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:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Commvault Talk:CoStar Group Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Nigel Edwards (health) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:GoToGate Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grayscale Investments Talk:Greystar Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Camille Herron Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Huron Consulting Group Talk:Illa del Rei Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Jats Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Labcorp Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Leviton Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Netvibes Talk:Nexperia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Royal Match Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Robert D. Sack Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Simprints Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:The Student Room Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla

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.

Possible COI edits on the Viktor Rydberg article. Thread #2

The COI reported earlier in the Viktor Rydberg article has never been resolved. The editor who is controlling the article to promote his self-published paperbacks has responded to my request for mediation with an ad-hominem attack on the Talk page, including posting a link to my employer's web page. Is there any action that can be taken to protect the Rydberg article (and other editors) from this guy? He is now posting as "JacktheGiantKiller," instead of using multiple anonymous IPs. Is there another forum I should go to for assistance? Rsradford (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this matter should note that both parties allege COI, quite possibly correctly on both parts. Doc Tropics 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of clarification: the editor who has been controlling the Viktor Rydberg article has repeatedly promoted his vanity-press paperbacks in the article, where they are currently listed in the bibliography alongside the real books. OTOH, I have never, at any time, posted a link to my own article on Rydberg, specifically because I recognized it would violate Wikipedia's COI policy to do so. (Nor, of course, have I stalked and attacked other editors on the basis of their non-Wikipedia, RL employment.) Rsradford (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Rydberg suffers from having few English translations of his work. Reaves' translations of Rydberg are printed by a vanity press, but we are not relying on them for the truth of any matters of fact, so WP:SPS does not bite us here. I have no personal awareness of the quality of the Reaves translations, and some people consider those works of Rydberg on mythology to be silly, but that may be something we can allow our readers to sort out. A number of regular editors including User:Dbachmann have been making steady improvements on the article and they seem to be allowing the Reaves' translations to remain listed in the bibliography. There may no longer be a big problem to solve here. I left a note at User talk:Jack the Giant-Killer urging him to observe WP:CIVIL. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating. Although it seems odd for a Wikipedia article to list as references self-published "translations" by a person who can neither read nor write the original language of the texts, that is really a side issue. The problem is, to help convince Wikipedia readers to buy his books, Reaves has persistently violated NPOV by excising from the article all references to scholarship critical of Rydberg. This is the core issue, which no one will be able to address so long as Reaves is allowed to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Is it a big problem? Only to those who attach some special value to the historical version of Norse mythology, as opposed to Rydberg's racial-nationalist fantasies. Rsradford (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion that Reaves is attempting to bias the Wikipedia article as part of some promotion campaign for his books is completely baseless. The fact of the matter is, that regardless of who printed the books, he has made available in English works of Rydberg that were not available in English before, and inclusion of such works is completely relevant to readers who would like to know more about Rydberg. The substance of your comments suggests that your viewpoints are biased in such a direction that you would rather not have anyone reading such works, based on hand-picked theories about what constitutes "the historical version" of Norse mythology. Reaves' portrayals are balanced and inclusive of criticism, but if he is slanting the editing of articles, perhaps it is to counter another editor who clearly has an agenda, an agenda that has little to do with a fair and balanced portrayal of Rydberg. And once again, "racial-nationalist fantasies" is a charge that has yet to stick, let alone be proven. CarlaO'Harris (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be right that the article is unbalanced, since it covers Rydberg's myth work in such positive terms. I'm especially dubious about Ref. 19 of the article, which says that the point of view expressed in Hamlet's Mill is becoming widely accepted. (There was recently a big furor on WP:ANI about poorly-supported theories of Archaeoastronomy). If you can make a focused proposal on Talk that includes reliable sources, which explains how to restore balance about his theory of myths to the article, I would welcome it.

