Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
| Search the COI noticeboard archives |
| Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
StrategiCom
Several anon IP users have been adding back in previously removed promotional material and removing the advert tag. All are in the same city as this company and most have made no other edits. The company itself is in the "Brand Consulting" business. My attempts to engage the editors have failed. Given the nature of the edits I suspect these are employees of the company. Rees11 (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- What a mess. There are a number of SPAs working that article, not all anonymous. SCom09 is a pretty blatant example, and Nebulous09, Sitikchai, and Siesta 06 are either socks or related SPAs. The article was also created by an SPA. The article, essentially, appears to be a product of the company. The company does seem notable, however, so deleting the article would be inappropriate, but keeping the article neutral can be difficult I'm sure. I don't think there's quite enough consistent disruption to warrant semi-protection at this time, and to be honest not all of the edits are bad, these COI SPAs and IPs are adding some decent content alongside the promotional stuff. -- Atama頭 17:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Super Hero Squad
Marvel Super Hero Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The7thCynic and his anonymous persona 71.199.246.246 have already been reported, and threatened with blacklisting, for his efforts to keep a message board he admins in the external links. After the page was protected, he went away, but now he's back again. Alowishous (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Alowishous (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed here a couple of months ago. In my opinion, whether or not there is a COI (its not immediately apparent) is irrelevant as the link is inappropriate per WP:ELNO. If someone consistently adds the same link after being warned then they could be blocked for spamming and the website could be blacklisted. Hopefully The7thCynic will realise that they can't add their link to the article and there won't be any further problems. Smartse (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Having read the WP:ELNO in detail, i do not believe the link is at all inappropriate. Firstly, I suggest that nothing on there is listed as a hard-fast rule. In fact, it uses the word 'normally', as to imply possibly exceptions. And although it is a link to a forum, considering it DOES "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" AND "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (listed under Sites to Include) it should fall under that exception. Also consider - as I mentioned before but got misconstrewed as an attack - Wikis common sense:
"...Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."
And under that, not only do I suggest the Hasbor Heroes link remain, but also the others that were removed as they are all VERY informative and offer much more up to date and detailed information that can be found here.
There was also an idea that a consenus was made - but I disagree. Those that added the various links back to the page throughout the months obviously considered them useful, even though they might never comment on the talk page. But if all it requires is a consensus to keep the link, I'm sure we can find more than enough people that believe the link(s) should stay.
I would ALSO like to add that it is apparent that the decision to remove the links was based off of a 'resolution' or 'compromise' to the above mentioned 'edit-war' rather than the enforcing of any rules. This 'resolution' was made here by Cameron Scott and conflicts with the rationalion given for the removal of the links.
On a side note, a while back the link was in question (and removed) because registration was required. Shortly afterwards, it was changed to NOT require registration and and the link was determined to be acceptable. Now, years later, after the so-called 'edit war' (which I was NOT a part of - as I only ever added links back, never removed any), apparently its not anymore.
Personally, it seems like a witchhunt OR power hungry editors whose answer to a resolution is the deletion of all.--The7thCynic (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's be clear about what the problems are here, The7thCynic.
- Ignore All Rules is a critical part of Wikipedia, but misused often, and I believe you are misusing it now. It does not mean that the rules should just be ignored if they get in the way of something you want done. It means that the rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and/or they don't make sense in a particular case. Generally an appeal to IAR should be accompanied by a very persuasive argument as to why the rules should be ignored, while you've offered nothing except that your opinion is that the link (and others) are good, without anything to back that up.
- You have a clear conflict of interest. Your personal opinion is naturally colored by the fact that you are associated with the site that you want to have linked.
- Forums are very, very, very rarely linked to in any article. I understand that you probably don't have enough experience with various articles on Wikipedia, but it's an almost unheard of exception to allow a discussion forum as an external link. That is because as discussion forums, they offer almost nothing in terms of objective knowledge to an article subject. One of the very few exceptions I can think of would be in an article that is actually about a particularly notable forum, such as 4chan.
- You are casually asking for people to make a rare exception to allow a link to a site where you have a clear conflict of interest, against prior discussion that agreed to not allow such, without any compelling reason to back up your request. I hope you see what the unlikelihood of that occurring might be. Also, attacking other editors ("power hungry editors") is more likely to result in sanctions against you, rather than to accomplish your goals, such confrontational attitudes are extremely counter-productive. -- Atama頭 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to add 2 cents... putting the links back IS part of the edit war. There's already been lots of talk about how just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it's right. The links are good, but Wikipedia's not a directory or promotional tool. I can google about a dozen pages on super hero squad but that doesn't mean they should all be included. Look at the Spider-Man page and see that it's got 6 external links and 3 are to Marvel's own sites. There are many more sites out there that talk about Spider-Man, including major ones like Spider-Fan, but don't get included just because they're on topic. And continuing to say that everyone that disagrees with you is power hungry, on a witchhunt, stubborn or stupid doesn't help. It's not persecution, it's trying to apply a consistent standard over Wikipedia. Two cents.Alowishous (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, lets deal with one issue at a time.
- COI - I can see where it may appear that there is a conflict, but I assure you there is none. We do not sell anything. We are not worried about members. We are a simply a resource, and specifically for the subject of this page. Some would even say the best resource. And we work with many that edit this article. We work hand in hand with the article as a database. All the links in question do. And unlike the Spider-Man reference, I would argue with Alowishous that you cannot just Google 'super hero squad' and get a dozen pages of useful information. In fact, we could say that information is sparse, thus making these links available even more crucial.
- But back to the COI, I can see this is a clear point of contention for you - as it is your main emphasis throughout. But I can easily solve this matter by abandoning that the specific forum I'm associated with get added - though will continue to argue that the others be added back regardless. (Will THAT then be enough to move on from the concept of COI that has apparently clouded much of your opinion of me or for the principle I stand for?)
- Ignore All Rules or Common Sense - The assumption here is that I only request an exception because it's something I want done - which is preposterous. (But I suppose that opinion is based on your belief that there's a COI.) The inclusion of the links IS SOLELY for the improvement of the article as they provide MORE information and sources than the actual article itself, and I have stated so above, as well as stated before. But you suggest that I haven't backed up that statement, so I will humor you:
- Consider that almost NONE of this article is sourced. Well, not only do those sites provide pictures and specific details on each and every figure, including articulation and repack/repaint information, but all of the information on the upcoming waves (which are listed here) are all sourced, unlike the article - where it is often suggested to be rumored and falsely removed.
- Is that enough?
On a similar note...
- Forums being linked - In the same breath that it says forums should normally be avoided, it also mentions blogs and fansites. And yet I can show you dozens upon dozens of articles that include those - and probably rightfully so. This seems to me like picking and choosing. (And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.) But again, with so little information out about this toy line (even the official site is VERY incomplete in comparison to ANY of the links), these links are more than useful. (Is all that persuasive enough argument for common sense? Geeeeeeeez.)
- Edit War - Alowishous, perhaps you missed the start of all of this. Recap: Someone was removing the Rumorbuster link, then another person would come back and add it while deleting the Hasbro Heroes link at the same time, and vice versa. I was not one of those people. Although i would re-add the link, as it was apparently (at that time) done maliciously. So no, adding the link back was NOT part of the Edit War in question. Then as I mentioned, Cameron Scott, suggested that the 'compromise' would be to delete both - but it was never under the premise that it was breaking a rule. Not being part of the original Edit War, and as an observer, I have a problem with that type of moderating.
- Speaking of, I also would like to point out how interesting it is that both of you bothered to mention my "power hungry editors" comment (which FYI wasn't a specific attack on anyone, just my observation - but would at best fit the above mentioned moderating - which is not cool) but neglected to comment on the fact that this all started as the lame 'resolution' to an edit war. --The7thCynic (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- COI isn't limited to people who make money or who "want" members. The conflict is that you, who cannot be impartial, is saying your materials are the best or are more accurate, more whatever.
