Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Bill Ackman Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Carbfix Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Kevin Hartz Talk:Human Appeal Talk:List of assets owned by Hearst Communications Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Ornge Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:Lester Sill Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Thandeka (minister) Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

William Casson should be removed from the list. He died in 1886 and so cannot be writing his entry. What is the procedure for striking items from that list? --Pleasantville (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I imagine you could put a strikeout through that line, and add your reason in parentheses and in the edit summary. See User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult/archive4 for an archive where people were actively doing that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested edits

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

MigrationWatch UK

• MigrationWatch UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Moonshineblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe the recent 'sanitising' of this article by user Moonshineblue with the insertion of material sourced from MigrationWatch UK's own website and the deletion of any external criticism represents a conflict of interest. I'm trying not to get into an edit war but I do see this as a controversial organisation even if I am in a minority. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect? Besides Moonshineblue, a supporter of this group who has participated on the Talk page, efforts to remove the POV language are being vigorously resisted by two anonymous editors, who do not participate on Talk. Does anyone object to semiprotection of this article? The removal of tags and of sourced information critical of MigrationWatch is getting close to vandalism, so I think the use of admin tools might be correct here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of external criticism of MigrationWatch has the effect of creating an article that gives favourable coverage of the organisation rather than an accurate one. I also agree that this is a controversial organisation, and if there is properly referenced external criticism of it, it should be included in the article. Moonshineblue seems content to leave in external references that are favourable, or appear to support the organisation. Not sure that semi-protection is the answer, but interested to see what others think.5cc (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It will be apparent from examing the Wikipedia entry before recent editing that it had moved a long way from being neutral and even handed. It was also substantially out of date. The amendments made subsequently have been designed to clarify and update the material. It is not a question of supporting the organisation or otherwise. However, it is clear from remarks by "Mighty Antar" on the discussion notice board that "Mighty Antar" has a hostile view of the organisation. It is surely contrary to the principles of the encyclopaedia that the editing of entries should be conducted in this way. "Mighty Antar's" talk of "friends in high places" and an "anti-immigration and anti-human rights organisation" should have no place in the editing of Wikipedia articles. As for removing "well sourced critical material", the first three tabs were hostile articles from The Independent and Guardian. One could equally insert highly favourable articles from The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail - or, indeed, both - but this would not greatly help the general reader. Better to stick to the record as the entry now does. --Moonshineblue (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

but this would not greatly help the general reader

Not your call to make. WP:V requires sourcing in reliable published third-party sources, and an organisation's self-description is only one element of that. WP:NPOV also requires all significant viewpoints to be represented. Personally I've doubts about the Daily Mail, but the Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian are all well acceptable as newspaper sources and, as major newpapers, significant viewpoints. If they differ in their slant on the topic, those variants should be collated and included per WP:NPOV.

That said, this really is a content dispute. Without any evidence that Moonshineblue is someone connected with the organisation (as opposed to being a supporter) this doesn't come under WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Moonshineblue's almost exclusive activity on Wikipedia has been the editing of this article, their edits fall under the 'catchall' clause of WP:COI, where patterns of promotional editing are considered to show a COI, and are blockable. The only requirement is that the editor be warned first.

I agree with Gordon that the group's self-description shouldn't be highlighted in the lead. User:Mighty Antar may have gone overboard in tagging them as right-wing in the lead rather than carefully attributing all those opinions to the respective newspapers. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly clear that "Mighty Antar" is, by his own admission, biassed against Migrationwatch. He thus appears to have a COI so, on his own agrument, his editing should be blockable. That said, the entry is now a great deal more neutral than previous versions. --Moonshineblue (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

He thus appears to have a COI

No, he doesn't. WP:COI specifically applies to having, or there being reasonable suspicion of having, a personal connection with the subject. Bias alone isn't evidence of that, especially in an editor whose edit history is otherwise varied. The possibility of COI kicks in where the bias has a pattern of single-purpose promotional editing - especially when there is admission of acting on behalf of the organisation [1]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: April 23 2008. Biased edits are continuing.[2] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

HP SPaM

• Resolved

   – The submitter agrees that this report can be closed due to the article improvements. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it, but previous versions referred to HP SPaM as "we", i.e. the article was written in the first person plural, so presumably originally by a member of the group themselves. They were also claiming credit for several awards that Hewlett Packard as a company have won, and claiming that their specific team, HP SPaM, was the direct recepient of them. I expect to be reverted:) Please keep an eye on this article, which should be merged to Hewlett Packard anway, as the group are not notable independent of them. special, random, Merkinsmum 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the refs claim to mention the group, but don't name them specifically at all. Looks like an attempt to add refs just so it looks like there are some sources or notability, when some of the refs don't/didn't even mention the group, and are misleading. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't nonsense, and there may be something here that should be kept. Much of the current contents I don't think is notable. However Wikipedia is not famous for the quality of its business articles, and if anyone has time to help with this, we might work with the COI-affected people to create something useful. If the article can't be improved, though, AfD should be considered. Documenting the practical activities of business firms isn't easy, since most companies don't ever collect the data in a form suitable for external publication. Still, if this group is well-known within Operations Research / Management Science community, as claimed on the article's Talk page, that fact must be provable somehow. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it's nonsense, that was someone else. It's completely not independently notable, with no google news references, and only mentioned online in a couple of individuals publicity bumpf, or with a few sentences in the article or two these some of these editors know about due to it being about them, and are attempting to mislead that these articles are primarily about their group. I bet the article on Hewlett Packard is ok:) And this content would be great when merged and included in an article about a notable subject. Merkin's mum 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent progress. A bunch of IP editors have shown up and have done a lot of good-faith work on improving the article. Since they are making useful changes and are not obstructing anything, we need not inquire TOO closely as to whether these IPs are affected by a COI. I'm still reserving my own judgment as to whether the article should be taken to AfD. If anyone has time, and has the patience to read some of the online references added recently, they might be able to help fix up the lack of concrete content which I think is the remaining problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ginsu

Resolved

 – Article has been fixed, and Ginsuguy has not edited since 15 April. He never responded on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ginsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ginsuguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page for Ginsu knives has been substantially rewritten today by Ginsuguy in a profoundly advertising-like style. He's even put in ® signs after every mention of the word "Ginsu." Since his user name is the same as the official Ginsu knife website ([www.ginsuguys.com]), I think this should be undone. Dr. eXtreme 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

take a look now. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your edits are a big improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ginsuguy reverted Fredrick's COI fixes. I reverted again, and left him a note about this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Springfield, Oregon

• Springfield, Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• KimKnees (talk · contribs) Last edit 17 April 2008
• 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs) Last edit 11 April 2008

• Anvilmedia (talk · contribs) Last edit 22 October 2007
• Jwmcphee (talk · contribs) Last edit 19 September 2007

These users appear to be adding links and content relating to Anvil Media's (a search engine marketing (SEM) services company), client list: www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm, including Tumbleweed Communications, Genco Supply Chain Solutions, Auctionpay, reliableremodeler.com and Planar Systems. Last year similar editing was reported at WP:WPSPAM: here. Anvilmedia had managed to make some fairly neutral contributions, at least on the article ColumbiaSoft, most of his/her other contributions, including Retrevo, GolfNow.com, and Portland Oregon Visitors Association were deleted for being adverts/non-notable. However today content was added (diff diff) to Springfield, Oregon and Coburg, Oregon that clearly shows the Convention & Visitors Association of Lane County Oregon connection. I'm all for boosting Lane County's economy, but not on Wikipedia. I've reverted the changes and warned KimKnees about NPOV and COI. How do I proceed? Katr67 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of rearranging the user templates, to show which accounts are currently active. Revert if you prefer it the old way. While you've identified quite a few improper edits, there is some hope we can put this right by negotiation. I see a mixed bag of edits here. The travel-related edits look like pure promotion and have been correctly reverted. It is a concern that neither of the two currently-active editors has ever left a comment on a Talk page. Let's keep an eye on the situation. I left a {{uw-coi}} notice for the IP editor, and you've already notified KimKnees about the COIN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, your rearranging is fine, I don't often post here. It's interesting to note that the company has a link to an article by Durova about just how to go about being a "white hat", and that the president of the company has written an article warning people who wish to contribute to Wikipedia to play by our rules. Hopefully they will start taking their own advice. I found the lack of talk page posts concerning as well. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on the situation. Katr67 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion happening on the article's talk page. Katr67 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greif

Resolved

 – The article Eric Greif has been re-written based on verifiable sources. dissolve^talk 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• A Sniper (talk · contribs)
• Eric Greif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Death (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morbid Saint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mötley Crüe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [3] [4] [5] [6] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a {{uw-coi}} tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolve^talk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

anyone can say anything about 'who they are' - that doesn't make it so. I have faithfully edited on a lot of pages (musical and religious), usually finding consensus on issues with the other usual editors. A Sniper (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello A Sniper. I don't perceive any bad effects from your editing, and the COI rules do allow you to participate on these articles, though with some caution. I'd still like you to say more about this edit, if you would. It seems possible that you are adding information to articles based on your own personal knowledge of events. Since you're an experienced WP editor, you're probably aware of our need for references. I'm concerned that you say, in the edit summary, that it would be 'vandalism' to remove the material. But we really don't have any reference for that information, do we? EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston. RE: the edit that you've referred to, the vandalism wasn't in the removing of the material but was in the replacing of the material with all-caps stating that a particular company was a bootlegger. I don't even know, frankly, if I was the editor who originally placed this material there, and that wasn't my reason for undoing the edit anyway. This edit you've pointed out was to undo what appeared to be personal anger by the editor against that record label. You'll also see that the same user added spanish-language notices against that record label, which I also removed. Just to make sure the edit was a good one, I checked with Google and saw a couple of references for this particular topic: [7][8][9][10]. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that the other editor is editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography [11] that lacks verifiable inline citations of reliable sources and as such, may not meet Wikipedias core policies of Neutral point of view and No original research. I hope you'll re-read Assume good faith, as accusing an editor of sock puppetry [12] with no evidence is not an act of good faith, please see Please do not bite the newcomers. dissolve^talk 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Jackmantas inviting him to join this discussion. I see plenty of material for discussion in the points various people have made above, without the need to immediately jump into the review of people's behavior. Referencing for our articles on musical groups is not always very good. One option is to try to get a consensus to remove all the unsourced material. Temporarily, that will leave the articles impoverished, but if these people and groups are famous, somebody must have covered them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. I've only had a cursory look at the sourcing for Eric Greif, but there doesn't seem to be alot there that meets the strict sourcing guidelines for the Wikipedia:Biography of Living Persons policy, specifically the section on sources. So my first concern is if the article actually meets the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. If the article is indeed notable, then it should be based on what is verifiable in references that meet WP:BLP sourcing standards. Since WP:BLP applies to all biographical articles of living people on Wikipedia, the content of the related pages must also be held to WP:BLP standards for sourcing. dissolve^talk 10:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. Dissolve, you are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies.