I'm disturbed that there are so many personal attacks on Talk:Viktor Rydberg; this could lead to admin action if it continues. New opinions expressed on that page which contain personal attacks may be removed without further ado. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos with regard to the policy on personal attacks. Enforcing it will be absolutely essential if NPOV is to be restored to the Rydberg article. I am preparing the focused proposal you requested, and will post it for discussion on the Rydberg Talk page when it is completed. Rsradford (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors following this COI case may want to go to Talk:Viktor Rydberg and give their opinion in the latest thread. User:Rsradford gave a well-organized proposal and User:Dbachmann has offered support for adding a link to Radford's web site and making some of Radford's changes. I would say Radford's new text is almost ready to put in the article, give or take some copy editing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are no further comments on the proposal to restore NPOV on Talk:Viktor Rydberg, I will proceed to implement points I and III. I will leave it to others to deal with the unverified quotes from foreign-language sources, if anyone else finds that issue to be sufficiently troubling. Rsradford (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin action needed? An editor named Jack the Giant-Killer is deleting a newly-added section containing criticism by later scholars. The section was added per the COIN discussion above, in the effort to make the article neutral. Since COI editing can lead to blocks, per WP:COI, please comment here if you see any other course of action than warning User:Jack the Giant-Killer about admin action.Summarizing:

• Jack the Giant-Killer is an enthusiast for one of the English translations of Rydberg's work on mythology, to the point where common sense might indicate he is either the translator or his good friend.
• After adding what are possibly his own books to the reference list, he seems to be reverting out any criticism of Rydberg's myth work. For example, see the reverts here, here and here. He is reverting out what many of us believe to be a neutral version.
• The previous archived COI report has more detail on the authorship of the translations.

Unless anyone objects, I will start leaving warnings of admin action on Jack's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems like a neutral point of view issue, whether or not there is a conflict of interest. If the editor persists in povpushing after sufficient warnings, they may need to be blocked. Let me know if it comes to that point. Jehochman ^Talk 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who has participated in this thread please take a look at "Jack the Giant-Killer's recent edit history in the Viktor Rydberg article and determine whether it has "come to that point?" He is now simply deleting references to objective scholarship on Rydberg and replacing it with his personal opinions, claiming "acceptance of" and "support for" Rydberg's 19th-century mythological theories from sources that make no reference to Rydberg, or mention him only for minor, tangential points. He has repeatedly refused mediation and will not participate in (or abide by) any kind of consensus building. Unless Wikipedia has some mechanism for restraining this sort of editor, it will be impossible to restore the Rydberg article to any semblance of NPOV. Rsradford (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Naked short selling

Resolved

 – The submitter, John Nevard, is satisfied with the response (see my Talk page) and doesn't wish to pursue the matter further. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

PatrickByrne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Patrick M. Byrne is the president, CEO and chairman of Overstock.com, an internet retailer. Overstock (OSTK) stock prices have declined in value recently, and Byrne has made accusations and filed lawsuits to support his claim that a number of funds, financial analysts, journalists, etc have colluded to engage in the practice of naked short selling of Overstock shares.

Now, Byrne claims that persistant naked short selling against Overstock, rather any financial issues, artificially depressed the share price of the company. In other words, if you accept Byrne's claims at face value, (his) Overstock stock is worth more than its market value. It seems inappropriate that an individual with possibly the most major interest possible (bar, say, Richard Altomare) in the controversy regarding the importance of naked short selling is editing our article to push his fork as a replacement for our main article, despite a number of issues that have been pointed out by editors with more financial chops than me and a distinct lack of glaring conflicts of interest. John Nevard (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Returning to the real world for a moment... My changes were simply to rearrange the sections of the article, which are so scattershot as to be unreadable, into a cohesive structure. All the NSS-apologist arguments that were there before are still there, and in fact, are featured more prominently than ever. They are just not scattered with apparent randomness through the article. PatrickByrne (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As the article still includes obvious misquotes and uncited editorial comments that were there before you forked it, even this is untrue. John Nevard (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the possibility that your edits were warranted and don't constitute a conflict of interest, it might be best, Patrick, to leave editing of this particular article to others, in the interest of alleviating such concerns. If you have suggestions for the article you should express them on the talk page instead. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Equazcion that User:PatrickByrne should not edit Overstock.com. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland to get an impression of how sensitive all these issues are. See Remedies for the rules that apply to editing the Overstock.com article. Patrick can make requests here if he thinks his concerns are not getting proper attention. He risks getting beaten up at WP:AE if he doesn't go through proper channels to make his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

User:64.230.71.197

User:64.230.71.197 is making dozens of edits on tenuously connected articles, all with very similar text promoting a new book. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This IP is promoting books by Opal Carew. The article about the author looks non-notable and has already been prodded. I believe that the May 8 edits by this account are all promotional and should be rolled back. I invited this editor to join the discussion here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Tiggerjay for previous comment. I reopened this COI item since the PROD on the Opal Carew article was removed, but without any addition of reliable sources. I've nominated it at AfD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opal Carew. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's syndrome take #2

• Da Costa's syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Posturewriter (talk · contribs)

Can we revisit this one, as it seems unresolved?

