Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

A header

Just to remind people that there may be a more appropriate message...

Any comments before I add this to the header? MER-C 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps a pointer to the BLP noticeboard would also be helpful. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
"Issues with biographies of living persons may be more suited to the biographies noticeboard" How's that sound? MER-C 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

I removed the edits by McGrandWizard. because he's been blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Mykungfu, who's had a long-running vendetta against Ccson. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reappeared as an IP. Closed and archived. MER-C 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Modified Luxury & Exotics

I did the COI report on the Modified Luxury & Exotics article yesterday. The article's now gone (CSD G11). What about the rest of the edits by User:Luxury&Exotics (see their contributions) that were basically self-promotion for the Modified Luxury & Exotics magazine? For just one example, see this edit to Fisker Coachbuild. (An article that has multiple problems, including a copyright notice for someone else's quote!).

I reported the problems here because the editor had started reverting my removal of their promotional edits, and I HATE edit wars. BlankVerse 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Corporate vanity link.

The notice in the header, "Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}} instead", contains an external link that is off-topic. It's about logos and trademarks. Is there something more appropriate it should be linking to instead? ✤ JonHarder talk 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the one which may have been intended is this one, which seems to have a more permanent location here. I added the second one to the COI/N header template, because lists/mail wikimedia posts (like the one you noticed, and the first one I found) migrate mysteriously. — Athænara ✉ 07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Aliweb

I first asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Aliweb about solutions to the problem on Aliweb. It was recommended there that I post to WP:COI/N, which I did three days ago (Aliweb thread here). The main problem editor (one or more with at least six socks) has returned. Nothing has stopped him or slowed him down. Two questions: (1) is WP:COI/N the right place? (2) if it isn't, what place is? Athænara ✉ 10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Answering my own post.) It was the right place. No specific action was taken, but the exposure of the issues on the noticeboard may have been an influence. The aliweb.com socks eventually ceased the previous pattern they'd established of repeatedly reverting encyclopedic changes to Aliweb and berating other editors at length on Talk:Aliweb. — Athænara ✉ 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing sections

Can someone explain why this page doesn't allow editing of sections individually? --Ideogram 09:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It does. Right now I am editing this section, and only this section. Does it show up on other pages, but not this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean the project page corresponding to this talk page. --Ideogram 09:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard allows me to edit sections as well, for example [1]. Sorry, I can't explain why it doesn't for you. What WP skin do you use? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh, don't know why I didn't see that before. Maybe I was confused by the fact there's no "+" at the top to add a new section. --Ideogram 10:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So peaceful

I didn't realize how peaceful this noticeboard was until I happened upon WP:BLP/N. *shudder* --Iamunknown 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And that backlog—184 active reports! — Athænara ✉ 06:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, things are only painful when we whack people on the head with a cluebat. I guess being outed here is an effective deterrent and they try to cover up their actions. As for WP:BLP/N, I just wish I wasn't the only one doing the archiving. MER-C 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, OK. You aren't quite, any more. Down to 148 a few minutes ago! I'm not looking at the thing again until the earth has turned at least 120° on its axis. — Athænara ✉ 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

LaRouche/Dking conflict of interest

→ (The message below was posted to my talk page. I moved it here for more exposure.) — Æ.

