Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (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:

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

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

Resolved

• Korn/Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 65.125.188.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone have a look at this series of edits: [1]. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whois on 65.125.188.130: OrgName: KORN FERRY INTERNATIONAL

COI tag added to article. I see the COI issue was raised at User talk:65.125.188.130 on 18 December, with no acknowledgement. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two sections which were copied from websites as copyvios and removed five external links all of which were to the same site per WP:ELNO #4 & WP:LINKSPAM. There might be an article to salvage once the advertising is pruned, otherwise I suggest it's off to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If Wikipedia spent more time filling in articles about major businesses, and less time on [fill in blank here], corporations wouldn't feel the need to create their own articles. This very clearly met WP:BUSINESS, and I found cites for all of the claims within minutes of looking. THF (talk) 12:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sole creator is user:NextGen911. I haven't read article thoroughly, it's also on the userpage I believe, but I think it needs work... ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Generation 9-1-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to be well sourced, although use of citation templates in the in-line refs would make the references easier to use. Some of the content (check with a few google searches for key phrases) is taken directly from reliable sources and the PD status of US Gov publications avoids copyvio problems with those. It's a pretty good article as a single draft and unless any content turns out to have been directly lifted from copyrighted sites, I'd guess it can be left to the normal processes of other editors making amendments.

NextGen911 (talk · contribs · account creation) seems to have considerable expertise and an interest in this field and I don't think there's any CoI in the intentions stated on the userpage and the contributions so far. --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for checking on it Rexx. I think the way the citations were done threw me because it looks like they are from primary sources, but upon closer inspection it looks okay.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You're also correct to suspect the sources. I think there's that fine line in considering WP:V when the source is what the subject of an article says about itself (primary source). In a case like this of a government agency explaining an initiative of its own, one could concede the authority of the (primary) source, particularly as the general content is corroborated by other (secondary) commentaries. Just may humble opinion, of course, others may disagree. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it would be best to have independent sources. Government agencies are known to push their own programs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and removed links to the author's commercial page on the subject. It's a good start for a page and further edits will continue to improve it. Jc3 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Per Jc3. Seems like the POV issues have been addressed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

James H. Fetzer (talk · contribs) has been editing the article, adding a lot of material. It seems adequately sourced, but notability and lack of bias still needs to be determined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the article and tried to format the first four refs to help verify them. The first cite to University of Minnesota was being used to support a statement that the cite did not mention. The link in the second reference to ABC News produced a "not found" - google searching for the claimed article gave no ghits. The fourth reference is a dead link. At this point, WP:REDFLAG tells me that the sourcing on the article is not the high-quality required for exceptional claims. I would consider many of the sources given as self published sources and come under the remit of questionable sources. Once the sourcing can be verified, then unsourced statements can be challenged with confidence, particularly as I believe much of the article has become a platform for Fetzer to promote his views on JFK and 9/11. Those views would be better discussed in Assassination of JFK and 9/11 Conspiracy where they can more easily be judged for WP:NPOV. This biographical article about Fetzer may well state his views, as that is probably his principle claim to notability, but in my opinion it is WP:UNDUE to expound them at this length. --RexxS (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further review, the article make sufficient claims for notability and has some cites from respectable news sources to back that up. The problem at present is that although the article looks adequately sourced, in fact about half of the 42 cites are self-published sources and then there are three links to blogs, two to YouTube and a couple to newspaper articles in Spanish. It's not that every single one of those are inappropriate, but trying to distinguish where SPS or YouTube or Spanish is acceptable as a source is a tedious job. Anyone else who can spare the time to take a careful look? --RexxS (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article very badly needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. I'd rather not be the one to stick my hand in the crazy, though, since if I do it, I'll be accused of being part of the conspiracy because of my day job. THF (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – page cleaned up

• Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alexander Fiske-Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has been previously discussed Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#The_Pendulum_-_A_Tragedy_of_1900_Vienna_and_Alexander_Fiske-Harrison here and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_28#Fiskeharrison here and COI warned on a few occasions. After a short sojourn he's back editing Alexander Fiske-Harrison. It appears that the usual COI warnings simply don't suffice. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have a COI, and I am aware "COI editing is strongly discouraged" (N.B. NOT forbidden) according to your COI guidelines, which is why I have left the long called for improvement of the article to other hands. However, since the demand to improve the article has been there some time, I eventualy thought to do something about it myself, while following the guideline that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" - hence my username IS my surname. Alexander Fiske-Harrison --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alexander. Per this edit you almost doubled the size of the article about yourself (3,958 bytes went up to 7,474 bytes). I thought we had reached a sort of truce, where you would stop fiddling with the article (especially the promotional language) and we would accept the new version. If that deal is no longer in place, then we have to start reviewing your behavior for promotional editing. It is traditional to block spam-only accounts, and you are not improving your reputation on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As last time I AFDed his articles he accused me of a personal vendetta I'll leave it up to others to decide if a revert is needed on the article. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fiskeharrison's interpretation of WP:COI is in any case selective: "(N.B. NOT forbidden) ... Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests" are both true, but they don't offer carte blanche to a free hand with an article. WP:COI simultaneously stresses the constraints of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not and notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this strikes me as deeply childish.

Obviously, I have a conception of how the information is best presented and I do not claim this is the the most objective - I am happy with how it now is. However, this article has been flagged, not only for improvement, but standardisation, for a while. The info is there, the references ready-made on my user-page, and no one does anything? Why not?