The previous discussion is archived here: Posturewriter self-identified [1] as MA Banfield, an author with a known strong interest in a particular "postural compression" theory relating to this and similar conditions. [2] He argued then that we should put this information "back in the box" because he was forced to disclose it during an AFD; I'm not sure this washes, and in any case he has since repeated the disclosure in all but name [3].

The problem is his refusal to act by COI guidelines and his continuing SPA activity on Da Costa's syndrome with edits that, although not explicitly naming his theory, have an ongoing focus on the respiration and chest issues central to this theory. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder, and IMHO their mere mention in no way hints at his personal theory for explaining them. In fact, from the information provided in the article, I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The respiratory issues seem central to the disorder

They may well be; but having a known involvement in advocacy relating to those issues means that COI guidelines should apply: editing with caution and deferring to consensus. I'm not seeing that.

I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause

WP:NOR please. (None of the many studies came to this conclusion, and it was common in civilian life too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading is hard. And no, this is a postwar syndrome. The fact that similar medical problems (e.g. from pesticides or chronic infections) also occur in other situations, does not change that. Meanwhile, I strongly suggest that if you think due caution was not exercised, you provide the diffs to back that up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Compare the text of Da Costa's syndrome with that at Banfield's website References which were used in the development of The Posture Theory, and which are useful in assessing it. For instance:

Banfield site:

"In 1951 the fourth edition of his book "Heart Disease" contained a chapter on "Neurocirculatory Asthenia", because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".

Wikipedia article:

"In 1951 the fourth edition of Paul Dudley White’s book “Heart Disease” contained a chapter on “Neurocirculatory Asthenia”, because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and therefore need to be discussed separately".

Problem sufficiently demonstrated? With diffs such as these [4][5][6][7] he's adding large verbatim dumps of material from his own website: not neutral stuff, but summaries of papers selectively collated and commented to support Posture Theory. He's turning the Wikipedia article into an annexe of his own references section, and it needs to stop. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The added material does, however, not support his theory at all (note that if it did the theory should rightly be mentioned in the article, COI or not). I don't think that there exists a reliable source that does, so there is no danger here. Using the same words to refer to a publication as on his own website is by itself permitted (we can't, but he can). That said, the article, while IMHO neutral enough, could profit from some tidying-up. Some of the references are not fully on-topic, others not very significant, and they are discussed in I think too much detail for Wikipedia purposes. I therefore suggest that you try and improve the article first. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never thought of that...

But seriously: it's been tried, and he keeps adding the stuff back in. I'd appreciate more opinions: I'm not sure I agree with you that it's no problem for someone with a COI to add material predominantly duplicating their own website. That they appear in this context is reason to have concerns about the neutrality of selection. Is the syndrome largely about respiration and breathlessness (as opposed to, say, pseudo-cardiac symptoms such as chest pain and palpitations) - or does it appear that way because the references are cherry-picked to focus on those aspects? The thing was, after all, called "Soldier's Heart", not "Soldier's Chest".

But I agree with you whoeleheartedly about the excess of detail, hence the current tag. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chest pains and palpitations are the consequences of many respiratory disorders. However, if these references are cherry-picked, it should be easy to find others that say different. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at where Da Costa's Syndrome wound up in ICD-10, it is labelled F45.30. That is part of a section called F40 - F48 NEUROTIC, STRESS-RELATED AND SOMATOFORM DISORDERS. So what exactly is a Somatoform disorder? Our article says

Somatoform disorder (also known as Briquet's syndrome) is characterized by physical symptoms that mimic disease or injury for which there is no identifiable physical cause...

