Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:BeiGene Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Crispin Porter + Bogusky Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:FairVote Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Monero Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Bamidele Onalaja Talk:Open Source Initiative Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

User: Communicat

• Communicat (talk · contribs)has posted a picture where he claims to be Stanley Winer of the truth-hertz website in both the summary and licensing sections.[1] Communicat has repeatedly inserted links ts to the truth-hertz website [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Communicat has also argued for using the truth-hertz site as a source, without saying he is Stan Winer at Talk:World War II and Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user here. Also here is a list of links to the truth-hertz site.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if Communicat was Stanley Winer. Winer is a better writer than Communicat is, besides he has done all the research and has all the original references, he wouldn't need to refer to Winer's book as Communicat does. I think this is more likely a copyright issue. Maybe Communicat has contacted Winer and asked for permission to use the image. In any case, this would have to go through WP:OTRS. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

truth-hertz.net as an RS is an interesting notion. The Guardian review of Winer's book "Between the Lies: Rise of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex" is quoted on the site as "There is much that is interesting here on official psychological strategies and the herdlike collaboration of journalists." and in the Guardian review itself the sentence that follows that one is "There is also much that is on the extreme edge of revisionism" followed shortly thereafter by "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name." Interesting mismatch. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone else already spotted it at Talk:World_War_II/Archive_39#Link_to_www.truth-hertz.net Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the RS issue - it's not relevant here - The statement posted was in first person and contained no sign that Communicat was posting this as a third party. Read literally as written in context, it says what it says: "I, Stanley Winer, ...", posted by Communicat.

Petri Krohn's points are not unreasonable - if one assumes good faith here, that's a credible explanation, that Communicat is merely relaying such a rights release from a third party, and failed to notice that we expect people to note where they came from as distinct from the poster. This would not be the first time someone's done that, and from working with Communicat over several weeks I can imagine them having made such a mistake.

However, I have seen plenty of cases where fringe writers / advocates showed up here in shaky (and rarely, not so shaky) disguise and attempted to exert influence in ways not compatible with Wikipedia goals and policies. These people accidentally out themselves fairly regularly. Some of the disguises are rather intricate, including detailed attempts to forge new writing styles. Not presenting the primary sources and focusing on their own secondary source would unfortunately be typical - both because their goal here is to advocate and publicize their secondary work and opinions on issues, and because often there is wide disagreement that they've properly interpreted and reported on what's in the primary sources, and if you refer back to them it's rather easier to detect that the references often don't support the claimed information. There has been such a discussion regarding some other sources and Communicat ongoing for a little while, as you know, Petri, though that's not proof in any way.

Presumably Communicat will log in and clarify the situation in a reasonable length of time. There's no reason to take action immediately in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a Google Images search for the picture and found only one other use, here at the web site of International Institute of Social History. The quality of the photo makes me doubt if either Communicat or Winer has taken the photo. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the first moment I came into contact with Communicat I thought he and Stan Winer were the same person. To me, it's a WP:DUCK issue—I can't quite place my finger on exact reasons for my belief.

About the image, in this talk page entry he says "I have a good pic of Vorster", not "I have access to a good pic from my colleague Stan Winer". One more small piece of COI evidence. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After some more googling on the web I have to agree that Communicat is most likely Stan Winer. This link states that Stan Winer is a "South African-based journalist." He should not be using his books as reference and should not be posting links to the "Truth" site. However it would be OK if he made reference to the book and the site on his user page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your Google images search Stan Winer/Comminicat is claiming to be the copyright holder for an image that appears to belong to the International Institute of Social History. Edward321 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the COI issue. You continued attacks against Communicat are however starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat denied the allegation on his talk page but has not yet elaborated; he said he would do so when time allowed. As I stated above, there's no reason to rush this. Hopefully his forthcoming explanation will be productive and not too delayed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No I am not Stan Winer, but I DO have Stan Winer's express permission to use / distribute his jpg of Vorster as I see fit, provided it's not for purposes of commercial gain. Winer's permission includes stating his name and consent on any relevant GNU/CC licence, which I have done accordingly.

Edward321's inference that the Vorster picture has been misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History is false and malicious. I challenge him to support his allegation with evidence.

I suggest Edward321 acquaints himself with WP:HARASS, which defines harassment as "a pattern of offensive behavior", the intended outcome of which, "may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". Edward321's past and present behaviour is consistent with that pattern.

As regards the undone links to www.truth-hertz.net: they were repeatedly uploaded by me in the hope that somebody would eventually extent the courtesy of an explanation as to why the undone link was considered unreliable and/or inappropriate or unacceptable. When no such explanation was forthcoming, I eventually forced a long discussion at the WW2 talk page, and then gracefully accepted the consensus view that the work in question did not conform to wiki's high standards. I do not necessarily agree with that view, but I accepted it, never the less.

Subsequently, I provided another recent link at History of South Africa article, to a completely separate essay by Stan Winer, because he is a highly experienced and respected veteran journalist specialising in South African political issues, and I for one consider him to be an authority in the field. His essays and articles can be found all over the internet. (Needless to say, that link too was eliminated by Edward321).

