Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bbatsell (talk | contribs)
8,873 edits
Trial run of MiszaBot archiving, per discussion at User_talk:MER-C. Can undo it if there are problems
Line 15: Line 15:
==Possible [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiographies]] found by [[User:AlexNewArtBot|bot]]==
==Possible [[Wikipedia:Autobiography|autobiographies]] found by [[User:AlexNewArtBot|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.''
* [[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.''

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 18
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/archive%(counter)d
}}


== [[Molefi Kete Asante]] ==
== [[Molefi Kete Asante]] ==

Revision as of 01:39, 27 September 2007

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.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:College of New Caledonia
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:CoStar Group
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Data Commons
    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: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: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:List of RuneQuest supplements
    Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Nexperia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nuffield Trust
    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:Bob Renney
    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:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:TowerBrook Capital Partners
    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.

    Molefi Kete Asante

    Article subject seems to be doing major edits to his own article. Videmus Omnia 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Even stated that he is "renowned". Videmus Omnia 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This required some digging. I tried to remove COI additions by Masante and 24.126.96.187, but I may have messed it up. Shalom Hello 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on the cleanup also; I think Shalom's changes were very much needed. — Athaenara ? 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    September 2007update

    I restored the encyclopedic version as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#MIRROR but I don't expect it to stick unless this most recent of several Coi spas, which were previously doing the same, gets some administrator attention. — Athaenara  ? 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Benderson2 and TREC

    ? See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

    User:Benderson2, webmaster and marketing advisor of TREC" (translation from userpage: "I work … on the supply of information about the non-profit initiative TREC … Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation), is a COI SPA: a single-purpose account with a professional and corporate conflict of interest and clearly evident article ownership issues. — Athaenara  ? 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed he added some PR-type peacock language, so I left a gentle reminder on his talk page. Hope this clears things up but if not, let us know. Raymond Arritt 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A search for news coverage found articles about several other organizations with the same initials (e.g. the Twin River Energy Center: "Power plant seen as boon" in The Times Record, 19 July 2007) but none about Benderson2's organization.
    Reliable sources with in-depth coverage of related and pertinent topics (e.g. "Arab countries urge solar future" in The Times of Malta, 8 July 2007) did not mention a "TREC" organization.
    The article as written by its webmaster and marketing adviser is extremely unbalanced. It will not conform to NPOV policy without extensive copy editing. — Athaenara  ? 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I suspected as much. If it's not fixable WP:AFD is just a few doors down the hall. Raymond Arritt 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. — Athaenara  ? 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I opened the Afd because the issues need discussion, not because I personally want the article to be deleted. As warned on every new article page, Wikipedia is not an advertising service and articles created as part of a marketing campaign will be deleted, but it may be salvaged by neutral editing.

    To recap, User:Benderson2 is "Michael Straub, Webmaster and Marketing Advisor of TREC." He identified himself and declared his conflict of interest on his single-purpose account user page in March 2006:

    "Ich arbeite … an der Bereitstellung von Informationen über … TREC … "
    Translation: "I work on the supply of information about TREC"

    This week, Straub revised his declaration after his conflict of interest and its results had drawn comment from neutral editors on the article talk page, on this noticeboard, and on the Afd:

    "Ich … pflege den Artikel über … TREC … "
    Translation: "I maintain the article about TREC"

    Timeline:

    2006 - March — user COI declaration on user page.
    2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on article talk page.
    2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on COI/N.
    2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on Afd.
    2007 - August — user COI declaration revised on user page.

    In spite of the visibility of the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines and the open discussions of how they apply in this case, Straub/Benderson2 (see recent contribs) is continuing to assert ownership of the article he wrote about the organization as part of his employment by it. — Athaenara  ? 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption 1
    (Corrected userlinks for 90.186.62.36.) — Athaenara  ? 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some users (e.g. Athaenara) complain about missing references and delete them (and half of the article) as soon as I add them. Thats Wikipedia:Vandalism! 90.186.46.196 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Before my first post here today, I listed the references in question with {{reflist}} display format for review and discussion on Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#Cleanup. — Athaenara  ? 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Several NPOV editors (who include Raymond arritt, Rocksanddirt, Kickstart70 and me, among others) have tried to bring this article into compliance with this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. I have listed the article on requests for page protection, asking that the article be semi-protected against anonymous IP editing. — Athaenara  ? 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption 2

    Three (so far) on 189.* IPs:

    Five Four (so far) on 90.* IPs:

    After the article was protected against IP-editing, the most recent 90.186.40.137 IP was used to post a strange message on a user talkpage (diff) and copy it three minutes later to the article talkpage (diff). — Athaenara  ? 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to whine, but I could really use some additional npov-backup on the article and its talk page. The POV-editors turn very easily to blaming me personally for policies and edits in conformity with them, and imputing motives to me which don't exist. — Athaenara  ? 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added userlinks above for the fifth anon IP, 90.186.190.128, which became active after one week article semi-protection expired. — Athaenara  ? 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term COI Spamming by Toughpigs


    ? See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Long term COI Spamming of related sites by Toughpigs

    There seems to be a consideral ammount of promotional spamming from this user which began with his 3rd edit[1] on 16:46, 14 November 2005. Since that time there are very few edits outside of promoting his site own site http://toughpigs.com, and all the related wikia wiki's he's founded (See below). many of these links have been converted in to templates.


    The following is only a sample of the thousands of COI edits this user has made.

    Additions of toughpigs.com by "Toughpigs (talk · contribs)" ref [2] dating back from 2005 - june 2006

    [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

    Additions of flashgordon.wikia.com or {{wikia|flashgordon|Flash Gordon}}
    Flash Gordon (2007 TV series) [12][13]
    Flash Gordon (serial) [14][15]
    Flash Gordon (film) [16]
    Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe [17][18]
    Flash Gordon [19][20][21]
    Flash Gordon (1954 TV series) [22]
    Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars [23][24]
    Flash Gordon (TV series) [25][26]
    Alex Raymond [27][28]

    Additions of jfc.wikia.com or {{wikia|jfc|John From Cincinnati}}
    John From Cincinnati [29][30]
    David Milch [31][32][33]


    Additions of muppet.wikia.com or {{wikia|muppet|The Muppets}} ref [34]
    [35][36][37][38] [39] [40] [41][42] [43][44] [45][46][47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52][53][54][55] [56][57][58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] [80][81] [82][83][84] [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104] [105][106][107] [108][109][110][111][112][113] [114][115][116][117][118][119][120]

    I had to stop, It is extremely excessive in its scope and nature. this is just a sample dating back from 2005 - june 15 2006. It seems the majority has occurred this Mid july and earlier. Very possible this may even require Imposing community sanctions, or even a Community ban--Hu12 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking a rfc on user conduct here, but I wonder how much spam has slipped under the radar due to the use of interwiki links. MER-C 09:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a user, let me say that I find the Muppet wiki a very useful and impressive resource. It doesn't appear to me to be an inappropriate spamming; someone should be adding links to the wiki (as long as it's to appropriate articles), and why not the person who created it? I don't have an opinion on the other wikis being linked. THF 13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding THF - have you actually asked members of the Wikipedia community involved with the pages concerned whether or not they are appropriate links, or are you just offended that someone would add links to a site they contribute to, no matter how relevant they are?
    The whole point of having external links at all is that Wikipedia cannot or does not want to contain certain information. This often results in such information being moved to a related wiki, and a link to that wiki being inserted instead, so that people who want to learn more can do so with the understanding that they are not getting it from Wikipedia. This procedure is a good solution to "fancruft" (true but not necessarily verifiable or overly-detailed information) which satisfies those wishing to preserve such information, those wishing to learn it, and those wishing to remove it from Wikipedia.
    Such sites are of interest to Wikipedia readers - the average visitor to WikiFur from Wikipedia reads even more pages and spends more time on the site than a Google search visitor (average 8 pages / 10 minutes vs. 5 pages / 7 minutes for August 2007). Wikia site administrators are unlikely to gain material benefit from such traffic; there is no ad revenue share or similar. They add the links because they are experts in the topic and know it is a good source of information, and they remain on Wikipedia articles because other users agree. GreenReaper 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sakina

    i am concerned that there's a COI on the above article involving Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who is intimately related to the websites sakina.org and dhushara.com (as shown on his user page). the article has undergone a major revamping by Dhushara, which includes the promotion of both sakina.org (as an EL) and dhushara.com (as a source) therein. he has also been inserting material, while not actually sourced, has been clearly obtained from pages on his website such as [121][122][123][124][125]. once having introduced his changes to Sakina in conformity to the unconventional views expressed on these pages (which don't appear to be otherwise verifiable), he has advertised the wiki article on the website.[126]. i had raised this issue on his talk page a few days ago,[127] but i received little other than counter-allegations of COI.[128] ITAQALLAH 12:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a coi by Dhushara's own admission. Also, Dhushara has spammed sakina.org and dhushara.com (follow-up spam investigation is needed for dhushara.com). --Ronz 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I quickly looked through the links and didn't see any spam that hadn't already been addressed. --Ronz 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kandisky123 - Promotion of commercial website

    Kandisky123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor has been inserting an external link to the website, "Faux Like a Pro," where the person appears to have a personal interest in the site based on WP:COI. The same external link to the website was inserted in the articles Paint, Graining, Faux, Painterwork, Refinishing, Distressing, Glaze, Shabby chic, Trompe-l'oeil, Venetian Plaster, Color Wash, Strie, Rag Painting, Interior decoration, Interior design, Painter and decorator, Decorative art, Faux Painting, Refinishing and Marbleizing. This editor was warned on August 7 by another editor about WP:3RR and WP:SPAM issues concerning improper reverts and spamming the external link in the Stencil article before I posted a warning on that person's Talk page about spamming issues in other articles.