So ICD-10 has bracketed this possible ailment, Da Costa's Syndrome, as what sounds like (to me, a non-doctor) a psychosomatic problem. If you read the diagnostic criteria (from ICD-10) that drills you down to F45.30, it takes you through a bunch of symptoms that are reported by the patient. So this is a far cry from the original American Civil War ailment, and it still appears to be a catch-all for stuff that is not well understood. So there is apparently no pill to take for Da Costa's Syndrome. Our current article, I think, makes it sound too much like a real, tangible disease. I think the view of the disease in Paul Dudley White's 1951 book is extremely dated. That material should either be taken out or labelled historical. The lead of our current Da Costa's syndrome article I think needs to be rewritten to present this as more of a historical item. At a minimum it should track the ICD-10 understanding of the phenomenon more directly. The rules of WP:MEDRS should be applied to the sourcing of this article. I hope when the article is finished most of its references will be post-1980. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article is never finished. :)

As I understand it, this diagnosis is not used anymore, it has been replaced with one that on first sight seems to be close: 'neurocirculatory asthenia', a diagnosis that is not restricted to post-war. That diagnosis presently also falls under F45.3. However, the basis for this classification as well as for the replacement is very thin. It is, by its definition, not possible to prove that someone suffers from a somatoform disorder (or even that such disorders really exist), and there is a long and expanding range of known physical causes of the exact same symptoms. Now, one logically expects that diagnoses will be reclassified away from somatoform disorders as knowledge progresses and causes are found. For a dead diagnosis this will of course not happen, but it is a good reason not to see the classification as absolute, and rather focus on what research has found. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) I've been off Wiki for a few days, and didn't realize that this discussion had started when I made major changes to the history section on Da Costa's syndrome yesterday. You can find the contested version at this link.

Yes, I believe that User:Posturewriter's primary, if not sole, interest in Wikipedia is for the opportunity to promote his pet theory about how the body works (or doesn't work). He finds a parallel to his idea in Da Costa syndrome and hangs his idea on that peg. This is his hobby; he doubtless believes his ideas are accurate; he wants to help sufferers around the world by sharing his knowledge. That's all very noble, but completely inappropriate for Wikipedia: it is definitely original research.

I think it is particularly important to note that Posturewriter's first edits to Da Costa's syndrome were six days after The posture theory, which is his actual theory, was deleted through AfD for being non-notable (e.g., "promulgated by one author in one book. Not recognised by health scientists in general"). Over the last six months, he's tried to turn Da Costa's syndrome into a dumping ground for the non-notable original research that was originally stuck in The posture theory and deleted after the AfD discussion. (The author is the only editor who opposed the deletion.)

Since then, I and other editors have repeatedly discussed our concerns on the article's talk page. Three editors have left five separate requests on his talk page that he not use Wikipedia as a platform for promoting his own ideas. We have asked for help in removing his original research, or to stop adding information that tends to promote his personal ideas, but he has generally declined, opposed, or ignored these requests. We have removed sections, only to have them reappear, or to be replaced with even longer lists of tangentially connected publications.

Just about any publication that has similar keywords, BTW, and doesn't directly contradict his idea is likely to be included as support. N.B. that PubMed lists only 12 papers since 1951 that actually mention "Da Costa's syndrome" by name -- and some of those merely mention it in passing (e.g., PMID 15274499), or only to claim that it is really some other disease (e.g., PMID 3395533 for hyperventilation) -- so available evidence for any side of this story is rather thin. As for cherry-picking: he lists a BMJ (Heart) paper that discusses the history of the syndrome, but skips the letter published in response that says it's all a bunch of garbage. The general belief among those who "believe in" DCS is that it's a familial/genetic tendency, probably anxiety-oriented, with no physical/mechanical/postural/cardiac component at all. If you will read the last paragraph of this paper (by a "true believer" in DCS, although not someone who believes that there is any postural component), and ask yourself what sighing respiration indicates, you will probably have an excellent understanding of the actual condition.

I'm pretty much at the "give up" level with this editor. I do not think that Posturewriter has an interest in contributing anything to Wikipedia other than his original research. I've even given up on him figuring out simple things, such as the fact that I removed his favorite bold text formatting from the article (a direct violation of the Manual of Style) purposefully, instead of accidentally.