If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors, and the requirements of NPOV. In the case of the former, they vehemently oppose or obstruct any reliable source (I don't necessarily mean Winer alone) that might be construed as presenting an unfavourable wartime image of the West; while in the case of the latter, NPOV rules demand that contrasting reliable positions be presented on the basis of parity.

The above matter has not yet been satisfactorily resolved; in the meantime, attempts continue to try discrediting me, as evidenced by this current "conflict of interest" notice as posted by Edward321. It is the latest in a long string of harassment and abuse, (and not only by Edward321), the intended outcome of which appears to be one of making editing unpleasant for communicat, to undermine communicat, to frighten him (as if that's at all possible), or to discourage him from editing entirely. Communicat (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your initial posting of the image credit, read literally as written, would have constituted sufficient justification of a presumption that you are Winer that we could have taken action including an extended block based soley on that and conflict of interest policy here. We have extended considerable patience and good faith to you to explain the situation in an innocent manner, if such explanation holds water. I am not saying that yours doesn't - I am saying, however, that blocking you presumptively based on what he found would have "held up", even if you explained later. Please be aware that you have gotten the benefit of the doubt here so far.

If Edward321 is stalking you, he has been finding a lot of very questionable stuff in doing so. He's probably pushing harder than normal social norms encourage here, but that particular image credit was entirely appropriate to bring here and to further scrutiny.

Winer himself needs to contact info-en@wikimedia.org and give that permission to the OTRS volunteers to properly log. Having a third party post such doesn't count under our rules on licensing and rights issues.

Edward321 is as I said above focusing unusually much on you right now. But it's not like you aren't a focus problem user at the moment. I've tried to indicate this in our previous interactions, that you're way out on or past the normal limits, and we're trying to give you benefit of the doubt and repeat chances on stuff. The reason why all Wikipedia edits are public (unless removed for abuse) is to subject all of us to public scrutiny for what we do. We've told you repeatedly before that your edits pushed things and that you were thus subject to additional attention and scrutiny. You may not have intended to do so here, but posting an image credit of that nature and not making it glaringly clear that you were passing on someone else's image copyright is a serious red flag on behavior. As I said above, Edward321 was entirely, entirely correct to bring it here to be reviewed when he found it.

This incident is indicating yet another way in which you seem to fail to understand how our community goals and policies work. There is a finite number of chances any editor gets on messing this type of stuff up before you aren't allowed to edit here anymore. I understand you're frustrated with Edward321 from all the context on multiple pages, but he's posting and calling attention to stuff you're doing that's outside our normal editor bounds. He's not making stuff up. Perhaps the stuff he finds isn't in the end actual issues, but it's not falsified. You're doing stuff that's calling yourself into question.

I am currently torn about asking for a Sockpuppet Investigation and Checkuser to see if you're editing from South Africa in Winer's near vicinity. We generally don't do that sort of thing, but you've raised the question in the way you posted that credit and though your explanation so far is not obviously false, it's also not overwhelmingly convincing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

George, please note the the "image credit, read literally as written" is not what Communicat wrote, but comes from the license template used, I believe in this case {{Self}}. I admit to making similar mistakes myself, when I first uploaded images by family members. I ended up creating multiple account at Commons for all the people whose archives I have access and license to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward 321, in claiming COI, has made a seriously false and malicious inference, namely that the Vorster picture was misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History. I have challenged him to support his allegation with hard evidence. He has so far failed to do so. Edward321 earlier alleged falsely that Vorster was not even mentioned by the source as provided at the relevant text edit adjacent to where the (now removed) Vorster jpg was subsequently placed. Edward321 is now required to either retract his false allegations within a reasonable period of time or bear the potential consequences of WP:HARASS

Yes, the image credit was from the {{Self}} template. Yes, I am operating from South Africa, but not in Winer's close vicinity (though I don't see what that has to do with anything). And yes, I was under the impression that wiki was a non-commercial medium but, although I'm still not at all clear about all the licensing implications etc, it does appear that, while wiki itself is a non-profit organisation, it provides access to images that are open to potential commercial exploitation. I shall review this with the owner copyright holder. I shall also reconsider my own voluntary participation in wiki projects. I'm not entirely sure if all the associated unpleasantness warrants much future involvement. We'll see what happens. Communicat (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not exactly open the pictures for commercial "exploitation"; the GFDL and other copyleft licenses are "commie poison" that prevent any future exploitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri: I want to avoid breaking up the main thread here. Will respond later on your talk page re copyright issue.

The main thrust of this thread concerns Esward321's false allegations as referred to above, and which he has as yet failed to retract. I am unable to account for Edward321's reticence in addressing a matter that he has himself initiated. He appears to have left it to uninvolved party Georgewilliamherbet to carry on a correspondence with me in this unpleasant matter, while he himself maintains silence.