    Image contributions seem to indicate exclusive uploading from the same website whose references to the external link were removed from various articles. A few of the images featured a reference to the website in the image caption, such as what can be seen in image captions within the article space here. Information about some of the images even feature the named artist of the work created in connection with the website, such as what can be seen here and again here (named female is indicated as the artist in both cases). This editor has even tried on one occasion to warn users away from removing the link to the website by posting a message right in the space of one of the articles, including the posting an e-mail address to direct concerns from others about the link insertion in Wikipedia articles. That message was reverted by another editor.

    I've already posted a final warning about the insertion and reinsertion of the questioned link to the website. The editor appears to contribute useful NPOV information for the subjects within that person's expertise, albeit the spamming aspect to promote the website. ?Lwalt ? talk 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no problematic edits since the final warning. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.fauxlikeapro.com

    fauxlikeapro.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

    Shall we remove the links? MER-C 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Took care of deleting the links to the external site where found. A Wikipedia search brings up references to the company in articles that link to images uploaded to the Image library (the editor released the images from the commercial website into the public domain), since the company name was written in the edit summary by the editor. WHOIS lookup stills shows 9 Wikipedia hits, though. ?Lwalt ? talk 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Give it some time to update to empty. MER-C 11:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes...the editor is PO'd and demanded a response as to why the link to the site cannot remain, although the editor later tempered the message to this in spite of the specific warnings regarding that editor's actions. ?Lwalt ? talk 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottrade

    I have collected a bunch of diffs from the Wikipedia Scanner originating from Scottrade's St. Louis offices. I think Chris X. Moloney is most likely the main editor. Edits are made to Scottrade their business interests, the bio linked above, as well as concepts that Chis promotes in his books and speaking engagements. There were many other innocuous edits to Scottrade, like updating the number of braches or employees that I have left out. It is also possible he has an interest in the article Parago, but I didn't include those diffs as the article has such a short history with the only IP being the one concerned with Scottrade. I don't know how these things are unraveled with such extensive edits, so I am leaving the evidence to all of you more experienced people--BirgitteSB 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    209.144.55.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    COI is  Confirmed as it's a Scottrade IP. Range is 209.144.55.0/24. Cannot comment on the editor behind it. MER-C 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article itself is a big bunch of advertising. If it hadn't been kept on an AFD back in Dec of 06, I would recommend deletion as spam. As it is it needs work. --Rocksanddirt 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stubbed it. If the COI editors return, make sure they've been appraised of WP:COI. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tidal power

    In response FIG has a bias for alternative technology Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am concerned that user "Tidalenergy" keeps adding details of the activity of a Commercial company "Tidal Energy" to the Tidal power page.

    It is in keeping with other content about similar tidal stream technologies. FIG does not tell the whole story and mistreats and abuses the system here with this complaint while sustaining his own blatant actions.

    The company website is http://www.tidalenergy.net.au/

    The link was added as a citation --- or how else does one sustain the comment?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Tidalenergy claims elsewhere on the talk page that: "I hold the world record for the world’s most efficient turbine design."

    True, but it is made on the talk page in defence of a sustained attack on my comments by FIG. In an effort to share that I have considerable industrial experience (now retired). What experience or credibility does FIG have?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that on the Tidal Energy Pty Ltd website the company history notes that: "Following from feasibility studies in the late 1990's Aaron Davidson and Craig Hill achieved a world record in turbine efficiency in 2002."

    http://www.tidalenergy.net.au/?D=54

    True but again taken out of context. FIG attempts to pervert the course of this debate by suggesting a COI of interest when it is clearly declared. You can'y have it both ways. Either you have no facts shared or you allow those authoresed to share info"Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems pretty clear to me that user "Tidalenergy" is an employee of the company "Tidal Energy". He has been warned many times for repeatedly removing valid content from the page (content which, coincidently, is not in the commercial interests of the company "Tidal Energy"), and was eventually blocked for a short while. Since then he has decided that my reverting of his edits amount to persecution, bullying, and just about everything else. Fig 12:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am retired! That's the truth! Believe it or not. FIG and co exploited my lack of knowledge about editing and had me blocked when I down talked his bias for barrages, in particular the Severn Barrage that he says will soon be built and I say will never be built. Since then his ego has been dented as he has tried and failed to debate me on the facts. When logic and reason fail he resorted to personal attacks on my good name.Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    210.9.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. Fig 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only inappropriate edit I see so far might be this one: [152] - and that is only inapripriate because of the COI. It could really be fine if it was discussed on the talk page. Most of the mainspace edits from this account that I see are perfectly acceptable. Do you have any examples where they edited the article inappropriate? What is it that you seek here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This would have ended here if it were not for FIG allowing other UK and EU technologies. My question is does FIG reside in the UK or EU and if so what are his affiliations?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about these [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161] ? What I seek here is some arbitration. I grow tired of defending the impartiality of this article against a sustained campaign by someone whose financial interest makes them considerably more motivated and persistent than I am. It is pointless me putting another warning on the user's page, since Tidalenergy now believes I am operating some kind of psychotic vendetta against him, and now slings mud at me at every opportunity. What I'd like is to be able to remove this page from my watchlist with the knowledge that other editors are aware of the COI of this user and scrutinise his edits accordingly. Perhaps a warning on the Talk:Tidal_power page? Fig 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI is declared and the comments on the main page are in line with the page as a whole. Nothing more is said then any other technology mentioned! Double standargs are FIGs best attempt to end the debate in his favourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When logic and free speech fail in any debate FIG resorts to smear and inuendo with comments about psychotic vendettas. Read below what is siad on the main page that he objects to and see for your self. He objects to my comments about a shrouded technology while allowing other more blatant comments along with full colour photos'
    While FIG hides behind his veil of hypocracy he slyly solicits in a campaign to have me blocked.
    If one looks at the comments on the main page they are in line with others made about similar technologies. Read it for yourself here below. My edits are in bold.
    Several commercial prototypes have shown promise. Trials in the Strait of Messina, Italy, started in 2001[8] and Australian company Tidal Energy Pty Ltd[9] undertook successful commercial trials of highly efficient shrouded turbines on the Gold Coast, Queensland in 2002. Tidal Energy Pty Ltd has commenced a rollout of shrouded turbines for remote communities in Canada, Vietnam, Torres Strait in Australia and following up with joint ventures in the EU.


    The SeaGen rotors in Harland and Wolff, Belfast, before installation in Strangford LoughDuring 2003 a 300 kW Periodflow marine current propeller type turbine was tested off the coast of Devon, England, and a 150 kW oscillating hydroplane device, the Stingray, was tested off the Scottish coast. Another British device, the Hydro Venturi, is to be tested in San Francisco Bay.[10]
    Why allow this on SeaGen above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although still a prototype, the world's first grid-connected turbine, generating 300 kW, started generation November 13, 2003, in the Kvalsund, south of Hammerfest, Norway, with plans to install a further 19 turbines.[11][12]
    Why allow this on Kvalsund above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A commercial prototype "open turbine" design will be installed by Marine Current Turbines Ltd in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland in September 2007. The turbine could generate up to 1.2MW and will be connected to the grid.
    Why allow this on MCT above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Verdant Power is runnng a prototype project in the East River between Queens and Roosevelt Island in New York City [10].
    Why alloow this on Verdant above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be a a double standard if these can be put on the page and the most exciting new advance in turbine technology is to be left out. How can one be allowed and the other NOT? Can anyone here see this or is it just me? Tidalenergy 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor was unblocked after promising to behave himself on August 4. Has the editor made a promotional edit since August 4? THF 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit you identified above was Aug 17 and was the one that prompted my raising the issue here. Fig 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not J. Smith. I've warned the editor sternly. I don't have admin power to block, so if another admin feels that is appropriate, they can (I'd give one last chance myself, given that the edits have not been entirely promotional). THF 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    THF has been solicited into the debate by making threats on my home page. This does nothing to sustain a fair and just system when people are allowed to get away with this type of behaviourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is Tidal Energy here folks. I am new to this but am learning quickly that if the FIG man pushes his barrow on barrages he will pollute the information being broadcast about an emerging industry that holds the single greatest potential for clean green energy for an energy starved world.
    FIG and his growing band wish to alienate me. He has systematically mailgned my good name and reputation in an attempt to promote a pie in the sky proposal for a wall to be built across the ten mile wide entrance of the Severn River in south west Britian.
    FIG has no industry experience so criticises those who do!
    From his own account "his people" are promoting the proposal of the pie in the sky Severn Barrage. He pushes barrages as the end game for an energy hungry world when three exist globally with potentail of only a miserable 300 mega watts. Perhaps we need to live in tents and pee in a hole in the ground while we brush our teeth with electric tooth brushes as this will be the only thing that we will have energy to run if FIG has his way.
    FIG has turned a blind eye to the dozens of tidal stream technologies that are being deployed or have been deployed in a fruitless attempt to convince peopel that his flat earth barrage technology is the cats whiskers. Sad fellow is Mr. FIG.
    I have placed large amounts of data that is freely available on the net out there for discussion for his enlightenment and have repeatedly asked for him to engage me in open forum debate to no avail. He has sustematically altered my edits leaving them either wrong or highly milseading. He has continued to exercise his greater knoweledge and pimped his skill in using Wiki to foster ill will toward my edits to the point of securing others to do his dirty work in an attempt to have me blocked.
    FIG has taken quotes and twisted them to malign the free stream technology even to the point of misquoting science. Just where will FIG stop!
    His gripe seems to be centred around a free stream tidal turbine technology that includes a shroud that surrounds a turbine allowing it to harvest grester volume of flow then a open or free stream turbine. Yes it is new to tidal energy technology but that does not diminish the significance of the potential for the technology. Shrouded turbines are the first significant advance to the industry since the middle ages --- believe it or not!
    For the record I am a retired career engineer and was dismayed to read nothing about tidal shrouded technology and little if any factual evidence about tidal free stream technology. I added it to the horror and contempt of the FIG man. Sorry FIG. If Wiki wants to have creditible edits then it should be encouraging people like me with access to information and the right to place it on the the pages. FIG man's ascertion that I have a conflict interest is not founded in fact and is hypocracy in the extreme when there are propriety companies advertising their technology on the Tidal Power page, e.g. MCT and Blue Energy to name two. There seems to be little an honest broker can do when people like FIG are allowed catre blanche to run amok.
    FIG in an attempt to have me blocked is exercising anarchy to the point that he would have any thing to do with an alternative to his pet barrage on the Severn River promoted to the exclusion of all else. This is fundamently wrong!!! It simply should not be allowed. He should not be allowed to get away with this.
    Finally THF has come onto my page with threats and has warned me of inappropiate behaviour in answering comments made on my page. This sux! If I am not allowed to answer comments on my own page it defeats the ethic of freedom of speech. While I have said nothing wrong I find THF and his manner offensive and would appeal to those who have the power to remonstrate with this person about ethical beaviour. As THF says "my edits are not entirely promotional" so if they are not promotional where's the problem if not a secret agenda or else so what business is it of yours? Do you have a less noble agenda? I suppose we will never really know will we THF? Tidalenergy 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris de Freitas

