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:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:John Challis Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square 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:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Emergent BioSolutions Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group 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:Arlene Harris (inventor) 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 Draft talk:Juris Svenne Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Monero Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Karen O'Rourke Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Joseph C. Papa Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Polymarket Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Jarred Rome Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:ShareFile Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange 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: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: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.

Schlitterbahn

• Schlitterbahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User Schlitterwater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing the article related to Schlitterbahn. I asked them if they were an employee or somehow connected with the company and they responded with yes. While their additions have been non-controversial and they have been honest and straight forward about who they are, I still think someone should take a look at this. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked at the article and the talk page... The article does currently have tags identifying problems with the article and there is discussion on the article's talk page regarding the issues. The editor seems perfectly willing to comply with COI guidelines and as mentioned they have restricted themselves to non-controversial edits so I see no concerns. -- Atama頭 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

East India Company

East India Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - over the past few months, ananymous IPs have repeatedly inserted advertising text for a company of the same name which was formed in 2005. The last three such insertions ([1], [2], [3]) took place over the last four days. The sycophantic tone and use of peacock terms are clearly against Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion. The article ought at least to be protected against anonymous edits. HLGallon (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect it. It looks like good faith, though misguided, and this should be handled at article talk. They even added a cite, in cite template format!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't dispute your decision, but in my opinion, the actions of the editors (or possibly only one editor) from a narrow range of IP addresses based in New Delhi who have persisted (over twenty times now) in adding this section do not indicate good faith. The grovelling tone is nauseating enough, but it is very clearly intended for promotion or self-promotion of an otherwise non-notable business at the expense of the clarity of the article. HLGallon (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kindly go to company house UK and check the records, as we want to provide the true thing in Wikipedia about the Incorporation in year 2005 As we really dont know how to contact you or edit that is why we do mistake here, you kind help required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.83.81 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the block of text here and blocked the range of IPs originating the material temporarily. The spam itself is not particularly eggregious, but the IPs were literally only communicating by replicating the article content and placing it on project pages and user talk pages. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the user's most recent addition of his material to East India Company (formerly a featured article) as pure unashamed promotion of himself and his retail store. As you point out, he's also spewed the same spammy text to my talk page and to that of other editors. He needs to communicate otherwise. His store gets a one-paragraph mention at East_India_Company#2010_organisation and that seems more than sufficient, if it needs to be mentioned at all, and I don't see that it's at all notable except perhaps based on an article about him buying the name. --CliffC (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to be cruel but I think we're running into a real competence problem. If the IP users are unable to properly communicate I don't know how there's any way to work with them. -- Atama頭 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Fresh promotion of the store and spammed links today here, 'new' user warned via template. --CliffC (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And now twice more, one an IP and one a newly-registered user that I advised via a personalized message. They are very keen to get their store links into this article. --CliffC (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks more like a spamming problem that should be reported to WP:RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography CoI alleged

I was CoI-tagged, the tag was withdrawn, and then the tag was restored by the same editor. In short, I donated $25 or less to Feminists Fighting Pornography in the 1980s, spoke with the group several times, and saw it tabling in public places. The group became inactive, probably in the 1990s. I have no current contacts or contact information for anyone connected with the group. In reply, the complaining editor wrote, "it was more of an indicator than a big issue, your comments are appreciated and in good faith I will remove the template." That editor has restored the tag but has not stated any particulars despite having logged into WP since my last request. A search of this noticeboard's archives shows no inquiry by anyone concerning the group. I plan to notify the editor of this concern. Is there a conflict of interest?

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the editor. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has changed the COI remains as in a user that has contributed to the article, (wrote it themselves mostly) has a close connection to the group and is a WP:SPA to the article, the tag has imo still a valid reason to be there and is presently beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no close connection. As far as I know, the group hasn't existed in more than a decade.

Anyone can edit. I haven't discouraged anyone.

See my contributions list. SPA doesn't apply. I've performed over 1,100 edits and created 11 or 12 articles.

Given the facts, what valid reason is there?

The tag is not beneficial. Specific critiques that an editor, such as myself, can address, have been invited on the talk page. Those critiques have not lately been forthcoming. All older ones were resolved. Keeping critiques secret from me keeps them secret from most editors. Merely tagging and tagging incorrectly do not inform editors about particular needs.

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'll start by saying that the group's lack of current activity doesn't necessarily indicate that a COI claim is invalid. A person's affiliation with an article subject can still be a concern even if that affiliation was in the past. To give an example, the son of a famous person who died 20 years ago might still work to whitewash his father's article.

• It's a good thing that you're open about your connection, that goes a long way toward gaining trust among other editors.

• I'm looking over your recent contributions and the claim that you're an SPA for that article is clearly very far off the mark. Looking at your past 500 contributions to Wikipedia, I count 35 edits to that article and its talk page; that comprises exactly 7% of your contributions. Now, I do see that feminism and other gender issues dominate your contributions, but that just means you have an interest in the area, no harm in that.

