Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 73

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of IEC standards

IEC standards lose copyright protection if incorporated in or referred to by statute. I've had all my attempts to note this reverted. CoI: the IEC fears lost revenue if folks know and therefore buy the standards less. A long-dormant newbie account re-reverted my flagging of the apparent CoI. I'm at a loss for how to proceed. Elvey (talk) 01:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, from what I can see in the article history and talk page, you seem to want the article to include an external link to a website that provides downloads of material that is claimed to be copyright. Per WP:COPYLINK, we cannot do this if the material is copyright. Regardless of any CoI, you need to establish that that the link is legitimate under Wikipedia policy - which will involve providing something more than your own interpretation of US law. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) I seek consensus on the appropriateness of the {{COI}}. Which users should I notify of this notice?--Elvey (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Andy, do you realize you are questioning the legitimacy of Carl Malamud's Public.resource.org? And that first edit to it (reverted) had nothing to do with any external links? I have RfD'd inappropriate state copyright templates; see PD-MDGov.

--Elvey (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that Public.resource.org is beyond having the copyright status of their material question. In fact, right now the front page of their Yes We Scan project is giving forewarning of their plans to reproduce certain materials with arguments that are not based in whether the material is under copyright. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
If someone with a conflict of interest is acting to protect Wikipedia by removing links to copyright violations from the encyclopedia, then I don't care what their motivation is, honestly. -- Atama頭 16:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The CoI claim is hardly credible anyway - the contributor named above has edited the article once, reverting the addition of a CoI tag with the edit summary "No explanation of alleged COI and no tag on talk page". Which was factually correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Concur. There's no sign put forth of this person or any of the editors of that page having a COI that would justify either Elvey's tag or the discussion here; this just looks like someone who, failing to get consensus, is shopping for a more supportive venue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Tom Libous biased editors

Several editors on this page have clear conflicts of interests in editing Tom Libous' page. Please block both of these users and lock down the page from their edits.

This has to include some of the lamest editing conflicts I've ever seen, and that's saying a lot. There was even a very brief edit war over the word "the" on the article. -- Atama頭 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Masisak

I have recently handled ticket:2014040910018977 and as a result have approved a good portrait for this article and briefly discussed conflict of interest with the correspondent, Glenn Hirsch, who also raised the same request publicly on the Commons Help Desk. Hirsch has been editing the article for several years in good faith, but is an employee in Masisak's company. In my view the article is not deliberately promotional, but it would be worth having an independent review to assess if this has introduced any issues making it non-neutral.

Could someone please help continue to advise Glenn on how he should declare and manage his conflict of interest? --Fæ (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments on Timothy M. Carney

I have spent the past few days re-developing the BLP article on Amb. Tim Carney. I know Amb. Carney, although we have not had material contact in over a decade now. But the existing biographical sketch was painfully thin on facts about his career that are in my view material and relevant in the context of current history of U.S. diplomacy. I have no conflict of interest with the former ambassador (no business interests, no personal interests, no familial relations and no material contact for over ten years since we first authored one article together). I do however admire greatly the work he has done and felt his life should be more fully explained in the context of encyclopedic entries.

You may find a old vs. new differential review here: [1]. I have done my level best to maintain WP:NPOV standards. This is my first article re-write, so I am interested in feedback of editors and administrators to the re-development. I am posting this message here to give the re-write visibility. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems much better. I'm curious as to why you've removed the things you did. There's no longer any reference to 2007, 1992, or his work as Head of the Interagency Election Support Team in Kabul.
@Elvey: Your point is well-made and I am correcting this oversight in the article now. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

David Bergstein

The editor has consistently added "positive" content to the article. His preferred tactic is to take statement from Bergstein and his lawyers and present them as objective facts. He often overstates things too: two (out of fourteen) creditors in the bankruptcy case against Bergstein have their claims dismissed, and this ends up being presented as "all bankruptcy claims" have been dismissed. The editor focuses exclusively on this article and has barely any interests beyond it. Another editor has already expressed a concern about COI this editor seems to have by adding a template to Talk:David Bergstein. Literally every addition by this editor has had to be "neutralized" and I don't think his involvement has a positive impact on the article. As for myself, I am neither a "paid" editor not have any particular interest in the subject; I only became involved after a request for assistance at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason why TRPoD assumed a COI was because of this image which was uploaded by LevilRowe with the claim that they were the one who took the photo. It's possible that they simply found the photo somewhere and lied about being the person who took it, or it's possible that they have some kind of access to the article subject, enough to take a photo, but not enough to establish a solid "connection" to the subject. We've had editors who were professional photographers add original images of article subjects that they were effectively unaffiliated with, so the image itself doesn't conclusively establish a COI, but it does at least raise the suspicion of one. What I find more concerning than any COI is that the editor seems to be misrepresenting sources, and exaggerating within article text. And they haven't responded to any communication; they use edit summaries but haven't participated in any talk page discussions (article talk pages, user talk pages, or other) and simply blanked their own user talk page. (Blanking the user talk page is an implied acknowledgement that they've read all of the messages left for them, but they still have yet to respond). This is all troubling behavior, COI or no COI. -- Atama頭 20:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The likely hood of a conflict of interest was not only that they had uploaded a picture, but also because the picture taken by LevilRowe seems to have the background of a private plane- indicating that the photographer was inside an airport security barrier on the tarmac with the subject (not just some candid image snagged by a photographer who happened to see Bergstein at the local K-mart and snapped an image), PLUS the SPA focus, PLUS the relentless promotional editing , PLUS the history of COI editing by socks on that article and related pages.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, joy, another business exec COI involving bankruptcies and business failures. Those are complicated and take a lot of work. His producer credits check with IMDB, so at least that's OK. John Nagle (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has just been whitewashed again by another editor whose editing history is predominantly focused on this article: [2]. Betty Logan (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've left a level 2 warning for MaxJTracy. Blanking out sections of sourced text with no edit summaries, replacing it with unsourced info, all on a BLP is a big no-no. -- Atama頭 15:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
You have just been full reverted by a third SPA. I don't know know what to do about this. I think temporary full protection is the only solution here because it looks like these accounts are going to keep popping up and whitewashing the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm tempted to take this to SPI. There's also the possibility that they are meatpuppets. There seems to be some kind of coordination going on... LevilRowe blanks their userpage, and appears to withdraw from editing just for MaxJTracy to show up. After MaxJTracy's unexplained content removal is reverted, Amytecko shows up to reinstate it. Very suspicious. -- Atama頭 16:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
SPI is a good suggestion; it will at least let us know whether we are dealing with one editor or a team of them, so I started an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amytecko. It is also worth noting that one of SPA's has requested full protection for the article at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_increase_in_protection_level. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP and is being used as an attack page. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page . . . high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States." Here the article is being used to defame the BLP subject. There is original research and lack of NPOV. "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Strongly suggest making this about the BLP. I have requested that the page have full protection. Also, I am not a sock or meat puppet but I am trying to prevent this BLP from being used to harm the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amytecko (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be blanking vast portions of the article without explaining adequately why. Your edit history primarily consists of edits to this article, and you staunchly resist using the talk page or any other fashion other than edit warring to induce your points. It is incredibly frustrating to see that you negate even to read the BLP policy. Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them with {db-attack}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or in bad faith, is grounds for immediate blocking. They are reliably sourced information, and are written with a Neutral point of view. Also see WP:CRYBLP, specifically, Take special care that all prongs of the BLP policy, as currently written, are met before invoking its powers to ignore 3RR: if an objectionable statement has a reliable source, it cannot be removed repeatedly without regard to the edit warring policy. Ging287 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Amytecko: Yes, removal of sourced information on a BLP and replacing it with unsourced information, without explanation, is a blockable offense. I'd like to ask what connection you have to the other two editors currently working to whitewash the article, LevilRowe and MaxJTracy. -- Atama頭 17:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

LUK3. Revision vandalism/revision spamming of important time sensitive edits on HEARTBLEED BUG page.

Repeated abuse, followed by abuse of admin privs to silence/censor key time sensitive topic and support his POV/version. ( ? non-neutral POV/NSA ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing unsourced stub sections is neither abusive nor indicative of a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim Gordon

I'm concerned by a pattern of editing on this article which appears to be consistent with a violation of Wikipedia's rules against paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing.

The editor in question dramatically expanded the article early this year, including the addition of extensive policy-noncompliant "link farm" sections such as "ProQuest Articles", directly offlinking to an extensive directory of news articles about the topic in the ProQuest database (complete with the proviso that "Most database subscriptions are purchased by public or academic libraries who in turn provide access to individuals. If your computer is configured to access your local library resources remotely, you may be able to get in using the links below. If you are unable to access ProQuest articles through the links below, please contact your local library for assistance" — which is exactly why we don't do such article sections in the first place), and "Further related reading", directly offlinking to many individual press releases on the city's own website that had his name in them, even if they had precious little to do with anything particularly noteworthy or encyclopedic (e.g. "Mayor addresses Chamber of Commerce luncheon" and "Housing starts up by 53%").

As well, the article contained numerous neutral point of view violations, and frequently digressed into fairly irrelevant discussion of tangential topics that didn't require such extensive detail in Gordon's article (example paragraph: "The Northern Ontario School of Medicine is truly innovative in its make-up,[15] with 91% of its students coming from Northern Ontario with the remaining 9% coming from rural and remote parts of the rest of Canada. Of the students, 7% are Aboriginal and 22% are Francophone. Clinical education takes place in over 70 communities so that the students experience the diversity of cultures in Northern Ontario. Of the 166 Medical Doctor graduates since 2009, 104 (63%) have chosen family medicine (predominately rural) training. (Dr. Roger Strasser, Northern Ontario School of Medicine Achievement Summary, March 2012)."). Almost none of that content is relevant to Gordon himself; it might merit mention in Northern Ontario School of Medicine, which Gordon's article could legitimately link to, but it's excessive and irrelevant detail when added directly to Gordon's article itself.

So I subsequently made some revisions for policy and formatting compliance and relevance, although I left the bulk of the genuinely substantive content in place — some of the content was good, don't get me wrong — but today she reverted the article back to her preferred POV/linkfarming version without explanation.

What triggers my COI sense much more strongly, however, is the fact that the editor also uploaded two images for use in the article — both were deleted the first time as inconsistent with Wikipedia's image policies, but were reuploaded today with the same problematic fair use rationales — one of which, File:Sudbury Mayor Jim Gordon.jpg, contains the following copyright permission statement: "Al Gilbert, on behalf of Gilbert Studios, hereby gives permission for James (Jim) Gordon to use the portrait that I took of him for whatever purpose is required, e.g. his Wikipedia page; various self promotional purposes etc. I can be reached at the studio at 416 923 1995 if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely -Al Gilbert, CM".