I'm sorry -- I didn't see your comment/question, and then quickly thereafter someone decided the case was inactive and boxed it. Are you asking for diffs on examples where editors were accused of having pro-LaRouche secret agendas, because they raised the issue of Dking and COI? I would be happy to provide them. Incidentally, the other editor in question was User:172, not the anonymous editor you were looking at. Please tell me specifically what you need, and also, is it permissable to restore this section on the COI noticeboard? The matter is certainly not closed. --Tsunami Butler 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not edited the LaRouche article since 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)—over four months ago—and has not posted on the talk page (at least since June 2006 in the page history, which is as far back as I looked).
n.b.  That edit was an encyclopedic removal of COI larouchepub.com and larouchepac.com links.
Your last post said: "Input from neutral editors would be helpful." My input (more than a day before boxing the section—hardly "quickly"—which was not archived until several hours after it was boxed) included: "In addition, I read about fifteen Dking diffs. I am neutral. I don't think there's a case here."
If MER-C, Jossi, Ed Johnston, Iamunknown, and others overseeing WP:COI/N deem it appropriate, the section can be un-archived. My own view is that the issue was defunct for more than one month before it was placed in the archive. — Athænara ✉ 06:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no one has been editing the LaRouche article much, since it was protected due to edit warring back on January 17. The edits I refer to by User:172 actually appear on other talk pages, where he followed one editor in particular who had raised the issue of Dking and COI. See Talk:Rafael Correa#Deletion of Correa's comments on IMF and Washington Consensus. However, particularly objectionable was the bullying of User:Pascal.Tesson on the LaRouche talk page by User:Dking (diff,) and the insinuation by User:Will Beback that editors who raised the COI issue were paid by LaRouche (diff.) --Tsunami Butler 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In re the two diffs (both more than one week ago), quotes:
  • 1st: "26 out of 68 citations" countered the claim that "a majority of the sources are linked to these two editors"
  • 2nd: "What's most important is that everyone stick to making NPOV edits that summarize reliable sources, and to being civil with each other."
The article talk page section cited is an example of consensus building to improve an article.
User conduct and article content can be addressed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment (sections: Request comment on users, Request comment on articles). Personally, I don't recommend either one if the problem is simply one of not liking editor consensus. — Æ. ✉ 22:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need this noticeboard to continue study of this issue. WP:COI emphasizes behavior in which an editor promotes himself, suppresses negative information about himself (or his organization), or criticizes competitors. The analogy would be if Dennis King were to write about himself on Wikipedia. What's been offered here are some complaints about Dennis King's editing behavior, that appear to concern different views about a controversial character, Lyndon LaRouche. I doubt that whatever King may write about LaRouche on Wikipedia is intended to make King more famous as a real-world person or increase sales of his books. No comments have been quoted here to that effect on this noticeboard. Also I should note that Tsunami Butler has heavily availed himself of Wikipedia's complaint facilities over the last six months. He has filed a case with the Mediation Cabal, one that is still in progress, seeming to cover many of the same issues he raised here. He has used Wikiquette alerts (complaining about Dking), and the BLP noticeboard. He has made lengthy postings to a Talk page at Arbcom to complain about restrictions imposed in previous LaRouche decisions. He has even written directly to Jimbo Wales. Since there doesn't seem to be a COI here in the conventional sense, I think that the right thing to do is for us to close the issue. In the future we should perhaps be more active in asking about previous noticeboard postings, when an issue arrives here. EdJohnston 03:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

(Point of information: I am a "she.") It is my contention that Dking is a problem editor who has gotten into huge fights on virtually every article he has edited, due to very aggressive pushing of his POV, which invariably takes the form of self-citing (which I believe to be self-promotion.)
I also believe that there are many, many problems with the LaRouche article, and as I understand it, Wikipedia considers heavily biased editing to be a particular problem on articles which are biographies of living persons. There seems to a sort of inertia about getting these problems addressed, and they do seem to be covered by very specific Wikipedia policies. I don't know what course of action would be more appropriate than reporting policy violations on the noticeboards, and I'm open to suggestion. (The mediation cabal seemed like a fall-back of sorts, while I wait for someone to enforce policy. Also, the LaRouche article is hopelessly deadlocked and protected at this time.) --Tsunami Butler 14:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami, could you list, clearly and succinctly, what the problems are, so that people can take a look at them? Or if that's too much work, perhaps list two or three, so we can get the general flavor of the concerns. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It's very simple. Dking's edits of this article have been highly tendentious and have consisted mainly of importing material from his book into the article, material which is not factual in nature, but more in the nature of Conspiracy theory, alleging that there are esoteric coded messages in LaRouche's writings and so on. These theories are not widely accepted, and therefore it is my view that aggressively inserting them into Wikipedia is a form of self-promotion which is not permitted under WP:COI. --Tsunami Butler 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about the rest, but I agree that User:Dking shouldn't be editing the article because of close relationship to the topic, i.e. as a long-time high-profile critic of Larouche. It doesn't matter that these edits aren't promoting King; WP:COI includes the possibility that a "close relationship" may be an antagonistic one (Legal antagonists ... articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with). Tearlach 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
King has written the only significant biography of LaRouche that I know of, which is used by all major news organizations that write about LaRouche. The relationship is antagonistic, at least in part, because the LaRouche organization tries to discredit him in order to discredit the book, but that's not something we should pay any attention to. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the 19 items open on the COI noticeboard at this moment, the great majority concern editors who may be writing to promote the interest of the subject of a particular article. In these cases there is a real-life connection between the editor and the organization, and the editor is hoping to promote the organization. Any potential misbehavior of Dking (not described above except in quite vague, general terms and without providing diffs) is not reasonably interpreted as protecting the interests of a person or organization written about in Wikipedia. Moreover, I don't see the logic of relentlessly taking advantage of multiple complaint venues at the same time for apparently the same complaint. I'd still favor keeping this issue closed as a COI. Given that the LaRouche article is still 100% protected, and any edits have to be approved on the Talk page, the risk of Dking hurting that article seems limited. EdJohnston 02:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The complaints may overlap to an extent, as do Wikipedia editing guidelines, but they are not the "same complaint." Dking is editing in violation of multiple policies. Here is one characteristic diff that relates to WP:COI#Citing oneself: diff. In this example he adds a substantial chunk of material. There are many, many other edits where he adds small segments of self-cited material. Of course, as long as the article remains protected, he won't be adding more; I have listed this on the noticeboard in hopes that pressure may be brought to bear by the community, so that the article may be unprotected without the same behavior erupting again. --Tsunami Butler 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Needed