Edward321 has also failed to address the issue of why he earlier maintained silence in respect of my repeated uploading of a link to truth-hertz.net in the hope that someone would eventually offer an explanation as to why it was being rejected. He (and the relevant administrator, if any) thus silently encouraged the link to be re-uploaded until such time as it could be used against me as "entraptment" evidence, as has now been done with Edward321's COI posting. In view of his continuing silence, together with his evident unwillingness to retract his false and malicious allegations, I shall now consider my options. Communicat (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have a conflict of interest by your own admission. If you're an acquaintance of Winer, then you obviously have a personal connection by our conflict of interest guideline. That only means that your actions bear closer scrutiny than an editor who isn't editing with a conflict of interest. I'd also like to suggest that your communication seems a tad aggressive; much of what you've written here seems like grandstanding (such as suggesting that "If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors"). Users of Wikipedia are expected to work with each other, not try to outdo each other as if this was a court of law. As to the truth-hertz link, you were warned as far back as April that the link was inappropriate, and why. So I don't buy the claim that there was silence in regards to the objection to the use of the link. If you're being willfully ignorant about your disruption, when others are warning you, you can't really take the high road. -- Atama頭 20:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have a conflict of interest by my "own admission", nor do I have a "personal connection" with Winer. I have a professional acquaintance with Winer. I also have a professional acquaintance with several other sources that have been cited by me. Do the COI rules stipulate that I'm obliged to declare each and every past and present colleague, and every professional contact or acquaintance in order to be allowed to edit wikipedia? If so, that would seem to notionally verge on a breach of my right (and theirs) to privacy, not to mention all the fuss and bother involved.

As to the truth-hertz link, it was only in August 2010 that I eventually managed to get someone to tell me why the allegedly "POV" link was considered to be inappropriate, viz., it was, after long discussion, deemed "fringe"

I am not being willfully ignorant about what you refer to as my "disruption". I am trying to obtain clarity and to deal with the disruption caused by others. I was prevented from obtaining a mediated opinion because some of the same others refused to consent to open and decisive mediation.

The person who initiated this COI notice remains curiously silent, and has failed to retract aggressive and unfounded allegations of dishonesty and misconduct on my part. I note that you have not addressed those false allegations. Thank you for your interest. Communicat (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer. I can assure you all that I am not a paid spammer, (nor even an unpaid spammer). The link cited by complainant Edward3211 is a link to what's probably one of the most widely read / distributed free ebooks on the internet. According to my information, it has so far been downloaded at least two million times from a variety of sites in both original and pirated versions, and it has also been translated into another language. The work is thus certainly NOT in any need of any promotional or publicity effort via wiki. The link was provided by me in good faith as "Further Reading", because it's an easily accessible public domain online resource within an established line of research conforming in all major particulars with the valid historical paradigm of revisionism. It is not "commie propaganda" as misguidedly alleged by certain editors whose own editing and agressive behaviour appear to be somewhat less than ethical and impartial. Communicat (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Winers book. Over a number of months, every editor that has expressed an opinion about it on the World War II article talk page has considered it fringe and/or unreliable, except Communicat. Even recently he continues to refer to it in discussions there. (Hohum ^@) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"From what I can make of this COI and its accompanying remarks, the implication seems to be that I am some kind of paid spammer." - I don't imply that, I don't see anyone who has. The company I work for has an article on Wikipedia, and I've always avoided editing it, but if I did I'd have a COI there too even though I'm not a spammer nor paid to edit Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia doesn't even have any sort of guideline about how to handle editors paid to edit the encyclopedia, a couple of proposals can be seen at WP:PAID but they went nowhere. For now they're tolerated, so even if you were paid to edit here that would be allowed. It's the fact that you have a connection to Winer that increases the scrutiny on your edits, and combined with the repeated insertion of an inappropriate link there are some people who are concerned. We even have people who come to Wikipedia to promote good causes, like cancer research foundations and anti-poverty organizations, but promotion is promotion no matter what the motivation is. -- Atama頭 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been very actively involved with the mass media and publishing industries for a long time, during which I have had (and continue to have) many contacts with authors, editors and researchers in my particular area of specialism, viz., military-political history. Winer is just one contact among hundreds. The COI allegation, initially, was that I am Winer, now it seems to have shifted to me "having contact" with Winer.

The fact of the matter IMO is that Winer is despised by some editors (not unanimously) because his work is construed by them as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II. A similarly virulent reaction is triggered in response to ANY source whose position is construed as providing an unfavourable image of the West in relation to the military history of World War II, no matter how reliable and authoritative that source may be, including highly respected Western academic sources. This constitutes partisan editing at its worst, it is a continuing situation, and it is blatant violation of NPOV, the rules of which demand that equal weight be given to reliable, contesting positions. The POV-biased editors concerned have strongly opposed having the matter examined openly by an independent and impartial mediation committee. I wonder why? Communicat (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(note for those not following this closely) -