So, instead, they wait til I do and then cry wolf? Come on. Let's face facts, there's people who would rather the article didn't exist, despite the judgement of their peers, who sat and watched when they oould themselves have improved the piece, in the hope I would transgress...--Fiskeharrison (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is time to give a final warning to Fiskeharrison. We have policies and we don't like it when they are ignored. There has been plenty of discussion here (it is now the second thread on this topic). He feels that his interpretation of COI is the only one that matters, and he doesn't need to listen to us. If he will agree to propose his changes on Talk, and wait for support from others, then we don't have a problem. If Fiskeharrison reverts Blowdart's latest fix, without first getting consensus on talk, I think he should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that is exactly what I did! It was stated that the article needed improvement. I stated on Blowdart's page, and others, and the talk page for the article, where the correct information was. I did not edit the page itself. After a while, when no one had responded, or edited the page, I did so, within the guidelines. Now, those who were unwilling to edit it themselves, are protesting that I did so. I simply don't understand. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I did not double the length of the aticle - if you look at the edit, FIVE lines were added on the published page. By WIKIFYing the references - which had notably not been done by anyone else - more bytes, but no more information, were added. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this conversation to people's talk pages to ask for truces doesn't exactly exhibit good faith either. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I didn't. The comment truce was used above,"I thought we had reached a sort of truce", which I found rather out of place. It is a quotation. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your personal accusations, I'll point out two things. 1) wikipedia has the concept of a watchlist, when I tag articles the first time they go onto my watch list and 2) it's not uncommon to keep an eye on people who have broken rules before. I'd suggest laying off the personal remarks, especially those you hide elsewhere. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hide nothing. Otherwise I'd be editing this in an internet cafe somewhere without signing in. It is not in my nature. My complaint is that you are willing to watch, but not to do the editing yourself. You say COI, I say disingenuous. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the community could not agree on the notability of your page, and thus it survives, that lack of decision does not mean I am expected to suddenly support a page that I feel is non-notable and a source of vanity. You however are still expected to abide by the COI principles. However you are correct when you use disingenuous, your attempts at justification certainly are. --Blowdart | ^talk 12:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have Blowdart's honest appraisal and his own COI revealed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I view your page as barely notable is neither here nor there. I suggest you read WP:COI yet again and understand it, stop editing pages about yourself and stop trying to redefine it to justify your own actions; that is the issue here, not that I consider you non-notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is actually important here is that the page as it stands is more encyclopedic. Essentially what happened was I spent hours creating that version and you spent five minutes removing a quote from a magazine editor which I am quite happy to concede was extraneous, and removing two links which are elsewhere on the page. I do not see what you are trying to do here other than give me a slap on the wrist for Wikifying an article which the consensus was it needed wikifying, after I had waited over two weeks because I had rather someone else do it to minimise the chance of COI. I have not reverted edits, defended a stance nor promoted a line. I acknowledge the strong discouragement of my intervention, hence my delay. What you are advocating, against policy guidleines, is an outright ban. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that conversation has reached an impasse. Since no one was willing to wikify the page as the editors watching it had stood against it in AfD, I did so. Blowdart has taken it back to a position he feels is correct and I happy to leave it at that. Please note before I did this, I did contact the administrator User:MBisanz, and I quote his response of January 24th: "You are free to edit it, or ask someone else to edit it, or place comments on the Talk: page where others would be free to add to the article. Our COI policy lets subject edit their articles so long as they do so in a neutral manner." However, I still thought it best to wait. Via con dios. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your editing wasn't all that neutral; it added a lot of chaff and wikipuffery. I think there's a bit of overreaction to it on this page (though I'm not privy to the history that may justify the anger), but I'd recommend working through the talk page in the future. I've cleaned up the article somewhat and have it on watch. If you have third-party reliable sources discussing the sentences that have fact tags, I'm happy to add them. THF (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

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

Dann Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This seems like it meets notability criteria, but appears to be self-promotion with links to buy various CDs, etc. Nearly all editing was done by a single editor, which raised my suspicions. I only started editing this week, so I don't want to throw accusations around, but something just didn't seem right about this one. Thanks for looking this over. Jvr725 (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability is met, but the article seems promotional. The use of images makes the article look like advertising. Someone who has the patience could do a cleanup. Some of the image licenses appear defective (submitter claims that he owns them, but they include several album covers and a book cover). Unless he is the designer or the publisher, I doubt that he owns them. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Billie Lawless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billiel12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.88.31.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DiDyWah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Monciu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My guess is that there's some serious autobiography going on here. I would think that the artist probably is notable, though I haven't looked closely; most of the sources seem to go back in one way or another to his website (which this article is rapidly becoming): according to OTRS, Lawless hired Amy Sparks, which is why he claims the ability to release her "review" of his material under GFDL and which is why her claims like "Lawless rips political statements out of their contexts and illuminates them with biting irony" would be unusable. I've been involved on the copyright end on this one, and I try not to mix my copyright work with other stuff (since it may feel like its personal), but I think this one would benefit from a few more eyes to help ensure WP:NPOV. Several of the SPA creator(s) have been given COI notice, but I suspect that any efforts to force this article to conform to policy may meet resistance. I bring it here in case anyone has time and energy to take it on. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely notable with the 3rd party coverage he's received. This just needs a good rewrite. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Varian v. Delfino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald M. Whyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Komar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crisler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suebenjamin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amberjacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Crisler works on two types of articles -- those relating to this lawsuit, and those relating to the death penalty. The article is awfully favorable to the respondents in Varian v. Delfino, and, coincidentally, the respondents in that case have since written annual guides to the death penalty. "Crisler" is the last name of the human resources officer at Varian whom Delfino and Day had their litigious dispute with.

User:Suebenjamin and User:Amberjacker also only write about this lawsuit, and use the same unusual edit-summary style as Crisler.

(Coincidentally, or not so coincidentally, the litigation involved a corporation overreacting to sockpuppet behavior by ex-employees on Internet message boards.)

The possible WP:COI and WP:SOCK problem bothers me less than the WP:NPOV issue; the article, about a minor California Supreme Court case of little precedential value that arguably flunks WP:NOTNEWS, needs a rewrite, as does the BLP article about Judges Whyte and Komar.

This is cross-posted at WP:NPOVN#Varian_v._Delfino; please respond there. THF (talk) 12:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tort reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - On this edit on January 13th User:THF replaced the article, with what appears to be something like a cut and paste job of an op-ed he created a few years ago about how successful tort reform lobbyists in America have been. Wikidea 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user will be known to a number of the Wikipedia community. He does not appear to be fit to participate in any constructive dialogue and wants simply to reshape the encyclopedia to reflect his conservative political persuasions. As a vocal lobbyist for tort reform, he appears to have a rather large conflict of interest. Wikidea 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the user be confined to the talk page of tort reform topics, in keeping with a strict interpretation of WP:COI. These edits wash with WP:BRD. Cool Hand Luke 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below—user was asked by Wikidea to edit the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was also interesting to note that before today, he actually appeared in the lead of the article! Wikidea 21:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, someone else added that in.[2]
  • By the way, you're the one who suggested he edited the article.[3] Why are you dragging him to WP:COI/N now that he actually has? Cool Hand Luke 21:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to complain about the ludicrous trolling here. I was confining myself to the talk page. Wikidea then whined that I was confining myself to the talk page instead of editing the article:

As an American tort reform professional I'm sure you have plenty of ideas. Here's your chance. I suggest that you change something. Wikidea 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So I did, explicitly acknowledging that my edit needed other eyes to rewrite it. When other editors wanted to change it, I told them to go right ahead.