While trying to respect the proscription against "outing" editors, I need to note that the editor's username does match the name of someone who is identified on a professional social networking site as a public relations consultant living in the same city as the article topic. I can't speak to whether she was paid to do this or volunteered, but it's fairly clear that the overall intention was to turn our article into a public relations profile instead of a properly neutral encyclopedia article. Not all of the additions were without merit, certainly — some of it certainly does make the article better than it was, but some of it was also pushing into PR territory and there's a pattern here of trying to reimpose the PRified version over the encyclopedic one. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party

This user has admitted to being a member of the party. Katieh5584 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is already an open thread at ANI. There are more accounts/socks than this one involved in the promotion. - Sitush (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines for Org articles

I've been working on and off on a guideline for pages about organizations located at user:CorporateM/Extant Organizations. Our guideline for medical articles focuses on sourcing and our policy for people on respecting their reputation. The page I authored for org-pages is focused on WP:NOT (not advertising, not a forum, not a collection of trivial information, not a directory, etc.) It would help provide guidance on issues that are often the subject of arguments or RfCs on these pages, like trivial awards and lawsuits. It may also help in COI situations by providing more definitive guidelines for what is promotional or coatrack (editors sometimes disagree on whether to remove awards added by a COI for example)

Because I have a COI with a large number of company pages, I was hoping somebody else would take an interest in the project (user:DESiegel showed some interest), but since nobody has taken enough interest to push it forward, I've kept hammering away at it. I feel it would be too controversial for me to push for it as a guideline - I was wondering if it would be problematic for me to post it as an essay (or use Request Edit?), like I have done in the past for WP:COIMICRO (an essay I created largely for personal use to explain why I abstain from trivial discussions that don't benefit from my involvement.) CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on Robin Raphel

I have today inserted a re-developed article for Robin Raphel, whose stages of re-development can be tracked at [3]. The original article was poorly sourced, highly biased and did not meet WP:NPOV standards on any count. The original article was also incomplete in terms of the significance of work done by Amb. Raphel when a careful read of her achievements and controversies is undertaken. Her work and the controversies it generated throughout the past three decades is covered by numerous books, at least three of which I cited in referencing the article. I do not know Ms. Raphel personally, so there is no conflict of interest issue. But I know the history of the period during which she served in critical posts during the mid-1990s, and having been involved integrally in the activities of that period where it related to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir and India as a private American citizen. As such, I believed my background and knowledge could assist to re-develop the article to a better standard of encyclopedic entry. I welcome any editorial comments and your review of the work done here in this Discussion panel section, or at my talk page. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yank Berry, round 2.

Round 1: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Yank_Barry_.2F_Gogvc

Relevant accounts: (all new, all SPAs, possible sockpuppets)

More COI at Yank Barry. See recent edits by new editor Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs), who has rather narrow editing interests - Yank Barry articles and links only. There's also new dummy account Megavox (talk · contribs), which is used by Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) as a staging area for the Yank Barry article. The page User:Megavox is a Yank Barry article. There's also new editor Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs), which edits only the Yank Barry article, and was reverted by ClueBot. Last time around, the edits of interest to Yank Berry came from Gogvc (talk · contribs), now blocked. Suggest sockpuppet check. Maybe blocks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've gotten directly involved in the article so I can't use my administrative tools as an involved editor. But I concur that there are shenanigans going on. I'm trying to assume best intentions, and I left a note at Accurateinfo973's talk page asking them to join the discussion at the article rather than removing huge amounts of sourced material and inserting trivia (like Nobel Prize nominations which aren't worth noting on any article, it's not difficult to be nominated). I've reverted them twice, and they have still not responded to my requests to talk.
I believe that Accurateinfo973 is the same editor as Megavox... Their first edits on that account were to further develop the Yank Berry biography on Megavox's user page. -- Atama頭 20:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, we need help from an uninvolved admin. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
And now I've been accused of having a COI. This seems like someone protesting far too much. Were I not involved, I would have blocked this editor for being an SPA clearly here to promote Barry, but in this matter I can't act in an administrative role. I'm tempted to take this matter to ANI, which is a shame because I dislike taking issues there. -- Atama頭 00:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already alerted everyone who has been previously involved in this, but to prevent parallel discussions from occurring I'd like to point out that I opened a thread at ANI as I'd suggested I might. As I said, I think assistance from an uninvolved admin is urgently needed and I'm afraid that is the fastest way to get that help. -- Atama頭 16:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sluggish cognitive tempo

This was brought to my attention through this NY Times article. The editor in question's name matches this clinical psychologist who has published prominently on this topic. The article discusses how some are concerned with whether the condition is valid. According to the NY Times article, Russell Barkley also has a financial standing in the general acceptance of this condition in his relation to the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and his own publications:

Dr. Barkley, who has said that “S.C.T. is a newly recognized disorder,” also has financial ties to Eli Lilly; he received $118,000 from 2009 to 2012 for consulting and speaking engagements, according to propublica.org. While detailing sluggish cognitive tempo in The Journal of Psychiatric Practice, Dr. Barkley stated that Strattera’s performance on sluggish cognitive tempo symptoms was “an exciting finding.” Dr. Barkley has also published a symptom checklist for mental health professionals to identify adults with the condition; the forms are available for $131.75 apiece from Guilford Press, which funds some of his research.

In March 2012 and February 2014, the editor made substantive changes to the article:

  • Removing the phrase "SCT is not recognized in any standard medical manuals" and replacing it with comparisons to ADHD.
  • Adding in promotional and questionably reliable sources such as this paid online course curriculum
  • Added in several journal articles and books he has authored or co-authored.
  • Removes information about why symptoms consistent with condition were removed from the DSM III.
  • This edit includes more articles from Barkley, and highlights increasing use of the term: "For instance, the January 2014 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology devotes an entire special section to recent research studies of SCT." It also, for no stated reason, removes the entire section of detailing the condition and its relationship to the DSM.
  • This edit making an speculative claim about the condition in existing literature without a corroborating source.
  • This edit makes additional speculation on the origin of the term.

The edits above are complex, and some additions appear to be constructive. However, given the financial interests Barkley appears to have related to this disorder, the excessive insertions of his work, and the unexplained removals and additions of speculative content, these edits do not seem consistent with our policies on self citation and paid advocacy. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note, I added {{connected contributor}} to both Talk:Russell Barkley (which he also edited once) and Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo. I also added a short note to the latter talk page. Superm401 - Talk 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I guess we should not assume this is the person, or that he is not editing in good faith. To what extent is his work peer-reviewed and published in generally reliable sources? Perhaps he only needs to be reminded that making suggestions on the talk page of the article might be more appropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
^reminded^told in the first place -- Newcomers are often completely unaware of the Wikipedia's COI non-policy. Jehochman Talk 17:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
Ok, let's compose a polite note and tell him. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First, let me say that Alan Schwarz's article is highly misleading both when he says that I refused to discuss my financial interests with him (I refused to be interviewed by him - period). It is precisely for this sort of highly biased writing in this and his previous articles on ADHD as well as his use of innuendo to distort or bias readers that I declined to be interviewed by him. It is most interesting that he then chooses to present this as a refusal to discuss a financial interest (about which he never asked me) rather than my outright refusal to be interviewed about anything with him. He also misrepresents my royalties from my rating scales claiming that I receive $131 for each rating scale when that is patently false. Guilford Press, the publisher of that scale, receives that income. I am paid a rather small percentage as a royalty out of that amount, as is typical of publishing books and scales in this field. I am pleased to note I was in good company as other researchers in this area also refused to be interviewed by this highly biased journalist.

Second, I fail to see any conflict of interest in my editing of this topic on SCT. Yes, I do speak for various pharmaceutical companies. This is widely known, is mentioned at the opening slide in any professional presentations I give, and is acknowledged in my peer reviewed publications. I also speak for a variety of universities, hospitals, associations, conferences, etc. each year for which I am customarily paid an honorarium. These, too, are acknowledged in all of my presentations. I also have written CE courses on the internet for which I receive a small royalty, none of which are on this topic. The fact that I occasionally speak at pharmaceutical company sponsored events is also posted at the various pharmaceutical company websites as part of their efforts at transparency and public disclosure of relationships with scientists. So any innuendo here that my compensated activities are somehow not disclosed is without merit. No pharmaceutical company has any medication on the market that is FDA approved for treating SCT. And that is because SCT is not an officially recognized clinical diagnosis (as yet) by the American Psychiatric Association or any other professional association to my knowledge. It is a relatively newly discovered condition that is receiving increasing research in psychology and psychiatry. So just where here is that financial conflict of interest represented? I am not paid by any drug company to speak on SCT and no such company has any product FDA-approved for it from which they derive any income. So there is no conflict of interest. I have received no payments for any of my articles on this topic either. Moreover, the fact that I receive a small royalty for my adult ADHD rating scale that contains a small set of items clinicians can begin to use to screen for this possible condition hardly rises to the level of a conflict of interest. The scale is marketed as an ADHD rating scale, of which there are many on the market as well. No one here has provided any evidence of a financial conflict of interest and that is because there is none. To imply otherwise here is to permeate a falsehood.

As a leading researcher and writer in this area, in editing this page I was attempting to convey the current status of this field, as was also reflected in my review of this topic published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology in January. That is all that was intended here. Anyone else knowledgeable of this scientific literature is free to correct any statements I have made here about the condition, providing appropriate references for their editing, of course. But accusations of any conflicts of interest with my editing of this topic have no basis in fact. Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellBarkley (talk • contribs) 17:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RussellBarkley - Thanks for responding to our concerns regarding a potential COI here. I realize there are outstanding issues you have noted on Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo. I want to restrict this discussion to whether you have a conflict of interest, by our definition, in making contributions to this article. I acknowledge that your intentions here were not malicious or with intent to promote yourself, and that you simply wanted to update the information in the article based on more current research.
However, by your own admission, you have said that you earn royalties for a scale that screens for this condition. Furthermore, while the CE courses may not include content related to SCT, you nonetheless have said you are given royalties for them as well, which you used to cite information in the article in this edit. The fact that these royalties are small or that you have already disclosed them publicly is immaterial. You are also are a prominent researcher on this particular topic, and your closeness to the topic is also somewhat of a concern; conflicts on interest on Wikipedia are not defined simply by financial ties. Given all this, while your expertise has obviously brought a lot of useful content to the article, I ask that you restrict your edits on SCT to Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo to voice your concerns and suggestions about ways we can improve the article. That way, we can make article improvements consistent with our policies on Wikipedia. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SherborneArchives reported

SherborneArchives (talk · contribs) is a new "corporate identity" page, which has just started putting in numerous links, some malformed, to local information regarding topics of Sherborne interest. Choor monster (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Choor monster - perhaps you could direct them to get in touch with Wikimedia UK? I work for them in my day job and we would be able to offer advice on how best to go about helping Wikipedia without breaking rules/policies etc. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Better you than me! I tend towards blunt and gruff, and I figured there would be people here who can do it right. Choor monster (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The explaination above is a bit confusing. SherborneArchives seems to be link spamming, but much of what they're doing relates to edits made last year by Sherborne Archivist (talk · contribs). See [4][5]. The links they are adding are mostly changes from a dead link to the archives of Sherborne School to a site run by alumni which does mention the archives, although it doesn't have them on line. What they're doing seems well-intentioned, although not well done. The school itself, a very old-line British boarding school founded in 1550, is clearly notable. The school has its own article, Sherborne School, which reads like a brochure. I suggest engaging the editor involved on talk.
There's a more serious problem. Most of Sherborne School is a copyvio from [6]. That copyvio was introduced by SherborneSchool (talk · contribs) [7]. The effect was to replace some negative information about the school's illegal involvment with a price-fixing cartel. The replacement was a cut and paste from the school's own brochure. That edit, made last year, was the only edit, ever, by that user. John Nagle (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to see what's going on. There's some disagreement over what the article should contain. The school itself is trying to present a more modern image; their current web site says "A unique education, in a unique location. That’s what it takes to produce men of distinction, ready to live in the complex world of the twenty-first century." The "old boys" have a site of their own, [8], all about the Good Old Days. There may be a very slow motion edit war going on. Anyway, all those account names beginning with Sherborne violate Wikipedia user name policy WP:ISU. John Nagle (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Character_theory_(Media)

