Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Kati Agócs Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Elham Kashefi Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Masdar Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Ranker Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Yahoo Finance Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Marianna Yarovskaya‎

The article was written and is still edited by User:Y marianna, who is possibly the subject of the article. I had difficulties to establish whether the article has to ba AFDed and therefore placed there a number of tags without reviewing the article. Another user added well-sourced criticism. User:Y marianna, who was obviously unhappy, started to remove the tags and the info, despite my warnings. May by someone can have a look at the article, and, in case it is not an AfD case, try to explain the user what the problems are. Thank you. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• The user also is consistently removing warnings from the talk page, so a brief look at the history would be in place.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  Update: The article was deleted, the user was blocked for a day, however, they expressed a wish to recreate the article "without defamatory content", which means that they consider Wikipedia as a king of free self-promotion site. It is very likely that I will have to return to this topic tomorrow, when the block expires.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  "which means that they consider Wikipedia as a king of free self-promotion site" - This is a perfect example of not assuming good faith. I would venture to say that with your attitude towards this user, the possibility of Wikipedia gaining anything positive is zero.

  Perhaps helping them understand the issues involved would be helpful. Also, helping to expedite the creation of an article or the determining of notability would be beneficial.

  Removing history only implies that they've realized that the warnings are there and is not a sign of bad intentions. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  If I could resolve the issue myself I had no need opening this topic. But thank you for your comments. If you read Russian, there is a lot of nice reading concerning the attitude of the user here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  I never said that opening a discussion here wasn't a good idea. I can't read Russian. Have you tried discussing the issues with the user on English WP? OlYeller21^Talktome 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, sure. I left I believe three messages on their talk page (which in fact I created). They reverted all but the last one. (Which came already after they were blocked).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  I noticed that while the article discussed here has been speedily deleted at the author's demand, the article Marianna yarovskaya (without cap on the family name) has been created 3 days ago by another user, User:Inga nataya, whose only activity before now had been on the article Inga Nataya (a LA-based fahion designer). User:Y marianna's last activity on the other hand was a comment on User:Gogo Dodo's (who had blocked her and deleted the article) talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gogo_Dodo&diff=prev&oldid=520448831) where she conceded that she was not the best person to write the article and expressed the opinion "that the article should be written by someone else". Despite assuming good faith, and considering the huge discussion going on at the Russian wikipedia about their version of the article, I think the probability of Marianna using another editor to keep pushing for the inclusion of her article is far from zero. Could someone look into the matter?178.134.206.93 (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  Given that the new version of the article copied some parts from the old one literally, I doubt that the two contributors are independent.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  Just for the record, a new user, User:Termiteart, started to edit the article, removing a template. In Russin Wikipedia, they were checkused and found identical to User:Ymarianna, see here.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anybody up here to help?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle

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

The user Cheryl Hugle has disclosed that they are a relative of the subject of the article, Frances Hugle. There are numerous editors who have spent walls of text on the Talk:Frances Hugle attempting to get Cheryl to understand the Wikipedia content policies and intent behind the policies and have proved unsuccessful at convincing CH that her interpretation and applications are incorrect.

At this point I have run out of ideas and patience and think that we have come to the point where we need to ask User:Cheryl Hugle to stop editing this article or its talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to disagree that according to Wikipedia guidelines, I may be found to have COI. I never tried to hide my biological relationship. I thought that would be dishonest.

Yet this article is not about self-promotion or advancing any particular point of view, and that should be readily apparent. There is no personal benefit to me in writing, not writing, editing or not editing of this article other than the satisfaction of knowing I did my best to share a piece of history mostly buried following the death of Frances yet of continuing value and interest to many in the field.

And, it is most definitely about contributing information of historical significance to the extent that this info could be reliably cited (much info on this subject was never included because independent sources, such as articles in journals written 45-60 years ago still need to be located.) I have taken supplying citations very seriously.

On the other hand, this discussion has been initiated by one editor (who has limited support from other editors and was recently asked to remove himself from the discussions, not by me but another editor) and has been caught using spurious interpretations of Wiki guidelines to cast unreasonable suspicion about article content and the reasonably sourced nature of an unbiased, description of the article's subject's body of work.

This is a thinly disguised attempt to have the person most technically knowledgeable on the subject of the semiconductor industry and its early technologies removed from the discussion and editing so that unreasonable and fallacious arguments can be advanced, ultimately leading to further deletions, sabotage of the article and final removal of the article. This intent is clear also on his own talk page.

I am sure this is not about improving Wikipedia's reliability or content (which the contribution of the article in question was written to serve) but rather it is a determined position arising from the need by the initator of this discussion to 'win' regardless of the more reasonable or fact based positions of other editors, myself included.

Finally, a number of unfounded criticisms of me have been made. That these have been addressed by me should not result in criticisms of me. That is the purpose of the Talk page. And, it is not appropriate to demand an editor be removed simply because ones attempts to sabotage an article and ones attempts at justifying this are addressed and refuted by the one under attack, in this case me. Stating that discussions (actually, largely unfounded edicts effectively refuted) have not resulted in a 'win' for 'me' (the initiator in this case) is not enough reason to remove the editor who has pointed out obvious fallacies in dishonest attempts to represent Wiki policies and thus have ones way with sabotaging an article, its content, references, etc. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Take care to avoid the boomerang, Cheryl. You were also asked to stop editing the article, and have recently removed tags regarding the reliance on primary sources and original research notes within the article. I might add, that these changes not really addressed well in your edit summaries, except that you didn't agree with them. The problem as I see it is that you continue to assert significance of the subject based on limited support from the sources you have been able to provide. I commend you on your thoroughness in search, and it is possible there is coverage of this subject that is not accessible right now. However, you are not helping your case by accusing editors of having malicious intentions (i.e. sabotage) when we are applying the same notability guidelines and policies as we would to any article. The editors who disagree with you, including myself, are not some cabal of editors out to get you. Also, your behavior represents a kind of ownership of the article, which is discouraged because it stymies the ability to improve articles when there are disagreements. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That certainly is worded to sound reasonable but you are also the person evidently collaborating with Red (per his talk page) remove the article entirely. Forming a gang does not lend credibility. Your claims still have to have merit.