Communicat filed an Arbcom case, which was not accepted as it was rather premature. He has since been blaming everyone arguing with him for somehow blocking that case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert above is mistaken. I filed a mediation committee case complaining about partisan editing. It was turned down because most of the named editors did not consent to open and impartial mediation. A separate arbcom case was filed concerning a procedural matter, namely: one editor/administrator had attempted/succeeded in influencing others not to consent to the mediation committee application. The arbcom application was turned down on the grounds that attempts must first be made to resolve the issue through discussion. To that end, (talk) elected to involve himself as an uninvolved party. Attempts at resolving the dispute through discussion have subsequently failed. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat

PS: I would have responded earlier to Georgewilliamherbert's posting above had he not placed a 48-hours block on me, which has now expired. 41.29.133.214 (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC) i.e. communicat (my username is not coming up for some reason) login bug, trying again Communicat (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat's Request for Mediation is listed here.[26] Three of the named editors agreed to arbitration, 2 disagreed, 1 did not respond, and one said they had already disengaged. Communicat then accused one of the two editors who did not agree to arbitration of attempting to build a cabal. [27] The seven arbitrators who responded were unanimous in declining, with many stating Communicat had provided no evidence of previous attempts at dispute resolution and no evidence of a cabal. Edward321 (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ihave read the abritration. It does not conform with wht Edward321 is sayin above. Intersting to note he does not provide a link to the arbitration outcome, which he is misrepresenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.159.89 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he does provide the link to the outcome, which was "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/7/0/0)" i.e. "Decline" from all 7 arbitrators. If that's not it, please provide a link yourself, rather than stating that the outcome was misrepresented without providing any evidence.--Habap (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Communicat (talk) 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've rebutted the charge that there's a conflict of interest on my part, and have counter-charged that there exists a conflict of interest on the part of certain military history editors whose relationship to the military history project involves a high level of personal commitment to, or dependence upon, conservative and questionable Western ideas and traditions of historiograpical interpretation, to the exclusion of other established and reliable lines of research. This reflects evident POV bias, which is why a mediation request was lodged by me in the first place.

The most significant aspect of this whole affair is contained in the words of the mediator concerned: " I declined the request for mediation because not all the parties to the dispute agreed to participate in mediation. I also made an obiter comment that there was a disappointing lack of collegiality in the approach to editing of many of the WWII article's contributors, and that, if there was a general migration to openness to compromise, the dispute would be far easier to resolve. My opinion is that mediation would be the best route for this dispute to take, and I would strongly encourage those editors who declined to participate in mediation to reconsider their decision ... AGK 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) " IMO, the reason why the main POV culprit declined to consent to mediation was because a long history of partisan editing and POV dirty washing would have come to light and been curtailed. As it turned out, however, airing of the dirty washing was effectively blocked by the main partisan editor concerned, and partisan editing and POV bias at the milhist project continues to this day.

Every, but every, edit, link, posting and discussion point that I have contributed at the World War II article been done with the sole objective of improving and providing the article with at least some semblance of neutrality or impartiality, in line with wiki NPOV policy. And every time I've done so it has been met with agressive obstructionism, disruption or outright harrasment. Discussions have either been characterised by obscuratism and personal attacks directed at me, or at worst, my postings are simply deleted "by accident". Take a look at the World War II discussion with particular reference to Korea, if you don't believe me.

I'm not going to be responding to any more postings here, but if the person / administrator in charge of this page wants to refer the matter it to higher authority, that's quite okay with me. Communicat (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Goldline International

• Goldline International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pluxigoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chickeecheeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Goldline, a precious metals seller, recently reported it has retained Prime Policy Group, a lobbying firm, to help with its public relations [28]. Contemporaneously, a new user with a name phonetically similar to that of the lobbying firm ( Prime Policy Group/Pluxigoop ) has begun editing that Wikipedia article making edits that seem to accentuate the positive while minimizing the negative. I think Pluxigoop may have an undeclared interest in this topic. They have no other edits to other articles. I am not a party to this. I do not edit the article. Abe Froman (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the single-purpose nature of the account and the similarity of name is enough to cast suspicion, but not a slam dunk. I've looked at the editor's contributions and I do see a positive slant. There were mistakes made initially, including copypasta copyright violations, but the editor has improved. The editor's contributions on the talk page of the article seem okay. If there's a COI here, and it's likely, it's one of the less-disruptive ones I've seen. I'll leave a template on the editor's talk page. -- Atama頭 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A brand new editor, Chickeecheeze, with no other edits except to this article, suddenly appeared on Goldline International. As with the previous, now dormant editor, their edits only accentuate the positive and minimize the negative on this article. I believe that a PR Firm is editing this article on behalf of Goldline, and has learned and adapted by not using an obvious username for their next single-article editor. I know I must always AGF, but editors with single-minded opinions and single-interests rarely appear sequentially on barely trafficked articles. Abe Froman (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock case opened. [29] Abe Froman (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Chickeecheeze here -- yes I am a "nubie" editor here but a Wiki user for many years and I have relied on it for general, unbiased information again and again. Gotta start somewhere, and the GL Inc page is badly written. Out of respect, I spent a LOT of time studying Wikipedia policy before diving in, and will hopefully be weighing in on a lot of things now I have more time and gotten into this thing. IMHO, editor Therefore's work reflects a "single-minded opinion" and dominates what was previously a sleepy page, then he vaporized like a ghost. The thing is now a dramatic article, not an encyclopedia post. Read my history, my edits have chopped positive-bias/PR material on GL as well as neg-biased/irrelevant info and that'll continue. Like I said, this page needs a bunch of editors and I hope others will join me in helping instead of trying to scare away nubies! Anyone who reads Wiki NPOV policy and then the GL page will see what I mean. Glad to just suggest stuff on the talk page until I've "earned my stripes" but I thought the changes I made were farily straightforward. Sorry if this is the wrong place for this defense but I'm still learnin' here folks, bear with me...Chickeecheeze (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (PST)