And now, without even approaching me on my talk page, he's complaining that I did exactly what he asked me to do? This is disruption of the worst order. I also want sanctions for the violation of WP:OUT. THF (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the page with an op-ed was not a very constructive approach, was it? I think your changes might have made a good contribution to the US tort reform page, but you still have your open bias to remedy. This is the previous pattern of just wishing to trash articles, not improve them. Wikidea 21:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) It wasn't an op-ed, because I didn't write it, much less agree with all of it. It was an earlier version of the article that was cleaner than the appallingly substandard version I replaced.

2) You give no defense for your trolling, your violation of WP:NPA, and your violation of WP:OUT. You were explicitly warned about your personal attacks in the past, to the point that it almost resulted in arbitration sanctions against you. THF (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is straightforward WP:BRD. He makes changes (as you asked), and you fix anything you find erroneous. At any rate, THF is not the only biased editor here—he is the most open about it, however. Cool Hand Luke 21:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidea has removed all of the legitimate tags on the page. I don't particularly care whether the page is User:Questionic's version or Wikidea's version, though Wikidea has a very bad history of violating WP:OWN, as demonstrated by the fact that he arbitrarily reverted twenty edits made by Questionic. But per WP:NPOVD, Wikidea has no right to remove legitimately placed tags for NPOV disputes that have not been resolved. THF (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a straightforward WP:BRD because the entire article was blanked. I did not ask him to do that, I was asking he participate in changes to improve the article, not replace it with something about the US. The tort reform article is meant to be global. Once again, the changes User:THF made may have been relevant for the US tort reform page. User:THF is not fit to participate in anything to do with the article at all. That includes his standard strategy of shoving up neutrality tags, and then saying "the whole article needs a complete rewrite". And then when someone complains, you see this barrage of shrill complaints about one Wikipolicy or another. Lobbyists for the Republican party's values are not very well equipped to engage in productive or collaborative editing on topics which may be political, and this is just another example of it. Wikidea 21:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't editing it though. You asked him; if he was so unfit, why did you ask him? Cool Hand Luke 21:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he'd complained about the neutrality of it, put up tags, and refused to say what more he wanted to see, except that it needed a "complete rewrite". That's not collaborative editing. It's more of the same. Wikidea 21:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure this out. I presume that the edit Wikidea is complaining about primarily is this: 12:21, January 13, 2009, made by THF with the edit summary: "per multiple invitations on talk page, first cut; still needs a lot of work". Just looking over that version, I that it had no citations and replaced a version that had 25. THF has been here long enough to know that articles require sources. I don't understand how he would have thought it was acceptable to replace a sourced article with one written without any sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beback, please don't misrepresent my edit. I replaced a very very bad version of the page with a slightly less bad earlier version that had improperly formatted references instead of footnotes. So it's not true it had "no sources"; it had 34 versus Wikidea's 25. And to repeat, this was precisely what I said I was going to do on the talk page:

"Changing things" to fix minor mistakes here and there won't fix it. The article needs a complete rewrite. History has shown that the owner of the article refuses to edit collaboratively and resists even minor substantive changes, and it's not worth the fight to me, but braver and more patient editors should rewrite this if they get a chance. THF (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an American tort reform professional I'm sure you have plenty of ideas. Here's your chance.

I suggest that you change something. Wikidea 13:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete the current version and start over with a stub. If that's not acceptable, then I'll let others argue with you. After seeing your tantrum at competition law, I don't have time to play your games. Also, it's offensive when you template experienced Wikipedia editors. THF (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken about me: I don't play games and I don't have tantrums. I contribute productively to an online an encyclopedia. Propose an alternative text - you have said absolutely nothing about what you want to see, except above, the removal of a single 'l'. Clearly, you still have nothing whatsoever to contribute. I could be wrong, but you're doing nothing to demonstrate otherwise. And no, more snide comments won't qualify. Some cases, materials, references would. Wikidea 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sure enough, I did exactly what Wikidea invited me to do, and sure enough, Wikidea threw the temper tantrum I predicted. Note that Questionic made twenty edits to the draft I put up there, and I didn't revert a single one of them, keeping my comments to the talk page. Wikidea, who has done this before on other pages such as competition law, reverted every edit made by every other editor to restore his own personal essay that violates NPOV and NOR. THF (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected about the lack of sources, though I'd have thought that THF would know how to format them. I'm also concerned about some of the sources, which include a blog and a mysterisou news collector called Newsbatch [4], and the general NPOV issues with that draft, which seems to discount the views of opponents.   Will Beback  talk  22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a slightly-improved touchup of an ancient version of the article with obsolete formatting that had been written by other editors; it wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but it was leaps and bounds ahead of what Wikidea had done, and very explicitly a stub placeholder for discussion, and I tagged it myself as needing further improvement. I didn't want to put further work into it beyond that without further consensus, because every time I've worked on a page where Wikidea is an editor, he asserts ownership and will revert a month's worth of edits and compromises done by other editors -- just as he did here. Questionic had started putting his own personal stamp on it, with me restricting myself to the talk page. As I said on Questionic's talk page, I don't think I should be editing the mainspace version, and I don't particularly want to. If I'm going to write about tort reform, I'd much rather do it in a place other than Wikipedia; I edit Wikipedia as a hobby and to learn things about the pages I edit, and I'm not going to learn anything editing the tort reform page.