The article Anti-Iranian sentiments needs a LOT of help. I am almost afraid to start removing uncited and quite biased information, as more than a few contributors are in favor of the biased article. Halp!Arcayne 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just do it anyway and see what happens. MER-C 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It is, anyway, a content/neutrality issue rather than COI. Tearlach 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How to prove Conflict of Interest?

What is the course of action or reporting that should take place if I think that an article on a living person is being edited by the subject of that article? There is a logged on user and anon users from the same IP range that only ever make edits that show the subject in a positive light and remove anything negative. - X201 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just post as per the brief instructions which are shown near the top of the noticeboard. The easiest way is to use the + function for adding a new section, including a section heading, article links, userlinks and your concerns, as shown in the instructions. — Athænara ✉ 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Post it and I'll take a look at it. MER-C 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about how this place works

Okay...when I stumble across an article that I believe is a true conflict of interest, how do I deal with it? The instructions are not made all that clear on the page... --HubHikari 09:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Nevermind. I see. --HubHikari 09:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Add a section to WP:COI/N to list active AfD discussions of COI-nominated articles?

I happened to miss the AfD debate on one of the articles that had been submitted, on Bloodless Bullfighting. (Yes, I know, tragic..) Would there be suppport for adding an 'AfD' listing at the top of the noticeboard? At present AfDs are mentioned by participants only in passing. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth there is a whole section for AfDs and CfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a major heading is created for each new mathematics AfD that someone becomes aware of. I don't think this is canvassing. We would only list the AfDs of articles that had already been submitted to the noticeboard as having a COI. People who had gone to the trouble of analyzing a particular COI issue might be able to contribute useful tidbits to a corresponding AfD debate, if that happened to occur. A COI discussion is in a sense a 'pre-AfD' debate anyway, since if a problem can be worked out there may be no need to take it to AfD. Let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea, based on the recent AfD on Barbara Schwarz. It was nominated by an editor I noted on the WP:COI/N. Anynobody 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A few editors have independently been placing pointers to pertinent Afds in COI/N sections, but a section near top of page by NewArtBot feed might be an improvement. — Athænara ✉ 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected COI-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/COI, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/COILog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome.

If the feed is not helpful just revert it. Here the possible autobiography just mean that the nick of the author is matched in the article text Alex Bakharev 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good. A few false hits, and stuff that can go in the bin on simpler grounds, but it works well. Tearlach 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. MER-C 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could it be modified to show [[Special:Contributions/(username)]] instead of [[User:(username)]]? — Athænara ✉ 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Better still, {{user|whatever}}. MER-C 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Great idea, I will implement it today Alex Bakharev 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy disputes on noticeboard

The two sections on TM articles had together passed 80 kilobytes by the time I booted them to Archive 5. I don't know what we can do to prevent this in the future, but I'd hate to see any repeats.