I went to the disputed article today to look up my own character theory and saw it was removed on 10 March 2014. I believe the edit to be in bad faith. I feel it best to report in here to avoid an edit war and conflict of interest. The user who removed the article says it should be removed because it was in not from a peer reviewed source. In fact it has been published in numerous sources, including the Statute Law review, which is a 4* to 5* journal. Another character theory on the page - by Richard Bartle - is not from a peer reviewed source, which makes it appear even more so a bad faith edit. As a former politician and prospective parliamentary candidate and the fact this person from their past edits seems to have different political priorities to me, this may reflect their attitude towards me. Would I be able to edit the article to revert the edit that removed it and provide an additional citations to the character theory? --Jonathan Bishop (talk)

You of have a genuine conflict of interest when it comes to adding or restoring material to an article that propogates your own theories. As such, the more appropriate thing to do is for you to post your suggested additions/restorations to the talk page of the article, and leave it to other editors to judge whether the content is appropriate for the page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Lokalkosmopolit and far-right, racist groups

Not a COI issue, editor has been indefinitely blocked for misconduct. -- Atama頭 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lokalkosmopolit has engaged in various edits relating to controversial political matters. At Rotherham sex grooming case he altered the source, the BBC, from Asian to Muslim: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rotherham_sex_grooming_case&diff=604256660&oldid=603344659 despite the fact the BBC and an British Asian MP described the perpetrators as 'Asian', not 'Muslim'. Yet on his userpage, he has a box stating 'This user supports the EDL (links to English Defense League, ironically spelt in American English) in their fight for human rights and against islamization of Britain.'

This user supports the EDL in their fight for human rights and against islamization of Britain.

He has also spoken against Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Centre) - again he appears to be letting his views get in the way. The EDL is described on Wikipedia as 'Islamaphobic', 'Far-right', 'Anti-Muslim' as is associated with violence. LordFixit (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now discovered further evidence of a serious conflict of interest. User:Lokalkosmopolit removed an academically sourced statement from UK Independence Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_Independence_Party&diff=603466978&oldid=603449249 and posted on the talkpage: 'I see attempts by some users to defame the party as 'far-right'. This is marginal minority view and does not belong in the infobox. The idea that a libertarian (!) party could also be 'far-right' just reveals how insane the PC mafia have gone in their hopeless defense of Anjem Choudary, the communist UAF (Unite Against Fascism, not a communist group, supported by Conservative Party Leader) and the holy Sharia.

According to their logic every individual who does not preach white guilt, does not hate their own fatherland and does not promote the idea that the hideous cult that calls for death to apostates, 'adulterous' women and homosexuals is the height of progress - that he is 'far-right' for opposing all that - well, that view does not belong in an encyclopedia'. The user also posted 'Long story short: typical Wikipedia 'progressive'/PC/far-left agenda pushing as we see it everywhere.' and again accused people of acting in bad faith. LordFixit (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of Islam related bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caroline_Lucas&diff=603437816&oldid=599783858

  • Changed 'Asian' men to 'Muslim' men at another article concerning sex grooming

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Cryer&diff=prev&oldid=603356969 LordFixit (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: I have no conflict of interest. I'm not a Brit, I'm not a EDL member, never even been to the UK. So, no. As for the content disputed here: ″Asian″ to refer to 100% Muslim perpetrators is unacceptable, it smears Hindus and Sikhs, as explained by their representatives: [9]. I quote from the very article:

Hindu and Sikh groups have objected to media use of "Asian" description saying that the culprits were "almost always of Pakistani origin" and Muslim. They contend that clouding the issue by calling them "Asians" is unfair towards other Asians and is detrimental to a frank discussion

It's an example of PC going mad, where innocent minority groups get smeared for what they didn't do. We must be very sensitive in such matters.
As for UKIP, then this says it all: a small group of ideologically minded agitators (I'm calling them the 'PC mafia') is out to smear any group that remotely criticizes political correctness, Islamization or mass immigration. Some other groups they smear on Wikipedia, such as Party for Freedom or English Defense League may be more controversial, however, the attempt to slander even UKIP as 'far-right' (basically Nazi association), just reveals who has an agenda other than NPOV here. Not surprising that at least this battle of the long PC crusade received a decisive response from a wide range of users ([10]). As you see from the title, it connects me with 'far-right and racist groups' and the editor brings up UKIP later (ergo: UKIP is 'far-right racist'). Really telling. Lokalkosmopolit (talk)
You are an open supporter of the English Defence League a violent, racist group widely condemned and disliked in the UK. (74% believe it is racist, 85% would never join:http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/sunder-katwala/what-do-british-people-think-of-english-defence-league and 61% believe it stirs up hatred and increases risk of violence and terror attacks) Just because you have never been to the United Kingdom does not mean you don't have a conflict of interest. What about your vandalism of Caroline Lucas? The sources described the men as 'Asian' (Pakistan is in Asia!) - you altered the source. UKIP was not being 'slandered' - several reliable, academic sources describe UKIP as being a far-right party. Certainly not libertarian given its political positions on LGBT rights, drugs, banning the Burqa, etc. LordFixit (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Some smear the EDL as far-right or even racist, others like the atheist activist Pat Condell deny this: Not a whiff of racism or fascism and not a whiff of far right politics of any kind.
They are clearly not PC, that's true, but “Have the EDL ever crashed planes into buildings? Have they bombed trains and busses in London? Did they try to behead a young man in the street for wearing a shirt supporting help for injured servicemen? Have they groomed young girls en masse?″ (quote of one EDL supporter). As for UKIP and their position on LGBT issues, I'm a member of the LGBT community myself and see no threat from UKIP on this matter, at least not anything remotely as serious as from the sharia law groups of Britain. You must really have a terrible mess in your thoughts if you think that UKIP dangers your rights as a homosexual man whilst islamic hate preachers of the UAF are paragons of tolerance to homosexuals. Think about it, mate. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not about my personal views about Islam or UKIP. It is about reliable sources and conflicts of interests. You have removed several sourced pieces of text with reliable academic sources to suit your own personal viewpoints, which you are certainly entitled to and which are perfectly legitimate and understandable. The point is separating your personal views from Wikipedia articles about things that you feel passionate about LordFixit (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a bit confusing because of indents but I will point out that when Lokalkosmopolit quote " the atheist activist Pat Condell" as denying the EDL is racist that is at best disingenuous at best - either Lokalkosmopolit knows nothing about Condell or he is portraying this right wing racist in a very false light. Our article on Condell doesn't completely ignore his politics but confines itself to statements such as "Condell has spoken favourably of Geert Wilders. I don't think that Lokalkosmopolit has a COI, but I do think that at best he struggles with editing in an NPOV fashion and has frequently let his politics get in the way of his editing. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Editors, please remember that wp:BLP applies to talk pages! not just articlespace. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Calling Pat Condell a 'racist' is a BLP violation. No serious sources describe him as such. He is not known for writing on topics such as ethnicities or races. He is best known as an atheist activist, just like I described him. He's anti-Catholic and he's anti-Islam. This doesn't make him a racist. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You're missing the point, clearly. You just described him in terms that still violate BLP. What you, I, or anyone else here thinks of him is irrelevant. Any such statement must be accurately and directly attributed to a published reliable source. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"I don't think that Lokalkosmopolit has a COI, but I do think that at best he struggles with editing in an NPOV fashion and has frequently let his politics get in the way of his editing." Dougweller hits the nail on the head. This is not remotely a COI issue. There may be conduct issues with the editor, the editor may have strong opinions that hinder being able to edit neutrally, but that is not a conflict of interest as our guideline defines it. This isn't an issue for this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
He's been blocked indefinitely, although of course he plans to appeal. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ADC Bioscientific

I am concerned about the editing by IPs/accounts associated with the company ADC Bioscientific. The editing focus of the IP address 213.123.202.173 (talk · contribs) which is registered to ADC Bioscientific and several accounts including Steveadcuk (talk · contribs), Quantify Stress (talk · contribs), and Zoe Stanyon (talk · contribs), involves adding content related to ADC products and their use. Articles involved are Photorespiration, Integrated fluorometer, Plant stress measurement, ‎Plant tissue test, ‎Soil respiration, Chlorophyll fluorescence, Chlorophyll, Fertilizer, Integrated Carbon Observation System, Carbon cycle, ADC Bioscientific, and perhaps others. This has been ongoing for many years. A few warnings related to the promotion and COI have been left for these users, but the activity has been going on unabated for so long at so many articles that I think it will take a number of editors to sort this out. Any help would be appreciated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some overlap between images uploaded by Stevedcuk (talk · contribs) and promotional material from ADC. Compare File:SRS1000 being used to measure soil respiration in the field..jpg with page 16 of [11]. The Wikipedia image is listed as taken by the uploader, and the image in the brocure is from ADC. But this may well be legitimate. The general edit pattern seems to be to add pictures of ADC instruments to relevant articles. This is kind of promotional, but then, it's hard to get someone to go out and photograph an integrated fluorometer and give the picture to Wikipedia. (I've been trying to get someone to photograph a common industrial 3-phase synchronous motor, to replace the century-old public domain image we have now.) Over at Plant_tissue_test, though, promotional links for ADC instruments were inserted. They're not the only manufacturer. See, for example, [12], a lower-cost alternative. So I put in references to three brands. Someone else might want to take a look at the other articles. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right that this has been going on for a long time. I came across Zoe Stanyon (talk · contribs) back in 2011 and hoped that they were editing in good faith, but the continued edits by employees of the company suggests a purposeful intention to spam WP articles. Judging by this most of the links have already been removed, but I think it's time that we added the site to a blacklist to stop future attempts. I haven't had time to look at all the articles in detail, but the content of plant tissue test is worrying as it strongly advocates the use on non-destructive tests of crops (i.e. supporting the use of their products). Articles such as these shouldn't be linking to any product websites and instead need text book references about what the products do and when they should be used. I'd be inclined to remove anything unsourced that these accounts added and examine closely whether anything sourced is given due weight. The photos however are good and so long as the caption is neutral they help readers understand the topics without being overly promotional. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. I don't know enough about agriculture to deal with the question of whether non-destructive testing of leaves is useful to farmers. There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture, but they're not very active. However, we do know that ADC has two or three competitors for most of their instruments, so any article that mentions only ADC should be broadened. John Nagle (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note that Steveadcuk's COI seems to be declared in his username: Steve ADC UK. It's obvious but I thought it's worth pointing out. -- Atama頭 17:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows Media


This is a request for assistance with a user that seems intent on Wikipedia:Gaming the system having name calling and creating personal attacks as a normal part of the users editing technique. The user seems to follow the edits of Codename Lisa As shown here User_talk:Codename_Lisa#This_one_is_fun.21 Codename Lisa clearly is aware of the harassing manner that FleetCommand undertakes.