Separately: you're an admin. Do you find this discourse appropriate for someone who'd been warned in an arbitration not to engage in uncivil behavior?THF (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the remakr is inappropriate and I've left a message on the user's talk page.   Will Beback  talk  23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, User:THF is not fit to participate in editing collaboratively. Replacing the entire text on a global tort reform page with something about US tort reform is not suggesting improvements, or proposing alternative text. User:THF is not fit to participate because he is not interested in improving or accomodating strands of knowledge outside the lobbyists he works with. He has a conflict of interest. He was the only one to complain, and could not express clearly what his complaint was about. He will go on relentlessly arguing for a very narrow set of viewpoints at the exclusion of all else. It shows no interest in making this a resource for learning. Wikidea 22:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec X n) Isn't it kind of moot now? The proposed changes have been reverted, and I don't see any edit warring. There a principle in tort law, or basketball, "no harm no foul".[5] The article remains in serious need of a thorough rewrite, though, IMO. I've poked a bit around the edges... I think if we could figure out what the different sections are actually saying my simplifying and streamlining the English we might get to the substantive question of whether the content is complete, well-sourced, duly informative, balanced, presents a worldwide view, etc. That's the equivalent of replacing it with a stub, just excise all the fluff section by section and see what's left. Each trim can be pretty noncontroversial if it only eliminates redundancy, weak language, stuff that's an irrelevant aside. That approach might take a couple hours instead of two minutes, but it's more transparent and doesn't get anyone's hackles up. Wikidemon (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would think so, but Wikidea came here with demands. Do we agree that this is resolved? Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I would like Wikidea sanctioned for his trolling disruptive editing in bringing this meritless complaint after insisting that I edit the page, and for this uncivil personal attack. How quickly would someone be blocked indefinitely if they went onto the global warming pages and told an environmentalist to "crawl into a hole somewhere, disappear and take your shallow, bigotted view of humanity with you"? And Wikidea was previously warned about that. Just because I'm affiliated with a center-right organization doesn't mean that other editors get to ignore WP:CIVIL. THF (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF's conflict of interest is the issue I raised. It is not just that he works for a right wing lobbyist group, it is that he works for them and pursues that agenda on Wikipedia. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wikidea 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, two other editors have also said your personal essay needs a complete rewrite--aside from the fact that you insisted that I completely rewrite the article when I said I didn't want to get involved. And I don't work for a lobbyist group. I'm a published academic who's fortunate enough to have a job where I don't have to grade papers. THF (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, THF, a professional lobbyist, will try to turn his conflict of interest issues into a personal matter against anyone who disagrees with him. He is not a collaborative editor, and is unfit to engage with others in this area. Editors will see on the Talk:Tort reform page the lack of issues before he arrived, shoved up the neutrality tags, demanded a complete rewrite, could not say what was wrong, and then went ahead. On the contrary, the article was attempting to encompass a more global view of tort reform, not just US tort reform. Wikidea 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you're the one turning it into a personal matter several times over by personally attacking him. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 22:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider your own conflict of interest, Luke.

And again, THF has a clear conflict of interest as a staunch tort reform advocate. He is not a collaborative editor with anyone that does not conform to the views of the people who have employed him. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wikidea 22:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI. I have no interest in promoting any group here. If you'd read the guideline, you'll also find that outing and personal attacks are forbidden—even against editors you think are editing with a COI. You've done both, and you should not do it again. Cool Hand Luke 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I'll restate the issue. THF has a clear conflict of interest as a staunch tort reform advocate. He is not a collaborative editor with anyone that does not conform to the views of the people who have employed him. The pattern of tags, demanding "complete rewrites" and throwing around accusations of temper tantrums will continue. He will probably continue to follow his lobbyist values elsewhere, as he has done before. Wikidea 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The record will show that I collaborated with User:Questionic just fine. The record will also show that Wikidea frequently writes pages chock full of his personal opinions and original research that require complete rewrites, and that I'm not the only one who thinks so. The record will also show that Wikidea has been blocked in the past for personal attacks, was unapologetic then, and is unapologetic now for violating WP:CIVIL, but admins are refusing to do anything about it. THF (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeated that several times byte-for-byte. It seems he was trying to edit collaboratively at your own invitation, and he has not warred on the article at all. Your comment about "his lobbyist values" seems to be a personal attack; I see a clear pattern of incivility. Please stop. Cool Hand Luke 23:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conflict of interest matter (and now Luke is included). THF is not a collaborative editor and has been pushing the agenda of those he works for on the tort reform article. It has to stop - and look at this Karl Rove style of rubbishing of me he's using. Divert attention, cause a fuss about something else, attack the person; distraction. Again, the pushing of his agenda does not make him fit to be editing these articles on Wikipedia. Wikidea 23:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with THF about your problematic behavior gives me a conflict of interest? Will Beback also agreed about the incivility above, and I think he doesn't share THF's politics at all. This isn't a conspiracy against you, it's a chronic behavior problem, and you should fix it. Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled why this is coming up now. THF hasn't edited Tort reform since January 25. I later made a bunch of edits to it, in which I was trying to balance the pro tort "reform" that I saw in the article. If you look at the article talk page, and at my talk page THF was not thrilled by my edits but he was civil and collaborative. I soon figured out his relationship to a conservative think tank, but I thought he was behaving well on the Tort reform article during the short period I edited it. I can't speak for his behavior in the distant and shadowed past, but I don't see anything in the past month that should earn him such an attack, including his tentative effort on January 13 to clean up the messy article as it stood then, and as (I learn from the diff posted at the head of this COI) it had stood unchanged since January 3. Questionic (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed what had been done is the answer. Your helpful changes to THF's partisan replacement article, I think could well be added on the US tort reform page; tort reform is meant to be a global page. The issue is that THF has a clear conflict of interest, and is not fit to be a collaborative editor. His only comments before amounted to "complete rewrite" and that is what he unfortunately got away with doing. It is unsurprising that he wanted to be "collaborative" after replacing the page and then dealing with criticisms. I expect, as I say, that he will continue in his partisan approach; he is not capable of accomodating views beyond a very narrow range of issues. THF is not fit to edit any of these pages on an open encyclopedia, because he is a lobbyist on the issue. Wikidea 10:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone enforce WP:STICK here? The original nomination was disruptive trolling, and he's still harassing me. As User:Questionic and numerous others can attest, I'm perfectly capable of collaborating with editors who disagree with me on the underlying issues.