Overall, I think the practical solution is to settle on a version of the article that basically works for all of the other editors, and then steadily revert any addition of original research by Posturewriter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

An assumption that it is a form of hyperventilation is also original research, so be careful not to replace one with another. Edits should always be based on consensus, and original research should always be removed. I see no need to single out one editor in this manner, just focus on the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Guido, that is spoken like someone who has not been doing exactly that -- repeatedly, exhaustingly, and frustratingly -- for the last six months in this article. Note, please, these uncontested facts:

• The editor has a conflict of interest: he has published and is trying to sell a book based on his WP:FRINGEy interpretation of this phenomenon.
• The editor is using Wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting the interpretation in his book.
• The editor has proven repeatedly unwilling (or unable) to restrain himself from adding his personal OR to this article.

Your solution is, in effect, "y'all play nice now, y'hear?"

If that were possible, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. If the editor in question was willing to work towards a consensus, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. If the editor in question would quit adding his original ideas to this article, there would not be a notice here about an unsolved problem. Pablum about not including original research and working together for a consensus has not solved this problem.

The editor's repeated actions are consistently opposed to both the spirit and the letter of many WP policies and guidelines. We are "singling out" this editor because this editor refuses to follow your advice on original research and consensus. Educating him about the nature of Wikipedia has proven ineffective. He does not want to stop it. He wants to use Wikipedia to promote his original ideas.

The question is no longer how we can all contribute happiness and joy to the project. Now the question is, how do we force him stop adding his original ideas to this article?

I think what I would like out of the COI process is an agreement that this editor will not add any information to that article. (Suggestions on the talk page are fine with me.) I am open to other suggestions. I am not open to spending the next year deleting original research from a stubborn editor with a clear-cut conflict of interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what he may have done half a year ago. He does not need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding any original research to the article now. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Break

User:WhatamIdoing, if you think admin action is needed, it is good to provide diffs showing that the COI-affected editor is actively obstructing progress toward a better article. In fact, User:Posturewriter has only edited the article twice during the month of May, and he does participate on Talk at least occasionally. There are several editors active in this COI report who should be able to review any changes. If you have ideas for improvement of the article, just start making them and see what happens. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know, mere participation in talk page discussions is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia's editing standards. Yes: here's Posturewriter saying he'd be "happy to abbreviate my theory to one paragraph of plain text if required" (emphasis added) -- a clear admission of WP:OR and WP:COI -- and discussing "the fitness programme at the SA Fitness Institute" that he designed and included in the article.

However, the talk page discussions and user talk page discussions have no perceptible impact on what he actually does in the articles. This situation is like the son who says, "Yes, Father, I'll go work in the vineyard today," (Matthew 21:28-31) but never shows for work.

I think we can all agree that describing your own clinical research in an article, complete with reference to a newspaper article about yourself is a clear-cut violation of WP:COI. Of course, the first time could have been an innocent mistake, but sticking it back in there after it's been deleted it according to the agreement of every independent editor who has looked at his additions cannot be construed as an unknowing mistake, especially since he's been repeatedly warned on his talk page and elsewhere about WP:OR, WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO concerns.

Note that this same diff is also an WP:OR problem: he declares that DCS is a Chronic fatigue syndrome, with no reference. He has attempted to promote his theory in other articles as well, although the account's edits (and the identifiable anon) since December have been confined to this single article.

Here's Posturewriter's very first edit to this article, in which he adds an external link to his own website. Paper copies of his book are only AU$64.50, by the way. Here's Posturewriter deleting the Category:Anxiety disorders designation, which is a mainstream classification that contradicts his personal view. Here's Posturewriter re-casting the first sentence so that it doesn't mention the mainstream view that DCS is an anxiety-related condition. Here's Posturewriter deleting anxiety-related conditions from the ==Related== articles section.

Here's Posturewriter starting his blow-by-blow description of practically every paper that mentions the general subject without directly contradicting his personal views, including adding tangential information to explain his private views, despite nearly every word on both the article's talk page and his user talk being a request for him to stop drowning this article in references that tend to promote his idea. He's not violating these normal rules because he wants to violate them; he's just doing every possible thing he can to promote his particular view. His Truth™ simply is much more important than, say, how Wikipedia operates, or its reputation.