On top of this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda.

I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of nformation contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future.

That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again Ed, for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jackmantas, and thanks for joining the conversation. I placed a show-hide box around some of your comments above, and ask if you would be so kind as to edit your own comment to completely remove that material. I think we have enough data already without having to be quite so explicit. If you agree to do this, it may help your case. I think we will get to the same point anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

       No problem Ed.Jackmantas (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole case is ridiculous. I have known A Sniper since October of last year and over those months he has shown himsefl to be a fine and non-biased editor, no matter who he is. I believe Dissolve is abusing his right to take up anyone on a COI. It specifically says in WP:COI that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest." However, A Sniper has never displayed anything but neutrality on his edits and has never (as far as I know, and I do watch) made an edit that contributed to a lie. If he really was Eric Greif, he has only used his close knowledge of the above-mentioned articles to help those articles. It seems the only real article that is being greatly complained about is the Eric Greif article (where jackmantas has been heavily editing), but I must ask something. Just because A Sniper may be Eric Greif, and created the article (and heavily contributed to it) does that suddenly mean it's all wrong or biased? I think not. A Sniper has not displayed any amount of "vanity" edits on the article and it appears to be all factual. If you really think A Sniper is Eric Greif and that he has been messing up the neutrality of his own article then I pledge to personally see to it to watch over the page closely and maintain its neutrality and to find the sources needed for the things said. I mean, after all, if A Sniper really is Eric Greif, couldn't he just go to some site or something and post a whole story about himself which could then be cited for the Eric Greif article? I see no problems with this. As it is, I still think this accusation is frivolous and that A Sniper has displayed nothing but excellent (and more importantly, unbiased) editing on the small number of pages that he regularly edits. Thank you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any disagreement that A Sniper has made many useful contributions and offers considerable expertise in the articles he's edited. However, when an editor makes statements about being the subject of an article he has created, and has added links to a book that the subject of the article has written to other articles [13] [14] [15], it makes me consider there might be a conflict of interest. Admittedly, we all start out as newbies on Wikipedia, ignorant of many of the policies, and so we assume good faith. Regarding bias: WP:NPOV exists to ensure that articles represent fairly, and without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The articles mentioned are/were primarily unsourced. How is a reader or other editor supposed to determine what has been published by reliable sources vs. what is POV-pushing conflict of interest editing? My point in raising these possible issues here was to start a discussion, get some additional eye balls on these articles to get some sources on them. If the articles are sourced, the COI issue is largely irrelevant. dissolve^talk 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Response by Jackmantas: Hello Blizzard Beast. In response to your post, I will say this: The Eric Grief article is clearly an autobiography and as such I can do no better than to point out Wikipedia's policy concerning such articles: "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." "Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedia neutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point-of-view." "Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls. If you have published elsewhere on a topic, we strongly welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wiki users knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted." "They (autobiographies) are often biased, usually positively. People will write overly positively about themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts. (Neutral point of view does not mean simply writing in the third person)." "They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable." "They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance; original research is not permitted in Wikipedia." Why these problems exist "Just because you believe honestly you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just self-promotion. Not only does this affect neutrality but it also affects the verifiability and unoriginal research of the autobiography. One may inadvertently slip things in that one may not think need to be attributable even though they do, due to those very same biases. Even if you can synthesize an autobiography based on only verifiable material that is not original research you may still not be able to synthesize it in a neutral manner." I believe the developers of this Wikipedia policy have stated very eloquently the dangers of users creating autobiography articles and I need say no more on this topic at this time.Thank you,--Jackmantas (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to take Jackmantas seriously when he/she has resorted to bad faith attacks, criticism, innuendo and ridicule such as here: [16]. Does this constant WP:single-purpose account barrage of edits not violate WP:Etiquette and WP:Trolling, illustrating WP:POINT? A Sniper (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Gumstix

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

• Dvescovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has commercial interests as he or his company sells products/services based on Gumstix [17][18]. He is trying to remove anything negative to Gumstix and is adding incomplete/inaccurate and misleading information. He is trolling and poisoning on the discussion page and on my talk page and has no apparent interest in improving the Article, but only to push his POV in parts of it. His account appears, based on the edit history, to exist for the sole purpose of promoting a company, product, service, or organization in violation of Conflict of interest and/or anti-spam guidelines. Talk:Gumstix#Neutrality_Dispute neutrality dispute section and below.

Iunaw is under the mistaken impression that I some how have a commercial interest in this product. I have neather, I am not associated with or work for Gumstix Inc. Nor do I even own a company. I am an independent software developer. I may also add ALL the software I have control over has been freely published under the Open Source/Shared Source licensing. I have not made one commercial penny from anything I have done associated with the Gumstix product. I am just a happy user unlike lunaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvescovi (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You could indeed be a happy-user, but you are selling products and services based on Gumstix, according to the website of your project (see links above). Iunaw (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from your website:

    The source code for this BSP is also available for $300 with a signed NDA.
    Contact me through my account on this site if you wish to purchase the source.

And you call this open source, despite the non-disclosure agreement, and say you have no commercial interests? Iunaw (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are deliberately vandalizing the article with false information to promote your products/services. You have changed [19] closed source for open source, despite source code of your project is only available under a non-disclosure agreement and a for a 300$ fee according to your projects website, and is therefore considered closed source, as i explained on the discussion page. But you keep ignoring it and editing without discussion. I have added yet another template to your talk page to warn you to cease-and-desist, this time uw-error3. STOP! You do not have any interest in collaborating on Wikipedia, your project is your only priority here in a clear COI violation. Iunaw (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you have removed the offending bits from your website some hours ago in a new attempt to mislead, but we still have the cached page on google [20]. What are you doing next, will you ask google to remove the cached page for you? You are clearly acting on bad faith. Iunaw (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The lines were removed because of your suggestions, thank you. I actually agree with you. No attempt to mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvescovi (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aha, in that case could you please post the full source code of the poject on your website? You are surely wanting to do it, as you consider your project open source. And remove the 'contact me for source code', 'please do not redistribute binaries', NDA and fees information from the pages of your project, as it is not needed anymore. Accept my excuses if i'm a bit sceptical. Iunaw (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot release the full source code, not because I don’t want to but because of Microsoft licensing restrictions. I can only legally include pieces in binary form, which I have done. There are other options if you wish the full source code (through a signed NDA), which I have included only as an alternative option for those folks wishing to do so. I (we) can only include source for code of which we have legal ownership. I know this rubs you folks in the Linux community the wrong way but personal attacks are not the answer. Leave this issue to the mega-corporations with their team of lawyers to solve.

You are welcome to join the Codeplex community, if anything I think you would find the people a little “friendlier”. Dvescovi (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, The $300 fee is only for the time and effort needed to “scrub” the code to make sure we are not releasing anything we shouldn’t. We do not wish to get in hot water with MS. Believe me there is no profit motive. I think if you check “source” level BSP’s from other manufactures you will see them in the $8000 to $12,000 range. Any way this is not the place for such discussions.Dvescovi (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, my interests are wikipedia, not this project. So:

a) I wonder why you changed closed source for open source and removed different informations on your own several times

b) You have a clear COI if you are the coordinator of that project and sell directly or indirectly products (source code, kits, etc) and services (support, training, etc) based on this product

c) You have not participated in other articles nor on proposed improvements to the gumstix article but only pushed your POV

a) + b) + c) released the alarm. Iunaw (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone would care to check the page history and talk you will see Iunaw was the one that added the pricing information (along with other derogatory comments) in a deliberate attempt to trigger the COI. To say his “interest are wikipedia, not this project.” Is the most outlandish comment he has made to date.

Dvescovi (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All my mark up’s were done in good faith. I’ll let the record speak to mr. Iunaw intentions. Dvescovi (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In any case I highly commend Oskay, he did a fantastic job cleaning it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvescovi (talk • contribs) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Dvescovi (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

hahaha you are funny. Yes, yes, you are the perfect Wikipedian, your contributions are the perfect evidence for this. No comments regarding your lies, right? Your project is still open source in your universe, etc etc.. not worth to discuss this Iunaw (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also kindly and politely request further editing of the Gumstix page be left to people like Mr. Oskay who has demonstrated command of the English language and who’s neutrality is unquestioned. Dvescovi (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Donnay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has commercial interests as he is working for Gumstix Inc. as Chief Marketing Officer. He has added most of the information on the article, but is not participating in it anymore Talk:Gumstix#Gumstix_article_needs_improvement.3B_conflicts_of_interest

• Iunaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - That's me! I have no interests, but i know that some information i add could be biased (like any other editor). For that reason, i would like to have feedback from neutral parties (i have already asked to a user and on the third opinion page). I would like to balance the article and have it reflect as much information as possible. Information should be complete and accurate, without omitting relevant parts deliberately. I wish that more persons would participate on this article, and not only persons that have commercial interests and try to push their POV. Iunaw (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Bobgold44

Resolved

 – Article was speedied as a G11 by DGG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Container identification scratch system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bobgold44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This new user posted an advertsiement about his new invention on Wikipedia. I tagged the article for deletion and warned the newbie on his talk page. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Vander Houwen Public Relations

• Resolved

   – Article was deleted as an A7 by Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vander Houwen Public Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VHPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is what appears to be an employee of a PR firm making an article about his employer. I did not tag it because it had an {{underconstruction}} tag on it. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Links amended for changed typography. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Clayton Bennett

Note: I have moved this discussion from WP:AIN to here, as this now seems to be the most appropriate place for the discussion. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm consolidating several related requests here. First, I request that the semi-protection status of the Clayton Bennett article be resinstated. The protection ended today and the article's history reveals numerous vandal edits already today.

