Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1

message: Just to remind people that there may be a more appropriate message... 
Any comments before I add this to the header? MER-C 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Perhaps a pointer to the BLP noticeboard would also be helpful.  -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Issues with biographies of living persons may be more suited to the biographies noticeboard" How's that sound? MER-C 11:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A header

message: I removed the edits by McGrandWizard. because he's been blocked as a sockpuppet of indef-blocked user Mykungfu, who's had a long-running vendetta against Ccson. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reappeared as an IP. Closed and archived. MER-C 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollback

message: I did the COI report on the Modified Luxury & Exotics article yesterday. The article's now gone (CSD G11). What about the rest of the edits by User:Luxury&Exotics (see their contributions) that were basically self-promotion for the Modified Luxury & Exotics magazine? For just one example, see this edit to Fisker Coachbuild. (An article that has multiple problems, including a copyright notice for someone else's quote!). 
I reported the problems here because the editor had started reverting my removal of their promotional edits, and I HATE edit wars. BlankVerse 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked. MER-C 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified Luxury & Exotics  

message: The notice in the header, "Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with  instead", contains an external link that is off-topic. It's about logos and trademarks. Is there something more appropriate it should be linking to instead? ✤ JonHarder talk 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the one which may have been intended is this one, which seems to have a more permanent location here.  I added the second one to the COI/N header template, because lists/mail wikimedia posts (like the one you noticed, and the first one I found) migrate mysteriously.   — Athænara   ✉  07:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate vanity link. 

message: I first asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Aliweb about solutions to the problem on Aliweb.  It was recommended there that I post to WP:COI/N, which I did three days ago (Aliweb thread here).  The main problem editor (one or more with at least six socks) has returned.  Nothing has stopped him or slowed him down.  Two questions: (1) is WP:COI/N the right place?  (2) if it isn't, what place is?   Athænara    ✉   10:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Answering my own post.)  It was the right place.  No specific action was taken, but the exposure of the issues on the noticeboard may have been an influence.  The aliweb.com socks eventually ceased the previous pattern they'd established of repeatedly reverting encyclopedic changes to Aliweb and berating other editors at length on Talk:Aliweb.   — Athænara   ✉  22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Aliweb

message: Can someone explain why this page doesn't allow editing of sections individually?  --Ideogram 09:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does. Right now I am editing this section, and only this section. Does it show up on other pages, but not this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I mean the project page corresponding to this talk page.  --Ideogram 09:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard allows me to edit sections as well, for example . Sorry, I can't explain why it doesn't for you. What WP skin do you use? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, don't know why I didn't see that before.  Maybe I was confused by the fact there's no "+" at the top to add a new section.  --Ideogram 10:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing sections 

message: I didn't realize how peaceful this noticeboard was until I happened upon WP:BLP/N. *shudder* --Iamunknown 04:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that backlog—184 active reports!   — Athænara   ✉  06:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The article Anti-Iranian sentiments needs a LOT of help. I am almost afraid to start removing uncited and quite biased information, as more than a few contributors are in favor of the biased article. Halp!Arcayne 02:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just do it anyway and see what happens. MER-C 12:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, anyway, a content/neutrality issue rather than COI. Tearlach 13:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help Needed

message: What is the course of action or reporting that should take place if I think that an article on a living person is being edited by the subject of that article? There is a logged on user and anon users from the same IP range that only ever make edits that show the subject in a positive light and remove anything negative. - X201 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just post as per the brief instructions which are shown near the top of the noticeboard. The easiest way is to use the + function for adding a new section, including a section heading, article links, userlinks and your concerns, as shown in the instructions.   — Athænara   ✉  23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Post it and I'll take a look at it. MER-C 12:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to prove Conflict of Interest? 

message: Okay...when I stumble across an article that I believe is a true conflict of interest, how do I deal with it?  The instructions are not made all that clear on the page...  --HubHikari 09:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Nevermind.  I see.  --HubHikari 09:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about how this place works 

message: I happened to miss the AfD debate on one of the articles that had been submitted, on Bloodless Bullfighting. (Yes, I know, tragic..)  Would there be suppport for adding an 'AfD' listing at the top of the noticeboard? At present AfDs are mentioned by participants only in passing. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth there is a whole section for AfDs and CfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a major heading is created for each new mathematics AfD that someone becomes aware of. I don't think this is canvassing. We would only list the AfDs of articles that had already been submitted to the noticeboard as having a COI. People who had gone to the trouble of analyzing a particular COI issue might be able to contribute useful tidbits to a corresponding AfD debate, if that happened to occur. A COI discussion is in a sense a 'pre-AfD' debate anyway, since if a problem can be worked out there may be no need to take it to AfD. Let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the idea, based on the recent AfD on Barbara Schwarz. It was nominated by an editor I noted on the WP:COI/N. Anynobody 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section to [[WP:COI/N]] to list active AfD discussions of COI-nominated articles? 

