Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Access Industries Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel LLC Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Clearview Federal Credit Union Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician) Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Dana Klisanin Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Karen O'Rourke Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Joseph C. Papa Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Polymarket Talk:Programming language Talk:Alexander Pruss Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Robin Queen Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Jarred Rome Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Brian Rush Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Vincit Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

University Bible Fellowship

• University Bible Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Easternroot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eerogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bethankfulalways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bkarcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User000123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A former member (User:easternroot) of the University Bible Fellowship is using Wikipedia to promote his view of the organization as a destructive cult. The Wikipedia article for University Bible Fellowship was started by a former member as a clever way to discredit the ministry, as can be seen by the erratic talk page on the article. This is a clear conflict of interest in authoring Wikipedia articles. Help is needed to make this article a proper entry in Wikipedia, and not a forum for slamming the organization, nor for praising it. User:easternroot is constantly separating all of his viewpoints into his own sections or subsections that give the article structure undue weight on his fringe theory about the organization. Bkarcher (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• This appears to also be an edit war, and perhaps some sockpuppets are involved as well. Multiple single purpose accounts with edits almost exclusively to this article with similar argumentative edit summaries. hmmm. This will take some significant digging into. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• At present, the response to criticism section has been removed, but not the criticism section. .DGG (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• I summarized the criticism section and also made a proposed replacement in the talk. How does the article look now? Bkarcher (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this issue may be resolved. Can you confirm? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mark this as resolved yet. I have first-hand knowledge of UBF, since they recruited heavily at my graduate school, and I find the current state of the article to be a whitewash. I'm not going to edit the article, since I have a pretty negative opinion of the group, but I want to point out a few things. UBF has been kicked off of several colleges and universities throughout North America due to aggressive recruiting tactics and controlling behavior. They enforce arranged marriages among college-age members, and dictate career paths members take, and pressure members into severing ties with family and friends. There are some good sources that document this here[1], particularly this article[2]. This is far from a "fringe theory", as Bkarcher asserts - academics and mainstream media have discussed these aspects of UBF in verifiable sources.

Skinwalker, particularly which article? Easternroot (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant this one[3]. Hopefully the link works now. Skinwalker (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Skinwalker, I'd like to see some verifiable sources, other than a former member's collection and interpretations of articles. Bkarcher (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This, as you say, "former member's collection" is an assortment of article reprints that have been published in reliable sources elsewhere. I link to it out of convenience - we can (and will) cite the original articles without mentioning rsqubf.info if need be. You have been given verifiable sources. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, please use the actual, verifiable sources. If you read through the "published" articles on the German website, you'll see notes added into some of the articles. Without the original sources, the public cannot be certain of the original intent of the articles. By the way, I have no problem with negative facts added into the UBF article, provided they are correctly sourced and have the "attitude" removed from them. Bkarcher (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Skinwalker, you said above that "UBF has been kicked off of several colleges and universities throughout North America..." How many is "several"? When did this happen? What proof do you have? Bkarcher (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. UBF has been banned or otherwise restricted from recruiting on-campus by:

1. University of Winnipeg, as cited in the Winnipeg Free Press, Vol. 114., No. 322, page 1, Oct. 25 1986.
2. University of Manitoba, as cited in The Silhouette, the student newspaper of McMaster University, February 7, 1991 (Vol. 61, No.22) Page 11.
3. DePaul University, as cited by WBNS-TV, March 2, 2005[4].
4. Loyola University as cited here[5].