Other editors have repeatedly removed or deleted the most egregious violations, and tried to condense the rest. Note that when his personal opinions are deleted under WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, he sometimes just undoes the "invalid deletion" or otherwise restores the material later. Because of that, I don't know how long I can expect my most recent de-crufting to last.

Honestly, I don't see any possible interpretation here except that we have a single-purpose account that has been dedicated to promoting his own personal research conclusions in this article for the last six months, and in other articles before then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the diffs given by WhatamIdoing, I left an admin warning for User:Posturewriter. If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive editing. Others are welcome to give their advice on how to handle this case. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

EdJohnston; I have seen your comments on my talk page, and would like the right of reply to the comments on this COI issue number 2, which in the past week has amounted to 4468 words by five editors, including yourself as administrator, and one in favor, and three against, spread over this page, the Da Costa discussion page, and my talk page. I wanted to respond earlier but each time I started a new criticism appeared so I decided to wait until something consistent was reached, particularly when you inserted the subtitle ‘Break’. Could you please give me a few days to complete a response before making any final decisions. In the meantime I thought that the previous COI discussion was resolved in my favor given that no-one responded to my three final comments when they had the opportunity. [8]Posturewriter (talk)posturewriter —Preceding comment was added at 11:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the diffs provided above by WhatamIdoing, you are not in fact following the Conflict of Interest guideline. If you would completely refrain from editing the article you would be in the clear, but it seems you won't follow that advice. You continue to add material to the article that promotes your off-Wikipedia interests. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in his recent contributions that is related to his personal theory. Most of these diffs are ancient. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to, but I'm going to have to call WP:COI on this one. Guido has known COI issues - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder - and strong connections with an advocacy group denying the possibility of psychological origins for syndromes in this area (User:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging). See my comments at Talk:Da Costa's syndrome. [9] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no COI with this topic, but it gets me wondering where you are coming from. You may not like it, but I am trying to bring some quality to the article by relying on published sources rather than random websites. I am now quickly getting the idea that this COI complaint against Posturewriter has one reason only: to get the opposition against your own pov out of the way. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

:::I have no COI with this topic

Bollocks you don't. Nearly every edit you've made related to this topic has been about edging out the possibility of psychological explanations in favour of things like OR involving pollution and poisoning: a 19th century Gulf War Syndrome. I've no particular views either - it's a historical diagnosis that, judging by sources, probably lumped together people with different syndromes with similar symptoms (e.g. the physical condition of dysautonomia on the one hand, and the psychological one that we'd now call PTSD on the other) - but I can spot axe-grinding. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: user tried to prove his pet theory that the Da Costa syndrome is an anxiety disorder (it is not classified as such by the WHO) by pointing to some website, the single source on the internet where such a claim can be found. This after he just made this COI complaint against another user who did the same thing with a rival pet theory back in December (except that that user had published a book about his theory which got some coverage). User doesn't seem to understand the notions of reliability, OR, COI and civility. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

EdJonston; to save duplication I invite you and NPOV editors to go to the discussion page [10] where I have posted my response to 5000 words of criticism in the past 12 days i.e. since I added my review of the 1916 MacKenzie conference to the Da Costa syndrome article page [11] Posturewriter (talk)posturewriter. —Preceding comment was added at 04:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark Thompson (reporter)

• Mark Thompson (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This articel has been substantially written by a user whose name is the same as the subject, and the tone of the articel sounds rather partial. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Article tagged, and user notified -- plus username is currently WP:UAA Tiggerjay (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Username no longer UAA since it has been around for a while, however recommended to user that they change it. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary McHale

Article:

• Gary McHale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors:

• CaledoniaWakeupCall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.64.66.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GaryMcHale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

GaryMcHale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editing what appears to be an uncited puff piece about himself (if one presumes these two users are the same, it looks likely). An anonymous IP, 76.64.66.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted an anonymous "letter" attempting to prove notability. That smells enough that a checkuser may be in order. Blowdart | ^talk 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this is being monitored by a few other editors, and the page has been appropriately tagged and user notified. Regarding the checkuser, there is nothing technically wrong with not logging in to edit a page, unless you are trying to avoid a block or some other administrative action, which doesn't appear to have taken place...yet... Tiggerjay (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the COI-affected people have edited since 18 May. Several others have been keeping an eye, and the current version of the article looks OK to me. Does anyone object if we mark this resolved? The complaint can be reopened if more problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ArtInfo and User: JPLei