A small coterie of editors used the noticeboard as just another platform to air their views without restraint while they treated the actual conflict of interest policy as a minor side show few cared to see.

I am baffled by such sheer disregard for the noticeboard's purpose. — Athænara ✉ 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, especially that Yoga one. 17 A4 pages in 12pt font as of last night. I think we should reserve the right to ignore anything over 500 words or so, we don't want to have to read entire essays. And POINTish stuff should usually be closed - the only reason why I'm leaving the WMC one on is that the initial poster looks a bit dodgy. MER-C 07:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There was a genuine COI issue in there that that got buried in all the irrelevant content dispute material. However good someone's edits, "I've been at Maharishi University of Management for decades" is a problematic relationship. But if not even the complainer is capable of focusing on the COI aspects alone, there's not much that can be done. Tearlach 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
"I am baffled by such sheer disregard for the noticeboard's purpose"
One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits.
I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed. Tearlach 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to mandate a 500-word limit on postings to this noticeboard, I'm with you. How about 'Posting removed for length -- please submit a shorter version.' EdJohnston 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Even 500 is probably way too much. A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop. Tearlach 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[Again, my apologies to all. … Being my first time at this noticeboard, I knew about WP:COI but not how to deal with it …Lesson learned. --Dseer 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)]

Done. I've changed it to 200, as we might need to write a short paragraph or two every now and then. MER-C 02:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume that will require each comment added in a discussion to also be less than 200 words. EdJohnston 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant. I've clarified it. Now to poke the admins towards cleaning up the prod backlog. MER-C 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[I removed some crosstalk. This talk page is primarily for those who oversee the noticeboard and the many issues reported on it daily. — Æ. ✉ 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)]

The Connolley section is bloating similarly. — Athænara ✉ 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we just point them towards WP:RFC? It's time we reigned that discussion in. Last time when I tried to close, I got reverted. MER-C 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I archived it today. Maybe I'll get reverted too. — Æ. ✉ 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just jumping in for a second to point out an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article? Seriously, just because someone founded an institution doesn't mean that people working at the institution are automatically in COI concerning an article about that individual as long as they post anonymously. MMY hasn't visited his school in Iowa in about 20 years or more and the relationship between individual TM meditators and MMY is hardly consistent. Paul Mason, whose biography of MMY is proposed as a significant source of information about MMY is an avid TMer, but thoroughly despises MMY, by his own words, as a for instance. -Sparaig 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't continue the debate. That discussion has been closed and archived. You can become a nominator of a new issue, if you wish. EdJohnston 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to cooperate

Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse". Tearlach 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad it's not just me who's noticed this. There's been a real surge in WP:LAWYER behavior too. I don't know what can be done about it. It would take a change in the present community consensus, which seems to allow people to get away with all kinds of stuff if they make an occasional positive contribution. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
For new articles, I suppose there'd be grounds for action per the boilerplate on the article creation page: Template:Notitle. I see there's been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on two approaches. One, to provide some straightforward way for editors who know they've a possible COI to start an article in namespace, then get it reviewed before it goes to articlespace. Two, the more scary warning template Template:Uw-coi. Tearlach 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the 200 word limit comment will help to cut down on the wikilawyering, but the need for rouge admins is still the same. I tend to prod any vanispamcruftisement I come across, so a heavy handed approach works as well. MER-C 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There is one long-running case still open involving spam links. There may be two further angles for that one: (a) is it a business, or is compensation received? If so then MyWikiBiz precedent provides a route. (b) Is there ongoing insertion of spam links? If so then we could ask that it stop. If the response is that it will not stop, then either RFC or AN/I seems appropriate. Thoughts? EdJohnston 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The subject of that case, a good example of one aspect of Wikilawyering—the "I can do what I want because there was no policy when I registered" kind of thing—has also impugned the personal motives of NPOV editors who respect and defend meaningful and substantive policies and guidelines. — Athænara ✉ 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Hostility to proper COI inquiries, and challenges to our motives, is grist for a complaint to administrators, since they don't like it when people mock the policies. Rather than make a whole new posting on some more 'administrative' noticeboard, we could also considering writing out a summary (containing many relevant diffs) and just adding it to the current entry. In our copious spare time, of course. Citation of the MyWikiBiz case might be appropriate. EdJohnston 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
(Glad it's not just me that's noticed either.) While getting admins involved is the best way to get a firm resolution, I hope that there are ways that other editors can help. Seems like the admins are being stretched pretty thin recently from the backlogs I've been seeing everywhere. --Ronz 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The heading of this item, 'Refusal to cooperate', implies editors may not see any consequences if they fail to address their COI. We've been lucky to have a few administrators take action on the cases posted here. Where to go next when someone just appears to be stubborn in the face of a real COI is not yet clearly defined. COIs that are very clearly summarized here, with diffs, should be the easiest to take elsewhere. Nominators can help their case by being very well prepared, rather than just saying 'Please investigate this person.' EdJohnston 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
COI linkspam: at WT:WPSPAM, we don't worry so much about blocks and bans. When people keep adding links in spite of our requests to stop, we just list their domains at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for inclusion on the m:Spam blacklist. Once blacklisted, the MediaWiki software blocks any attempt to add such a link to any of our pages. The blacklist saves a lot of wasted time arguing with persistent spammers who would otherwise never stop. That blacklist covers all Wikimedia Foundation projects in all languages; additionally several hundred other users of MediaWiki software also use our blacklist. Note that because of the potential repercussions, we normally only blacklist for very persistent cases (or cross-wiki spam). This doesn't help much with vanity articles, but it does stop COI linkspamming.--A. B. (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that each case is different, so each takes more time than any sort of common approach would allow (as there is no one size fits all solution). I agree that blacklisting a domain is powerful and being able to take well-documented cases to RFC or RFC/U for an admin's attention is powerful too, but sometimes a wait and see approach might be best. I am thinking of a particular user who has only inserted his COI/SPAM link three times, then been a pest and SPA about it since (while not trying to reinsert the link, which everyone else agrees is not allowed under WP:EL). The silver lining in this cloud is that the article in question has remained free of this spam (although the COI editor remains a gadfly). I hope this is a constructive additon to the conversation. Thanks for all your work on COI to help keep the encyclopedia in good shape, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. On further thought, part of what I was trying to say is that perhaps it is helpful to focus on the actions more than the editor. If a website can be blocked, the editor trying to add spam to it is blocked too. If an editor is a pest but not adding COI spam, then ignore him (assuming no other issues arise). Even in the above COI case, the COI behavior seems to have stopped (although the wikilawyering continues unabated). Hope this is helpful, Ruhrfisch 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
See this proposal at WT:COI, the talk page for the COI policy, to allow administrators to give out indefinite blocks in flagrant COI cases. EdJohnston 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I like this policy proposal - if you have a clear policy such as this, then most of my comments above become obsolete. Refusal to cooperate becomes a non-issue, for the most part too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The need for the blocks in the Connolley COI issue is being discussed elsewhere

→ See also: William M. Connolley section in COI/N Archive 10

Those who have followed the issue about William M. Connelley that was recently closed here may note that Durova's blocks of User:Mnyakko and User:Zeeboid are being discussed over on her talk page. EdJohnston 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest rewrite

I've completed a rewrite of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You can see the rewritten version here, or see it with diff to the old version. Comments are welcome on the talk page. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A Nick Anthis lookalike is back

I hope we don't have to reopen the George Deutsch COI case, involving inappropriate edits by Nick Anthis, who has logged in as User:Biochemnick and others. I recently left this message for an IP who has been adding Anthis puffery as well as some plain vandalism. EdJohnston 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV input needed on article RFC

Neutral input from uninvolved policies and guidelines-minded editors who have experience with COI SPA ownership issues needed at Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment. — Athænara ✉ 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Looks a bit ugly. I added a few, simple comments. Hope they help. --Ronz 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope they do, too! That guy's article ownership issues and shameless Rocna promotion are mind-boggling. Neutrality and conflict of interest policies are meaningless to him.
Going by the dealing with disruptive editors section you linked, he skipped to stage 5 ("editor ignores consensus") weeks ago. I wonder which admins specialise in dealing with ruthless characters like this one. — Æ. ✉ 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that. —posted by JonHarder on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Post quoted above in re Anchor's predicament. The main offender would like us all to think someone else has the COI and any neutral party attempting intervention is the latter's agent.