    Chris de Freitas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 130.216.16.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Slightly unfavorable but well-sourced material is being replaced by more favorable material from non-reliable sources, by an IP that traces to the subject's academic institution. The IP editor has extraordinarily close knowledge of the inside details of one of the episodes covered in the article, as well as the subject's academic accomplishments. Raymond Arritt 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Awaskow

    The article is not that bad. Needs some more sources but was not the puff piece it might be, there are worse offenders. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD isn't an option since Arthur Waskow appears to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee T/C 05:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottish Knights Templar

    Users:

    Article:

    This user appears to be using the article, particularly the discussion page Talk:Scottish Knights Templar for self promotion, affecting the WP:NPOV of the article. See (diff) Talk: Scottish Knights Templar which is a large cut and paste from his own website www.scottishknightstemplar/news.htm. The user appears to have a 2nd username GSGOSMTH and has used at least 3 different IP addresses to promote his group, which may be legitimate but suggests sock puppetry. See Paulmagoo talk. He reverts edits to the article in respect of his group. See (diff) Scottish Knights Templar--Sannhet 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There are worse cases, but the press release on the talk page is a bit much, and others have already objected. If he is asked to remove that and be more careful in future, the rest is probably ok. --Kyndinos 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)as[reply]
    The press release has been removed from the talk page, and as Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is monitored by other editors to ensure NPOV recommend this case be closed. --Quaerere Verum 10:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't close yet. User:GSGOSMTH needs to be indef blocked as an unauthorized role account, and improper username, and a COI-only account. Let's keep digging to make sure we clear this up completely. - Jehochman Talk 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just put his press release back on Talk:Scottish Knights Templar. I have put a note on the talk page of the user who had refactored the text. --Sannhet 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I refactored it again to remove the release. Is there a sympathetic admin who'd like to talk to this user? He's having lots of problems and needs guidance. - Jehochman Talk 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    George McFarland

    I left a long note at User_talk:68.93.60.180. I suspect this is a drive-by addition and that we won't see anything new from the IP. If that's what happens then the appropriate way of dealing with this is by standard editorial mechanisms (facts tags already added, sourcing, etc.).--Chaser - T 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NeuStar

    I'll warn the user not edit the article again. Clearly he doesn't understand our policies. - Jehochman Talk 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Proctor

    • Aaron Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Not a super high priority, but I'd appreciate if a couple other people could add this to their watchlists. In a nutshell: I expanded an article about a young California political candidate / wrestling promoter (yes, both) who was briefly living in St. Louis. I corresponded with him about the article, to obtain photos and get him to doublecheck the biographical data. But I've got a sneaking suspicion that he may have been the one to create the bio in the first place, and he or someone on his behalf keeps coming in to tweak the bio, add inappropriate trivia, and now he's evidently trying to change the picture to non-licensed images. I have cautioned him frequently about not editing his own bio, but either he's not listening, or he has overzealous fans. In any case, some help watching things would be appreciated. --Elonka 06:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Business Wire

    As can be seen from his upload and summary at Image:Business Wire logo.png, Mr. Becktold is the Vice President of Marketing for Business Wire. Since account creation, he has made numerous, and virtually exclusive, edits to the Business Wire article, including the removal today of negative information with the edit summary "Removed competitor's edit."

    Normally, I'd just revert the edit and slap a {{uw-coi}} message on his talk, but this might need the attention of others with more experience, authority, and political finesse. Thank you, Satori Son 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a warning, and am watching the user's edits. Some of the material added is of very promotional nature only, and i have also left a notice about that. DGG (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeff Bays

    User:Rugz, formerly User:Borgus, has indicated in the context of an image copyright discussion that he is the owner of "Borgus Productions" ([162]), i.e. presumably Jeff Bays (aka "Borgus"), an audio producer and media personality. Rugz/Borgus is the principal author of the Jeff Bays bio article and of Not From Space, an article about a work produced by him and his company. The article consists largely of text copied from the company's publicity releases ([163]). I'd appreciate it if somebody could lend a hand checking for neutrality and notability. Fut.Perf. ¤ 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles now at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 06:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Search Engine Strategies / Search Engine Watch

    I'm one of many speakers at SES, and a very occasional columnist for SEW. Even though these are relatively minor connections in my view, I'd like some extra eyes to look at these articles. The problem is that User:Lafmm is a VP of marketing for the owner of these,[164] and he's been editing the articles to make them reflect the corporate point of view. I've left him good COI advice, so hopefully he will restrict future editing to the talk pages. - Jehochman Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The party contacted me offline, and has made the necessary adjustments. I expect no further difficulties. - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aviation Week & Space Technology

    User:198.45.19.39 - This IP address's talk page states that it comes from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company and has been previously warned for posting link spam for one of the company's publications (Architectural Record Magazine). It's at it again, and is posting link spam about Aviation Week & Space Technology which is another of the company's publications. See: [165] and [166]. Nick Dowling 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

    User:ChaplainSvendsen has a WP:COI since he seems to be a board member of that institute. He repeatedly tried to transform that article into a soapbox promoting the curriculum and whitewashing critique:[167][168][169]--Raphael1 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed the links you gave. All of that material was information Eclectek suggested on the WHINSEC talk page be put in the article. Namely more information concerning just exactly what the school teaches and information on how one visits the school. If you removed it your are guilty of attempting to sabotoge legitimate information which others believe is needed on the site. So I wish to file a complaint about you and your attempt to prevent legitimate information about the school from being posted. ChaplainSvendsen 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have a COI. I am not a board member of the school. I am a member of the Board Of Visitors. I neither work for the school nor am I paid in anyway for my activities as part of the Board Of Visitors. I've said this so many times. Why doesn't anyone interested in this subject actually go to the WHINSEC website to check their facts. Rather then link you I'll print it out here.

    "When Congress passed the Defense Authorization Bill for 2001 and President Bill Clinton signed it into law, that created WHINSEC. The law called for a federal advisory committee, the Board of Visitors, to maintain independent review, observation and recommendation regarding operations of the institute. The 13-member BoV includes members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, representatives from the State Department, U. S. Southern Command and the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and six members designated by the Secretary of Defense. These six include representatives from the human rights, religious, academic and business communities. The board reviews and advises on areas such as curriculum, academic instruction, and fiscal affairs of the institute. Their reviews ensure relevance and consistency with US policy, laws, regulation, and doctrine.