JPLei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has, without exception, used artinfo.com as the source for all his sourcing. As some warners have said, it seems to be a not-so-subtle way of linking the art info website when any other source could be used. I'm not entirely sure of its standing as a reliable source either, but it doesn't appear to be a bad source. I can't find concrete proof of COI, but my radar is going off. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Most if not all of the contributons from this editor, back to their first edit, have revolved around adding simply enough information to require a cite/ref to the ArtInfo website. I have inquired about this on their userpage. While it is not against policy to have a single purpose account, it does call into question possible COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.artinfo.com

• artinfo.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I don't know about COI, but it's unquestionably spam. We've had similar cases before of citation spam. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 06:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mjschacker

I've just noticed that this new user, Mjschacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be creating links to a book he is apparently the author of, and an organization founded by his wife. Wouldn't this sort of self-promotion constitute a COI violation? Dyanega (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With links to Amazon, I'm inclined to say yes. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Levitron

Huge, persistent, COI by Fascinations group over a period of a couple of years. Referenced material keeps disappearing due to actions by multiple anonymous editors, and a user name called 'User:Fascinations' is almost certainly (IMO) acting on behalf of the company in a bald faced way.

Perhaps I'm over-reacting, but I don't think I've ever seen such a clearcut example before.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 07:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you've redirected Levitron to Spin stabilized magnetic levitation. That looks like a sensible move, given the turmoil about the trademark. There is some interesting material in the old Levitron article. Do you have any interest in merging the material over? If you believe this is important and are willing to work on it, it would be reasonable (IMHO) for admins to be keeping an eye on any improper removals of well-sourced material that might possibly occur. If anonymous editors remove the material then semi-protection might be considered. I don't perceive that User:Fascinations has so far edited Spin stabilized magnetic levitation at all, so perhaps our concerns will not be realized. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Frampton

This page about Paul Howard Frampton is maintained by an account called HowardFrampton almost exclusively 75.110.103.19 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem? I see an empty talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Inte:Ligand

Inte:Ligand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Gwolber (talk · contribs) created and has had significant edits to this article. One of the directors is identified as Dr. Gerhard Wolber. I have tried to discuss COI with the editor to no avail and article issue tags like COI, etc have been removed from the article by SPA's 138.232.38.100 (talk · contribs) (resolves to Vienna where the company is located) and Moldesi (talk · contribs). Would appreciate some advice on how to handle the situation because I still have COI concerns as well as concerns that the article is being used as a vehicle for advertising due to the generally favourable tone and multiple links to the company's website and products. I don't want to get into an edit war on this hence why I've ended up here. Deadly∀ssassin 10:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a polite note for User:Gwolber. We don't look kindly on the removal of tags by COI-affected people. But if we can get a conversation started, that could lead to a solution. The article itself doesn't look bad to me; it's reasonably short and informative. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Calvin A. Grant

The notability of this physician is limited, though he could probably meet notability guidelines, but the article is clearly being edited by two (at least) different editors with clear conflicts of interest: Aricalex (talk · contribs) and Ari.staff (talk · contribs) (Dr. Grant's practice is "The Advanced Retinal Institute, Inc.", the two accounts beginning with ari are conflict of interest accounts. I put the "coi" tag on the article and Aricalex removed it without comment. I've restorted it and admonished Aricalex. Corvus cornix_talk 21:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you left {{uw-coi}} notices for both of these editors. This man does appear notable to me, but the article could be written more clearly. I see that he gave a meeting paper offering the results of a 60-person case control study on a new eye treatment he was trying to get approval for. This is potentially of interest but I think we are in the domain of WP:MEDRS. Not sure if that standard allows meeting papers to be cited. If they are allowed, perhaps they should be subordinated to any peer-reviewed journal papers that could be found. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:IRC networks