"I might add, that these changes not really addressed well in your edit summaries, except that you didn't agree with them."

They are addressed on the Talk page in detail as you know and that is totally unfair and misinforming considering that valid sources are sufficiently supplied to establish notability, something you have continued to dispute.

"The problem as I see it is that you continue to assert significance of the subject based on limited support from the sources you have been able to provide."

This position of yours has been well refuted by editors other than myself including a Wikipedia administrator.

"However, you are not helping your case by accusing editors of having malicious intentions (i.e. sabotage) when we are applying the same notability guidelines and policies as we would to any article."

Very doubtful since it has already been noted, and not just by me that your tagging is not appropriate.

"Also, your behavior represents a kind of ownership of the article, which is discouraged because it stymies the ability to improve articles when there are disagreements."

That is a totally biased interpretation. I have stayed involved because there has been a great deal of misinformation posted on the Talk page and as noted, an enormous amount of cavalier and arrogant behavior on the part of certain of the editors, not all by any means, but a few. These include yourself and Red and it is clear you will not stop your attempts at destruction and misrepresentations until this article is pulled. I do not know your reasons... young male ego? aggression? a need to 'win'? To me your arguments have been weak and often entirely inappropriate and when discussions have been opened to try to understand them, an arrogant, "I am a Wiki editor" attitude has been displayed. Threats have even been made for simply asking for clarifications.

In the context of baseless interpretations, tagging, removals of text, references, etc. It seemed wise to keep checking what tactic might next be employed and whether it was legit.

If you launch repeated attacks, make baseless accusations regarding content and or authorship, then yes, you should expect that anyone who is interested in the matter might ask you to either explain yourself more fully or present a counter argument (more complete information) to demonstrate the error or inappropriateness of your position/edit.

This is NOT about ownership. It is about hoping that responsible editorial policies will prevail. If that were happening, I would gladly excuse myself at least from the need to make regular checks. This has not been a pleasant experience for me as I am sure you can imagine and has certainly diminished my appreciation of Wikipedia as an organization. I do realize there are many excellent contributors and totally selfless and competent editors, but from this vantage, there also seems to be too many immature young men using Wikipedia editing as a tool to prove themselves competitively. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Another note about the accusation that I am treating this article with a sense of ownership:

The record will show that in almost every case I have not undone the edits of other editors. Even in cases where I felt the readability or content was hurt, I left other editor's contributions alone because the purpose of this article (and probably most on Wikipedia) is community involvement.

AND, I have continued to seek resolution where glaring differences exist, for instance with Red, on the Talk pages. On the other hand, he has reverted editing to continue tagging, a condition that had already been reasonably challenged and undone by others, generally not myself. You and Red and one other want this article deleted. You have made that clear. Not everyone agrees with you and since I have supplied a number of the arguments proving your reasoning is not sound and have stayed more involved than others are apparently able, it will be easier for you to accomplish a stepped discrediting of content (including by deleting it) finishing with a complete deletion of the article if I am blocked. Frankly, it is not me that is taking possession but you with a very clear non-consensual mission. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think this COI report is unfortunate in that it steps on a well-intentioned newbie. The debate on the talk page has been scattered without the clarity of different postions/opinions as are seen in structured AfD debates. Cheryl has a COI; that is a given. Cheryl is not familiar with article tags, interpreting policies, or discerning consensus. I will give her a lot of latitude. Her comment just above about "non-consensual mission" indicates that she believes consensus is on her side, but that is not the impression I get. The talk page does not make consensus clear to a newbie. An objection will be raised, Cheryl will offer some text that argues her position is correct and supported by policy. Consequently, Cheryl believes she has carried the day. See Talk:Frances Hugle#Notable inventions section.

Cheryl has not provided secondary sources for claims that Frances invented the integrated circuit before Kilby and Noyce or that Frances "was the first person to file for a patent describing how to make a microprocessor". Cheryl is currently interpreting primary source patents to make those claims. A patent does not prove she was first. In any event, the claims in the article are not widely held and run up against WP:UNDUE. To support her position, Cheryl must interpret the patents. N and p materials become integrated circuits. An array becomes a microprocessor. Other editors are not voicing support for Cheryl's position.

I believe that if Cheryl understood she does not have consensus, then she would back down. She has said as much. As it stands, the talk page discussion is not clear about consensus. Other opinions are not given in the talk section I pointed to above, but Don and Red Pen do comment in the following section. I believe Cheryl's closeness to the subject keeps her from seeing the big picture. Cheryl's interpretations are not being supported, they are being attacked.

I do not think it is necessary to shoo Cheryl away from the article, but we should make it clearer on the article talk page that Cheryl has not garnered a consensus. Red Pen, Jethrobot, Don, and I have trouble with her overgeneralizing what can be said from the limited sources about Frances Hugle.

The article talk page also has some distractions. That has not helped to sort things out. I am indifferent about reporting Frances Hugle's faith. I don't see it as significant to her technical contributions, but I don't see a need to suppress such information. Only Malerooster has made it an issue. As I've said, seeing consensus on the talk page is difficult for a newbie. Glrx (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess I dispute the implication that this COI notice board posting is somehow swooping in on an unsuspecting newbie. The editor has been editing for about six months; and explicitly aware of wikipedia's COI for a month; and has not shown any moderation of their editing and approach nor any interest in becoming anything other than an SPI editor about an article where they have an obvious COI.

and then we have this [1] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was drawn into this because the Frances Hugle article appeared to be in a mess months after it was created, a mess that I thought depended to several misunderstandings that I could help clear up. I never expected to waste so much time on this. I only expected to spend time cleaning up the original article and adding references. And periodically, as more info came to light, contribute additional content. As stated below, I have been engaged in discussions about this article for ~ two months, no more.

As far as being an SPI, well, not exactly... I tried about five years ago to enter a discussion on Wikipedia's Talk pages, regarding human anatomy. I found my points and analogies lost on the other editors. I also wrote an answer for Wikianswers on the same subject, mostly a series of quotes taken from experts. The experience proved futile when a Wiki editor obliterated the contribution based upon her preferred (and erroneous) understanding.