In most of the tech space the users FleetCommand & Codename Lisa seem to dominate the space, in a manner that leads people into thinking that these two are in some way providing some sort of oversight to these sections of Wikipedia. In the above mentioned article I had inserted some data that I felt was relevant and would improve the wiki, yet it was simply shut down, with nonsense frankly speaking as Codename Lisa claimed that my addition (User_talk:Codename_Lisa#Windows_Media_Guide Windows Media Guide) was a 404 error and made a rude comment in the edit summary. It was totally incorrect I did bring it to the users attention after a bashing and a series of rude and crass interactions with FleetCommand, Codename Lisa deleted the other users comments, relied rationally and the user was in some regard consolatory but the unsavory interaction just pushed me away from editing in that space.

A week or 2 later I posted for consideration a comment to the effect of the fact that Windows Media was a programming group at Microsoft that created the Windows Media products (It really evolved from Netshow) but within 24 hours of my posting the "thought, observation" I was challenged by Codename Lisa who escalated it directly to the request for a 3rd party opinion board. Both users refuse to talk cohesively on the user talk pages, it is more like a HIT and run, each will insult and run.

Having already experienced each of these users enough to see that each of them are clearly Wikipedia:Gaming the system, the use of rude condescending language is in complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Etiquette and if you review the edits of these users it looks like both users seem to enjoy the same rude and demeaning tone, talking down to other users that to a new user would give the impression of authority and domination over edits upon the TECH spaces. FleetCommand has gone as far as to assert WP:OWN that he should be asked before edits are made as he has been here for so long. Yet the user refuses to respond to communication on talk and has digressed to schoolyard name calling "pilot boy" in his posts on public talk pages and restores defamatory statements if removed, yet user hides behind a "I am retired" posted on his pages, as he continues to harass other users. The name calling serves no function and IMHO is simply designed to frustrate others from editing in this area. Even the last post on Codename Lisa Talk Page from FleetCommand seems to confirm that WP:Harassment the users FleetCommand's, main objective. That is a clear conflict of interest with the main objective of Wikipedia.talk→ WPPilot  03:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
This is Codename Lisa. Almost half of what WPPilot says is true. On 14 April 2014, he asked whether it is okay to add something to Windows Media. I replied with ""Hi. Preliminary check: What sources do you have? And does it have an article on Wikipedia?". He replied with a message about COI and how I love to be in control, etc. Well, you know that there no redeeming such discussion after that. I tried to crack a joke to lighten the atmosphere but it only got worse. He eventually ended up hiding my message.
He is also telling the truth about two weeks before. He came to my talk page, asking why I reverted his edit and said it looked like a non-constructive edit; and I tried to show him that unfortunately, it indeed did look like non-constructive edit. Judge for yourself: Compare the Windows Media edit with an edit in Microsoft Cortana article. See how similar in nature they are? The guy who made the Cortana edit is now blocked for posting fake malware websites.
How all this point to COI? I don't know!
As for User:FleetCommand, his long-time colleague User:Jasper Deng has once said that FleetCommand can be both heaven and hell. (Well, he didn't exactly say these words.) But I think WPPilot would have hurt far less if he has spent his time discussing the topic instead of leveling COI, rudeness, OWN and everything else all at once.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
While the partial admissions from Codename Lisa do demonstrate my point, the user seems to conveniently leave out a great deal, and is not in the comparison comparing apples to apples "Microsoft Cortana" was edited by a IP number, that any user can with the click of a mouse see the contributions of. I am not a IP user, I have years of productive and highly valuable photographic contributions and any normal person that edits here would look to at least research the user before calling them a name, ("inventive nonsense without an article. Is this vandalism") as Codename Lisa did in the summary of her first edit, reverting my posting of a Microsoft company website on the page. Codename Lisa claimed that the site I had posted (www.windowsmedia.com) returned a 404 error, that was incorrect, and in fact it now rolls to a MSN site. [13] It is registered to Microsoft. It contains a Microsoft copyright, and if pinged it resolves to, yup Microsoft. After the initial confrontation over that edit, I provided detailed info to source the link and user Codename Lisa told me that I would experience resistance, should I try to make a page about the Windows Media Guide as in the users comments "it is just a TV guide". My personal experience in this space, I felt was valuable.
I did not expect my first interaction with this user, Codename Lisa to be attached to a rather rude comment. 11:19, 27 March 2014‎ Codename Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,302 bytes) (-230)‎ . ("‎Other: rm. inventive nonsense without an article. Is this vandalism?") inline in the articles history. When confronted the user then commenced by talking down to me, by asserting the phrase WE WIKIPEDIAN'S over and over, posing as "All of Wikipedia" and asserting in the tone of comments that Codename Lisa is in somehow in control of editorial content on Wikipedia. I did check user rights and user is not a Admin.
The Windows Media Guide was in fact a part of the Netshow player when it was released. Many ISP, worked hard for many years to be featured in the guide and from the perspective of someone that was a part of the creation of that technology, or for the function of making the Wiki about Windows media correct, it should reflect that. Both Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand have, via insults, & condescending language made it clear that editing in that space will only be under there authority. WP:OWN
Other users have also experienced this same conduct from them;
  • (Tapered (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)): You and Codename Lisa both offer to instruct me in editing, taking a tone of authority. from the history in Fleetcommands talk space. XP Security Issue.
  • Are you working in cahoots with Codename Lisa, as from your history you seem to ignore other users completely in your reversions and meaningless comments that are not even factually correct! Jimthing (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • (cur | prev) 15:16, 17 April 2014‎ Codename Lisa (talk | contribs)‎ . ‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by WPPilot (talk): Hello, Kettle. This is WPPilot. You are black!)
  • If anyone has to ask for permission from anyone, it is you and Codename Lisa who must ask for my permission, "pilot boy". Fleetcommand. Talk:Windows Media 22:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Condescending language, served directly or via line notes in the edit summary comments is in complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Refusal to remove and the subsequent restoration of comments designed to inflame other users is WP:Harassment. Dominating article space (taking a tone of authority), WP:OWN serves no valuable function and would discourage newer users from editing in any space that these users seem to desire to control. If you do detailed reviews of the talk page histories of each user, this is a pattern and it is a pattern that provides a clear conflict of interest WP:COI, to the basic function of Wikipedia by Wikipedia:Gaming the system. talk→ WPPilot  14:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a proverb in my culture: To call the doctor beforehand, lest not get sick. It means a person starts a large-scale effort to frame someone for something before it is revealed that it is in fact himself who had committed said sin. WPPilot is calling the doctor beforehand, lest not get sick.
To make my argument short: All I did was saying "It does not have due weight." WPPilot did not try even one of the avenues of WP:DR. Instead, he just went WP:ALLSOCKS! Fleet Command (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I made every effort to resolve, with the user my personal issues, but, upon review it was clear that a pattern of conduct that was described above has become commonplace with the two users in question. Every interaction with Fleetcommander is packed with insults and I am clearly not alone in my observation. Calling someone a childish name is inexcusable, and to do it as part of your editorial style, as mentioned before only serves to dissuade other users from editing. This user uses a hit and run, plus hides behind "I AM RETIRED" yet demands publicly that he has some right to control these sections of Wikipedia and be offensive to other users as part of his contributions here. talk→ WPPilot  22:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@WPPilot: Just to let you know, a conflict of interest by Wikipedia's definition (in its guideline that you linked to earlier) is identified when an editor's has a real life connection to an article subject, or to something else they are editing about. An editor linking to a personal web site they own has a COI, or an editor who is editing an article about themselves, a friend, or a relative may have a COI. A COI may be identified if someone is editing an article about their employer, or a competitor. And so on. I think what you're trying to establish is what Wikipedia calls disruptive editing, which is a catch-all term for a pattern of behavior that makes it difficult for other editors to contribute to Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But nothing that you've said here even comes close to a COI, and this board isn't the place for this discussion.
However, I won't just say "this isn't COI, go away". I'll try to address this here anyway. To begin with, while Codename Lisa's initial revert at the Windows Media article did not have the best edit summary (hinting that a person's edit was vandalism is a borderline personal attack, though I will say it's borderline at the very worst) it wasn't incorrect. The "see also" section of an article should only contain links to other Wikipedia articles, so you shouldn't have included it there. It may have perhaps gone into an external links section, though that would be a debate to have with other editors if they objected, where you'd need to show how it's relevant to the article. I also don't see the problematic behavior that you're suggesting, with ownership and editors tag-teaming.
Honestly, the most problematic behavior I see here is from you. I'm not trying to attack you here, I've spoken to you before at this noticeboard and at other venues and I believe you mean well, and I know you've made valuable contributions here. But this is what I see... You make an addition to an article, and you're reverted (in a somewhat rude, but not awfully rude manner). You start a discussion on the talk page instead of reverting back, which is good, you're choosing not to edit-war and you're choosing to instead discuss the issue, which I wish more editors would do. But when Codename Lisa asked you a reasonable question (whether there is an article on Wikipedia that can be linked to in the "see also" section, and whether you have sources to back up your assertions) you took on a tone of authority. (I find it odd that you claim that the other editors did so, I mostly see that from you.) You establish your own conflict of interest (an actual COI as Wikipedia defines it) by stating that you worked directly with the Windows Media Group, that you were the best man at the wedding of one of the lead programmers, etc. And you also launched into an attack on Codename Lisa, claiming that she was exhibiting ownership of the article by disagreeing with you, when she was asking perfectly reasonable questions. When TransporterMan refused to give a third opinion because there was no legitimate discussion, since the discussion to that point was "almost entirely about conduct, not content", that was accurate. I've seen you do this before, you have an unfortunate tendency to escalate very quickly what should be a simple discussion about content, and turn it into an indictment about the person(s) you're debating with.
The bottom line is, I think that you were in the wrong here, WPPilot. You're not a bad editor, and I'm not giving you a warning, but I really wish you would not do this in your interactions with others. You're not doing yourself any good. You have to not assume the worst of people. I see Codename Lisa trying to keep things light so as not to escalate matters too far, you seem to have taken it as flippancy which further upset you. You can't do that, you're communicating with people through text only, you can't see their faces to see their intent, which is why we have a guideline to assume that someone means well until you have very solid evidence they don't. I really hope you can take this to heart. -- Atama頭 23:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, This is an anonymous uninvolved observer who was bitten by Codename Lisa some time ago. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that I have observed this pair of users behaving in a similar fashion. Please see the entire sections of the discussions where these users participated on the following pages:

96.253.76.142 (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, I see nothing beyond some mild rudeness in those diffs. This board isn't the place to discuss this anyway, this is for conflicts of interest, not requests for people to be more civil. -- Atama頭 02:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The perceived COI is FC posing as a third opinion to forge consensus when the user has a close connection to CL even if the intent is harassment of CL and others. 96.253.76.142 (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@96.253.76.14: That has nothing to do with our WP:COI guideline. I suggest you read it, because Wikipedia does not define conflicts of interest in the way you think. -- Atama頭 13:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Whac-A-Mole" "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility" - To simply look at the public interactions you see now is to overlook the historical manner that FC uses to harass people and keep them from editing in a area of Wikipedia that needs editors. Both of these editors carefully maintain there talk pages to remove comments that would more adequately provide for review of these users regular conduct. Atama, you are correct that I disclosed FULLY my Conflict of Interest as suggested by WP:COI. I tried to use the talk page to address what I felt needed to be addressed. My experience, as you had pointed out in the past should be considered under WP:EXPERT in this space as you have brought to the boards attention previously. How do you forge a consensus when, as the IP user 96.253.76.142 mentions, these users dominate a space with disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system to keep others from contributing. I was perhaps a bit short with Codename lisa in the last interaction on the WM talk but for the user to escalate it to the 3rd party opinion board, 23 hours after I posted the question, sure looks like that user trying to control the article, and keep my contributions away from it. My comment came after a detailed review of prior edit interactions these two users have had in a rather short time frame with a lot of other contributors, to address this request, based upon my interactions alone, would be an incorrect interpretation of the request. I could care less about the name calling, that's just childish, my concern is the inability to obtain a genuine consensus to contribute valid data to the Tech space in general, or do you propose that we allow them to control that space and continue to drive others away with the condescending, insult filled "Whac A Mole" tag team, editing technique? talk→ WPPilot  04:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@WPPilot: You're wrong. Codename Lisa was properly following our guideline at WP:DR. You two were in a dispute, and she sought an independent third opinion (as opposed to, say, having FleetCommand back her up). The 3rd opinion request failed because you were refusing to even attempt to come to a consensus, you were attacking her. You did the exact wrong thing here. You are supposed to focus on content, not contributors. Why did you bother to make a "detailed review of prior edit interactions" rather than just calmly try to justify the edit you wanted to make? You were the one who had no interest in forming a consensus, again all you did was dig up dirt on the other person and then go on the offensive. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. I've tried to be patient with you, and give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've been showing time and again that you have a battleground mentality antithetical to this project. Again, please stop this behavior, or your editing privileges can be revoked. -- Atama頭 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atama:, @WPPilot: I think both of you might find this soothing: Remember how I compared WPPilot's edit to that of the blocked user in Microsoft Cortana? Well, in Cortana case I gained a little experience that I didn't have back then. So, I present to you: Whois report on WindowsMedia.com Unlike, microsoft-cortana.com, this website is not fake.
Okay, I don't know how would it impact the discussion in Talk:Windows Media because I had requested proof of significance, which is needed anyway and would resolve the genuineness issue as well. But... I thought you might find it soothing. Look, I am sorry if WPPilot took "is this vandalism?" as a rhetorical question. But in my defense it was not a revert; I will never accuse a registered user with vandalism while reverting. (Doing this is always wrong.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
battleground mentality??? You have to be kidding me, most the time I just stop editing in the area of friction. I will do that again and I will simply not contribute to Tech related Wiki's, controlled by the two users mentioned and I will try to simply resort to childish name calling, in the future, Atama. Q: Why did you bother to make a "detailed review of prior edit interactions", I did this after seeing over and over again that the two users like to insult and use abusive language in there dealings with me and other users. Codename Lisa had already made it clear that, if I was to edit this space I would encounter friction. The moment I stepped back, the user followed though on the threat. You have been successful in Driving me away from editing this area. Good Job & Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Be Happy Now: http://vimeo.com/92345954
So I ask you not to attack other editors, but to instead calmly discuss the content issues, and then Codename Lisa even tries to extend an olive branch by conceding that the web site you tried to link to was a valid Microsoft site and apologized for suggesting vandalism on your part. And you instead declare that you've been "driven away". This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about. You can't act this way on Wikipedia, you have to make an effort to collaborate with other editors. -- Atama頭 16:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have NEVER attacked any editor, Atama. If I have been short forgive me. I edit here to relax, this is not relaxing. talk→ WPPilot  18:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not true that you've never attacked another editor, I've seen you do so. But specifically in this case, I mean that you've chosen to discredit the editor and try to bring some sort of sanction against them (a ban, a block) rather than discussing the validity of your edit. This is a pattern of behavior for you. Here are previous examples:
  • 3RR Noticeboard in August 2013: You reported someone for 3RR when nothing of the sort had happened. The discussion here was proceeding normally until you exploded on Paul 012 the exact same way you did on Codename Lisa, making the same ownership accusations and taking a simple dispute personally. You also declared here that Paul had "petty control issues".
  • Admins' Incidents Noticeboard in March of this year: That thread included you accusing Beyond My Ken and alf laylah wa laylah of being sockpuppets, just because they both disagreed with you. BMK did call you an "ass" which was clearly a personal attack and an insult, but this response was way out of proportion, and this legal threat was clearly hyperbolic. That dispute did eventually settle down but your responses inflamed things unnecessarily before it ended.
  • Admins' Incidents Noticeboard again in March: That thread shows you directly attacking another editor per our harassment policy, calling them an asshole which also involved an inappropriate removal of that editor's talk page comments per WP:TPO. By the time I intervened in that incident, you'd withdrawn before anything was settled (just as you've done in this most recent incident). I know that your actions in this incident contributed to driving an editor away from Wikipedia in the midst of legal threats that you'd sent, they haven't edited Wikipedia since.
As I said, this is a pattern with you. You do this over and over again. I've also seen you make positive contributions but the fact is that when you get into a dispute, even a simple one, you can overreact to the extent that discussion is impossible. That is unacceptable behavior. -- Atama頭 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Atama, as I said I will simply not edit in the space controlled by the users in question. It' sailings sailing season so I will find something else to do with my time. Cheers! talk→ WPPilot  22:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"PLEASE Be Happy Now": http://vimeo.com/92345954

Banc De Binary

It appears that this user has a bias against Banc DeBinary and is using Wikipedia as an outlet to bash the company.

Parts of the article are referenced with unreliable sources (sources which are affiliated with the company's competition), and on the article's talk page, the user seems incredibly hostile.

List of difs / statements:

  • [14] - Dif of talk page where the user begins to make false allegations
  • [15] User's contribution log which is focsed soley around Banc De Binary
  • [16] Dif where user first attempts to introduce NADEX into the page about Banc De Binary

There are many more examples, but in my opinion this user is an agent of a competing company attempting to do some very "dirty" marketing via Wikipedia.

BDBJack (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The SEC issued a statement reading "The SEC alleges that Banc de Binary Ltd. has been offering and selling binary options to investors across the U.S. without first registering the securities as required under the federal securities laws. The company has broadly solicited U.S customers by advertising through YouTube videos, spam e-mails, and other Internet-based advertising."[17]. Then the SEC followed up with a lawsuit.[18]. This is a scam. A negative article is appropriate. John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
A section explaining the case with the SEC would suffice, but a "negative" article doesn't seem in line with the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Broad statements such as "this is a scam" also seem rather out of character with Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. BDBJack (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also shut them down in the US.[19] John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
How is that relevant to the fact that the article is written from a non-neutral point of view? It's like saying that because the CEO of NADEX is the chief witness in the CFTC's case against Banc De Binary, we should start writing negative content about NADEX too!

BDBJack (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack (presumably Banc du Binary Jack) is merely the latest in a series of single-purpose accounts dedicated to whitewashing this Israeli company masquerading as a multinational, and hiding behind a Cypriot flag of convenience. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Orangemike:, yes I am an employee of Banc De Binary as noted on my user page and in my user name, however I fail to see how this is relevant to the request to investigate the COI of user HistorianofRecenttimes.BDBJack (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@BDBJack: A few points:
  • No evidence has been presented that even suggests that HistorianofRecenttimes (HoRT) has a COI of any kind. Jack, you may feel that HoRT is biased against the company, but a conflict of interest as Wikipedia defines it is when an editor has a real-life connection to an article subject (positive or negative). You'd have to show that HoRT is working for a competitor, or is a member of an activist group against BDB, or was personally hurt by the bank and wants retribution, or something along those lines. That information has to come from self-disclosure by HoRT, or through an evaluation of the editor's statements and actions, digging up information outside of Wikipedia or speculating on their real-life identity violates WP:OUTING. A bias may lead to violations of WP:NPOV but isn't a COI.
  • You yourself clearly have a COI. This isn't a slam against you, you're very open about it (even your username shows it) which is commendable. But it does mean that you're going to have a pro-BDB bias. That is going to hurt your argument, thought it doesn't invalidate it. A person with a COI making a valid claim of disruption isn't going to be ignored, even if removing the disruption is in favor of your POV.
  • Our neutrality policy does not dictate that every article has to present an article subject neutrally (in that it includes nothing that reflects negatively or positively on the subject, or perfectly balances such information). That's not what its purpose is. We write articles from a neutral point of view. We don't insert our own analysis, we don't try to make judgments as editors. We neutrally present the facts as we can ascertain them from reliable secondary sources. If those facts end up reflecting negatively on the article subject, then the article as a whole may appear to be negative. But it's not our place to try to omit anything that reflects negatively or positively on an article subject, or to try to come up with a balance between negative and positive information. We present what we can verify through sources regardless of how it reflects on the subject. I hope that makes sense. -- Atama頭 17:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atama: Thank you for taking the time to give me a clear and concise explanation about the differences between bias and COI. While I still believe that the user does have a COI due to being from a competing company, I have neither the evidence nor the tools to prove it at this time.BDBJack (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
More on Banc de Binary at [20] Banc de Binary is an "associate" of Spot Option Exchange. There are many other "associates" (Banc de Swiss, etc.), about 20 of them. Their sites all look very similar, because Spot Option Exchange runs them as part of their hosted service. Reliable sources for Spot Option Exchange other than its own site are hard to find, and there's not enough info for a Spot Option Exchange article. Yet that would be the right article to have; their associates/brands/domains/etc properly should be sections in the Spot Options article. John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Various article (science)