I could be wrong here but after quickly skimming his ChickeeCheeze's edits I don't see any evidence of COI or trying to slant the article, I do however see some efforts at clean-up. Anyone else want to take a look? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel G. Amen

• Daniel G. Amen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 69.178.132.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.211.208.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

69.178.132.146 is registered to the Amen Clinic, and exclusively edits the page on Dr. Amen, without consulting the discussion page despite multiple requests. Many of the changes made by 69.178.132.146 appear to be advertisements, uncited or just generally non-notable miscellanea that would be more appropriate on a resume than on wikipedia. For example, it is not necessary for the article to contain a list of every abstract of every single article ever published by Dr. Amen. Glaucus (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd already cleaned it up pretty well, I'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't continue. There had also made edits to Amen Clinic, which I've also reverted as they were not neutral. No one had given them a COI template until now, I'll also draw them to here and thereby advise them to limit any further edits to the talk pages on the respective articles, rather than editing the articles directly per WP:BESTCOI. Smartse (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Another IP has come along and made the similar edits. Smartse (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ron Holloway

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

This editor, who openly admits to being the subject of the article, has highjacked what was previously an article and is insisting on turning this into an autobiographical essay with his own carefully-polished self-decriptions ("the wording, which I have been refining for many years is ALL mine"). He refuses to comply with WP:COI, and ignores WP:AUTO, WP:OWN, WP:BLP, WP:RS and all other principles and guidelines. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Untrue. Problem: 2 years ago, I was still a new editor, and noticing User:Ronsax making newbie mistakes attempting to edit and add to his own article, I remembered him from 30 years ago- though was only introduced and that was it! We have not seen each other since that time. I contacted an Admin. first (User:Aleta) to be sure that Wikipedia recognized that Ron Holloway was editing his own article. The only conflict of interest I have is cleaning up that article, mainly because I was foolish enough to "adopt" him back when I was far too new here myself, but I'm busy! Holloway simply doesn't understand the guidelines no matter how hard I try to explain them. Yesterday he did contact me and I said he is going to have to work hard to learn inline referencing on that article, etc. or I will not help.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "Untrue", did you mean "True"? All your subsequent comments seem to confirm the truth of the COI report (the report does not claim that you have a COI problem). I do not have time to fix it at the moment, but someone will have to remove puffery like "known for his love of a sweeping breadth and knowledge of jazz, his genial manner sitting in with various bands, his eclectic tastes in music" (which is in the lead) – we just do not use language like that. I am watching the article and may get to it later. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly nobody is accusing you on this article, Leah; the record shows you've tried to help Ron and he just doesn't seem to get it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped Ronsax a link to WP:NPSK. --JN466 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Orange Mike. The list of rules ignored- mainly in WP:MOS are true. User:Ronsax's biggest issues are WP:COI, since he has been so fixated on his own article. I've advised him to work on other BLP articles to get the "feel" of how proper articles are written-- showing the Bob Dylan article as a model article to work towards. However, the result of people adding all those banners at the top of his article only serves to freak him out worse and compel him nearly in a manic state to add more and more to his article, (and God help me) I'm praying that he isn't just replacing what was trimmed and removed, without learning about how it should be constructed. I told him I'm worn out. I edit a half dozen other articles and had thought after 2 years, that he'd "get it". I don't have the time or energy to clean that thing up alone, or most of the time, honestly-- all points which I expressed to him.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Vidya Academy of Science and Technology

• Vidya Academy of Science and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Krishnachandranvn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shows a severe WP:OWN problem; his/her edits to the article talk page very strongly imply a publicity relationship with the Academy. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

CVSNT

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

CVSNT article is being written by Arthur Barret, which is a March Hare employee, and it looks more like advertisement than a neutral point of view. Changes made by other users are removed or modified in a way that loooks to suit March Hare commercial interests. Ldsandon (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010