    The BoV is an independent organization designed to study and watch the schools activities from inside the organization. Again, I am not a spokesperson for the school. I speak as an independent social justice advocate. I was asked to serve on the board because of my activities in reading Peace and Justice materials parroting SOA Watch type of materials that were distributed within my denomination. I was appauled at the accusations and according to my religious beliefs, when you have a problem with somebody you go directly to them and attempt to help them find the right path and attempt to find reconcilliation. They were happy that I had a number of things that fit the requirements of the law. 1. I am a human rights advocate, board member of my conference Board Of Church and Society in the Norhtern Illinois Conference, and in addition have been involved with using materials from organizations like the Voice Of The Martyrs to speak out against torture, injustice, and intolerance. 2. I'm from the religious community. I'm an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church with almost nineteen years of ministry experience. 3. I'm a military chaplain with that training and experience. 4. I'm second career in the ministry and my military experience goes back to Vietnam. So I have military training and experience in enlisted service training, line officer (line officers are officers who are not specialized such as chaplain's, medical, just advocates, etc.) and the chaplaincy. I know military training schools and how they function. 5. Academic: My academic training includes not only a BA in Religion and Philosopy and a M-Div and all the military training schools for non conmissioned officer (enlisted) training and Officer Candidate School, Engineer Officer Basic, Chaplain Candidate, Chaplain Career, plus a whole laundry list of other military classes. I have been invited to guest teach one day classes in relationship building and personality development in two public schools. I am trained to lead retreat weekends for couples relationship building seminars. I've put together from scratch community programs of similiar interest. I also have taught classes on Suicide Prevention, Consideration Of Others, as well as many others. I organized and led a Muslim / Christian dialogue session aimed and educating both sides about each other. And there are others. My articles on various topics have been plublished in numberous publications. 6. I've actually been to Central America both in a military capacity and in mission work with trip number five coming up soon. That's already way too much material. Oh yes, and I served as the chaplain for a year to JDOG which is the detention camp located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Finally I'm an outspoken social activist who speaks out not only concerning denominational issues but social issues as well. I've been seen challenging organizations at county board meetings, school boards, news publications, on the floor of annual conference, protest sites, and in the public square. I have been praised by generals for my activities in the military and given bad reviews by commanders because I refused to let issues drop such as the time a group of minority soldiers came to me with accusations of discrimination. I almost found myself out of the service because of that one.

    What I'm not is an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand simply parroting miliatry PR. When I went looking at the school it was with a critical eye to catch them in a lie and find any dirt that was there to find. If at any time someone, anyone, can convince me that WHINSEC is doing anything improper I will turn in my resignation, pick up a picket sign, and join the protest. My passion for defending the school (as an outside and independent source) comes from the outrage I have at those who seem to actually know very little about them and then speak as if they know everything about them. My futher outrage is the fact that many in the academic world who would require their own students to do complete research on a subject before speaking about it are themselves parroting repeatedly things they have read on websites like that of SOA Watch. And if you say it enough times and get people of reputation to repeat it enough times and reputable publications to print it the information becomes truth in and of itself regardless of how damaged and full of untruths it might be. ChaplainSvendsen 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say there is a clear conflict of interest, among other issues. Chaplain Svendson has been canvassing by email. Chaplain Svendson is also a somewhat notable figure. That notability is relevant to this COI report. He is the individual who wrote an article for Esquire, and appeared on (mostly neocon/conservative-orientated) talk shows, denying the ill-treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. This establishes some history of contradicting the conventional wisdom in regards to accusations of torture and similarly distasteful practices. I do not believe Chaplain Svendson is being dishonest in his advocacy. However, the canvassing, the speeches and notably his "outrage" over what the majority of reliable sources report, in combination with his notable place in the Gitmo debate, certainly lead me to believe he has a clear conflict of interest and even more troubling, that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs". Vassyana 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please get your facts straight. I didn't write any article for Esquire. I was interviewed by a writer for Esquire. I had not control as to what that writer wrote. Again all I did was answer his questions about what I actually heard and saw. I have repeatedly stated that I did not know what went on in the interrogation rooms and was not making statements about everything that went on there. I do know as one of the briefers for incoming guards that every guard received a briefing on the protection of human rights and instructions on the Geneva Conventions. They received instuctions to not violate the human rights of the detainees. This included even using demeaning or insulting language or showing disrespect for their dignity and religious practices. They were told to refuse orders to mistreat the detainees. To refuse to particpate in violations. They had direct orders to take actions to stop it if they saw it. And to report it to authorities if they saw it. That is what the general population of guards were taught and held accountable to. If any guard became stressed out or showed a potential for being abusive they were given duty outside of the camp. ChaplainSvendsen 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)ChaplainSvendsen 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "conventional wisdom" of Gitmo is that there is no torture. There are legitmate questions about the legality of holding prisoners there. There are questions about whether the Geneva Convention covers these prisoners. There are legitmate questions about whethter they have the right to Habeus Corpus (it's interesting to note that Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus are usually exclusive). But the accusation of torture is an extreme position that has not been supported by credible evidence. --DHeyward 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You must not know of this.:Report of Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt •smedley?butler• 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the first sentence? "but not tortured" is the most prominent phrase. Good source for "no torture at Guantanamo" though. --DHeyward 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you download and read the report? Did you read what almost all Human Rights Orgs say? The vast majority view of almost everybody but BUSHGOV is that its torture. But then BUSHGOV claim that it doesnt torture. Like Abu Gharib. No torture there? Sorry but the small minority view of the same GOV responsible for Abu Gharib and Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch that they 'don't torture' and that they don't waterboard, but if they did waterboard it wouldn't be torture anyway, is not the 'world view' of a worldwide encyclopedia like Wiki. That is a fringe view. •smedley?butler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the source you provided says it wasn't torture. Your own personal interpretation is not relevant. Your screed against what you perceive as "BUSHGOV" is even less relevant. There is no evidence of "torture" at Gitmo and that belief is not mainstream. --DHeyward 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can believe what ever you want. Some people believe that the moon landing was fake. Torture, Cover-Up At Gitmo? This issue is the Chaplain's COI after all. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" •smedley?butler• 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So this new link was refuted by the precious you gave as it was the investigation into that report. Nice try again but no cigar. --DHeyward 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is Chaplain Svendsens COI. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" His defense of GITMO and why the BUSHGOV doesnt admit to 'torture' when almost everybody else in the world calls it that Proof are for somewhere else, not this board. Maybe you are looking for the GITMO article. Please quit distracting the issue away from COI. Thank you. •smedley?butler• 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vassayana and I posted some of my feelings on the article page. IMO (no attack) he does not understand WP especially about promotion as he wanted to include information on how readers of the article could visit the school and on RS and VS as he wanted to include some claims from un-published papers he has. Maybe he needs a Mentor. He canvassed me too. •smedley?butler• 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No COI as no link established. --DHeyward 05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What? "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "I am not a board member of the school." "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC"(above) •smedley?butler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no problem with this distinction. I am a board member of the BoV but the BoV is not part of the school. So I am not a board member of the school. That would imply some vested interest in the school and would be a COI. The BoV is an independent organization made up of people who have the education and knowledge to evaluate its work. ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the "Board of Visitors" gets discussed in the article as well, User:ChaplainSvendsen who is a member of that board does have a conflict of interest.--213.235.193.1 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I also believe this is a conflict of interest, more importantly, Major Svendsen has been violating WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, WP:OR, etc. and has been canvassing. His edits have been almost exclusively to the WHINSEC article. However, I think a mentor would help and I would be glad to do what I can if he wants some help. I may not agree with him, generally, but editors don't have to agree to collaborate, since our own opinions should never influence article content. Once he understands the relevant WP policies and the consensus process better, I think he might be a good editor. User:Pedant 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to be clear, is it not true that policy does not require editors with a conflict of interest to refrain from editing the article in conflict but merely to take greater pains to use appropriate editing techniques such as providing references and maintaining a NPOV etc.  ? COI editors can edit even though they have a conflict of interest? User:Pedant 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of soliciting support. What I did was to e-mail everyone who I could get addresses for who had edited the article informing them of the activity that was going on. In my mind it was an attempt to get the consensus everyone was talking about. You find people who are knowledgable and interested in the article and you get their imput. I certianly don't consider that soliciting support. I'd gladly accept a mentor and have been very grateful for the suggestions I have received. I'm thankful for the numberous additions to the aritcle of "neutral" information which have been made by taking the information I provided and neutralizing it so to speak. With my military background I respect rules and understand the neew to follow them. So here's a question which I keep asking but get no response. I have numberous reports which are public record which were distributed at the various BoV meetings. It verified facts which are authenticiated by the various school officials. How can they be used as citations? ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources can only be used if they are published by a reliable source.WP:PSTS Because such a source would count as self-published as well, we would have to make sure, that it is not unduly self-serving, there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it and the article is not based primarily on such sources. WP:SELFPUB --Raphael1 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Calvary Comics, Alec Stevens

    Articles are being edited by a publicist for the publishing company. [170] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The articles now are listed at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 06:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoshiki (musician)

    (Moved from WP:AN/I per a suggestion by Tango)

    • ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Yskent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
      I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel (#wp-en-help). The users Yskent (talk · contribs) and ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) (the record label Yoshiki works for), along with perhaps others (not confirmed), are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to fully protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators in order to edit it when it is protected (confirmed over IRC and by [171] and [172]). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:UAA, but further action, IMO, needs to be taken. These accounts are single-purpose accounts, yet they have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and are not really trying to engage in bad behavior. If they can understand the rules here, I feel they can become constructive contributors, and I would gladly mentor them if they wish to contribute. Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Yoshiki is rather famous and I doubt that he is sitting around watching over his Wikipedia article. It seems more likely some fans of Yoshiki and/or his band. They may be biased, but that does not make it a COI. I added referenced information to the Yoshiki article: In May 1998, his former X Japan band member Hideto Matsumoto committed suicide.[8] In August 2002, Yoshiki had 4 million yen in cash and other items stolen from his car in a parking lot in Tokyo's Shibuya Ward.[9] If it is removed, the best thing to do is follow the dispute resolution procedures if you believe such material belongs in that article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    eComXpo