message: Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected COI-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.
The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/COI, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/COILog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log  is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules
That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. 
If the feed is not helpful just revert it. Here the possible autobiography just mean that the nick of the author is matched in the article text Alex Bakharev 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very good. A few false hits, and stuff that can go in the bin on simpler grounds, but it works well. Tearlach 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. MER-C 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Better still, . MER-C 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, I will implement it today Alex Bakharev 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:AlexNewArtBot]] - New Article Bot 

message: Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse". Tearlach 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad it's not just me who's noticed this. There's been a real surge in WP:LAWYER behavior too. I don't know what can be done about it.  It would take a change in the present community consensus, which seems to allow people to get away with all kinds of stuff if they make an occasional positive contribution. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For new articles, I suppose there'd be grounds for action per the boilerplate on the article creation page: Template:Notitle. I see there's been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on two approaches. One, to provide some straightforward way for editors who know they've a possible COI to start an article in namespace, then get it reviewed before it goes to articlespace. Two, the more scary warning template Template:Uw-coi. Tearlach 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the 200 word limit comment will help to cut down on the wikilawyering, but the need for rouge admins is still the same. I tend to prod any vanispamcruftisement I come across, so a heavy handed approach works as well. MER-C 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is one long-running case still open involving spam links. There may be two further angles for that one: (a) is it a business, or is compensation received? If so then MyWikiBiz precedent provides a route. (b) Is there ongoing insertion of spam links? If so then we could ask that it stop.  If the response is that it will not stop, then either RFC or AN/I seems appropriate. Thoughts?  EdJohnston 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subject of that case, a good example of one aspect of Wikilawyering—the "I can do what I want because there was no policy when I registered" kind of thing—has also impugned the personal motives of NPOV editors who respect and defend meaningful and substantive policies and guidelines.   — Athænara   ✉  05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Hostility to proper COI inquiries, and challenges to our motives, is grist for a complaint to administrators, since they don't like it when people mock the policies. Rather than make a whole new posting on some more 'administrative' noticeboard, we could also considering writing out a summary (containing many relevant diffs) and just adding it to the current entry. In our copious spare time, of course. Citation of the MyWikiBiz case might be appropriate. EdJohnston 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Glad it's not just me that's noticed either.)  While getting admins involved is the best way to get a firm resolution, I hope that there are ways that other editors can help.  Seems like the admins are being stretched pretty thin recently from the backlogs I've been seeing everywhere. --Ronz 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The heading of this item, 'Refusal to cooperate', implies editors may not see any consequences if they fail to address their COI. We've been lucky to have a few administrators take action on the cases posted here. Where to go next when someone just appears to be stubborn in the face of a real COI is not yet clearly defined. COIs that are very clearly summarized here, with diffs, should be the easiest to take elsewhere. Nominators can help their case by being very well prepared, rather than just saying 'Please investigate this person.'  EdJohnston 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: COI linkspam: at WT:WPSPAM, we don't worry so much about blocks and bans. When people keep adding links in spite of our requests to stop, we just list their domains at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for inclusion on the m:Spam blacklist. Once blacklisted, the MediaWiki software blocks any attempt to add such a link to any of our pages. The blacklist saves a lot of wasted time arguing with persistent spammers who would otherwise never stop. That blacklist covers all Wikimedia Foundation projects in all languages; additionally several hundred other users of MediaWiki software also use our blacklist. Note that because of the potential repercussions, we normally only blacklist for very persistent cases (or cross-wiki spam). This doesn't help much with vanity articles, but it does stop COI linkspamming.--A. B. (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think part of the problem is that each case is different, so each takes more time than any sort of common approach would allow (as there is no one size fits all solution). I agree that blacklisting a domain is powerful and being able to take well-documented cases to RFC or RFC/U for an admin's attention is powerful too, but sometimes a wait and see approach might be best. I am thinking of a particular user who has only inserted his COI/SPAM link three times, then been a pest and SPA about it since (while not trying to reinsert the link, which everyone else agrees is not allowed under WP:EL). The silver lining in this cloud is that the article in question has remained free of this spam (although the COI editor remains a gadfly). I hope this is a constructive additon to the conversation. Thanks for all your work on COI to help keep the encyclopedia in good shape, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. On further thought, part of what I was trying to say is that perhaps it is helpful to focus on the actions more than the editor. If a website can be blocked, the editor trying to add spam to it is blocked too. If an editor is a pest but not adding COI spam, then ignore him (assuming no other issues arise). Even in the above COI case, the COI behavior seems to have stopped (although the wikilawyering continues unabated). Hope this is helpful, Ruhrfisch 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See this proposal at WT:COI, the talk page for the COI policy, to allow administrators to give out indefinite blocks in flagrant COI cases. EdJohnston 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I like this policy proposal - if you have a clear policy such as this, then most of my comments above become obsolete. Refusal to cooperate becomes a non-issue, for the most part too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refusal to cooperate