These contributions were under a different user name.

I decided to attempt another contribution to Wikipedia because it seemed that I had enough sourced info for a short article on a topic of interest to the general public and not sharing would be irresponsible.

At the moment though, I am again not feeling inclined to involve myself too much with Wikipedia. But those feelings could change if I thought any of the articles on the subjects of interest to me could possibly be improved with my contributions. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"To support her position, Cheryl must interpret the patents. N and p materials become integrated circuits. An array becomes a microprocessor. Other editors are not voicing support for Cheryl's position."

I am sure I never said N and P materials become integrated circuits (I did say semiconductor devices are comprised of N and P materials, a commonly known and undisputed fact.). I also never said an array is a microprocessor. I have very carefully adhered to (and offered, actually copied from other sites) descriptions and definitions that can easily be found in popular literature and pointed out that those definitions are included in the patent claims.

Furthermore, you and Don presented technical arguments, each of you addressing a different patent. Since these statements were based on glaring technical misunderstandings, I offered the popular definitions for that terminology and indicated on which lines of the patents corresponding wording was located. I was definitely NOT interpreting. And, this is well documented on the Talk page.

Following these explanations of terminology addressing the statements made by you no one said anything. There were no arguments, comments, etc. But, you are right, in the case of Don's comments, there were additional statements by Red and Don.

So I think the quote from your comments is a gross misinterpretation of the events that transpired. Nothing occurred that proved or even indicated I was interpreting a primary source. Quite the contrary. While I appreciate your support for my newbie status, I have to correct misunderstandings as they arise since if we continue this way, we will certainly not be able to take better informed decisions.

Finally, I have certainly not been involved with editing at Wikipedia for 6 months. Actually, once the article was resubmitted to Afc, I lost use of a computer for months. I was only able to check the article again in early September and found it mired in problems. I have worked since then to tighten its content, provide additional citations/references and address the questions and concerns of the other editors involved. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think the intentions of two or more of the editors commenting here are sufficiently revealed in the foregoing discussion so I would like to point to the section, Proposed Merge and Redirect to Tape Automated Bonding on the Frances Hugle Talk page where their desire to delete the article is clearly expressed. It was also discussed on Red's user or Talk page but possibly that has been deleted.

In the case of the proposed merger, several editors expressed their opinions and the discussion concluded with the decision not to delete the article as requested by Red and Jethro.

"we should make it clearer on the article talk page that Cheryl has not garnered a consensus."

Yes, if that is truly the case, it should be made clearer. But I will admit, I have begun to generally discount comments by Red since I find little justification for his knee jerk and negative reactions to my comments.

Furthermore, if someone makes a comment that they are basing on some false interpretations or misunderstandings (generally well intentioned), I am not assuming that when I address those, they are necessarily still of the same mind. People generally present reasoning and it is this reasoning that becomes the basis of our acceptance or further discussions. So, I do take the name of the Talk page seriously, that misunderstandings are to be addressed and consensus sought, it at all possible... and for this reason, I do present the rationales that underpin my positions. If those are not reasonably challenged, I am certainly not able to see consensus is against me. Oops, forgot to sign Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

as per ususal, tldr; but, as for the "discussion" on my talk page, it was not "deleted" so much as "archived" and is not really a "discussion" either: User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive_10#Frances_Hugle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with I Jethrobot moving to turn the article into a redirect. I ended up disagreeing with the redirect, but the underlying issue is that secondary references for Frances Hugle are sparse.

Red Pen has insisted on better sources. That activity is not frowned upon but rather encouraged.

Consensus does not mean that editors must debate issues with you until you agree with them or they agree with you. That process would never converge. Editors are often involved in many different articles, and they don't have the time or the inclination to enter extended debates. If an editor makes his position clear, then he is done. Editors post their position, those positions are weighed with an eye toward policy, and then a consensus is determined. It's not a vote, but an editor in a one-against-many situation probably does not have a consensus. Glrx (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that editors must debate issues with you until you agree with them or they agree with you."

What I see is that Wiki statements of policies are being abused at times with tendencies to misapply on the part of some editors. Over generalizing becomes the norm and important details and qualifiers of stated policies are studiously ignored.

I have pointed this out in several instances after reviewing those policies. I do not understand how infallibility or only the purest motivations can be automatically assumed on the part of all Wiki editors in each and every instance.

If such a supposition is a core feature of Wikipedia policies, then what is the purpose of a Talk page? Why not just state, "Only the opinions of approved Wiki editors will be seriously considered, anyone else pointing out inconsistencies between Wiki stated policies and their (ab)use by Wiki editors will be considered engaging in counterproductive and contentious activities." Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any people who have not been involved in the article discussion that wish to provide an outside analysis and guidance for how to move forward? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I added my comments on bottom of the talk page here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Following this COI request, a very predictable and unfortunate situation has arisen, the removal of verifiable information from the article (relevant Wiki policy guidelines regarding acceptable sources as well as the exact text paraphrased will be quoted in a separate statement) replaced with a meaningless and incomplete selection of a few of Frances' patents with an entirely misleading and misinforming comparison given following the mention of one of these patents, Frances' isolation patent.

Frances' isolation patent had not previously been included in the Notable Inventions section (now deleted) but appears to have been included very recently to imply that Frances' work was a later version of work already patented by Noyce. This unjustifiably implies the contributions of Frances should be considered of lessor (later) value, and possibly an attempt to take credit for work already patented. This sullies and discredits the subject in the mind of the casual reader without justification whatsoever.

The patents now being compared in the article are not comparable:

In the case of the Noyce patent, one of the four major claims was later dismissed by the US Patent Office and the other claims if challenged might also be denied. The body of his patent essentially describes the properties of insulating materials and diodes and how these perform the same functions in semiconductor circuitry that they perform in any other type of electrical application.

The Frances patent on the other hand describes a means to substantially condense circuitry by largely removing the intrinsic barrier (insulating) regions. Following her invention, a substantial part of the wafer previously needed for the isolation of devices(40%) became available for increasing device populations.