    COI Accusation - Request for Relief - When I first contacted the COI Noticeboard and requested relief from the COI accusation made by User:Cerejota against me, were things discussed, but no decision could be made due an official Request for mediation that was made by Ceretoja. The request was rejected yesterday, because one editor that was added by Cerejota to be part of the mediation did not sign the agreement for a mediation of the issues with the article eComXpo. It is now back to when I made my original request for relief of the COI accusations that were made against me by Cerejota in combination with the article to the conference and trade show eComXpo. I explained in detail my involvement with eComXpo here to demonstrate that COI does not apply to me, because I am not employed by them not have any other vendor/client relationship that would be relevant for having a "conflict of interest" if I am editing the article. For a complete summary of the events that lead to the accusation in correct chronological order, see this page at my user space. I request that the COI accusations made against me will be rejected that I will be able to work on the article again (and remove the COI template from it) without hearing this argument against me and any edit I make in the article in the future. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It seems to me that, if your only involvement was as a panelist at a Con, and if you were not paid any cash honorarium, then that is not a conflict of interest to edit to article. But don't listen to me, as I am not a sysop. Bearian 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Yep, that was my involvement with the company. I mentioned all details at the talk page and also referred to the recording of the panel itself. The previous discussion here at the noticeboard (before the request for mediation) said the pretty much the same, but no decision by the board could be made, because the other editor pulled the COI accusation into the mediation request. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise possible? Is there a chance we can get agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise? I have read through the AfDs and the DRV, and have seen the controversy about the sources. I can live with the sources that are still in the article. In exchange for the compromise, we would (if accepted)
    • Drop all the COI allegations;
    • The tags would be removed from the article;
    • The people who want to put back previously-removed sources would stop trying;
    • The people trying to take away further sources, or re-nominate for AfD, would agree to stop;
    • Anyone planning to open new dispute resolution cases, in all forums, would agree to stop.
    Who is willing to consider this? EdJohnston 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. As I stated in the article talk page, I have no problem with the current version. I disagree there is no COI, however the talk page warns users about this, so I can live with that. However, someone please coach roy on the ins-and-out of forum fishing... Thanks! --Cerejota 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is content that does not fall under the COI allegation that should be re-added to the article to improve on its quality (probably re-edited and not as in its previous form). There is plenty of material on the talk page regarding that. None of it was implemented into the article, because I said that I won't edit the article as long as the COI allegation against me exists and is being used to discount my edits. If COI applies to me in case of this article is nothing "to negotiate" or "bargin with". Either I have a conflict or I don't, based on the definitions made in WP:COI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Quote: "agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise" This would not be a compromise, but a ratification of Cerejotas actions. Any argument from anybody that says otherwise would be wiped off the table. It would acknowledge the means used by Cerejota as right and the way to do it. It would make the efforts by me and other editors to reach consensus look like a waste of time. I don't think that this would send a positive signal to other editors. Again, this is not the time and place for this kind of debate. The COIN can and should only make a decission about whether or not COI applies to the editor (me) regarding eComXpo or not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The current article is as close to the standard as it's going to get. roy, I say this all due respect to the experience and great passion you show in your editing, but you do not need relief, and you don't get a pass for relentlessly trying to beat a fellow editor to death over a minor article. You do not have that luxury, ever, no matter what you think the editor did/said/intended. It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs, but that's not going to happen if you keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like. Your COI is not about dollars or being a name in a brochure; it's about crossing the line from champion to...this. COI is your choice, not someone else's accusation. Flowanda | Talk 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to discount anything, but a) cerejota claims that my edits fall under COI and uses that as a reason to discount them and b) flagged the whole article as created under "COI" and reverts anybodies edit that removes the template. I do need relief from the COI accusations made against me regarding this article in order to do edits like any other editor. A normal discussion does not seem to be possible as long as the accusations are being repeated by cerejota over and over again. I don't discount edits from anybody, but I object behavior as demonstrated by cerejota and is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with the COI allegation. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note. What do you mean with "It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs". The current article is close to becoming a good article. A lot of editors contributed to it over the past 15 months. A "rigorous edit" would do more harm than good and would only introduce somebodies POV and undo hours of work by a number of editors, not only mine.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that I remember you User_talk:Cumbrowski#Cleaning_up_Affiliate_marketing. You made some edits to the article too, thanks. I wonder what made you believe that I, quote "keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like". If you would look at the events up close, you will hopefully see that this is not the case at all. I try the complete opposite of that. I am trying to avoid that somebody else gets away with ignoring everybody and everything else to get what he wants and to discount other peoples edits e.g. mine by making false allegations against them. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Info User:Burntsauce removed the COI template from the article temporarely until the allegations are confirmed or rejected by the noticeboard. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether or not this is POV pushing, it doesn't look like COI. Roy isn't on the payroll of this thing, and isn't one of the owners, and isn't dating anyone on the board of directors, as far as I know. Wikipedia has also sort of overzealous editors pushing POV here and there. That's not COI. It's something else. Let's give this board a break and take this discussion back to the article talk page, and then use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if that fails. People shouldn't use COI allegations to gain position in an editing dispute. - Jehochman Talk 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quinacrine

    User:MayberryQS made several edits to the Quinacrine article to remove references to possible health risks of the drug, and added unsourced attacks on those who have brought up the subject of health risks. I restored the original version and left a, hopefully, mild warning about NPOV and WP:COI on MayberryQS's Talk page. It's possible that MayberryQS is April Mayberry from quinacrine.com, which is a site which advocates the use of the drug. Anything more that should be done? Is my admonition too harsh, not harsh enough, how would others have handled this? Corvus cornix 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree 100% with your response. MayberryQS's changes to the article were highly POV and caused important negative information about quinacrine sterilization to disappear from the article. One sentence dropped was the FDA's comment that quinacrine sterilization was an "unsafe use of this drug product." I hope that your Talk message will get the editor's attention. EdJohnston 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if there is a connection, but Cindery (talk · contribs), the top contributor to the Quinacrine article per Stats is a banned puppet master. Please follow this up if needed. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hudson Hotel, Image:Privateparkhudson.jpg? , Image:PenthouseLA.jpg, Mondrian Hotel? , et al

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

    Based on this message, it seems to me as if this user works for the Morgan Hotel Group and is spiffing up the articles on their properties. Seems unable to grasp the whole "tagging images" thing. Calton | Talk 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a message at the editor's talk page. Looks like a well-intentioned individual who doesn't understand how Wikipedia handles images. If there are other concerns (such as PRese in prose revisions) please follow up. DurovaCharge! 04:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Louise Glover

    Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has just gotten a whitewashing from User:Louiseglover. Can someone take a look at what should be restored to the article and what should be removed? Also, please take a look at the edit summaries. --After Midnight 0001 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I restored the sourced information, kept out the unsourced disputed material, and left a note on her user talk page. This appears to really be Louise Glover. We're not WP:BLPN, though, and I've referred her there. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Durova. I was hoping that you or Jehochman would be able to handle this. I'm glad that it drew your attention. --After Midnight 0001 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    82.35.89.51 (talk · contribs · logs) had editing troubles similar to Louise Glover (talk · contribs · logs), only 82.35.89.51's edits were between 12/17/2005 and 12/13/2006. Also, I asked Dismas to take a look at the article, since he is a top contributor to that article per stats. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles:

    User:

    (Above added by me. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Jabaker75 is apparently a single-purpose account out to publicise Cera Products' products on Wikipedia. I've been away for a while and am not a good arbiter of notability anymore, but someone should take a look at Cera Products, CeraSport / Cera Sport, CeraLyte and prod/AfD/cleanup as needed. Resurgent insurgent 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user and asked them to comment here. Additionally I've gone over the affected articles. More follow up is needed. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through Cera posts and cleaned things up. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brimstone Press (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I've left the user a warning. - Jehochman Talk 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Brimstone Press was kept at AfD and the other articles were addressed at AfD as well. My impression was that references added to the article did not support the material added to the articles. In other words, it appeared to me that the references were added to give an impression meeting of WP:N without actually meeting it in fact. Consensus has spoken, so there you go. -- Jreferee T/C 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    John W. Henry

    Obvious conflict of interest with editor claiming to be his sister adding many details. But to me, her edits don't look POV, so this is not a big deal. However, then a new editor User:Bill Veeck, apparently a SPA removed some material that looks pretty important. Somebody else may want to check this out (or re-check my re-insertion). doesn't look like a high priority to me and I'm not married to my edits here. Smallbones 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Argo (oceanography)

    Newbie editor Hjfreeland identifies himself as the head of the Argo research project and has significantly expanded the Argo page. This is not bad, per se, but someone with a gentle hand should probably welcome him and provide some pointers on style, image licensing, etc. 169.229.142.212 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since he was thoughtful enough to reveal his involvement and say "if this is OK," I have left him a very friendly message, along with the usual welcome template with its helpful links. The Argo article seemed factual, rather than promotional, but it needs references. I am ready to consider this closed, but if anybody wants to continue the discussion, please invite the user to participate. - Jehochman Talk 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Musikvergnuegen

    I've cleaned up a bunch of promotional-type COI edits from Damienchock. The above two articles need to be checked. My initial reaction was to delete them as spam, but I think these would probably pass the notability requirement if we do some digging for sources. - Jehochman Talk 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Walter Werzowa meets WP:N. Musikvergnuegen might meet WP:N. I added a reference to the Musikvergnuegen article. -- Jreferee T/C 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's on First?