Keep in mind that he sought page protection with smoke screens and attacks on noncombatants to prevent the removal of his company content and links by neutral editors.

I'm hors de combat—the page is off my watch list to prevent further overexposure to ruthless and venomous dishonesty (e.g. "defense" sneers "rebuttals"). — Æ. ✉ 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont blame you for stepping back, the editor in question is indeed tough to deal with and has a few times got me to the point of not even wanting to continue editing at all, its very frustrating. He seems to have quieted down for now, but no doubt as soon as page protection gets lifted on Anchor he will be back at it again. I am still hoping more editors chime in on the RFC and appropriate action can be taken. Thanks for all your help and time in dealing with this guy. Russeasby 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment I proposed to decommercialize the article. That is, remove all sections that discuss any brands currently available for sale, and links to any product testing of those anchors. We wouldn't lose very much by doing this. EdJohnston 18:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Diatribes

Hi there :)

I know this is going to seem piddling, but I think there's perhaps a better word that could be used to describe 'lengthy discourse' in the intro/setup of this page.

Recently, I (having missed the advice to keep it 200 words or less) gave a lengthy analysis on a COI discussion. Another editor referred to my long comment as a "diatribe". I was absolutely aghast. Baffled and a little hurt, I typed up a long disclaimer/apology and echoed said apology/disclaimer on the other editor's talk page.

Merriam-Webster defines diatribe thus:

1 archaic : a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing 3 : ironic or satirical criticism

Now, I was familiar with the word and its meaning prior to consulting the dictionary, but only the "common" meaning (2 and 3) which has decidedly negative connotations. It wasn't until later that I saw the word reflected in the "keep it short" caution at the top of the COI page and understood where the other editor got their verbiage from.

I recognise that many of the longer comments in these discussions might in fact BE diatribes, but to assume that any commentary exceeding 200 words is abusive or sarcastic doesn't give the appearance of assuming good faith. And, as in my example, it can lead to misunderstandings when editors, assuming from the context it simply means "long", use it incorrectly.

Thanks! Wysdom 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the longish comments tend to be boring and rambling wikilawyering, so more than one meaning of the word usually applies. It seems to be the best word for the job. I also stole the wording from the various other noticeboards, for example at WP:AN (where it's been there for 2.5 years) it asks users to "make your comments concise [because] [a]dministrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes", but the problem is far worse here then it is there. MER-C 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. A diatribe is bitter, abusive, attacking, et al. All modern and standard definitions carry that very negative connotation. It seems a shame to let that connotation stand just because it was copied from another page--precedent doesn't make a thing correct. I'll not argue it further, however--I respect your decision and appreciate the time you've taken to respond.

Best wishes, Wysdom 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That was just my opinion, it wasn't meant to be binding. If you've got a better option, {{sofixit}} at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header. MER-C 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Doh! ;D Normally I would have done that, but I wasn't sure if I would have been overstepping my bounds editing a community-space header v. a "regular ole" article. I guess that answers my question, though :) I'll have a go at it--thanks! Wysdom 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

→ Note: user Dking's COI also discussed in Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1#LaRouche/Dking conflict of interest.