Secondly, I've asked Coz 11 to recuse himself from editing the article and all articles related to the Seattle Supersonics because he has a conflict of interest. I've also asked the same user in the past to avoid using inflammatory edit summaries regarding Mr. Bennett. Coz 11 has removed these warnings from his talk page, failed to discuss the issue, and continues to edit the articles. I think an administrator should require this user to explain his actions or should ask him to discontinue editing articles for which he has a conflict of interest.

I would also ask that this situation not be treated lightly. You can see for yourself the level of personal attacks that have been thrown at me regarding this issue.[21] Chicken Wing (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article semi-protected indefinitely. I couldn't see any obvious problems with User:Coz 11 - he may have a conflict of interest but that shouldn't necessarily bar him from editing the article - unless there's something I either overlooked or failed to understand (since I know nothing about North American sport). CIreland (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to state this complaint without possibly revealing Coz 11's real identity, but I'll try to do my best. He seems to be an important figure in an organization that opposes Bennett relocating the Sonics to OKC. He blanks attempts to discuss his conflict of interest from his talk page without discussing it.[22]. He has used edit summaries abusively when talking about Bennett.[23] As far as I can see, all of his edits regarding this issue have been in a light most favorable towards keeping the Sonics in Seattle[24] while placing Bennett in a negative light.[25] He's also used edit summaries to attack people with opposing views.[26] There's not enough evidence to form a case of sockpuppeteering, but there have also been several accounts that have been created and IP addresses used that had the sole purpose of vandalizing the Bennett article and/or promoting the website with which Coz 11 is affiliated. Chicken Wing (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You best be careful what you accuse people of without facts to back it up with. I edit with ONE account, ONE IP and I stand behind EVERY edit I make. For you to even suggest that I could be one of the thousands that can't stand Clay Bennett is inexcusable. There are enough people that are going to take their shots at him for his dishonest activities that do just fine without my help. I don't participate in that kind of thing and I resent your attempts to discredit me because you don't seem to be able to handle just simply dealing with edits on a case by case basis. You have a problem with an article? Take it to the talk page on that article and we can work it out. Attacking me is bush league. --Coz (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to act on the basis of a "seems to be" and some slightly biased editing. Another reasonable interpretation would be "overzealous fan". I will watchlist the article and keep an eye on all changes, but you might prefer to seek more specialist help at the conflict of interest noticeboard or consider dispute resolution for unclear content disputes. CIreland (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I said "seems to be" because I didn't want to be accused of outing his identity. The truth is, I know with reasonable certainty what his real name is and that he is, in fact, a co-founder of the most prominent organization that opposes Bennett moving the team from Seattle to OKC. He also makes personal attacks against editors and article subjects as well as removing warnings from his talk page, things which would be controversial even if he didn't have a conflict of interest. That such a conflict exists makes the violations even worse. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Coz 11 has continued his streak of biased editing on the Clayton Bennett article today. This time he added, "Recent developments have shown that the agreement was violated."[27] Given that this is a biography of a living person and nothing has been determined in court, the user should have said the agreement was "allegedly" violated. A small example, yes, but I shouldn't have to check an article day-after-day to see if Coz 11 has slipped another comment in to slant the article against Bennett, especially since Coz 11 is at the top of an organization that opposes him. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While Coz could definitely do with toning his POV down quite a bit and can be frustrating at times, I'm not entirely sure that his position within Save Our Sonics necessarily violates any of the guidelines set down in WP:COI any more so than any other "fan" of the Sonics would. Admittedly, I've been frustrated enough with Coz a few times in the past to question his ability to edit neutrally,[28] I'm just not sure there is enough of a tie between what is really little more than a fan organization and the Sonics to prevent him from editing Sonics related articles. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The way I read the rules, a reading which is admittedly not definitive but also not illegitimate based on the text, is that Coz 11 has a conflict of interest based on the sections of close relationships (political) and campaigning. He is the leader of an organization that campaigns against the interests of Bennett. I think that establishes the conflict of interest. Almost all of his edits to the Bennett article are biased, which establishes the bias. His deletion of comments from his talk page on the issue along with his attacks in edit summaries against Bennett and other users, basically ties it all together. He's obviously not as flagrantly bad as the Sonics fans that send me threatening e-mails or openly vandalize the article, but his edits are nonetheless equally subversive.

As an example of how silly the biased editing by Sonics fans have gotten, despite all of the vandalism and POV editing, the only comment on the Bennett talk page (until my comment today) is an admonishment against me for allegedly being "uncivil" and disrupting the grammar of the article. The other comment on the page was also a complaint about my editing, but I removed it without incident controversy because it contained personal attacks. Chicken Wing (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The lack of using the article's talk page seems to indicate that perhaps you haven't taken enough time to discuss with Coz (and the other Sonics "fans") what you perceive as his biases against Bennett. Additionally, I have Coz's talk page on my watchlist and the only appearance you've made there is in the last few days to accuse him of having a conflict of interest and to tell him to cease editing the Clay Bennett article. If there really is POV editing happening on Bennett's article, you should not be limiting your discussion to edit summaries or taking it upon yourself to defend against the POV, but rather focusing on gaining consensus on the article talk pages or contacting Coz directly to work with you on coming up with wording that is at least acceptable to both of you. Perhaps I'm more jaded because of the crap I see on the political related articles I edit, but I'm just not seeing a big issue here. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a correct assessment. Look at the edit history on his talk page. I have brought up the issue of his conflict of interest and his edit summaries as far back as October of 2007. He has been deleting my comments from his talk page. He has also deleted the comments from other users that have questioned him. I have also recently placed a comment on the talk page. I have to adamantly reject the notion that I haven't taken the time to discuss this with him given his actions in deleting comments. It's hard to discuss with someone who deletes comments and uses edit summaries to attack people.

While political articles can get pretty heated, perhaps you would enjoy some of the threats I've received regarding the Bennett article.[29] Consider also that the one comment on the Bennett article's talk page not written by me is a claim that I'm being "uncivil" and making Wikipedia a worse place grammatically. That comment was also left by a Sonics fan living in Washington. There's not really a group of people editing the article to reach consensus with. There's me, a couple of other passer-bys with constructive edits, and then there's biased edits and vandalsim almost excusively from Sonics fans. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I missed two warnings you've left Coz's talk page telling him to be less inflammatory in his edit summaries,[30][31] but haven't otherwise attempted to engage him (or any of the other editors on Bennett's article). Deleting warnings and comments from one's talk page doesn't violate any of Wikipedia's policies and is generally an indicator that they have seen the warnings. I'm also unclear as to how a random abusive comment from an unrelated editor has anything to do with a COI complaint against Coz. If you are being overwhelmed by "fandals", then you can draw attention to your plight by requesting assistance from the wikiprojects listed at the top of Bennett's talk page or any of the other pages Wikipedia has established for combating vandals. I've added Bennett's article to my watchlist, so you've got at least one more set of eyes out of this. As far as Coz's COI goes, I've said my piece on the matter, but that plus $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I didn't say his deletions were policy violations. But, the issue was that I'm supposed to be engaging him in a dialogue. He has deleted at least four comments without responding to them. He's the one not engaging in a conversation. He's the one with the conflict of interest. I've now tried to talk to him on his talk page and the Bennett talk page. The semi-protection of the article should get rid of most of the vandalism. If he doesn't discuss this, he gets BLP template warnings from now on when he adds biased information.

(2) The attack against me was just one of several, and it was an example of the heated rhetoric being used on the Bennett article, similar to the heated rhetoric used on a political article. It wasn't an example of Coz 11 acting out. I never claimed such.

(3) I might be going McCarthy-style here, but as far as I know, you also are from Washington, know Coz 11 perhaps better than other Wikipedians, possibly from the outside world, have discussed his COI issues with another editor in the past, and are a Sonics fan. I'm still not sure I'm being presented with the most unbiased look at Coz 11's edit history. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this simple. I had no idea that Chicken Wing was being treated the way he is and it is unacceptable. It also has nothing to do with me. I also get some nasty attacks (although not as vulgar as those attacking him) so I have compassion in that regard.

I make what I feel are appropriate additions to articles I have interest in just as most everyone else here does. After all why would most people be here if they were not interested in the topic? I am open to editing as long as it does not change the gist of the addition or attempts to mislead or distort. I will work with anyone to get to a reasonable solution on any difference of opinion. I like to say that everyone is entitled to their own set of opinions, just not their own set of facts. That in mind I am not very flexible when someone is trying to slant an article away from where it should be. I try to be fair and often will edit things that shouldn't be there even if I personally wouldn't mind if they stayed if it is the right thing to do.

I delete all postings to my user page because I choose to. I wasn't aware of any rule against me editing my own page in any way I see fit. It doesn't matter if it is positive or not. I just prefer to have it be a simple page. In his case I took his point to heart and felt that I hadn't repeated the "offense" he cited. If I have I am sorry and i'll strive to do better.

I am sorry Chicken Wing has a problem with my style but from the attacks he is getting I have a feeling the issues are with him and not with me. --Coz (talk) 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Parsons

• Bob Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article has been edited by User:ParsonsRep who is affiliated with GoDaddy, the company Bob Parsons is CEO of. Some of ParsonsRep's edits have been reverted on this basis, and therefore I feel a discussion should be held here in order to correctly resolve this situation. Howie ☎ 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for opening this discussion. As Howie noted, I am affiliated with Go Daddy. My edits were designed to help bring the page into compliance with Wiki's neutral voice policy. If you look at the revision history, you'll note that many citations were added and other non-verifiable material removed. My goal here is simply to make the article better - encyclopedic in nature, with proper, sourced material, etc. Is there something else I should/should not be doing? If there are passages in the current article that are causing concern for any reason, I am hoping that someone will make necessary changes to improve them. I am happy to make revisions myself, but am refraining in an effort to work with Wiki community at large since there have been concerns about prior changes. Thank you.