The Frances patent represents one of the core technologies that enabled the development of microprocessors and the essential features of her isolation patent are still in use today.

Aditionally, improvements to isolation technology are many and they continue to be patented such as this one in 2012: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/8138571.html

I strongly suggest that those rewriting the section on Frances' contributions/patents/inventions either read the material they are seeking to characterize/compare, or refrain from comparisons and other statements that may unfairly discredit or incorrectly characterize her work.

I suggest that the patent section either list the patents or refrain from listing them altogether. The selection as it stands contributes absolutely nothing but a false impression to the casual reader.

Finally, everyone has biases. The most common type being a favoritism for ones mother culture. Our 'mother' culture definitely includes Noyce as a (maybe the) key figure in semiconductor technology. So, it is entirely normal to apply different standards when reviewing assumptions we have accepted by virtue of being a member of a culture which incorporates those assumptions.

I think this is the fundamental reason my position appears to be 'wrong' and COI is a convenient presumption.

The information in the Frances Hugle article challenges us to consider a largely buried piece of history (though still with enough sources to be modestly revealed) and the biases (including gender, racial and cultural) that our dominant (and incomplete) industry histories uphold.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs of the past (and present), such as the fact that women's contributions to science have frequently been glossed over and ignored. We can only cover what the reliable sources cover and present that data in context that the greater academic community sees it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the recommendation here/on the article talk/on user's talk pages; there was a suggestion that the discussions with this editor on the article talk page had missed an opportunity to present a plain English view of what policies have been applied to the content and why, I attempted to do so on the user's talk page User_talk:Cheryl_Hugle#Wikipedia_content_rules_-_summary, but based on the user's response, I dont think that had any great effect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Several articles related to Michael J. Saylor and MicroStrategy

• Michael J. Saylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MicroStrategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Mobile Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wisdom (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Usher (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alert (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Emma (application) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MicroStrategy Gateway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MicroStrategy Reporting Suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Saylor Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crysb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past two years, Crysb has made substantial edits to these articles that add positive information and minimize negative information about Michael J. Saylor, his company (and its products), his book, and his charitable foundation. This editor also added references to Saylor's book to 15+ other articles (listed in detail at User talk:Crysb#Affiliation with The Mobile Wave.3F). I am concerned that this is a COI marketing effort. I brought up my concern on the editor's talk page in June (User talk:Crysb#Affiliation with The Mobile Wave.3F) and did not see a response, although the editor contributed to other articles in July and August. I commented again in August and did not see a response, although the editor hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since then.

One example is Michael J. Saylor, which in July 2010 included a referenced Controversies paragraph with 11 sentences. After Crysb began editing the article in September 2010, the information in that section turned into a small part (4 sentences) of a "Career" section with a lot of positive information. I'd say that the 2010 version had undue weight on those "controversies", but the current version buries them among paragraphs about his business philosophy and speaking style.

Crysb created (and wrote the bulk of) these articles on Saylor's book and five products by his company: The Mobile Wave, Wisdom (application), Usher (application), Alert (application), Emma (application), and MicroStrategy Gateway. According to the references given, not all of them are notable enough for independent articles.

I have no personal connection to this topic; I noticed these edits after Crysb added a reference to Saylor's book (The Mobile Wave) to an article that I watch. That reference was not useful to the article, so I removed it, but judging and fixing all of the rest of these articles is a job too big for just me, so I'd like to ask for another perspective. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

An additional concern: Techjazz (contributions) started and wrote an article for the co-founder of Microstrategy, Sanju Bansal, and this editor discloses affiliation to the company at Talk:Sanju Bansal. I appreciate the disclosure, but that article also hasn't had much external attention and should be evaluated for COI-related issues. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Stephens (solicitor)

• Mark Stephens (solicitor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (Multiple IPs—see article edit history)

Page being edited from IP address owned by subject of article with no COI acknowledged. 94.72.236.203 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be enough regular editors to keep up with the IP edits. Since the COI-affected IP has been participating for a long time, any semiprotection would have to be for a year or more. I suggest this report be closed unless the pace increases. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sean Hannity

• Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jody May-Chang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to have edited articles with insertion of her own name [2] in Sean Hannity, [3], [4] also in Sean Hannity [5] at LGBT Rights in Uganda, [6], and [7] at Frank L. VanderSloot. She had been previously apprised of COI and her reply was at [8]. although another editor had apprised her of this policy, I did so again at [9] and now at [10] (official notice as she seems to think COI does not apply to editing about oneself or citing one's own work. Collect (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

She also added an external link to an article that she wrote to LGBT rights in Uganda. Andrew (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Look at me! Look at me!" has to violate WP:SELFPROMOTE. Her addition to the Sean Hannity article is clearly an attempt to get an article about her within another article. The Frank L. VanderSloot bit was a name correction that anyone would have made if aware of the misspelling. However, I don't know why it is there to begin with, especially as the first mention, since she is not notable and her piece is mostly summarizing an article by Sean Cockerham and other news sources already mentioned in our article (that she puts her name is in the title of a piece she wrote is also odd). At best, her Idaho Statesman piece could be used to cite an "and others" bit at the end of the sentence.