    Describe the dispute using the following format:

    I received an email from Teneriff indicating that "Plummer is an authorized, published biographer of Abbot and Costello, and my father, Will Glickman, was the writer who polished the sketch into it's final form for them in 1938, when it was first performed on radio." Both Teneriff and Plummer have conflicts with the Who's on First? topic and Teneriff has a conflict with the Will Glickman topic. There are no issues at present, but I just wanted to note it on this board for future reference (seeing how JZG is having Wikipedians with articles deleted and suggests that COIN is the place for such information). -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse James

    Editor is the owner of the website http://firstmention.com/ and is adding images and references linking back to his website. The website is not a reliable source per WP:RS and constitutes linkspam. He is doing this to many many articles, not simply the ones listed here. It has become a daily activity eventhough he has been warned against this practice. See his edit history.--Strothra 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor was warned several days ago, so go ahead and revert the spam links and caution that continued activity could land a spot on the spam blacklist. Editor also seeks to upload useful public domain material, so let's hope this is someone who's adjusting to site standards. DurovaCharge! 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello everyone. It's taken me a while to discover this COI discussion page, and my apologies if I've seemed to be ignoring warnings up to now. My bottom-line read of the situation is as follows: Me: I feel I am adding high-quality, very relevant edits to select Wikipedia articles (Durova seems to agree, at least in part). The edits are based on information that I've compiled for my own website, firstmention.com You: Feel my posts violate one or more policies, and have removed many of them. As a case in point, take a look at my page on Hitler at http://firstmention.com/hitler.aspx It includes a fascinating, primary reference to a profile of Hitler as a young man, first emerging on the political scene, and includes the full public domain newspaper article that carries the profile. Why would anyone not want information like included as part of the Wikipedia entry on Hitler? Yet the information was deleted, apparently because the reference linked to firstmention.com. How can I provide such information, without getting dinged? How can I do a better job of "adjusting to site standards"? I'd really like feedback from folks that goes beyond pointing me to policies. I've read them, but I'm still not clear on the best way to proceed with providing what I think is wonderful information. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Dsarokin 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have repeatedly warned this user to not add inline links and attempts to redirect Wikipedia traffic to his site. Although I had concerns that his site was not a valid reference, and a concern of COI, I did not address this previously, and was mostly happy with his edits as long as they were structured in such a way as to not be designed purely to send traffic back to his site. Really I believe this user can offer useful contributions, and has done in the past, but it is certain he is only interested in reporting things back to Wikipedia that are directly related to the content he places on his site. aliasd·U·T 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dsarokin, please excuse us but we have heard the "why wouldn't anyone want this really useful stuff" argument many times before. You need to understand that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a publicity tool. If you participate the right way, you will find many rewards, but please don't start out by arguing for inclusion of your own website. - Jehochman Talk 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to everyone who has commented here. I'm not going to respond point by point to what folks had to say (though I'm certainly willing to, if anyone wants to go down that road). Instead, let me say that what I'm hearing is this: a few folks have gotten sort of comfortable with the posts I've made, in terms of adding value to the articles, and having gotten more appropriate in tone and overall usage. Others, probably a majority, aren't very comfortable yet, for a variety of reasons. I've heard your concerns, and will take them to heart. I'm going to repost some of my information to the Hitler page, because it strikes me as valuable information that clearly increases the overall quality of the article. Please have a look at the post, and let me know with your comments, here, if it still causes any concerns. Now that I know a little more how the behind-the-scenes dialogue works, it should make the whole process quite a bit easier in terms of airing any opinions about my posts. Thanks again. Dsarokin 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the Hitler cite didn't last long. Let's go with a less volatile page. I've added a reference to the etymology section of the article, Athletic Shoe. Let me know what you all think. Dsarokin 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC) PS -- some folks here have a superscript Charge! next to their hyperlinked names. What does that mean?[reply]
    • The historic Nadezhda Durova was a cavalry soldier in the Russian army two hundred years ago. She ran away from home on her favorite horse disguised as a boy, and (among other things) charged alone into a group of enemy dragoons to save the life of an officer. She enlisted as a private and retired a decorated captain. DurovaCharge! 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, it really doesn't matter which article you approach: your personal website doesn't meet this site's standards of a reliable source. What would really help and be welcome is if you cited the sources where you derived that information for your website. DurovaCharge! 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Odyssey (TV Series)

    Articles:

    Users:

    Persistent attempt to add identical advert text for TV series. First two attempts were disguised as user pages (now deleted), and one version has already been deleted as spam. Active page above is a redirect to a different show. Calton | Talk 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lennox Yearwood

    Lennox Yearwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): the subject of this article was arrested yesterday in the Senate building; the article was edited yesterday by the US Sergeant of Arms [173]. The Wednesday Island 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite an interesting edit. I've left a message on the IP's talk page and opened a thread at WP:AN for broader feedback. I've seen COI editing before, but this looks particularly sensitive. DurovaCharge! 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Officiallornaluft

    Claims to be a representative of Lorna Luft's official website, making POV and peacocky changes to the Lorna Luft article. Corvus cornix 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reversion looks good. Recommend a note to the user talk page and a referral to WP:COI and WP:NPOV pages. Follow up here if problems continue. DurovaCharge! 06:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Concordia College and University

    AlanSteele (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose account created to remove factual information from the article on Concordia College and University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a notorious diploma mill. These edits have been reverted repeatedly by multiple editors here (where the page is semi-protected due to repeated vandalism) and on AboutUs' page on "concordia-college.net" (page was fully-protected after a revert war; repeated removal of the info on that wiki was done by an anon-IP, no idea if it's the same user). This "Concordia" has also been booted from afraid.org Free DNS servers under multiple domains: "concordia.edu.ms", "concordia.intec.edu", "www.concordia.edu.ms", "www.concordia.intec.edu", "www.wiki.pedia.nu" which redirected either to concordia-college.net or to a freewebs.com page intended to mimic the Wikipedia article in vandalised form. --carlb 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indefinite block. DurovaCharge! 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Iorgos (talk · contribs) appears to be a duplicate of AlanSteele (talk · contribs), contribs consist of three edits, posting the same nonsense version of Concordia College and University. Sockpuppet? --carlb 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Carlb. I believe that Iorgos is a second SPA maintained by AlanSteele. --Orlady 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed. DurovaCharge! 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-stuttering devices

    Anti-stuttering devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the work of Tdkehoe (talk · contribs), who wrote of the article at Peer Review: "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{uw-coi}} on the author's talk page. The user has edited other COI topics such as Stuttering too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bev Harris

    A subject appears to have edited an article about herself. Just quickly scanning it, I am a bit concerned about the statement and sources added about Jeffrey Dean and John Elder. The sources are primary court documents which are published on a website she controls. I'm not sure if this violates WP:SELFPUB or not, but it would seem to on a couple of points. The footnoted text that hyperlinks to these documents seems like it also violates WP:BLP, at least in tone. The statement that these primary documents supports says that she "broke the story", but there are no secondary sources cited. I'm cross-posting this to COIN and BLPN. - Crockspot 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At first glance the edits seem to comply with site standards. I don't see POV pushing, and the info is sourced appropriately for the article. I've left the editor advice because she needs to know that COI editing has drawbacks, and I've suggested ways to avoid creating the appearance of a problem as she's done here. Also, when reporting something on the boards, try to leave the editor a message so she can participate in the discussion. - Jehochman Talk 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James Browning Kepple

    It appears that this user is using wikipedia to promote his poetry collection. He started his own bio article, and all edits by this user have involved inserting mention of himself and/or the collection of poetry. -steventity 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PROD added to James Browning Kepple, Kim Göransson, and Pretend Genius. For those names listed at Pretend Genius, PROD should be added to J. Tyler Blue, Sean Brijbasi, Josh Davis, Kenneth Dawson, Stephen Moran, Dean Strom, and Blem Vide if they are un-red linked. -- Jreferee T/C 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Frederick Holmes

    It appears that this user is the subject of this article, Lee Holmes. He is the only one who has edited the article and has also uploaded pictures of the subject as public domain. My other concern is that this user has been editing movie articles (see The Salton Sea, for example) and adding himself to the cast lists and also adding trivia facts (see Drive Me Crazy). This person is listed in the IMDB, but notability might also be an issue. Malson 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Lee Frederick Holmes article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Lucas (porn star)