Editor creates secondary (niche) articles to promote own work. Articles always include what appears to be some snippets from his own work, but presented as the standard method or even suggested as the better solution (ie. "While Cox and Weeks[8] assume thermal equilibrium, Tanboe[9] uses a more sophisticated thermodynamic model based on numerical solution of the heat equation." link - Tanboe is the paper he is part with). Often references are weak. Work appears to be non significant or average/standard (Not from the experts on the field). Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. I'm not sure about the motives here but the editor should stop promoting his own research and some articles could be deleted, especially in the case of sea ice which has to much articles. I had a discussion recently with him. prokaryotes (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: Subsequently i asked here on the RS noticeboard for more input. prokaryotes (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, this charge deserves a more detailed response, but in the only example you cite: by "sophisticated", I mean "complex" (actually I've just changed it). There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches and I even state when the more complex approach is advantageous. Peteymills (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Peteymills (talk · contribs) FYI, something is screwy with the grammar there. I don't know what you tried to say.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
There are even more articles he created and subsequently added his references, see user page. prokaryotes (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
However, the other articles appear to be either merged or without added references, directly attributed to him, but some at least to team member G. Heygster. prokaryotes (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Have you successfully elicited comment from any other editors at any of these article's talk pages on any of your allegations about Peteymills edits? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
It should be clear that articles mentioned here are used to promote own work and that this isn't an isolated case. Also i noticed that you recently begun to follow my edits, and that by your own admission, you do not intend to read up on particular topics discussed here. Therefore i suggest you start looking into the science at hand or focus on something else. prokaryotes (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
What about the question I politely asked? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Even after years articles draw little attention, possibly because terms are already covered in main articles. Some articles do not have a talk page. I don't see how your question is relevant to the report here. As pointed out, the articles are mostly edited by Peteymills. prokaryotes (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(A) It's a simple question, why can't you just say "No" and then explain as you see it?
(B) Even though I participated in a discussion not mentioned above, suggesting your criticisms are best at article talk or AFD, you didn't ping me. At the risk of someone saying I'm violating AGF, it feels kinda like a stealth WP:FORUMSHOP. Why is this relevant? Because if you're going to attack an editor instead of his edits, you really ought to have Clean hands to avoid the boomerangs.
(C) All that said, I'm only in this because Prokaryotes' contribs make clear he's a passionate climate change editor, and that's my primary area also. I'm participating to try to address process issues as they arise, to try to help smooth the future waters to produce a graceful compliance with WP:ARBCC. It is quite possible all the listed articles should be deleted. I'm not qualified to render an opinion on those technical subjects' articles. I just think we should be talking about the edits, rather than the editor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy, i brought attention to the articles and the specific content parts. I've no idea what all the rules are for you just posted, but to my understanding is your question and everything you posted here so far, irrelevant. Shall we discuss the specific "potentially promotional content" now?? And to answer your question, No, i did not thought the input from other editors from these various articles, since in my opinion it is pretty obvious that there is a COI issue here. prokaryotes (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Since I haven't dealt much with COI, I'll let the regulars respond. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Please point out where i attacked the editor? My intention is not to attack an editor, by no means. I tried to reason with the editor on the talk page linked above, but it wasn't successful. I think it is interesting what he posts but to technical, and sorry but criticizing edits or articles doesn't equals an attack. prokaryotes (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So..... this complaint is actually Plan B, after you got into a content dispute and found it slow going? I think you would be better served reviewing your dispute resolution options but hey, that's just me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So, you make an allegation (suggesting i attacked the editor) and now you claim i didn't followed the options? What is it? Or better yet, focus on something else, since your intervention here is off topic. prokaryotes (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Since you ask, you said in post #1, "Editor creates secondary (niche) articles to promote own work....I'm not sure about the motives here but the editor should stop promoting his own research....". You came here with this complaint after being unsuccessful discussing article edits with him. Usually people take content disputes to WP:DR. So, yeah... looks kinda like a shortcut on a slow going content dispute, at least to me. And I note you haven't got any other eds making similar complaints about either the content or the perceived COI, but at least the regulars here are starting to weight in. Good luck figuring out the dispute resolution things we do. Note to self, WP:DROPTHESTICK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) PS. I am no longer watching this page, so if I should be aware of anything, someone please explicitly ping me, thanks. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk, from the start i cited COI issues based on one particular article, when i later realized that there are many more articles i filed this report. And yes this is exactly the way this is done. There was nothing wrong on my part, concerning the formality of this report, since i tried to reason with the editor on the talk page, but when he showed no interest i saw no reason to further engage in a discussion there. Hopefully you understand this now. prokaryotes (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Prokaryotes: Please help me out here. You're claiming that Peteymills is engaging in self-promotion. But I'm not finding it. You gave a single example, quoting something about a Tanboe paper at Sea ice growth processes. Yet looking at that article (which is pretty static, it has only had 5 edits since 2012) that language doesn't appear anywhere. Even if it did, what is linking this editor to the paper?

Please understand how this noticeboard (and all noticeboards on Wikipedia) work. When you bring an issue to a noticeboard seeking help, you need to prove your case. You can't claim a problem and let others deal with it. Notice how the top of this board states: "Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list." Myself and others who volunteer here have no idea who Peteymills is, and we have no idea what he's done or what disputes he's been involved with. You need to show that. So how did you determine a conflict of interest? What led you to that? Can you show diffs or link to specific discussions (not just pages) that show the editor claiming these works as his own? Do you even have anything with "Peter Mills" as an author? (I checked a few of the articles you linked to and don't see his name attributed in any of the references.)

@Peteymills: Just an FYI, I removed a link on your user page that linked to a Sourceforge page where you are asking for PayPal donations. You're showing a low level of class with what amounts to panhandling on Wikipedia. I understand wanting support for your science work, but seriously, what made you think that Wikipedia would allow you to use your user page to solicit money from people? Your user page is not your personal web page. -- Atama頭 15:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I? I think you're showing a low level of class by removing it. Look, I'm currently not employed by a university or other scientific institution. I'm trying to work as an independent. It's not just editing Wikipedia that I do for free, most of my scientific work is also currently unpaid. I can't run off the ether. Don't you find it hypocritical that Wikipedia regularly canvasses for donation yet somehow expects their editors to work on a strictly volunteer basis? Sorry, but this doesn't fly, at least not in my book. Peteymills (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it so much as hypocrisy that Wikipedia solicits donations from people on the page and doesn't allow others to do it, so much as it is self-serving. I can understand being annoyed by that, but think of it like a department store that won't allow people to pester people for money at their front door, but has charity donation boxes at the registers. The Wikimedia Foundation owns these servers so they reserve the right to do that. We're trying to determine if you're at Wikipedia to be self-serving, and you're really hurting yourself by insisting that you keep a link to a donation page in violation of WP:ELNO. I'm removing it again, if you reinsert it, I will block you, because that is proof that you're not here to improve the project, but to promote yourself. -- Atama頭 16:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Each of the linked articles above has in the reference section of that article page a paper cited, associated with the author/editor and consequently parts of this paper used in the article. The author name is often "P. Mills", or "Petey Mills, or "Peter Mills". If you still want me to list all pages with cites etc please say so, otherwise i think that this is pretty obvious (when you loook at the refs and then the related content, often articles are almost entirely sourced from these references). prokaryotes (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, that was my fault, I'd missed that. In that case, yes the COI is pretty clear. The relevant section of our guideline is at WP:SELFCITE, which says the following:
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.
So yes, in citing himself as a reference, that is a COI. It is definitely not prohibited per our guideline, but should be done with discretion. There are a few things to consider here.
  • Should Mills' works be considered as reliable sources? Our guideline shows how to determine whether or not a scientific work is reliable, at the WP:SCHOLARSHIP section. I have to admit that I'm not well-versed in judging scholarly works for reliability. You could ask for assistance at the reliable sources noticeboard to help make that determination, and to build a consensus either in favor of or disallowing this work for references. It wouldn't be forum-shopping to do so, since I'm making the suggestion myself. :) If these references aren't reliable, then they shouldn't be used on Wikipedia and should be removed. (And this would be done on a case-by-case basis, you won't necessarily say that Mills himself is unreliable, it depends on how each of his works have been received by the scholarly community.)
  • If these works should be considered reliable, then determine if each source is relevant to the article it's included in and if the article relies too heavily on such works. If so, then the sources should be augmented by other sources, and/or replaced with other sources to avoid the appearance of self-promotion by Mills.
  • Finally, if the article body itself seems unduly self-promotional, especially if it is unsourced or poorly-sourced, then it should be given additional scrutiny and promotional language should be modified or removed. If it's determined that Mills is acting mostly to promote himself and his work, he can be sanctioned to include editing restrictions (page bans, revert restrictions) or even a block. Though I don't see a need for any of that at this point.
Of course, if there are articles that just don't meet our inclusion criteria (especially for notability) they should be taken to articles for deletion unless they meet one of the criteria at categories for speedy deletion. -- Atama頭 16:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this now. I will wait a little and then probably will ask at the reliable sources noticeboard for advice. prokaryotes (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed my opinion Edits at Peteymills' user page alerted me to another dimension I had not previously considered, and in light of his defiant attempts to solicit donations on his user page, I suddenly have a very dim view of his position in all this.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
What does this have to do with COI in the articles? The user page is not an article. The two are separate issues and should be treated as such. As for the issue of COI the only reason it is an issue is because I am open: all my work and affiliations are linked to for everyone to see. Many (most?) of the other editors are anonymous so you don't know what conflicts-of-interest they might be hiding. prokaryotes seems to be having a great time gutting all the articles relating to climate change. Is this because he is paid by some conservative think tank? We don't know because his user page is anonymous and his affiliations unknown.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: true objectivity or "neutral-point-of-view" is a fiction. It is not attainable. This is why I keep my affiliations and identity public: so my work is accountable. You can check my work for yourself and see if my methods are sound and my intentions good. Almost all of the software I used to derive the results in my papers are freely available online. You can download it and run it and check the source code. This is the model of science that I'm striving for. What is our source for authority in knowledge? In a world where even "respected" publications consult Wikipedia, and yet Wikipedia claims to have stringent guidelines for "notability" what else can we offer? Check it for yourself. That's the philosophy I'm using here. Peteymills (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
You admitted at your talk page that soliciting money for editing is more important to you than improving article content. Good bye. PS, as for Prokaryotes (talk · contribs) I disagree with a lot of his wordsmithing and a fair bit of technical nuance, but I'm laughing at the inane suggestion his personal POV is anything other than hawkish on climate.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Peteymills, being open is one thing, putting up many small articles on sea ice and adding to each of them your own work is something different. I'm willing to discuss with you edits i made (ask on talk page) but we need to bring more balance into the different articles from you or maybe merge some of them, and we need to add or modify content so that it is understandable to a broader audience. This doesn't mean there can't be highly technical talk in those articles, but not primarily. Even if your additions turn out to be good and reasonable, there is currently undue weight given to your papers. I will ask for some more input on the reliable sources noticeboard. prokaryotes (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Your transparency and disclosure is commendable, and appreciated. And you are correct that true objectivity is impossible. But we still try as best we can to meet it. It's generally acknowledged that everyone has a bias of one kind or another, it's a consequence of free-will and sapience. It only becomes a problem with that bias skews articles away from neutrality, and cause an editor to serve interests outside of Wikipedia to the detriment of Wikipedia. Everyone is expected to try to compensate for whatever bias they have, and if they are editing in an area where the bias makes it difficult or impossible to act within our normal standards of behavior, they shouldn't edit there. (There are certain topics on Wikipedia where I'm uncomfortable editing too, as I consider myself too biased or too close to the subject to be reasonable.) -- Atama頭 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been forced to block Peteymills, per his own admission his primary goal at Wikipedia was to promote his own work and to raise revenue via the donation page on his user page. He was very forthright about it, and I had to give him credit for it. But at the same time I can't allow a person to edit the encyclopedia in that manner. With all that being said, that doesn't invalidate all of his contributions. Any article he created, or edits that he made, should be considered by their own merits whether or not they should be deleted or reverted. The discussion at WP:RSN can continue to determine the reliability of the self-cited references he added, but the discussion will have to proceed without his input. -- Atama頭 22:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and input, it was a rather no brainer outcome. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comodo Group

