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:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:AvePoint Talk:Carbfix Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Connections Academy Talk:Creative Planning Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:Gregmark Records Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation Talk:JLL (company) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:LPL Financial Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Operation Santa Claus Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:Lester Sill Talk:The Student Room Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Thandeka (minister) Talk:Augusta Read Thomas Talk:TMF Group Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• 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.

Requested edits

• 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.

Super Hero Squad

Marvel Super Hero Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The7thCynic and his anonymous persona 71.199.246.246 have already been reported, and threatened with blacklisting, for his efforts to keep a message board he admins in the external links. After the page was protected, he went away, but now he's back again. Alowishous (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)Alowishous (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here a couple of months ago. In my opinion, whether or not there is a COI (its not immediately apparent) is irrelevant as the link is inappropriate per WP:ELNO. If someone consistently adds the same link after being warned then they could be blocked for spamming and the website could be blacklisted. Hopefully The7thCynic will realise that they can't add their link to the article and there won't be any further problems. Smartse (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read the WP:ELNO in detail, i do not believe the link is at all inappropriate. Firstly, I suggest that nothing on there is listed as a hard-fast rule. In fact, it uses the word 'normally', as to imply possibly exceptions. And although it is a link to a forum, considering it DOES "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain" AND "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" (listed under Sites to Include) it should fall under that exception. Also consider - as I mentioned before but got misconstrewed as an attack - Wikis common sense:

"...Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter."

And under that, not only do I suggest the Hasbor Heroes link remain, but also the others that were removed as they are all VERY informative and offer much more up to date and detailed information that can be found here.

There was also an idea that a consenus was made - but I disagree. Those that added the various links back to the page throughout the months obviously considered them useful, even though they might never comment on the talk page. But if all it requires is a consensus to keep the link, I'm sure we can find more than enough people that believe the link(s) should stay.

I would ALSO like to add that it is apparent that the decision to remove the links was based off of a 'resolution' or 'compromise' to the above mentioned 'edit-war' rather than the enforcing of any rules. This 'resolution' was made here by Cameron Scott and conflicts with the rationalion given for the removal of the links.

On a side note, a while back the link was in question (and removed) because registration was required. Shortly afterwards, it was changed to NOT require registration and and the link was determined to be acceptable. Now, years later, after the so-called 'edit war' (which I was NOT a part of - as I only ever added links back, never removed any), apparently its not anymore.

Personally, it seems like a witchhunt OR power hungry editors whose answer to a resolution is the deletion of all.--The7thCynic (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about what the problems are here, The7thCynic.

• Ignore All Rules is a critical part of Wikipedia, but misused often, and I believe you are misusing it now. It does not mean that the rules should just be ignored if they get in the way of something you want done. It means that the rules should be ignored if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and/or they don't make sense in a particular case. Generally an appeal to IAR should be accompanied by a very persuasive argument as to why the rules should be ignored, while you've offered nothing except that your opinion is that the link (and others) are good, without anything to back that up.
• You have a clear conflict of interest. Your personal opinion is naturally colored by the fact that you are associated with the site that you want to have linked.
• Forums are very, very, very rarely linked to in any article. I understand that you probably don't have enough experience with various articles on Wikipedia, but it's an almost unheard of exception to allow a discussion forum as an external link. That is because as discussion forums, they offer almost nothing in terms of objective knowledge to an article subject. One of the very few exceptions I can think of would be in an article that is actually about a particularly notable forum, such as 4chan.

You are casually asking for people to make a rare exception to allow a link to a site where you have a clear conflict of interest, against prior discussion that agreed to not allow such, without any compelling reason to back up your request. I hope you see what the unlikelihood of that occurring might be. Also, attacking other editors ("power hungry editors") is more likely to result in sanctions against you, rather than to accomplish your goals, such confrontational attitudes are extremely counter-productive. -- Atama頭 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to add 2 cents... putting the links back IS part of the edit war. There's already been lots of talk about how just because something was done in the past doesn't mean it's right. The links are good, but Wikipedia's not a directory or promotional tool. I can google about a dozen pages on super hero squad but that doesn't mean they should all be included. Look at the Spider-Man page and see that it's got 6 external links and 3 are to Marvel's own sites. There are many more sites out there that talk about Spider-Man, including major ones like Spider-Fan, but don't get included just because they're on topic. And continuing to say that everyone that disagrees with you is power hungry, on a witchhunt, stubborn or stupid doesn't help. It's not persecution, it's trying to apply a consistent standard over Wikipedia. Two cents.Alowishous (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, lets deal with one issue at a time.

• COI - I can see where it may appear that there is a conflict, but I assure you there is none. We do not sell anything. We are not worried about members. We are a simply a resource, and specifically for the subject of this page. Some would even say the best resource. And we work with many that edit this article. We work hand in hand with the article as a database. All the links in question do. And unlike the Spider-Man reference, I would argue with Alowishous that you cannot just Google 'super hero squad' and get a dozen pages of useful information. In fact, we could say that information is sparse, thus making these links available even more crucial.

But back to the COI, I can see this is a clear point of contention for you - as it is your main emphasis throughout. But I can easily solve this matter by abandoning that the specific forum I'm associated with get added - though will continue to argue that the others be added back regardless. (Will THAT then be enough to move on from the concept of COI that has apparently clouded much of your opinion of me or for the principle I stand for?)

• Ignore All Rules or Common Sense - The assumption here is that I only request an exception because it's something I want done - which is preposterous. (But I suppose that opinion is based on your belief that there's a COI.) The inclusion of the links IS SOLELY for the improvement of the article as they provide MORE information and sources than the actual article itself, and I have stated so above, as well as stated before. But you suggest that I haven't backed up that statement, so I will humor you:

Consider that almost NONE of this article is sourced. Well, not only do those sites provide pictures and specific details on each and every figure, including articulation and repack/repaint information, but all of the information on the upcoming waves (which are listed here) are all sourced, unlike the article - where it is often suggested to be rumored and falsely removed.

Is that enough?

On a similar note...

• Forums being linked - In the same breath that it says forums should normally be avoided, it also mentions blogs and fansites. And yet I can show you dozens upon dozens of articles that include those - and probably rightfully so. This seems to me like picking and choosing. (And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.) But again, with so little information out about this toy line (even the official site is VERY incomplete in comparison to ANY of the links), these links are more than useful. (Is all that persuasive enough argument for common sense? Geeeeeeeez.)

• Edit War - Alowishous, perhaps you missed the start of all of this. Recap: Someone was removing the Rumorbuster link, then another person would come back and add it while deleting the Hasbro Heroes link at the same time, and vice versa. I was not one of those people. Although i would re-add the link, as it was apparently (at that time) done maliciously. So no, adding the link back was NOT part of the Edit War in question. Then as I mentioned, Cameron Scott, suggested that the 'compromise' would be to delete both - but it was never under the premise that it was breaking a rule. Not being part of the original Edit War, and as an observer, I have a problem with that type of moderating.

Speaking of, I also would like to point out how interesting it is that both of you bothered to mention my "power hungry editors" comment (which FYI wasn't a specific attack on anyone, just my observation - but would at best fit the above mentioned moderating - which is not cool) but neglected to comment on the fact that this all started as the lame 'resolution' to an edit war. --The7thCynic (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

COI isn't limited to people who make money or who "want" members. The conflict is that you, who cannot be impartial, is saying your materials are the best or are more accurate, more whatever.

Your recap is incorrect and disingenous. The edit war you refer to doesn't happen in the way you suggest. You say that there was malicious removal of your links. That's not what happened.

[[1]] User User:72.71.55.224 removed therumorbuster.com apparently in a fit of vandalism most of which has been undone.

[[2]] user User:shsquad fan adds it back.

[[3]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com

[[4]] - User:Tomson elite returns the site.

[[5]] - user User:98.235.186.116 removes therumorbuster.com and replaces it with your site.

[[6]] - your site is removed by user User:Arachnad

And from there, it looks like you triggered an autoreversion bot when you tried to readd the link as user User:71.199.246.246, and that's when this situation started getting noticed.

And when called upon to explain why 98.235.186.116 was continually removing therumorbuster.com link, [[7]] he says nothing.

Then looking at User:98.235.186.116's history [[8]] who was removing whose (whomever's?) link is obviously the other way around. "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)"

Interestingly enough, looking at posts on your site at that time, you can see another admin of your site named X-Fan discussing how the Rumorbuster link isn't working and should be taken out.

So now we have you insisting you're not part of the war, because you're only re-adding your link in, 98.235.186.116 removing their link and replacing it with your link, you claiming to not have a conflict of interest, 98.235.186.116 (who I would bet is this x-fan admin since he basically admits to removing the other site on your site) removing a link solely because if your site isn't included, neither should the other link.

If you had an issue with the link being removed, then the proper course of action was to then ask for reasons and talk it out. Instead you kept adding it, which resulted in more attention, and later you attempted to circumvent the 3RR by using your IP and your screen name when you continued adding it in.

Adding the link back, after it was removed as an inappropriate link, WAS the war, regardless of your view of how malicious you found the enforcement of the rules to be or how you characterize the removal of the links.

Your remaining arguments are without merit. You now say you'll abandon wanting your site back to avoid the conflict of interest. It doesn't work retroactively, so now saying that the Ignore All Rules or Common Sense arguments are preposterous because you don't have a COI is bafflingly illogical.

You claim that because links to fan pages exist on other Wikipedia sites, it's picking and choosing. Not every instance gets caught by editors. This is a big site. Same with speeders and the police. You can't just tell the officer that other people are speeding and so you shouldn't get a ticket. Saying "And considering the moderating I am questioning here, it doesn't seem very fair to anyone" is more proof of this flawed logic. You don't like the result, so it doesn't seem very fair to anyone.

And not all editors see things the same way. That's why there's consensus, and the editors that looked at it said your forum shouldn't belong.

User:Cameron Scott did not really offer scrubbing the links as a compromise, regardless of his wording, because none of the links had a right to belong. All three links fell under the same category of stuff to go. The "compromise" was to enforce the general rules. The compromise, if any, wasn't to satisfy you and the other sites by offering to split the baby as Solomon once offered, but to stop the edit war by getting rid of links that violated the rules in the first place.

Of course, now your argument is that Cameron Scott's resolution, by taking out that which did not belong, is lame. Nobody commented on why you called the editors power mad because it's irrelevant. You didn't like the result of enforcing the rules, therefore the moderating was "uncool" and the resolution was lame and the editors are power hungry.

And now Methinks the lady doeth protest too much.Alowishous (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to address your comments:

I won't say your recap is disingenous as you said mine was (Which for the record, suggesting I'm lying is really no better than a reference to power hungry editors, is it?) - as I believe you just werent there from the beinginning - but it is still incorrect.

From the Super Hero Squad discussion page: In regards to deleting the Rumorbuster link - "Can we come up with some kind of peaceful resolution to this edit war? I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt 98.235.186.116 but you just keep deleting this link...."(talk) 00:53, 24 October 2009

"More warring, still no talk."Tomson elite 14:04, 28 October 2009

So the warring in question, and even by your own examples, was with the back and forth removal of hasbro heroes and/or Rumorbuster link - not the removal of both.

Then from the COI noticeboard. :

"...User:98.235.186.116 was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, User:71.199.246.246 joins in....."Tomson elite (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009

"Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist." --Cameron Scott 19:50, 28 October 2009

"Sounds like a good compromise..."Tomson elite 19:56, 28 October 2009

See the dates? Notice no comments abt the links breaking any rules? See how it was considered a 'compromise' rather than an enforcing? Hmmmmm.....

Now if you're suggesting that AFTER that 'compromise' was made, AFTER the original 'edit War', that my re-adding of the links was part of this NEW issue - then sure. Although I will say that at the time, I thought it was still part of the same foolishness as I was not totally aware of all these various pages of discussion or I would have commented. As proof to that, notice my edit on 20:16, 28 October 2009 where I commented "I even added Rumorbuster back. Stop the foolish editing."

I don't know who 98.235.186.116 is and whether it is or isn't X-Fan really has no bearing to me. Again, I think removing ANY of the links is silly as they are ALL useful to the article. But apparently the COI that you believe I have also sways how you view me in the original 'edit war'.

On another note, you insist its not picking and choosing when dozens of articles break said rule and attempt to mask it with an explaination of how editors can't catch everything. Very well. But it seems more rational that with the sheer number of articles Im referring to, that this particular article is just being targeted and denied the same sort of exception.

Regardless, its apparent that it's all come doen to consensus. And as I was informed Consensus can change.--The7thCynic (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be getting nowhere. He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out. I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it, and the facts support it. You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously. You weren't, however, the other site was apparently. You say whether or not 98.235.186.116 is X-Fan has no bearing on you, but whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue. Then it further hammers home the point of COI, and having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands doesn't make the issue any better. You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story.

You claim to not have been aware of the pages to discuss this, fine, but after consensus against your link, and no, we cannot just forget COI and you still refuse to acknowledge there is one, you then decided to come back and add it anyway, bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong. And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return.

There isn't an "exception" in place for external links in articles that aren't properly sanitized. There's no "mask" or explanation... it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time. Otherwise, your site would have stayed removed apparently some time ago. Just because now that this issue with this particular page has been identified, it's being closely watched does not mean that you're being persecuted (for doing something you shouldn't be doing) or that other pages have an exemption. It just means this is one problem everyone is aware of, and now can be stopped.Alowishous (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, i may have lost you, except for - "This seems to be getting nowhere."

Now to defend myself: "He doesn't have to explicitly mention that all the sites don't belong when it's obvious and previously pointed out."

I have no idea what youre referring to. I thought I laid it all out for you, apparently I didnt. It is YOU that does not understand the series of events that transpired, not me.

"I suggest that your recap was disingenuous because it was wrong, you know it"

And how is that different that calling me a liar?

"You said something to indicate you or your forum was a martyr, that you were being deleted and replaced maliciously."

Ive suggested that this particular article has been targeted, not any specific link. Why do you continue to insist that I have a particular bias against any other link when I have yet to show one, and in fact, have done the contrary in trying to get it added back various times?

"whether or not it is your co-admin on this forum does have bearing on the issue."

Sure he is, but that doesnt mean I agree, control, or was aware of any of his actions. As I pointed out before with my 10/28 edit and comment, I was against the removal of ANY of the links. I stand by that statement. They are ALL useful.

"having one person do the "dirty work" so to speak so the other can have clean hands"

FYI, this assumption is also extremely offensive.

"You can characterize my pointing this out as an attack, and you have, but there's no positive spin on you fabricating a story."

And it is an attack. But Im not sure what you mean with positive spin. There would be no point in me fabricating any story.

"we cannot just forget COI"

As far as I know, there hasnt been a COI even established. Only possibly by you, who originally placed the issue here in the first place.

"bringing up the same arguments that everyone was wrong."

Dont try and brush off all of my points as simply telling everyone they are wrong. That is far from what Ive done. Instead, why dont you try to reply with something more than strings of subtle attack, as these last recent points dont really add much to the discussions - nor do my responses - but I am instinctively compelled to defend myself. Geeeeez.

"And now you make multiple attempts to "be clear" that once consensus has been reached the links will return."

And? i thought that consensus was the main issue that was keeping them off as it has been thrown in my face numerous times.

"it's common sense that not everything can be found all the time."