• Swedish general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• JonathanMFeldman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above mentioned user seems to have only contributed to the one article. Furthermore, the addition pertains to a quote indicating what he himself wrote somewhere. The quote had already come into controversy before, and was later reinserted citing "[Correction of ideological filtering, identification of critical ideas explaining electoral outcomes which even if disputed are part of the history of the election]." It seems at least 2 of his cites are in reference to his own article. Talk:Swedish general election, 2010#Analysis also deals with issues of the problematic edit. It seems pretty odd, and was querying what the best response would be? Lihaas (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The controversial material was originally added from an anonymous I.P., and cites an article written by "Jonathan M. Feldman" on CounterPunch as source. Wikipedia user User:JonathanMFeldman has edited the article before and after the controversial material was added. All in all, I don't think "point of view" political analysis is not exactly what we are looking for in this article, as anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. I would support adding neutral analysis of the election result by established, preferably Swedish journalists working for respected politically neutral newspapers to the article, as they are by large the only ones with a verifiable claim to both independence and authority in this matter. The views from the CounterPunch article just do not seem enough notable to be included in the election result analysis section of an encyclopedia article, and have an inferiorly verifiable claim to neutrality compared to the well-established Swedish press. --hydrox (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC) (edited 11:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC))

Or, in short, I think this kind of personal analysis is an example of original research published by a primary source, and not noteworthy unless its intepreptations get attention in secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. See primary and secondary sources. --hydrox (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Feldman16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk • contribs)

The problem that you fail to realize is that many persons have accused the Swedish media of systematic bias in covering the elections. Here is what one Swedish politician wrote to my colleage regarding the Swedish media: "Vi har inte media och DN tex har i nära 3 år droppat kritik näst intill dagligen mot Sahlin." The translation, "[The Social Democrats] have no media and Dagens Nyheter for example for almost three years dripped criticism almost daily against [Mona] Sahlin," the Social Democratic prime minister candidate. So your claims about the lack of media bias in respected papers is totally false. Why are academics publishing peer reviewed articles like this one: Strömbäck, Jesper & Shehata, Adam (2007): "Structural Biases in British and Swedish Election News Coverage". Journalism Studies, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 798-812. I think you really have to review the critical academic literature about media bias in newspapers. It is quite extensive. Try starting with Herbert Gans and his book Deciding What's News.

Let us turn to the article cited about by Strömbäck and Shehata. They write: "Election campaigns in advanced democracies are highly mediated events. Thus, the electorate has come to depend upon the media for information regarding the election, the parties and their policies. At the same time, research indicates that the news coverage of elections tends to be structurally biased, in the sense that the media coverage is episodic rather than thematic and that it is focused on the horse race and the political strategies of the competing parties rather than on the issues at stake. However, comparative studies of election news coverage in different countries are still somewhat lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the election news coverage in Britain and Sweden, two countries that are part of different models of media and political systems. The study investigates the election news coverage in two major broadsheets and one major tabloid in each country, during the last three weeks before the Swedish Election in 2002 and the British Election in 2005. The results show several significant differences between the Swedish and the British election news coverage."—Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk)

Hello, and many thanks for your reply.

Firstly, as a courtesy, I would ask you to answer truthfully whether you yourself originally added the material in this edit, or was it someone else?

Seconly, if you can cite reliable acdemic studies about media bias in these or any previous Swedish or foreign elections like you said above, I heart-warmedly welcome your contributions, and can even serve as a layman peer-reviewer upon request. However, remember that you can only add facts that are directly supported by the cited source to Wikipedia, not synthesis or personal analysis. I am not against adding truthful analysis to an article, but it just rings alarms to me when someone cites themselves or extensively elaborates over their own views, which again brings us to the root cause for opening this inquiry. --hydrox (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

JONATHAN FELDMAN REPLIES, THE SAGA CONTINUES

First, I don't deny I added the material from Counterpunch, although someone started playing around with what I wrote so it is hard to figure out what I did and what someone else did. I just don't fully understand or agree with the premise of your complaint. At one point, I think you assume that I am engaged in vanity publishing or that I am trying to promote myself or something. What I am trying to do is to analyze the Swedish election outcome. That is what academics like me do, i.e. they analyze things. If I have first hand understanding of Swedish industrial and immigration policies, having studied them, worked for the Swedish government and interviewed key informants, I would think you would want to benefit from my first hand knowledge. This knowledge is hardly any more suspect or limited than the specific biases introduced by journalists, which I would contend, are considerable. In any case, I don't understand the motivational psychology and epistemology here (if these are the appropriate terms), e.g. is Moses engaging in self-promotion in the Old Testament or Karl Marx in Das Kapital? I've been asked to write encycolopedia articles published by Oxford University Press in which I cite my own work because of my expertise. Oxford University Press is probably the world's leading academic publisher, or one of them. Are you honestly telling me that Wikipedia is a more credible source than Oxford? I don't think so.