Your recap is incorrect and disingenous. The edit war you refer to doesn't happen in the way you suggest. You say that there was malicious removal of your links. That's not what happened.
[[1]] User User:72.71.55.224 removed therumorbuster.com apparently in a fit of vandalism most of which has been undone.
[[2]] user User:shsquad fan adds it back.
[[3]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com
[[4]] - User:Tomson elite returns the site.
[[5]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com and replaces it with your site.
[[6]] - your site is removed by user User:Arachnad
And from there, it looks like you triggered an autoreversion bot when you tried to readd the link as user User:71.199.246.246, and that's when this situation started getting noticed.
And when called upon to explain why 98.235.186.116 was continually removing therumorbuster.com link, [[7]] he says nothing.
Then looking at User:98.235.186.116's history [[8]] who was removing whose (whomever's?) link is obviously the other way around. "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)"
Interestingly enough, looking at posts on your site at that time, you can see another admin of your site named X-Fan discussing how the Rumorbuster link isn't working and should be taken out.
So now we have you insisting you're not part of the war, because you're only re-adding your link in, 98.235.186.116 removing their link and replacing it with your link, you claiming to not have a conflict of interest, 98.235.186.116 (who I would bet is this x-fan admin since he basically admits to removing the other site on your site) removing a link solely because if your site isn't included, neither should the other link.
If you had an issue with the link being removed, then the proper course of action was to then ask for reasons and talk it out. Instead you kept adding it, which resulted in more attention, and later you attempted to circumvent the 3RR by using your IP and your screen name when you continued adding it in.
Adding the link back, after it was removed as an inappropriate link, WAS the war, regardless of your view of how malicious you found the enforcement of the rules to be or how you characterize the removal of the links.
Your remaining arguments are without merit. You now say you'll abandon wanting your site back to avoid the conflict of interest. It doesn't work retroactively, so now saying that the Ignore All Rules or Common Sense arguments are preposterous because you don't have a COI is bafflingly illogical.
You claim that because links to fan pages exist on other Wikipedia sites, it's picking and choosing. Not every instance gets caught by editors. This is a big site. Same with speeders and the police. You can't just tell the officer that other people are speeding and so you shouldn't get a ticket. Saying "And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone" is more proof of this flawed logic. You don't like the result, so it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.
And not all editors see things the same way. That's why there's consensus, and the editors that looked at it said your forum shouldn't belong.
User:Cameron Scott did not really offer scrubbing the links as a compromise, regardless of his wording, because none of the links had a right to belong. All three links fell under the same category of stuff to go. The "compromise" was to enforce the general rules. The compromise, if any, wasn't to satisfy you and the other sites by offering to split the baby as Solomon once offered, but to stop the edit war by getting rid of links that violated the rules in the first place.
Of course, now your argument is that Cameron Scott's resolution, by taking out that which did not belong, is lame. Nobody commented on why you called the editors power mad because it's irrelevant. You didn't like the result of enforcing the rules, therefore the moderating was "uncool" and the resolution was lame and the editors are power hungry.
And now Methinks the lady doeth protest too much.Alowishous (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to address your comments:
I won't say your recap is disingenous as you said mine was (Which for the record, suggesting I'm lying is really no better than a reference to power hungry editors, is it?) - as I believe you just werent there from the beinginning - but it is still incorrect.
From the Super Hero Squad discussion page: In regards to deleting the Rumorbuster link - "Can we come up with some kind of peaceful resolution to this edit war? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt 98.235.186.116 but you just keep deleting this link...."(talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009
- "More warring, still no talk."Tomson elite 14:04, 28 October 2009
So the warring in question, and even by your own examples, was with the back and forth removal of hasbro heroes and/or Rumorbuster link - not the removal of both.
Then from the COI noticeboard. :
"...User:98.235.186.116 was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, User:71.199.246.246 joins in....."Tomson elite (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009
- "Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist." --Cameron Scott 19:50, 28 October 2009
- "Sounds like a good compromise..."Tomson elite 19:56, 28 October 2009
See the dates? Notice no comments abt the links breaking any rules? See how it was considered a 'compromise' rather than an enforcing? Hmmmmm.....
Now if you're suggesting that AFTER that 'compromise' was made, AFTER the original 'edit War', that my re-adding of the links was part of this NEW issue - then sure. Although I will say that at the time, I thought it was still part of the same foolishness as I was not totally aware of all these various pages of discussion or I would have commented. As proof to that, notice my edit on 20:16, 28 October 2009 where I commented "I even added Rumorbuster back. Stop the foolish editing."
I don't know who 98.235.186.116 is and whether it is or isn't X-Fan really has no bearing to me. Again, I think removing ANY of the links is silly as they are ALL useful to the article. But apparently the COI that you believe I have also sways how you view me in the original 'edit war'.
On another note, you insist its not picking and choosing when dozens of articles break said rule and attempt to mask it with an explaination of how editors can't catch everything. Very well. But it seems more rational that with the sheer number of articles Im referring to, that this particular article is just being targeted and denied the same sort of exception.
Regardless, its apparent that it's all come doen to consensus. And as I was informed Consensus can change.--The7thCynic (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This seems to be getting nowhere. He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out. I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it, and the facts support it. You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously. You weren't, however, the other site was apparently. You say whether or not 98.235.186.116 is X-Fan has no bearing on you, but whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue. Then it further hammers home the point of COI, and having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands doesn't make the issue any better. You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story.
- You claim to not have been aware of the pages to discuss this, fine, but after consensus against your link, and no, we cannot just forget COI and you still refuse to acknowledge there is one, you then decided to come back and add it anyway, bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong. And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return.
- There isn't an "exception" in place for external links in articles that aren't properly sanitized. There's no "mask" or explanation... it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time. Otherwise, your site would have stayed removed apparently some time ago. Just because now that this issue with this particular page has been identified, it's being closely watched does not mean that you're being persecuted (for doing something you shouldn't be doing) or that other pages have an exemption. It just means this is one problem everyone is aware of, and now can be stopped.Alowishous (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
At this point, i may have lost you, except for - "This seems to be getting nowhere."
Now to defend myself: "He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out."
- I have no idea what youre referring to. I thought I laid it all out for you, apparently I didnt. It is YOU that does not understand the series of events that transpired, not me.
"I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it"
- And how is that different that calling me a liar?
"You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously."
- Ive suggested that this particular article has been targeted, not any specific link. Why do you continue to insist that I have a particular bias against any other link when I have yet to show one, and in fact, have done the contrary in trying to get it added back various times?
"whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue."
- Sure he is, but that doesnt mean I agree, control, or was aware of any of his actions. As I pointed out before with my 10/28 edit and comment, I was against the removal of ANY of the links. I stand by that statement. They are ALL useful.
"having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands"
- FYI, this assumption is also extremely offensive.
"You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story."
- And it is an attack. But Im not sure what you mean with positive spin. There would be no point in me fabricating any story.
"we cannot just forget COI"
- As far as I know, there hasnt been a COI even established. Only possibly by you, who originally placed the issue here in the first place.
"bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong."
- Dont try and brush off all of my points as simply telling everyone they are wrong. That is far from what Ive done. Instead, why dont you try to reply with something more than strings of subtle attack, as these last recent points dont really add much to the discussions - nor do my responses - but I am instinctively compelled to defend myself. Geeeeez.
"And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return."
- And? i thought that consensus was the main issue that was keeping them off as it has been thrown in my face numerous times.
"it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time."
