas for improvement of the article, just start making them and see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- As you know, mere participation in talk page discussions is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia's editing standards. Yes: here's Posturewriter saying he'd be "happy to abbreviate my theory to one paragraph of plain text if required" (emphasis added) -- a clear admission of WP:OR and WP:COI -- and discussing "the fitness programme at the SA Fitness Institute" that he designed and included in the article.
- However, the talk page discussions and user talk page discussions have no perceptible impact on what he actually does in the articles. This situation is like the son who says, "Yes, Father, I'll go work in the vineyard today," (Matthew 21:28-31) but never shows for work.
- I think we can all agree that describing your own clinical research in an article, complete with reference to a newspaper article about yourself is a clear-cut violation of WP:COI. Of course, the first time could have been an innocent mistake, but sticking it back in there after it's been deleted it according to the agreement of every independent editor who has looked at his additions cannot be construed as an unknowing mistake, especially since he's been repeatedly warned on his talk page and elsewhere about WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO concerns.
- Note that this same diff is also an WP:OR problem: he declares that DCS is a Chronic fatigue syndrome, with no reference. He has attempted to promote his theory in other articles as well, although the account's edits (and the identifiable anon) since December have been confined to this single article.
- Here's Posturewriter's very first edit to this article, in which he adds an external link to his own website. Paper copies of his book are only AU$64.50, by the way. Here's Posturewriter deleting the Category:Anxiety disorders designation, which is a mainstream classification that contradicts his personal view. Here's Posturewriter re-casting the first sentence so that it doesn't mention the mainstream view that DCS is an anxiety-related condition. Here's Posturewriter deleting anxiety-related conditions from the ==Related== articles section.
- Here's Posturewriter starting his blow-by-blow description of practically every paper that mentions the general subject without directly contradicting his personal views, including adding tangential information to explain his private views, despite nearly every word on both the article's talk page and his user talk being a request for him to stop drowning this article in references that tend to promote his idea. He's not violating these normal rules because he wants to violate them; he's just doing every possible thing he can to promote his particular view. His Truth™ simply is much more important than, say, how Wikipedia operates, or its reputation.
- Other editors have repeatedly removed or deleted the most egregious violations, and tried to condense the rest. Note that when his personal opinions are deleted under WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, he sometimes just undoes the "invalid deletion" or otherwise restores the material later. Because of that, I don't know how long I can expect my most recent de-crufting to last.
- Honestly, I don't see any possible interpretation here except that we have a single-purpose account that has been dedicated to promoting his own personal research conclusions in this article for the last six months, and in other articles before then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Based on the diffs given by WhatamIdoing, I left an admin warning for User:Posturewriter. If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive editing. Others are welcome to give their advice on how to handle this case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
EdJohnston; I have seen your comments on my talk page, and would like the right of reply to the comments on this COI issue number 2, which in the past week has amounted to 4468 words by five editors, including yourself as administrator, and one in favor, and three against, spread over this page, the Da Costa discussion page, and my talk page. I wanted to respond earlier but each time I started a new criticism appeared so I decided to wait until something consistent was reached, particularly when you inserted the subtitle ‘Break’. Could you please give me a few days to complete a response before making any final decisions. In the meantime I thought that the previous COI discussion was resolved in my favor given that no-one responded to my three final comments when they had the opportunity. [17]Posturewriter (talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Judging from the diffs provided above by WhatamIdoing, you are not in fact following the Conflict of Interest guideline. If you would completely refrain from editing the article you would be in the clear, but it seems you won't follow that advice. You continue to add material to the article that promotes your off-Wikipedia interests. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see nothing in his recent contributions that is related to his personal theory. Most of these diffs are ancient. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to, but I'm going to have to call WP:COI on this one. Guido has known COI issues - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder - and strong connections with an advocacy group denying the possibility of psychological origins for syndromes in this area (User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging). See my comments at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome. [18] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Brian Sherwin
- Brian Sherwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Roodhouse (talk · contribs)
- Roodhouse1 (talk · contribs)
Username and edit pattern suggesting COI. Roodhouse1 created the article for Brian Sherwin, senior editor at myartspace; put unusual effort into defending it when it went to AFD; and has focused since on adding various links and material re Sherwin interviews at the myartspace blog (e.g. [19],[20],[21],[22],[23]). Oddly enough, Brian Sherwin lives in Roodhouse, IL [24]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- myartspace.com: 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