I defended Wikipedia policies and guidelines in a noticeboard section about a website owner adding his external links to articles. My comments were solely about policies and guidelines—I have no interest in the user, the website, or the articles—but another user has repeatedly attempted to personalise such matters there, and elsewhere as in this edit summary:

  • "…Rmv the very POV word "amusing" (bad Dennis, no donut) and added clarification as to the location of the relvant [sic] text for Athaenara"   [ Diff: 08:16, April 26, 2007 (UTC) ]

I would like to know if other npov coi/n volunteers see any appropriate response to this sort of thing. It begs an old question: what is he playing at? — Æ. ✉ 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been volunteering at WP:WQA and encountered similar situations. I recommend letting the petty provocation go by with no response, keeping your focus on the issue(s). The personalized edit comment seems intended to bother you; by ignoring it you take away its power. Or maybe he meant it as a joke, since he also joked about "(bad Dennis, no donut)". Some people have unique ways of communicating, it's hard to tell from an edit summary alone. If the editor engages in reversion-wars to enforce his NPOV/COI, then of course that needs further attention, as would also be the case if incivility increases. There's also a question about the link to the original editor changed - is the new link still to the same article, just hosted on another site, or is it a new better reference? It seems like there are still links there to his website too. I have not studied the situation so I have no comment on that, though I've seen "fake-out" substitution done in similar situations, since articles are often hosted on multiple websites. Back to your original question, I would let it go by unless it gets worse, don't let it get to you. (The article at WP:Civil is worth a look too. I re-read it the other day and found it shows some refreshingly clear insights.) --Parzival418 Hello 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry I didn't remember until today to return to this section to acknowledge your good advice here. I let it go, and I thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Library COI dilemma

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 11

Hi, I have a question about librarians linking to (relevant) pages on sites of the library they work for. Does this constitute a conflict of interest, and should they be warned? I would argue that they do have an interest in people being tunneled to their website, and that that should not be done.

I have such a case (which may be quite big, the editor was stopped before, but I see now that she is still doing the same edits, there were also IPs linked to the library involved in the edits). The editor is putting links in external links sections, sometimes writing articles with links in the external links sections. The links are not always very appropriate, though do mention some information on the subject on the page linked to. I'd also like to hear an opinion on librarians 'pulling a book out of their library', and inserting the link as a reference on their own website, and to librarians adding information including a link as a reference to their own website.

I am reluctant to report this specific case to WP:COIN, since I have already tried to discuss this earlier (with her, and this subject has been on ANI, but there was not a proper solution coming out of this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Jmabel/Archive 53#Univ of Washington project to add photographs to Wikipedia -- WP:EL policy concerns? for a somewhat similar case. It sounds to me like she shouldn't be doing this. I'd forgive a multitude of sins if the end result was a better article. Your line that 'the links are not always very appropriate' does seem to be the clincher. Be aware that when an article goes through the Featured Article process, reviewers will sometimes reject it if it has as many as 10 external links. So every link had better be valuable! Can you indicate why AN/I did not give any satisfaction? Was there a reasonable defense offered? I didn't understand your comment about 'pulling a book out of their library.' You might also get feedback on issues like this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Librarians. EdJohnston 17:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am posting it here as a general case. WP:ANI did not really help, I think the only real answer coming out of it was that librarians do not have a COI with the material in their library, which is true. But I would argue that they have if they link to that information. But let met try and summarise the questions (lets assume that the library contains a rare or even unique copy of a book):

  • Does a person who works for a library have a COI when s/he is adding a link to that book on their site (in the external links section).
  • Similar for adding a reference (using WP:FOOT) to the own library, when it does support the statement in the sentence.
  • Would a librarian have a COI when s/he would, during lunch, hop into the library, pull such a book from one of the shelves, sit behind the computer, write an article or significantly enhance an article with information out of that book and add external links or references to the document hosted on their website?

To generalise the questions a bit, to me it feels that the only reason this person edits is because she then has an excuse to add the link (which would make the examples above worse), but as I said, I am looking for a general answer on this type of questions. For information which is not perfectly appropriate the question is easy. Hope this explains my questions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would things be different for a librarian than for any other profession? It's very simple:
  1. Adding a link with the purpose of increasing the traffic or reputation of the linked-to site is always bad.
  2. Adding a link because it actually enhances the utility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (as per WP:EL) is always good.
  3. For links to a site run by the editor himself or by his employer, we don't expect the editor, however honest and well-meaning, to be able to discern his own motives clearly enough to distinguish between (1) and (2), so we urge editors to exercise caution whenever (1) might conceivably come into play.
This holds for librarians and non-librarians alike. –Henning Makholm 17:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is what I would think, I will be posting my concerns on WP:COIN shortly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_1"