The accusations here really seem to be projecting. I have tried to work with Wikidea before, on criminal law and competition law, and he refuses to collaborate, and I'm not the only editor he's had a problem with: it's a long long list of over a dozen editors. He'll lose an RFC, and continue to edit war against consensus. He asked me to make specific objections to this article, and I listed eighteen factual errors and omissions in a single paragraph of original research he wrote, and he dismissed every single one of the proposals in a single sentence, spending more time with an additional personal attack rather than addressing the factual mistakes and omissions in his editing. That paragraph is not unique: the entire article is riddled with factual errors, original research, and Wikidea's idiosyncratic point of view. He's not even noticing that Questionic, who disagrees with me on every fundamental tort reform issue, agrees with me that Wikidea's version of the article is a "mess." THF (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the irony in the professional lobbyist telling others to quit; the same Karl Rove style of hectoring and bullying as before he "retired". His conflicts of interest do not make him fit to be editing these pages on Wikipedia (nb he also suggested his own op-ed for the American Enterprise Institute on the Talk:Tort reform page as a good source). He wants to put up a slanted view of US tort reform on what should be a global tort reform page. He is incapable of overcoming his overwhelming bias in these issues, and is uninterested in improving this encyclopedia. Wikidea 14:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see Talk:Competition law for Wikidea's idea of collaboration. THF (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, it is libelous to call me a "lobbyist," because that falsely implies that I am violating federal tax law in my academic work for a non-partisan non-profit. Wikidea has been repeatedly told to stop the personal attacks. THF (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL and I am also not an admin, but I would like to someone who is an admin to enforce Wikipedia policy by taking some action against Wikidea for his attacks on THF and his disruption of the editing process on Tort reform, now being actively edit-warred as this dispute here drags on unresolved, with accusations and angry responses flying back and forth.

I put in many hours of work gathering good references to clarify the arguments made pro and con various aspects of tort reform. Wikidea nuked the whole article back to its state on January 3, and wants everybody to re-start from there. I'm not about to waste my time on an article that is being nuked and re-nuked, now on almost an hourly basis. Please, somebody, block Wikidea until he cools down a bit. It is my opinion that THF, despite having a pro-insurance-company POV on tort reform, has behaved honorably in revealing his POV and civilly in collaborating with editors who don't attack him. There is a difference between having a POV and having a COI.Questionic (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

At Talk:Competition_law#Reason_for_tags, I have identified forty separate problems with the article justifying the tags I added. Wikidea simply reverted my tags on the grounds that I work for AEI, and refuses to engage with the issues I have raised on the talk page, instead launching a personal attack against me. Other than adding the tags, I have confined my edits to the talk page. I would like some assistance with an editor who mistakenly believes that WP:COI means that he does not have to edit collaboratively or adhere to WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, and I would like the tags returned until the problems with the page are resolved by consensus. Please note that I do not actually have a COI on competition law under any reasonable definition of COI, but to make this easier, let's not debate that issue. THF (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – not ripe yet

Patmcgreen (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)
This user discloses their relation to Cass Community Social Services on his user page. I have asked that he stop editing the article because he has violated WP:NPOV each time.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? If he refuses or edit-wars, then there's an issue requiring intervention of admins or other editors. But it seems as if the article is cleaned up and the editor hasn't even had a chance to object to the notice. This isn't yet ripe for intervention, as it may well be moot if the editor behaves himself. Feel free to come back and deleted the resolved tag if he doesn't. THF (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rodin777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The user has posted a number of images of works of art that indicate on the file data that they were created by the uploader. The image captions in the page given a brief description of the work and then go on to say "by Victor Heyfron M.A." As far as I can discern, this is a sculptor that is at least notable locally in England. Would this be considered a conflict of interest? I removed the credit from the images on articles last night, but they were returned this morning. I'm not quite sure where they fit in with articles, but they are quite good works. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've noticed this too. Yes, they are decent enough works, but I'm not sure what they add to the articles, other than as a promotion of the artist. They are busts and portraits of the articles' subjects, which adds very little, if anything, to the articles. I'm also concerned about this setting a precedent. What's to stop anyone else from uploading their own drawings, paintings and sculptures? If Victor Heyfron is notable, he should have his own article. But I see no value in having his works displayed across numerous articles. And the caption is a bit pompous; why the M.A.? Is there a particular policy around uploading your own works of art to be used in this manner? freshacconci talktalk 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them all in place pending the outcome of any consensus opinion with the exception of his portrait of Rembrandt which I deleted and warned him about..The Rembrandt addition is gratuitous and irrelevant...to say the least..Modernist (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if someone has provided quality images, Wikipedia is still in an early enough stage that we permit the pictures to be used. See Wikipedia:COI#Photographs_and_media_files. The captions should not promote the artist unless the artist is independently notable. IMO, this is a case-by-case basis: if adding the image improves the quality of the article, it's a good edit; if it hurts the quality, it's a bad edit, and it's only a COI problem if the artist takes it personally and edit-wars over it or refuses to abide by talk page consensus--and that's just a problem problem, which would be a problem even if we didn't label it COI. The COI policy should be clearer here, and I've proposed additional language at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Wikipedia:COI.23Photographs_and_media_files. THF (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Freshacconci that the issue is value to articles. If we were talking about subjects previously unillustrated (or lacking PD images, or ones where the existing ones aren't very good), these'd be a useful and generous addition to Wikipedia content. For instance, I think the one at Eric Morecambe is definitely an asset, as the photo isn't great and is also non-free. But as it is - without prejudice to the quality of the work, which is very good - they seem unnecessary for articles where good photos and/or iconic artworks already exist. And promotional. I see this has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, where they have some experience in this territory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I generally agree with THF's position on this. I think there are two issues where my experience with artistic contributions to Wikipedia is worth considering:

• Is there an obvious financial incentive? I was often accused of trying to launch a photography career via Wikipedia, but three years later--and rejecting paid photography offers from people like Philip Alston and Kimiko Hahn--it's become more clear that wasn't the case with me. But if someone wants to some day be a professional photographer, bully for them for trying to learn the skill through us. That's different than creating works of art, photographing them, and then putting the photographs on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that this should be disallowed - but it does raise issues in that we don't want to become a showroom of art work people are trying to sell (it boggles the mind what that would do to the Barack Obama page) Thus, if there is an obvious financial incentive, then COI is an issue.
• What is important is not to discourage artistic Wikipedians from trying to contribute their particular talents. For example, someone who does excellent sketches of famous people certainly has room on this project, even if they get paid to do that on the Boardwalk (or wherever).