- As Ive already said, thats your take on it, not mine. For me, its common sense that for the number of rule breaks I see on Wiki on a regular basis, that this article is possibly under higher scrutiny than normal and definitely than necessary. We're talking links here. --The7thCynic (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The links don't belong. They violate WP:ELNO. Even the COI is really secondary to that. They are discussion forums, not places for reliable information. There's no benefit to a reader to direct them to a site like that. This is long-standing Wikipedia consensus, part of an official guideline, and there's no reasoning given to ignore it. You've said before you see blogs and fansites that don't belong... And that's true, I'm sure there are plenty of them in Wikipedia. They also should be removed, with rare exceptions. Just because you see a candy wrapper on a sidewalk, that doesn't mean that you have a right to litter there, it just means that somebody else has left a mess and nobody else has cleaned it up yet. -- Atama頭 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Atama above, which is why I'm commenting at the talk page, and not this COI case. Whether or not there's COI is secondary, as the links don't belong regardless of the editor's connection. I would encourage any editor commenting here to also do so at the relevant talk page, as the discussion is oingoing there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
- Very well - Ill keep the discussion over there. Thank you.--The7thCynic (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
ResolvedUser:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop (edit | [[Talk:User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Considering that the spammy userspace draft -- sitting there since 24 Sept -- says that the shop is owned by one "Butler White", I'd say that the COI is clear. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like an abandoned draft. Perhaps WP:MfD it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have created MfD. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
WHDT and WHDT
WHDT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:WHDT, who claims to be WHDT's "Chief Engineer", keeps reverting to a highly dubious version of the article that claims, for example, that WHDT is broadcasting a signal (FCC reports as well as OR show it isn't), and that it is carried by (or recently that it has been ordered to be carried by, implying it is, with nothing showing it isn't) Dish Network. I'm not the only user who is seeing these claims as problematic, and User:WHDT has been told the COI nature of the edits are problematic. There has been one, short, exchange on the Talk: page but User:WHDT's responses both avoided the central specific issue (evidence that WHDT is actually on the air) and were, as with his reverts, "somewhat discourteous".
I'm sure User:WHDT has useful information he or she could add to the article, but at this point it appears, to me at any rate, that commercially WHDT has a fairly large interest in disguising the fact the channel doesn't broadcast an ATSC channel at this time in at least one of the areas it has a license, and is abusing Wikipedia to maintain this fiction.
At this point I'm giving up, I'm walking away from the article as I find monitoring and reverting extremely tedious and a waste of my time, but I'd appreciate someone who actually has the power to force WHDT to read the guidelines and stick to them could actually do so. 66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've reported the username to WP:UAA as it looks like it is either a role account or someone claiming to be linked to WHDT. I agree that their edits are definitely of concern, thanks for posting. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're been blocked because of their username, so the problem is slightly fixed but I guess that they will probably return with a different username. I'm not sure what else there is to do now as the article has already been fixed up by 66.149.58.8. I guess we wait and see, hoping that they will take note that their edits were inappropriate. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of this. I do think the user could probably be a constructive participant (and has made some constructive edits in the past) so I'm not overly happy with having to bring this up. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately while I said I'd walk away I made the mistake of checking the page again this evening, and he's back under a new nick doing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to try to walk away from this (I'm not going to sit here reverting his claims over and over again), but if someone could explain the WP:COI policy to him in a way he'll understand then I think it would be a good idea. I'm not sure what to do to fix the page, beyond possibly argue for its deletion. WHDT has one noteable aspect, it was supposedly the US's first commercial digital station, but otherwise it really hasn't done much of note and would normally be a footnote in, say, an article about the history of digital television in the US. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- The new name is "Marksteiner", and the owner of the station is "Günter Marksteiner". The aggressive behavior of the editor as well as aggressive language on the talk page of the article are both very troubling. The article itself probably merits inclusion per WP:BCAST whether or not it was the first commercial digital station in the US. -- Atama頭 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Marksteiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been blocked, I've asked the admin to check whether this was right as WHDT was told they could edit using a different username when they were blocked. Having done a bit of searching it does seem possible that the information in the article at present is incorrect. There is a NYT article and another article that have both been published this year that mention the channel. This would contradict the current version which states that they have been off air for two years. If this is correct then it makes it more reasonable as to why Marksteiner and WHDT made the edits that they did. I'm not entirely certain what action to take now though! Smartse (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed the NYT article is actually from 2001 despite gnews saying it is published today! Smartse (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Jenn Brown
Jenn Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi. It would be lovely if anybody who works COI issues wanted to add this article to their watchlists, because I think it's a trainwreck waiting to recur. It was listed at WP:CP for copyright problems, and in the course of cleaning it up I realized that the article has almost certainly been controlled since at least April 2009 by the subject or her agency, Berk Communications (see User talk:BerkCommunications; [9]). Mostly IP contributors have repeatedly pasted promotional material from her website and resisted efforts by outsiders to remove such encyclopedic text as "Brown has a carefree nature that entices viewers to follow her on her many bold and electrifying adventures." All of this has been wiped out by the copyvio cleanup, which removed the last 66 edits from the article (and I only added back content that seemed neutral and copyvio clear...which wasn't much), but this stealth advertising campaign had been conducted for months. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article has been properly sanitized. I wasn't sure what you were talking about until I looked at the deleted edits for the article (I'm glad I can do that kind of thing now). A definite problem, we have promotional conflicts of interest combined with a BLP and copyright violations. The promotional editing has been somewhat sporadic, with the latest occurring on December 4th, so it's difficult to justify protection at this point but if it resumes at a high volume then I'd recommend semiprotection (or do it myself). -- Atama頭 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
MondayMEDIA
MondayMEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was created by somebody with the username mondaymedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, he or she has been active in creating links towards that article, and also external links towards MondayMEDIA's website on a number of pages. Some of it seems excessively promotional to my novice eyes, but I would appreciate some feedback in this. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Definitely promotional. User is blocked for username problem. There are only a few external links left and they are possibly ok, so I left them. Please report if process continues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some of the added links are ok, some are spam. I removed a few. If anyone wants to go through the user contribs and check the rest that would be a good thing. Rees11 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- JonMonday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
In addition to the suggestive user name, this user has (I think) admitted to having a COI here: User talk:Rees11 "I added information about two audio CDs of lectures given by Aldous Huxley that are ... licensed from the Vedanta Society ... my own 40 year association with the Vedanta Society ..." I will point him to the COI guidelines. Rees11 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Since MondayMEDIA and JonMonday seem to be the same user (see User talk:Mondaymedia), and assuming JonMonday is Jon Monday, it looks like the user has also created an autobiography. Rees11 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Paid Company Editing W. V. Grant Article
W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earlier, an SPA Superedit09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed quite a bit of negative information on the W. V. Grant article, including his arrested for tax evasion and a section of criticism. I reverted the removal of unsourced information, and commented on the talk page explaining. I also informed the editor about the conflict of interest policy, and advised him the best way to make changes on an article that you have a personal involvement with is to suggest them on the talk page, and gain consensus.