ParsonsRep (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for joining in the discussion. I've asked several of the other editors who have contributed to the article to join in this discussion so that we can resolve any problems arising (such as your edits being reverted etc.). In the meantime I will try and look through the edits you have made to determine if I feel there is actual cause for concern. Howie ☎ 19:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked through quite a few of the edits and I didn't see anything jump out at me as being inappropriate. They seem to be reasonable and referenced so I personnaly don't see a problem here with the company/individual rep and would like to go on good faith. With that said I do think that we need to watch the article and make sure that it doesn't turn away form wikipedia guidlines. I admit that its conceivable that a company would manufacture evidence in their favor but I don't see it here yet.--Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the edits at the time they were done, and they seemed ok to me, otherwise I would have reverted them. GreenJoe 22:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

National Women's Health Network

It appears that the National Women's Health Network has a project setup for editing Wikipedia. Apparently called the "Base Camp project". See Nwhnintern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (softblocked as a role account/COI problems) and Healthywomendc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (hardblocked as a repeat role account/COI problems). They have a stated goal of editing the following:

• National Women's Health Network
• Barbara Seaman
• Breast Implant

And I would assume any other article related to this area, see their article. For the moment they are hardblocked. I have left a note on the latest account's talk page trying to open a dialogue and get them to understand/abide by the role account and COI policies. If they respond there and agree to abide by the policies I will change the block. Just an FYI. KnightLago (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Take that Musical (multiple pages)

user lightdefender is busy adding material about the Take that musical (which starts a run in May) to multiple pages. Only problem is, he doesn't want any of the articles to acknowledge the tricky problem that take that have nothing to do with the musical and have made statements to that effect. Examples of his attempts to whitewash articles can be seen here, here, here, various more in history. I can only conclude he has a conflict of interest. --87.113.116.129 (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

87.113.116.129 Is trying to sabotage an article I created about the musical with irrelevant detail. The musical is relevant to both the Take That and Gary Barlow articles. Light Defender (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

you think that it's irrelevant to note on a musical about talk that, that the band stated “There have been reports in the press today about a ‘Take That musical’,” it states solemnly. “The band would like to state categorically that this production is being undertaken with neither their involvement nor their endorsement. They would wish their fans and the general public to know that this production is absolutely and 100 per cent nothing to do with Take That.”1. That's irrelevent? Indeed, it can be mentioned on both the Gary Barlow and take that articles but to mention it without mentioning the fact that none of the band members are connected does not represent a NPOV. Why with the new show coming out next month, you'd almost think you were trying to do PR and wouldn't want people to know that the band were not connected. --87.114.150.200 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As a neutral party, I've looked at the edits suggested and read through these comments. It's apparent that a neutral point of view is not being put forward by Light Defender and that taking out chunks of text that would correct this is totally the wrong attitude. If any article about Take That and the music based on their work does not also state that the band are not involved and do not endorse it, then something is wrong. Wikipedia is not an advert. It is here to state both the positive and negative facts. The fact of this matter is that the musical based on Take That's catalogue is nothing to do with the band nor composers, and that Light Defender is trying to remove this fact from any article that says so. If this continues, I think an admin should be asked to contribute to this matter. Also, remember WP:3RR - don't engage in edit wars. Howie ☎ 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bpayne4001

Bpayne4001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is the username of Mr. Brendan Payne, who is a staff member at the Marketing/External Affairs department of Western New England College and Western New England College School of Law. Mr Payne has a clear history of removing cited information about his employer that could be potentially negative. These include removing newspaper accounts of on-campus crime, alumni who have been convicted of misusing their law degrees, and publicly-available information. Mr. Payne has also created most of the "significant alumni" Wikipedia articles. Thus he has created his own roster of individuals who would not otherwise have articles. The sole purpose has been to link from his employer's article. He has been warned via {{COI}} but the whitewash behavior continues. He has been told of this again and again on his talk page but still refuses to defer to consensus. 99luftbaloons! (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made updates to the Western New England College entries in an effort keep them factually accurate and expand their content to fully encompass all relevant facts about the College. During the course of my work on this project, I have increased the content of the Western New England College entries considerably and have create several new pages for notable people, places, and things in relation to the College. I would like to continue to expand and update the entries so that they remain up-to-date with the changes of the College.

The pages I created for "Notable Alumni" are all elected government officials at the state level. Those entries are allowed on Wikipedia. As for Daniel Hynes, the law grad in question who was convicted of misusing his law degree. He is insignificant and does not deserve to be on the "Notable Alumni" list. Being mentioned on the blog "Above the Law" does not mean it is "international news" as these members have claimed.

Over the course of the last 7-10 days, there have been numerous edits to the Western New England College entries claiming the same thing by different new "users":

• Iminurwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alternoner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Galation2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hittoplot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ijirity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99luftbaloons! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

These users have all come from different accounts with no edit history except to make these claims. It smells mighty fishy to me that there is so much interest in these page from 3-5 independent new users.

In addition, the Western New England College entry was "rickrolled" last week numerous times. I do not know if that has anything to do with this current situation. Bpayne4001 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001

I have to say the mass of SPAs there is far more concerning than the fact that you have a COI, which is not, in and of itself, actually a problem. I'm going to keep an eye on these articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that many of your edits are out-of-line and totally focused on making the college appear in a good light. Such examples include removing information from The Westerner student newspaper and the most pivotal moment in the school's last twenty years... namely that a student was kidnapped by an alumnus and then sexually assaulted many miles away before being returned to campus. I understand that you are paid to make WNEC seem like utopia, but some of these edits smack of blatant whitewashing. I am all for you editing so long as it is more the ADD information than to REMOVE it, which seems to be your modus operandi. You should also disclose your affiliation with the college on your user page. Also, learn to use Google. D. Hynes made news in Pakistan. --Jajablanks (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be another SPA. I am willing to work with you to come to a compromise on what should be included on the entry. That incident certainly isn't the most pivotal moment in the schools last 20 years. Also, I don't hide who I am, it is clear in my screen name. Perhaps you should stick to one screen name in your edits and identify your association with the school since you seem to have vast amount of information on the subject. In regards to Hynes, just because some zoombie news agency in Pakistan picked up a wire story, doesn't make it international news. The Pakistan news agency didn't send a reporter to New Hampshire to cover the case. This incident doesn't pass the laugh test on importance. It would be deleted from the 2008 important events/news page.

Bpayne4001 (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)BPayne4001

Articles

Resolved

 – Not a COI issue. MER-C 03:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the community in general is mostly Republican, which is ok, but I currently have a problem with many of the articles. For instance, all the Democratic articles such as 'Bill clinton' are degraded, and all the Republican articles are heavily praised. I have tried to balance the articles to a 'neutral point of view', but to no avail. thanks! Dwilso 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please ask your question over at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Some people would be surprised to hear that we have a Republican bias. The comments that people have been leaving on your Talk page suggest that you may not have picked up our culture of neutrality yet. Wikipedia does not appreciate the addition of strongly partisan material to articles. A personal website is a better place for that. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder vs. others

There is a lingering dispute between Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) and GijsvdL (talk · contribs), which has spilt over from the Dutch Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder has filed a 3RR report (WP:AN/3RR#User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result) and two Wikiquette alerts (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:GijsvdL and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#nl:Wikipedia) on several users, including myself. Mediation by Scarian (talk · contribs) has failed, because the mediator withdrew. This dispute revolves around the allegation that Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs) has violated WP:COI by adding books he's written, published by his own publishing company (Magnana Mu), to articles. The user has also created articles for an organisation he's the treasurer of and for an organisation he founded. Being semi-involved to involved, I will not assess the merits of this allegation. What I'm here for, is to ask the visitors of this Noticeboard to intervene in this dispute and perhaps cut the Gordian knot. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Aecis. I'd like to add that user:GijsvdL has refused to participate in the mediation for reasons provided at [32]. Furthermore, the vast majority of my edits is on other topics. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is one other self-reference at Types of unemployment.[33]. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me summarize my take on this.

1. WP:COI applies to these cases, except where the references were reinserted by another user as in Melody Amber chess tournament.
2. WP:COI is a guideline for user actions. It has no bearing on the references or articles themselves. They should simply be neutral, reliable etc. as always.
3. WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing.
4. WP:COI can only be violated by a user, not by an article or a reference.
5. WP:COI is violated if the user involved introduces a bias in the article.
6. The identity of the editors has no bearing on the neutrality of the article.
7. If a violation of WP:COI occurs, the response should be (a) to remove the bias, as always, which does not necessarily imply a revert or deletion, and (b) to check whether the user involved behaves in a disruptive manner.
8. As time passes, especially when the article is edited by other users without undoing the edits by the user involved, COI for these edits diminishes and eventually disappears.
9. If a self-reference is deleted and the reference is reinserted by another user, it is no longer a self-reference.
10. With regard to providing sources, there is no difference in guidance between ordinary references and self-references. Where providing a source is mandatory, it is also mandatory to do so for a user with a COI.
11. Self-referencing does not equal self-promotion, original research, or vandalism. Users claiming that it does, behave in a disruptive manner and should be dealt with accordingly. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Users should not make any major edits to articles of which they are directly/indirectly related to.

By writing books about the Melody Amber chess tournament you have put yourself in a position where you are related to the articles topic. You must've done research on the tournament which thus would have put you in a bias position.