As Ive already said, thats your take on it, not mine. For me, its common sense that for the number of rule breaks I see on Wiki on a regular basis, that this article is possibly under higher scrutiny than normal and definitely than necessary. We're talking links here. --The7thCynic (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The links don't belong. They violate WP:ELNO. Even the COI is really secondary to that. They are discussion forums, not places for reliable information. There's no benefit to a reader to direct them to a site like that. This is long-standing Wikipedia consensus, part of an official guideline, and there's no reasoning given to ignore it. You've said before you see blogs and fansites that don't belong... And that's true, I'm sure there are plenty of them in Wikipedia. They also should be removed, with rare exceptions. Just because you see a candy wrapper on a sidewalk, that doesn't mean that you have a right to litter there, it just means that somebody else has left a mess and nobody else has cleaned it up yet. -- Atama頭 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Atama above, which is why I'm commenting at the talk page, and not this COI case. Whether or not there's COI is secondary, as the links don't belong regardless of the editor's connection. I would encourage any editor commenting here to also do so at the relevant talk page, as the discussion is oingoing there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)

Very well - Ill keep the discussion over there. Thank you.--The7thCynic (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Butlerwhite & User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop

Resolved

 – Page deleted. -- Atama頭 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop (edit | [[Talk:User:Butlerwhite/ThatSexShop|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): Considering that the spammy userspace draft -- sitting there since 24 Sept -- says that the shop is owned by one "Butler White", I'd say that the COI is clear. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an abandoned draft. Perhaps WP:MfD it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have created MfD. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WHDT and WHDT

WHDT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:WHDT, who claims to be WHDT's "Chief Engineer", keeps reverting to a highly dubious version of the article that claims, for example, that WHDT is broadcasting a signal (FCC reports as well as OR show it isn't), and that it is carried by (or recently that it has been ordered to be carried by, implying it is, with nothing showing it isn't) Dish Network. I'm not the only user who is seeing these claims as problematic, and User:WHDT has been told the COI nature of the edits are problematic. There has been one, short, exchange on the Talk: page but User:WHDT's responses both avoided the central specific issue (evidence that WHDT is actually on the air) and were, as with his reverts, "somewhat discourteous".

I'm sure User:WHDT has useful information he or she could add to the article, but at this point it appears, to me at any rate, that commercially WHDT has a fairly large interest in disguising the fact the channel doesn't broadcast an ATSC channel at this time in at least one of the areas it has a license, and is abusing Wikipedia to maintain this fiction.

At this point I'm giving up, I'm walking away from the article as I find monitoring and reverting extremely tedious and a waste of my time, but I'd appreciate someone who actually has the power to force WHDT to read the guidelines and stick to them could actually do so. 66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the username to WP:UAA as it looks like it is either a role account or someone claiming to be linked to WHDT. I agree that their edits are definitely of concern, thanks for posting. Smartse (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

They're been blocked because of their username, so the problem is slightly fixed but I guess that they will probably return with a different username. I'm not sure what else there is to do now as the article has already been fixed up by 66.149.58.8. I guess we wait and see, hoping that they will take note that their edits were inappropriate. Smartse (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. I do think the user could probably be a constructive participant (and has made some constructive edits in the past) so I'm not overly happy with having to bring this up. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately while I said I'd walk away I made the mistake of checking the page again this evening, and he's back under a new nick doing the same stuff. Like I said, I'm going to try to walk away from this (I'm not going to sit here reverting his claims over and over again), but if someone could explain the WP:COI policy to him in a way he'll understand then I think it would be a good idea. I'm not sure what to do to fix the page, beyond possibly argue for its deletion. WHDT has one noteable aspect, it was supposedly the US's first commercial digital station, but otherwise it really hasn't done much of note and would normally be a footnote in, say, an article about the history of digital television in the US. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The new name is "Marksteiner", and the owner of the station is "Günter Marksteiner". The aggressive behavior of the editor as well as aggressive language on the talk page of the article are both very troubling. The article itself probably merits inclusion per WP:BCAST whether or not it was the first commercial digital station in the US. -- Atama頭 23:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Marksteiner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been blocked, I've asked the admin to check whether this was right as WHDT was told they could edit using a different username when they were blocked. Having done a bit of searching it does seem possible that the information in the article at present is incorrect. There is a NYT article and another article that have both been published this year that mention the channel. This would contradict the current version which states that they have been off air for two years. If this is correct then it makes it more reasonable as to why Marksteiner and WHDT made the edits that they did. I'm not entirely certain what action to take now though! Smartse (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the NYT article is actually from 2001 despite gnews saying it is published today! Smartse (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Jenn Brown

Jenn Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi. It would be lovely if anybody who works COI issues wanted to add this article to their watchlists, because I think it's a trainwreck waiting to recur. It was listed at WP:CP for copyright problems, and in the course of cleaning it up I realized that the article has almost certainly been controlled since at least April 2009 by the subject or her agency, Berk Communications (see User talk:BerkCommunications; [9]). Mostly IP contributors have repeatedly pasted promotional material from her website and resisted efforts by outsiders to remove such encyclopedic text as "Brown has a carefree nature that entices viewers to follow her on her many bold and electrifying adventures." All of this has been wiped out by the copyvio cleanup, which removed the last 66 edits from the article (and I only added back content that seemed neutral and copyvio clear...which wasn't much), but this stealth advertising campaign had been conducted for months. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been properly sanitized. I wasn't sure what you were talking about until I looked at the deleted edits for the article (I'm glad I can do that kind of thing now). A definite problem, we have promotional conflicts of interest combined with a BLP and copyright violations. The promotional editing has been somewhat sporadic, with the latest occurring on December 4th, so it's difficult to justify protection at this point but if it resumes at a high volume then I'd recommend semiprotection (or do it myself). -- Atama頭 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MondayMEDIA

MondayMEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was created by somebody with the username mondaymedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Furthermore, he or she has been active in creating links towards that article, and also external links towards MondayMEDIA's website on a number of pages. Some of it seems excessively promotional to my novice eyes, but I would appreciate some feedback in this. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely promotional. User is blocked for username problem. There are only a few external links left and they are possibly ok, so I left them. Please report if process continues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the added links are ok, some are spam. I removed a few. If anyone wants to go through the user contribs and check the rest that would be a good thing. Rees11 (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• JonMonday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to the suggestive user name, this user has (I think) admitted to having a COI here: User talk:Rees11 "I added information about two audio CDs of lectures given by Aldous Huxley that are ... licensed from the Vedanta Society ... my own 40 year association with the Vedanta Society ..." I will point him to the COI guidelines. Rees11 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Jon Monday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since MondayMEDIA and JonMonday seem to be the same user (see User talk:Mondaymedia), and assuming JonMonday is Jon Monday, it looks like the user has also created an autobiography. Rees11 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Paid Company Editing W. V. Grant Article

W. V. Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Earlier, an SPA Superedit09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed quite a bit of negative information on the W. V. Grant article, including his arrested for tax evasion and a section of criticism. I reverted the removal of unsourced information, and commented on the talk page explaining. I also informed the editor about the conflict of interest policy, and advised him the best way to make changes on an article that you have a personal involvement with is to suggest them on the talk page, and gain consensus.

They've reverted [10], and responded. As per this edit [11], the editor admits they are with a company contacted by the subject to clean up their wikipedia article. Not only is the sourced tax evasion material gone, somehow the article doesn't even appear to be in the same font. I'm not even sure how that could happen.I'll be off and on wiki for the next few days, so I'm bringing it here for more eyes. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just noticed their post on the talk page also contains a legal threat ("Legal action is prepared to be taken if this matter can not be resolved.") Since I set this off by reverting, if someone else would warn them, it would probably go over better. Dayewalker (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I left a separate warning, as the material they were introducing was unreferenced and inappropriate (whether or not there was a COI issue). I have not addressed the matter of a legal threat. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I left an NLT message at User talk:Superedit09 and will notice any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't fall to hard for the claims of their not understanding what was going on. It's a bit odd that they'd use the full syntax of [[ and | tweaks in order to customize their signature on the article talk page. Actually I thought it was a different user that had posted first before. Not impossible but still an uncommon thing. I also worked backwards and saw a few sock-looking accounts (50/50 shot I'd say) but since it might take a few hours I'll have to do it this evening. Socks, but not co-op edits even if proven, so resolvable. Want to add a general note for anyone browsing-- the IP that swooped in with edits on some talk pages of persons involved here I can't see related in any way to this matter. It and another IP at roughly the same time were snapping onto edits that would have been directly off the top of the recent changes log and the new user log, and there happened to accidentally be a few crosses at the time... both have been blocked since. ♪ daTheisen(talk)

Oh, and ask the legal matters be stricken? It is far more a rant than any pointed threat so it's not terribly concerning to run off to ANI. They have their final warning so it's an obvious reporting next time. Has anyone actually made an attempt to talk to the user? Their posts on the article talk page are detailed and well-written, but it needs to be stated before any possible sanctions are given that almost every word of them are 100% contrary to Wikipedia policy. Especially the assertion of placing "right" information being okay without source if they know it's "right", and that it trumps "wrong" things with an infinite number of references. Guidelines and every other fiber of being in Wikipedia makes WP:PROVEIT very clear and a nice summary of WP:N, V and RS at the same time. Really nasty sense of WP:OWN too, with argument made based on length of time spent on writing about the person. Since I wasn't there to watch it develop, I'll leave it to any of the editors involved to decide a next action. It's possible to make a balanced article with such accounts... if they're willing to be cooperative. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The standard action to clear legal threats has been taken; indefinite block until the threat is retracted. Until then this editor won't be causing any trouble under this account. -- Atama頭 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Rick206/Dynamic Language

Rick206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - While seeking feedback for his work in progress, it was brought to Rick's attention that he had the same name as the Vice President of the company. This in turn sparked interest in a possible COI. Rick posted on my talk page and asked for help on the matter, and I came here to seek some more opinions in hopes that this matter is resolved peacefully and without bias. Airplaneman ^talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to assume good faith, and if they claim to not be the same Rick as the VP of the company, I suppose that he isn't. Although as a resident of the greater Seattle area myself, I know that 206 happens to be the area code for Seattle, so the chosen username still screams COI to me; also, the personal way in which the article is written suggests an employee of the company or a person otherwise affiliated. I'm glad that the editor is communicative and shows a willingness to comply with our policies and guidelines, but the company just doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the first place. My suggestion to Rick is that if he is interested in editing Wikipedia that he find some other way to contribute. Someone who is communicative, polite, and has decent writing skills is a very welcome addition to the project and there are millions of articles that can use his help. -- Atama頭 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember this. I was involved in trying to protect it when the last user came along, but we all just gave up in the end, nobody able to help out (I could have Wikified it, but I didn't see the point if the rest of it couldn't be fixed and would therefore be deleted anyway). --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Action grrl

• Action grrl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Action grrl appears to be a single purpose account promoting the work of action movie director J.A. Steel. It appears they may also have strayed into copyright violation with Denizen (2010 film). Can someone please take a look? I don't have the time to get involved in another issue at the moment. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I have a strong hunch as to the identity of the editor, but I care not to voice this to avoid outing them (her?). If my hunch is correct, there are some strong COI concerns with this editor, but absent any self-identification the best thing to do is assume that this is just a fan of Steel. The copyright concerns seem to have been addressed, and despite my initial impressions both the actress and the film seem to meet our notability guidelines. I'm not sure what is actionable, but the report itself is certainly warranted. -- Atama頭 21:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The user has simply replaced one copyvio with another (see here) and is shining you on. Sorry, I just don't have the time to deal with slipperiness like this right now, but I will at least AfD the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the help making the articles better, the guidance on links and the references (the copyright issue). It is a team effort and I appreciate the professionalism! :)

I am a fan of JA Steel, JD Disalvatore, Dreya Weber (A Marine Story) and other strong women in Film.

I am grateful to be a part of Wikipedia and welcome the feedback. Action grrl (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've replied here, AG. I do have some suggestions to help you along at Wikipedia, take them or leave them as you like.

• If you do have some personal connection to anyone or anything you're editing about, that is not forbidden. We don't have hard-and-fast rules that prevent you from doing so. We're only trying to identify such connections to be "on the lookout" for deliberate promotion (which I don't think you've done) or unintentional bias (which anyone can do without meaning to).
• It's best to acknowledge such connections if you do have them. Doing so will help other editors know where you're coming from, and prevent people from assuming bad motives on your part if such connections are "revealed".
• YOU ARE NOT COMPELLED TO GIVE PERSONAL INFORMATION. I don't want to make that look like "shouting" but I wanted to make it very clear. You don't have to tell anyone who you are, or give any personal information you aren't comfortable with. We have policies against people who try to dig up personal info about editors, and I always suggest that people think twice before they volunteer it. There are a lot of dangerous people on the Web, and Wikipedia certainly has its share. Risking your personal safety for an encyclopedia is definitely not worth it.
• There are some indications that you might have a conflict of interest. Your edits are almost all related to JA Steel, her movies, and people associated with her movies (like Jessica Bair). That's not against the rules, or even discouraged; everyone is drawn to articles on subjects they're interested in (I know I am). But that still invites questions, if you can understand. In addition, you've stated on your user talk page that you actually spoke with J.A. Steel, which lends more weight to such suspicions. I only say this to explain why the COI concerns were raised in the first place, I don't see anything wrong with any of your edits myself.
• You have a lot of enthusiasm for the subjects you write about. That's a good thing, Wikipedia needs people who want to create and expand articles. Just be sure to not let that enthusiasm go too far, be sure to listen to criticism and concerns from other editors, and remember that everything here is a collaboration (not a solo project) and you'll be fine.

If you ever have questions please let me know, thank you. (Oh yeah, you might want to check out one or more Wikiprojects, where you can either ask for or give help, such as WP:FILM, WP:LGBT, or WP:ACTOR.)-- Atama頭 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama,

Thanks so much for the guidance and insight. I know most of the Lesbians in Hollywood that are in the entertainment industry. I've found that they are under-represented on Wikipedia, as they are in the film industry itself. I would like to continue to contribute edits and articles in this genre, that is indeed near and dear to my heart.

On my first article, I was criticized for not enough links coming into the article, so I tried to prevent that this time and apparently overdid it.

I have no intention to violate copyright, and edits are most helpful and welcome. It was my understanding that press releases are in public domain for adaptation in articles. Again, I welcome any input.

This has been quite an arduous experience, and I appreciate you taking the time to mentor me and collaborate in the spirit of Wikipedia.

Action grrl (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama,

Learning from my recent experiences, I proposed two articles on my talk page to a gentleman (Chris) in Germany who offered to assist me navigate Wikipedia and write articles better.

There is no article on one of the most loved and award winning Lesbian movies of all time, The Gymnast, staring Dreya Weber, who did the choreography for the artist Pink! at a recent award ceremony. I've asked for his thoughts on how to craft an article about this beloved movie of our community. The Gymnast at IMDb.

I would also like to do an article on the award-winning filmmaker Alexandra Kondracke, who is directing the new Girltrash!: All Night Long film and was a writer/producer for The L Word. She has a long career in Hollywood, but no Wikipedia article. Alexandra Kondracke at IMDb.

I would appreciate your help and collaboration, as you have time.

I know both Dreya and Alexandra in Hollywood, and am grateful for your guidance.

Thanks,

Action grrl (talk) 06:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that J.A. Steel happens to be in "Girltrash: All Night Long". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Perhaps you can add it to her Filmography?

A nice gentlemen, Chris (クリス • フィッチュ), set up these two workshops for me to develop and grow:

User:Action grrl/workshop/The Gymnast

User:Action grrl/workshop/Alexandra Kondracke

You are most welcome to participate. It is clear I can learn a lot from your experience and expertise.