They've reverted [10], and responded. As per this edit [11], the editor admits they are with a company contacted by the subject to clean up their wikipedia article. Not only is the sourced tax evasion material gone, somehow the article doesn't even appear to be in the same font. I'm not even sure how that could happen.I'll be off and on wiki for the next few days, so I'm bringing it here for more eyes. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- UPDATE: I just noticed their post on the talk page also contains a legal threat ("Legal action is prepared to be taken if this matter can not be resolved.") Since I set this off by reverting, if someone else would warn them, it would probably go over better. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I left a separate warning, as the material they were introducing was unreferenced and inappropriate (whether or not there was a COI issue). I have not addressed the matter of a legal threat. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I left an NLT message at User talk:Superedit09 and will notice any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't fall to hard for the claims of their not understanding what was going on. It's a bit odd that they'd use the full syntax of [[ and | tweaks in order to customize their signature on the article talk page. Actually I thought it was a different user that had posted first before. Not impossible but still an uncommon thing. I also worked backwards and saw a few sock-looking accounts (50/50 shot I'd say) but since it might take a few hours I'll have to do it this evening. Socks, but not co-op edits even if proven, so resolvable. Want to add a general note for anyone browsing-- the IP that swooped in with edits on some talk pages of persons involved here I can't see related in any way to this matter. It and another IP at roughly the same time were snapping onto edits that would have been directly off the top of the recent changes log and the new user log, and there happened to accidentally be a few crosses at the time... both have been blocked since. ♪ daTheisen(talk)
- Oh, and ask the legal matters be stricken? It is far more a rant than any pointed threat so it's not terribly concerning to run off to ANI. They have their final warning so it's an obvious reporting next time. Has anyone actually made an attempt to talk to the user? Their posts on the article talk page are detailed and well-written, but it needs to be stated before any possible sanctions are given that almost every word of them are 100% contrary to Wikipedia policy. Especially the assertion of placing "right" information being okay without source if they know it's "right", and that it trumps "wrong" things with an infinite number of references. Guidelines and every other fiber of being in Wikipedia makes WP:PROVEIT very clear and a nice summary of WP:N, V and RS at the same time. Really nasty sense of WP:OWN too, with argument made based on length of time spent on writing about the person. Since I wasn't there to watch it develop, I'll leave it to any of the editors involved to decide a next action. It's possible to make a balanced article with such accounts... if they're willing to be cooperative. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The standard action to clear legal threats has been taken; indefinite block until the threat is retracted. Until then this editor won't be causing any trouble under this account. -- Atama頭 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Rick206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - While seeking feedback for his work in progress, it was brought to Rick's attention that he had the same name as the Vice President of the company. This in turn sparked interest in a possible COI. Rick posted on my talk page and asked for help on the matter, and I came here to seek some more opinions in hopes that this matter is resolved peacefully and without bias. Airplaneman talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to assume good faith, and if they claim to not be the same Rick as the VP of the company, I suppose that he isn't. Although as a resident of the greater Seattle area myself, I know that 206 happens to be the area code for Seattle, so the chosen username still screams COI to me; also, the personal way in which the article is written suggests an employee of the company or a person otherwise affiliated. I'm glad that the editor is communicative and shows a willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines, but the company just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the first place. My suggestion to Rick is that if he is interested in editing Wikipedia that he find some other way to contribute. Someone who is communicative, polite, and has decent writing skills is a very welcome addition to the project and there are millions of articles that can use his help. -- Atama頭 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Action grrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Action grrl appears to be a single purpose account promoting the work of action movie director J.A. Steel. It appears they may also have strayed into copyright violation with Denizen (2010 film). Can someone please take a look? I don't have the time to get involved in another issue at the moment. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a tough one. I have a strong hunch as to the identity of the editor, but I care not to voice this to avoid outing them (her?). If my hunch is correct, there are some strong COI concerns with this editor, but absent any self-identification the best thing to do is assume that this is just a fan of Steel. The copyright concerns seem to have been addressed, and despite my initial impressions both the actress and the film seem to meet our notability guidelines. I'm not sure what is actionable, but the report itself is certainly warranted. -- Atama頭 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The user has simply replaced one copyvio with another (see here) and is shining you on. Sorry, I just don't have the time to deal with slipperiness like this right now, but I will at least AfD the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all of the help making the articles better, the guidance on links and the references (the copyright issue). It is a team effort and I appreciate the professionalism! :)
I am a fan of JA Steel, JD Disalvatore, Dreya Weber (A Marine Story) and other strong women in Film.
I am grateful to be a part of Wikipedia and welcome the feedback. Action grrl (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad that you've replied here, AG. I do have some suggestions to help you along at Wikipedia, take them or leave them as you like.
- If you do have some personal connection to anyone or anything you're editing about, that is not forbidden. We don't have hard-and-fast rules that prevent you from doing so. We're only trying to identify such connections to be "on the lookout" for deliberate promotion (which I don't think you've done) or unintentional bias (which anyone can do without meaning to).
- It's best to acknowledge such connections if you do have them. Doing so will help other editors know where you're coming from, and prevent people from assuming bad motives on your part if such connections are "revealed".
- YOU ARE NOT COMPELLED TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION. I don't want to make that look like "shouting" but I wanted to make it very clear. You don't have to tell anyone who you are, or give any personal information you aren't comfortable with. We have policies against people who try to dig up personal info about editors, and I always suggest that people think twice before they volunteer it. There are a lot of dangerous people on the Web, and Wikipedia certainly has its share. Risking your personal safety for an encyclopedia is definitely not worth it.
- There are some indications that you might have a conflict of interest. Your edits are almost all related to JA Steel, her movies, and people associated with her movies (like Jessica Bair). That's not against the rules, or even discouraged; everyone is drawn to articles on subjects they're interested in (I know I am). But that still invites questions, if you can understand. In addition, you've stated on your user talk page that you actually spoke with J.A. Steel, which lends more weight to such suspicions. I only say this to explain why the COI concerns were raised in the first place, I don't see anything wrong with any of your edits myself.
- You have a lot of enthusiasm for the subjects you write about. That's a good thing, Wikipedia needs people who want to create and expand articles. Just be sure to not let that enthusiasm go too far, be sure to listen to criticism and concerns from other editors, and remember that everything here is a collaboration (not a solo project) and you'll be fine.
- If you ever have questions please let me know, thank you. (Oh yeah, you might want to check out one or more Wikiprojects, where you can either ask for or give help, such as WP:FILM, WP:LGBT, or WP:ACTOR.)-- Atama頭 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Atama,
- Thanks so much for the guidance and insight. I know most of the Lesbians in Hollywood that are in the entertainment industry. I've found that they are under-represented on Wikipedia, as they are in the film industry itself. I would like to continue to contribute edits and articles in this genre, that is indeed near and dear to my heart.
- On my first article, I was criticized for not enough links coming into the article, so I tried to prevent that this time and apparently overdid it.
- I have no intention to violate copyright, and edits are most helpful and welcome. It was my understanding that press releases are in public domain for adaptation in articles. Again, I welcome any input.
- This has been quite an arduous experience, and I appreciate you taking the time to mentor me and collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia.
- Action grrl (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Atama,
- Learning from my recent experiences, I proposed two articles on my talk page to a gentleman (Chris) in Germany who offered to assist me navigate Wikipedia and write articles better.
- There is no article on one of the most loved and award winning Lesbian movies of all time, The Gymnast, staring Dreya Weber, who did the choreography for the artist Pink! at a recent award ceremony. I've asked for his thoughts on how to craft an article about this beloved movie of our community. The Gymnast at IMDb.
- I would also like to do an article on the award-winning filmmaker Alexandra Kondracke, who is directing the new Girltrash!: All Night Long film and was a writer/producer for The L Word. She has a long career in Hollywood, but no Wikipedia article. Alexandra Kondracke at IMDb.
- I would appreciate your help and collaboration, as you have time.
- I know both Dreya and Alexandra in Hollywood, and am grateful for your guidance.
- Thanks,
- Action grrl (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't help but notice that J.A. Steel happens to be in "Girltrash: All Night Long". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Very cool. Perhaps you can add it to her Filmography?
- A nice gentlemen, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ), set up these two workshops for me to develop and grow:
- User:Action grrl/workshop/The Gymnast
- User:Action grrl/workshop/Alexandra Kondracke
- You are most welcome to participate. It is clear I can learn a lot from your experience and expertise.