By creating articles about organisations that you are related to you are seemingly trying to promote them. Even if you say otherwise, you should have NOT created those articles. WP:AfC and WP:REQUEST, the former being a section of Wikipedia I have vast experience in, are perfect for that. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AfC is for unregistered/anonymous users, so your experience relates to a different area. Am I correct to assume that you no longer claim the articles and references themselves to be tainted, and that you are withdrawing your accusation of self-promotion? Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can submit articles even if you are a registered user on AfC (as, in my vast experience, I've seen it numerous times) :-) - But stop avoiding my point. You should not have created those articles. WP:REQUEST fits perfectly though! And I never actually said that the sources were tainted, you've obviously misread me. There is an obvious conflict of interest here. Any denial of this is, well, just pure denial. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see appropriate action taken against user:Scarian for falsely accusing me of promotion.[34] Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, another user from the same mob at nl:Wikipedia has just joined the harassment team here, user:Migdejong.[35][36][37] Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I would like to say where I stand on this one. To be blunt, the allegation that Guido has violated WP:COI has some merits. He has referenced himself, he has listed his own books, he has written about organisations he's involved in. But I think that's not the main issue. The main issue is that Guido is so emotionally involved in these subjects that he takes anything that doesn't match how he feels about something, as bad faith, inconstructive cabalism and vandalism. From dickish comments and misleading edit summaries to downright arrogance, there's only one way for Guido, and that's his way. Both here and on the Dutch Wikipedia, he has shown himself combative and uncooperative, to the point of becoming disruptive. To summarize, the problem is not the fact that he may have a COI, but the fact that this issue has led him to disrupt two Wikipedia projects. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the above comments highly offensive and kindly ask you to withdraw them. I would appreciate an independent admin to step in at this point and see to it that this procedure follows due process. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, there already has been an indipendent admin involved but he didn't do what you wanted. Aecis just discribed your doings here perfectly and supported by edits even, you are not willing to behave in a normal way and you slander people who do not agree with you. Like I said before, this is not a fit behaviour for a man your age. You are only making it harder for yourself to be taking seriously... Jorrit-H (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Being an admin is no big deal on the English Wikipedia. Admins have some tools, but no special rights in content questions. However, wikilawyering aside, "due process" on Wikipedia involves an open discussion of the issues at hand. That is exactly what I see here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I am done here. Nobody seems to be the least interested to discuss the merits of this case, so what is the point? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We were, even I was (still after more than a year) but you ignore comments, you trow mud and you are not open for another opinion. The problem lies within your own borders, do a little selfreflection now and then.. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're ready, stop throwing mud and comment on my 11 points above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm the one trowing? I see it's hard for you to take criticsm but fine I will react on your points above as long as you promise to take my reaction seriously, otherwise it has no use. Jorrit-H (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any comments on my points will be taken seriously by me, Jorrit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet when someone does, you find those comments defamatory, offensive and even highly offensive. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To my regret, I do, except that these comments are not on my points above. I'm still waiting for Jorrit though. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

External view: I think one problem is that you're trying to engage in a form of discourse that just isn't how things work here. No insult intended, but I've seen it a number of times with editors whose background is in analytical rule-based genres (e.g law, programming, tax, championship-level boardgames, etc). As Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY points out, Wikipedia is not a moot court, and this kind of "I put it to you: point A, point B, point C... which implies ... etc" discourse is viewed negatively as wikilawyering, and in any case is pointless because policies/guidelines are interpreted by custom as well as strict wording.

For example, your point 3 - "WP:COI does not prohibit the user involved from editing" - does not have the corollary that such editing can be done with impunity; the custom is that it should be done with serious caution and always deferring to community opinion.

The bottom line is, if a number of independent editors view your edits as self-promotional, they probably are and you should defer to that view. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the bottom line should always be the quality of Wikipedia. We are not a community, we are a project team, and I will weigh other people's opinions in that light. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

{undent}Wikipedia can be improved without self-promotion. You can place your books, your websites, your suggestions on talk pages, where they will be reviewed by other editors and if there is merit, they will be added. If there is no merit, if it's just self-promotion, changes, sources and suggestions will be rejected. The template {{request edit}} can gather attention from other editors, as can requesting edits from editors known to you or active on the relevant pages. Though this may be slower than making the edits yourself, there is definite advantage to wikipedia using these methods - there is no taint of COI, and no concern over WP:NPOV violations or self-promotion. Ultimately your suggestions will rest on their merit rather than your perception of their merit and the quality of wikipedia is not improved by adding information you inherently can not be neutral on.

I have had contact with GDB on the CVS and VBI verening pages. My interactions suggest to me that he does not truly grasp the importance or essence of policies and guidelines - I'm not sure if it's deliberate or obtuseness. If it is obtuseness, then it is a very strange blind spot - GDB writes well, his spelling is adequate, his presentation of ideas is generally readable, but he does not seem to grasp what policies are saying and why. See User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Vereniging_Basisinkomen in my archive, and in particular the curious discussion under the subheading User_talk:WLU/Archive_6#Notability. He seems unable or unwilling to understand which guidelines govern content (RS, NPOV, OR), and which govern article existence (N). Further, the two pages I was involved in were riddled with coatracking. On the VBI page, I removed the coatracking without incident and GDB has not tried to re-add. Which is it, unable or unwilling? I assume unable, which still suggests problems. Bluntly, GDB should not be adding his own work to pages. He has enough experience on wikipedia, and sufficient discussions related to COI that he knows this is problematic behavior. This isn't a matter of 'needs to be warned'. He is well aware of our position of COI and there is no excuse for violating it by adding sources he wrote and published himself. He is also by now aware that he should not be creating pages for organizations he is a major player in. He has sufficient tools available to him that there is no excuse for creating pages or adding information that may be problematic.

I do not doubt his sincerity, I do not think he is a vandal, but I do think his actions in many cases are well beyond questionable. My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks. --WLU (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, that nobody is interested in discussing my arguments, but all would rather discuss me. But how can you think to understand my motives and ideas, if you do not first try and grasp what I say? If none of you ask me even a single question, but simply keep repeating your own mistaken interpretations?

I know that there are many people who think the same as you, but you are not helping Wikipedia, you are killing it. The project is already declining, and its average quality deteriorating. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed your arguments on all the pages we've interacted on. The above is my opinion. My two archives point to issues you've had with a policy and a guideline and the difference between the two. COI is another area - several users have weighed in. WP:COI#Examples has several examples. You've cited yourself (note the statement "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."), adding books that you have written and published raises concerns over financial benefit. You've created articles that are of extremely tenuous notability - one has been deleted, the other has been AFD-ed and is on the borderline. Perhaps you might want to consider that other editors have a point and certain contributions should be filtered through uninvolved editors. If your expertise is truly formidable, then demonstrate this by citing sources and suggesting changes rather than editing directly. Text created on talk pages and sub-pages can be reviewed by other editors and if issue-free, pasted wholesale. Other editors find your edits problematic and tinted with COI concerns. So, rather than insisting, use alternative methods to draft sections. That would be my recommendation. WLU (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a full total of 3 articles here, and a tiny fraction of my edits. None of which were found problematic by anyone until some users, all of them Dutch, had a disagreement with me about ME/CFS. So no, I am not in doubt. In cases where I was in doubt, I did post on the talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am removing this page from my watchlist, so there is no point posting here again. If anyone wants a real discussion, instead of slinging opinions, post on my talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Response seems typical of that being commented upon and disagreeing with a consensus of other editors, in fact worse, he dismisses other views out of hand and with arrogant bold ignore message - all reminisant of his block in December for 3RR violation [38] where I observed "wikipedia is a collaborative process, so repeatedly stating in talk page discussions that various editors are on your ignore list is also disruptive". I support WLU's conclusion "My opinion would be future COI problems, judged by neutral admins, would result in escalating blocks"... David Ruben ^Talk 13:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's typical - even if GDB doesn't think he's got a COI or conflict problem, others do, and you can't always get what you want (or think is right). Enough people have had problems with GDB's edits that it's arrived here and there's obvious issues with understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines in my mind. WP:SPS says they can be used with caution, and in the areas discussed (obscure chess problems) there may not be an alternative, but if someone else is objecting to you adding your own source, adding it anyway isn't a good idea. The first example in WP:COI is citing oneself, and ends with the sentence "When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion" - yep, I think that applies here. Since GDB isn't watching the page anymore, should a line be dropped on his talk page? In fairness towards his potential expertise, {{request edit}} should probably accompany the message (his original posting would have been timed when the template was a redlink - I've just corrected now). WLU (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To whit. Revert-warring isn't a good sign, ever. WLU (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that blocking might be considered, in the light of Guido's yet again removing the COI tag from Vereniging Basisinkomen. Does anyone have an opinion on that option? Guido appears to be tone-deaf to the strong concerns expressed by the community. He has even less right to remove the COI tag when he has taken the COI noticeboard off his watchlist. I would warn him on his Talk page before doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above applies as a community view & Guido den Broeder can't be excused from it by deciding not to listen. I've therefore posted a WP:Banned notice on his talk page specific to Vereniging Basisinkomen and limiting non-collaborative talk page wikilawyering.[39] Failure to heed community request not to disrupt should be reported to WP:AN/I for an uninvolved admin to block. David Ruben ^Talk 13:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

{undnet}Lovely, now there's an arbitration case. Sigh (reaches for a nice merlot). WLU (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Context, context2. WLU (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've completed my RFAR statement, but I am unclear whether as an alternative WP:AN/I should have invoked or this COI/N is sufficent admin authority in itself to review partial bans & my own handling of this... Presumably this now needs await ArbCom decission on the RFAR before any alternative actions taken ? David Ruben ^Talk 00:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be very, very surprised if the RARB goes forward - there's a wealth of conflict resolution options that haven't been tapped, Guido didn't seem to understand what arbitration was, and it seems grossly overpowered and complicated for what is really a fairly simple dispute. WLU (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RFAR been declined, suggesting that WP:AN/I seek further input, which is an appropriate means of reviewing editor actions, admin actions (and to be fair, also how I as an admin approached an issue), lets await views at WP:AN/I#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions.David Ruben ^Talk 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Havana Club

Amagon rosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has historically made and edited many Cuba-related articles, not without controversy (See talk). He has historically copyvio'd Havana Club's website contents to make articles (speedied twice) and today he posted on Talk:Havana Club and my own talk the following:

Hi, I am working for Havana-Club and I would like to know if it is possible to develop this section. Havana has built a website www.havana-club.com discussing on cocktails, rum making process... Is that possible to create some article in this page telling for exemple that Havana recommand / suggest to make Mojito or Daiquiri cocktail in a special way (explain what ingredients to use...), that havana make its rum with in particulalry way...?

Thank you for your answer.