A plethora of related articles have been subject to years of editing that shows strong indications of COI, such as creating separate articles on trivial products, dozens of citations to the company website, promotion, etc. with the latest wave coming from 178.255.86.1 and user:UKAmerican. user:Codename Lisa has been doing some watching over related articles, resulting in edit-warring, and I have been watching over the article on the CEO. I've also started prodding some of the individual product articles, but they could really use more editors to cleanup all the primary sources to the company website, decide which articles to PROD or AfD and watch over the ones we keep.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I concur with CorporateM about the edit warring point: I tried to reason with UKAmerican and did number of reverts that at the time of doing, thought to be uncontested. But I was wrong and as a result it became more than I liked. I disengaged for the fear of a full-blown edit warring and have not edited those articles for a long time.
But the issue of the conflict of interest is a serious one Comodo Internet Security:
  • On 29 May 2013 I restored a gross instance of censorship: Someone had gone through the article, removed every instance of negative review and left only the positive ones.
  • On 22 July 2013 UKAmerican deleted all mentions of reviews by established reputable magazines and expert sources, with the following edit summary: "make the page less promotional and advertising like, removed 3rd party reviews which appear to be self servin" [sic] The edit itself is vandalism (content removal without a plausible reason) and the edit summary is an instance of falsehood.
  • On 24 July 2013, UKAmerican's tag-team buddy, counter-reverted, saying "rv corporate vandalism by evidently paid editor Codename Lisa". Again, the edit itself is vandalism (content removal without a plausible reason) and the edit summary is personal attack plus falsehood.
  • On 27 March 2014, UKAmerican changed the infobox URL from the more neutral homepage address to less informative and more advertising-like promotional page and added "Major Releases" section that contrary to its name, is an editorialized news report. Actually, I am going to revert this right now.
I am not ready to say that UKAmerican has a COI but I think this person is definitely very smitten about the grandeur of Comodo and its products, has no respect for Wikipedia policies and the Manual of Style and hates talking to others, let alone going through dispute resolution.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Cdrtools

Schily has been making controversial edits to the Cdrtools article for a long time. He has repeatedly self-identified as the author of that software package (here for example -"on my request"-, but see the whole Talk:Cdrtools), and has been including unsourced personal opinion as references, failing to assume good faith by accusing editors of wanting to attack his software, and otherwise unwilling to work towards consensus. He was blocked recently at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit_warring.

I have repeatedly asked him to avoid making edits to the article directly and to discuss everything at the talk page, but today he has just added this unreferenced content after this conversation at my talk page. I would like that Schily is given a formal warning to make him aware of what WP:COI entails, so that he will avoid making controversial edits to the article. Diego (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that User:Diego Moya did not follow the rules that we introduced for the cdrtools article and instead made own highly controversional edits that have not been agreed before. He even treated me, see: this edit. Please encourage [[User:Diego] Moya] to first discuss planned edits on the talk page and not to make controversional edits. Collaborative work is only possible if all involved people follow the rules. Schily (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I have stated what I require in order to make agreements: that you provide links to references that support your claims. You have provided none, so there's no way to reach any agreement. Diego (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
What "rules" were "introduced for the cdrtools article"?! Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Unless some exception (like discretionary sanctions) has been set up by the arbitration committee that refers to an article (or more commonly an article topic), all articles follow the same guidelines and policies. One of the most important is verifiability. I see that much of these problems have been discussed publicly here. I'll point out that in that discussion, Diego was one of your biggest defenders. Yet a week later, here you are. -- Atama頭 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Because the cdrtools article has several authors with COI, we agreed on not to make edits that are not in a consensus in order to avoid future conflicts. Unfortunately User:Diego Moya recently made edits without previously asking whether the related edit could be seen as neutral statement. Several of his edits would have no problems to get an approval, but there also have been edits from him that will not get an approval for being neutral. The problem is that the Cdrtools article is an article that needs to mention that there have been some conflicts caused by Debian in 2004 and following. This is why the article has a high conflict potential. I see no other way than to agree on a collaborative way of editing. For this reason, I made the proposal that other people may make proposals (and thus keep the privilege to control the wording) if they do not edit the article unless thare was an approval before. If there was only User:Diego Moya, I am sure that there was a way to get to an agreement in a simpler way but there are other authors with a high level of COI that usually only make biased edits. The problem in the article is that there are a lot of claims that are not correctly verified because they have pointers to unrelated "proving". The best way to deal with this problem seems to be a common agreement that nobody is allowed to make changes without previously discussing the intended text. Schily (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
In theory most contested edits require consensus to settle any disputes. So in principle what you're saying isn't unreasonable. But it's also true that unverified information in an article that is contested should not be in the article. So there is also that. I'm concerned with your approach at the article. I understand that you are an expert, heck you WROTE the software. But that naturally gives you cause to try to edit the article with original research, because of what you personally know (not what you believe, or what you think, but what you know to be true). Unfortunately Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. That's for a number of reasons, one of which is that it helps objectivity when we are restricted to writing only about what information we can accumulate from reliable sources. But another, more important reason, is that Wikipedia itself isn't reliable, and any information is only as good as its sources. That's what I tell people who use Wikipedia for knowledge, especially for research; don't go by what's in our articles, go to whatever we're using as sources and use that. When we write articles based on our own research and knowledge, people can't do that.
There have been suggestions that you be banned from editing cdtools and related articles, at least from editing the article text directly. Given that you're not the only person with a conflict of interest, I don't think that's fair. But I do think it would be fair if such articles (especially cdtools itself) had an article space ban against all editors with conflicts of interest, both positive and negative. I don't often make such suggestions, I've been an advocate for allowing COI editing in most situations (as long as the editor avoids disruption) but I think that it would ease the situation here greatly. Identifying who should be included in such a ban may be difficult, determining the scope of the ban could also be difficult (just the cdtools article space?), and I don't think this board is the best place to initiate such a ban. It can be, it has been done here before, but I'd suggest WP:AN might be a better venue to get a wider community input. This is just a suggestion from me, it's not something I plan to implement yet. -- Atama頭 15:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
People who write scientific papers avoid using secondary sources and prefer primary sources. This is in conflict with the WP rules that disallow primary sources, so information on Wikipedia in the first attempt is information from hearsay. Using only primary sources is of course not a good idea either - you should rather only use information that can also be verified independently. I am a primary source in the case of cdrtools (and in many cases that are e.g. related to the UNIX history). This frequently causes disputes when people compare my statements with statements from unreliable second level sources. This is why I avoid to make edits that are only reproducable from my memory. In a recent case, I could e.g. correct a false claim from a Siemens Web site related to the first telephone system in Germany, but in this case I have been lucky and could present a copy from a book from 1882 that verifies that there have been more than ten-thousand of telephone exchanges in Germany before Siemens believed that the first exchange was installed. There are other cases where I cannot disclose my sources to the public because of Copyright problems (but I of course have the proof that I could present people in a private meeting) and there are cases where it is not possible to present a single pointer to verify a claim. I can e.g. definitely prove that the claims from Debian related to cdrtools are wrong, but this can only be done by checking many unfakable time stamps in order to verify that what Debian claimes to be cause and reaction is wrong as the so called reaction from Debian happened before what Debian declared to be the cause. As you see, with the current rules from WP, it may be easier in some cases to deliver something that can be seen as a verification than to prove the same claim to be false (where the latter would be the truth).
I don't believe that a bann is the right way to go unless you have people that deny a fact based discussion. WP needs people that write the articles and if we woud have such a bann, the result would be that the current unbalanced state of the article would stay until forever. I hope that it is possible to find a way where interested people all follow the proposed rules. I however fear that it will be the same as it was the last time: people wait for some time and do nothing and then one of the users again starts with edits that have not been discussed before.
What should be taken into account is that we have a person in the list of recent editors, that is related to my question here. I am not shure whether there is an easy way to deal with this problem. Schily (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Schily, I have repeatedly asked that you provide those links to public repositories so that we can evaluate them for ourselves. Maybe we could include one or two of them in the article, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Or you could compile all those links and publish them on your own blog, together with your conclusions about them, and maybe we could link to that, thanks to our neutrality policy; your conflict of interest prevents you from changing the article, but also gives you a unique spot in it as a primary source for your point of view on the subject.
But for reasons which entirely escape me, you refuse to provide us with those links, fighting every attempt we make to improve the article according to our own criteria, and insist in injecting your conclusions directly in the article as facts, which is forbidden.
Why do you insist in breaking our standards of quality at every step, and will only agree to solve the problem in the exact way that you like? Does everything have to be "your way or the highway"? Why can't you agree to collaborate and follow the rules that other find acceptable, and compromise a little in order to gain a lot? We have rules in place that would allow for a neutral and balanced account of the facts; if you are unwilling to follow those rules, don't blame them for arriving to an article that you don't like. Diego (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
If you verify that you are interested to follow the rules I am happy to help you. So let us remove the biased text from the article and when you make a proposal for text you wish to add (including a link to prove the correctness) I'll tell you whether your proposed text is OK. Please note that your recent edits verified that you also have a conflict of interest and for this reason are not allowed to edit the article. Please understand that you don't have more rights than others and that you also need to follow rules. Schily (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@Schily: "Please note that your recent edits verified that you also have a conflict of interest and for this reason are not allowed to edit the article." Can you give examples of Diego disclosing a conflict of interest? Diffs would be preferable, but even just explaining your reasoning here would be helpful. -- Atama頭 15:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
This change can be seen unfriendly as it is easily verified by reading the man page. This change is a big problem as it removed comments that have been added in order to make extremely problematic claims understandable as incorrect. The removal from Diego left over extremely biased or false claims with pseudo references (references that are not related to what they claim to prove). Trying to discuss this with User: Diego Moya resulted in a treat from him and I could not see a will to even understand that the left over claims need to be removed as well when their explaining counterpart is removed. With the same edit, Diego did also add own false claims as he tagged a pointer to GPLv3 (which does not apply to cdrtools) and as he indirectly made a false claim that is seen as own research: By adding his "own research" statements to a previously present statement he intended to use this as a "prove" for a verifyable false claim from Debian (that says that the GPL claims "the scripts used to compile" must be under the GPL), see: a guide to the book Die GPL kommentiert und erklärt check section "Die Definition des Source Codes in Ziffer 3 Absatz 2 GPL". Note:book page 85 is PDF page 61. Relevant is the last section on the page. In short: The GPL is very obvious about the fact that these scripts may be under any license, they just need to be present together with the source. So Diego entered a verifyable false claim and was not willing to discuss this. Some lines later (in the same edit), he added a circular reference to WP wich is forbidden to prove something, so in fact he added another unproven claim related to static vs. dynamic linking and in place removed a well proven statement (verified as reference #26 in the current version of the article). As he did also make several correct edits, he must be seen different from other people that only add problematic text. I hope this helps to understand the problem. Schily (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A conflict of interest on Wikipedia is present when an editor has a real-life relationship to whatever they are writing about that can "undermine their role" as an unbiased, independent editor. You definitely have a conflict of interest with the cdrtools article, and editors who work for/with competitor products/organizations have a COI. If you're accusing Diego of being generally unfriendly and adding false statements, that has absolutely nothing to do with our COI guideline and your warnings above are invalid. -- Atama頭 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
So you like to tell me that User:Diego Moya may happily continue to add false claims to the cdrtools article and I am not allowd to correct this? Given the fact that he tried to confirm claims from Debian even though these claims are wrong, I assume that he has a relation to Debian and thus a COI. Anyway, if he did not make this intentionally, the best signal from him would be if he did not make edits before they have been discussed on the talk page. 17:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schily (talk • contribs)