- Thanks --Action grrl (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are most welcome! It would be fantastic if you could read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and maybe think a bit about those guidelines! You seem to be saying that you know a lot of the people whose articles you are editing and those guidelines will come in handy for you! Looking forward to working with you again soon! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks --Action grrl (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, the links are very helpful. The Lesbian community in Hollywood is very small and all the gals know each other. It is the nature of living and working in an environment where you are a scant minority. Having experts like you and Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) provide oversight, suggestion, guidance and edits is much appreciated. I am committed to the WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI guidelines, and appreciate all who have reviewed and edited my contributions to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing you again in a workspace. This as been quite an experience. I will focus on the workspaces Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) created, for more practice in a safe and collaborative environment, where we can publish articles in concert. Action grrl (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Peter Maple
Peter Maple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article - largely advertising - is being edited by Maplep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to be the subject, KewQuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is providing citations to a website of the same name and JamesPeters1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a single purpose account for this subject. Each have been warned about their conflict of interest, but continue to remove maintenance tags from the article, forming a false consensus on the talk page that, between them, they have solved the problems by providing links to blogs and LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. JamesPeters1980 (talk · contribs) and KewQuorum (talk · contribs) are pretty obviously the same user. ⬅ ⚠ Redvers dashing thru the snow ⚠ 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm opening up a sockpuppet investigation. I believe that the three editors here are the same person (who is probably Peter Maple, per Maplep who self-identified). Using three accounts to create a false consensus is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. The Peter Maple article itself does not seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, and should probably be deleted. -- Atama頭 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The case is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KewQuorum for anyone who wishes to comment. -- Atama頭 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Kripalu Center
Kripalu Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally an advertisement, IMO, and an interested editor fixed much of that. However, now it is slanted oddly: simple non-profit organization replaced with long negative-slant explanation... 2008 revenue being hammered into sentence 1, news that profits are off, news that staff are being cut, news that pay to executives is going up, news of scandals, award for "best spa" removed as minor and old. Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings. I am withdrawing from the article, again, but I fear other eyes are needed on it as there have been fairly grave wp:BLP issues, and I don't feel I can contribute usefully at this time. One editor in a previous wp:NPOVN section I started disagreed with my interpretation of events, by the way, saying the article was reasonably neutral/balanced.- Sinneed 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you brought this here, and I totally understand withdrawing from the article. Looking at the history of the article, and Calamitybrook's talk page, I see a long, drawn-out dispute between you two. The editor has had a turbulent past, judging from their talk page, and their continued involvement with the article should be questioned. Some of the arguments made by Calamitybrook on the article's talk page are troubling, such as the suggestion that notability should be based on how nice the center looks in the landscape(?!). -- Atama頭 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I regard conflicts of interest as unethical. Editor says it's because I "appear intimately familiar with staff nicknames;" what he means is the yogic titles of president and vice president, as listed prominently on company's Web page.
- I have no personal or professional interest in the topic of article. To suggest otherwise, because I "know staff nicknames" and have done research, is simply inaccurate.
- For so simple and brief an article, there are many citations concerning "detailed workings," most of which are available on line.
- On talk page, plz note that a different ed. recently suggested that the article had too positive a slant, while a third ed found it neutral. What ever. Question here is Conflict of Interest.
- A 160,0000 sq-ft building in the woods indeed affects a landscape enshrined in Amer Lit. by N. Hawthorne, E. Wharton et al. and now part of a federal forest reserve. This "troubling argument" however, is not part of article.
- Award for "Best Spa" from "Self Magazine" is 10 years old and not the Nobel Prize. I replaced with note that center is subject of many travel articles in general interest newspapers, magazines. Not sure how best to cite this easily verified fact.
Calamitybrook (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to address each of your points individually. What you regard a conflict of interest to be is irrelevant, when we talk about them we're talking specifically about the guideline at WP:COI. That may differ from some outside definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, or yours, but you should familiarize yourself with that guideline if you haven't yet.
- You're either grossly misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in your statement about staff nicknames. John Carter previously mentioned that you referred to people as nicknames like "Gurudev", which is not even close to the "yogic titles of president or vice president". This misstatement of facts is troubling.
- Whether or not the argument about notability is or is not part of the article isn't relevant. You offered it as evidence of notability, dismissing the usual argument that significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be used to determine notability. I can accept that people have different opinions of what should constitute notability, but is troubling when combined with other concerns about your editing behavior at the article.
- You replaced a verified, sourced statement for an award with a vague, unsupported weasel word statement (if you don't know what weasel words are, don't be offended, just see the link). You use a Google search result as a reference for that, even though that is never acceptable as a reliable source.
- Overall, I think you've been damaging this article a piece at a time, violating numerous policies and guidelines in the process, and in defiance of editors who have been trying to tell you what you're doing wrong. Really, I think it's best for you to avoid the article entirely. -- Atama頭 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Indie Movies
- Indie Movies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See archive. It's still going on. I'm going through and tagging them, but this is getting annoying now. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- 70.147.45.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - this IP has a very similar edit history to Indie Movies. Smartse (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No one had given them a COI warning or drawn their attention to this or the previous thread. As Atama stated before it is a pretty clear case of self promotion. I would urge Indie Movies to desist from creating more articles about these non-notable films that are all produced and sold by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to have to warn them and if it continues they could be blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. I've only just discovered there was a COI template just now. I'll make sure to use that in the future. I will admit that some of the films I am unsure about tagging, say, this one for example. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- He's readded Natasha (film) and now just did the same with Bad Reputation (film) (another one I'm unsure about) and still doesn't understand that maybe having most of his articles be submitted for deletion and being discussed here means something is wrong. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No worries about the lack of template, you should always notify someone if you post about them on a noticeboard though (Don't worry though as hardly anyone does, despite it being in the instructions at the top). I've checked the couple that I PRODed and none of them seemed to be notable as far as I could tell from a google news search. London Betty looks the same to be honest the number of google hits isn't the best indicator but there are only 3000 for ""london betty" film" so it doesn't look very notable. I've level 3 warned them as they've carried on despite being warned and being informed of this. Smartse (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that all the plot sections in the articles are copyvios of the webpages they reference too. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that too (mentioned in the last thread as well), but I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it like you have. When I first encountered this user, I once tagged an article as G12 but it got declined because the person who came along didn't think it worthwhile to delete it because of it. Since there is no speedy deletion criteria for non-notable films (there really needs to be), I've had to resort to prodding. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I sort of dropped the ball on this. I planned on checking the articles against web sites to see if I could identify copyright violations; my gut tells me that much of the content in those articles was lifted either from some fan/review site, or an official site related to the films. Smartse has verified that much the material in these articles has been copied, but I think the best solution is a mass AfD. These articles are clearly related, created/expanded by the same person(s), and share the same issues. One advantage of AfD over PROD or CSD is that it inhibits recreation in ways that the other deletion methods don't; either the original AfD result must be overturned in WP:DRV or the recreated articles must differ significantly from the deleted versions and/or address the issues brought forth in the AfD discussion. -- Atama頭 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. I've started three AfDs for the ones which had the prod removed and, just to be on the safe side, an SPI. (sighs) Should I start working on AfDing all of the others, prod or not? I'll do them, since I'm the original reporter. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I saw the SPI while I was filing one for a different user on this page (see Peter Maples above), but I don't think that will go anywhere. Editing with multiple accounts isn't disallowed on the encyclopedia, on its own (though disclosing alternate accounts is strongly encouraged), and editing without being logged in is definitely allowed (people do it all the time by accident). Sockpuppetry is only actionable when you can also show violations related to the sockpuppetry. (Using a sock to edit while your main account is blocked, casting multiple votes in an AfD, pretending to form consensus among multiple editors, etc.) -- Atama頭 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- No worries. I've started three AfDs for the ones which had the prod removed and, just to be on the safe side, an SPI. (sighs) Should I start working on AfDing all of the others, prod or not? I'll do them, since I'm the original reporter. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I sort of dropped the ball on this. I planned on checking the articles against web sites to see if I could identify copyright violations; my gut tells me that much of the content in those articles was lifted either from some fan/review site, or an official site related to the films. Smartse has verified that much the material in these articles has been copied, but I think the best solution is a mass AfD. These articles are clearly related, created/expanded by the same person(s), and share the same issues. One advantage of AfD over PROD or CSD is that it inhibits recreation in ways that the other deletion methods don't; either the original AfD result must be overturned in WP:DRV or the recreated articles must differ significantly from the deleted versions and/or address the issues brought forth in the AfD discussion. -- Atama頭 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that too (mentioned in the last thread as well), but I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it like you have. When I first encountered this user, I once tagged an article as G12 but it got declined because the person who came along didn't think it worthwhile to delete it because of it. Since there is no speedy deletion criteria for non-notable films (there really needs to be), I've had to resort to prodding. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- He's readded Natasha (film) and now just did the same with Bad Reputation (film) (another one I'm unsure about) and still doesn't understand that maybe having most of his articles be submitted for deletion and being discussed here means something is wrong. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies. I've only just discovered there was a COI template just now. I'll make sure to use that in the future. I will admit that some of the films I am unsure about tagging, say, this one for example. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