Although his edits on the article up to now [40] is hardly COI, some watchout is warranted.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple Gifts

Simplegiftsmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing Simple Gifts (trio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages (and has no other edits here) in apparent violation of both WP:COI and the policy on group accounts. The article was created by Tusseysky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has also made no edits anywhere else (except to ask for help). Ma^t_chups 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User CultureNI

• CultureNI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user has edited articles The Highwayman (poem), Snow White (TV film) and The Company of Wolves with reviews on Amazon all by the same person (Anne Marie Marquis); and the articles The Marriage of Figaro, Owen McCafferty, James Nesbitt, The Adventures of Pinocchio, Bap Kennedy, One Night in One City and Martin Waddell with a link to reviews on a website called culturenorthernireland. I believe this user to be Anne Marie Marquis, who wrote the Amazon reviews, and to be associated with the culturenortherireland website (the username is even similar). Howie ☎ 18:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

eyeOS article

Resolved

eyeOS - There is a dispute going on on this page between three users, teddybearnow, psychcf and JayMacdonald, psychcf and Jay both have obvious anti-eyeOS COI with the article, although there edits do appear to be in good faith, teddybearnow possibly has some sort of pro-eyeOS COI, but he denies this, and also seems to be editing in good faith...although not great English. I figured someone used to dealing with COI would be better trying to work this out than me. Restepc (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• This matter has been resolved in private, and the dispute is no longer active. Jaymacdonald (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake protection

• Shustov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has a habit of placing inline external links to his own work, created two articles (Vibration control and Earthquake Protector) and rewrote a third (Base isolation so they refer almost exclusively to his work, and has spammed (there's no other word) a few generic articles with references to said articles. _R_ (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Revival Centres International

This article suffers clearly from conflict of interest. The most prominent users are clearly using this encyclopedia to paint the church in the most attractive light. Their username's suggest affiliation with the church in question and their comments in the discussion pages reveal this agenda. A review of the edits page will clearly show that any attempts to add individual and opposing and independently verified links about issues of controversy around this church and it's practices are simply reverted and called vandalism. Some of these websites are in fact written by academics who have achieved doctorate levels in religious studies and have written for other groups and publications on this church, as well as others. Hoping for a critical mass of people to revert back and improve the article is unlikely to achieve anything as these users clearly have made this article their project and will 'defend' their point of view concerning it, and the group is so unimportant in terms of Australian Contemporary Christianity that the majority of people who know about it simply ignore the group. Wikipedia is clearly being used to advertise, falsely, here.04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)~Quoth-the-Craven (edited because I forgot to sign in, sorry! :) edits still coming from 149.135.114.42 and not an account

User:Loonymonkey

User:Loonymonkey is erasing my edits for no reason. Many of them have been there for long periods of time and are suddenly erased by him. He has far-left political views and erases just about any mention of conservative opinions and allows a lot of liberal opinions to be mentioned, just look at his history. He is abusing his role as an adminsitrator. Please warn him or have him banned. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I see little evidence of you trying to sort your disagreement out with this user, rather than you too undoing/reverting each others edits, why don't you have a chat with him on his user page where this issue could be resolved peacefully, and a satisfactory conclusion could be reached for by both parties.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though he does not have administrator rights, he has an "anti-vandalism" star that he clearly does not deserve. He has threatened to ban me when I was trying to help out with the NPOV on an article. Additionally, he leaves no information on why some edits are erased and has overrode the opinions of just about everyone else on other articles. He is unwilling to negotiate with me; rather, he insists he is always right and that I have "extremist" opinions when in reality mine are probably closer to that of most people. He cannot be reasoned with and I request that action be taken against him. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that this is a conflict of interest issue. Please consider following the steps of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I believe this issue should be closed out as a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not dropping the case until he is punished in some way. He refuses to have an intelligent conversation with me. Just read his page, he refuses to respond to any of my concerns and instead blames me for something I did not do. This is clearly a conflict of interest as he is one of probably many who intends to make wikipedia a left-wing encyclopedia instead of a neutral encyclopedia. "Extremist opinions" "Long history of disruptive edits" (on a shared IP). Clearly, he has an agenda. Also, read his edit history. One edit against me was legitimate, but the others had no reason whatsoever. He cannot be allowed to come after me any further. Please take action soon (I would appreciate it if his "anti-vandalism" star is removed from his page). Thank you. 192.77.143.167 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You want punishment? Then go to the police. Making such a demand here loses you a few thousand sympathy points. Wikipedia has no penal system. We do have sanctions, but they are not punishments, they are damage control mechanisms. –Henning Makholm 05:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not notified of this discussion and actually found it by accident. I'm not going to waste a lot of your time getting into details other than to say that this user is apparently extremely angry that I reverted a few of his/her edits that were blatantly POV or outright vandalism. No experienced editor would have done otherwise. I could post diffs, but the issue is not worth a huge amount of my time (it is discussed on both of our talk pages) and is irrelevant to this discussion anyway. This discussion was initiated as part of a pattern of making a lot of angry noise in order to make a point. Other examples include attempting to report me on Administrator intervention against vandalism (for which he was scolded on his user page) and imploring other administrators to "take my star away" (I think he believes that barnstars confer some sort of authority). Obviously there is no conflict of interest issue here and it's doubtful that this user even understands what WP:COI is. I don't see any reason why this issue should be left open. I should also note that I am not and have never claimed to be an administrator. Further, I have never "threatened to ban" anyone, having only left template warnings. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

PowerBasic Part II

• PowerBASIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 71.100.238.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.17.204.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I posted here a month ago asking for help with the Powerbasic Entry. It seems that determination by the PowerBasic company has prevailed. I checked back on this page after a month to see what progress had been made by others, and it still reads like a glossy brochure for the company product.

• ANY* attempt to add content is immediatly deleted.

Thier contempt for the process that wikipedia was founded on, (multiple editors) and the five pillars is obvious. Despite several requests (from admins and myself) they still refuse to even register.

I recognize that this entry is relatively low on the Totem pole of importance in this huge repository, and that it does not get much traffic from people knowledegable enough to contribute, so a little adjudication would go a long way here (and allow me to move on to contributing content that is not likely to be regarded as detrimental to a companies market aims and public image!)

I have justified my submissions as requested, endlessly. I have made the case for verifiability and the reliability of sources here, yet within hours every one of my contributions is deleted.

RealWorldExperience (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you've also been told, endlessly, that forum postings are not acceptable as sources. But even if they were, the kind of thing you want to add is your personal synthesis of forum content (e.g. counts of support messages answered, and your assessment of the attitude to criticism there), and that's unusable per the no original research policy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my post on the reliable sources noticeboard While I respect the concept that chat forums are not reliable sources, I suggest that a chat forum as a repository for computer source code, that can be immediately compiled and run by anyone, is an exception because it becomes a place to verify the truth of a statement like: computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3. (The reason is because floating point operations just take longer.) Please take a moment to read this post. From Reliable_sources "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." I believe this is very relevant in this case. Please bear in mind that most likely never will be any "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." that take an interest in small technical details of minor software compiler

Further: "These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment." RealWorldExperience (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but even if we accept the reliability of the source, you are making a novel and personal selection of that material in support of arguing a point: so it's both original research and WP:SOAP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, I have invited anyone to submit source to the contrary. The powebasic company, who you would assume be able to rebutt this with links to the contrary, decline to do so. I assert that there are no links to the contrary. Infact the Integer issues described can be verified by anyone that owns the compiler in 10 seconds! As can be clearly seen, I did not discover these inconsitencies, nor am I the only one to point them out, so obviously this is not original research. If you would take a moment to actually read the arguments on the talk page I think this would be clearer. Beyond that, how can the "personal selection" of features that are included in the wikipedia entry by the powerbasic company not also qualify as original research? You can't have it both ways... RealWorldExperience (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

RealWorldExperience, it appears you have an axe to grind with PowerBASIC. That is something between you and the company, and it's something that should remain between you and the company. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a blog or a free webspace provider. Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable from reliable sources. We are not in the business of revealing embarrassing or inconvenient Truths^TM. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with other commenters above that RealWorldExperience's deductions from the PowerBASIC forum postings don't belong in the article. But the article at present is one-sidedly positive about PowerBASIC. This is a product which has been out for many years, and you would expect it must have been reviewed many times in the trade press. Presumably these reviews are not uniformly positive, and if we read them, we could create a more balanced picture. PowerBASIC, due to its longevity, may in fact be 'behind the curve', and you wonder if it can handle the range of tasks addressed by more recent languages that run on Windows. (What about Visual Basic?). I hope that we could answer some of these questions for our readers, but this would require some kind soul to actually dig up references and work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that anyone willing to hold a company like powerbasic accountable for its clear violation of the conflict of interest policy, is an easy target for the accusation that they have an axe to grind. This is the unfortunate and inevitable consequence. I left a month cooling off period, and I have not responded to any of the personal attacks or accusations of the owner, frantic to deflect attention. My hope is that I can attract a qualified (computer science) admin who will adjudicate this issue which I have so far failed to do. All that has happened in the last month is that a few randomm people have stopped by, made edits that have immediately been challenged by powerbasic and then disappeared. It seems no one can be bothered because the owner is so tendentious.

As I have explained to my wikipedia mentor, I have elected to follow through with this entry in determining whether I want to invest a lot of time contributing on many levels to Wikipedia. I am evaluating the reality of the Wikipedia policies in action (in this case Conflict of interest. So far, I do not see a lot of teeth in policy like "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is not deleted just because somebody doesn't like it. Any editor may add material to or remove material from the article within the terms of our content policies.".