• I've looked over the discussion here and your statements elsewhere and my opinion is that the COI claim is a valid one, but weak. I don't see any reason to believe that your involvement with the group was more than you've said. Clearly, you'd had some personal involvement with the group, enough that other editors might view your contributions to the subject with some wariness, but I don't think it should be a major concern. Only if there were some serious conduct issues accompanying your edits (most especially an attempt to skew the POV) would I worry.

• So now let's get to the reason for this discussion... The COI tag. If you look at what the tag itself states, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." The language seen at the page for a similar tag, Template:POV, has some advice that should also apply to the COI tag. "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Most especially, the advice that applies here is, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article."

• Absent a discussion on the talk page of the article outlining problems with the COI, the tag itself is useless. It's a cleanup tag and implores people to fix problems. As Nick suggested, if there is nothing to fix, the tag should be removed. -- Atama頭 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article needs something, its bloated and primarily cited and created by this one involved user, this user moved three lines from another article and created this///leaving it as if an honest reflection of this groups actual position in history is false and misleading, if any editors are willing to work on the article and improve it please do. There is a clear COI with this user. The AFD from April is revealing the issues that have continued. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the true notability of this group without a COI, this is what we had at the Women Against Pornography article, all expansion of the content is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports.

Feminists Fighting Pornography, led by Page Mellish, was another New York City-based group. They are best known for their 1989 arrest for openly displaying pornography as part of an anti-pornography information table in Grand Central Station. The New York Civil Liberties Union (the state affiliate of the ACLU) successfully contested the arrest and established their legal right to display such material. Feminists Against Pornography was a different group, active in Washington, D.C. during the late 1970s and early 1980s

All expansion of the content since Feb 2010 is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are the kinds of concerns that the COI tag is supposed to draw attention to. :) Thanks for that information. I'll take another look over the article myself. If there aren't any third-part sources, that's particularly troubling. -- Atama頭 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a comment on the article's talk page, and in particular I'm concerned about the group's notability. -- Atama頭 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, good to get a fresh look at the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied, including on sourcing; thank you.

The old passage on the group was in an article primarily about a competitor. WP wouldn't profile London only in the article about New York, nor keep it to just part of one paragraph when as many independent third-party sources exist as I found and cited for this group.

The article expanded from less than a paragraph after I went to libraries and used publicly available hardcopy, microforms, and databases to provide essential information. I did the work and that's why I wrote about the group.

Thanks again. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Corrected indentation of this paragraph: Nick Levinson (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurt Building

• Hurt Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - SWESTBERG (talk · contribs) and IP 209.155.239.202 (talk · contribs) appear to represent the owners of the Hurt Building. They have not responded on talk pages to this point and appear to be trying to make the article into a leasing promo. Between the IP and the user, they are at 3RR. Acroterion _(talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Watchlisted, but this user probably won't be back anytime soon - been 6 days. Netalarm^talk 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably so, and other editors have taken notice as well. Acroterion _(talk) 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

user:carolmooredc writing a book and using wp to make her pov

• Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - carolmooredc has been the most prevalent editor on this page for years. carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article. this is confusing to readers and is slanted toward her pov which is the subject of a book being promoted at www.carolmoore.net. carolmooredc also admitted to have known Murray Rothbard, the person who coined the term anarcho-capitalism. The majority of her edits in wp are focused on libertarianism, specifically, topics concerning anarcho-capitalism.
• :archived talk page Living in NYC before associated with Libertarians I was very pro-Israel. But hanging out with Murray 1979-82, I became very critical. However, when someone took "anti-Zionist" off his page, I did a quick search and couldn't find a self-identification as one. But his writings could be interpreted as that. Being an anarchist he had more the anarchist position there should not be such a state. Carol Moore 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc Question authority! :-) Carol Moore 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Taken from Murray Rothbard talk page, Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• editing a different article, for a different book: Waco Siege because I wrote a 1995 book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE published by Gun Owners Foundation on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carolmooredc&oldid=84876028%20first%20started Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Response from Carol Moore:

• Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc has been the most prevalent editor on this page for years.
  • He’d have to prove it, but a look at last couple thousand edits of article shows I’ve edited less than one or more other editors, including possibly himself.
• Quote Darkstar1st:carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article.
  • I have been more active in the last 8 months on the talk page dealing with an onslaught of WP:Soapbox from Darkstar1st, various AnonIPs (now banned by protection), newly registered editors, a couple of sock puppets, and (to a lesser extent) a couple of legitimate editors. All have been pushing an exclusionist POV to mention only minimal state libertarianism in the article and ignore multiple WP:RS on existence of other types. (The Libertarianism template Darkstar1st included shows just how much diversity there is.) This recently concluded RfC rejects such a POV. Multiple editors have insisted both in the article, on talk page and in the RfC that anarcho capitalism and left libertarianism be in the lead.
• Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article. this is confusing to readers and is slanted toward her pov which is the subject of a book being promoted at www.carolmoore.net.
  • I have not written a book on libertarianism and have had the brief outline of a book on spirituality and politics on my web page for last ten years. Frankly, editing wikipedia interferes with my writing much outside of it at all.
• Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc also admitted to have known Murray Rothbard, the person who coined the term anarcho-capitalism. The majority of her edits in wp are focused on libertarianism, specifically, topics concerning anarcho-capitalism.
  • As it happens I don’t consider myself an anarcho-capitalist and, while I had fun with Murray in the early 1980s, Rothbard denounced me as a hippy and “luftmenschen” from 1987 until he died, but I don’t hold that against him in wanting to show a fair portrait of his influence on the modern movement.
• Quote DarkStar1st:I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no diff for this quote, but as I vaguely remember it is some (archived) chatty fluff with another editor on my personal talk page - not something from my main user page. I also don’t see any link to any policy saying such things are illegal, though now that I see how people will use them against you I shall desist.
• Quote DarkStar1st: Taken from Murray Rothbard talk page, Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Here I’m admitting a possible conflict of interest, which is what WP:COI suggest. I’m saying that I can’t quote myself on saying this was an angry period in Rothbard’s life. Actually I think the author of the article ended up concluding that Rothbard was angry, as do other sources, but evidently I didn't bother to suggest any that others should add. Maybe I should correct that error.
• Quote DarkStar1st: He quotes from my 14:14, October 31, 2006 very first edit to my talk page when I was barely even aware of the many wikipedia policies on talk pages, conflict of interest, etc. He quotes my writing I'd edited Waco Siege because I wrote a 1995 book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE published by Gun Owners Foundation on the topic.
  • I see my only edit to that article at that point was to add my own book to external links and correct someone else's link about a report I'd written. Yup, I was ignorant of WP:COI 4 years ago when I started editing! FYI I do think expert editing is needed on this article and have sorely neglected doing much. I certainly would mention any possible WP:COI if I proceeded with the major changes needed - or if I edited it all again! I intend to use only original sources to be sure that I got my refs right, and one of these days I'll get my 15 boxes of files in order so I can proceed.

Reason for DarkStar1st's complaint now: I believe it is that this week Darkstart1st was very favorable towards WP:disruptive editing advice on his talk page from an individual that two of us warned him was probably a sock puppet. See User_talk:Darkstar1st#It.27s_a_ground_war and Talk:Libertarianism#Warning_on_Sock_and_Meat_puppets. I then filed a Sock Puppet complaint archived here and the individual (his two anonymous Ips and his new Registered name) were immediately banned as socks of User:Karmaisking. Note that Darkstar1st immediately received on his talk page advice on how to attack me for WP:COI from another suspicious editor, with specific links to my edits. This was removed at this diff by another editor who considered this to be just a sock of User:Karmaisking.

User_talk:Darkstar1st's talk page show numerous complaints against him. A few of us have been discussing on talk pages doing a User RfC or another ANI; the last libertarian-related ANI against him recommended mediation first, but our request for mediation has not been fruitful. After the latest incidents with the sock puppet, you can bet an RfC has been on our minds. Someone else then launched a (in my opinion premature and incomplete) WP:ANI, specifically on his "Outing" me on his talk page, which also might have motivated this complaint. I see this complaint as just another disruptive editing move by DarkStar1st. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by DarkStar1st

actually you were the one who recommended i file a coi report against you, after i tried to bring this up on the libertarian talk page Darkstar1st (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I said a) you hadn't followed correct process. Please see what that process is at WP:COI and b) the way you were doing it was harassment and you should just file a report if you really thought it was that big a deal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by The Four Deuces

Darkstar1st has not referred to any specific violations that have been committed as described in WP:COI nor has he described any edits to articles. Lots of editors have had some involvement with the subjects they describe and many editors have published books and articles. From my experience, Carolemooredc has always observed neutrality and used reliable sources in editing articles. TFD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

here is a pov edit she later claimed to have not made, then said she could not remember making, notice the reasons she gave for removing sourced material from sources already in use in that paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187 Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

she later tried to actually read the source given after her edit, but could not find it, even though the link worked and listed the paragraph and line. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolemooredc removed two of your edits:

1. "...by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles..."[4]
2. "...who are commitmented to expansion of the welfare state, which is incompatible with anti-statist."[5]

The first is original research. The second is backed by a source but contains POV not included in the source which says, "...have tended to support the expansion of welfare state benefits via community sponsored services...." (p. 181)[6] In any case neither belong in the lead and the second is incoherent - "commitmented" is not a word and "anti-statist" is an adjective that requires a noun. So she removed text that included original research and misrepresentation of the source and was poorly written.

TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not OR, rather you didnt read the source Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 517, paragraph 3, sentence 2: it's very structural framework renders it incapable of protecting the substantive libertarian principles it purports to cherish Darkstar1st (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

2. are you saying a commitment (i think we all know what word i meant) to expanding the state is anti-statist? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You left out the preceding phrase, argue its critics which means it cannot be presented as a fact. Also it does not say "by definition". Incidentally the sentence was not written by Edward Stringham, but by David Osterfeld and is an exert from a book published by the Cobden Press which was a libertarian publishing company and therefore not a reliable source for the article anyway.

Your source does not say "commitment to the welfare state". Libertarians opposed the welfare state because they believed that welfare services should be provided by the community. Many churches and voluntary organizations provide welfare services and that does not make them statist. In any case do not present your opinions as facts.

TFD (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

not my facts, but from the sourced article on left-libertarian which has been there quite some time. commitment to expansion of the welfare state. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

When you add incoherent, ungrammatical and misspelt text that is unsourced or misrepresents the source then expect to be reverted. If you have difficulty in comprehending sources or in writing correct English, then ask for assistance on the talk page. WP articles are not reliable sources for other WP articles. TFD (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

i noticed you have not challenged the source you claim to be misrepresented on the left-libertarian page. maybe someone there could better explain it's validity to you. on grammar, my edits appear to use a broader swath of the language than yours, perhaps why some of the words are unfamiliar to you. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by Yworo

This is simply not a COI issue. I'd recommend that Darkstar1st consider the distinct possibility of WP:BOOMARANG. I've been peripherally involved in a number of "actions" brought by Darkstar1st, on AN/I, SPI, etc. They seem primarily intended to subdue an adversary. Darkstar1st seems a bit overinvolved in getting articles related to Libertarianism the way he wants them. His editing frequently appears to be disruptive, and his talk page behavior frequently seems to be soapboxing. I'm starting to think that the real solution here may be a temporary topic ban for Darkstar1st. Yworo (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

would you give us your specific refute to the evidence presented above? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone needs to, because you are (once again) making a mountain out of a molehill. Yworo (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

actually, that is the purpose of this section, please address the accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The accusation is unfounded and you don't really seem to understand what the conflict of interest policy is intended to prevent. This is not a case of an editor editing their own article or promoting their website or book. If such a book actually existed and was actually being promoted, you'd have an argument, but as it stands you are just harassing another editor. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: FYI I did edit the article Carol Moore which someone else had created a year before that was just filled with silly assertions, cutting it down to bare facts and references, some more WP:RS (bunch of quotes in major newspapers) than others (my published writings), since it was when I was still a new editor. Once I became aware of the WP:COI issue, I refrained. Article now deleted. Someone offered to put it up again and I told him to wait a while, but he didn't bring the matter up and I haven't either since frankly I don't really care if there is one right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

so if you are writing a book, but not finished, then it is ok to edit the article? Is her user name or music videos promoting her website? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes to the first, no to the second. Even if she had a published book, only promoting the book via external links or unnecessary references to it would constitute a conflict of interest. Our policies explicitly allow an author to use their own work as a reference so long as it qualifies as a reliable source, though it's discouraged. Mention is not always promotion. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

what if the user name was seanhannitynyc and he posted youtube videos about political protest, and he was the primary editor on the article conservatism, but insisted on adding religious right as the dominate form of conservatism? having a user name the same as an url is troubling, posting self made protest videos on wp is inappropriate, editing the article which is the subject of the site and videos is unacceptable. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Using your reasoning, anybody who actually has a life and edits Wikipedia articles about things they are interested in has a conflict of interest. That's simply not the intent of the policy. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

no, what i meant was using a trademark, like carolmoore, is again policy, especially if you use it promoting that trandmark. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's an issue, it would be a username policy issue, not a COI issue. However, I see no evidence that it's a "trademark" - which has a specific meaning. Just looks like an individual who chooses to use their own name, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet, rather than be anonymous. While I wouldn't choose to do that myself, it's certainly not inherently against policy. Wikipedia allows even extremely well-known people to use their own name as their username, provided it's verified through OTRS. Yworo (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

since it is a registered the domain name, it actually is a trademark and can be used in to defend the brand. does an "individual" make music videos, post them on wp, and sell products on a site with the same url as user name? since the site sell products, and has been advertised on wp, this is clearly coi. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't trademarked "Carol Moore" and doubt I can. Also I doubt that registering a domain name is an automatic trademark, and Darkstar would have to prove that. Obviously it would be fraudulent for someone to claim they represented any carolmoore domains I own without my authorization, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Even if I did trademark any carolmoore domains I own, it would be irrelevant to this discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, a domain is not an automatic trademark. Trademarks cost money. The gov doesn't give away trademarks. Carol is allowed to link to her domain from her user page. So long as she doesn't link to it from articles, there is no conflict of interest. Yworo (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, she may not link her promotional advocacy page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Common_uses_of_userspace section: Excessive unrelated content

• Promotional and advocacy material and links
• Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
• Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Yworo (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

http://carolmoore.net/books.html is a shopping cart with promotional and advocacy material, not a personal site Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are completely misreading the user page restrictions. She could not put the contents of her website onto her user page, but she can link to her userpage just so long as she doesn't do it in a promotional way. Her site is not overtly commercial, no more so than most personal sites, which may have a few Amazon links or whatnot. There are no "Buy-it-now" links on the home page, the purpose of the site is clearly primarily informative, and it's a .net domain, not a .com domain.