← I don't know... part of me thought that it was an attempt to cast suspicion off his main account. Right now, I'm either assuming bad faith or someone who doesn't pay attention that something is wrong with the pages, not sure which. Anyway, the first AfD has links to all the others now. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Head writer for BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP creating and editing articles related to the company
See User:Acuffrose. This relates to the articles Max Azria and Lubov Azria and also to the copyvio problems, although they are not a matter for this page. I'll notify the editor and then I'm off to bed. Dougweller (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure if this resolves the issue, but the articles have been deleted. -- Atama頭 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Can you help me out with this? I will do whatever I need to do to keep the listing as neutral as possible and keep in line with Wikipedia standards. However now both articles have been deleted. This is particularly alarming for the Max Azria one-- his article has been up there for a long time and was not started by us. I simply updated the photo, fixed some formatting and added the list and descriptions of the brand encompassed by the BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP company. This brings his article in line with those of other, similar fashion personalities like Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford and Tommy Hilfiger. I don't understand why the article was full-on deleted like that. As for the one about Lubov Azria-- she is our creative director and a public personality in fashion just like Marc Jacobs or Phoebe Philo. She has become more public in the past 18 months, and there is very little information about her available publicly. Creating a page for her and updating the page for Max was done in response to press inquires. Please let me know what I need to do to get both pages back up. Thank you so much for your help!Acuffrose (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The proper venue is WP:DRV, which is the deletion review board. Or you can talk to Orange Mike, the administrator who deleted the articles, to ask him why he did so and to ask how you could help prevent the articles from being deleted in the future if you were to recreate them. -- Atama頭 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- An earlier version of the article on Max, who has a good case for notability, has been restored, with the COI edits of Acuffrose omitted. There is no case for separate notability for Lubov Aria, his wife. It should be noted for future reference that the article on Max has a bad history of COI editors, including User:Roseorchid, self-described as "assistant manager for Max Rave"; the IP 169.234.101.48; and User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Acuffrose: are you the editor who formerly edited as User:Roseorchid and described her/himself as "an assistant manager for Max Rave"? Are you the editor who formerly edited as User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
User:William M. Connolley and Global Warming
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Resolved
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accused (author Lawrence Solomon) of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to further an environmental agenda. The article states 5,428 articles could be involved.
For the record I have awarded WMC barnstars in 2006 for excellence in writing and maintaining science articles. I respect him. However, given the potential harm this should be treated seriously until demonstrated otherwise. - RoyBoy 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: I found this written by William M. Connolley discussing Lawrence Solomon and Energy Probe. - RoyBoy 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- He may have been so accused but the accusation is a ludicrous one. A conflict of interest means an incompatibility between the interests of an editor and those of developing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia, and someone who is an expert in the field is certainly not thereby disqualified from helping improve articles - not even if they have known opinions. Making sure that the current state of climate science is accurately described is a service to the encyclopaedia, not something to be resisted. The limited extent to which William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest comes solely with matters related directly to the RealClimate blog at the time he was involved in it, and the British Antarctic Survey under similar restrictions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Lectures on conflict of interest are rather rich coming from "Mr Blacketer", I think. I love SUV's (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the word you were looking for was not "rich" but "apposite". Yes, I too have been frivolously accused by a journalist with an agenda, of having a conflict of interest because I edit in a field I have professional and personal knowledge of. That means I am keen to defend others who have been similarly wrongly accused, even ones with whom some people believe me to have 'a history'. Merely being actively engaged within a field of human expertise and having known opinions about the subject, does not give an editor a conflict of interest. Editors only have conflicts of interest when they are directly, personally and currently involved in the immediate precise issue being written about. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doesn't the fact he is being paid by the Climate Research Unit to astroturf Wikipedia for the AGW POV pose a fiduciary conflict of interest with his role as editor here? I thought astroturfing was banned at Wikipedia?97.94.189.111 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since that hasn't happened no. Please don't abuse the word "fact" in future.©Geni 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No comment on the broader accusation, which I haven't looked at, but that Financial Post article is idiotic. It proceeds from the first principle that everything WMC does on Wikipedia is pushing a global warming-related agenda. The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming. "Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." - most of them "ran afoul" of him by crossing the WP:3RR bright line on articles entirely unrelated to global warming. And so on. If there is a COI issue here, please present using actual evidence, rather than the kind of journalism that makes me embarrassed of my citizenship. Steve Smith (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Striking analysis. On the point of "present using actual evidence" would take a significant amount of time; and could be interpreted as cabal protectionism. Being correctly deliberative may not be a luxury we can afford. - RoyBoy 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- A chain of comments here may relate to this issue. 69.9.27.168 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To be scrupulously fair to Lawrence Solomon, the author of that piece, he is not a journalist but a writer and columnist and the piece in question is neither a news article nor investigative journalism, but an opinion column. This kind of writing sells papers, apparently. --TS 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. This is an author for the National Post nobody buys that crap. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The COI accusation was made off-wiki, in an op-ed. I don't think that it's of concern. When an editor makes an appeal as to how WMC is in specific violation of our WP:COI guideline, that's when I would be concerned. And as Sam Blacketer has alluded to, experts editing articles related to their fields of expertise are specifically given allowance in our guideline (even encouraged, as they should be) and only when there is a personal conflict should the COI be looked at (such as the blog mentioned). -- Atama頭 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Post article (actually, a blog entry) is ludicrous. It appears that the right-wing blogosphere has gotten to be dumber than usual lately with respect to WMC; there are more detailed rebuttals at Talk:William Connolley#Solomon op-ed and Talk:William Connolley#Conflict of Interest. There really isn't any credible, evidence-based claim being made anywhere. The climate skeptics echo chamber is probably going to be repeating this nonsense, so administrators watching William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be extra-vigilant for BLP problems over the next few weeks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not completely certain as to why this is even being brought up. Are you suggesting that because someone seems to be drumming up a controversy (citing 5k+ edits with nothing to prove that those where problematic edits) that WMC should be barred from the article or subject? This board is for noting/discussing when editors may be directly involved with the subject of the article(s) they are editing. If that's what you're suggesting, please be more clear. Honestly, I can't believe we're even taking the time to address these articles. Like Steve Smith noted, the edits they cite are everything WMC has ever done on WP and assume they were all POV pushing edits. They even site his deletions as an admin, deleting speedy deletion articles which have nothing to do with global warming or his POV. What a waste of time. OlYellerTalktome 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Demonstrating how seriously we take alleged systematic bias is not a waste of time. A proper analysis should be done, and potential COI's on specific articles are possible. I sincerely hope such actions are unnecessary, but looking at the issue for a few minutes / hours and coming to a determination is a disservice to Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You haven't stated what you want the community to actually do. Are you volunteering to do this "proper analysis"? --NeilN talk to me 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Royboy, I don't think that's going to happen. Nobody is going to go through WMC's entire edit history to dig up possible COI issues, nor should they. Especially not if the catalyst for this is some opinion piece on a web site. If you, or anyone else, has specific complaints then they should be made. Just like every noticeboard on Wikipedia, if there's a problem there should be diffs and specific examples to demonstrate the problem, not a general comment.