Thanks --Action grrl (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome! It would be fantastic if you could read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI and maybe think a bit about those guidelines! You seem to be saying that you know a lot of the people whose articles you are editing and those guidelines will come in handy for you! Looking forward to working with you again soon! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, the links are very helpful. The Lesbian community in Hollywood is very small and all the gals know each other. It is the nature of living and working in an environment where you are a scant minority. Having experts like you and Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) provide oversight, suggestion, guidance and edits is much appreciated. I am committed to the WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI guidelines, and appreciate all who have reviewed and edited my contributions to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia. I look forward to seeing you again in a workspace. This as been quite an experience. I will focus on the workspaces Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) created, for more practice in a safe and collaborative environment, where we can publish articles in concert. Action grrl (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Maple

Peter Maple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article - largely advertising - is being edited by Maplep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who claims to be the subject, KewQuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is providing citations to a website of the same name and JamesPeters1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a single purpose account for this subject. Each have been warned about their conflict of interest, but continue to remove maintenance tags from the article, forming a false consensus on the talk page that, between them, they have solved the problems by providing links to blogs and LinkedIn and other unreliable sources. JamesPeters1980 (talk · contribs) and KewQuorum (talk · contribs) are pretty obviously the same user. ⬅ ⚠ Redvers dashing thru the snow ⚠ 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opening up a sockpuppet investigation. I believe that the three editors here are the same person (who is probably Peter Maple, per Maplep who self-identified). Using three accounts to create a false consensus is a clear violation of WP:SOCK. The Peter Maple article itself does not seem to meet our inclusion guidelines, and should probably be deleted. -- Atama頭 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The case is open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KewQuorum for anyone who wishes to comment. -- Atama頭 21:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kripalu Center

Kripalu Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was originally an advertisement, IMO, and an interested editor fixed much of that. However, now it is slanted oddly: simple non-profit organization replaced with long negative-slant explanation... 2008 revenue being hammered into sentence 1, news that profits are off, news that staff are being cut, news that pay to executives is going up, news of scandals, award for "best spa" removed as minor and old. Editor appears intimately familiar with nicknames of staff, other detailed workings. I am withdrawing from the article, again, but I fear other eyes are needed on it as there have been fairly grave wp:BLP issues, and I don't feel I can contribute usefully at this time. One editor in a previous wp:NPOVN section I started disagreed with my interpretation of events, by the way, saying the article was reasonably neutral/balanced.- Sinneed 16:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this here, and I totally understand withdrawing from the article. Looking at the history of the article, and Calamitybrook's talk page, I see a long, drawn-out dispute between you two. The editor has had a turbulent past, judging from their talk page, and their continued involvement with the article should be questioned. Some of the arguments made by Calamitybrook on the article's talk page are troubling, such as the suggestion that notability should be based on how nice the center looks in the landscape(?!). -- Atama頭 21:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I regard conflicts of interest as unethical. Editor says it's because I "appear intimately familiar with staff nicknames;" what he means is the yogic titles of president and vice president, as listed prominently on company's Web page.

I have no personal or professional interest in the topic of article. To suggest otherwise, because I "know staff nicknames" and have done research, is simply inaccurate.

For so simple and brief an article, there are many citations concerning "detailed workings," most of which are available on line.

On talk page, plz note that a different ed. recently suggested that the article had too positive a slant, while a third ed found it neutral. What ever. Question here is Conflict of Interest.

A 160,0000 sq-ft building in the woods indeed affects a landscape enshrined in Amer Lit. by N. Hawthorne, E. Wharton et al. and now part of a federal forest reserve. This "troubling argument" however, is not part of article.

Award for "Best Spa" from "Self Magazine" is 10 years old and not the Nobel Prize. I replaced with note that center is subject of many travel articles in general interest newspapers, magazines. Not sure how best to cite this easily verified fact.

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to address each of your points individually. What you regard a conflict of interest to be is irrelevant, when we talk about them we're talking specifically about the guideline at WP:COI. That may differ from some outside definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, or yours, but you should familiarize yourself with that guideline if you haven't yet.

You're either grossly misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous in your statement about staff nicknames. John Carter previously mentioned that you referred to people as nicknames like "Gurudev", which is not even close to the "yogic titles of president or vice president". This misstatement of facts is troubling.

Whether or not the argument about notability is or is not part of the article isn't relevant. You offered it as evidence of notability, dismissing the usual argument that significant coverage in independent reliable sources should be used to determine notability. I can accept that people have different opinions of what should constitute notability, but is troubling when combined with other concerns about your editing behavior at the article.

You replaced a verified, sourced statement for an award with a vague, unsupported weasel word statement (if you don't know what weasel words are, don't be offended, just see the link). You use a Google search result as a reference for that, even though that is never acceptable as a reliable source.

Overall, I think you've been damaging this article a piece at a time, violating numerous policies and guidelines in the process, and in defiance of editors who have been trying to tell you what you're doing wrong. Really, I think it's best for you to avoid the article entirely. -- Atama頭 20:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

COI allegation not supported

But this is a discussion of conflict of interest allegation...

So-called evidence of conflict of interest is entirely limited to statement that I am "intimately familiar with staff nicknames" and other "inner workings."

There are about 400 staff. Nicknames could be "Jack" "Jill" etc. Don't know whether any have nicknames, nor is reason provided that I do.

Two executives (exclusively) have their yogic names posted on company Web site.

This yoga practice is apparently analogous to that of of Catholic monks and nuns, who take new names when they reach some stage in their religious careers. "Mother Teresa" for example, is not a "nickname" as should be reasonably obvious (though she was originally named Agnesë Bojaxhiu).

There is nothing "intimate" about my familiarity with topic. However, I didn't object when the names were removed.

All "inner workings" described in article are derived from verfiable online sources, through which I gained non-intimate familiarity, which of course, suggests non COI.

Since the COI tag is transparently unsupported, unsupportable and simply FALSE, I've properly removed it.

Quantified improvements

Here is article before I contributed [[12]] when there were six sources and ten footnotes -- (and text was mostly all just culled, wholesale, from "company" Web site).

Currently has about 20 sources, about 30 footnotes, and is of necessity therefore more balanced and somewhat more detailed. All of these additions, were added by myself. One or two are debatable, though not challenged as of now. Most of added sources are major newspapers, or government sources.

The easily verifiable fact that Kripalu over time, has been subject of sustained (though almost entirely superficial) coverage in national travel press, includes, supercedes and legitimately replaces a single reference to a decade-old magazine item, a so-called award, by Self Magazine editors, which in isolation, is obsolete and not a particularly significant bit of information.

Yes I removed a footnote regarding Self Magazine editors' award, and I accept that my general reference to much wider google news search results may be imperfect verification of coverage, but a complete bibliography of these many, various and mostly rather trivial "happy talk" articles would seem excessive for such an innocuous and simple observation.

Thanks for useful input about my various policy violations and my damage to article. Sinneed has repeatedly made constructive suggestions that I must be banned from Wikipedia, because I focus on his nearly endless accusations this regard, rather than content of article.

Yet he has comparatively little to say on content, focusing significantly on my "conflict of interest."

I've nearly tripled available reliable sourcing and vastly improved the thing -- while his posting seem quantitatively much more personally focused (without sourcing, evidence or shred of acceptable reasoning) on me.

As there is less and less I can do to improve article, so will probably in some degree, take your advise and make fewer edits and add few additional sources to what is simply, NOT a very complex topic.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indie Movies

• Indie Movies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See archive. It's still going on. I'm going through and tagging them, but this is getting annoying now. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• 70.147.45.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - this IP has a very similar edit history to Indie Movies. Smartse (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No one had given them a COI warning or drawn their attention to this or the previous thread. As Atama stated before it is a pretty clear case of self promotion. I would urge Indie Movies to desist from creating more articles about these non-notable films that are all produced and sold by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to have to warn them and if it continues they could be blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I've only just discovered there was a COI template just now. I'll make sure to use that in the future. I will admit that some of the films I am unsure about tagging, say, this one for example. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

He's readded Natasha (film) and now just did the same with Bad Reputation (film) (another one I'm unsure about) and still doesn't understand that maybe having most of his articles be submitted for deletion and being discussed here means something is wrong. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the lack of template, you should always notify someone if you post about them on a noticeboard though (Don't worry though as hardly anyone does, despite it being in the instructions at the top). I've checked the couple that I PRODed and none of them seemed to be notable as far as I could tell from a google news search. London Betty looks the same to be honest the number of google hits isn't the best indicator but there are only 3000 for ""london betty" film" so it doesn't look very notable. I've level 3 warned them as they've carried on despite being warned and being informed of this. Smartse (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that all the plot sections in the articles are copyvios of the webpages they reference too. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too (mentioned in the last thread as well), but I couldn't be bothered to do anything about it like you have. When I first encountered this user, I once tagged an article as G12 but it got declined because the person who came along didn't think it worthwhile to delete it because of it. Since there is no speedy deletion criteria for non-notable films (there really needs to be), I've had to resort to prodding. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I sort of dropped the ball on this. I planned on checking the articles against web sites to see if I could identify copyright violations; my gut tells me that much of the content in those articles was lifted either from some fan/review site, or an official site related to the films. Smartse has verified that much the material in these articles has been copied, but I think the best solution is a mass AfD. These articles are clearly related, created/expanded by the same person(s), and share the same issues. One advantage of AfD over PROD or CSD is that it inhibits recreation in ways that the other deletion methods don't; either the original AfD result must be overturned in WP:DRV or the recreated articles must differ significantly from the deleted versions and/or address the issues brought forth in the AfD discussion. -- Atama頭 20:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've started three AfDs for the ones which had the prod removed and, just to be on the safe side, an SPI. (sighs) Should I start working on AfDing all of the others, prod or not? I'll do them, since I'm the original reporter. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw the SPI while I was filing one for a different user on this page (see Peter Maples above), but I don't think that will go anywhere. Editing with multiple accounts isn't disallowed on the encyclopedia, on its own (though disclosing alternate accounts is strongly encouraged), and editing without being logged in is definitely allowed (people do it all the time by accident). Sockpuppetry is only actionable when you can also show violations related to the sockpuppetry. (Using a sock to edit while your main account is blocked, casting multiple votes in an AfD, pretending to form consensus among multiple editors, etc.) -- Atama頭 21:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

← I don't know... part of me thought that it was an attempt to cast suspicion off his main account. Right now, I'm either assuming bad faith or someone who doesn't pay attention that something is wrong with the pages, not sure which. Anyway, the first AfD has links to all the others now. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Head writer for BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP creating and editing articles related to the company

See User:Acuffrose. This relates to the articles Max Azria and Lubov Azria and also to the copyvio problems, although they are not a matter for this page. I'll notify the editor and then I'm off to bed. Dougweller (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this resolves the issue, but the articles have been deleted. -- Atama頭 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Doug, Can you help me out with this? I will do whatever I need to do to keep the listing as neutral as possible and keep in line with Wikipedia standards. However now both articles have been deleted. This is particularly alarming for the Max Azria one-- his article has been up there for a long time and was not started by us. I simply updated the photo, fixed some formatting and added the list and descriptions of the brand encompassed by the BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP company. This brings his article in line with those of other, similar fashion personalities like Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford and Tommy Hilfiger. I don't understand why the article was full-on deleted like that. As for the one about Lubov Azria-- she is our creative director and a public personality in fashion just like Marc Jacobs or Phoebe Philo. She has become more public in the past 18 months, and there is very little information about her available publicly. Creating a page for her and updating the page for Max was done in response to press inquires. Please let me know what I need to do to get both pages back up. Thank you so much for your help!Acuffrose (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue is WP:DRV, which is the deletion review board. Or you can talk to Orange Mike, the administrator who deleted the articles, to ask him why he did so and to ask how you could help prevent the articles from being deleted in the future if you were to recreate them. -- Atama頭 20:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article on Max, who has a good case for notability, has been restored, with the COI edits of Acuffrose omitted. There is no case for separate notability for Lubov Aria, his wife. It should be noted for future reference that the article on Max has a bad history of COI editors, including User:Roseorchid, self-described as "assistant manager for Max Rave"; the IP 169.234.101.48; and User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Acuffrose: are you the editor who formerly edited as User:Roseorchid and described her/himself as "an assistant manager for Max Rave"? Are you the editor who formerly edited as User:BCBGMAXAZRIAGROUP? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley and Global Warming

The following discussion 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.

---

Resolved

 – I'm closing this report. While I believe that there are multiple issues of concern surrounding the editing of global warming-related articles, the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist who, among other things, confuses WMC's 3RR patrolling with his global warming editing, are not a credible foundation for a complaint. I suggest that the proper route here would be to compile actual evidence (diffs) of behavior that is allegedly inappropriate and hold a request for comment to get feedback. Editors who are opposed to WMC's editing should use the wiki process to compile and review evidence, discard weak examples, and get feedback from the rest of the community on whether WMC's behavior crosses the line from being an expert in his field (which should be encouraged) to improperly controlling content and excluding other legitimate viewpoints. Thatcher 17:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accused (author Lawrence Solomon) of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to further an environmental agenda. The article states 5,428 articles could be involved.

For the record I have awarded WMC barnstars in 2006 for excellence in writing and maintaining science articles. I respect him. However, given the potential harm this should be treated seriously until demonstrated otherwise. - RoyBoy 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I found this written by William M. Connolley discussing Lawrence Solomon and Energy Probe. - RoyBoy 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He may have been so accused but the accusation is a ludicrous one. A conflict of interest means an incompatibility between the interests of an editor and those of developing a neutral, high quality encyclopaedia, and someone who is an expert in the field is certainly not thereby disqualified from helping improve articles - not even if they have known opinions. Making sure that the current state of climate science is accurately described is a service to the encyclopaedia, not something to be resisted. The limited extent to which William M. Connolley has a conflict of interest comes solely with matters related directly to the RealClimate blog at the time he was involved in it, and the British Antarctic Survey under similar restrictions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lectures on conflict of interest are rather rich coming from "Mr Blacketer", I think. I love SUV's (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the word you were looking for was not "rich" but "apposite". Yes, I too have been frivolously accused by a journalist with an agenda, of having a conflict of interest because I edit in a field I have professional and personal knowledge of. That means I am keen to defend others who have been similarly wrongly accused, even ones with whom some people believe me to have 'a history'. Merely being actively engaged within a field of human expertise and having known opinions about the subject, does not give an editor a conflict of interest. Editors only have conflicts of interest when they are directly, personally and currently involved in the immediate precise issue being written about. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact he is being paid by the Climate Research Unit to astroturf Wikipedia for the AGW POV pose a fiduciary conflict of interest with his role as editor here? I thought astroturfing was banned at Wikipedia?97.94.189.111 (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Since that hasn't happened no. Please don't abuse the word "fact" in future.©Geni 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the broader accusation, which I haven't looked at, but that Financial Post article is idiotic. It proceeds from the first principle that everything WMC does on Wikipedia is pushing a global warming-related agenda. The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming. "Over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions." - most of them "ran afoul" of him by crossing the WP:3RR bright line on articles entirely unrelated to global warming. And so on. If there is a COI issue here, please present using actual evidence, rather than the kind of journalism that makes me embarrassed of my citizenship. Steve Smith (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Striking analysis. On the point of "present using actual evidence" would take a significant amount of time; and could be interpreted as cabal protectionism. Being correctly deliberative may not be a luxury we can afford. - RoyBoy 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A chain of comments here may relate to this issue. 69.9.27.168 (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To be scrupulously fair to Lawrence Solomon, the author of that piece, he is not a journalist but a writer and columnist and the piece in question is neither a news article nor investigative journalism, but an opinion column. This kind of writing sells papers, apparently. --TS 00:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. This is an author for the National Post nobody buys that crap. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The COI accusation was made off-wiki, in an op-ed. I don't think that it's of concern. When an editor makes an appeal as to how WMC is in specific violation of our WP:COI guideline, that's when I would be concerned. And as Sam Blacketer has alluded to, experts editing articles related to their fields of expertise are specifically given allowance in our guideline (even encouraged, as they should be) and only when there is a personal conflict should the COI be looked at (such as the blog mentioned). -- Atama頭 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Post article (actually, a blog entry) is ludicrous. It appears that the right-wing blogosphere has gotten to be dumber than usual lately with respect to WMC; there are more detailed rebuttals at Talk:William Connolley#Solomon op-ed and Talk:William Connolley#Conflict of Interest. There really isn't any credible, evidence-based claim being made anywhere. The climate skeptics echo chamber is probably going to be repeating this nonsense, so administrators watching William Connolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should be extra-vigilant for BLP problems over the next few weeks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely certain as to why this is even being brought up. Are you suggesting that because someone seems to be drumming up a controversy (citing 5k+ edits with nothing to prove that those where problematic edits) that WMC should be barred from the article or subject? This board is for noting/discussing when editors may be directly involved with the subject of the article(s) they are editing. If that's what you're suggesting, please be more clear. Honestly, I can't believe we're even taking the time to address these articles. Like Steve Smith noted, the edits they cite are everything WMC has ever done on WP and assume they were all POV pushing edits. They even site his deletions as an admin, deleting speedy deletion articles which have nothing to do with global warming or his POV. What a waste of time. OlYeller^Talktome 00:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Demonstrating how seriously we take alleged systematic bias is not a waste of time. A proper analysis should be done, and potential COI's on specific articles are possible. I sincerely hope such actions are unnecessary, but looking at the issue for a few minutes / hours and coming to a determination is a disservice to Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 01:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't stated what you want the community to actually do. Are you volunteering to do this "proper analysis"? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Royboy, I don't think that's going to happen. Nobody is going to go through WMC's entire edit history to dig up possible COI issues, nor should they. Especially not if the catalyst for this is some opinion piece on a web site. If you, or anyone else, has specific complaints then they should be made. Just like every noticeboard on Wikipedia, if there's a problem there should be diffs and specific examples to demonstrate the problem, not a general comment.