• These are old news and have been resolved. Bkarcher (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a verifiable source that shows that these restrictions have been resolved or are no longer in effect. Skinwalker (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing published on the internet as of yet. Bkarcher (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, UBF is a registered student organization at Loyola, as can be seen here and here. Bkarcher (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Two universities in Chicago and two in Canada (17+ years ago) hardly convince me of your statement above that UBF has been kicked off campuses "throughout North America". UBF can be considered zealous for sure, but to imply that there are a slew of such incidents on campuses throughout North America is misleading, in my opinion. Also the "cited" source you gave for Loyola University has no verifiable source. Bkarcher (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, it's clear that your purpose here is to obfuscate legitimate and sourced criticism of UBF, and that there is no point in arguing with you any further. I will edit the UBF article to better include this criticism, and I will invite the community at large to review my changes once I post them. Skinwalker (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am here for two reasons: 1) to ensure that the positive facts of UBF are represented, such as the ECFA accreditation. 2) to point out that there is a concerted effort led by a former member in Germany to discredit UBF. This is well documented here. There is no NPOV or balance to his website, as can be seen here (this section has been empty for years.) Bkarcher (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I should also point out that the National Association of Evangelicals has revoked UBF's membership after an investigation into its abusive tactics[6]. Skinwalker (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I should point out that the National Association of Evangelicals has re-instated UBF's membership in 2008. I have spoken and emailed with the NAE and know some details of the termination in 2004. Bkarcher (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cite a verifiable source of the NAE reinstating UBF's membership. Skinwalker (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 letter from the NAE to UBF has been posted here. Also, note in 2005 that Rick Ross mentions the membership was "suspended last year and is currently under review by the NAE." UBF/NAE. The original termination was due to three "serious allegations". When time was taken to review those allegations, UBF was readmitted. Bkarcher (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Bkarcher is likely to be Brian Karcher, a minister in UBF.[7][8] This is a clear conflict of interest, and the fact that he is issuing COI notices to other parties in the dispute is particularly obnoxious.[9] This needs admin attention, and would benefit from disinterested editors who can properly source the article and prune the obvious hagiography. Skinwalker (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see now that Bkarcher has acknowledged his COI[10]. He should not be editing the article, candor notwithstanding. Skinwalker (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, yes, since I am also a former member of the group (UBF), I should and will gladly also refrain from editing the article. I didn't start the article, nor do I wish it had been created. I saw my role as reverting the clean deletions of critical views of UBF. Easternroot (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Skinwalker, in my identity. I have a clear conflict of interest in this article. My issue though, is that so do the three userid's above, being former members of the ministry. I think the article is fine as it is currently. Bkarcher (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That final comment naturally has the effect of making an outsider uneasy. In any event, I'd like to make here a point I made in an edit summary on the article: a COI-burdened editor should under no circumstances remove a COI or NPOV template from an article (as Bkarcher did yesterday). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake in removing the COI flag... I will gladly refrain from editing this article. My concern however is that it does not become a criticism soapbox. It would be fair to also include the third party assessments from verifiable Christian authors and organizations. Can an admin prevent a criticism soapbox? If not, the article may well end up like the talk page. Bkarcher (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What "final comment" are you referring to, Nomoskedasticity? What would make an "outsider uneasy"? Bkarcher (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The final comment that you now think the article is fine. Your edits of the 9th of June removed most of the "Controversies" section; the concern naturally is that the article now is a bit of a whitewash, in comparison to what it used to be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see...well I replaced the detailed criticism with a summary version, trying to follow Tiggerjay's comments that the article was "way out of balance on the end of criticisms". I have no intention of whitwashing the article. I want to bring balance to it. I have tried to edit the controversy section, but it keeps getting replaced with the same detailed version. Bkarcher (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I am reconsidering my reluctance to edit the UBF article, since no one else seems to want to add the verifiable sources I have provided. UBF has received a significant amount of criticism in the press for their behavior, and it needs to be discussed and cited in the article in more detail than it currently is. Skinwalker (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have chosen to refrain from major edits to the article, if any at all, per my declared COI. I welcome a third party wikipedian such as yourself to properly source and edit the article. Bkarcher (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suzie Plakson

• Suzie Plakson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 76.168.172.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

There appears to be some editing by the article subject going on here - consists mainly of removing the photo and adding self-promotional information. The other active editor, Marcwade (talk · contribs), is active in Star Trek fan sites[11] and claims to be in touch with Ms. Plakson, so she's obviously aware of the article. I don't think Marcwade is doing the anonymous editing, though, I think it's someone else. Would appreciate a second opinion on this. Kelly ^hi! 17:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing changed by the anon was inappropriate. Regardless of any supposed COI, the anon was right to remove that other horrible picture. The current one is much nicer. --Faith (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

P.E.O. Sisterhood

• P.E.O. Sisterhood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A group of editors, at least one of whom has identified themselves as a member of this organization, has repeatedly blanked sourced content. Their main motivation seems to be the protection of the "secret" 19th century origin of the organization's name. I haven't taken any admin steps yet, but thought a note here was appropriate. Dppowell (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• I see you've protected it - probably the only workable strategy for now; with new editors popping up to delete the same material, I have visions of all 250,000 members of this thing joining Wikipedia... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It has started again... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw that, thanks for catching it. I think we should handle this on a per-incident basis for the moment. If the intensity picks up, I can re-protect. Dppowell (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Apcbg and Manfred Wörner Foundation