Her addition to LGBT rights in Uganda might be acceptable (at least moreso than the blogspot link there), but would be better if she had suggested its use as a source on the talk page to support a bit saying that American churches have influenced anti-LGBT laws in Uganda, but not to further her career or give her attention. Still, given other behavior (and that she's an WP:SPA so far for this behavior), I'd support a topic ban in article space (but not talk pages or elsewhere) on posts relating to herself, but this isn't the place to suggest that, AFAIK. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFPROMOTE refers to "advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos. Examples include links that point to commercial sites and to personal websites, and biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." As long as the editor is including links to reliably published sources, regardless of whether she authored them, then it is not a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. I see nothing here that would call for a topic ban. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE talks explicitely about this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Add WP:CANVASS per [11] (not to mention poor grammar and spelling). Collect (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Re SELFPROMOTE and topic bans: Her addition to Sean Hannity was a ref to her personal website, and the entire point of it was "pay met attention!" in a manner that in no way helped the article, just to glorify herself. That's self promotion. There's nothing forbidding topic bans as a means of dealing with editors out to get attention in the articles (it's that or constantly revert them until they do give up or something block worthy). The point of bans is to prevent them from doing something disruptive, effectively a preemptive revert of what will eventually get them blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to make this perfectly clear, every single on of these conflict edits, with the exception of the VanderSloot one, was made in Oct 2010. That's before she was notified of COI, for what it's worth. The VanderSloot on is a simple typo correction, and all other edits made in the last two years have been user talkpage comments.Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And the CANVASS disappears? IITC, folks who have been informed of the COI rules do not get another bite just becuase they ar emaking a "minor edit" - the stricture is strong or else it becomes non-existent. Collect (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I put another Notice on her Talk Page. I am not sure she saw the other one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you are calling canvasing, Collect? The general notice posted on the article page, which you cited above, is not canvassing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Her post to you which copied a post she made on my UT page is CANVASSing, and is pretty clear as such. Cheers -- BTW, you just hit 4RR in under 24 hours on the BLP -- I again suggest you self-revert, as any admin noting it can issue a block -- as you have been given multiple warnings before. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18

06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor on the page and added much of the content that referred to Chang. It's not canvassing, it's simply proper notification of an involved editor. I'm surprised (or at least I should be) that you can't tell the difference. And you can turn off the bolding; it doesn't make your arguments any more persuasive. BTW, I did not hit 4RR -- your harassing witch hunt failed yet again. Stew on that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Debi Gliori

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

-- 41.243.171.14 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONFLICT: Esowteric is making comments in the news articles about Debi Gliori, he is fanning the flames and attempting to make the controversy noteable. He informs the readers of Debi Gliori’s blog that a story has appeared on The Guardian web site.

“Just in, haven't read it yet:” http://fiddleandpins.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-tobermory-cat-trolls-me.html.

He accused me of being under the influence of one the involved parties “a meat puppet”, knowing this will make the involved party look more guilty ; http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=f14bfc9a3ea5ec1c7c40b80b99b6bfe9&p=7720012&postcount=588

He asks for help from the writers forum to “dilute the controversy”, his plan is to write up as many book reviews for the author in order to dilute the controversy on her wiki page. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=f14bfc9a3ea5ec1c7c40b80b99b6bfe9&p=7720109&postcount=592

He outs me to the forum, nobody in this forum would have known my IP without the information he supplied as a Wiki editor, he clearly states his business in the thread is as a Wiki editor. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=03d82b29c3b864f259b5e2eceed7298a&p=7720279&postcount=605

When the authors at the AbsoluteWrite forums decide enough is enough and all parties should make a peace plan. Esowteric says; “Well, thankfully for the good folk here, it looks like the action has moved on. Alas, it's now moved in the direction of Wikipedia: a user talk page. Now I do have an inkling of how Debi Gliori must have felt.” http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?s=3aba156823bc398a1abfc408df9d36b1&p=7720822&postcount=703

Esowteric is obviously fanning the flames of this controversy, he keeps redirecting people where to go next to fight it out, first he tells the readers of Debi Gliori’s blog to go over to The Guaridan, when that story is closed, he then goes into the writers forum and joins in the controversy there, when that is closed her tells them to go over to the wiki page. Where ever he goes he introduces himself as being on Wiki business. For the last 48 hours he has been tweeting furiously asking people to come to the wiki page. https://twitter.com/Esowteric/status/265428247435673600

He has not even read the Sunday Times article yet is using it to write up the controversy section of Debi Gliori’s Wiki page, while pleading on twitter for somebody to supply him with the article. “@AmandaPCraig Just found the TC review URL, but can't read full article (pay wall). Could you email copy for review purposes at Wikipedia?” Would it not be wise to read an article first before quoting from it on a Wiki Page ?

Why does Esowteric use the headline grabbing opinions of Journalist’s stories when the involved parties have written blogs about the matter. The news stories are written using the blogs as reference why must Wiki use another parties interpretation when the original source of the stories is available. I don’t want to know what The Guardian thought the involved party had done when the involved party has clearly stated what they believed happened in their own blog. Esowteric is using headline grabbing quotes from newspaper stories when the original source is available. This certainly is not a NPOV.

Esowteric is running around screaming “troll” at anyone who does not support Debi Gliori’s POV, he has in a number of posts accused innocent parties, myself included, of being trolls for an involved party. If these accusations are believed then they help support Debi Gliori’s POV. He has also made a number of posts about his plan to make Debi Gliori’s Wiki better by “diluting the controversy” with book reviews. This after Debi Gliori complained that the controversy damaged her reputation by featuring so prominently in her Wiki. He is carrying out the wishes of Debi Gliori on the content of her Wiki and this along with his other behaviour is clearly a Conflict of Interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 November 2012‎ (UTC)

This dispute is now being discussed at ANI. I fixed the header of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Tara Hewitt (Wirral politician)

• Tara Hewitt (Wirral politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tara Hewitt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article is being repeatedly edited by the subject of the article, Ms Tara Hewitt, in some cases repeatedly deleting verifiable facts that she does not want on her page. As far as I can see this page is being used as a form of self promotion.86.130.208.213 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the links above. I assume the username is the one that was desired by the IP. --Nouniquenames 16:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You should always notify the user of this sort of discussion, which I've now done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

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

Presently there is one editor, UrbanVillager, who has done the majority of the editing on the page, only edits articles related to Malagurski, and has personally taken and uploaded all images related to this article.