In taking on the Powerbasic entry, I am seeking fair play in terms of a real adjudication of the issues, not the knee jerk quotation of boilerplate language by passing editors who stop long enough to pass superficial judgement, enforcement at a meaningful level, and the application of the principals Wikipedia was founded upon. Without my efforts, I am beginning to suspect Powerbasic will just fall through the cracks and will once again become the unofficial marketing tool of the company. After careful consideration, I picked up this cause becuase I have not seen a clearer example of Conflict of Interest on Wikipedia. EVERY contribution I have made has been deleted. Not one has been edited. RealWorldExperience (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The people who respond at this noticeboard are volunteers, and can't be told to spend any particular amount of time on the problem. Since you seem particularly interested in PowerBASIC, do you think you could look up published references for us? It's disappointing that you are still relentlessly offering your own original research findings. If somebody can add properly-sourced information to the article, and *then* an editor who has a COI reverts it out, we are quite capable of taking vigorous action. Until that time, there's not much scope for enforcement. If nobody has time to look up references, one option is to simply remove all the unsourced information from the article and leave it as a stub. If that happened, almost the whole article would disappear. Even the listed review of PowerBASIC in PC Magazine by Rick Knoblaugh is given with no date, and can't be found in PC Magazine's online archives. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are problems with the PowerBASIC article, and it would make discussion/monitoring of possible COI a darn sight easier if Tim Robbins would get an account as advised.

That said, can we cut to the chase over RealWorldExperience (talk · contribs)? I'm finding it increasingly hard to see good faith in this complaint. This appears to be an SPA whose sole interest in Wikipedia so far is in trying to bend WP:RS and WP:NOR to get hostile material into one article (and forum-shopping in pursuit of that - see [41], [42]). Even his mentorship - User:RealWorldExperience/Mentoring - is bent toward that tendentious aim.

In fact I'm certain we're being trolled. A naive newcomer who needs mentoring is unlikely to know about Mediation Cabal Cases [43]. This is someone who knows their way round Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon- I'd be honored to cooperate with you by representing PowerBASIC. Your assessment of this fellow is accurate. We know him. Have you read his first few deleted posts? Amazing stuff. Fabrications. Misrepresentations. Things like: they have no privacy policy... then later... they modified their privacy policy to match my dispute... they have no full-time support engineers ... they won't give you the free support they advertise... they'll take your money then bar you from any support... and many more. It's very ugly and 100% false. He even posted "This situation renders PowerBASIC a poor choice for new users". He's toned it down now to get past his critics, but he already said publicly that once this edit 'sticks', he'll do more. His mentor advised him to lay low for a few days or a week, then hit it again. I hope someone will still be around to help defend a very honorable business. How can I help you with this unfortunate situation? PowerBASIC (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "representing" PowerBASIC. The aim here is to make sure Wikipedia standards are upheld from both sides. As others have said, you could help by sticking to one registered account (not called PowerBASIC, as IIRC role accounts aren't allowed) which makes attribution and discussion of edits easier. You could also help via the Talk page with finding reliable third-party published sources to verify and expand the article. I'm sure the company must have kept clippings of computer mag articles. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't suggesting that you represent PowerBASIC. I was responding to your wish for a PowerBASIC representative with whom you could speak. I added the word by above to clarify my intent.PowerBASIC (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I appreciate your point of view, but as I have argued in detail, there never will be an article published in main stream media about the technical details of a minor software compiler. The Wikipedia criteria for veification goes on to say: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I am arguing that signed, dated statements made by the owner of Powerbasic (via a wholly owned and run forum) are about as reliable a source for information about the product as you can get. He created it after all.

If my purpose was to be vindictive, I would be arguing for the removal of the entire Powerbasic entry, because as you point out, none of it meets the strictest criteria for verification, but I am not. I don't think that serves anyone. I would argue that as the reliable sources page puts it "This page is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It is not a policy:"

While I agree that chat forums are not reliable sources for statements, a forum of computer source code (that can immediately be compiled and run by anyone) is because it contains the MEANS to verify the truth of a statement like: computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3. This is very different because it is *NOT* a statement in a forum that "Floating point calculations take longer", it is referencing code that proves this. It is not original research as it is a "feature" of the compiler. RealWorldExperience (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon, please try to calm down. Could you please explain what "SPA", "Forum Shopping", and "being trolled" means (probably on my talk page would be best). My purpose is clearly stated. I am seeking to present the truth in a fair and balanced way. I do not want to remove every shred of the powerbasic entry, in fact i have not deleted anything. I am simply trying to bring some balance. I have been challenged to provide verification of my contribution which I have done in great detail. You would have all that dismissed as original research or unreliable sources. IN reading about these topics and fllowing endless links to the definition of words used, I came across the mediation cabal and instructins for initiating a case. I have done that as it very apparent this issue would benefit from a serious examination of the facts.

RealWorldExperience (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really are a newcomer with a sincere wish for mentoring, start by taking the advice you've been repeatedly given, instead of writing essays arguing the toss about it. Mentoring, by the way, doesn't exist to teach you rules-lawyering to better push your point of view; your mentor should be telling you that you've waded in with a pattern of tendentious editing that will lead nowhere but warnings and blocks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. As you point out I am new here. I began simply a month ago with a post here that dissapeared. I did as I was asked to no avail. Powerbasic still reads like a glossy brochure for the company. Now I am trying a little harder. I am continually surprised by your bias in this case. You do not seem even willing to acknowledge that there is a conflict of interest, instead you have made you mind up that I must be tendentious. My "essay's" are the detailed verification that I was requested to write to support my few lines of respectful content. Categorizing them as "arguing the toss" is not very respectful and clearly biased. RealWorldExperience (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Xavexgoem has invited comments at Talk:PowerBASIC#Medcab re consensus to close Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 PowerBASIC for now. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User Jakebobbins

Resolved

 – No evidence of a COI.BlueAzure (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jakebobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)seems like conflict of interest. see contribs and you may notice that this user might belong to that company. also have a look at the users talkpage. spam?

Which company? I see nothing that indicates a COI in his edit history. His talk page contains a COI warning, inserted without any comment or rationale by the same IP address who left the above record. Most other notices on the user talk page seem to be (csd,prod,afd) notices. Those give the impression of an ordinary enthusiastic fan whose notabilitometer may need a bit of calibration. But nothing that looks like COI or bad faith. Suggest closing this unless reporter makes a more coherent statement about what is wrong. –Henning Makholm 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking through the user's edits, I agree with your comments. BlueAzure (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams

• Stephanie Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swiksek (talk · contribs)
• SeraphHim (talk · contribs)
• Ladysekhmet (talk · contribs)
• Sean D Martin (talk · contribs)
• Wandering canadian (talk · contribs)

User:Sean D Martin was an affiliate in a lawsuit filed by Stephanie Adams by which she won, and as a result, he has been repeatedly visiting her page and subjectively editing the article about her. He even visits her discussion page and directs his comments towards her, as if she is actually reading them. Much more bizarre, he actually thinks every single individual user who has graced the discussion page is Stephanie Adams, which is absolutely absurd. Even though he claims to have had direct contact with her, which none of us editing that article believe, we still feel that he has enough of a conflict of interest to be banned from editing a page about a person he has such personal feelings about. User:Wandering canadian is also an accomplice to User:Sean D Martin and should be investigated for having a personal conflict of interest as well. Why edit a page about a woman you hate or are obsessed with unless it's to defame and maliciously attack the accuracy of the article about her? SeraphHim (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting amongst the comments already posted to continue to set the record straight, as I will continue to so long as this person continue to post lies about me.

"User:Sean D Martin was an affiliate in a lawsuit filed by Stephanie Adams" Nope, not true. And if you follow the various comments posted by this person you'll find they claimed I was first a party to the suit (Nope, never sued by anyone. Harassed and threatened, but never sued by Stephanie Adams.), then I'm a friend of the person sued (Which I'm not. Never met them, never spoke with them, etc.) now an affiliate to the suit. SeraphHim et al is heading in the right direction, but not there yet. "subjectively editing the article" Nope, quite the contrary. Review every edit I've ever made. Won't be able to find even one that wasn't attempting to make the article more factual, less subjective. "He actually thinks every single individual user who has graced the discussion page is Stephanie Adams" Nope. Not everyone. But all anonymous posters whos IPs all trace back to Verizon NYC and the named posters who've never made any comment on Wiki until very recently, only post to pages related to Ms Adams and all sound remarkably the same in their comments... "he claims to have had direct contact with her" Much as I wish I didn't. But, alas, I do have a nice collection of emails directly from her mailbox to mine (as validated by the headers). -- Sean Martin (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sean D Martin's last edit to Stephanie Adams was more than a year ago. On what basis do you assert there is an ongoing COI problem?

User:Wandering canadian has a four logged edits to Stephanie Adams during the last year. Neither looks unreasonable to me.

You have zero edits to Stephanie Adams. In fact, this report is your first and only logged contribution, ever. What's up with that? –Henning Makholm 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting amongst the comments already posted to continue to set the record straight, as I will continue to so long as this person continue to post lies about me.

"What's up with that?" In a word: sock puppets. (OK, two words.) -- Sean Martin (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

There's something weird going on with that article, and it appears to involve quite a few different single purpose accounts and IP addresses working together. Is there some way to check on/deal with multiple accounts/IPs being used in this manner? Is she really notable enough to have an article at all? it reads like a little like an advert for her and her books atm...Restepc (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting amongst the comments...

Yes, and a trace of the IPs, a comparison of the edit times and noticing how they all say the same things (sometimes verbatim) would lead you to the obvious answer. -- Sean Martin (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read that Playboy Playmates are considered notable enough to have articles. It seems like there are a large number of IPs, probably COI-affected, working on the article. At various times in the past (e.g. early 2007) this article has been semi-protected to keep down the IP edit wars. If you look in Talk:Stephanie_Adams/archive_01 you'll see rather tense negotiations back in 2006 with representatives of Stephanie Adams including an appeal to Jimbo, who gave some advice. Unless I've missed something, I don't notice any recent attempts to add any defamatory material to the article. It's mostly a bunch of IPs, probably COI-affected, adding promotional material, and other IPs trying to take it out and maintain our standards. Two veteran editors, Hoary and Dismas, have edited recently. All the other logged-in editors who have edited lately seem like they have few interests outside this article. Unless people are offended by the promotional edits by the IPs, I'm not sure there is much to do here. This COI complaint was opened by a single-purpose account who has no other edits. If we want to take this seriously, lets do a month of semi-protection and try to create a stable and non-promotional version of the article. Comments? EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Interjecting amongst the comments...