To completely contradict your original statement, I think this should not be treated seriously, not until demonstrated otherwise. -- Atama頭 01:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but if Wikipedia can be pro-active in any way I believe it would be to our credit. Removing the Solomon article from the Talk:William Connolley article is likely myopic. I will follow up on that talk page. - RoyBoy 01:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The community can treat it seriously. As to an analysis I do not possess the tools to do that effectively / efficiently. We should provide more accurate numbers than those presented as a start. Perhaps even a "global warming" data dump of WMC edits may be appropriate? This would allow those who wish to contest COI edits to do so more quickly than standard Contrib scrolling. As issues are raised they can be addressed. - RoyBoy 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds flippant (but then again, it is), but have you considered putting all of William's edits into a zip file, posting it on a Russian ftp server, and posting at climateaudit that "A miracle has happened"? Let the sceptics do all the cherry picking... --TS 01:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the size of the zip file I suppose. Is there any way to do a decent filter of WMC edits within Wikipedia and/or with 3rd party tools / scripts? - RoyBoy 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Doable without such scripts. Do a search within article space only. Sort alphabetically by article name, then manually remove articles which clearly have naught to do with climate issues. 5000 edits takes you back to early 2007 -- which should furnish a sufficient sample to detect any problems. From the alpha list remaining, go through diffs sequentially (possibly examining edit summaries). Delete all which are clearly just vandalism reverts etc. Methodology is independent of who you are looking at, or what topics. Hope this helps. Collect (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, lots of us are programmers with tools for doing just that kind of filtering. But what would we be searching for, and could it be expressed in terms of textual search terms? I suspect not. It strikes me that if there were any significant outstanding conflict of interest it would have been detected in one or other of the arbitration cases in which William M. Connolley has made an appearance.

It really would help if we knew what we were supposed to be looking for. --TS 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe a dump as Collect describes would be okay. Trying to be clever could be problematic. - RoyBoy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Though we should keep obvious vandalism, as that shows the reality of maintaining contested subjects. - RoyBoy 02:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hereby allege that RoyBoy has systematically attempted to bias over 16,000 Wikipedia articles related to atheism. He has deleted 129 pages, presumably because he didn't like their subjects. In total, he has blocked 611 editors who ran afoul of him; RoyBoy clearly disapproved of the arguments they made, and had them barred from contributing. (Counts.) Since we need to demonstrate that we take all allegations of systemic bias seriously, please, can someone begin the witch hunt investigation? Or do I have to repost this message in a blog before we get started?

Honestly, that's the level of credibility and accuracy that Solomon's op-ed has. Solomon apparently didn't look at WMC's edits, he just pulled the numbers out of an edit counter and assumed that every article WMC edited, every page WMC deleted, and every editor that WMC blocked was somehow related to climate change and somehow an abuse of WMC's editing/admin privileges. I believe that we should take credible accusations of systemic bias seriously, and I believe that if Solomon had even bothered to present a patina, a bare gloss of evidence in support of his claims we might have something to discuss. However, taking this factually-challenged op-ed seriously wouldn't demonstrate anything beyond that we're gullible idiots. RoyBoy, you're welcome to conduct your own investigation, but please don't bring this back to the community until you have something of substance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree my call to action is hasty, but I'm hesitant to allow the weakness, and ironic COI, of the accusation to allow relegation of the issue to talk pages alone. Also, I hope this isn't hinged just on the op-ed, but on any appearance of COI within the larger context of Climategate. If too much a reach, fine. But let it be said we looked at it in an official capacity and found it wanting. - RoyBoy 03:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Although any user is obviously free to satisfy themselves with their own investigation, accusations alone are just accusations. And the context is that the article is a wacky, paranoid opinion piece. It wouldn't surprise if its author were one of wikipedia's fringe [blocked] pov-pushers in the area, doing some venting [though now I am acting like the author]. Wiki has an expert user who edits in his area. And he is/was an admin. Big deal. If the author finds actual and specific CoI evidence about WC and the Holy Elders of Realclimate, he can submit it or publish it. Otherwise he shouldn't be allowed to waste our time like this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like assist the author, and anyone else, to find any COI. It could lead to a streamlined procedure to respond appropriately to future accusations of note. - RoyBoy 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

William Connolley has a close relationship with Michael Mann. William Connolley is removing information from Michael Mann's article that is potentially unsightful for Michael Mann. William Connolley has a COI with regards to this article per WP:COI specifically This section. I am sure it would be easy to find many more given his history. Arzel (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to respond to genuine concerns about COI from sensible editors. I think RB made a mistake by basing this report on the LS piece, which (as plenty of people have noted above) is not to be taken seriously. My response is to make fun of it [13] ([14] is recycled LS so gets mocked too). However, I don't think RB was unreasonable in raising these concerns, so if anyone other than the trolls and the WoT's has anything to say, I'll respond William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Investigating conflicts in Scientific opinion on climate change

This COI investigation should be taken seriously. I investigated this editor in relation to a NPOV dispute with regards to Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change for which he created. (Note: I have suffered two blocks (my only ones) and other confirmed harassment in attempting to work with this editor.) Here are my concerns.

1. SPECIFICALLY: The editor holds the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change mission and interests clearly above those of WP:5.
2. The editor declared conflicted interest here [15] during an ArbCom run.
3. The editor aggressively first denies and then aggressively negates attempts to reach a NPOV. [16]
4. The COI may extend to other editors acting in cohesion for a conflicted mission counter to a NPOV. [17]
5. In addition, the editor may also be held accountable[18] for WP:BLP issues in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming upon further archive investigation.

I have diffs from archived talk history in Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change to offer. Before proceeding (or taking abuse for conducting an investigation) does anyone else share these concerns to broaden the investigation scope? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ZP5, You have also first had a couple of polite warnings for borderline harrassing him, to be balanced and fair, and it did look like you started your type of harrassment long before the retaliatory complaints. It does look like an unsubstantiated witchhunt by you of him to me.--BozMo talk 06:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not apparent how WMC's edits relate to the links which you have presented. I note that you have been blocked twice by other admins for your poor conduct ([19]), but WMC has apparently not used his admin tools. The links you have presented are confusing, at best. In #2, where you declare that WMC has indicated a conflict of interest, he apparently only states that he 'care[s] about' the issue of global warming. I presume that the same could be said for you. I've got better things to do than to try to parse the remainder of your compaint; can you provide a few diffs which clearly demonstrate the problem, or are you just grinding your own particular axe? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Can those accusing WMC provide some examples of the parts of our COI guideline that have been broken? As far as I can see he is an expert in a particular field which is to be encouraged: "However, an expert on trees is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject." If there is a problem it would seem to be a POV problem rather than a COI. Smartse (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well this part covers it i believe

There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest.

WMC has ties to both realclimate and hadley cru. The conflict of interest is his work is in proving agw, therefore when he edits an article to remove anything which may cast doubt on it is a conflict of interest.

See here for an examle please. [[20]] mark nutley (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding. By that criterion, 97.4% of active climate scientists have a COI[21]. The desire to fairly represent a field of science is not a COI, it's a very desirable trait for Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a desirable trait to remove any hint of criticism from an article, and i do not see how removal of any "bad news or dissenting opinion" is fairly representing this field of science. But surly WMC`s neutrality is called into question here, how can he show a neutral pov when he works in the climate change industry? I`m afraid his bias shows through in his edits, and this is not good for WP. mark nutley (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

he works in the climate change industry?. I don't. What makes you think you have a clue? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you or have you not worked at hadley cru? Whom is your current employer? Do you have links do realclimate?

Perhaps "works for" is not the right term, perhaps has worked for would suffice. mark nutley (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if he does or did "work in the climate change industry" (whatever that is) he can still edit articles related to climate change. There is nothing in our COI guideline that forbids him from doing so. If you can provide diffs to show that the COI has actually been a problem (i.e. not being neutral) then there may be a problem. Personally it seems pretty clear that improving wikipedia is more important than advancing outside interests. Since WP:COI states "Where advancing outside interests are more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." it suggests that this is not a problem. Smartse (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it's evident from reading Connolley's bio that his career reputation and credibility is founded, at least in significant part, on Global Warming's credibility, especially on the IPCC's statement on climate change. Connelley's continued behavior at trying to minimize skeptical opinions in the global warming articles, adding criticism to global warming skeptic's BLPs, and attempts to control the POV in the global warming articles shows that this COI and POV are preventing him from complying with WP:NPOV. I suggest a topic band, interpreted broadly. Cla68 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What's a 'topic band'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's (talk • contribs) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a rubber band, preferably wrapped around the fingers of editors who are tempted to promote off-wiki swiftboating. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the POV that insists that science-based articles be based on current scientific consensus? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, WMC should not be allowed to work on articles related to climate change, as he has worked with scientists and respected experts in the field. By a similar token, professional football players should avoid writing about sports, and professors of economics should steer clear of articles on monetary policy. The only people who should write our articles in contentious areas are individuals with minority viewpoints, personal axes to grind, and Randy from Boise. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: Did I receive a second to proceed? I want to be clear and balanced with space for the editor to answer the specific issues. I appreciate the comments ... however, what will be most relevant at this stage, are the editor's answer. I can wait for folks to continue before presenting the evidence. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not from me ZP5. From what I've seen, you've taken your recent run in with WMC personally and therefore are most likely unable to participate in this conversation without bias. If you think you have something to provide proof that WMC has a conflict of interest with Wiki when editing the mentioned articles, I suggest pointing someone else to them and letting them sort things out. I'd also like to add, this will not be the place to reply about how personally or not you have taken the spat between you and WMC. OlYeller^Talktome 15:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Connolley's contributions to Wikipedia

The title of Solomon's article claims that Connolley edited 5,428 'unique' articles. It is claimed above that "5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming". Neither of these claims seem to be correct (although I am not sure what 'unique article' means). I crudely and painfully calculated Connolley's edits by using the Wikipedia function that lists article edits. Connolley has made a total of 13,045 article edits since he joined in 2003. Many of these edits are to the same article. Counting the 'unique' edits (by my definition, meaning that all edits to the same article count only as one edit), he has edited 1701 articles. The majority of these are global warming articles. Moreover, the edits to non global-warming articles are usually singletons. To global warming articles, he returns many times. For example, the article "1960s in heavy metal music" he edits once. The article 'An Inconvenient Truth', 72 times. (And the article about himself, 23 times).

On whether Connolley has a conflict of interest, I don't see that being a climate scientist should rule him out. Clearly experts should be welcome in a project like Wikipedia. But is he is politically rather than scientifically motivated? His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know), suggests the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love SUV's (talk • contribs) 14:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have listed the articles he has edited on my talk page. I am unable to persuade the Wikipedia editor to present this nicely comma-separated table in the way that a spreadsheet would see it. Can anyone help me please? I love SUV's (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your analytical skills may be valuable, but why not use the tools we have? This shows 39,321 edits to 5,440 pages, 2029 users blocked, 510 pages deleted. Note how closely those match the numbers used by Solomon (5,428, "more than 500", "more than 2000"). Apparently, Solomon assumes "page" = "article". That once more shows his dedication to careful research and fact-checking. And your opinion on the UK Green Party aside, WMC's opinion on global warming and climate change agrees with the vast majority of researchers and has the support of all the major Academies of Science. WP:AGF applies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said. I clearly said that Solomon's claim was wrong. But the claim made above that "The ~5,400 number is the total number of articles he has edited, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with global warming." is also very wrong. Looking at his individual edit (and not the 'tool' referred to above, which merely summarises edits) it is clear that the vast majority of Connolley's edits are to GW articles.

Subtle distinction. Neither the majority of pages nor the majority of articles are in climate-related fields. The majority of edits are (or at least it seems so by eyeballing). But nobody claimed otherwise, so your argument is a strawman. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"His membership of the UK Green Party, which is not renowned for its scientific view of things (I should know)..."

Do I take it that you have come here to declare your conflict of interest with respect to the Green Party? --TS 16:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On the Green Party, I was a member a long time ago. That's how I know about its 'scientific' view of things. I love SUV's (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (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.

User:Addvisors

Resolved

 – Blocked for spam/username violations. -- Atama頭 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors

• Addvisors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.234.226.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles

• Andrew Sasson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Harmon Hotel and Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CityCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Addvisors recently created the article Andrew Sasson about a Las Vegas nightclub entrepreneur (said article is now listed at WP:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sasson). While researching the subject to try to improve the article, I ran across Addvisors, whose website says they are "a Las Vegas SEO and Google Qualified Adwords agency, specializing in online marketing." The website also says that their client, "The Light Group" (Sasson's company) has hired them to "generate more website traffic to increase and attract new clientele seeking VIP nightclub services, reservations, private parties, and table service in Las Vegas."