Apcbg (talk · contribs) identifies ([12]) as Lyubomir Ivanov, president of the Manfred Wörner Foundation, a Bulgarian political organisation or think-tank of sorts. He has created a walled garden of articles including his autobiography, his organisation, and other activities of his (e.g. here). He has also been spamming links and text dumps of a political manifesto of his ([13], [14], [15], User:Apcbg/BG-MK-Policies, wikisource:Bulgarian_Policies_on_the_Republic_of_Macedonia). Moreover, he is persistently pushing nationalist Bulgarian POV/OR notions on Bulgaria ([16], [17], [18]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree he shouldn't be writing his own autobiography here, and I've added templates to Lyubomir Ivanov. I'm less sure that there are problems with the article on the foundation; he's been on wikipedia for quite a while and seems at least to know how to edit here in a reasonable way (not that all edits are reasonable). The Bulgaria article is potentially more of a problem, though not really a conflict of interest problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • The problem is that both organisations (it turns out there's another, the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria) lack all independent reliable sourcing. It's all self-published stuff. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • I'm certainly not admiring the articles. Since he hasn't responded here, perhaps the solution for now is simply to challenge or delete unsourced (or poorly sourced) content; he'll be on pretty shaky ground if he tries to restore it without replying here. A bit of googling certainly reinforces the notion that there is a conflict of interest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

mKR (programming language)

• MKR (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Per this ANI thread, it appears that the author of this programming language, User:Rhmccullough, is the primary author of the article, and involved in some WP:OWNership of same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Run of the mill content dispute. He's been using the talk page, he's been reasonable. I don't see any tendencies toward excessive ownership here. Friday (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Marc Ostrofsky

Brief history: Article subject created a page about himself and attempted to prevent anyone else from changing it. Since then (apparent) meat-puppets have attempted to whitewash it again several times. At the very least, it's major SPA bait. In the interests of full disclosure, I will admit to being more than a bit pissy at him right now, so I don't want to just up and nuke his latest changes here. Can they be cut back or should they be removed entirely? What about the article in general? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit about his daughters doesn't belong there. But apart from that I'm not sure what the problem is - adding the bit about his daughters is the only recent change, and the page currently includes the cybersquatting and legal stuff. It's a pretty crappy article, but I doubt anyone is going to do much to improve it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

MarionTheLibrarian

MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – This anonynous WP:SPA has disclosed its identity to me, perhaps inadvertently, by email, so I am certain of the close association with the principals that it edits about. It (I avoid used a gendered pronoun for this account) has published on, and has been criticized on, these controversial sexology disputes before bringing its case to wikipedia. Since WP:OUTING prevents me from disclosing personal details, can I make a good case for COI by demonstrating the clear POV edits on the articles that are all about a close set of colleagues and their "enemies"? Some background may be found in the ongoing mediation on the article about one of its enemies, Lynn Conway, who is a friend of mine, which is the only reason I noticed. I have invited this editor numerous times to disclose its relationship to the principals in the topics it edits, but it has ignored those requests. This editor has also edited the same articles under accounts WriteMakesRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.231.67.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 99.227.88.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (and probably also 68.55.67.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in December 2007). Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• If user:Dicklyon has deduced my identity and if I disclosed it myself, both are indeed inadvertent on my part. (I actually have no idea if he has correctly identified me.)

When you emailed me the commentaries on Dreger, you used your yahoo.com email, instead of your yahoo.ca email; the yahoo.com email was set up to put your name by your email address. When I replied to you, I'm sure you would have been startled to see the name there if it was not your own. I assumed you realized that you had done that. That's why I find it funny that you have denied having a COI. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have previously familiarized myself with WP:COI, and I have made my edits within that policy in good faith.

That's what I'm challenging. How can your aggressive attacks on Conway and James and aggressive whitewashing rewrites of Bailey and related articles not violate COI? Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The only people who have accused me of COI (User:Dicklyon and User:Jokestress) are people who themselves acknowledge having close personal relationship with the subjects in question[19], www.tsroadmap.com. Of the entirely external editors who have contributed to any of the discussions, none has indicated that any of my edits has been inappropriate, whereas several admins have indicated that User:Dicklyon’s edits have violated BLP[20],[21],[22],[23] and have blocked him for violating 3RR on the same pages.[24]. I understand that that was User:Dicklyon’s third time being blocked for edit warring, although the prior two did not involve me.