Obvious financial incentive is difficult to discern in most cases. It grew tiresome to continually read people accuse me of motives that I did not possess. I don't want to see that repeated with other artists, because it is discouraging and we need them (even if they are amateurs). I think THF is right, that it's a case-by-case basis. User:Raul654 eloquently stated the basic principles back during the Pubic Hair Wars:

It is not a conflict of interest for a photographer to want his pictures used in our articles. Unless someone can establish David has some motive in getting his photos used in our article that goes beyond simple pride in seeing his work used, there is no conflict of interest for David here.

With that said, I think the debate should be focused solely on the merits of David's photograph versus any other candidate photographs. On this point, I'm going to remain neutral, because I'm at work and I really shouldn't be looking at such things ;) Raul654 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to edit-war over my photography because, way back, it was something that made me feel good about myself that my work was used to the point I tried to force it. Pride--or "makes me feel good about myself"--in no way equals a COI. I can't stress this enough. I urge caution in forming policies and guidelines that treat photographic/illustrative/artistic contributions any differently than text contributions. Talk page, consensus, value added, etc. are all the same principles. COI tends to be another dagger people unsheathe in argument to frustrate a contribution. Without an obvious financial incentive behind the contribution, COI is an illegitimate argument that violates AGF and CIVIL. Last, I do not support captions with the names of the photographer or artist unless they are well-known for their work. At all. It's a distraction on the article, and there is plenty of room for attribution on the file page and in the file name. --David Shankbone 18:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with THF, David Shankbone, and the earlier statement of Raul654; pushing your own photos is not a conflict of interest in the sense that we understand WP:COI. One may be biased in favor of one's own photography, but that doesn't disqualify one from debates about it. It would be very unusual circumstances for this to be a WP:COI problem. Case-by-case analysis. Cool Hand Luke 20:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not a conflict of interest in the sense that we understand WP:COI

Sorry to quibble, but in what way do we understand it?

Some of the comments here assume that financial interest is the touchstone. The core definition doesn't mention that - only advancing an outside interest vs the aims of Wikipedia - and putting one's own works, with prominent attribution, across a range of articles already well-furnished with images, comes readily under WP:COI#Self-promotion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. If the works don't have attribution in mainspace, then they're less problematic; if they detract from an article because the image is of inferior quality to existing images, then insisting on their inclusion smacks of self-promotion. If we have a rule prohibiting self-attribution unless independently notable, then we can be more confident that the insertion is for the right reasons. THF (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep: after all, use of self-created images is routine here. For instance, many editors add self-created photos to geographical articles, but there's never any problem when the image fills an empty niche and is only credited as far as needed for the licensing formalities. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted three images earlier and I put them back pending discussion...The sculptures of politicians and actors I returned - the picture of Rembrandt - who has plenty better ones of his own - does not belong in that article...that said, I think they all are advertisements for his work..however he simply uploaded at will ignoring all and any comment to anyone..Modernist (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the picture of Rembrandt was a mistake - for which I apologise! If the captions of of other inserts reek of self promotion then they can be removed. As for relevance of portraits of notables, if they are of a high quality- there can be no doubt of their relevance as 'portraits' of quality are a sign of the esteem accorded to a personality. Many thanks. Victor Heyfron (no letters after my name!) My first edits, and I am learning fast!

Rodin777([User talk:Rodin777|talk]]) 11.45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is being heavily edited by this user: Ihorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose name would appear to be identical with the subject. The article is essentially a long list of awards, projects, and press releases. Las Meninas (film), another of his favorite articles, is even more spammy. The artist himself would appear to meet notability requirements, but I thought posting here would be a good idea. Lithoderm 00:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was edited by FredShapiro42754 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), first by blanking the page, then by removing content, and warning others not to put incorrect information in My article in the edit summary, assuming ownership of article by doing so. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IsraelXKV8R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been editing this article, has a conflict of interest: he created a film shown in the Dead Sea Scroll exhibits that have become the subject of controversy; his film was criticized by historian Norman Golb who is also involved in the controversy. IsraelXKV8R, who is personally involved in this controversy, keeps deleting any discussion of the controversy from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.

For the film, see this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Qumran. IsraelXKV8R is Robert Cargill, the film's author (see his user page). Note that a paragraph mentioning Golb's review of the film appears to have been removed from this article advertising Cargill's film, as documented in the discussion area. Now, paragraphs describing the controversy involving the museum exhibits (and mentioning Golb) have been deleted by IsraelXKV8R from the Dead Sea Scrolls article.

Golb critiques Cargill's film, Cargill removes paragraphs mentioning Golb from wikipedia article = conflict of interest.

P.s. Note that the pretext used to eliminate mention of Golb's review of Cargill's film (that the review is "self-published") is false. The review was published on the Oriental Institute website of the University of Chicago after review by Institute authorities. The Oriental Institute does not belong to Golb and, like any university, has strict requirements as to what can or cannot appear on its site.

Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Vallance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), is being heavily edited (almost completely rewritten) by OscarPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (20 edits so far), all edit summaries start with "I am Stevie Vallance....". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needed serious clean up. I did some basic MOS stuff, but needs alot of help. Sources would be an awesome start :) Thanks and Cheers, --Tom 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir/Madam

I should be grateful if you would kindly assist with a potential Conflict of Interest issue on the article Scriptural Reasoning.

Scriptural Reasoning ("SR") is the practice of Jews, Christians and Muslims meeting to read their sacred texts together in order to promote better understanding. There are TWO traditions in SR - the first "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" is founded by David Ford at Cambridge and consists of a "Scriptural Reasoning in the University Group" of I believe around 35 people as referenced on the SSR's own website, plus one or two other linked groups in the UK and United States. The other "The Scriptural Reasoning Society" ("Oxford School") split from the first due to major academic disagreements over issues about protecting equality between the faiths, and democracy in organising, and has a UK and German membership of around 200.