• The article has been edited mostly by UrbanVillager. [12] Looking through the history you can see him revert any inclusion of criticism and object to it on the talkpage. This is done against a number of editors' opinions including Joy, Opbeith, and myself that believe the information warrants inclusion. [13]
• The vast majority of UrbanVillager's edits solely focus around Malagurski and include his biography article and his films. [14]
• The circumstances under which the images were taken would require the individual to be closely affiliated with him or even a paid advocate. They include Malagurski at the Beldocs premiere (Belgrade 2011), Raindance festival (London 2011), and even during an actual interview for a film (Belgrade 2012). [15]

In my opinion this editor's COI has subjected the related articles to biased editing and there are signs of ownership also at play. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• For your first point, could you please provide diffs exhibiting the behaviour in question rather than merely linking to the entire 500-entry edit history of the article? Please don't assume that anyone here is going to comb through each and every edit there looking for evidence supporting your claims. Also, note that this COI issue was already raised last year on Talk:The Weight of Chains#Synopsis. For what it's worth, UrbanVillager denied being connected to the film. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Having checked back, what he actually said was "I don't work for Malagurski or anyone connected to this film!". Opbeith (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure no problem. Joy inserts a criticism sentence in October 2011 [16] and is immediately reverted [17]. The same is done in February 2012 [18] and UrbanVillager replaces it with favorable reviews [19]. Relevant are discussions are at [20][21]. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like both UrbanVillager and Joy are advancing reasonable arguments in good faith about why the source is or is not reliable. Perhaps WP:RSN would have be able to solve that particular issue. In any case, I'm not convinced that the dispute over this one source can be used to establish a COI; it's entirely plausible that UrbanVillager's removal of the content was based solely on a policy-based objection to the source, as he openly claimed. Are there any other cases which might serve to establish a pattern of promotion or POV-pushing? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why PRODUCER is reporting me in the middle of a discussion on the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains talk pages between myself and him. I hope he's not trying to remove me from the discussion just because I disagree with him and because I am genuinely interested in improving the articles in question because they are interesting to me. To accuse me of being paid to edit these articles is ridiculous. The only thing I'm objecting to on the talk pages is the inclusion of blog posts (Srebrenica genocide blog, Bosnian genocide blog, etc.) and unreliable self-published websites as references, as well as links from YouTube that have been described by administrators Nyttend and Mark Arsten to be in violation of WP:COPYEDIT and WP:YOUTUBE. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no harm in requesting opinions from non involved editors on the possibility of COI given the evidence at hand. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, although this isn't the first time I'm accused of being affiliated with Boris Malagurski, the last time I was accused as such in August of this year, under the WP:MEAT policy, administrator, checkuser, and oversighter AGK concluded that "No clear evidence is given" and closed the investigation. I do feel that there's a sort of witch-hunt against me, just because I don't agree with all of the users who attack Boris Malagurski and his films with blog 'references' and youtube videos. --UrbanVillager (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I had no part in that. The circumstances simply seem suspicious to me. Especially the uploading of images that would require you to be at the premiere in Belgrade, at a festival in London, and present during the filming of an actual interview. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed unusual. UrbanVillager, can you confirm that you are the photographer of those images? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't take those photos. I took them from Boris Malagurski's official Facebook page, he released those photos into the public domain. I wasn't sure which Commons template to select, so I selected the template that says that I took the photos, not really thinking it would be a big deal. I understand that this was a mistake and I apologize. I suggest that someone who knows the rules on uploading photos to Commons to look into this and select the appropriate template. Also, if someone could inform me about which template I should select in the future for these kinds of things, please let me know. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence supporting your claim that the photos are in the public domain, so I've flagged them for deletion. If you have evidence that the images have been released by the copyright holder into the public domain or under a Commons-compatible licence, please submit this to OTRS accordance with the instructions and the images will be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll try e-mailing Malagurski via his website, but I don't know if he'll reply. So, if I understand correctly, he basically has to send the links to the photos in question to [email protected] and say that he approves the use of them on Wikipedia? Thanks for the information, --UrbanVillager (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No. He needs to confirm that he is (or was) the copyright holder of the photos, and that he has released them into the public domain, or under a free content license which permits modification and redistribution by anyone, including but not limited to Wikipedia. Because Malagurski doesn't appear to have taken the photos, it is unlikely that he actually holds the copyright to them. (Perhaps they were taken by a photographer working for hire, but given the settings I think this too is unlikely. They look more like photos by journalists covering the events he attended.) —Psychonaut (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, I'll e-mail him, explain all this, and if he is the copyright holder, we'll see if he'll take the time to e-mail Commons, or will instruct the copyright holder to do so. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please link the facebook images. I don't see them. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Here and here. I couldn't find the third one (from the screening in Belgrade), since its older, but it's probably still somewhere on his Facebook page. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Those are direct links. I see his infobox image on his facebook page. Could you please tell me where his interview picture located? I've checked every album. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the "Timeline Photos" album, it's the 11th photo. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the problems with UrbanVillager's interventions. Other people have the Wikipedia rulebook deployed against them whenever it can be pressed into service. But wen it's a case of following procedures of which UrbanVillager is well aware, apparently anything goes. UrbanVillager had the issue of uploading images without copyright brought to his attention a year and a half ago.[22]. Insisting on one law for other editors, another law for oneself is unreasonable. Opbeith (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Srebrenica genocide blog is User:Bosniak's. He was blocked and banned in part for spamming links to it in Wikipedia articles. It's a settled issue that this site is not a reliable source; it's even on the spam filter. If anyone has been able to add a link to it, then they must be circumventing the filter somehow. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should not be used. I believe it was mentioned because it hosts an English version of the Serbo-Croatian review. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I also want to point out some further factually incorrect claims from the initial report. First, it is not true that User:UrbanVillager "has done the majority of the editing on the page" Boris Malagurski. It is true that he is the single most frequent editor of this page, but his edits by no means constitute the majority. Second, it is not true that this account "only edits articles related to Malagurski". His actual article-space edit counts are as follows:

article	# edits
Boris Malagurski	96
The Weight of Chains	75
Nova srpska politička misao	9
Lewis MacKenzie	7
Yugoslav Wars	6
Jože Mencinger	6
Tesla Motors	4
World War II persecution of Serbs	3
Slobodan Samardžić	3
Scott Taylor (journalist)	3
Nikola Tesla	3
Vlade Divac	2
John Perkins (author)	2
John Bosnitch	2
Death of Muammar Gaddafi	2
Branislav Lečić	2
Yeonpyeongdo	1
Weight of chains	1
Trepča	1
The Weight Of Chains	1
Srđa Trifković	1
Škabo	1
Radio Television Serbia	1
Organ trafficking Kosovo	1
NSPM	1
Nova srpska politicka misao	1
New Serbian political thought	1
Milan Levar	1
Joze Mencinger	1
Jasenovac concentration camp	1
James Byron Bissett	1
Evo zore, evo dana	1
Đakovica Airport	1

From this we can see that the majority of his edits are indeed about Malagurski and his films, but there is also a not-insignificant minority which are not. Judging from the actual text of those edits, I would say that if there is any single focus to his edits, it is on Serbia-related topics in general.