Carol, if you don't have a link to your site on your user page, I encourage you to add one. Don't let Darkstar's misreading of user page guidelines deter you. Yworo (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

actually, there is a buy it now on the homepage: Buy my book, or the edition of this Clarence Darrow book to which I wrote a new preface introduction. clearly promotional, clearly commercial, clearly avocational material, clearly linked to her user page. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed link to my page in Feb 2009 after some one opined it might be seen as self-promotional. Note that badgering people about things done before they knew better and since corrected, is WP:Harassment. Doing a search I see there are a few links to my web pages, a couple of which I doubtless did before I knew any better. (Once you know, you don't do it any more!) A couple of which others put in the articles. I'll remove the ones that obviously don't belong. I guess I'll put a tag next to any that are copies of WP:RS documents that can't be found elsewhere. That's what's called cooperative editing :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

your edits of articles slanted toward personal relationships you had with the person who coined the term you are editing is the main issue here. excuse yourself from articles that directly correspond to your carolmoore.net site, which has a shopping cart, and buy me now links on the homepage. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard related comment responded to in my response. Have you read other editors' comments? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowing the person who coined a term, then editing an article toward that term's meaning = coi, which you not only edit the article, but actually edit that page more than most editors. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, Darkstar1st. Just having known a person is certainly not a conflict of interest. Unless you are editing their biographical article without proper sourcing. I knew Buckminster Fuller, but that's not going to stop me from editing articles related to him, even if this admission is pointed out by some Wikilawyering editor. A person's view of a subject comes from multiple sources. Your take on it would prevent editors with a Ph.D. from writing on a subject at all if their professors were in any way defining in the field, which of course they would be. So you'd exclude those with the most expertise on a topic from contributing to it. Bah. As I said, this is a meritless action taken in an attempt to subdue an opponent. I'm about ready to open an RFC/U on it. Combined with all your other meritless AN/I and SPI cases, it would establish and interesting pattern. I suggest you desist. Yworo (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

i suggest you read the opinion of those participating in the mediation on the libertarianism article which clearly disagrees with carols repeated insertions of anarchy in the lede. this is clearly pov pushing, and clearly related to a shopping cart site being promoted on wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

This noticeboard is where those with expertise on COI issues respond to COI issues brought up. As you've received no support from any of the experts here, you may assume that your complaint is unsupported and unsupportable. I'll stop wasting my time here, but feel free to continue to attempt to get attention from another COIN-watcher. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by Atama

I don't know if you'd call me someone with "expertise" on COI issues, I'm not sure if anyone is, but I've been helping out at this board somewhat regularly for more than a year now, and I've been involved in many COI discussions. I'm also an administrator if anyone cares (it doesn't really matter here unless someone has done something worthy of being blocked).

Carol Moore has been very open about who she is, more so than what we normally expect of an editor. She has tied her username to her real life name and made it known that she has particular interests, enough that it isn't difficult to determine where she might have a conflict of interest. There are many areas in which she would, in particular her biographical article (which is now deleted), or any actions that might be seen as promoting her books, or any articles about people or organizations with whom she is personally connected. Those are pretty straight-forward COI issues, the kind you see often.

The assertion here is that because Carol is working on a book related to anarcho-capitalism, and is acquainted with the person who coined the term, that her insertion of the term would constitute a conflict of interest. How could you possibly draw that conclusion? Do you think that she's hoping that the inclusion of the term in an article will somehow get people to buy her books? How would that even work? Is she doing it as a "favor" to Murray Rothbard? Frankly, I think this is an absurd allegation, it just goes against common sense. When Carol starts using her books as references, or linking to her website in the external links sections of articles, or starts trying to whitewash articles of her friends, then we might have a problem and we'd have to ask her to desist or possibly face a ban or other sanctions. For now, however, there's nothing actionable. If Carol is guilty of violating NPOV or going against consensus at the disputed article or any other forms of disruption, those should be addressed, but not here. -- Atama頭 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well put. Yworo (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, welcome back, from your previous post i was concerned i had offended you. Atama, my concern is placing the minority term anarcho-capitalist, into the lede of libertarianism, is an attempt to shift the focus of the article toward a pov promoted on carolmoore.net, which is a shopping cart site. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe I'm not understanding something. How does a reader seeing "anarcho-capitalism" in the lead of the article suddenly decide to go to Carol's web site to buy her books when neither Carol's name, books, or web site are mentioned in the article? How would someone be led into doing that from Carol's actions? -- Atama頭 05:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