- You haven't stated what you want the community to actually do. Are you volunteering to do this "proper analysis"? --NeilN talk to me 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Demonstrating how seriously we take alleged systematic bias is not a waste of time. A proper analysis should be done, and potential COI's on specific articles are possible. I sincerely hope such actions are unnecessary, but looking at the issue for a few minutes / hours and coming to a determination is a disservice to Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- To completely contradict your original statement, I think this should not be treated seriously, not until demonstrated otherwise. -- Atama頭 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Understood, but if Wikipedia can be pro-active in any way I believe it would be to our credit. Removing the Solomon article from the Talk:William Connolley article is likely myopic. I will follow up on that talk page. - RoyBoy 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The community can treat it seriously. As to an analysis I do not possess the tools to do that effectively / efficiently. We should provide more accurate numbers than those presented as a start. Perhaps even a "global warming" data dump of WMC edits may be appropriate? This would allow those who wish to contest COI edits to do so more quickly than standard Contrib scrolling. As issues are raised they can be addressed. - RoyBoy 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if this sounds flippant (but then again, it is), but have you considered putting all of William's edits into a zip file, posting it on a Russian ftp server, and posting at climateaudit that "A miracle has happened"? Let the sceptics do all the cherry picking... --TS 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The community can treat it seriously. As to an analysis I do not possess the tools to do that effectively / efficiently. We should provide more accurate numbers than those presented as a start. Perhaps even a "global warming" data dump of WMC edits may be appropriate? This would allow those who wish to contest COI edits to do so more quickly than standard Contrib scrolling. As issues are raised they can be addressed. - RoyBoy 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Depends on the size of the zip file I suppose. Is there any way to do a decent filter of WMC edits within Wikipedia and/or with 3rd party tools / scripts? - RoyBoy 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Doable without such scripts. Do a search within article space only. Sort alphabetically by article name, then manually remove articles which clearly have naught to do with climate issues. 5000 edits takes you back to early 2007 -- which should furnish a sufficient sample to detect any problems. From the alpha list remaining, go through diffs sequentially (possibly examining edit summaries). Delete all which are clearly just vandalism reverts etc. Methodology is independent of who you are looking at, or what topics. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, lots of us are programmers with tools for doing just that kind of filtering. But what would we be searching for, and could it be expressed in terms of textual search terms? I suspect not. It strikes me that if there were any significant outstanding conflict of interest it would have been detected in one or other of the arbitration cases in which William M. Connolley has made an appearance.
- It really would help if we knew what we were supposed to be looking for. --TS 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe a dump as Collect describes would be okay. Trying to be clever could be problematic. - RoyBoy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Though we should keep obvious vandalism, as that shows the reality of maintaining contested subjects. - RoyBoy 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hereby allege that RoyBoy has systematically attempted to bias over 16,000 Wikipedia articles related to atheism. He has deleted 129 pages, presumably because he didn't like their subjects. In total, he has blocked 611 editors who ran afoul of him; RoyBoy clearly disapproved of the arguments they made, and had them barred from contributing. (Counts.) Since we need to demonstrate that we take all allegations of systemic bias seriously, please, can someone begin the
witch huntinvestigation? Or do I have to repost this message in a blog before we get started? - Honestly, that's the level of credibility and accuracy that Solomon's op-ed has. Solomon apparently didn't look at WMC's edits, he just pulled the numbers out of an edit counter and assumed that every article WMC edited, every page WMC deleted, and every editor that WMC blocked was somehow related to climate change and somehow an abuse of WMC's editing/admin privileges. I believe that we should take credible accusations of systemic bias seriously, and I believe that if Solomon had even bothered to present a patina, a bare gloss of evidence in support of his claims we might have something to discuss. However, taking this factually-challenged op-ed seriously wouldn't demonstrate anything beyond that we're gullible idiots. RoyBoy, you're welcome to conduct your own investigation, but please don't bring this back to the community until you have something of substance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hereby allege that RoyBoy has systematically attempted to bias over 16,000 Wikipedia articles related to atheism. He has deleted 129 pages, presumably because he didn't like their subjects. In total, he has blocked 611 editors who ran afoul of him; RoyBoy clearly disapproved of the arguments they made, and had them barred from contributing. (Counts.) Since we need to demonstrate that we take all allegations of systemic bias seriously, please, can someone begin the
- I agree my call to action is hasty, but I'm hesitant to allow the weakness, and ironic COI, of the accusation to allow relegation of the issue to talk pages alone. Also, I hope this isn't hinged just on the op-ed, but on any appearance of COI within the larger context of Climategate. If too much a reach, fine. But let it be said we looked at it in an official capacity and found it wanting. - RoyBoy 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Although any user is obviously free to satisfy themselves with their own investigation, accusations alone are just accusations. And the context is that the article is a wacky, paranoid opinion piece. It wouldn't surprise if its author were one of wikipedia's fringe [blocked] pov-pushers in the area, doing some venting [though now I am acting like the author]. Wiki has an expert user who edits in his area. And he is/was an admin. Big deal. If the author finds actual and specific CoI evidence about WC and the Holy Elders of Realclimate, he can submit it or publish it. Otherwise he shouldn't be allowed to waste our time like this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like assist the author, and anyone else, to find any COI. It could lead to a streamlined procedure to respond appropriately to future accusations of note. - RoyBoy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- William Connolley has a close relationship with Michael Mann. William Connolley is removing information from Michael Mann's article that is potentially unsightful for Michael Mann. William Connolley has a COI with regards to this article per WP:COI specifically This section. I am sure it would be easy to find many more given his history. Arzel (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy enough to respond to genuine concerns about COI from sensible editors. I think RB made a mistake by basing this report on the LS piece, which (as plenty of people have noted above) is not to be taken seriously. My response is to make fun of it [12] ([13] is recycled LS so gets mocked too). However, I don't think RB was unreasonable in raising these concerns, so if anyone other than the trolls and the WoT's has anything to say, I'll respond William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Investigating conflicts in Scientific opinion on climate change
This COI investigation should be taken seriously. I investigated this editor in relation to a NPOV dispute with regards to Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change for which he created. (Note: I have suffered two blocks (my only ones) and other confirmed harassment in attempting to work with this editor.) Here are my concerns.
- SPECIFICALLY: The editor holds the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change mission and interests clearly above those of WP:5.
- The editor declared conflicted interest here [14] during an ArbCom run.
- The editor aggressively first denies and then aggressively negates attempts to reach a NPOV. [15]
- The COI may extend to other editors acting in cohesion for a conflicted mission counter to a NPOV. [16]
- In addition, the editor may also be held accountable[17] for WP:BLP issues in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming upon further archive investigation.