    Case archived, can be found here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_17 listed as inactive. An editor has removed all tags for fact, original research, templates requesting improvements, and so forth. A reworking of the entry by an uninvolved editor would be welcome. Semi-protection in the meantime would save us from edits by Lucas and his helpers. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the recent offending edits are by IPs, so semi-protection would be useful. The 'credits' section looks way excessive, and I think it would be easier to keep tabs on a much shorter article. If material winds up being removed because the COI-editing subject of an article is causing trouble, then so be it. I think it would be reasonable to see if administrators would consider semi-protection before undertaking the work of shortening the article, and I invite comments as to whether shortening is the right thing to do. Another section needing shortening is 'Lectures and columns, blogs and controversies', which contains a lot of non-notable material. EdJohnston 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotection has been tried before so this time I've implemented it indefinitely. This went through RFC many months ago. Recommend POVectomy and strong warnings to the offending accounts. I'm ready to implement some lengthy blocks if this goes any further. DurovaCharge! 14:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone who has been following this give their impression of who are the COI-affected editors? Everyone involved seems to be quoting Wikipedia policy, and it's hard to figure out who are the 'good guys.' I see a clash of opinions as to what content should be relevant for the article. Please clarify if I'm missing something obvious. The editors listed at the head of this report are mostly inactive at present. EdJohnston 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Something particularly nasty is going on here and it's time for serious investigation. Someone created an impersonation account today. DurovaCharge! 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent situation is really hard to follow, but if you look at the edits of the various anon IPs the situation revolves around porn stars/directors. User:216.57.17.234, who is probably Lucas, has been editing other porn star entries, and seems to have a slight negative interest in the Chi Chi LaRue page. Following Lucas' involvement is difficult because in at least one instance a number of anons appeared to make self-serving edits on the Lucas page which appeared to have been engineered by Lucas himself, perhaps via his blog (this based on the fact that the anons were making the same edits as User:216.57.17.234 had made). In addition to the pro-Lucas element, there is someone or several someones who appear to have a strong personal animosity towards Lucas himself, and a sense of frustration that the entry isn't being edited as they think it should be. As I said on the talk page, the article appears to have begun with a self-serving autobiography, which was then interspersed with very negative material against Lucas. Some of both has been removed in the last few days since I posted this new COI notice. The participation of some uninvolved, NPOV editors who could take a fresh look at the entry could probably lessen the conflicts. I've been there too long, and I think both "sides" have had it with me. -Jmh123 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and if I hadn't answered an article content WP:RFC on this article many months ago that's exactly where I'd send it. Mostly I've watched this from a distance; you're familiar with the lay of the land. Which account(s) and IP(s) are the source of this negative material, and in your opinion how much of it violates WP:BLP and WP:RS? I'd appreciate a jump start for this investigation. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 03:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's see. Most recently Special:Contributions/209.244.42.65 and Special:Contributions/76.86.123.229 complained that the article is terrible, and 76.86.123.229, who claimed on Talk to be just a friend of 209.244.42.65, edit-warred to keep lots of tags and templates on the page. I stated on talk and in edit comments that these tags should be judiciously placed and the correct templates used, and spent way too many hours yesterday checking refs and verifying that material was accurately cited, removing what little was not. User:Roz Lipschitz had placed tags and templates on the entry on August 29 ([174] and [175] and other edits before & after these diffs). Special:Contributions/209.244.42.67 placed the same tags a few days ago: ([176], [177] and more diffs).
    Prior to this most recent disagreement, most of the conflicts were between 216.57.17.234, Michael Lucas, the Shape, and Lucasent (all listed above) and one individual with a floating IP. All the discussion on the Talk page from here: Talk:Michael_Lucas_(porn_star)#Anon_editor_216.57.17.234_Improper_Activity to here: Talk:Michael_Lucas_(porn_star)#1_month_semiprotection is between them.
    Except...1) from this diff [178] to this diff [179], between June 18 and June 20, there was edit warring by 216.57.17.234 (Lucas?) and a number of anons. This is when I first reported a COI/N. And 2) Durova protected the page on August 14 after Special:Contributions/72.68.31.164 reverted a number of edits made by 216.57.17.234 [180], after another spat of edit-warring by 216.57.17.234 and various anons versus various anons. I'll bet that didn't help much. Sorry. -Jmh123 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: this edit comment by 216.57.17.234 [181], "Chi Chi's page has it." and on the Chi Chi LaRue page, [182] "not allowed on Michael Lucas' profile, not allowed here," [183] "readers do not come to Wikipedia to access Chi Chi LaRue's retail website." If nothing else, 216.57.17.234 has a special interest in Michael Lucas's business and making sure he gets equal rights. His edits are more than a little single-minded: [184]. -Jmh123 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How much of the material violates BLP and WP:RS?? Almost all the sources I checked yesterday panned out, and are reliable. Anons have questioned some personal autobiographical material--whether Lucas has a law degree, for example--which is sourced only to his profile at Lucas Entertainment. As I understand it, that's acceptable, barring some indication that he has lied about himself. It's a no-brainer that he runs Lucas.blog and Lucas Entertainment, and the categories of porn he offers are right on his website, so I don't see any question there, but anons have tagged those statements in the past. Anons have tagged statements such as Lucas produces and stars in porn films; again, there seems to be no doubt about this. I'd say BLP is also not an issue at the moment. Material 216.57.17.234 had objected to, such as the statement that Lucas is Jewish (verified by his own statement), or that he started his business from funds earned as a prostitute (Yale Daily News--his own statement) has been verified. I verified the judge's statement that "there were serious issues raised regarding trademark infringement or tarnishment" to a transcript published by the WSJ. The original research tags are a greyer area that I'll leave to others to decide. -Jmh123 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So far this all checks out, then, and no BLP problem exists with the current version. I have now indeffed two impersonation accounts, which is completely unacceptable. Long term semiprotection is merited. If that doesn't resolve the problem then this can progress to a long term vandalism report with indefs on the sock/meatpuppets and long term blocks on some IP addresses. Back in August I referred these people to appropriate venues when I semi'd the page, so they know the legitimate options. DurovaCharge! 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I've implemented six month blocks across a sockfarm. Details are at ANI. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of improvements were made in this entry in response to the COI. Thanks to all involved for helping make that happen. It would be a good idea to continue to keep an eye on 216.57.17.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits on Michael Lucas and on porn star pages in general to make sure he isn't editing with bias or an eye to salesmanship.

    9/11 Truth Movement

    Jim Fetzer, who is mentioned in this article, is making edits that appear to violate the neutral point of view policy. I asked him politely to stop, and he didn't. I'm going off break; would another admin like to take over? -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reiterated the warning. Please watch and supply diffs if there is any POV pushing. - Jehochman Talk 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brown Derby (company)

    I added some references and categories to the article and banners to the talk page. -- Jreferee T/C 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:SputnikmusicReviews

    Editing Sputnikmusic, claiming to speak for the website. Corvus cornix 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Roxxee et al.

    Users connected with a donation-soliciting foundation and its subscribe-to-read support group, who object to their external link spam being deleted from Wikipedia, are now retaliating against me by (1) personal remarks, including lies (eg, that I have been banned from Yahoo Groups) and would be outing (that I was a member of their support group) and (2) retaliatory deletion of external links I made to a public support group in which I am involved. I have not reverted the external links they deleted, but I am tired of the personal remarks. Would an admin please examine their logs and tell me how many people seem to be involved? These users are involved:

    Does this look like a case where blocking is in order?

    --Una Smith 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I believe it was this edit of mine that prompted Una to make the above complaint.
    I would like to offer another view of what is going on here, there are definitely two sides to this story.
    The topic of conflict is external links to the Teratoma Support Foundation site. The Teratoma Support Foundation is a group of volunteers who provide information and support to the families of babies who have been diagnosed with a teratoma.
    Unrelated to Wikipedia, Una Smith has had a personal conflict with some of the members of that group. Subsequent to that conflict, Una helped to found an alternate support group, Teratoma Free Discussion or TFD.
    Previous to Una's tenure as a Wikipedia editor, there was an external link to the Teratoma Support Foundation on the Teratoma page. Una removed the link, calling it uninformative, and later replaced it with a link to her group, more here.
    As noted by Una above, several people have attempted to restore that link, sincerely believing it to be of value. There is more information about that here and here.
    The Teratoma Support Foundation does not endorse any of these actions, like Wikipedia and other groups, it is a collection of individuals who represent themselves.
    The quarrel that Teratoma Support Foundation members have with Una is that some of them believe it is her who has a conflict of interest over these articles. Nobody claiming to be a member of the Teratoma Support group has vandalized any of Una's edits.
    I sincerely believe that Una decided unilaterally and with bias to remove those links. If unbiased members of the Wikipedia community asked to have those links removed, I believe there would be no conflict.
    The most recent link that Una removed was this one:
    *Baby with a large facial teratoma cured by surgery (with photos)
    Many believe this link complements the teratoma article nicely, there are no photos in the article and it is an informative story of how a facial teratoma can be cured.
    As regards my most recent edit, Una herself added a link to her own support group. She has recently used her support group as a forum to air her personal disputes with the Teratoma Support Foundation.
    For that reason in addition to the reasons I have already mentioned, I and others do not believe that link has any place on Wikipedia.
    -- Roxxee 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not know why Roxxee insists on claiming I was ever a member of Roxxee's private support group, nor why Roxxee thinks any part of Roxxee's own personal dispute with any former member of Roxxee's support group belongs on Wikipedia, nor why Roxxee and Roxxee's friends have made me their target. Anyway, this has gone beyond a question of COI, and it certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. --Una Smith 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personally, I don't believe that any of the links to support groups mentioned above belong in any of those articles, and I support all the link removals, whether by one party or the other. See WP:EL for the rules for external links. If there are charges of spreading false information, that is normally considered quite serious and would better be posted at WP:ANI. Before posting there, the case would need to be very carefully stated with diffs provided for the alleged statements. EdJohnston 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with EdJohnston. Having looked at both sites, I can’t see that either offers much in the way of basic encyclopedic education on the subject that cannot be better cited to a formal, neutral medical source than a support group site. In any case, Wikipedia is not in the position of advocating one group over another, and members of competing groups should not be adding their or removing their competitors’ links in the first place, as this is a clear conflict of interest. As for off-Wikipedia conflicts, these should remain off Wikipedia; if one side or the other cannot refrain from carrying them here or there is a problem with personal attacks, then WP:RFC is the proper forum for first dealing with such issues. If the parties do not agree to take it there, then WP:ANI is likely the next step. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this issue can be closed out. I agree with EdJohnston and Askari Mark that external links to support groups (and their patient stories) do not belong on Wikipedia. Because some links of this kind were present when I first began editing the pages in question, I had been reluctant to remove them and I tried adding a few myself. Here we see the result, and it is not good. I am learning. Re the defamatory remarks and attempts by Roxxee and Tcstart75 and their anonymous sockpuppets to expose and/or humiliate a supposed ex-member of their support group, I recommend that they ask an admin to delete their contributions. If they do not do it themselves, I will pursue the issue. --Una Smith 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard H. Brodhead