The user has also recently edited The Harmon Hotel and Spa and CityCenter, two other projects of The Light Group and Sasson. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indef-blocked as a spam username. The fact that they are hired to spam websites means that we can suspend good faith in their case. -- Atama頭 00:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast work! Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

JeffSharlet and The Fellowship (Christian organization)

Could someone look into the edits of JeffSharlet (talk · contribs) at The Fellowship (Christian organization). If the account is accurately named, he's the author of the book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, which is used heavily as a source for that article. The issue here is the heavy reliance of that source on the article, often by him directly, in such a way that makes it look as though he is promoting his own book and his own viewpoint at that article, to the exclusion of all other sources. He removes references to any source which differs from his own conclusions, or is critical of them, see this edit for an example of removing references to works not his own. There are also several other SPA accounts that work on that article which rely heavily on Sharlet's book exclusively, often misrepresenting it in ways that overextend Sharlet's conclusions with regard to the association of political figures with the group. Something needs to be looked at here. --Jayron32 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a tricky case. It appears that the main issue with it is that JeffSharlet has been arguing about whether or not an article that comments about his book on this organisation should be included in the source. The edit that Jayron32 has linked to seems to be the only problematic edit however and he has edited the talk page more so than the main article. That said taking a quick look it does seem as though an article in Newsweek should be included in the article and if it comments on a major source used in the article then the views may be necessary to meet achieve a NPOV. I noticed that he has argued it is an opinion piece and should therefore not be included but this is not a valid argument as long as the article makes it clear that it is an opinion piece and not fact. I'm not willing to agree that he removes any sources which disagree with him though, considering only one such edit has been made.

On a side is there not a system through WP:OTRS by which people can prove that they are in fact the person that their username suggests they are? If this is the case then JeffSharlet really needs to demonstrate this is the case. Smartse (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It also appears user 24.61.42.123 is Jeff Sharlet not logged in, judging by his comment removing the Newsweek article again. He has made some additions to the Fellowship page and his own page on wikipedia. 74.248.102.8 (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX)

Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - New editor Cbrownsyed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding large amounts of unwikified text to Commonwealth Expedition (COMEX), which, when put into Google come out as being from here. I have reverted. When challenged, the editor replied The text entered is from the Proposal for the Green Pennant awards, of which I am the co-author with Kevin Lacy and Lionel Gregory. No images were included. I have warned about CoI issues, but this could use extra eyes as the unwikified text is not really suitable for Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Luke

• 76.166.239.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dr. Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - a user has been reverting my expansion of this article, and then left me a message on my talk page about representing the subject of the article, having privacy concerns with my additions, and looking into legal options to keep info from being added to the article. My sources include a couple of bios published by music equipment manufacturers, and a magazine article. I'd appreciate broader input on any conflict of interest issues. dissolve^talk 04:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Yehoishophot Oliver

• Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

assisted at the present time primarily by

• Zsero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and

• Shlomke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs), proudly going by his real name spends his time flooding Wikipedia with any number of pro-Chabad POV articles, even creating obvious fluff pieces and POV forks, in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING a clear-cut violation of WP:COI because he can be found as a spokesman for Chabad online, such as here "Tamim Yehoshafat Oliver reminded everyone..." see his own prophile on Blogger and the FIVE pro-Chabad blogs he runs, and the over 5000 Google hits for "Yehoishophot Oliver" speaks for itself. His work is welcome, but judging by his many pro-Chabad contributions in light of his unquestioning open public adherence to the Chabad messianic movement and its ideology brings into play enormous questions of WP:COI that states: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia" -- and lately several knowledgeable editors in the Judaica section have nominated some of his pro-Chabad propaganda articles for deletion and questioning his neutrality in the subject of Chabad on Wikipedia. Some kind of oversight is needed with basic warnings and guidelines because he is also aided by some other pro-Chabad editors who violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:WAR when questioned or confonted for their pro-Chabad bias. IZAK (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign; (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign; (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign; (4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24; (5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Shlomke, here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Wikipedia as if it were a pro-Chabad blog (we can present the similar pro-Chabad POV diffs for you, Debresser and Zsero, in due course): attacking Dershowitz; canard against other Jewish groups inserted; sanitizing criticism of Rebbe; removing criticism; taking control of a concept; defending Chabad messianism; added pro-Rebbe BLOG to take over this term; sanitizing anti-Messianist comments; promoting notion of Rebbe as moshiach; sanitized comments about 6th rebbe; cutting out connection of singer Matisyahu to Chabad; purifying Chabad by removing controversial connection; devalued an opposition rival group by renaming them; removes important info about messianists; and again fights content about Chabad messianism; covers up sourced messianist practices; removed sourced comments about infighting with messianists; removed fair and known criticism of Chabad; plays with words as if it changes anything; sanitizes messianic message; cuts out important history of other successor rebbe; sanitizes comments about messianism; insists on having Chabad.org as a key reference; sanitizes a bio; inserts lengthy quotes from own POV sources; removes valid section about Lurianic kabbalah and messianism; sanitizes messianist; removes well-known and sourced views opposing Chabad; turning Jewish law into part mysticism; removes well-known non-Chabad rabbis from list; cuts ties with Israeli holidays per Chabad outlook, as well as here and here; self-glorification of Chabad; downplays other leader's strengths; voices anti-Zionism, a true Chabad policy; fights for pro-Noahide Chabad view; expresses extreme anti-Zionist views as per Chabad party line; removed valid sourced information about messianist disputes over replicas of 770; makes Chabad into the center of Chasidism; greatness of Chabad over all other Chasidim; removes important info he doesn't like about Hasidim; claims title of "Rav" for Lubavicther Rebbe; reports about schisms of others (while he edited out info about Chabad schisms in other articles); fights against Barry Gurary, a favorite Chabad bogey man; sanitizes the Rebbe's seclusion after death of his wife. Thanks, IZAK (talk)

For the record: I am not anti-Chabad by any means. I began as a Wikipedia editor seven years ago, and devoted some time to beginning the most important articles concerning Chabad and its seven rebbes, here: I began the article on Chabad, 30 December 2002; on the 1st Rebbe in 20 January 2003; 3rd Rebbe, 20 January 2003; 4th Rebbe, 20 January 2003; 5th Rebbe, 22 March 2004; 6th Rebbe, 20 January 2003; and helped start 7th Rebbe, 30 December 2002. Therefore I greatly admire the Chabad movement, however that being said, Wikipedia should not be allowed to become a reverse WP:MIRROR site for Chabad.org and the hundreds of pro-Chabad websites and blogs in order to protect the WP:NPOV of Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yehoishophot Oliver has made many comments admitting that he is using Wikipedia to promote his religious viewpoints. He has made no effort to follow Wikipedia policies. He also tries to use guilt, to shame Jewish Wikipedia editors into following his lead, as he believes that his edits promote his Rebbe's religious worldview - which he believes to be the only right, Jewish worldview. He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Wikipedia policies. They are trying to turn this Encyclopedia into a public relations tool for their faith. This is unacceptable. RK (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pleasy give examples of your allegations with diff's. Thanks, Shlomke (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record, I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others. RK (talk)

• This is ridiculous, and has gone way too far. If someone is violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, and about half a dozen other WP rules it's Izak, who seems to be engaged in a campaign of harassment against Chabad-related editors. This tendentious COI complaint is typical. So are his claims of a "fifth column" of Chabad editors with "growing powers and influnce" trying to "take over Wikipedia" and "turn it into chabad.org". He also constantly calls articles he doesn't like WP:CFORKs, completely ignoring the actual definition of a fork; I don't know why he does that.

  Claiming that Yehoishophot Oliver has some sort of COI here is exactly the same as claiming that Izak has a COI on any Jewish article, and that he should quit WikiProject Judaism, as should all Jews. Obviously that is not a valid claim. -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Zsero, kindly stick to the issues. you are displaying the very problem I am addressing, that when anyone who is not a Chabad editor on Wikipedia either disagrees or lodges a complaint you then go into over-drive and violate WP:OWN as well as WP:NPA. I am not "making things up here" -- I have been a Wikipedia editor in the Judaic sections for seven years and I can honestly and objectively state that the way pro-Chabad articles and links are proliferating on Wikipedia, Wikipedia will soon look like a reverse WP:MIRROR site for Chabad.org. Instead of having a temper tantrum you need to devise a way that pro-Chabad editors can control their obvious ambitions to run anything to do with Chabad on Wikipedia as any edit history of a major Chabad topic will show that anyone trying to insert what runs counter to the pro-Chabad party line will be attacked by swarms of pr-Chabad editors, like you and User Debresser (talk · contribs) as current good examples of pro-Chabad POV warriors, who will ensure that articles Chabad articles reflect the official Chabad position. I now citing you and User Debresser (talk · contribs) as accessories to the problem at hand. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the tone of your protests is the only thing that is going into overdrive here. I can't answer for others, but I don't see any Chabad psuhing here that violates Wikipedia rules. Nothing more than the usual POV disagreements. Were you perhaps on the losing side of a few of them? Debresser (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• You have got to be kidding. What conceivable COI do you think I have? This is a deliberately false and tendentious accusation, an abuse of WP, and I'm calling for some sort of action against Izak. At the very least, he needs A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down. -- Zsero (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Zsero, this is a serious matter, stop trying to trivialize it or to ridicule a situation simply because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way, kindly do NOT assert falsehoods, take a good look at WP:CFORK and WP:POVFORK, they are on the same page and it states there : "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." So when the pro-Chabad editors create deliberate POV and CONTENT forks, like Noahide Campaign (now mercifully and logically voted to merge with Seven Laws of Noah); or Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign (now deleted but it was logically part of either Sefer Torah or Mitzvah Campaigns) or Tefillin campaign (which was now logically voted to merge with Mitzvah Campaigns and it could just as easily been part of the main Tefillin article) and there are lots more examples like this, these are clear-cut examples of both CONTENT and POV forking by the pro-Chabad editors to push their POV as they forget that here on Wikipedia there is a more comprehensive broader encyclopedic WP:NPOV outlook on Judaism that they must accept on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to put aside the question of FORKS for a moment a agree with IZAK regarding COI. When I work for a company, I am asked to declare a COI on any relevant article. I am still allowed to edit said article but it means that my work will be scrutinized by others for POV. Having a strong affiliation with a group, especially one with a public agenda of sharing their point of view with others, in my opinion is no less COI that working for an organization.
  While we all know that there is a certain amount of OR that we all bring to bear when editing WP articles (esp. in on Jewish topics) I would recommend that Oliver voluntarily restrict himself to 3rd party , reliable sources regarding his edits on Chabad and outreach related topics. Joe407 (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  That is an outrageous demand. You may as well say that every Jew has a COI on Jewish topics, every Xian on Xian topics, every Buddhist on Buddhist topics, etc. Or that every US voter with political opinions has a COI on any US-politics related topic. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Zsero, cut out the tones of hysteria PLEASE and be logical. I don't know about other religions, but Judaism and especially Orthodox Judaism is highly complex and multi-multi-faceted with thousands of nuances. Everything on Wikipedia is based on edit history and the style of an editor and that is how editors are judged. This is not about hypothetical arguments about what Christians do (you can use that word on Wikipedia and there is no need to use "Xian" which is offensive to other editors who may be Christians and not "Xians") or what Buddhists write, this is about the confirmed and obvious observations of the tactics and methods and aims of the pro-Chabad WP:POVWARRIORS, like you and the above-mentioned, who are gung ho to insert whatever they like about Chabad-related topics, no matter how trivial and repetative at times, as if Wikipedia was a branch or subsidiary of Chabad.org and if anyone seriously questions them in the larger Chabad articles they act in defiance of WP:OWN TO OTHER NON-CHABAD JUDAIC EDITORS (and not to "Xians" and Buddhists) and fight THEIR SUPPOSED FELLOW JUDAIC CO-EDITORS, albeit not being Chabadniks, harder than they would fight "Xians" and Buddhists to keep the pro-Chabad POV party line in articles often eliminating excellent points BY OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS, OFTEN AS OBVIOUSLY ORTHODOX AS THEY ARE, by resorting to defending their articles in packs, thus wearing down and tiring out the others resulting in the ongoing hegemony over the Chabad articles by the Chabad editors ONLY, again in violation of WP:OWN. IZAK (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule. On wikipedia I strive to follow the rules, and that is what matters. I want to improve wikipedia through creating quality articles and editing existing ones, and that is what I have done, with Hashem's help. These articles are generally related to Judaism, because I have no knowledge or interest in writing articles about Islam or any other religion, being that I don't belong to them. I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh. Whatever.
2. Conversely, Izak has made it clear that he identifies as an Orthodox Jew (which of course I respect). Perhaps someone who doesn't identify himself as such may now come and accuse Izak of being unfit to edit any Judaism-related article, because he is coming with the POV of Orthodox Judaism (which is by the way a world-view that according to all halachic opinions require a Jew to convince other Jews to accept it--as per the mitzvah of hocheiach tochiach es amisecho)? Most world views have a certain degree of "we want others to believe as we do". Big deal. And many wikipedia editors are not ashamed about mentioning their world-views, Izak included. For example, there are very pro-Islam/arab and very pro-Israel editors on wikipedia. Does the fact that they clearly hold something personally, hence the nature of their edits, disqualify them from editing? I think not.
3. As for making lots of edits on one general topic (I'm not aware of a rule against this, but whatever), perhaps we will accuse Izak of that, since he clearly has a preference for editing Judaism related articles over Islam-related ones? I might also add that over the years I have edited many non-Chabad related Judaism articles.
4. In any case, if someone believes that a particular edit of mine is incorrect or one-sided, they are welcome to quote counter-sources to promote balance (may I point out that I even added a whole controversy section to the Public Menorah article in order to create balance there). If they believe I have erred in counting a subject as a separate article, they are welcome to argue for that position. But this has turned into not just harassment, but nothing short of a witch-hunt.
5. What is most outrageous is Izak claiming that he has no personal agenda against Chabad, when in the recent Public Menorah afd he repeatedly used the most derogatory POV, uncivil language against Chabad and against the Lubavitcher Rebbe, accusing him of a "drive for hegemony", calling his directives "diktats" (interestingly, he considers similar language inappropriate when referring to rabbis in general [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IZAK/archive_30#Why_is_the_Noahide_Campaign_less_part_of_outreach_than_Aliya.3F]: "By the way, real rabbis don't "dictate" -- a very bad word"), accusing his disciples of carrying out their Rebbe's directives "robotically and unthinkingly", dismissing the Lubavitcher Rebbe's call for Public menorahs as invalid and incorrect, and therefore not worthy of inclusion, because many rabbis disagreed with it, and declaring that Public menorahs "really have nothing to do with menorahs as such but are aimed at furthering the Chabad world view upon everyone", and more. All of this was completely irrelevant to the discussion there, which was about the notability of Public Menorahs, and the most blatant violations of WP:NPOV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and especially WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Above Izak also violates WP:OUTING by posting personal information about me from a search engine, info. which I did not post on wikipedia.
6. Oh, and RK also reveals his anti-Chabad POV agenda himself right here: "I have made financial donations to three different Chabad houses over the last twenty years. The sad thing is that they have become radicalized, created an us-versus-them worldview, and started trying to force their views on others." But please, let RK adduce proof for the outrageous claims he makes against me, which clearly violate WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Yehoishophot Oliver's comments:

1. You contradict yourself by saying that on one hand "I do not hide my Chabad identity online, and I choose not to go by a pseudonym on wikipedia, and I don't see that this violates any rule" but on the other hand it's "outing" you to call you and KNOW you by your real online name which is also your Wikipedia name that you don't even attempt to hide, even when Emailing back and forth you use your name. Totally illogical. You are being facetious when you write "I guess I have a COI because I'm Jewish, huh" -- nope, because it's not the point, the point is that we are discussing your editorship and spread of a specific pro-Chabad ideology writing articles and defending pro-Chabad POV positions when other editors seek to insert or debate many of the issues that you and your allies stonewall.
2. I have NOT identified myself as an Orthodox Jew or as any kind of Jew on Wikipedia at any time, but I have pointed out that YOU and your allies do not co-operate EVEN with Orthodox editors, which is quite obvious from the way they have commented against your practices many times.
3. Sure, anyone can freely edit any articles, kindly stop fuzzing up the issues. The main point of this complaint is that when it comes to the topic of Chabad you create too many POV forks and within Chabad articles you and your allies will not allow any view that diverges from standard pro-Chabad propaganda (and it is outright UN-encyclopedic propaganda) to be found on Chabad.org but not befitting Wikipedia to be acting as a surrogate mouthpiece for Chabad care of your editorial stewardship.
4. This is not a "witch hunt" and you are neither a witch nor a wizard, but like everyone else, and as pointed out by a few editors here already, as a Wikipedia editor you need to be restrained from creating articles on Wikipedia in the image of Chabad.org or that befits web sites like Beis Moshiach.org or Moshiach.net or Lubavitch.com or Lubavitch Networks.org or any of the literal thousands of pro-Chabad sites that no doubt somehow or other you and other pro-Chabad editors would like to see as the face of not just Wikipedia's Chabad articles but with links in all Judaic articles, and it's very funny you talk of welcoming others to edit along with the pro-Chabad editors which is like a bird trying to fly with a swarm of hornets as they buzz in when anyone they don't like tries to insert edits not to their liking. It can be proven from almost any of the multiple pro-Chabad pages on Wikipedia.
5. To repeat I have no agenda against Chabad. God bless them. But they have no automatic right to invade Wikipedia and assume that they WP:OWN every last shred of information that relates to them, their highly controversial movement that faces serious questions from all sides of the Jewish spectrum. Kindly note that none of the terminology I used is in any way unsuitable when talking about an aggressive and unyielding leader because Wikipedia biographies are NOT hagiography, so nothing I have stated thus far exceeds terms suitable for discussing powerful, almost frightening, and controversial figures.
6. What is wrong with any User saying that he made financial contributions to Chabad? It's very kind in fact. Like the donations Wikipedia asks for now on top of every page. We can go by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and praise that person's generosity instead of assuming that having analytical thoughts and the ability to think and dicuss things in a critical manner somehow negates that person's sterling qualities. Wikipedia does not require a pledge of allegiance to the Lubavitcher Rebbe or to any rabbi because Wikipedia is not a shtetel, nor is it a Chasidus, nor is it a yeshiva but rather it's an encyclopedia that requires that articles follow its well-established guidelines. No amount of WP:LAWYERING by Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs) and Zsero (talk · contribs) and other single minded pro-Chabad defenders can cover up or excuse the free ride they have enjoyed so far without anyone seriously challenging them and the other pro-Chabad WP:POVWARRIORs that they must fall in line with WP:CONSENSUS and not game the system to suit the aims of Chabad while undermining the over-all development of a more balanced and critical view of Chabad topics as well as other topics that they delve into. IZAK (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:IZAK's comments:

1. No, it’s outing to post personal information about me on Wikipedia, because aside from my name and location, I have not posted any personal information on Wikipedia. Nor did I reveal any personal information in any personal correspondence with you. Is there some reason I should attempt to hide my name? Others prefer to do so, I prefer not to. There is no rule against it.
2. I see. Well, on Wikipedia I have not identified myself as a Chabad chossid. And if you would identify yourself as an Orthodox Jew, would all your edits on Judaic articles then be automatically COI? I think not. Also, if you could quote some concrete examples about how I or others have not “cooperated” with other editors, or how other editors have “complained many times” against my edits (and I don’t mean ones I made when I first started on Wikipedia and didn’t yet know the ropes), instead of making unsupported claims, that would be helpful. It might just be that (gasp!) there was a legitimate difference of opinion. Oh, and as for cooperating, you might recall that until you started this witch-hunt, we WERE cooperating quite amicably together on non-Chabad Judaic articles. I recall no disagreements there at all, never mind total non-cooperation. Or is your memory so short?
3. As for starting articles that you consider inappropriate, some have been found unnecessary by other editors, and others haven’t. Each one may be discussed on its own merits. If there is a difference of opinion on the matter, the correct way to resolve it is through respectful discussion, not your current modus operandi. As for removing critical statements, please quote to me even one place that I or any of the other editors you point the finger at have deleted properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad.
4. Your language was and continues to involve personal attacks, incivility, and unashamed promotion of your personal hostile views. Note that on the Public Menorah afd page several other editors, including those who believed that the article deserved to be deleted, objected to your nasty tone. Please stick to discussion directly related to editing Wikipedia, and kindly refrain from using it as a forum to release your vitriol and promote your personal agenda. Thank you.
5. Obviously I wasn’t referring to RK’s donations, but to his POV statement after that expressing hostility to Chabad in general. But I am waiting for him (or you) to back up these absurd claims against me with extensive reference to the appropriate diffs. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yehoishophot Oliver:

1. Again, you admit that you do not hide your name anywhere and it's somehow "outing" you to know and address you for who and what you admit you are all the time. There is no "outing" someone who has already outed themselves by providng their true ID on Wikipedia and forgoing anonymity thereby, unless you claim that you are not "Yehoishophot Oliver" but an imposter impersonating you in violation of WP:HOAX. Like saying anyone and everyone can and does know who I am, just don't mention it in this COI discussion.
2. The issue is NOT if you are a Chabad chosid or what my beliefs are. God bless you in your personal life and personal beliefs, and long live Chabad! That being said, like a lechaim, the central problem at hand in this COI complaint is that you, assisted by and with other pro-Chabad POV editors, obvious from their edit history and comments, the pro-Chabad POV editors violate WP:OWN and act as if you have the sole "power" and "authority" to shape and control the contents and edits of articles relating to Chabad topics in a WP:POV fashion as if the articles emanate from Chabad.org and act in violation of WP:OWN; WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING for the Chabad movement in a dispassionate and unemotional manner. Your reactions right now are proof of the emotionalism and personalising of responses rather than discuss the real issue of your near-absolute control of the Chabad topics on Wikipedia.
3. You well know that Chabad fights hard to control any voices against it and that so-called "properly-sourced statements critical of Chabad" are hard to come by, but they do exist. Nevertheless I invite you to look at the edit histories of just three serious topics most hateful to the pro-Chabd POV editors: Rabbi Elazar Shach and Chabad messianism and Barry Gurary and you will see how they function to undercut even known and sourced valid criticisms.
4. Indeed, I feel as strongly about my views as you do about yours, but I do not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE. I also feel a strong responsiblity towards the direction and fate of ALL the Judaic articles on Wikipedia proven by my pretty good record of good faith editing over seven years. I have never been questioned about my fairness as an editor, the compalainst against me is that I am too vocal in fighting antisemitism as I tend to be frank and not hide my agendas.
5. At this time the AfD's dealing with the multiple needless Chabad POV forks will speak for themselves, with more information to follow as required: (1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tefillin campaign; (2) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter in the Sefer Torah campaign; (3) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noahide Campaign; (4) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper Midwest Merkos - Lubavitch House (2nd nomination)=2009 December 24; (5) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of South London. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak:

1. Yes, I don't hide my name, but as I understood it, the outing rule prohibits drawing attention to a person's personal life if it is not promoted on wikipedia.
2. You need to point to specific diffs to prove your claim; I'm not about to read through an entire history of an article. Note also that I've barely edited those articles, so perhaps address your challenges against those whom you feel have violated the rules you mention, not me.
3. Yes, there are some articles whose independent merit is being debated. So what? Keep the discussion on the relevant talk/afd pages.
4. I can't comment on your work on other articles in general and the fairness or lack thereof; however, much of the work that I've encountered I greatly respect, as I've mentioned. But you have clearly violated numerous rules when it comes to commenting on Chabad-related articles. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To Yehoishophot Oliver: I do not wish to repeat myself and run around in circles. I will respond to new comments but not to self-repetition. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, those are exactly my sentiments. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Debresser

I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi. Likewise I have a POV towards Jewish points of view in general. And a whole lot of other POV's. I guess just like anybody. Nevertheless I try, and I think with success, to remain more or less objective. I can show edits that clearly prove I am doing a very good job at that. Including in the cases mentioned/alluded to above. Obviously, as any Wikipedian editor in good standing, I would have no problem with a third-party assessment of my behavior in this issue (or any other issue connected with my behavior on Wikipedia). Debresser (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• User Debresser's comments are to be welcomed, but it's too little too late, and the reasons are to be found in his words. Does it mean because Chabad has thousands of rabbis who have their own Chabad websites and blogs and who are streaming to Wikipedia in greater numbers as the days, weeks, and months fly by, that Wikipedia will have to bow in submission to the "greater wisdom" and resounding presence of thousands of Chabad rabbis who will think in unison and will in effect by SHEER NUMBERS unite to crush Wikipedia's independence, control every letter that's written about Chabad on it, and wage into areas about Judaic and Israeli-related topics that no one will be able to withstand as they declare "I am a Chabad rabbi"? This will be a sad and sorry state of affairs and the END of Wikipedia as it has been known until now. That is why it is important for other Wikipedians to be made aware of this very real threat to Wikipedia's independnce unless guidelines and restraints are set up to enforce total neutrality and ensure that not even Chabad topics can be WP:OWNED by Chabad rabbis, no matter how many show up and declare their authority as such. IZAK (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • You list 3 editors whom you consider pro-chabad, and then start raving in the most derogatory terms about how thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia. This is wild hysteria. Please stop using wikipedia as a forum to promote your personal agenda; thank you. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It's more than a mere three pro-Chabad POV editors, and you know it, such as Users Shlomke (talk · contribs); PinchasC (talk · contribs); Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs), and many who pop in and out, and they work hard together over time to ensure that a cordon sanitaire to their liking is placed around ANY Chabad-related topics. It's not "raving" to point out this growing pattern and projection of things to come if left unregulated. No one is saying that "thousands of Chabad editors are taking over wikipedia" but what I am saying is that if the presnet TREND contnues it will becom impossible for a non-Chabad editor to make meanigful contributions to Chabad and non-Chabad topics due to the constant unified stonealling by the pro-Chabad POV editors. IZAK (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • PinchasC (talk · contribs) and Chocolatepizza (talk · contribs) haven't been around for years. Until fairly recently, I've also been quite inactive. Sholomk is active, true. So you have a grand total of four. Hardly the mass conspiracy campaign that you paint. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
        • PinchasC has been around during 2009 and Chocolatepizza was an important pro-Chabad editor as part of a strong ongoing pattern that has continued as one editor retires another takes up the baton, which is part of the problem here as they all do the same thing. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Once again Izak is alleging some sort of vast conspiracy. He really needs to be sanctioned for this. -- Zsero (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
            • No "vast conspiracy" -- then again, your best "defense" is offense -- just noting the obvious on the record editorial patterns. We can go through each and every Chabad article and see what comes of it if you like. There are also many pro-Chabad editors who make plenty of edits anonymously from just IP addresses hoping not to get noticed or cited for pushing the party line. That too is part of this problem. IZAK (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
              • I haven't seen any edits from PinchasC. So you disagreed with CP--so what? Again, your claims are wildly exaggerated. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside editor's comment

I'm not affiliated in any way with Judaism in real life, or with Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. I have no "side" in this dispute. I do frequent the COI noticeboard, though, and I've seen many complaints and resolutions come and go.

IZAK, it is very rare that Wikipedia considers it a COI for an editor to edit articles related to that editor's religion. Doing so comes close to discrimination and would be pretty much impossible to police. Similar broad connections, such as a person's gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, political beliefs, or nationality are also not considered proper bases for COI complaints.

You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online", and runs five blogs. Does he attempt to promote any of those blogs or any web sites or organizations he is directly tied to? Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them.

It's very possible that he has violated our neutral point of view policy in his edits and in articles he has created. That is separate from a COI, however, and there is a different noticeboard for lodging such complaints.

So to wrap up, unless there are clear conflicts of interest such as I'd asked about, I'd say that this particular complaint about a COI is baseless. We don't discriminate based on religion, or as has been pointed out to you already, you'd be in violation yourself. -- Atama頭 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Atama: To address your points:

1. This is NOT a complaint "related to that editor's religion" because obviously he and everyone is free to have their religion. It's more subtle and complex than that, and easy for an outsider to miss the nuances and reality at work. This is a COI complaint about an editor and his allies admission to editing and controlling articles about Chabad-related topics on Wikipedia that reveals a pattern of promoting and defending a party line LIKE they were spokesman for Chabad, which they are in real life, on Wikipedia to make it adhere to the Chabad view and not to many Wikipedia policies, NPOV being one of them, but others being violated are WP:OWN; WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:POVFORK to promote a flow of pro-Chabad articles as if Wikipedia were a reverse WP:MIRROR of other online Chabad web sites and blogs. This is a clear conflict of interest between their own admitted roles in real life as Chabad propagandists (in the positive sense) and their work as Wikipedia editors of Chabad articles on Wikipedia.
2. Indeed, as you assert, "Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman" for the Chabad movement on the Internet (to be specific), and as proof, as you recognize, "runs five blogs" at least that promote Chabad full force. While he does not "attempt to promote any of those blogs" of his own, he does promote the MESSAGE of those blogs and that of "web sites or organizations he is directly tied to" by his strong connections to Chabad, and therefore: I agree with you that "Doing so would certainly be a COI because he is directly connected to them" [Chabad being a vast online effort as well].
3. The issue of violating WP:NPOV is not the bone of contention at all. It is more subtle than that because the main problem is he and his pro-Chabad POV editors create a stranglehold, utilizing refined editorial skills and the rules of Wikipedia as tools and shields to wage their Mitzvah Campaign to push Chabad and pro-Chabad links in articles and edits AS IF attempting to turn Wikipedia's articles and Chabad-related articles and links into the same thing they do online at Chabad blogs, websites and social networking online. Feel free to request further clarification. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've said that Yehoishophot Oliver is a spokesman for "Chabad online"

You misparsed that; Izak's claim was not that Yehoishophot is a spokesman for an entity called "Chabad online", but that he has been cited online as a spokesman for the Chabad movement. That claim is false, and the "evidence" he cites for it is absurd, but it doesn't go as far as you thought it did. -- Zsero (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but perhaps this is too subtle and complex for any action to be taken. You've pretty much confirmed here that Yehoishophot Oliver has been doing a good job avoiding conflicts of interest by avoiding promotion of anything that he is directly connected with (those 5 blogs would be a clear COI). You haven't given any other specific complaints, only a general idea that he's trying to promote a pro-Chamal POV alongside numerous other editors.