good point. the user page says, "I am a ... libertarian and decentralist activist", would you consider a npov editing an article for which the editor is an activist? Since the url that shares the same name as the user name, and it has been admitted it is the users for-profit' site, the user appears to be editing the article to gain visibility for the user's pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very possible that her edits are a violation of WP:NPOV. But NPOV and COI aren't the same. A person can have a conflict of interest while still managing to edit neutrally, while another person can insert their own POV into an article without having a COI. It's the same reason why we don't tell a fan of Star Wars that they have a COI when editing the Return of the Jedi article; a person's interests and beliefs don't create a conflict of interest. I think that most editors work on articles that share their personal interests (that's the incentive for working on the article in the first place), so it would be silly if we discriminated based on that. We actually have a separate noticeboard for NPOV violations; WP:POVN. -- Atama頭 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the point that if she does have such a strong personal involvement or interest in this topic, that she should defer to other editors during a conflict over content? She has never once deferred to an editor who opposes her POV. She is clearly an attention-seeking zealot and in this instance she should be banned from the topic not just because of COI but because of the combination of her COI and her intransigent and disruptive editing style and her hostility to other neutral editors. - EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• From your name and your userpage, it is clear that you created this account to disparage Carol Moore. I think some admin attention is warranted here, and your user page is a clear G10. Arakunem^Talk 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cyberhymnist; publisher Cyber Hymnal; sites cyberhymnal.org, hymntime.com

• Cyberhymnist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -
  Most recently, adding trademark symbols to articles that mention "Cyber Hymnal" ("the #1 Hymn Site Online") as a source. Since March 2009 seems to have edited mostly (or only, have not looked at every edit) articles that mention Cyber Hymnal. CliffC (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Two bursts of edits, March 2009 and recently. I'm going to give him a username block, unlike say the editor mentioned above who has had a company name for some years and made a lot of constructive edits, this editor is an SPA. I will point out that the TM symbol should not be used, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Gil Dekel

Gil Dekel (talk · contribs) has been spamming http://www.poeticmind.co.uk/ , a website registered to a Gil Dekel and run by Gil and Natalie Dekel. He continues to add the links without responding to the COI and spam notices. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. But this was not my intention at all! My intention is contributing reliable information which wikipedia seems to lack in parts, at the moment. I leaned from you that if new content is suggested, it is best that it is brought to discussion in first instance, so its quality can be verified. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott McAdams

User:Heather Handyside made an edit which looked suspiciously like a campaign ad to Scott McAdams, so I googled the name. It turns out Heather Handyside is the name of the new campaign director for McAdam's campaign for US Senate. I noted this on the talk page and just now she replied

I am curious why you deleted my revisions to the Scott McAdams' Wiki. The information provided in that post links almost every sentence to credible sources. Given that Scott is relatively new to the political world, being able to offer information about his background that is documented is very important. Furthermore, there are no inclusions of his policies or promotion of his campaign in the entry I submitted -- especially when you contrast it with his opponent's wiki. Can we please allow my revisions to become available on the Wiki?Heather Handyside (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thoughts?--TM 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's a very likely coi. It looks like you caught the situation early, and hopefully she'll be more cautious in how she follows WP:COI in the future. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Yep, COI is pretty clear here. I've replied at Talk:Scott McAdams with some non-template explanations of the problem areas. Arakunem^Talk 15:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up, most of it was a copy + paste from his own website so I removed that and checked the rest. It seems neutral so I've removed the tag. Smartse (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious issues with pages belonging to my people

I realize that I had broken some copyright laws due to misunderstanding but I work on fixing the information everyday but an admin uses his powers to put the whole previous page back again by including a warning which I understand he can also use against me later. It is to be Noted that the pages contain information about my people who are still largely living in poverty and largely kept illiterate. Therefore, it is easy for long-term existing administrators or coordinators to win the conflict which I am afraid could be government sponsored. The previous pages about my people and their culture that I edited contained 90% incorrect and false information. The authentication of information that I have provided can also be checked through the links to other pager contributed by other people. And positive contributions to my edits can also be seen in the Baluchi Languages section. Please help me in this issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a WP:COI issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Ronz. I think this is merely an issue of a new editor trying to find help and posting in many places to try to find it, which can't be faulted. I hope that you can find the help that you need, I see that Ronz has been helpful and others have given advice on your talk page. -- Atama頭 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There might be a username problem here. Balochmedia is part of the name of several organisations/websites. Some image copyvio still outstanding also. But that's not a coi issue, although the username could be. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That didn't escape me, I didn't want to get into that here to pile onto the problems of a new editor having difficulties, but the name may be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. -- Atama頭 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

• Leningradartist (talk · contribs)

