Wikipedia:COIN

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:COIN is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Contents


Edits made by user with username redirecting to page

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

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

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

Texas Tech University Press is advertising on Wikipedia

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

  • In no way were we trying to simply advertise our books. We felt that Wikipedia would be a good place to list reliable references for anybody interested in a particular field. However, we will be more careful about this in the future. Sorry. TTUP (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Your excuse seems disingenuous to me, given the fact that you're only adding references to your own employer's product line. This is evidence enough of spam advertising. If your employer's books turn out to be useful, they will be added in due course by other editors without your efforts.Verklempt (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

http://spam.ttup.ttu.edu

Account: TTUP (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • what links to user page • count COIBot • search an, ani, cn, an3 • user page logs • x-wiki • status • LinkWatcher search • Google)

Indian Society for Trenchless Technology

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

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

If a COI-affected editor creates an article that is informative, neutral and well-sourced we usually don't mind. The problem is that such an editor is more likely to write a promotional and unbalanced article. That's what seems to have happened here. I suggest that you nominate this article for WP:AFD. We already have an article on Trenchless technology that seems worthwhile, but this Indian Society does not seem to have inspired any full-length articles in any reliable sources. It's notability can't be shown. When I Googled I only saw a few passing mentions, and one press release. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Added WP:PROD. Since the creator of the article has been recently active, we will soon know if he can come up with any reliable sources. User:Niranjanswarup has been notified of this WP:COIN discussion but has not yet responded. I agree that the promotional nature of his User page is also a concern. If he responds here we can discuss that with him as well. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear All, First I would like to mention that the remarks on the page had asked that if I was the creator of this page I should not take offence and edit the text to address the concerns and remove the deletion notice. Was the webmaster required to edit that comment & I understood it incorrectly? I am sorry if that is the case. Regarding the promotional nature as has been indicated, it is clarified hat Indian Society for Trenchless Technology is a not-for-profit organization promoting Trenchless Technology in India. There are numorous Trechless projects under execution in India presently. Government of India is executing a complete project mission titled Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM) which is using Trenchless in a major way in 63 cities across India. Total proposed investment in this mission is exceeding US$ 28 billion. (http://jnnurm.nic.in/) In addition the Gas Transmission and distribution company GAIL India Limited is Investing US$ 50 billion in major pipelines. (http://www.gail.nic.in/homepage/homenew.htm) In addition to these there are several other oil & gas companies developing their infrastructure where they require such technology. Telecom sector is another user sector where a major investment is being made. To verify the need one can google jnnurm/jnurm or 'trenchless in India'. The results would speak for themselves. With such huge demand it is natural that WP should provide information about Indian Society for Trenchless Technology to its visitor.(Niranjanswarup) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Really you should find press accounts of these activities that you can add to the article. If we don't see legitimate references there, the article may wind up being deleted. Even if trenchless technology is being used, according to your personal knowledge, we need to see an extremely specific URL so that it can be confirmed. A web site like http://jnnurm.nic.in is not very persuasive unless you tell us what page to look at. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Russ Nelson

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

Though I think Damiens might be removing too much, he is correct that online biographies don't carry much weight unless they are published by a reliable source. According to our Wikipedia policies, Russ Nelson is in fact a COI-affected editor, while Damiens is not. If the argument is that Damiens is going against normal article policy, Russ should wait for the assistance of other uninvolved editors rather than reverting Damiens.
Another concern is that there is not much sourced information to show the notability of Russ Nelson. Since he's played a long-time role in the open source movement, he has probably done more in actuality than what this article manages to say.
The stuff about the reason for Russ Nelson leaving the presidency of OSI seems excessive; it could be summarized more briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

I agree with that .... but Damiens initiated this edit war by removing text. I think the text should remain until someone less emotionally involved than himself can edit the article. People have a bias against the unseen, so if Damiens removal is allowed to remain, it's likely to carry the day, and I think that, given his non-neutral edits (who removes three citations neutrally??), the text in question should remain for someone else to judge. The current state of affairs is that he hasn't removed the citations, so maybe he's seen the light? RussNelson (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO some blogs should be considered reputable sources. I have not looked at internaut.com, so I have no opinion as to how reputable it is. But I am absolutely mystified how anyone could claim, in good faith, that an O'Reilly book is not a reputable source. Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the O'Reilly book should be cited. My own concern is that the statements attributed to the O'Reilly source may not be backed up there, so it's not exactly a reference. E.g. to serve as evidence for the statement that he has been making his living from Open Source since the days of Freemacs. There is no independent third-party confirmation of that, from an article authored by Russ Nelson in an O'Reilly collection. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if someone would ask Damiens.rf to stop removing this text and its citations, for the reasons I stated above. He simply REFUSES to abide by my request that someone else do this edit, and he CONTINUES to edit my pages even though he has an obvious (non-neutral) interest in my work. There are plenty of pages on wikipedia that need editing. The fact that he obsesses on me says that he should not edit the page describing me. I think this is within my rights to ask. RussNelson (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