It seems to me that you're not really making a COI complaint here. You're trying to raise the alarm that a concerted effort by a religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia. That's not without precedent, see this arbitration case regarding something similar that occurred with Scientology. However, notice that the Scientology problem lasted for years, involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization (rather than people editing on behalf of their own beliefs) and the case took 6 months to close (and was the 4th arbitration case on Scientology, and probably won't be the last!). If your allegations are true (and again, you don't have any diffs to back them up) it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them. -- Atama頭 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama:

1. If this is too subtle for you then you should perhaps recuse yourself from this discussion because this is a long-brewing issue that cannot be short-ended with simplistic solutions, and it requires utmost attention to details and a requirement to be WP:BOLD in confronting this huge COI problem.
2. If, as you state, a "religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia" then if that movement's representatives (one has admitted to being an official rabbi of it, and the other is also a rabbi that runs blogs to promote it) then it is a clear-cut issue of COI when they set about to promote their cause in POV fashion when Wikipedia requires absolute allegiance to WP:NPOV, even when POV-foisting is done by subterfuge it must be exposed and fought. Making matters worse, when a "religious movement is trying to change Wikipedia" and then fights to protect its articles in violation of WP:OWN EVEN TO OTHER JUDAIC EDITORS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING, and flaunt themselves openly in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING for Chabad, then the problem of COI is multiplied and not "reduced" in any way.
3. The example you cite of the Scientologists' attempts to undermine and control Wikipedia's articles about them is the PERFECT analogy to what has also been going on for years with the pro-Chabad POV editors, and citing them for COI violations is as good a place as any to start because they are guilty of that and a lot more if you go through each one's edit history you will find manipulation, intimidation, editing, censoring, propagandizing and basically functioning as a law unto themsleves and if you call them on it they will resort to all manner of WP:NPA certainly no WP:AGF and all the silliness of utilizing WP:LAWYERing as much as they can as you see them doing it now.
4. The pro-Chabad POV editors, like the Scientologists, are, to use your exact words "involved people who edited directly on behalf of an organization" and they are NOT "people editing on behalf of their own beliefs" alone, because one is a self-admitted Chabad rabbi (Debresser) and the other is also another rabbi (Yehoishophot Oliver) who spends his time online doing what he does on Wikipedia, push the pro-Chabad POV. This is as clear as daylight.
5. I have now provided you with the diffs (below and above) and even though, as you state: "it will take a lot more than a COI noticeboard complaint before anything is done about them" it is no reason to back off, but on the contrary this is an excellent point to start what will be a longer process of not allowing pro-Chabad POV editors from hijacking not just the ever-growing Chabad-related topics but many of the Judaic and Israeli-related topics. IZAK (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel any need to recuse myself, but I think it's pretty clear to all involved that there is no COI here. I've gone through a number of diffs you cited, and while many of your descriptions of those diffs misleadingly suggest a problem, I don't see anything alarming. Frankly, as this continues the only concerns I have are regarding your motives. It would probably be in your best interest to drop this. As DGG said below, there's nothing here that the usual Wikipedia processes involving an adherence to a neutral POV can't handle. -- Atama頭 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To Atama:

1. Evidently what is "obvious" to you is NOT "obvious" to every other non-Chabad editor who has commented on this COI situation so far, and this discussion is only TWO days old.
2. This is a very serious matter. Please do it all due justice by reading every single one of the diffs, not just a few, since it was you who requested them and I went to the trouble of researching and posting them. Please be specific and point out how you arrive at your conclusions about them if as you have already admited at the outset you do not understand the nuances of the subject that's being discussed.
3. Obviously what we have so far is four pro-Chabad POV warriors (Users Yehoishophot Oliver (talk · contribs): Zsero (talk · contribs); Debresser (talk · contribs); Shlomke (talk · contribs)) who are the core group at the heart of this now unmasked COI issue (it's not a "conspiracy" by them, it's their direct policy) at the present time, and they are calling anyone who does not agree with them all sorts of crazy names (in the negative spirit of shooting the messenger), and pushing to have the discussion cut off even though it's about a mere 48 hours old only, and on the other hand a growing group of non-Chabad editors, many very familiar with Judaic issues who are voicing their own independent opinions (not guided by any groupthink of any sort) in agreement with my very real concerns noting the huge COI and other related problems with the pro-Chabad POV editors who have stated their views thus far with NONE agreeing with your and the pro-Chabad POV editors assessments in any way, namely Users RK (talk · contribs); Joe407 (talk · contribs); Yoninah (talk · contribs); Jmabel (talk · contribs); Redaktor (talk · contribs) and diplomatic instructions to the pro-Chabad editors from DGG (talk · contribs) and SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) and there will no doubt be more who join in. And this after only two days of discussion, so your rush to judgment is entirely unwarranted.
4. I have repeatedly quoted your own criteria to you and they match the problem at hand.
5. The sum is greater than the parts, and it is from the totality of the mostly censorial pro-Chabad POV edits by Yehoishophot Oliver and the three others, all of which are meant to undercut accepted critical thinking about Chabad or any aspect of Judaism and related topics, much of it sourced from the standard views not based on Chabad ideology, as revealed by the diffs cited that prove beyond a doubt the pro-Chabad POV direction and intent of Yehoishophot Oliver. If it were one or two edits like that then sure, no problem maybe, but if it's a huge trend with no exceptions, and judged so by many other editors who know these subjects to be so too, then it's a huge problem, and it will only get worse and not better with unfortunate results for Wikipedia that will come to look like a "reverse WP:MIRROR site" for Chabad.org and the hundreds of online pro-Chabad websites and blogs.
6. It is only the pro-Chabad POV editors who question my motives, while none of the non-Chabad editors have any questions about my motives as such. Perhaps they may find that I am being somewhat alarmist (in my view it's important as a "pro- Wikipedia whistleblower), and you DO overlook the views of the non-Chabad editors and even the important core of DGG's message directed at his concerns about the pro-Chabad editing, they agree that unless corrected, the way the pro-Chabad editors are going about their business on Wikipedia it's in a COI with their specific allegiance to the Chabad movement ONLY, not just to Judaism in general, and has nothing to do with their own personal religious beliefs as such to which I or anyone else have no objections whatsoever. As I said, and I say it again, God bless them ande God bless Chabad, but that being said, it does not give them "automatic rights" to swing and push the pro-Chabad POV in all articles they touch in violation of WP:COI and more. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response by Shlomke

I find User:Yehoishophot Oliver to be a very good and dedicated editor who spends much time on general Judaic articles improving them, assuring that they hold a NPOV. He also has collaborated successfully with other editor's including User:IZAK and others on general Judaic topics. I find him to generally be a an editor who follows WP rules. At issue is whether he has a conflict of interest on Chabad topics, which is what Izak accuses him of. I have asked Izak to provide examples with diffs. Izak violates WP:OUTING by attempting to reveal personal information about Yehoishophot Oliver, which may or may not be true. It is very funny how Izak arrived at the conclusion the Yehoishophot Oliver is a "spokesman" for Chabad-Lubavitch. This is patent nonsense. I think it is absolutely important, and very valuable to Wikipedia to have editors knowledgeable in Chabad Hasidism which is a movement that some put their numbers at 200,000. To have a rabbi like User:Debresser says he is is an advantage to Wikipedia. There are currently very few editors with good knowledge of Chabad, and it would not hurt to have a few more. Izak seems to think there is some conspiracy to make Wikipedia look like Chabad.org. There is no such conspiracy. In fact there are two huge articles critical of Chabad on WP, Chabad messianism and Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies which is posted on the Template:Chabad that goes on every Chabad related article. There is no need for additional action outside of the proactive WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It is indeed interesting how as soon as I asked Izak for diffs he added me to the "assisted by" section above which he did to User:Zsero as well. I personally don't take offense to it, but it seems it might be an effort to disqualify our responses. Shlomke (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not had any experience with the Chabad editors' edit warring of which IZAK speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it. But I am aware of the pro-Chabad, PR-style (rather than encyclopedia-style) articles that Yehoishophot Oliver has posted. Like many articles, the fact that they have no references other than the Rebbe's sichot earns them an "unreferenced" tag, no more and no less. The fact that no one has bothered to add references to them since they were posted two years ago is also not surprising, considering the volume of pages on the English Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia encourages people who know something about the subject to write articles, I don't think it's fair to censor Yehoishophot Oliver, but I do think he should be reminded to reread Wikipedia:Reliable sources and be held to the standard of all "unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Since when are the Rebbe's sichos not a reference? An article with only such references may be tagged as Singlesource, but certainly not as Unreferenced. Such material may not be removed. -- Zsero (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, Zsero. Maybe I was misreading WP:Reliable sources:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

The articles which IZAK cited above as having been written by Yehoishophot Oliver are all based on the primary source. For that matter, Oliver could go ahead and parlay all the Rebbe's sichot into Wikipedia articles. I was just saying that he should also try to find third-party sources (e.g. internet and newspaper articles) to make it look less like PR and more like an encyclopedia.

I, too, have started articles. But I do not put them up with one, primary source. I try to back up the page with many sources from the start so that readers will see the whole picture up-front. Yoninah (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable, provided that they are used for no more than what they actually say, not for analysis. Secondary sources are needed for analysis of what the primary sources mean. If someone claims the LR took a particular position, then he can only cite a sicha if it explicitly makes that point, not if it only implies it.

2. However, that is only for claims that the LR said something or held something. For topics beyond that, the LR's sichos are a valid secondary source, and his analysis of the primary sources he quotes is 100% citable on WP. For instance, on the shape of the temple menorah, the LR's sicha is the most important secondary source on what the rishonim had to say about it. -- Zsero (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the specific issues, but just a point about primary sources: they may be used as sources, with caution, but articles should not be based on them, because primary sources do not show notability. Secondary sources are needed to show that the article should exist in the first place. Secondary sources are also usually needed to show that the specific points made in the article are worth making, and that the article's thrust isn't simply a Wikipedian's opinion. Articles about religious figures or religious issues that are based largely or entirely on primary sources would almost certainly be a violation of our content policies, specifically WP:NOR, WP:V, and probably WP:NPOV. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yoninah: Thanks for your observations. You ask about the "Chabad editors' edit warring of which IZAK speaks, and I would like to see some examples (diffs) in order to comment on it." So in answer to your questions take a look at the edit warring at these articles: Rabbi Elazar Shach and Chabad messianism and Barry Gurary. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

1) That's a grand total of 3 articles; hardly the mass conspiracy that you point; 2) you have yet to cite diffs to prove my role in these articles (not that I would have a problem editing them, and if I would I would strive to be fair and follow the rules, but I don't recall extensively editing them, so that makes your allegations against me all the more unsubstantiated. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll address the edit war topic, although it's not relevant to any COI complaints.

• Elazar Shach - This seems to mostly be a slow-burning conflict between a single IP editor in New York City and a couple of registered editors (209.155.49.X, 129.98.211.X, 98.116.27.151 all geolocate to NYC). Nothing alarming and there hasn't really been much discussion for the article for years.
• Chabad messianism - The biggest editing conflict I see is between Zsero and Debresser back in September, and these are people you allege to have ganged together as part of some religious movement, so this actually works against your claims.
• Barry Gurary - The only alarming thing I see in the edit history here was this blatant POV violation which was rightfully reverted. Aside from that, this article which you allege to be defended by a pro-Chabad group has had a total of 5 edits in the past year.

Again, I see nothing that supports a major conspiracy at work here. When asked to provide diffs, you point to article histories and expect people to dig through them. That's not going to sway anyone. -- Atama頭 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Atama: Here are strong examples of diffs from edits by Yehoishophot Oliver protecting the Chabad POV on Wikipedia as if it were a pro-Chabad blog: attacking Dershowitz; canard against other Jewish groups inserted; sanitizing criticism of Rebbe; removing criticism; taking control of a concept; defending Chabad messianism; added pro-Rebbe BLOG to take over this term; sanitizing anti-Messianist comments; promoting notion of Rebbe as moshiach; sanitized comments about 6th rebbe; cutting out connection of singer Matisyahu to Chabad; purifying Chabad by removing controversial connection; devalued an opposition rival group by renaming them; removes important info about messianists; and again fights content about Chabad messianism; covers up sourced messianist practices; removed sourced comments about infighting with messianists; removed fair and known criticism of Chabad; plays with words as if it changes anything; sanitizes messianic message; cuts out important history of other successor rebbe; sanitizes comments about messianism; insists on having Chabad.org as a key reference; sanitizes a bio; inserts lengthy quotes from own POV sources; removes valid section about Lurianic kabbalah and messianism; sanitizes messianist; removes well-known and sourced views opposing Chabad; turning Jewish law into part mysticism; removes well-known non-Chabad rabbis from list; cuts ties with Israeli holidays per Chabad outlook, as well as here and here; self-glorification of Chabad; downplays other leader's strengths; voices anti-Zionism, a true Chabad policy; fights for pro-Noahide Chabad view; expresses extreme anti-Zionist views as per Chabad party line; removed valid sourced information about messianist disputes over replicas of 770; makes Chabad into the center of Chasidism; greatness of Chabad over all other Chasidim; removes important info he doesn't like about Hasidim; claims title of "Rav" for Lubavicther Rebbe; reports about schisms of others (while he edited out info about Chabad schisms in other articles); fights against Barry Gurary, a favorite Chabad bogey man; sanitizes the Rebbe's seclusion after death of his wife. There are many more examples of COI pro-Chabad POV editing in many directions by Yehoishophot Oliver, but this should be more than enough proof of this user's inability to see anything except through the rosy lenses of the official Chabad party line. IZAK (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak (I tried to address them all; please tell me if I missed one):

• I stand by that edit; Dershowitz is no expert on religion, as is clear from the article about him.
• Izak is right that I failed to source that; I thank him for pointing that out; I’ll add a source shortly.
• I corrected POV language; no apologies for that.
• I reverted an unsupported, OR claim.
• Again, I reverted an unsupported claim.
• Yet again, I reverted an unsupported OR claim.
• I added a blog link that cites relevant sources not generally available.
• Indeed, the source cited did not mention the messianist claim, so I removed those words.
• So by removing the blatant OR that says that the Rebbe’s actions must not be interpreted, and by stating the simple fact that he physically encouraged the singing, I’m promoting messianism. Got it.
• I removed unsourced OR.
• Huh? Matisyahu himself declared that he no longer identifies himself as a follower of Chabad, as it says in the article, so why should he be in the cat of Chabad chassidim?!
• I censored?? The article continues to describe him as a descendant of the Shneurson dynasty. All I did was remove him from the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidim cat, when no proof was given that he identified himself so. Lineage does not make a Hasidic identity.
• It’s not a dynasty, doesn’t claim to be, and thus shouldn’t be listed as one!
• Removed unsourced slander.
• Ditto.
• Removed outrageous, totally unsourced allegation of practice.
• I consider that site unreliable, and at least a “this may be POV warning” is in order; if he has reason to think otherwise, let him say so.
• Removed blatant POV and OR.
• Remove blatant distortion; there is a clear diff between incitement to murder, as the article implies, and a call for state execution.
• A simple copyedit.
• Removed quote about brief incident totally not notable.
• Removed OR.
• Fixed existing link (not inserted by me!) to legit relevant site.
• Removed detail unnecessary in intro.; removed OR.
• Replaced (not inserted!) direct quote from relevant source after reversion.
• Huh? Can Izak read? I didn’t remove it; I moved it to a more logical place in the article! This was a simple copyedit.
• A simple copyedit, removing POV. Whether “messianism” is “fringe” or not is a matter of POV.
• Removed blatant OR starting with “It is interesting to note”.
• What?! Does Izak have any knowledge of this subject matter? Has he ever studied halachic works?? They cite kabbalistic works regularly, at least as secondary sources. There is nothing controversial about this edit.
• I removed them from the list because they didn’t qualify for it, and no one disagreed with me. The fact that they are not Chabad has nothing to do with it.
• Israeli government public holidays legislated by secular politicians being separate from traditional Orthodox Jewish holidays ordained by rabbis of old has nothing at all to do with Chabad. It’s a POV misrepresentation of Judaism.
• This is not “glorification”, it is documented fact, though i admit that the word “self-sacrifice” would have been replaced with 8 something like “personal risk to life”.
• I just made the article sound less hagiographic, but I guess only Chabad articles can’t be hagiographic-sounding in Izak’s book.
• I removed a POV image that promotes Zionism. Lack of subscription to Zionism and belief that it has somehow replaced Torah is not specific to Chabad by any means; it is held by the entire Chareidi world, many of whom are far more anti-Zionist than Chabad—as Izak well knows.
• In no way was it proven that the Noahidism article was controversial, so I removed the controversy cat.
• Removed blatant OR about hatikvah, and falsehood about Jewish history.
• The information was sourced but not relevant, as discussed on talk page there.
• I explained the approach of Chabad as relevant in context. If Izak thinks the explanation wasn’t factually correct, could he please say why.
• Ditto.
• Removed?! Did Izak even read that edit?? I RESTORED the anti-zionism information about chassidism! But let’s say he had seen that I had restored it, Izak would have said: "You’re promoting anti-Zionism!" In Izak’s book I’m damned if I do, damned if I don’t.
• Again, Izak didn’t even read the edit!! In my edit I don’t claim any title for anyone; I simply refer to a notable campaign relevant to the article.
• Added sourced, relevant information.
• I should have sourced that, but in my defence, I had only recently started editing and was not yet au fait with the rule about sourcing. Don’t bite the newcomers!
• Removed false, unsourced OR.