Some people may have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism, The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: [7] These all seem to be from his book, and on his website (http://www.leningradartist.com), & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. He is an SPA on this topic. Also posting to the Visual arts project. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Colleague Johnbod , In each my article (for example Sergei Osipov, Mikhail Kaneev, Evgenia Antipova, Alexander Samokhvalov, and others) in addition to text links to sources, a section "Bibliography" with the list of publications that contain information about the artist. How have you and colleageu JNW managed the entire list of printed sources detected only my humble book? Further, if you're familiar with my book, it is easy to verify that the images are uploaded to the Commons are taken not only from book. In both cases, I have a legitimate right, and you as an experienced user can easily and quickly if you want to make sure (and do not exaggerate absurd fantasies of alleged copyright infringement in course of 10 days). Because my work in Wikipedia is absolutely transparent and legitimate and stakeholders on the facts and documents, but not on unsubstantiated speculation and prejudice. Thanks, Leningradartist (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm indeed. It looks to me like a massive copyvio because he can't hold the copyright to the paintings. I've posted at the commons village pump about it. I can't really see the COI issue though - are you suggesting that by adding teh images, they hope to increase sales of their book? Smartse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, and possibly the paintings too. But it would be COI even with no financial incentive. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding COI issue - In addition to what appears to be massive copyright violations, He added his autobiography: Sergei Ivanov (art historian) which according to him - had been deleted from the Russian Wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

COI: adds acres of links to websites about the artists he writes about, and to outlets that carry his books, but as far as I can tell, has yet to provide a reliable source supporting his notability. I sent the link he gave to the deletion discussion at Russian Wikipedia [8] through Google translation, and though much is lost, it appears his biography was deleted there with rationale similar to that which I've mentioned at the English version (auto)biography. JNW (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the people at commons, he has suitable authority to release the images under creative commons licences, personally that seems pretty bizarre but I guess we have to take their word for it. I agree that he doesn't appear to be notable, so have nominated the biography for deletion here. I'm not sure what to do about all the articles on artists he has created, they only seem to have references written by Leningradartist themself, and its pretty difficult to find any other sources about them online. Smartse (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a tough spot--if he's not notable, how will that impact all the articles in which he is essentially the primary source? He may be the authority on the subject, and the artists may be notable, but 'may' doesn't suffice; (rhetorical question alert) are there no sources other than him? JNW (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there don't seem to be any online sources for any of the articles I've checked. I'm not familiar with WP:ARTIST but I'm unsure whether these artists are suitable for inclusion under part 4: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

I've also noticed that they may possibly be a role account, it could be problems with English, but while their userpage says they are Sergei Ivanov, they have written in the third person on their talk page and in the AfD as if they are representing him. Smartse (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MONGO

Resolved

 – This is not a conflict of interest. Take any issues of civility to WP:WQA. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MONGO (talk · contribs)

This editor has long been exercising domination of Wikipedia's September 11 attacks article, to an extent and in a manner which bears characteristics of article ownership. MONGO has made the third largest number of edits of any editor on this heavily edited and highly controversial article.(ref) MONGO tends to take action without discussion and building of consensus for controversial edits on the talk page, always pushing the POV in a clear and narrow direction, frequently accompanied with snide comments.(ref) I assert that MONGO has a conflict of interest on this topic, as MONGO previously claimed an employment position with the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS); an agency of the Federal government which owes its existence to the 9/11 event.(ref) It seems wholly inappropriate to me that any past or present employee of the US Federal government should be exercising this kind of dominance on this article; especially someone with close ties to the USDHS. Wildbear (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. Even if MONGO's actions were not in keeping with Wikipedia policies, this is not an indication of a "conflict of interest". On the other hand, even in Wildbear's real-life reputation were tied up in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I wouldn't treat his/her edits as being a COI violation, just an NPOV violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an obvious difference between relaying the precepts of an official position of employment (or former position) and those attributable to a "real-life reputation". I have attempted only a few edits on September 11 attacks but immediately became aware of unreasonably hostile treatment by MONGO inter alia. Yes, at the least it is an NPOV violation. But it would undoubtedly be COI in the event that MONGO had at any time a vested interest in USDS. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