There's no such thing as a "notable editor". There is, indeed, information attributable to reliable, verifiable, independent sources. --Damiens.rf 04:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Russ, I am most disturbed by your failure to understand our policies, your sense of ownership, and your personal attacks, like this edit summary:
That's way over the top. You are the subject of the article, hence YOU are the one who has a COI. Just because Damiens.rf apparently has an editorial conflict with you doesn't mean (s)he has a COI in the Wikipedia sense, as described here.
You have simply fallen victim to Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences:
Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences

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

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.
You need to calm down and explain things dispassionately at the talk page. If you aren't getting anywhere, maybe you don't understand our policies, so refrain from editing the actual article and seek help. Your edit warring and abuse of other editors (in this case Damiens.rf) will only get you into trouble. You are the one at a disadvantage here, except if you have a serious WP:BLP issue. Then you would need to share your concerns at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Fyslee / talk 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I've explained things dispassionately. I understand that Damiens.rf a priori has no COI. I'm explaining that the evidence shows that he has developed an interest and cannot edit neutrally. There are plenty of Wikipedia editors and plenty of Wikipedia articles. I don't understand the lack of support I'm getting here. Why NOT suggest that Damiens.rf NOT make edits to my bio page? RussNelson (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Because that's not how things work here. You have no right to make such demands of other editors, but he might make such demands of you if your COI is interfering with you ability to neutrally edit the article, simply because you are the one with the COI. Of course he can't do that without getting support from some admins who can be convinced that the article needs protection from you, and that might be hard to get. Now if Damiens.rf breaks the rules here, then in some situations a topic block or article block can be used to protect the article, but that isn't the case here, or at least "yet". Until then you'll have to learn to hammer out a consensus together, or you'll have to seek more help. -- Fyslee / talk 04:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What amount of evidence is needed to show that an editor has gained a level of interest in an article such that they can no longer edit neutrally? I can't be the only person with a stalker following him around and changing his edits. RussNelson (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Good question. Since you have the COI, look in the mirror and ask it.
You have also just accused a fellow editor of stalking and that can get you in trouble for making an uncivil personal attack, if that editor makes a formal complaint. That's multiple (but usually combined) policy violations at one time. Be more careful and assume good faith. If the charge is really true, you'd better have watertight evidence of bad faith and real wiki-stalking. I think it's good you have stopped editing the article and are confining your activities to suggestions on the talk page, but keep them civil. For example, this edit summary isn't good at all!:
Get outside help from admins (not canvassing) if you need it. This happens to be a good place to do it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
One thing that would help here is a return to WP:AGF and a little patience with each other. RussNelson is obviously familiar with WP:COI and trying to abide by it, but that doesn’t mean he’s equally familiar with WP:V, WP:RS and any other policies and guidelines that may apply to this situation. Accordingly, Damien.rf might make the extra effort to further explain why one of Russ’ posts is problematic and cordially guide him to the relevant guideline so he can become better informed about it. I’ve been editing here two years and there’s lots I still don’t know simply because I haven’t yet had to deal with them – so no matter how long anyone has been active on Wikipedia, there’s always some aspect of it were still newbies about, and WP:BITE still applies. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent advice. Now play nice with each other. No more personal attacks. Figure out the rules and abide by them. -- Fyslee / talk 05:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:AGF is a starting point, where you assume that someone is editing in good faith even though you think their edits are wrong. I believe that that assumption is refuted by the facts of Damiens.rf's editing of pages I've edited. I also simply do not believe that when two editors have had a conflict, that one editor should be able to get revenge on the other by editing his bio page and insisting that every Wikipedia policy be followed to the letter in spite of WP:IAR. That's something that should be against Wikipedia policy. Maybe it doesn't happen often, but it's happening in this case. Damiens.rf has even admitted to stalking me over to Freemacs, and he didn't edit my bio until THREE DAYS after an edit disagreement at Eric S. Raymond. I've only stopped editing my bio page because it's clear to me that 1) Damiens.rf will continue to edit it and 2) Y'all won't stop him. His obsession scares me. Did you see him asking me for a photo? Creepy! RussNelson (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to be following your own advice about AGF. Once an editor has edited across from another editor, their edits will often begin to appear in the editor's watchlist, and that's not wikistalking. He will naturally hold an eye on your actions, just as you do his, and as he does on the articles you have edited, and that too is accepted here. There is no such thing as private editing here. Your actions here are a matter of public record. Asking for a picture in this manner is perfectly normal, since we like to illustrate our articles. It's good you removed your outing, as that can get you banned in short order. Leave any conflicts with this or other editors at the door to Wikipedia. Don't bring them here. -- Fyslee / talk 19:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Russ, you’ve been around the internet long enough to appreciate that it’s a limited form of communication in which motives and intentions are easily misread by presumption simply due to the lack of intonation and body language cues – that's one of the main reasons we have WP:AGF. FWIW, my recommendation would be that you both take a deep breath, forgive and – if not forget – ignore. Maybe later you can both sit down and enjoy a cup of tea over it, having recognized it for the mistaken impression it (probably) really is. If you really can’t come to terms, the more appropriate place to take your issue is to Requests for comment, as this is not really a COI issue at all. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Just one comment. I didn't stalk you over to Freemacs, neither have I admitted doing so. Following the "admitted" link you provided, one can read my response about how I did reach that article: "There's a link from this article to the freemacs one, and that's probably how I got there." --Damiens.rf 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well, then since we're back to assuming good faith, then how about restoring the text you deleted from my bio page? Cuz I'm sure that you didn't mean to delete something with three reasonable citations -- one of which is a published interview with me from 1994 written by Dr. Bernie Aboba (which you mistakenly called a blog -- but I'm assuming good faith, so I'm sure it's an honest mistake on your part). It appears to be a blog because the webzine (Internaut.com) at which it was originally published was decommissioned. But of course you wouldn't know that, so it was a perfectly good faith deletion for you to make. But now that you know better -- and you have no undue interest in me and are editing neutrally, you'll restore the removed text. Right? RussNelson (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nelson. I happy we're back to teamwork editing, and sorry if I failed to put myself gently in any prior occasion. About that published interview with you from 1994, I sincerely don't believe it classifies as a reliable source, at least not for the information you tried to source: the piece of the article that said "He has been making a living from Open Source support ever since then". This is so because that website/webzine doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking. Indeed, the text makes no attempt to endorse what is said on the interview. It's just a copy of whatever you told them so, even written in the first person. The text is explicitly labeled "Russ Nelson, as told to Bernard Aboba" (sic). It may be ok for a webzine to publish what you say about yourself, but Wikipedia is not interested in an article "Russ Nelson, as told to Wikipedia", that would be your version about your life and achievements. That's why we have policies requiring independent sources and some etiquette about writing articles about oneself.
Please, understand that this is not to say that you an unreliable person. Or that you're known to lie at iterviews and the like. This is really not about you, but about Wikipedia's reputation. Anybody can edit the articles here, and we're one of the most visited websites in the Internet. Without that rules, we would be too vulnerable to self-promotion attacks (we're already a being targeted). I hope you understand it all. If not, please just let me know. --Damiens.rf 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this edit summary from you, that may indicate I'm still failing to get my message to you. I wholeheartedly repeat, this is not about you, Russ. Saying you're not about a reliable source about yourself is not the same as calling you a liar. --Damiens.rf 14:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
You know nothing about the Religious Society of Friends, do you? Members of the RSoF in fact ARE reliable sources about themselves. If they aren't, they won't be members of the RSoF for long. If you doubt that, then you should go to the member's meeting (in this case Ottawa Monthly Meeting, and lay out your case for the person's unreliability, and ask for a Committee of Concern. If in fact, I have said anything which is not true, then I WILL BE KICKED OUT OF MY MEETING. THEY WILL DISOWN ME. This is a fate far, far worse than any benefit I might gain from misrepresentation. RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Okay, so we now have this dispute narrowed down to actually being a reliable sources issue. May I suggest you bring your particular points up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where this may best be resolved. And please keep up the AGF. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, I still maintain that there is a problem with Wikipedia's COI policy. A and B have a fight, A has a bio page, B goes and edits in a picayune manner, B has a conflict of interest, A has NO recourse at all. The policy should say that if A and B have a conflict over an edit, then B should refrain from editing A's bio page. There's millions of pages; why should B be editing A's page? No reason to allow it. I expect that AT VERY LEAST, ONE PERSON should have ALREADY said to Damiens.rf "Don't edit Russ Nelson -- it's a WP:COI for you to be editing his bio three days after having a fight with him over Eric S. Raymond." Can you see how I would feel this is wicked unfair? Can you see how this breaks the assumption of good faith? RussNelson (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Your definition of "interest" here is at odds with that covered by WP:COI. An "interest" is typically a real-world advantage so some kind. Were damiens.rf a business competitor seeking to diminish your community standing in order to gain a competitive advantage in some market, that would be a WP:COI: "annoying Russ Nelson" is not an "interest" of this sort. Furthermore, I should note that damiens.rf's edits to Eric S. Raymond were of exactly the same nature as his edits to Russ Nelson (removing sources not established as reliable), so it would appear evident that this isn't about you so much as it is about damiens.rf's notions of notability in biographies of free software personalities. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hguols and Diadem of Maunstraut

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

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

Cimbali

Resolved. per Travellingcari ArakunemTalk 16:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Casella Waste Systems