The prior two involved User:Geoeg, all traces of whom were expunged by the attorneys after he was blocked indefinitely. He had a real bad WP:LEGAL and civility problem in addition to his COI. He got blocked for 3RR each time, but the admin felt it fair to block me as well; I accepted that. It's unclear why they didn't block you as well on the recent 3RR. Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And I didn't say anything about a "close personal relationship". Lynn Conway was my manager, 30 years ago; I had no idea she was a transwoman until she came out decades later; we have kept in touch, and I consider her a friend and professional colleague. She does not deserve the treatment that TheLibrarian has been giving to her wikipedia article; whether she deserves the treatment that Dreger and J. Michael Bailey give her in their writings and radio shows is something on which I have no opinion, though I do tend to agree with those on her side who point out that the Dreger article is extremely pro-Bailey biased and not a history. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is my opinion that User:Dicklyon violates the WP:COI admonition that editors “Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.” Our content dispute is currently being mediated[25].

A list of User:Dicklyon’s other tendentious and disruptive edits with regard to the present dispute is available at WP:ANI [26].
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

as one of the people who have tried to deal with this, it is my opinion that both Dicklyon's and Marion's editing has both shown a degree of intemperance that would ordinarily be take to imply a degree of over involvement, also known as conflict of interest. this can arise not just from close personal association, but of deep commitment to a point of view. In any case, I regret the expansion of the discussion from the many articles involved to this page. It is not likely to help the situation. What will help the situation is for both editors to stand down, and avoid accusing each other. DGG (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

DGG, while I appreciate your advice, I don't see how I can stand down until someone else finds a way to deal with TheLibrarian. It's recent edits to J. Michael Bailey, for example, so blatantly misrepresent the cited sources as to be cause enough for a block, in my opinion. I realize I did end up going a bit over to the opposite partisan side in some content arguments with TheLibrarian, but what motivated it was not so much any actual position on the complex issues as just a desire to solve the WP:BLP attacks on Lynn Conway so I could get on with working on that bio. I realize that having done that I have weakened my case. That's why I'm hoping someone else will take a good look, and deal with this. If someone will take on the task of keeping TheLibrarian honest, or away from articles in which it has a COI, I will be happy to swear off touching any of those articles except the bios of people that I actually know something about (that being Lynn Conway and nobody else related to this mess). Dicklyon (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

←MarionTheLibrarian notified me of this matter as a result of my involvement in related discussion at the WP:BLPN and at WP:3RR. While I felt the question at BLPN was fairly straightforward, I find the overall issue of conflict here tangled, in part no doubt because I lack familiarity with the topic. I'm very much in agreement with DGG that both editors seem to be working from a strong POV. In the recent ANI thread, the mediator suggested that another venue might be necessary as mediation did not seem to be resolving issues. I had suggested at his talk page that Dicklyon might wish to take up the matter at WP:NPOVN. I believe that whether a traditional conflict exists or not, the question here is less whether one of these editors should not be working on the article because of a personal connection, but primarily on where the neutral perspective lies, whether one of them is right (strong opinion does not necessarily equal wrong opinion) or if the neutral view falls somewhere between their extremes. My concern is that the argument between them is becoming so complex that it will not be easily resolved by anyone coming in from outside. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that that is a fair assessment. I am happy to go along with the content that was suggested by the mediator.[27]

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as so complicated. My only POV on the underlying controversies is that the perspective of the transwomen should not be totally discounted and dominated by the academic sexologits such as TheLibrarian, and that the "case history" by Dreger that TheLibrarian like to use as supposedly reliable source is not neutral. Nobody involved is likely to be neutral on the underlying controversy; but I'm not involved; TheLibrarian is, having published in favor of Bailey and his controversial book, having been criticized online by Lynn Conway for that, etc. I realize, and have admitted, my mistake in trying to counter TheLibrarian by taking the opposite side in some of the disputes that it pushes POV on; I should have just come here, or NPOVN, sooner. If any admin would like to look into this, I will provide details. If nobody wants to bother, I won't.