On the second point, see above, but note also... At one point, I simply explained something and cited Counterpunch. Then someone started profiling the source Counterpunch, which I thought was supposed to be some kind of official improvement. They only did this profiling with Counterpunch, not The Irish Times, which for some ideologues is kind of a wholy grail. That newspaper, like all others, has its clear biases. See the Wikipedia article on the paper. Yet, this newspaper was not singled out. I tried to provide additional documentation for my views, by providing links to official TV coverage of the last parliamentary debate among other additional sources, but some person took out my entire contribution, even with the additional material. This whole exercise is becoming a tedious war of intellectual attrition. I only engage myself as a kind of test of what Wikipedia really represents. You have to understand that I might have very unique views based on my personal trajectory that are valid, just as valid as that of a journalist. If you can document whree I am wrong, you should try to do that. Instead, you just are fixated on the fact that I have cited myself. Biographies are often used as source material. So this case is no different. A lot of the stuff I have described has never been expressed as such because of various vested interests that are their own source of bias, but that someone in the editorial process seems oblivious to. I tried to modify my contribution as expressing a particular view of the election. Then, someone, said "that's not what we're looking for." Who is "we"? What kind of hierarchy is represented by that statement? I understand the need for quality control, but I wonder about how that is framed. I really think that Wikipedia editors seem to believe that the "left" is biased, but newspapers are not. We know that this is a falsehood, but it seems to have been repeated.

Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanMFeldman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC).

You apparently just don't know how Wikipedia operates. It is based on consensus rather than hierarchy. I wish you would not take this matter so seriously. And, yes, I do think that citing yourself is very problematic, espcially when it boils down to adding a set of qualitive statements to a politically-themed wiki-article. Generally, if you are sure that your views will merit inclusion in the global online encyclopedia, it's best to just lean back, relax and cap a beer after publishing the material in the primary sources you choose, and watch the world around edit your views into the wiki-articles. It's a process that you should not try to interfere with personally, because we simply do not accept it here. Ditto, I consider this dispute resolved on my part after you admitted to originally adding the CounterPunch reference above.

I did not open this inquiry, but I was the one who made the hard decision of removing the CounterPunch-sourced paragraph from the article as the "Analysis" section was growing too long – it was an easy target, being questionably sourced and by far the most speculative passage; please believe me it was not personal nor politcally motivated. Note that Wikipedia articles are limited in size and, thus, scope, and all relevant views should have about equal amount of treatment – the fact that a representative of one view has been active in editing the article should not lead to bias, or we should consider the article an overall failure. --hydrox (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JUST ONE LAST POINT or FELDMAN'S LAST STAND

Excuse me, this sounds a bit like a Kafka story to me. I admitted something which I did not think was a crime, but then the judge says it was a crime and the fact that I concealed what I did not think was a crime only makes something appear just that more suspect. I wonder if this is Kafkapedia, perhaps I could write something for Counterpunch on that using my "personal experiences," which of course are NOT valid...ever, even for walking, I mean I should use a primary source before I put one foot in front of the other. This is a hierarchy because you people decide what goes. There is no consensus between what you think and I think as far as I can tell. You think Counterpunch is biased, but I have showed you newspapers are biased. When I write something it is not simply a subjectivist, biased data filtered through my head. That is some post-Modern nonsense. Philosophy teaches us, particularly materialistic philosophy, that the subjective can reflect the objective. I don't doubt bias, I just think bias is pretty ubiquitous and there is something called pseudo-neutrality. Sartre's theory of contingeny, choices, explains this. I think the least Wikipedia can do is put my article in a footnote so that someone who wants an alternative point of view can find one. You still have not addressed my point, i.e. if an expert in X cites his own work, why is that not valid, if Oxford University Press accepts the standard?JonathanMFeldman (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)Jonathan FeldmanJonathanMFeldman (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Civilization V

Wrong venue. Please move to the article's talk page

 – No conflict of interest issue here. Primary issue is with rejecting Amazon reviews, which should be explained on the article's talk page or explained on the user's talk page. Netalarm^talk 02:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It seems for Civilization V (a computer game) somebody (maybe the company) has a problem with valid, referenced, critism of the product. I have referenced to 200+ reviews of the product on Amazon, reviews posted by real users, and pointed out the high (40%) 1 star reviews and the reasons why. The Wikipedia article points out the results of the 'professinal' reviews and I do not see why the reviews of hundreds of real users do not hold as much, if not more weight then the 'professional' reviews. After all Wikipedia itself is a encyclopedia of an by the people!