These findings, combined with the revelation above that he is not the photographer of the Malagurski images, greatly weaken the three arguments made for bringing forth this report. The evidence has boiled down to this: the user has focussed his edits on Serbian topics in general and Malagurski in particular, and is the most frequent contributor to the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles, with differences of opinion as to what information or sources should be used in the article. In my opinion these facts alone are not sufficient to establish that a conflict of interest exists, as similar observations could be made for thousands of other disinterested editors who focus on a topic area of interest to them. For instance User:Imtitanium is the single most prolific contributor to the Bigg Boss 6 article, the vast majority of his edits are to Bigg Boss-related articles, and he has even been the repeated subject of complaints about ownership issues, but no one would suspect that he's involved in the production of the show. I therefore submit that, in the absence of further evidence, this is not a COI issue but rather a garden-variety content and sourcing dispute which should be dealt with at the appropriate venues therefor. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Scratch a bit deeper than the surface. In terms of the quantity of edits done to the Boris Malagurski article, UrbanVillager has a relative majority. Note that not all editors edit in little pieces some prefer to make changes in a lump sum hence the edit number. In terms of the size of those edits he's the clear majority. Just compare the article status where Cinema C left off to today's current article. Which of these "not-insignificant" edits aren't related to Malagurski? Most of the biographies he's edited were done solely to add a link to Malagurski's film. The "Nova srpska politička misao" article was incidentally created by UrbanVillager shortly before he added that Malagurski wrote for it. [23] All this is apparently done to pad Malagurski's importance as if Wikipedia's a place for resumes. That coupled with the immense effort to block anything remotely critical of Malagurski and applying different standards to sources that he adds and to those of others are very telling signs. As for the images... what can I say? UrbanVillager falsely used a license and claimed that the only images he uploaded were released by him into the public domain. Violating copyright not just with Youtube links (while berating others for the same exact thing), but also deceptively through images. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychonaut, those of us who have been provoked to much greater involvement with the Boris Malagurski and The Weight of Chains articles than the articles or their subjects deserve because of the very obviously partisan nature of the articles and the principal content contributor coulddn't help being struck by UrbanVillager's prominent role in the development of the articles. She/he is the only editor who has regularly expanded the articles with what is essentially "soft promotion" and determinedly fought off criticism of the inadequacy of the material.

Certainly, as you note, UrbanVillager has a focus on Serbia-related topics, but you fail to note that this is not a general interest but heavily weighted to highlighting the work of a Serbian propagandist (whose nationality UrbanVillager seeks to blur or efface) whose work and political activities are predominantly concerned with disseminating a Serbian nationalist explanation of the area's recent history. UrbanVillager has resisted criticism of the substance of the subject's reputation and efforts to highlight lacunae in the cited "reliable source" material, often applying inconsistent standards.

When asked if she/he had "any connection with the making of The Weight of Chains, its distribution or publicity for it", UrbanVillager replied "I don't work for Malagurski or anyone connected to this film!" I have since asked twice whether she/he is connected with Boris Malagurski or his backers and have not had a reply. You appeared at UrbanVillager's Talk Page offering apparently unsolicited advice that included outspoken criticisms of myself and my motives (as informative about their source as they were about their target) that UrbanVillager was of course happy to repeat verbatim. I detected a significant imbalance in your evaluation of UrbanVillager's conduct and of mine.

Here I'm particularly surprised by your lame attempt to explain away UrbanVillager's level of assiduous commitment to the subject with reference to Imtitanium. You are normally very rigorous in your pursuit of the perceived inadequacies of other articles and editors and the position you take with regard to UrbanVillager's activities is surprisingly permissive. Opbeith (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I do apologize again for violating Wikipedia regulations by uploading the photos under a false licence, I sent Boris Malagurski an e-mail asking if he'd write to Commons permissions for the photos, I hope that he does. As for the rest, if it's a crime being interested in the topic of Boris Malagurski and his films, lock me up. I do follow his work via his website and his Facebook page, but that's because it interests me. Malagurski has over 12,000 'Likes' on Facebook, a lot of people are interested in his work. I happen to like Wikipedia as well, so I add some interesting things when I find reliable references. I think Malagurski is important, and the fact that many other editors openly personally dislike Malagurski and probably don't believe he's even important enough to have an article on Wikipedia, concerns me in the sense that their edits are not in good faith and that primary focus is not to make the article better, but to present Malagurski in a negative light at any cost. One glance at the discussion shows that PRODUCER, User:Opbeith, Pincrete (who exclusively edits and discusses The Weight of Chains), and a few IP addresses, are basically focusing on how to add negative things about Malagurski, or to remove neutral/positive things. Aside from a few copyright-related edits by PRODUCER, which are justified, and a few edits by Pincrete which are fairly neutral, the overall mission really means adding unverifiable slander to the article, and this is what bugs me. None of them commented saying "Hey, let's see how to make this article better and more balanced", most of them showed up with the attitude "Boris Malagurski sucks, his films are crap, blogs and websites say that too, let's add that in the article", and when I argued that blogs are unacceptable and the websites they're listing are iffy, I got attacked personally, first accusing me that I'm Boris Malagurski, then that I'm his colleague or on his payroll, while all those users have a problem with me simply because I don't want to accept the addition of blog entries and original research as references. I'd suggest to those editors to stop attacking me, and focus on the content, i.e. how to make the article better, without an agenda on presenting the topic in a positive or negative way. I'll repeat this for the billionth time, whenever someone finds reliable references that present Malagurski in a negative light (and I did agree to the addition of a Croatian reference that described Malagurski's work as "too Serbian"), I fully agree to add that to the article. Let's all calm down and work together on making the articles on Wikipedia better. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The defects in Malagurski's work have been pointed out on a number of occasions. Once again I'll point you to the treatment of Srebrenica where he gives most of the time devoted to this key aspect of the conflict between the ethnic communities to Srdja Trifkovic, at the time spokesperson for Radovan Karadzic, currently on trial for the genocide, apart from mention of a factually disproven comment by one UN official which is used to override the findings of the United Nations and the highest institutions of the international judicial system. Malagurski's work is crap, as per his coverage of Srberenica, and it's knowingly deceitful crap, as per his coverage of Srebrenica. UrbanVillager, you are the person primarily responsible for shoehorning this crap into Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• There still seems to be a COI problem. Why is UrbanVillager so keen to remove the template? The edit summary "removing template, per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Boris_Malagurski" doesn't even make sense - if we have a thread here, in an obscure backroom, about COI does that mean we no longer need to warn readers and casual editors about the problem? bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