As to the particular content detail in the Lynn Conway mediation, settling on that compromise wouldn't help the underlying problem. It would pretty much enshrine TheLibrarian's point that the Dreger piece should carry more weight than the commentaries (in the same journal issue) that tear it apart. This wouldn't bother me much in some other articles, but to quote Dreger in Conway's bio, when Dreger and Conway are involved in such a dispute, and then not allow a simple balancing quote from the title of a commentary, or some other one of the three ways I proposed for balancing it, is just a BLP violation in my opinion. I realize this particular point is subtle, and might require someone to read a bit of the Dreger article and commentaries in question in order to understand my point. I will be happy provide copies on request. But the real problem is that TheLibrarian has this big elephant-in-the-room COI that it declines to fess up to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not having the journals in front of me, can you clarify what you mean by "commentaries"? Are these in the form of letters to the editor, or otherwise unedited and not as such "published" by the journal so much as reprinted with permission? I think there is a significant difference between an article published in a reliable source and a letter to the editor published alongside it - we would be correct not to accord them the same weight in the article, particularly since as you've said only a bit more than half were critical while the rest were supportive. As to your point that the Dreger article isn't neutral - well, no, it clearly isn't. Her review and writing on the subject takes the view that Bailey has been mistreated and she describes how she came to this conclusion. So her opinion on the subject isn't neutral, which isn't required in any case by Wikipedia policy (our article should be neutral, not hers). The separate question is whether she was biased in Bailey's favor prior to writing her review. You, yourself, have commented that you don't think this is the case. Even were you to make that argument you would need to support it using a reliable source in order to include that view or caveat in any of the articles describing Dreger's work. I think that all of the commenters on this thread and editors on the varios pages who have a significant conflict of interest should both identify that conflict (by adding themselves to the page using {{Notable Wikipedian}}) and refrain from major editing in the conflict area. Avruch 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They are short papers, or letters, from 23 individual who had a chance to study an advance copy of the Dreger "case history". Here's what the editor says:

Since I assumed Editorship of the Journal in 2002, we have published four peer-reviewed target articles on controversial topics, followed by peer commentaries, and a reply by the target article authors. The first two target articles were about pedophilia (Green, 2002; Schmidt, 2002), the third target article was about sexual orientation change (Spitzer, 2003), and the fourth target article was about the sexual dysfunc- tion diagnosis of dyspareunia (Binik, 2005). The Green and Schmidt articles were followed by 19 peer commentaries; the Spitzer article was followed by 26 peer commentaries (which later morphed into an edited volume that included other essays from the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psycho- therapy) (Drescher & Zucker, 2006); and the Binik article was followed by 20 peer commentaries. The target article by Dreger in this issue follows this newly spawned tradition. Dreger’s article was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger. I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in con- sultation with the author. There is one production point to keep in mind when reading the commentaries: quotes from the Dreger article do not include page numbers because the era of online first ahead of print makes it impossible, in advance, to know the page number of the print version. In my Editorial introducing the target article by Spitzer (2003), I wrote that ‘‘a scholarly journal is a legitimate forum to address controversial scientific and ethical issues rather than leaving the complexity of the attendant discourse to ‘the street’’’ (Zucker, 2003, p. 400). I hope the readers of this Journal will enjoy the walk as they read the talk. Just look all ways before crossing.

Treating the "peer-reviewed" controversial-topic Dreger article as more authoritative or neutral than the 14 commentaries that take serious issue with it is OK to some point, but the reaction against it, as a whole, should not be given much less weight, in my opinion. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone whose biography has been attacked by MarionTheLibrarian, I find this to be a complicated matter. MTL's edits consist entirely of promoting the knowledge produced at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). While I am OK with POV-pushing editors up to a point (I believe most people edit articles that interest them and usually have a POV), I have concerns here because MarionTheLibrarian is obviously an employee of CAMH. The reason I am being attacked is because I am one of several key critics of CAMH. One of my major criticisms is the ways in which CAMH employees and supporters attempt to suppress criticism, and MTL's edit history is a perfect summation of these activities.

Though we have never crossed paths on Wikipedia previously, both Dicklyon and I are longtime editors who have worked on a multitude of controversial articles without incident. MarionTheLibrarian is a single purpose account who has significantly improved a number of articles related to CAMH and their employees and research. However, MarionTheLibrarian has also been systematically attempting to suppress dissent and criticism of CAMH's controversial work, by including poorly sourced material about their critics, and removing reliably-sourced material criticizing CAMH-related people and work.