Scriptural Reasoning is not a very large activity of thousands, but worldwide probably numbers a couple of hundred to a few hundred at the very most.

Between July 2006 and November 2008 - for a period of over 20 months - the article was one of low level editing activity. On 27 November 2008 and within a matter of a few days all of a sudden a number of new editors arrived, all connected in real life with David Ford's "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". I know and have identified a couple of them in real life.

These include:

Speculation about identities of three users below redacted per WP:OUTING Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thelongview

Mahigton

Laysha101

The primary activity of these three users has been:

• Repeated removal from the article of material on the article concerning the "Scriptural Reasoning Society", and active replacement promotion and addition of material advertising the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".

• Repeated removal from the article of critical material concerning David Ford and the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" to which they are connected by employment, by membership or by personal and collegial connection.

Wikipedia regulations on Conflict of Interest and Defending Interests state:

An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within the article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page.

Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies.

and furthermore:

On the other hand, the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia. This is also the case if you find an article overwhelmed with correctly referenced, but exclusively negative information. This may present a case of undue weight, for example, when 90% of an article about a particular company discusses a lawsuit one client once brought against it. In such a case, such material should be condensed by a neutral editor, and the other sections expanded. One of the best ways to go about this is to request this on the talk page.

Conflict of Interest Editing: Self-Promotion

Since his arrival on 27 November 2008, Thelongview has swamped the article with repeated references to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its projects with only a single passing reference to the (larger in membership) "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford School). This includes removal of the whole section relating to the latter while maintaining the section relating to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning".

He has added duplicate links to what are essentially duplicate names of the same organisation (his edit):

SR began as an academic practice. Notable academic forms of SR include SRU, the 'Scriptural Reasoning in the University' group (which evolved from SRT, the Scriptural Reasoning Theory group), and the Scriptural Reasoning Group of the American Academy of Religion. The international Journal of Scriptural Reasoning publishes articles on scriptural reasoning. It has an international body of editors and contributors, and is non-refereed. It is part of the international Society for Scriptural Reasoning. There is also an associated Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning.

SR has also become a civic practice...There are several developments of SR as a civic practice in the UK - sometimes using the SR name, such as SR at the St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace; the Scriptural Reasoning Education project,

Every single one of the above are simply other names for the same outfit the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and "Cambridge Interfaith Programme:

• The American Academy of Religion is an annual conference, not a separate entity and user Thelongview names himself as one of the Steering Committee members on this.
• The St Ethelburga's project is defunct
• The "Scriptural Reasoning Education Project" was merely three training sessions in summer/fall 2008 led by one person from the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning"/"St Ethelburgas"
• The "Journal of Scriptural Reasoning" and "Student Journal of Scriptural Reasoning" are not genuinely peer-reviewed academic journals, but merely pages on the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" website.

The Scriptural Reasoning Society ("Oxford School") also has an annual conference presence at the JCM Conference in Germany and the Limmud Conference, it has projects of academic research called "Scriptures in Dialogue" and online Scriptural Reasoning "Scripturalreasoning.net" and partner groups. All of these have been deleted by user Thelongview

User Thelongview has made claims about "notability" and "minority opinion" to support his promotion of his own group and deletion of material concerning another group. He has not however responded to the query as to how large his constituency actually is -- as far as I can see, it consists of around 35 people, while the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" has a membership of 200. There should therefore be at least equal coverage given to both groups, if not slightly more favouring the latter body over the former. The assertions of "minority" opinion are either spurious entirely, or entirely abused in this case.

He made statements of opinion that Scriptural Reasoning "was invented" by David Ford and colleagues, and "notable forms of academic SR" which is a matter for debate, as being a paid employee of the these organisations has promoted them competitively. Clear COI.

Conflict of Interest Editing: Removal of Criticism

The three users above have systematically removed all critique of their organisation and of David Ford to which they are linked either as paid employee, collegially or personally.

These critiques about academic differences of Scriptural Reasoning methodology and critiques of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme's commodification of interfaith activity, are referenced to documents such as The Guardian Newspaper and to "Oxford Ethic" and other statements published on the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" website, and to the Fatwa on Scriptural Reasoning issued independently by the Shari'a Court of the Islamic Cultural Centre and London Central Mosque.

As before, the three users who are either in every single case either employed by or connected to the organisations or persons who are being critiqued have removed such critical materials claiming that these matters are "not notable" or that the references are not suitable for inclusion according to Wikipedia guidelines. These assertions appear arbitary and motivated clearly by Conflict of Interest.

Meatpuppetry

Due to the suspicious arrival of these and other users, including completely newly registered users to Wikipedia such as Laysha101 all on or immediately after 27 November 2008, all connected in real life to a single group of 35 people, the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning", I had originally filed a meatpuppetry investigation, but after personal notes made by them on my talk pages, purely as a gesture of goodwill on a human level since I know the identity of some of them in real life I dropped this -- purely for the sake of harmony and in the hope that they might behave thereafter. But I seem to have been naive to have trusted in the good faith of the other side.

I should appreciate your advice and assistance on these matters. With many thanks for your kind help.

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A spot of advice: bear in mind Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read. If this is going to be the style of discourse, most disinterested editors will be disinclined to get involved.

First thing: do you also have a COI to declare? "Role accounts" are not allowed, and an account called Scripturalreasoning focused on the single article Scriptural Reasoning tends to ring alarm bells. Particularly, you mention at Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees being in direct consultation with the Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees, so COI guidelines apply to you too. You should not be editing the article.