This may be the wrong place to report this but I'm unaware as to where to go. I am generally worried about most of the articles under the IRC_Network Category. A good portion of them seem to be just an advertisement of the network consisting of a description, sometimes even a list of staff, and an official link to their website. Almost always there are no references and most of them are already tagged. For example UniBG, ShellsNet, PaintballChat, NetGamers, LinkNet, IRCnet, etc. Networks such as EFnet, Freenode, Quakenet, DALnet are some of the biggest in the world making them credible but I believe this entire Category is an abuse of wikipedia. If it were only a few IRC networks advertising I would discuss locally but I believe this Category should get attention from admins in some way for the sheer amount of articles that should be reviewed. Virek (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In a quick look, I didn't see anything that seemed over the top. Maybe you could pick one of the articles that you think has the least credibility, and nominate it for deletion? Such a debate might help decide if the others should be challenged as well. Most of these articles are short, dense with information, and they are not promotional in style. If you could rank them by membership, maybe the smallest networks could be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am scrutinizing too much. I see things a bit differently. To me it looks like over half on the list are listed there because the administrators of the network made the page for advertising. I'll post specific articles and details.

1. AbleNET - Article has references but they seem to be mostly blogs (or references that don't really indicate notability of the network). Network only has 150-300 users which is not notable at all.
2. Abjects - Follows normal logic of info about the network, its services, and how to connect to it. Reference is dead.
3. AfterNET - Not a large network, no notability defined, only reference is its own webiste
4. AustIRC - same as above

If I continued I'd probably just list them all except 5-6 which are actually notable networks (100k+ users, first server ever, etc). Are these entries appropriate for wikipedia? PaintballChat for example has only 50-100 users and I will probably propose that for deletion. I would just like some more opinions because as I see it now most of these pages shouldn't exist. Perhaps there are (or should be) guidelines on what determines an IRC network to be notable. I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia to know where to look for them though. Things such as is it appropriate to have a list of staff and administrators? Appropriate for a list of popular channels? A list of services the server uses? What kind of user base would make a network notable? I would say freenode is an example of a notable IRC network (70,000+ users, article from the registrar). I think others agree with my stance considering there are notability tags on many of them. I'm also worried about discussion because it seems like it's an unpopular area. Furion for example has been around since 2007. One person put wikify tags on it which were removed by the creator. Has about 8 edits in a year. Virek (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not propose the deletion of any IRC articles that lack reliable sources. List the names of those articles here in case anyone disagrees with your evaluation. I would support the deletion of items #1-4 that you listed above. Even some of the articles on the smaller networks tell the stories of interesting disputes. I'd still dump them if they have no sources, however. (A list of staff and administrators should not be included unless those people are notable). If you are willing to go through all the references, that would clearly be a service. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The following have been proposed for deletion: Abjects, ablenet, afternet, austIRC, austnet, brasnet, blitzed, byxnet, Crunge, Furion, GamesNET, Global Gamers, IRCHighway, IRC-Hispano, IRCLang, IRCnet, Linknet, NetGamers , PaintballChat, shellsnet, UniBG. Because the users are normally internet savvy I would expect some prods to get delete without cause at some point. Articles have been prodded before. I also looked at some IRC statistics and some user counts are much lower then suggested. For example unibg claims ~50,000 while their own statistic site shows ~4000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virek (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Iulia Antoanella Motoc and User:Iulia M

Iulia Antoanella Motoc IuliaM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's a resume dump. I warned her accordingly, but I think she's probably notable from some of the claims. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Andrea Aquino Concepcion/Andrea Concepcion

• Andrea Aquino Concepcion (now salted)
• Andrea Concepcion (salted)
• Andreaonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Incessant posting of her autobiography. Earliest version has been salted. The newest (Same content) has been re-created at least twice today. Not sure where else it might pop up. I'd keep an eye on but need to be offline. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

GHG Management Institute

• http://.ghginstitute.org
• ghginstitute.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• http://.ghgnetwork.org

• ghgnetwork.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Articles

Greenhouse Gas Management Institute (deleted twice)

Accounts

Mwgillenwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Adding a large volume of links to sites he has a COI with. User is also citing himself, and placing links to those works within articles. "Michael founded the Greenhouse Gas Experts Network and currently serves as its Executive Director. He also co-founded the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, and serves as its Dean". links have been removed however, this still presents an issue. I have left a message, however some monitoring may be needed. --Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)