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 129.6.221.239 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Because user reviews are not credible. They are likely not maintained to keep spurious reviews out ('omg lolz this gam suckz'), not are people standing up with real life credibility on the line. Wikipedia is for verifiable information, not for giving advice. Also, this is probably more a subject for the reliable sources noticeboard rather than COI, unless you have a suspicion that the people keeping the poorly referenced reviews out are in some way connected to Civ 5. Syrthiss (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure that the OPs reason for posting here was due to them being directed here by an edit summary after one of the reverts.- X201 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's my fault. I told him that if he really believes that people are reverting his changes because they're agents of the game developer that he should list his complaint through the proper channels instead of leaving messages about it in edit summaries and article comments as a way of discrediting other editors. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, not a prob. Was just advising them if they had stumbled on COIN but really had intended to get a ruling on the RS nature of the Amazon reviews. In any case, per their edit below it sounds a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and intention to disrupt so feel free to revert any further attempts as vandalism (exempt on your part from 3RR, reportable to AIV). Syrthiss (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are not considered a reliable source and should be removed on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How on Earth are Amazon reviews not credible??? Yes, you get the occasional 'omg lolz this gam suckz' (though Amazon usually get's rid of something like that), but most reviews, positive and negative, are well thought out. How are the reviews of hundreds of real users not MORE valid then the single review of a couple of people working at a magazine? I know when I go to buy a new game I certinally take into account the 'professional' reviews, but I take into account far more the opinions of the general public at Amazon (or similar). They tend to look at aspects of the game that general users would never look at. And anyway how can you say reviews by the masses are not valid on a wiki site whoes who raison d'etre is that it is created by the people for the people. Well I will keep putting up my part on Wikipedia so that the readers can get the most info they can get, and if you want to keep taking it down I can't stop you, but I urge you to let the people get all the information and make their own decisions. What are you afraid of? BTW, I love the game, just find it incredulous that they would require a program (Steam) that by default opens huge security holes for your computer for a game that can be played as a single player game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.221.239 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not reliable purely for the fact that they are not checked. Anyone can write anything about any product. Wikipedia includes information on the basis that it has been published in a reliable source and thus checked. WP:V explains it fully. Also, in my opinion, your inline note accusing the people who removed the information of working for the developer or publisher, breaks WP:CIVIL. - X201 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in sufficient detail on the article talk page. Specifically, Amazon reviewers often introduce bias into their reviews, and don't play 'devils advocate' unlike more reputable reviewers (such as games magazines or websites). Also a perceived fault with a given game often results in a large skew of negative reviews. Basing a wikipedia article upon such bias is simply not acceptable --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with OP; they show a clear lack of understanding of WP:RS, WP:5P and WP:NOT. This seems like a 'my edits are constantly removed, therefore the editors doing it must be representatives of the company i'm complaining about' situation. I would like to mention the Spore (2008 video game) article as a good example of how to handle 'Amazon campaigns'; all material covering it is sourced to real sources and not directly to Amazon. DP76764 (Talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a conflict of interest and suggest this thread end here and resume in a more appropriate location. Rklawton (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

63.65.186.238

This IP address's edits seem suspicious to me, but I don't know what the appropriate action is, since I don't know the editor's identity and therefore don't know if they have a conflict of interest. The IP is based in the Washington, DC suburb of Columbia, Maryland. Articles it has edited include DC think tank Third Way, Third Way member Bill Schneider, Third Way member Jonathan Cowan, and Lead or Leave, an obscure '90s political group led by Cowan. These articles read like PR, with quotes calling Schneider "the Aristotle of American politics" and Third Way "rapidly emerging as Washington’s most important beyond-ideology think tank," while Cowan's "work at Third Way represents the culmination of a life devoted to public service and the advancement of progressive principles." The positivity makes me want to visit Wikipedia for the balanced version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.191.164 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Carmarthen Quins RFC

• Carmarthen Quins RFC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carmarthenrfc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user keeps adding their website to the article, username is also a concern. Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Totally Awesome Proteid

• The Totally Awesome Proteid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Magnate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eyet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Space Witch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John f summers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor since June 2010. Apparently created Proteid Comics which was speedy-deleted in July 2010, but made no further visible edits until 30 Sept. All of his edits are to the above articles which are a comic book series he has authored and three of the characters therein. He has removed {{COI}} and other tags, and de-prodded the articles. Not sure whether the whole lot is speediable under {{db-advert}}; no WP:RS found on Google. PamD (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I fired the main article off to AFD and the rest are prod'd, if they deproded, I'll AFD them as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

James Graham Founding Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tucson

• James Graham Founding Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Tucson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://www.losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wrg/1981889879.html Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.171.233.214 (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The reporting IP has been blocked for block evasion. Netalarm^talk 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dick Beardsley

User Precious2006 keeps on removing sourced content about Dick Beardsley's filing for bankruptcy. This edit on my talk page shows that user is Beardsley's wife, and claims that this news is causing health problems. That is unfortunate, but news is news. User also left weird message on my talk page asking who I am, and calling me a "coward". I realize that user has also broke 3RR, but the COI seems to be the issue here --CutOffTies (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is dire, largely unsourced and should be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that due to sourcing and promotion, except for the bankruptcy part.. which was given a full article in a reliable source.--CutOffTies (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

biodegradable plastic

biodegradable_plastic has been altered so as to be an advertisement for one class of biodegradable plastics. It is completely biased. It completely neglects oxo-biodegradable plastics and micro-biodegradable plastics, which are alternative technologies. This current version is a revision of a more comprehensive edit which included discussion of the alternative biodegradable plastics, their ASTM standards, and the merits and drawbacks of these alternatives to compostable plastics.

See: http://earthnurture.com for more information about alternatives. That website is a commercial website, and it has a point of view, but it does acknowledge all alternatives and it does discuss the standards and merits of the entire spectrum of biodegradable plastics. It is ironic that a commercial website with a point of view should be more informative and less biased than a Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junket76 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)