As several have noted, this is a complicated issue, but one part is uncomplicated. MTL is obviously associated with CAMH and has engaged in a pattern of edits solely designed to improve the image of CAMH employees and their work. In my opinion, based on years of editing, this is one of the most clear-cut cases of WP:COI I have seen.

What I propose is that we find a few disinterested editors willing to help in a long-term refereeing of this controversy. I believe that will help reduce problems significantly. MTL and others can present the CAMH case, and critics can present their case, then a consensus can be reached. Because I am directly involved and have fully disclosed my own interests, I have tried to keep my editing of articles that mention me to correcting misstatements of fact. However, it's really gotten out of hand while I was away at an academic conference presenting on the very topic of CAMH-related controversies. Any thoughts would be appreciated, as it's an unprecedented situation to my knowledge. Jokestress (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your editing conduct in the area of your disclosed conflict has been exemplary, and the few corrections you've made (including correcting one insertion of mine that introduced a misstatement) have been very reasonable - particularly given the severity of some of the criticism aimed your way. I think what we should expect here is that all participants with a similar level of conflict behave in a similar way - by refraining from major edits or revisions to articles that are under dispute. Proposing changes (paragraph by paragraph is how I would suggest it be done) on the talkpage and requesting discussion and implementation by others is not too cumbersome. Consider that there is no deadline. Avruch 22:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A deal has been proposed over at User talk:DGG#Dicklyon.2FMarion case at WP:COIN. If this holds up, then the current COI item can probably be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That deal is done. TheLibrarian has specifically said it intends to continue to edit in its area of expertise, sexology, so it would still be useful in many such articles to disclose its affiliations at least in a general sense, to avoid more COI problems. I will also continue to edit in my areas of expertise, and my identity is plain on my user page, and my affiliations are easy to find, and I'll be happy to confess any ohters that become relevant to my editing. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are two related threads started recently at the BLP noticeboard; Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#J. Michael Bailey complications with COI(ish) editor and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#user:Jokestress creation of BLP on Kenneth Zucker. One opened by yet another user, one opened by one of these users. GRBerry 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolution: MarionTheLibrarian has now declared on its user page that it is James Cantor; he has agreed not to edit certain articles that we were arguing about, but still needs to be watched for bias with respect to other sexology-related articles, since he's a professional in this controversial field, who has for example published a positive review of The Man Who Would Be Queen, and has been castigated for that by various people on the other side of the debates, and apparently has attempted to use wikipedia to get back at some of them, which is what brought us here in the first place. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Graphology

• Graphology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pseudo daoist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (signs as "jonathan")

jonathon talk blanks this section over and over: "But the scientific status of graphology is controversial and it has been occasionally labeled as a pseudoscience". And in here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pseudo_daoist&action=edit&oldid=208512966 can be seen that there is a conflict of interest (i am sorry i don´t send you directly to his talk page but he blanked it)456hjk (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC) I copy the content in here:

Bhekare

Hi jonathon, Are you by any chance Jonathon Blake? Creator of the graphology resource... ~hwa A Graphology Web Site

Bhekare (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. jonathon (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Survival of the Sickest (book)

This article about a book is essentially a long, enthusiastic, detailed review, written and updated by user Evodev. He resists all attempts to introduce links to criticism of the book, and indeed appears to be identical with its author. I'd appreciate it if people would have a look. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants

• U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 206.239.219.184 (talk · contribs)
• Landonfire (talk · contribs)
• Jonspangler1 (talk · contribs)
• Editor2423 (talk · contribs)

It seems that an IP [28] belonging to the organization is editing the article extensively, also via the user User:Landonfire. The IP and the newly created single-purpose account is adding links to the organization's reports and websites to various articles. From the IP, and the pattern of edits, it seems that the user:Landonfire is also the same person, and possibly an employee of the organization in question. Can someone please take a look at this situation? --Ragib (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the article was created by User:Jonspangler1. A quick google search shows that Jonathan Spangler, Healthy Refugees Healthy Families Program Officer is an employee of the organization in question. --Ragib (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles Karel Bouley‎

Charles Karel Bouley‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article has been written nearly entirely by JoyDiamond (talk · contribs), who also removed a prod tag on this article recently. This user account has been used only to edit this article. Another set of eyes would be appreciated.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Honest Reporting Canada