Adsense pub-5626493247304372
Also:
- Ellarabble (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)
- Bskiba (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)
Links should probably be removed per WP:ELNO #11. (Don't you just love the pun?) MER-C 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- My bio of Sherwin was posted in good faith just as the bios for Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene will be (I will also include supporting links to artists they have reviewed on those artist bios). I'm the type of person to finish one project before moving on to the next so yes I added interviews and text to artists who Sherwin had interviewed because those interviews are some of the most current for those respected artists. Several of those artist bios lack citations. So it made since to use Sherwin's interviews in that way. If you go to my talk page you will see that I'm very interested in helping to add more art related content to wikipedia. The Sherwin bio was my first article and I was defensive because it was removed without a debate at first and I was new to how wikipedia works. Would have been nice if you had sent me a note about this and why did you not mention anything on the talk page? (Roodhouse1 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC))
- Probably because I'm not nice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt here. Roodhouse1 said he had previously added other non-myartspace ELs (presumably as an anon). It's an easy way for a new editor to start contributing, even if not the most desirable way. Roodhouse1 stated earlier he was only delayed from moving onto other articles by the AfD discussion. He has now made edits on other subjects and other AfDs (prior to the COIN post above), and has other articles in preparation. I have encouraged him to use the myartspace interviews as refs, not just EL, and he is now doing this. In fact, I've just noticed I used at least one interview as a ref myself, back in January on Gary Farrelly. It is a strong interview series on a professional web site with editorial control (the "blog" is an editorially-contributed part of the site, and not a "blog" as normally defined). I wouldn't like to see a wholesale reversion of the links, as at least some of them I've checked out provide unique additional information to the article. Ty 04:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because I'm not nice. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Mark Thompson (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This articel has been substantially written by a user whose name is the same as the subject, and the tone of the articel sounds rather partial. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Article tagged, and user notified -- plus username is currently WP:UAA Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary McHale
- Gary McHale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CaledoniaWakeupCall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GaryMcHale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing what appears to be an uncited puff piece about himself (if one presumes these two users are the same, it looks likely). An anonymous IP, 76.64.66.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted an anonymous "letter" attempting to prove notability. That smells enough that a checkuser may be in order. Blowdart | talk 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- It appears that this is being monitored by a few other editors, and the page has been appropriately tagged and user notified. Regarding the checkuser, there is nothing technically wrong with not logging in to edit a page, unless you are trying to avoid a block or some other administrative action, which doesn't appear to have taken place...yet... Tiggerjay (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Ernest G. McClain
- Ernest G. McClain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - See this edit. It appears somebody with a conflict of interest has expanded this article at the behest of the family. --SharkfaceT/C 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Pat Muldowney
This Comment explains the addition of <no wiki>COI|2</no wiki> tag to the article Killings at Coolacrease. The person at issue is User:Pat Muldowney who has explained his motive for the article. He is a newbie who identified himself from the outset and, has addressed the requirements of WP:COI as and when he has been made aware of them. A tag certainly does not apply regarding Citing oneself; Financial; Legal antagonists; Self-promotion; Autobiography ;Close relationships; Promotional article production on behalf of clients. He has self advertised his complaint about a TV documentary on the subject. Is this is considered a campaign and, if so, does not Muldowney's aim coincide with that of Wikipedia?. An AfD polled 8:2 Keep by non Single Purpose Accounts (but obviously consensus is important and this was not achieved). 82.36.178.185 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
ArtInfo and User: JPLei
JPLei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The user has, without exception, used artinfo.com as the source for all his sourcing. As some warners have said, it seems to be a not-so-subtle way of linking the art info website when any other source could be used. I'm not entirely sure of its standing as a reliable source either, but it doesn't appear to be a bad source. I can't find concrete proof of COI, but my radar is going off. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Most if not all of the contributons from this editor, back to their first edit, have revolved around adding simply enough information to require a cite/ref to the ArtInfo website. I have inquired about this on their userpage. While it is not against policy to have a single purpose account, it does call into question possible COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- artinfo.com: 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
I don't know about COI, but it's unquestionably spam. We've had similar cases before of citation spam. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)