I have diffs from archived talk history in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change to offer. Before proceeding (or taking abuse for conducting an investigation) does anyone else share these concerns to broaden the investigation scope? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- ZP5, You have also first had a couple of polite warnings for borderline harrassing him, to be balanced and fair, and it did look like you started your type of harrassment long before the retaliatory complaints. It does look like an unsubstantiated witchhunt by you of him to me.--BozMo talk 06:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not apparent how WMC's edits relate to the links which you have presented. I note that you have been blocked twice by other admins for your poor conduct ([18]), but WMC has apparently not used his admin tools. The links you have presented are confusing, at best. In #2, where you declare that WMC has indicated a conflict of interest, he apparently only states that he 'care[s] about' the issue of global warming. I presume that the same could be said for you. I've got better things to do than to try to parse the remainder of your compaint; can you provide a few diffs which clearly demonstrate the problem, or are you just grinding your own particular axe? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can those accusing WMC provide some examples of the parts of our COI guideline that have been broken? As far as I can see he is an expert in a particular field which is to be encouraged: "However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." If there is a problem it would seem to be a POV problem rather than a COI. Smartse (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Well this part covers it i believe
There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.
WMC has ties to both realclimate and hadley cru. The conflict of interest is his work is in proving agw, therefore when he edits an article to remove anything which may cast doubt on it is a conflict of interest.
See here for an examle please. [[19]] mark nutley (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You must be kidding. By that criterion, 97.4% of active climate scientists have a COI[20]. The desire to fairly represent a field of science is not a COI, it's a very desirable trait for Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not a desirable trait to remove any hint of criticism from an article, and i do not see how removal of any "bad news or dissenting opinion" is fairly representing this field of science. But surly WMC`s neutrality is called into question here, how can he show a neutral pov when he works in the climate change industry? I`m afraid his bias shows through in his edits, and this is not good for WP. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- he works in the climate change industry?. I don't. What makes you think you have a clue? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you or have you not worked at hadley cru? Whom is your current employer? Do you have links do realclimate?
Perhaps "works for" is not the right term, perhaps has worked for would suffice. mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Even if he does or did "work in the climate change industry" (whatever that is) he can still edit articles related to climate change. There is nothing in our COI guideline that forbids him from doing so. If you can provide diffs to show that the COI has actually been a problem (i.e. not being neutral) then there may be a problem. Personally it seems pretty clear that improving wikipedia is more important than advancing outside interests. Since WP:COI states "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." it suggests that this is not a problem. Smartse (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that it's evident from reading Connolley's bio that his career reputation and credibility is founded, at least in significant part, on Global Warming's credibility, especially on the IPCC's statement on climate change. Connelley's continued behavior at trying to minimize skeptical opinions in the global warming articles, adding criticism to global warming skeptic's BLPs, and attempts to control the POV in the global warming articles shows that this COI and POV are preventing him from complying with WP:NPOV. I suggest a topic band, interpreted broadly. Cla68 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- What's a 'topic band'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I suggest a rubber band, preferably wrapped around the fingers of editors who are tempted to promote off-wiki swiftboating. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean the POV that insists that science-based articles be based on current scientific consensus? --NeilN talk to me 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- What's a 'topic band'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that it's evident from reading Connolley's bio that his career reputation and credibility is founded, at least in significant part, on Global Warming's credibility, especially on the IPCC's statement on climate change. Connelley's continued behavior at trying to minimize skeptical opinions in the global warming articles, adding criticism to global warming skeptic's BLPs, and attempts to control the POV in the global warming articles shows that this COI and POV are preventing him from complying with WP:NPOV. I suggest a topic band, interpreted broadly. Cla68 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Clearly, WMC should not be allowed to work on articles related to climate change, as he has worked with scientists and respected experts in the field. By a similar token, professional football players should avoid writing about sports, and professors of economics should steer clear of articles on monetary policy. The only people who should write our articles in contentious areas are individuals with minority viewpoints, personal axes to grind, and Randy from Boise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: Did I receive a second to proceed? I want to be clear and balanced with space for the editor to answer the specific issues. I appreciate the comments ... however, what will be most relevant at this stage, are the editor's answer. I can wait for folks to continue before presenting the evidence. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not from me ZP5. From what I've seen, you've taken your recent run in with WMC personally and therefore are most likely unable to participate in this conversation without bias. If you think you have something to provide proof that WMC has a conflict of interest with Wiki when editing the mentioned articles, I suggest pointing someone else to them and letting them sort things out. I'd also like to add, this will not be the place to reply about how personally or not you have taken the spat between you and WMC. OlYellerTalktome 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Connolley's contributions to Wikipedia
The title of Solomon's article claims that Connolley edited 5,428 'unique' articles. It is claimed above that "5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming". Neither of these claims seem to be correct (although I am not sure what 'unique article' means). I crudely and painfully calculated Connolley's edits by using the Wikipedia function that lists article edits. Connolley has made a total of 13,045 article edits since he joined in 2003. Many of these edits are to the same article. Counting the 'unique' edits (by my definition, meaning that all edits to the same article count only as one edit), he has edited 1701 articles. The majority of these are global warming articles. Moreover, the edits to non global-warming articles are usually singletons. To global warming articles, he returns many times. For example, the article "1960s in heavy metal music" he edits once. The article 'An Inconvenient Truth', 72 times. (And the article about himself, 23 times).
On whether Connolley has a conflict of interest, I don't see that being a climate scientist should rule him out. Clearly experts should be welcome in a project like Wikipedia. But is he is politically rather than scientifically motivated? His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know), suggests the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I have listed the articles he has edited on my talk page. I am unable to persuade the Wikipedia editor to present this nicely comma-separated table in the way that a spreadsheet would see it. Can anyone help me please? I love SUV's (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your analytical skills may be valuable, but why not use the tools we have? This shows 39,321 edits to 5,440 pages, 2029 users blocked, 510 pages deleted. Note how closely those match the numbers used by Solomon (5,428, "more than 500", "more than 2000"). Apparently, Solomon assumes "page" = "article". That once more shows his dedication to careful research and fact-checking. And your opinion on the UK Green Party aside, WMC's opinion on global warming and climate change agrees with the vast majority of researchers and has the support of all the major Academies of Science. WP:AGF applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read what I said. I clearly said that Solomon's claim was wrong. But the claim made above that "The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming." is also very wrong. Looking at his individual edit (and not the 'tool' referred to above, which merely summarises edits) it is clear that the vast majority of Connolley's edits are to GW articles.
- Subtle distinction. Neither the majority of pages nor the majority of articles are in climate-related fields. The majority of edits are (or at least it seems so by eyeballing). But nobody claimed otherwise, so your argument is a strawman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read what I said. I clearly said that Solomon's claim was wrong. But the claim made above that "The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming." is also very wrong. Looking at his individual edit (and not the 'tool' referred to above, which merely summarises edits) it is clear that the vast majority of Connolley's edits are to GW articles.
- "His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know)..."
- Do I take it that you have come here to declare your conflict of interest with respect to the Green Party? --TS 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the Green Party, I was a member a long time ago. That's how I know about its 'scientific' view of things. I love SUV's (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolved- Editors
- Addvisors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 24.234.226.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Artikel
- Andrew Sasson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Harmon Hotel and Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CityCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:Addvisors recently created the article Andrew Sasson about a Las Vegas nightclub entrepreneur (said article is now listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sasson). While researching the subject to try to improve the article, I ran across Addvisors, whose website says they are "a Las Vegas SEO and Google Qualified Adwords agency, specializing in online marketing." The website also says that their client, "The Light Group" (Sasson's company) has hired them to "generate more website traffic to increase and attract new clientele seeking VIP nightclub services, reservations, private parties, and table service in Las Vegas."
The user has also recently edited The Harmon Hotel and Spa and CityCenter, two other projects of The Light Group and Sasson. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've indef-blocked as a spam username. The fact that they are hired to spam websites means that we can suspend good faith in their case. -- Atama頭 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fast work! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)