Also, the kind of legalistic warnings here at Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees and here- which come down to "drop requests for sourcing of this, or I'll post highly contentious material to prove it and you'll regret the exposure" are an unacceptable threats in response to reasonable quests for reliable citation of unsourced hostile material. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've had a solid look at the article history and dicussion. The editors Scripturalreasoning complains about may have a COI, but are editing well within policy and guidelines, with no sign of breach of WP:NPOV. The edit pattern of Scripturalreasoning, on the other hand, appears to be a highly tendentious one focused on introducing, via a deal of fairly disruptive wikilawyering, poorly-sourced synthesis into the Scriptural Reasoning article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, there are several errors of fact, and misrepresentations, in what Scripturalreasoning writes here; I can list them if anyone's interested, but I rather doubt they are (and this page is not the place for detailed arguments on issues like (for example) what the American Academy of Religion is).Laysha101 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of COI has been ventillated extensively on the Scriptural Reasoning talk page. I have addressed it there by arguing that the best response to potential COI is to attend carefully to WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I'm an experienced writer of encyclopedia articles on a variety of topics, both on Wikipedia and from university presses, writing on things I know about. Scriptural Reasoning is one of those things. I believe Scripturalreasoning does not understand the verifiability and original research policies here, does not follow them, and does not acknowledge that they are an adequate safeguard against COI. The long-windedness of the case above is typical, I'm afraid, and has proved hugely disruptive for the article in question (see the almost endless talk page). The speculative outing of my identity is also typical, and I object to it here, as I have elsewhere. I do not, on any Wikipedia page, list any of my affiliations. I'd be grateful for the speculation above to be removed quickly, please, by anyone competent to do this. Thelongview (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Details redacted per WP:OUTING - sorry, should have done that earlier, but I missed how specific it was in all the verbiage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person is a member of University at Albany's Media and Marketing, Office of Outreach senior writer. His only contribution is to the University at Albany, SUNY page. This is the URL which stated that he was hired by the University for such position. http://www.albany.edu/pr/updates/apr11/tablecampus.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboo (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a message. As Baboo notes, he is a professional marketer. Some of his edits are fine. The most problematic one is his continued removal of the University seal. Obviously this comes under WP:NFCC, and I'm not going to add it back because I disagree with the interpretation of policy that says logos and seals are permitted even if there is no commentary on them. Chick Bowen 01:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryang (talk · contribs) has repeatedly blanked much content and the image from Mary Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Someone may want to take a closer look.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  14:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the notability; the article has no third-party demonstration of it. There's a cloud of COI around the whole area when you also look at:

• IJFIPM (talk · contribs) who has edited, and been given repeated COI-related warnings in relation to
• Jack Yang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• International Journal of Functional Informatics and Personalized Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also the IP edits

• 165.95.160.218 (talk · contribs)
• 165.95.162.198 (talk · contribs)
• 165.95.162.17 (talk · contribs)
• 165.95.161.29 (talk · contribs)

and many similar IPs all originating from Texas A&M University. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:Articles for deletion/Mary Yang, which is now running. Nobody has yet nominated the journal mentioned above (IJFIP) for deletion or the article on Jack Yang. It is reasonable to add Okan Ersoy to the above list of articles to be reviewed for COI edits. The IP 165.95.162.17 has been blocked two weeks for spam. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ved Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vedpmehta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meowmacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LBThompson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.189.116.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.206.97.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

• Ved Mehta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — I have just reverted this article to a revision from 2007, before a number of less than ideal additions by Vedpmehta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Meowmacka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 24.189.116.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), none of whom have edited anything other than that article. Some information those accounts added was useful, much not. Perhaps simply going back in time two years is too brutal an approach? Opinions and other actions welcome. The article could use some attention either way. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, see User talk:Vedpmehta for a previous discussion that indicates Mr. Mehta is not pleased with the article as it stood then. I've cleaned it up some and added some more info--it needs a lot more. Chick Bowen 00:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Chick Bowen's last version of 15 February is the best one so far. After Chick did his work, a brand-new editor named LBThompson reverted the article back to the previous essay-like version that sounds excessively promotional and isn't properly wikified. His edit summary was: I uploaded a more complete biographical entry, approved by Ved Mehta himself, and restored the "What the Critics Say" section. I am notifying LBThompson of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted, and I'm going to ask on WP:AN for another admin to protect it. I won't do it myself, since I'm involved, but we are not getting through to these people. Chick Bowen 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The IP who removed the cleanup tag, 64.206.97.34, seems to have edited a range of articles, so he is not a single-purpose account. I will leave him a notice of this discussion. Full protection might be overkill at this stage. No objection to semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, semi was what I had in mind. Since these are new accounts, it would still have the desired affect. Note that the IP you mention above tried to add the cleanup tag before removing it (but substed improperly, evidently). Chick Bowen 00:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the IP reverted *his own* cleanup tag, it's hard to blame him too much. Nobody has yet undone your revised version of the article. I would wait and see before doing the semiprotection. In the past the community has supported blocking of persistent COI editors who go against consensus and won't talk, but the time is not ripe yet. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the notice at AN, I have to agree with Ed. It's not ripe for protection as the other editors seem to have stopped. I would not be surprised if it continues though. I'm watching the page now so feel free to message me if it does start up again, as I will then be happy to protect it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faheemmumtaz
• Tariq Farid (AfD discussion)
• Fruit bouquet
• Dipped fruit (AfD discussion)
• Salma K. Farid Academy

Attention is required. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some crazy history there. Tariq Farid looks like it has survived deletion, but that seems calm. Salma K. Farid Academy seems calm now. Dipped Fruit was closed as delete, but the admin just never did it and it got rewritten and kept somehow (which I'm not particularly a fan of). I'm concerned about User:Eaowners, who claim to be "a small group of Edible Arrangements Franchisees", in violation of WP:SOCK policy. That user seems to have a particular agenda against Mr. Farid. Is there anything specific? For the sockpuppetry, a CU might be needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged Dipped fruit for G4 speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material. The thing that was deleted per AfD on Jan 16 was spelled Dipped Fruit. Then a respelled article Dipped fruit was created (with no intervening DRV) and a redirect got created between the old and the new names). EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

81.157.164.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to documents that are just advertising links to a motivational speakers site. I assume this is their own business site. Suggest block. --KingStrato (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim Howard (attorney) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ptim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gentle guidance on CoI and/or NPOV would be helpful, as well as a cleanup of the article. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the autobiography needs a complete rewrite (and has needed one for ages), but if I'm the one that does it, someone will complain. THF (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Somebody needs to look at how this article is being edited. The Conflict of Interest of these two editors has been repeatedly raised, to no avail. Even a cursory examination of the editing history and the talk pages show a blatant, and continuing disregard for the requirements of WP:COI, ignoring repeated warnings. It would seem that the only solution, at this point, is to ban them from editing the article, since they clearly cannot conform their behavior to the editing standards here. Fladrif (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]