In almost all these edits I have clearly explained my reasoning, and the reasoning behind them as per the WP rules should be apparent to Izak himself. What they show is one thing: I am actually reasonably familiar with the subject I am writing/editing about. I know what’s sourced fact and what’s spin and OR. I have removed lots of OR, and I intend to continue to do so. In the vast majority of the examples above, Izak has blatantly promoted his POV. In many he has blatantly, clearly intentionally, distorted the meaning of my edit and ignored the reasoning behind it. In others he has misunderstood it. In still others he has clearly not even bothered to read it properly in context. In all of them he has violated WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If Izak takes issue with any of these edits, he should mention it on the appropriate talk page politely.

Finally, I notice that Izak has a distinct preference for the Jewish POV over, let’s say, the Chrisitan or Muslim one. I also note that he has a distinct preference for the Othodox Jewish POV over the Reform or Conservative one. I haven’t seen him posting lots of references to Chrisitan or Muslim sources on pages that discuss all those religions in order to create balance. Likewise, I haven’t seen him refer to Reform or Conservative sources on pages in which it might be more encyclopaedic to do so in order to create balance. Likewise, he has argued for positions that conform with Orhodox Judaism, such as most notably in recent months, his lengthy debate here with Newman Luke. Does this make him an Orthodox Jewish POVWarrior who deserves to be censured and blacklisted? I think not. I deserve the same respect when it comes to my Chabad-related edits. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To Yehoishophot Oliver: Just some reactions:

1. If you, as is now clear, have a single-minded goal to edit at will and remove what YOU regard as "OR" or whatnot across the board as if you were the final authority on Judaic subjects, you need to work and include other Judaic editors by taking your proposed taking out or rewording of masses of material to one or all of the talk pages of those articles, talk pages of editors who have worked on those pages and to WP:TALKJUDAISM.
2. You have conducted such a thorough job of editing those articles ONLY in a pro-Chabad POV manner that you have inflicted great harm on the diversity of views in those articles in a way that ONLY helps the official Chabad party line, and that is precisely the violation of WP:COI I am addressing here.
3. What are you saying, that I or anyone should post Christian and Muslim references in Judaic topics, how absurd is that! Should Jewish views be posted in secular or Buddhist etc articles? Stop this WP:NONSENSE please.
4. This is not just a "competition" of how many sources and sites one can add, that displays your modus operandi, but there is the important aspect of NOT REMOVING material that you disagree with, and that is central to the problem I am raising, because whenever you find material that does not agree with the pro-Chabad POV you right away remove it on tendentious grounds (citing your "credential" as an "athority") and one can always find all sorts of reasons to take out material, especially that with which you disagree, rather than go search for sources to back it up what you find against your views. So you play the game both ways, you don't bother researching for sources for the material you don't like, while you insert all the handy pro-Chabad links and material that you have at your fingertips that you do like. Now that is not fair scholarship or editing, it is promoting a certain specfic point of view while chopping out in any way possible views that you are opposed to because it does not adhere to the official pro-Chabad party line.
5. The old discussion with Newman Luke had NOTHING to do with Orthodox Judaism, simply because Newman Luke was inserting Christian and secular POV's that had nothing to do with Judaism, period.
6. No one wants to "blacklist" you or your admitted pro-Chabad editors in any way here, but what is being requested is that you NOT function as official subsidiaries of the official Chabad movement on Wikipedia and stop treating any other editors, especially all the non-Chabad editors who disagree with you, as "enemies of the state" and question their motives, as if Wikipedia has now "officially" merged with Chabad.org (WHICH IT HAS NOT AND NEVER WILL) based on your ability to cleverly cite WP policies simply because they request fairness in articles, and pray for the time when the pro-Chabad editors work towards WP:CONSENSUS.
7. Your Chabad related edits are not sacrosanct and you cannot expect anyone to be worshipful of them and of you, as you call other obviously knowledgeable non-Chabad Judaic editors "ignorant" or "uneducated" enough of the subject, while you violate WP:OWN in that regard.
8. Your late in the day comments in response to the many aggressive pro-Chabad edits in the diffs that I have pointed out here disprove your claim that you are only "innocently" enforcing WP policies, while it's obvious when you ADD THEM ALL UP, that you are waging a campaign to bring as many articles as you humanly can into line with just one ideology, the official pro-Chabad one, which is what this WP:COI is all about in the first place. IZAK (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Izak:

1. It’s not clear at all. Actually, it is YOU have the single-minded goal to delegitimize me and those whose POV you disagree with. As for your diffs, almost all of them are blatantly intentionally distorted, as an admin has pointed out. Which is aside from the fact that I’ve been editing for some four years, during which I’ve made many, many more edits on Judaism-related topics that try as you might, you couldn’t find any problem with. As for working with other editors, when conflict has arisen, I’ve discussed the issues on the relevant talk pages (please point out cases in which you feel I haven’t). There’s no rule that one must make a comment on a talk page every time one makes an edit, as far as I know. Do you do that? And the vast majority of the time, no one has found any of my edits controversial and worthy of comment! And that’s for a very simple reason, which is that I was, in fact, following the rules. But if you disagree with any particular edit of mine, please feel free to say so on the relevant talk pages.
2. Exactly my sentiments concerning your edits of pages related to Orthodox Judaism, which you seem to have a single-minded goal to edit. Like I said, if you don’t like my edits, then argue each one on its merit. A clear reason was given each time.
3. There are many articles that contain the viewpoints of multiple religions on the topic of the article. You only seem interested in promoting the viewpoint of Judaism, particularly Orthodox Judaism. So that seems to make you an Orthodox Judaism POVwarrior. The same goes for your neglect to post sources from reform and the like in articles that discuss the viewpoint of Orthodox Judaism.
4. You can repeat yourself from today until tomorrow about what you deduce my personal views must be, or draw conclusions from other sources by violating WP:OUTING, but if I removed material that was clearly OR, POV, or whatever rule it violated (which is the case in almost all the edits you point out), I was clearly working to further the aims of Wikipedia. Your ad hominem accusations that I have some sort of sinister hidden agenda based on what you assume to be my personal affiliation are a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As for not researching material one doesn’t like, see 3) above.
5. But it’s mighty odd that your impassioned, unrelenting argument there just happened to conform exactly with Orthodox Judaism, the personal POV for which you’ve advocated throughout Wikipedia, no?
6. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. I don't recall questioning other editors’ motives unless they unashamedly displayed their motives through unacceptably hostile language or using talk and afd pages as a soapbox, as you have done. I don't recall doing either of these things, so I ask you to please stop questioning my motives.
7. On the specific topic of Chabad, or on any other topic, other editors may well be uneducated compared to me (just as in various other areas in which they may be familiar, I am less knowledgeable). If I have reason to say that others clearly know less and should not edit on topics with which they are not sufficiently familiar that require a certain amount of more specialized knowledge, I see no problem in saying so. This is done all the time all over Wikipedia, and I'm sure you've pointed this out to others on many occasions yourself.
8. Speaking of adding up, when we ADD UP all your diffs, we have 0+0+0+0=0. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Although it may not be a popular thing to say, but I feel it is by now justified to say that IZAK has embarkened on a crusade. I have no doubt about his good intentions, but I don't think this is good for Wikipedia. If he has a few isolated instances of POV edits, that is no reason to speak about a conspiracy, let alone embark on crusades. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, Debresser, the only "crusade" under review here is the COI one by the pro-Chabad editors who are on a free-wheeling Wikipedia Mitzvah Campaign, no two ways about it. There are probably even discussions and guidlelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Wikipedia as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the Internet. IZAK (talk) 00:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Man, you are obsessed with this conspiracy theory of yours. Take a break! As far as I am concerned, this post shows you are having some mental problem here, and I consider you now a disruptive editor. No offense intended, just a psychological assessment. You will undoubtebly see in this a further step in the complot, but that will not sway me from saying what I think is true. Debresser (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are outright violating WP:NPA with such disgusting comments. IZAK (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I appologise if you are offended (you must be). But I could not think of a nicer way to raise my sincere concern. When editors start talking about the FBI or other plots in "high echelons", while excessively accusing other editors of all kinds of things, and ignoring that objective other editors disagree with them, that means they are way out of line. I combined this with another viscious attack of yours on another page, and came to the conclusion that you are being irrational about this. Either you are blinded by some anti-Chabad sentiments, or you have a mental problem that keeps you from seeing things in perspective. Sorry, but that is my assessment. Debresser (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Izak's wildly exaggerated and paranoid choice of language (speculation about coordingating with "upper echelons" to "take over the internet"; "stranglehold"; "groupthink", etc., etc.) is reminiscent of anti-semitic tracts. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going off the rails somewhat. Referring to IZAK as having a mental problem, or as writing in language reminiscent of antisemitism, isn't appropriate. I'm not in a position to judge whether his report is justified, but perhaps in response to it, the editors who work in this area could exercise more caution in future to reassure him. Two things would help: (1) all the articles you create, and any arguably contentious points you make within articles, should be based largely on reliable, published secondary sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V, and (2) you could be extra careful not to overemphasize your own perspective or to remove other perspectives, per WP:NPOV. Those two steps might put IZAK's concerns to rest. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin: It's obvious that these people are incapable of mature and responsible discussions. Is it any wonder that many editors prefer hiding and slinking away under the proverbial mats and fear to confront them and their pro-Chabad POV campaign when these kind of futile tantrums and pointless rants will be the resul. It just proves they do not have the werewithall to think dispassionately, rationally and in a WP:NPOV manner because they are so determined to single-midedly defend their pro-Chabad ideology by not just violating WP:OWN in what they assume are "ther" Chabad articles on Wikipedia, but by questioning the mental stability and accuse of "antisemitism" those who object to their obvious POV WP:COI, and having run out of anything original, intelligent and mature or fesh to say they resort pathetic childish slurs. So be it, but with that kind of language and babyish attitude they only prove all the points I have been making about them all along. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be obvious from the time stamps on my edits that I am not an Orthodox jew of any sort, & I am not even sure of which of the two movements represented here I have greater personal sympathy with. . But I think there has clearly been an attempt to put many articles on Chabad rabbis and institutions into Wikipedia, just as editors many other groups have done likewise. As with other groups, some of these are possibly justified, but not on the evidence presented, and some of them are almost certainly unjustified altogether. Some of the articles on religious practices may be influenced by sectarian POV, some are even POV forks. But Wikipedia can deal with this without arousing resentments: the unsourced articles get sourced, the unjustified or unsourceable ones get deleted, the POV gets removed, the forks get merged back. All of this perfectly routine here. As has been said, there are enough Chabad supporters that there is no reason to think there will not be several editors working independently with the same viewpoint -- and the same goes for Modern Orthodox, I don't see it as a conspiracy. Everything above was perfectly open, and if there are more changes that need to be made or more articles deleted, we can do that. We will. Accusations such have been made here do not further this. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion by Jmabel

Just some remarks: I have not followed many of the articles in question, nor have I even read every word of what is above. I do, however, feel comfortable saying, from my experience in the world, that many (not all) people associated with Chabad-Lubavitch consider their own group and its actions disproportionately important relative to Jewish topics in general, and are very sure that they have the true version of Judaism, with respect to which every difference in belief or practice - especially practice - is a deviation. Given the well-known phenomenon of "five Jews, six opinions," that can lead to a lot of conflict with other Jews.

Chabad-Lubavitch is not a "religion". The religion is Judaism. Chabad-Lubavitch is a combination of a rabbinic lineage and an organization. While I think all Jews would consider Chabad-Lubavitch a legitimate current within contemporary Judaism, few but themselves think of them as the main stream even within Orthodoxy, although arguably they are now the most important current within Haredi Judaism (Hasidism). That makes them important, but when we find Wikipedia with 10 or 50 times as many articles about them as about, say, the Satmars, it suggests that something other than evenhandedness is afoot.

I would take issue with some of that. Lubavitch are certainly a significant stream within Orthodox Judaism, but they are by no means the most important current within either Haredi Judaism or Hasidism. (To be honest, some chasidim do not consider Lubavitch to be within mainstream chasidim at all.) What I do agree with is that the number of articles about Lubavitch is quite out of proportion with the number of articles on other areas of Judaism. This does begin to look like WP:PROMOTION ("…projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, … the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, [which] is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you).--Redaktor (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think that everyone should be careful about starting too many articles related to groups to which they have a close connection, especially if there is a track record of the community deciding to delete these articles. People should get a message when the community repeatedly decides that they are starting articles on topics that to not reach the level of encyclopedic notability (or splitting out aspects of articles in ways that others see as a POV fork). Beyond a certain point, persisting in that is uncollegial. If they don't get that message, then at some point sanctions are in order. I am making no comment on whether this matter has reached that point.

I'd also suggest that everyone working in an area in which there is disagreement try to use only material cited from reliable sources. It's really not that useful to write something unsourced and controversial in an encyclopedia article. Quite the contrary. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Joe407

Regarding Chabad, there is an improtant point that some of the general WP population may or may not be aware of. Within the Chabad community, there is a focused effort to spread their gospel (excuse the borrowed term). This is in light of the request by the last Chabad [[rebbe] who told his followers to actively spread Judaism. This is the basis for the existence of Chabad emmisaries (shlichim) around the world, on college campuses, and connected with many public venues. This is also the attitude taken with the online world (see Chabad.org lead).

I have no problem with the above and both study chabad torah and have worked with chabad houses in different parts of the world. I would like to point out that the COI here is about maintaining NPOV while writing about a website or business. If I understand correctly, the potential COI is between the general edict that chabad hassidim follow of "actively spreading" their persepctive as requested by the last Rebbe and the NPOV of... well.. everything!

IMHO, this means that a person who sees themselves as bound to the Rebbe's statment of "u'faratzta" (you shall spread out), should do their best to leave that sentiment aside when editing on Wikipedia. Joe407 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I or anyone else expressed such a POV, and it's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF of you and others to make this accusation of intent against other editors. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yossiea

I'm not going to go so far as Izak, but I do definitely see a pro-Chabad POV attempt in certain articles. It is one thing for someone to write with their own bias, that is understandable and when others see it they can discuss via the talk page and input their own "bias" and work on a neutral article. With many of the Chabad pushers it's not possible. In many cases, they believe that the Chabad way is the only way. In addition, it is quite understandable when an employee of an organization is on Wikipedia then that person should not be editing articles associated with that organization. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Myki

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

I (along with other editors, such as User:HiLo48) are concerned about User:Myki-insiders edits to myki. His username obviously links him to Myki and the user has never attempted to claim they are not afiliated with Myki, OneLink, Connex_Melbourne, Metro Trains Melbourne or the Victorian State Government. As another user pointed out here and here they're edits seem to be a little POV and they are quick to "reword" (read remove) any obvious criticism. Being such a controversial and 'angry public' kind of project, I think sporadic editing is best by someone who seemingly works for the subject of the article. — Deon^talk 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Particularly alarming diffs include this one. — Deon^talk 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Adamore

Seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an organization. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)