message: → See also: William M. Connolley section in COI/N Archive 10
Those who have followed the issue about William M. Connelley that was recently closed here may note that Durova's blocks of User:Mnyakko and User:Zeeboid are being discussed over on her talk page. EdJohnston 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The need for the blocks in the [[User:William M. Connolley|Connolley]] COI issue is being discussed elsewhere 

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

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

message: Hi there :)
I know this is going to seem piddling, but I think there's perhaps a better word that could be used to describe 'lengthy discourse' in the intro/setup of this page. 
Recently, I (having missed the advice to keep it 200 words or less) gave a lengthy analysis on a COI discussion. Another editor referred to my long comment as a "diatribe". I was absolutely aghast. Baffled and a little hurt, I typed up a long disclaimer/apology and echoed said apology/disclaimer on the other editor's talk page. 
Merriam-Webster defines diatribe thus:
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironic or satirical criticism
Now, I was familiar with the word and its meaning prior to consulting the dictionary, but only the "common" meaning (2 and 3) which has decidedly negative connotations. It wasn't until later that I saw the word reflected in the "keep it short" caution at the top of the COI page and understood where the other editor got their verbiage from.
I recognise that many of the longer comments in these discussions might in fact BE diatribes, but to assume that any commentary exceeding 200 words is abusive or sarcastic doesn't give the appearance of assuming good faith. And, as in my example, it can lead to misunderstandings when editors, assuming from the context it simply means "long", use it incorrectly.
Thanks!  Wysdom 06:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the longish comments tend to be boring and rambling wikilawyering, so more than one meaning of the word usually applies. It seems to be the best word for the job. I also stole the wording from the various other noticeboards, for example at WP:AN (where it's been there for 2.5 years) it asks users to "make your comments concise [because] [a]dministrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes", but the problem is far worse here then it is there. MER-C 07:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. A diatribe is bitter, abusive, attacking, et al. All modern and standard definitions carry that very negative connotation. It seems a shame to let that connotation stand just because it was copied from another page--precedent doesn't make a thing correct. I'll not argue it further, however--I respect your decision and appreciate the time you've taken to respond. 
Best wishes,  Wysdom 11:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That was just my opinion, it wasn't meant to be binding. If you've got a better option,  at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header. MER-C 13:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *Doh! ;D Normally I would have done that, but I wasn't sure if I would have been overstepping my bounds editing a community-space header v. a "regular ole" article. I guess that answers my question, though :) I'll have a go at it--thanks!  Wysdom 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diatribes 

message: → Note: user Dking's COI also discussed in Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1#LaRouche/Dking conflict of interest.
I defended Wikipedia policies and guidelines in a noticeboard section about a website owner adding his external links to articles.  My comments were solely about policies and guidelines—I have no interest in the user, the website, or the articles—but  another user has repeatedly attempted to personalise such matters there, and elsewhere as in this edit summary:
* "…Rmv the very POV word "amusing" (bad Dennis, no donut) and added clarification as to the location of the relvant [sic] text for Athaenara"     [ Diff: 08:16, April 26, 2007 (UTC) ] 
I would like to know if other npov coi/n volunteers see any appropriate response to this sort of thing.  It begs an old question: what is he playing at?   — Æ.   ✉  21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been volunteering at WP:WQA and encountered similar situations.  I recommend letting the petty provocation go by with no response, keeping your focus on the issue(s).  The personalized edit comment seems intended to bother you; by ignoring it you take away its power. Or maybe he meant it as a joke, since he also joked about "(bad Dennis, no donut)".  Some people have unique ways of communicating, it's hard to tell from an edit summary alone.   If the editor engages in reversion-wars to enforce his NPOV/COI, then of course that needs further attention, as would also be the case if incivility increases.  There's also a question about the link to the original editor changed -  is the new link still to the same article, just hosted on another site, or is it a new better reference?  It seems like there are still links there to his website too.  I have not studied the situation so I have no comment on that, though I've seen "fake-out" substitution done in similar situations, since articles are often hosted on multiple websites. Back to your original question, I would let it go by unless it gets worse, don't let it get to you.   (The article at WP:Civil is worth a look too.   I re-read it the other day and found it shows some refreshingly clear insights.)    --Parzival418 Hello 09:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry I didn't remember until today to return to this section to acknowledge your good advice here.  I let it go, and I thank you.   — Athaenara ✉ 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question