NCsoft

• NCsoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Somewhat negative article is being slowly whitewashed. Paid editor involvement. Gigs (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• As well, there appears to be a forum campaign to smear the company, so there's bad things happening on both sides of the fence on this one. Gigs (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Chris Janson

Kibus1 (talk · contribs) claims to be Chris Janson, and has repeatedly done nothing but make NPOV-violating edits to his own article. I have explained to him twice why his edits are bad, and he's still doing it. Anyone wanna step in here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seattle Biomed

WP:SPA user talk:Boydmero1 has been contributing content to Seattle Biomed as shown in the history here. I asked this user to add references and offered to help if they wanted to talk about best practices. Now this user is adding references, but in many cases the references do not support the statements being made or are otherwise weak. Could I request that anyone else provide a second opinion? This user does not respond to their talk page, so I think that bringing the conversation to the article's talk page and directing them there is best. I would appreciate anyone who could check it out and then post 1-2 sentences of guidance. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User:User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari

Resolved

• User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari/sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari/sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User talk:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari (edit | [[Talk:User talk:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari (edit | [[Talk:User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Businessman who wants to brag shamelessly about himself, including about how some snooker celebrity said he was the best Arab player he'd ever seen or something. Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I blanked all his userspace drafts, since someone volunteered to write him a somewhat neutral mainspace article. Gigs (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I came across this discussion on this COI noticeboard and checked out the userspace draft and -- get this -- I thought it was an articlespace article and began editing it as if it was a real article. Yikes. Well, it looked like an article; I just did not notice the word "User:" before the article title. Sheesh. So I trimmed the "article" substantially -- like most of it -- then I felt bad for the guy and researched him and restored text with proper references, thinking (still) that it was a real article. Finally I realized my mistake -- and floated a real article entitled Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari, not really thinking much about whether this person passed requirements such as notability. At present I am not sure whether this article meets the WP:GNG but maybe it should be recast as an article about the Galadari Family in general, which would probably pass WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's exactly why we have WP:FAKEARTICLE as a guideline, user drafts should not appear to be articles because they are indexed in Google and can easily mislead readers. It's OK to have a working draft in userspace temporarily, but it should usually have the draft banner at the top. Now that you have written a real article for him, there's no further need for his drafts. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the link to Fakearticle. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Elizabethleemonroy

• User:Elizabethleemonroy (edit | [[Talk:User:Elizabethleemonroy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elizabethleemonroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Isn't this one a little over-the-top in terms of using her userpage to advertise her business, etc? Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does look fishy but at the same time it is only a userpage which does not get the attention of articlespace. My sense is not to make too big of a deal about this since there are more serious things needing attention in wikiworld.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We delete pages like this at MfD all the time. User pages are indexed in Google after all. Gigs (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Crap_Towns

• Crap_Towns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Samjordison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Jordison
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Kieran

Editing pages about own book and selves. 195.99.172.179 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

•  No action taken — I don't see any particular problems here. The involved editors haven't inserted anything particularly promotional or controversial. You can add {{connected contributor}} on the talk pages if you like, but since their usernames are real names, I don't see much benefit. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Rodney Lough Jr.

In 2009 there was a concerted effort on part of the subject to add a variety of promotional material to the article. The talk page discussion turned very ugly as the subject took attempts to maintain a non promotional article as personal attacks. It has been quiet since then, but this week a variety of single purpose accounts (User: TheRealJoeyMoore, User:Ellipsisdbg and IP:50.193.217.61) have returned to add various bits of puffery, including the much fought over "Master" status found in this diff. I've gone through and removed the most egregious examples, but more eyes are always appreciated especially if it turns as ugly as it did the last time people tried to maintain the article. --Daniel 18:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Lough Jr. This guy has wasted enough of our time over the last 4 years, considering that he isn't particularly notable. Gigs (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Related article Peter Lik subject to SPA/COI activity as well, and much more promotional than this one. Seems to be some kind of rivalry between the two photographers and there's been some COI-motivated cross editing with SPAs or meatpuppets as well. All of it has been happening in slow motion for years. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the AfD on Lough. SPA claimed plausible offline sources that I will AGF on, and pointed out an additional online source that is weak, but is a little coverage. SPI has been filed on the SPA based on behavioral evidence at AfD (he advanced rationale almost identical to one Lough advanced at the last AfD) Gigs (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Linda Melconian

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

A puff piece with very few relevant references, many incorrectly formatted, reads more like a CV. I've tried to tidy it up, but I'm not getting very farTheroadislong (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Without diff evidence, COIN can't concluded that User:Melconian has a COI with the Linda Melconian topic merely because they have Melconian in common. You might want to try following the steps at WP:BADNAME regarding Inappropriate usernames. The article now reads OK (good job on the tidying up). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Organogallium peroxides

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

The article is largely the creation of the user; the references are largely to primary sources that are papers written by a researcher of the same name. A warning on the user's talk page that repeated removal of the {{COI}} tag would result in a report here resulted removal of the tag. COI isn't my area - I'm much happier doing AV. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the COI and NPOV tags at Organogallium peroxides have been removed again. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's actually backwards. Report at COIN first, get a consensus at COIN that the user has a COI, and then tag with COI tag. I listed Organogallium peroxides at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organogallium peroxides. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)