Semi-protect sounds good to me. At least it would help cut down the plethora of single-purpose anonymous accounts used to violate WP:NPA in nearly every posting. -- Sean Martin (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And to me as well. As you'll see from the talk page, a number of usernames and IPs have angrily protested any questioning of the rather grand claims the article makes for Adams, e.g. that she's a "spokesmodel" or notable investor or author. Anyone who claims that the evidence for these claims is flimsy risks being diagnosed with this or that psychopathological disorder. This is amusing in small doses (I rather treasure the diagnosis of "vagina envy") but soon becomes tiresome. I'm thick-skinned and no enthusiast for invocations of "WP:CIVIL", but somebody not yet involved in any way may wish to keep an eye on the talk page and consider whether "WP:NPA" should be invoked. -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The original title of this report was Personal Attacks About The Actual Person In The Article: Stephanie Adams, given to it by User:SeraphHim. Since this editor gave no evidence of personal attacks, and since it is easier to refer to the report with a short title, I changed it to Stephanie Adams. If anyone disagrees, they can revert my change. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Per supporting comments by Hoary and Sean D. Martin, I have semi-protected the article for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. I have to say that I am surprised that I am being named as an "accomplice" to someone I have never met but just happen to agree with. Wandering canadian (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, WC. I know how you feel. I tried to warn ya. [48] <grin>. Truly sorry I was right. -- Sean Martin (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith about users but I feel we can add Swiksek (talk · contribs) to the list of COI users. All of their edits involve Ms. Adams in some way and all but one of them as been within the last month. They are currently removing info which has two sources on the basis that it is defamatory. All the paragraph says is that she helped teach a course and that it was given a bad review. I don't see how this is "potentially libellous (sic)", "false" and "defmatory (sic)" as Swiksek states. Dismas|^(talk) 15:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add some context, 23 users have edited the Stephanie Adams article or Talk page since the recent activity started a couple weeks ago. Of those, 12 never posted anything prior to the start of the recent activity. The 12 include Skiksek, RoughRideHome, An-Apple-A-NY-Day and all of the anonymous editors (209.167.67.130, 66.108.146.77, 66.108.4.133, 69.203.12.124, 69.204.224.140, 71.167.226.96, 71.167.230.166, 72.89.117.239). It is also interesting that most of these 12 also made their first comments within hours, if not minutes, of each other. -- Sean Martin (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit history of this page shows that Sean D Martin removed a personal attack against him by 208.120.11.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This is one of the editors who we assume is a staunch defender of Stephanie Adams. I support the removal. If the attacks continue, I suggest that blocking those responsible be considered, or semi-protection of this Talk. These attacks appear related to a history of off-wiki stress between Stephanie Adams and Sean Martin. I would welcome your comments on this idea. So far I have not noticed any attacks on Stephanie Adams. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Ed. Just to keep the record straight, I did remove a personal attack but was not the first to do so. The attack was removed by another editor [[49]]. I restored it just long enough to post a reply and then re-deleted the attack along with my reply. (My reasons for that unusual action were explained in my now-deleted reply [[50]]. -- Sean Martin (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowpoint Marketing

Article was speedily deleted. –Henning Makholm 16:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hollowpoint Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Possible conflict of interest and maybe not notable as well. User:Hollowpointr created the article today. Bidgee (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

removed resolved tag, while the article has been deleted the user is satisfied and is making threats against the admin who deleted the page, and appears to be involved in PA against Bidgee. The user is also adding information to other articles so its not yet resolved. I have just left the user a note on policies that affect his action. I suggest that this is discussion left open and other editors look at what is happening. Gnangarra 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The 'threat' was that unless the page was reverted, I would lodge a complaint. This is NOT a legal threat, therefore not a violation of wikipedia policy.

I was stating my intent should the delete not be reversed. I am well within my right to lodge a complaint, and it is not for you to decide if I can or not. This is still a free country, so if I decide that I will lodge a complaint, that is my prerogative. If you are suggesting that I will be blocked (threat) for stating that unless an item is removed, I will be using my right to lodge a complaint, then that is a threat in and of itself. I will NOT withdraw the statement.

Hollowpoint Marketing is NOT a company, it is a trademark of a marketing method, as you would have found out had I been able to go back into the article and add some more detail. There are currently 3 articles online from reliable sources that pertain to this method, and once this issue has been resolved and the article re-instated, I will go back in and reference these third party articles. It is a matter of public interest, it is a trademarked method, and about to become a patented method. As for having a COI, can you seriously tell me that no one from Telstra or Ebay supplied any information on THEIR article? I do not believe that. The whole way this has been handled (from speedy deletion to your comments) is ethically challenged at best. I should have been advised to provide sources/evidence/etc from the outset, instead of the deletion. I should have then had the opportunity to correct any errors or omissions, as per Wikipedia policy, BEFORE an admin decided that it was a policy violation. This is all making me wonder what interest the admin has in web design or marketing, and I suggest that I will be lodging a complaint about the process forthwith, AS IS MY RIGHT. --Hollowpointr (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The threat you are referring to is in this edit I said its was of concern, in that you have said you will have an "admin removed" if they dont do what you want. Gnangarra 02:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"For your information, Hollowpoint Marketing, which is trademarked to Hollowpoint Pty Ltd, is a marketing method for online advertising, as would have been made apparent HAD I been able to continue with my article. Your speedy deletion is not the first time you have made a revert/deletion in error (you did it with my Telstra edit), so I would have to include that as part of my case for having an Admin removed (ongoing personal attack). --Hollowpointr (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)" - 'part of my case for having an Admin removed' is NOT a threat! If I choose to lodge a complaint requesting that an admin be stripped of his or her privileges, once again, that is MY prerogative. There is absolutely NOTHING in wikipedia policy that says I cannot say that! The 'threat' is neither a legal threat nor a personal attack. EVERYTHING said above is factual (1/ it was a speedy deletion, 2/ it is not the first time that a revert has been made in error by that admin (my telstra edit was eventually fixed by admin with an apology stating THEY made a mistake), 3/ I can lodge a complaint (my 'case') and 4/ I will be asking for removal of admin privileges for that admin). It IS as it appears... it's not an issue of getting my own way, it's an issue that I feel what has been done is violation of wikipedia policy. Anyway, this seems somewhat circumlocutive, so I will be lodging a complaint and let them decide the case on it's merits. Further discussion seems somewhat futile, as you know what I want, and I even stated I am willing to negotiate by putting the links to the sources, stating facts and facts alone, and then allowing for comments to determine from the majority if this article is suitable for wikipedia. --Hollowpointr (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the links you claim make the subject notable, that is the way we do things the onus for verification of material is on the editor adding the information. If you provide the links we can resolve the matter now. Gnangarra 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The links will be provided first thing on Tuesday. The articles were supposed to be online effective Friday, but I forgot that it was a public holiday. I am busy on Monday but on Tuesday I will revisit this issue when they are online and in the interim, you can leave the page deleted, but I would expect that the page Hollowpoint Marketing will be made available to me should the outcome determine that it is relevant. After all, it is a trademark anyway. --Hollowpointr (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Spamming Hollowpoint Pty Ltd, a web design and internet marketing company

http://.hollowpoint.com.au

• Hollowpointr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 121.208.16.212 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• hollowpoint.com.au: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• SPAM
  • External link spamming
  • How not to be a spammer
• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
  • Advertising and conflicts of interest
• Conflict of interest
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
• SOCK
  • Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
  • 'Role' accounts
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
  • Persistent spamming
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the AIAS College of Natural Medicine is one of Hollowpoint Pty Ltd's clients, so there are a few COI edits on that topic too [51]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

has been hassling me over his edits and also told me to "stop molesting his edits" [52] and has made threats to "formalise a complaint" [53] ever since that day of the unsourced information was entred in articles and the COI. I would put it to WP:AN/I but I'm not in the mood and not feelin well. Bidgee (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1/ If I wish to make a formal complaint, that is my prerogative, 2/ Australian Institute of Applied Sciences is an educational institution, protected by the WikiEducation Project, and has now been deleted incorrectly by Hu12. This is an educational institution.... what the hell is wrong with you people??? --Hollowpointr (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, undelete Australian Institute of Applied Sciences. It is neither your jurisdiction (it is for the WikiProject Education Australia to decide on deletion) nor is it part of this discussion. This discussion is Hollowpoint Marketing, but you have decided to delete a page based on this discussion and a review of my posts. What exactly is YOUR issue with this? --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that we assigned pages to groups based on 'jurisdictions' now. I mean, it seems to me like it's a straightforward blatant advertising case, what with the sentence "The Australian Institute of Applied Sciences college of natural medicine represents the culmination of some two decades of quality tertiary vocational education for natural medicine, massage and beauty therapy." But I guess my jursidiction doesn't cover educational institutions, so my judgment doesn't matter. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hu12, stop attempting to cover your tracks by deleting my posts asking WikiProject Education Australia for support to protect the page. As for jurisdiction, called it authority then... Hu12, you are overstepping your authority on this... it is a protected page under the WikiProject Education Australia. If you have issues with the page, then maybe you should raise those issues in Talk instead of deleting things. --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages aren't under 'authorities' either. The inclusion or lack thereof of a page in a particular wikiproject does not have any weight on whether the page is a candidate for speedy deletion. Hu12 is perfectly within his authority to speedily delete a page that is blatantly advertising the entity it represents. That's the point of the whole speedy deletion process: to not get bogged down in endless Talk page discussions over every single page that needs to be deleted. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Then delete Australian College of Natural Medicine then... it is EXACTLY the same! --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist--Hu12 (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowpointr, your comments in the thread so far are not likely to be mistaken for a charm offensive. You are lecturing us on the meaning of our own policies. We could provide some advice on how you might create a conformant article, but before doing so it would be nice to receive some hint that you are interested in that advice. I took a look at the speedy-deleted article, and it falls well short of what we normally expect of a neutral and informative article on a business topic. Others might be willing to work with you on creating an improved draft, if you express an interest. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: at this point the editor User:Hollowpointr has been blocked indefinitely, presumably for abusive language, making threats, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Restivo

Carl Restivo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I created this page a while back and recently an account Carlrestivo rewrote the entire page. I have since reverted the page, but it should be worth noting that if this account belongs to the person in question, he is editing his own article. --Sharkface^T/_C 07:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)