Honest Reporting Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Honest Reporting is a pro-Israeli media watchdog group that attempts to correct bias in the mainstream media (real or imagined). User:Michah99 has uploaded two images that may be deemed problematic. (diff) If the document source CLAIRVEST is Clairvest Group Inc., then there might possibly be a conflict of interest (as established here). ~ smb 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i dont know if i am responding in the right section... Im confused by the "conflict of interest" (im still not sure what i did wrong), but i do share the CLAIRVEST server, if that helps to clarify anything. please get back to me, thanks! ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michah99 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Swapnil Bhartiya

Swapnil Bhartiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is some heavy evidence that the creator and major contributor Arnieswap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a conflict of interest with the subject of the article. Various editors suspect the editor of writing his own resume in this article (see the discussions: here and here). The editor's identity can easily be verified using google: [29] The editor in question even links his real name with his Wikipedia user name on various sites on the internet: [30] (note the photo at the bottom, which was also uploaded by the user in question) Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I suspect that a number of anonymous IP adresses which also contributed to this article in the past are in fact sockpuppets of the same editor in question. For example, see the editing pattern in the contributions of the following users. It seems to me that the user is promoting his place of work.

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swapnil_Bhartiya&diff=prev&oldid=200506521
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthias_Ettrich&diff=prev&oldid=200507512

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linus_Torvalds&diff=prev&oldid=137002411
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Klaus_Knopper&diff=108396813&oldid=107237690
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swapnil_Bhartiya&diff=prev&oldid=143975118

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lakhimpur_Kheri_District&diff=prev&oldid=185900795

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthias_Ettrich&diff=prev&oldid=200509729
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronics_For_You&diff=prev&oldid=148692890

Ghettoblaster (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Skys biography page

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Skys

Eric Skys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This page appears to be mostly self-advertising. No mention of the current criminal investigation is given, and the talk page is a disaster. Comments in the article's discussion are rarely signed, emotionally heated by any measure, and the entire talk page is frequently wiped by someone cliaming to be a family member soon after questions about impartiality are raised. To me this is a problem, since at least one news article links to the actual entry.

I fully admit to my own conflict of interest in this, as I am involved in the case as well, thus making me think that outside arbitration is even more necessary. 24.128.82.179 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Eric Skys page might be nominated for deletion, due to the lack of reliable sources. If it is not deleted, some editors should be cited for removing others' comments from the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress editing Kenneth Zucker bio page

I am a colleague of Kenneth Zucker, and I am concerned that Jokestress/Andrea James has written a biographical page on Zucker. Jokestress/Andrea James has previously written the following letter to Zucker's hospital regarding Zucker (and others), thus becoming an actor in the events. Despite the rights she has to express her opinions off-wiki, it does not seem appropriate for her to be involved in writing the BLP's of the people once she has involved herself in their lives, such as by contacting their employers.

http://www.tsroadmap.com/notes/index.php/site/comments/letter_to_consultant_brought_in_to_clean_up_camh_clarke_institute/

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted the above at BLPN, and User:GRBerry wrote the following to suggest that the concern would be better placed here. I copied-and-pasted GRBerry's comment below for convenience.<br.> —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be worthwhile to have another editor review the new article, but the conflict of interest you express concern about would be better aired at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Are there any specific concerns about the article, as the primary issue from this board's perspective will be the sourcing, balance, and accuracy of the article? Reviewing, a history merge from Kenneth J. Zucker to Kenneth Zucker may be worth doing, but there is no clear copy paste merge here to absolutely require it. GRBerry 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nikki Hornsby

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

Per this post, GM Hornsby may in fact be Nikki Hornsby, editing her own article. The edits seem to show a conflict in an effort to edit the truth into the article to overcome referenced information. Please look at. Also, perhaps something can be placed on the article talk page to indicated that the subject of the article may be editing the article. Bebestbe (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doll-E Girl

The user User:Droptoploco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) apparantly appears to have a close connection with the article Doll-E Girl, as the user uploaded the main image of the subject and wrote the article about Doll-E as well. Additionally, contributions prove that the user also added advertising about Doll-E on another article, and the talk page shows about creating a [now-deleted] article about "J.V.", another subject close to Doll-E. I tried tagging the article for speedy deletion, but another editor deleted it soon afterwards. Thus, I am here requesting help in the matter. I feel that Doll-E Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) doesn't meet WP:MUSIC; there is only one external source I could find about her, and it's a bit dubious. Thank you. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rehan Qayoom

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Qayoom (2nd nomination)

• Rehan Qayoom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this is an autobiography,the entire content is by the subject writing about everything from his publications and ideas to countries he's visited Doug Weller (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Autobiography template now on his userpage. Dougweller, please remember to inform the editor when starting a COI discussion about him/her. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article looks a ripe candidate for deletion. In fact, it's a recreation of an article previously speedy-deleted in 2007[31].