    User:Hershel Parker is an academic scholar who has written numerous books and article about Herman Melville.[185] Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, has also studied Melville. Apparently, Brodhead called Dr. Parker's biography of Meville "unrealiable"[186] and Parker took great offense to that. Parker has thus been attacking Brodhead on his wikipedia page with these edits (Special:Contributions/Hershel_Parker) even using his own article attacking Brodhead as a source ([187]). I believe this is a clear conflict of interest. Parker detests Brodhead (perhaps understandingly). He also keeps adding quotes from the book Until Proven Innocent by KC Johnson, which attacks political correctness in US academia and specifically attacks Brodhead's character. I personally liked Johnson's book and agree with many of the concepts, but it is still a largely opinion piece. Because of all of this, Dr. Parker should not be allowed to edit Richard H. Brodhead. -Bluedog423Talk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it's much more than just COI problems. Hopefully he'll respond to the comments on his talk page. --Ronz 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a block will be required to get him to respond to the comments and warnings he's received. --Ronz 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited since Ronz's last warning, but I think he's had enough of a chance to understand that he needs to stop. I would support a temporary block (say, for one week) if the behavior continues; if so, notify WP:ANI where the response time is faster. Shalom Hello 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christian Death

    Christian Death is a Gothic rock band from the early 80s who have since split into two factions, the original group lead by Rozz Williams (who committed suicide in 1998) and a second group lead by guitarist Valor Kand which came to be due to tour complications in the mid 80s. OfficialChristianDeath is someone who represents the band in a semi-legal way and have been trying to take over the article recently with their own version which heavily guts the current existing article and is written with a promotional bias out of line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The user' noted reason for doing this is because the current article is heavily biased towards the Rozz Williams side of the group name and the article doesn't focus on the most up to date version of the band. Myself, the user and Onorem have been in discussion on the Christian Death talk page where the user has claimed I personally edit the page to be a 'Rozz Williams obituary' which I have defended myself against, and has particually taken note of the Christian Death 1334 section which I contributed to the article that details a collective of founding Christian Death members forming a band together which Valor Kand has publically disagreed with. Although this is enough for a conflict of interest in itself, I have also been contacted by the same user under the guise of the 'Christian Death Society Management' through my MySpace page and have been served a sentence long Cease & Desist requesting I go through them first before adding any more changes to the Wikipedia page. Below I have included the original message, my reply and the second message I've recieved most recently.

    (email removed)

    This C&D, which I doubt has any standing legal jurisdiction due to it's loosely written form, has prompted me to bring this recent user's actions to this page's attention and I hope it gets sorted in some way soon. Gabber Foxx 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't post private correspondence on-wiki. The relevant policy with regards to legal threats is that they are not tolerated at all. Banhammer, please? The best way to deal with the email is to archive it in /dev/null. MER-C 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, my bad for posting the messages. Gabber Foxx 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted a {{uw-coi1}} message at User_talk:OfficialChristianDeath, plus a pointer to this discussion and a reminder about WP:NLT. EdJohnston 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This matter has been resolved for the time being, should the user persist after his four day ban I'll deal with an admin direct.Gabber Foxx 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually we would keep such a report open until we are sure the COI editor has understood the problem and has agreed to stop. Though the block was deserved, I don't see any further edits by OfficialChristianDeath or his possible sock 62.56.92.43 (talk · contribs) since 20 September, i.e. before the NLT warning. So he hasn't violated any policies since the warning. Unless he sent some further email to Gabber Foxx or communicated off-wiki. EdJohnston 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By resolved I mean the user has calmed down in our discussion via MySpace, but like I said, should he try it on again when his ban is lifted I'll bring it up here and with the admin who helped me.Gabber Foxx 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology

    Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I'm forwarding a notice from User:White Cat at WP:ANI, warning about spam at this article. It's a serious concern, but deleting the whole article is not an option. Shalom Hello 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sybian

    Sybian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The diffs and links that follow are not worksafe. This article has been altered several times[188] [189] recently by an IP address who claims[190] to represent ABCO Research Associates, the marketers of the Sybian and the owners of the trademark (see [191], at the bottom of the page). The IP asserts that offsite links to (admittedtly pornographic) images of the Sybian in use are not to be placed in the article, and has removed them. I reverted and placed a COI notice on the IP's talk page, but they removed the links again. I believe that this IP's involvement is a clear COI situation, and I know that this site is not censored for minors, but I would like to solicit comments. I'm slightly uncomfortable (just... slightly) with reverting back to a version that links to middlecore porn. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    a) Any external links need to move out of the "See also" section.
    b) I don't see the value in the first link (the one presently in the "See also" section). I couldn't care less about the explicitness of the content, it's just not anything that isn't obvious from the design of the device as well as the text of the article. As it stands now, it's simply an advertisement for a for-pay porn site. Kill it, COI notwithstanding.
    c) The one labeled "specs" (although that's not a very accurate description) is decent and probably can stay. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    and

    I've warned the user up through uw-spam4 and given him a COI notice.. -- Versageek 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A a new COI page by this user:

    I've nominated the articles for speedy because they are pure vanity. This user is spamming lots of articles in rapid fire, and has never made a productive edit. Administrators: can we get an indef block please? - Jehochman Talk 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also reported at WT:WPSPAM here. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocketboom

    Page is currently protected due to reverts and blind reverts by the above user. Article is highly promotional and the edit history reveals that any negative material is routinely removed. A cited BusinessWeek reference analyzing the popularity of the site was repeatedly removed to make way for unverified numbers provided by the site owner that were refuted by the BusinessWeek article. The Rocketboom article and the related Andrew Baron article would benefit from the attention from other editors.

    Andrew Baron

    Similar issues to Rocketboom above plus WP:VAIN. Article may be a potential merge candidate.

    Freelife


    Freelife is a Multi-level marketing company. Recently there has been deletion of "Controversy" material and placement of apparent marketing material by user:Jsteelefreelife. Based on the username, appears to possibly be a Freelife MLM distributor.

    Editor did this twice, and has been warned; has not offended since last warning. Will keep an eye on things. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor has a clear coi as indicated by his recent comment [192]. --Ronz 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, and also I observed that in the emails posted in the above diff, it is clearly stated that one or more reps from the company "rewrote" the article at one point in July or August. In the interest of full disclosure, I've asked on the article's talk page that the other reps step forward and identify themselves, as Jsteelefreelife has only been editing for a few days. Also, in response to the above diff, I've posted a pretty blunt caution against further COI editing. I'll be watching this board and the article talk page, but if there's further offense, please feel free to ping my talk page so that I'll get the orange banner alert. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dale Smith (playwright)

    The user is admittedly the subject of this biography, and is the single most significant contributor. I have properly tagged the article, and notified the user with the {{uw-coi1}} template. VanTucky Talk 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, seems pretty clear-cut. I'd leave it at this unless the user continues to edit their own article after the warning, as it seems like they're simply unfamiliar with our policies. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the sources provided do not verify the text. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User seems to also be editing under sp Snide Paul (talk · contribs), mainly on articles about Dale Smith books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unfamiliar with the policy surrounding sock blocking, should there be one for that account? VanTucky Talk 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to softblock an SP, unless there is disruption. Assuming good faith, the user may not have been familiar with WP:COI and on using SP accounts to edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ogilvy & Mather

    The article needs cleanup for peacock terms and COI editing. - Jehochman Talk 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jahcommunications

    Repeatedly creating an article on Lauren fix, despite multiple deletions for being nn. Jahcommunications is the name of a PR firm, I've listed the name over at WP:UAA, but so far nothing has been done there. How can we get them to stop editing the article? Corvus cornix 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a note on their talk page explaining our COI guidelines and asking them to refrain from editing their client's articles. As an aside, I declined to speedy delete Lauren Fix because I felt that notability was asserted (she is the host of a show on a major cable network in the U.S.). Whether the subject will stand up to WP:N is a different question that AfD is designed to answer. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=160603519"