Resolved. per below ArakunemTalk 16:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

User:Metznblitz and Merchant Empires

Resolved. Article speedied as below ArakunemTalk 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Well i am not the creator of this game but a player since 2000 actually playing it
I am not an admin of this game and / or forum game, just an old player helping to
create an guide for new players at wiki document and
well seems that i dont got "lucky" trying get an article about this game here as is
Ogame article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metznblitz (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Article has been speedily deleted per G12 (blatant copyright infringement). MuZemike (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Christopher George Kennedy

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

Possible PR campaign to be investigated

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

COI on sensitive issues and articles for the American Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This accusation has very little bases in reality. I have several articles on my watchlist to which JimWae and North Shoreman are regular contributors. Rather than inserting POV into the articles, what I've seen in their edits would more accurately be characterized as insisting on reliable sources for dubious assertions. Because they occasionally deal with some other editors with hard-core POVs, the discussions are sometimes contentious. One small indication of the real bases for the accusation can be seen in the phrase Grayghost01 used here: was first alerted to this quite awhile back with an out-of-the-blue edit to my Winchester in the American Civil War page. (emphasis added). Seems the problem may be more mistaken sense of ownership. older ≠ wiser 09:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
You will need to dig a bit deeper on this one. "Ownership" of the article is not the issue at hand, and I have zero issues with contributions from all wiki contributors. Like the majority of us I, too, "watch" pages I've created or contributed to, mainly to help monitor either vandalism or contributions which need fixing up, or checking for quality. The issue is that the American Civil War envokes strong feelings and POV's. I was first attracted to Wiki when reading on this topic. Back then, much to my dismay, I found serious POV problems in some of the articles. As a former professional military instructor, I have extensive experience writing curriculum, including Civil War topics for the USMC. I understand thoroughly the difference between historical documentation, analysis, and facts, compared to "blogging" that I've seen in some of these articles. The aforementioned users, without a doubt, have some good contributions to Wiki. However, they have a natural conflict of interest, and their obsession on editing articles which cover Confederate topics in particular has led to the banning of well known historical facts, which just so happen to conflict with their POV. Generally, they have a view of only allowing reference to historians with either a Northern view of the war, or a view in alignement with their POV. So, in the name of good reference work, a POV or conflict of interest can be easily meted out, all very disguised. I have asked these folks to be a little less hardlined in their POV, given their COI, but to no avail. Finally, the moniker "gray ghost" is within the bounds of individuality allowed by wiki, and keeping with proper respect for diversity. Similar monikers such as "north shoreman" are veined in the same way. Seeing how that point has alluded the commenters here, shows the systemic nature of only seeing things one way. In conclusion, references such as the famous "Confederate Military History" or "Make Me a Map of the Valley" are valid historical references, and within the bounds of what wiki allows. The attempt to disclude these and others, by the aforementioned users, is, indeed, a COI and POV issue. Thank you. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If one reads Grayghost's user page, one can begin to see that it is HIS agenda that is the problem, and it is his stated agenda there that is evidence of any conflict of interest. He wants to insert Confederate POV as fact in articles, & it is HE who wants others to abandon further edits to the article. He does not understand that articles are co-operative projects, & that articles on the Confederacy do not "belong to" its sympathizers. Other editors have repeatedly remarked that the date he wants to insert could very well find a place in the article, but each time he inserts it, he includes as purported fact other material that is clearly Confederate POV, while ignoring mention that the process of "secession" in Arizona on that date was simply a convention held by Confederate sympathizers who had not yet held any vote throughout the territory (thus, even less "process" than the other "secessions"). He repeatedly inserts claims that states seceded BECAUSE the North had "invaded" the South - which is not only unsourced editorial comment but flies in the face of the facts that they "seceded" before any movement of federal troops took place. --JimWae (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I wish to add the remark here that the complainant did not do me the courtesy of notifying me that he had posted any complaint anywhere --JimWae (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how any editing on Civil War articles can be a conflict of interest, unless someone is promoting a book, article, etc. Corvus cornixtalk 19:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The Russia-Georgia analogy falls totally apart -- Virgina is very clearly part of the United States. What you actually have is two Americans who spend a great deal of their time editing articles relating to arguably the most significant event in American history -- the Civil War. The professional historians working on the subject do not limt themselves to working only on matters within their own section and neither should wikipedia editors.
Despite the fact that this is clearly a content issue, Grayghost has repeatedly accused the two subjects of this complaint to charges of vandalism such as this [2], this [3], this [4], and this [5]. Like the frivolous vandalism charges, this complaint is equally frivolous. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy with his putting two user names on this talk page with the wording "Users with POV Violations, for further documenting:"

User:HughTheA4AndFriends and Hugh The A4 and friends

HughTheA4AndFriends (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Hugh The A4 and friends (|talk|history|links|watch|