While being highly aware of systemic bias (i.e. he could conceivably be big on the non-English-language circuit somewhere) I think this is a total vanity entry: he has zero hits in the NewsBank UK newspaper archive; his book Seeking Betjeman Country is self-published at Lulu.com; the publications are a bunch of blogs, small-press mags, unpaid poetry showcase sites, etc; and ultimately there are no solid third-party sources demonstrating notability.

I also see an earlier COI warning was given a year ago. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

db-bio now on article page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a distinct smell of sockpuppetry here:

• RehanQayoom (talk · contribs)
• Sirius86 (talk · contribs)
• 86.21.158.240 (talk · contribs)

have a rather close overlap of topic interests and edit patterns. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Noting conflicts of interest

In the talk page of biographical articles, people can note conflicts of interest by the subject with {{Notable Wikipedian|John Smith|editedhere=yes}}, but there doesn't seem to be a tag noting that people or groups opposed to the subject have edited the article. Is this appropriate? Andjam (talk) 09:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to report editing of a specific article by COI-affected *opponents* of the subject, in such a way that the neutrality of the page is affected, this board is open to you. Adding page tags to record this situation sounds unworkable. (Pages would be covered with tags). EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Diann Burns

• Article: Diann Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Factorfriction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one is a tough one, but I don't want to proceed with a further neutral copyedit before some second opinions. The subject is a former Chicago news anchor for WBBM-TV who was a part of CBS Corporation's March layoffs, and in the last month there's been tenuous editing on the page where Factorfriction (who has only edits relating to Burns) changed the tone from neutral to extremely negative against the management of CBS, including one on the station's page where they added since the layoffs the station has fallen to fifth place without sources. I want to rewrite this to be neutral (and I will be as I am not in the Chicago area), but with a column today in the Chicago Sun-Times about the glowing editing (which was tipped off by the webmaster of a popular site about the TV news business), I'm afraid that I might be in a losing battle. The article has been edited since the CST article came out, but it still needs major help. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User Peterjabrahams

• Peterjabrahams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (n.b.: deleted contribs)
• deletion log for "Intelligent Entertainment" article

This COI SPA created an article about his company six days ago which showed up yesterday in the CSD category, tagged for deletion as per WP:CSD#A7 (no indication of WP:CORP notability). It was also eligible for deletion as per WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising). I saw it in the category, checked it out, and deleted it.

Today, Bongomatic notified me (User talk:Athaenara#Intelligent Entertainment) that it had reappeared. The content was identical and now triply eligible for deletion as per WP:CSD#G4: re-creation of a previously deleted page.

I don't want to go one-on-one—it's not personal—with someone who according to IMDB is "a partner and producer/manager" of the company he's trying to use this encyclopedia to promote. More eyes, please, more attention from other neutral editors and admins! Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamco

Jamco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User:Jamco has made various edits at Communist Party of Pakistan which points to a direct COI problem. User:jamco is seemingly the same person claiming to be the representative of CPP in various web forums, a claim that appears to be a hoax. Soman (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:edco0o

edco0o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:edco0o has created several biographies of living people who manage or direct the company he is employed by [32]: Chris Lonergan, Anthony DiPilla, Patrick J. Peters, John Mancuso, Mark Kozaki, Tony Ceglio, Jim Picinich. These articles are all connected by the Italian American Network I have nominated the biographical pages for AfD, but further action may be necessary. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

user: Marburg72

• Marburg72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Articles

• Cahokia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monk's Mound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Midewiwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thunderbird (mythology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A WP:SPA that has been editing for almost a year, with over 500 edits, that has very little understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The link that he's been adding to multiple articles, freewebs.com/historyofmonksmound, is supposedly his own website. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)