I'm not saying that Diego is given carte blanche to make whatever edits he prefers to the article, I'm just saying that there is no basis for a COI claim or any warnings based on it. And using Debian as a reference does not in any way imply a connection to Debian, that's absurd. If you have a dispute with material that Diego is modifying and you cannot settle it by discussing it with him, the dispute resolution noticeboard can help in that regard. Otherwise, most of the disruption I've seen is from you. Some of your edits and claims may be correct, but regardless you rely far too heavily on original research and you are very heavily influenced by your own bias as the creator of the software. This is understandable, but at the same time it is still problematic for Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

When discussing the problem, it is of course imprtant to know that the disagreement (when looking at User: Diego Moya) seems not to be a general disagreement but is rather related to correct or incorrect information on the licensing activities and that the license was changed after Debian started to attack the cdrtools project 10 years ago and after Debian enhanced these attacks 9 years ago with the claim of alleged license problems with cdrecord. For this reason, a person with a closer connection to Debian definitely has a COI. I am convinced that User:Diego Moya has such a closer connetion to Debian. Using your interpretation, this alone would be a reason for him not to edit the cdrtools article. Using my interptretation, this alone is just a challenge, but Diego seems to be unable deal with this challenge.
See above: the incident where he removed a hint on what is in a paper from professor Determann and added own research on license compatibility and an unrelated pointer to GPLv3 that does not apply to cdrtools. There was another incident, where he removed a pointer to a paper from the faculty of law at the university of Washington that explains that OpenSource licenses do not grant the right to publish modified variants of covered OSS to be published under the the original name. So this cannot be seen as an accidental mistake, as there is a common pattern behind these unaceptable edits.
As mentioned before, I am OK with allowing him to make proposals on the talk page, but I do not agree when he likes to make edits that did not first get a review. Schily (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
So far I only see you attack Debian (and some people who did something in 2004 by name) as well as various Wikipedia authors “Note that recently the following users did make edits with conflict potential: User:Diego User:Chire User:Tzafrir User:LFaraone.” The edits by User:Diego Moya to me seem to be backed by wikipedia policy NPOV, as do most others except yours. Can you please elaborate what is “conflict potential” in the two edits by User:LFaraone? It was suggested to AfD this article. I start to believe this is a good idea... 38.123.136.254 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

American Scientist

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Katieh5584 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User has admitted on my talkpage that they work for the organization. They keep adding content to the page which is copied exactly from their own website, it makes the article read like an advert. Katieh5584 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the edits up to date weren't helpful. The issue is that they were promotional, the tone wasn't encyclopedic, and the external linking wasn't warranted. But as the article is in need of expansion, I would be fine with Kcorder editing it in a scholarly (nonpromotional) matter. The Scientific American magazine article is a good example of a well-written article about a related subject. It doesn't brag about anything or give out a bundle of links back to its website. Kcorder, if you want to improve the American Scientist article, that is a good template to work off of, in terms of writing style and appropriate content. ThemFromSpace 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I concur with using Scientific American as an example. That's a tactic I try to use with COI editors (or even non-COI editors with problematic articles); rather than just telling them what is wrong and what should be done, show them what a good, related article looks like. I always try to make the provision that it can take time to get a new article up to the level of quality that the better article has, and that it may require input from multiple experienced editors. Which is why it's important for them to be cooperative and willing to collaborate with others (including having to make compromises and concessions on certain points). -- Atama頭 20:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Morris

It was established in a past discussion archived here that Blackbow17 had a COI at Sarah Morris. For reasons that I can no longer recall, the discussion of Vandayam and Webows111 got split off from that discussion. In any case, all three were monothematic WP:SPAs, and all three have ceased editing. Since then there has been a steady stream of other monothematic SPAs making a few edits each at the article, including Wikigc23, FcHQ10R, Inflst198, HighRise1 and, most recently, Parallaxcorp. This last is particularly interesting in view of remarks by the subject of the article in this document, where she says "I made this company called Parallax Corporation". Almost all of the 193 edits by Blackbow17 are to Sarah Morris (and all relate to that subject); among the six other articles edited by that account are Parallax (diff) and The Parallax View (diff). Thoughts, anyone? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Steve Mould

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Katieh5584 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This user works in PR and is representing these people, this can be confirmed by looking on their website at www.flickmorrispr.com.Katieh5584 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple editors related to U of SD School of Law

Seems to be an editing campaign by COI users related to University of South Dakota School of Law. Frankly too many COI for me to try to handle individually via talk pages so making this COIN. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So basically your are being lazy and expecting this to done by someone else? Do the articles create a conflict of interest for you as well? I do not have the time either to figure it out but I will be surprised if there is not a conflict of interest on Evergreens part as well. Seems to me the editor came here to quick. Editor reports way to often when it is convenient for their purposes and has admitted that they did not take the necessary steps before bringing it here. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
5 editors is to many to address on talk pages? But bringing it here before doing that it is the right way of doing things? Unfounded accusations of COI is a better method? They may all be lawyers or not. They may all be from SD or not. They may all be Native Americans or not. Where is the COI other than they are improving an article at the same time. The Wiki Gestapo may jump on this but any non POV editor is left wondering WTH this is here for. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Further investigation has revealed edit war here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Pommersheim&action=history between COI initiator and one of the editors above. The plot thickens. Also Evergreen just prior recommended an article of same editor for speedy delete when it did not meet speedy delete criteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nativecultnlaw#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Frank_Pommersheim I am now seeing a COI but it appears to have Boomeranged. 172.56.11.196 (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
And the CSD was denied. Not a big deal. Yes, 5 is a bit much to deal with COIs. All are new accounts related to South Dakota and editing on articles related to the law program. Your presences brings the smell of socks in here too. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
For note, IP editor warned for not agf and personal attacks EvergreenFir (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion...

@172.56.11.196: I'm an admin and I keep an eye on COIN. If you want an admin's involvement, I'm here. I closed the thread on ANI because it was unnecessary (that was an opinion shared by another editor) but I can address whatever concerns you have. I will say this... Throwing around phrases like "lazy" and "Wiki Gestapo" aren't going to help your cause. Try to tone it down just a bit, please.

@EvergreenFir: I know you said on your user talk page that the edit-warring template was unwarranted because you hadn't violated 3RR. Well, you don't need three reverts for an edit war, generally if you revert someone twice I consider it an edit war (some admins may even consider a single revert an edit war, or at least the start of one). That being said, it wasn't much of an edit war, and I wouldn't block you for it.

As to the COI, EvergreenFir you have the burden to make your case here just as you would at any noticeboard. It says at the top of this board, "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." Have you tried that? It also says, "Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list." Where is that evidence? The COI noticeboard isn't a place to dump a bunch of usernames and say "I think they may have a COI, someone figure it out".

Some of these editors may have username issues. Sdpolitico and Sdgovt are a little worrisome, though I'm not sure they violate WP:ORGNAME or WP:ISU. (The names seem to indicate interests; South Dakota politics and South Dakota government, not actual groups.) Logic4bott is worrisome because we don't allow usernames that end in the word "bot", even the extra "t" isn't enough in my eyes to clear up that confusion so I'll be having a talk with that account and may block it if they don't respond and/or request a username change. Lawschools and Nativecultnlaw also show their interests but not in a way that suggests an affiliation with a particular school or other organization so that doesn't concern me. Jungleneetwiki has absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever; including the word "wiki" in a name is fine, our policy only restricts names with "WMF" or "Wikipedia" or the names of other specific Wikimedia projects that imply some official connection with the WMF.

As to the COI itself, though, I'm seeing 6 different accounts that have an interest in the University of South Dakota School of Law. I see nothing that suggests an affiliation with it. Maybe they are students? Maybe their participation is part of a school project (which is something we not only allow, but encourage, and have WikiProjects to support)? What diffs do you have that show that any of these editors are claiming a connection to the school? Absent any of that, I don't see any actual evidence to suggest a real COI exists. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that there are certain articles I've spent a lot of time on, I used to be a major editor to the World of Warcraft game because I used to play it) and I've edited the iPhone article since it was pretty new (and I still edit it, though not as much as I once did). That doesn't mean I have a COI with either subject (and I don't, unless you count owning an iPhone to have a COI). So again, the burden of evidence is on you, EvergreenFir, and if you don't have anything I'm willing to say that there is no indication of a COI with any of these editors. -- Atama頭 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Thank you for the reply. My main concern was 6 new accounts all making similar edits and similar pages and the usernames indicates a COI. I frequently watch the user creation log and am never sure what to do when I see a worrisome/suspicious pattern like this. I didn't want to AIN or SOCK, so I thought here was best. But like you said, I don't have much evidence. I'll be sure to report here only if there's a more serious issue. That said, is there anything I should do in the future when I see patterns like this? Just watch them for a bit? Thanks again. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, watch them and see if anything they're doing is actually disruptive. Also, see if anything they're doing seems to declare a COI, such as someone saying on a user page, discussion page, or edit summary that they are affiliated with a person and/or group. And as I said, at least one of these editors clearly has a username that they shouldn't so it's not like I'm not doing anything with this group. But in the future, yes I'd say just keep an eye on them. Really, even if someone truly does have a COI that has been confirmed, at the most that just merits extra scrutiny unless and until their actions lead to some kind of disruption. -- Atama頭 17:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I ended up soft-blocking Logic4bott, they can feel free to make a new account without prejudice or request a name change. Given that they've only made one edit, period, I'm not sure that they're actually interested in any further edits. -- Atama頭 20:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sdpolitico (talk · contribs), Nativecultnlaw (talk · contribs), Domesticdeptnation (talk · contribs), Titlestsoffico (talk · contribs), Jungleneetwiki (talk · contribs), Logic4bott (talk · contribs), Lawschools (talk · contribs) and Sdgovt (talk · contribs) are all  Technically indistinguishable. A sleeper account Arriw (talk · contribs) was caught in the account creation throttle filter designed to catch sleepers. All of the accounts have been blocked. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for that Jezebel'sPonyo. Whatever the COI may or may not be, socking is a no-no. I guess that's a pretty solid conclusion to this. -- Atama頭 18:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
SPI findings noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sdgovt for the record.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ponyo! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73&oldid=1140239246"