By Wildbears definition of COI, a person working at McDonalds wouldn't be able to edit any McDonalds related articles. This is in itself obsurd. This is just an attempt to get a rival at the article banned from editing there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. MONGO's edits are in-line with mainstream reliable sources. The locus of this dispute are editors who are upset that their fringe theories aren't being given undue weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose if MONGO had admitted to being currently an employee of USDHS and was acting to purge information critical of USDHS, that might be a COI, but I don't see that here. I see accusations that MONGO is violating NPOV and the connection to USDHS is being used as an attempt to paint him with a COI tag to throw extra suspicions on the edits. -- Atama頭 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a response to A Quest For Knowledge's assertion that "MONGO's edits are in-line with mainstream reliable sources". MONGO's edits do not conflict with mainstream reliable sources. The problem I see with MONGO's edits, and the September 11 attacks article as a whole, is that it has engaged in extensive cherry picking from reliable sources to push a particular narrow point of view, to the near-total exclusion of the numerous reliably-sourced issues associated with that point of view. The reader of the article may come away thinking that all is fine with the official storyline, when that is nowhere close to being the case; there is plenty of reliably sourced information which makes this clear. I see no need to completely exclude anyone from editing an article where they may have a conflict of interest. My concern is that persons with a possible COI should not dominate an article. Since the US Federal government has been the source for most of the 9/11 story, and holds it as the justification for many of its actions taken in recent years, efforts by said government to further control the story outside of its own domain should be called into question. Wikipedia editing by government employees may fall under this area of concern; particularly if it appears to be dominating an article. Hence my bringing up my concern with MONGO's editing patterns. Wildbear (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is quite a stretch to say that someone working for a government agency such as DHS would have an inherent conflict of interest at September 11 attacks. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wildbear is a frequent POV pusher on the Sept. 11th article, and apparently has decided to latch on to anything that will allow him and his fellow POV pushers to get their way. MONGO is a long serving and fair editor, and this attempt as mud slinging is simply infantile. If anything, Wildbear should be brought under a topic ban for this incessant nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as a topic ban for wildbear, but it is obvious that he/she is not getting any support on the COI accusation.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, yes. However Wildbear has shown systematic resistance to all forms of NPOV and has pushed his own POV for years. He's toed the line for god knows how long and it's time he learned that it is not okay to use this notice board as a way to get back at editors he doesn't agree with. Wildbear should not be allowed to use thuggery to get his way. --Tarage (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree that MONGO has a COI in this situation. However I am slightly troubled by reading above about his self-outing (or argument to authority, whatever it was) back in 2006, then remembering this 2008 block (which was lifted after 36 hours) for this 9/11-related incivility, alongside recent edits like this. I question how effective or collegial that combative approach will be in this nuanced area, and I question the benefit to the project in maintaining this uncivil approach over a period of years. As far as the remit of this board goes though, I'd say we're in the clear. --John (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Wildbear and I find it absurd that, of all people, Tarage would accuse him of thuggery and POV pushing. It is high time to bring a neutral stance to the articles dealing with 9/11. As it is, they promote the Official Conspiracy Theory as the only possible explanation of the events of 9/11. All other alternative explanations are ridiculed and summarily removed from public view as they are promptly sent to the archives without prior consultation from other editors. It is not uncommon for MONGO to threaten editors and to use foul language akin to what is commonly referred to as police brutality. The net result is that many editors quit Wikipedia in disgust when they realize that thugs can behave in such a manner in complete impunity, and that supposedly impartial administrators come to their rescue on every occasion. Oclupak (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this constitutes a conflict of interest, but I do think that the snide comments are over the top. This might be more of an etiquette issue. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kresimir Chris Kunej

• Two (in my opinion disruptive) editors involved from article’s creation keep placing COI and Orphan tags, as well as one editor who was very involved at AfD 2 and wasn’t happy with the result. These editors claim to have COI consensus on the talk page, but I believe involved editors in obvious conflict with an AfD community decision should not be considered consensus (I am aware I am involved too, but I am not the one being disruptive, I know the article subject as an acquaintance but not too close). See the talk page. COI says “…must be careful not to out other editors. WP policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.” Another editor warned of this WP:civil breach. AfD 1 had decided “delete”. Article was userfied and improved, taken to WP:FEED as instructed. AfD 2 resulted in a “keep”. Whether we like a certain article or not, we simply must not be selective about WP policy. Equally importantly, article is fully sourced and neutrally worded. I am not opposed to anyone removing peacock claims or puff, if any. Would you please remove the tags? Thank you in advance.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the COI tag was placed due to words you used in the first AfD ("I am being short-changed", etc) which some have read to mean you as the subject rather than you as the article creator/defender. I personally read that the other way (you as the creator). However, you have also admitted to knowing the subject, if only peripherally, which is going to raise COI concerns. Note though that the COI tag is not a "reason to delete" tag as you mentioned on the talk page. It is just a tag that the article may warrant a little extra attention to make sure all the edits stay neutral. The article will not be re-submitted for deletion due to COI concerns, or because of the tag.

The best way to handle that situation, since you do have some connection to the subject, would be to propose edits on the talk page of the article and see what the consensus is on their inclusion. Doing this will dispel any appearance of impropriety or COI, and should serve as a heavy demonstration of your good faith in wanting only to improve the article. While editing the article when you know the subject is not outright prohibited, it is strongly discouraged. It is just human nature that when you are close to a subject, it is harder to be 100% neutral when writing about it.

The "orphan" tag, likewise, is not a "reason to delete" type of tag. It just means that very few other Wikipedia articles have links into this one. That tag is more of an invitation to other editors to create such links, and not a complaint about the state of the article. Right now only 2 articles link into this one:[9] Once a few other articles are linked in, that tag can be removed. Hope this helps! Arakunem^Talk 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all editors who looked at article and contributed. That alone makes it worth coming here.

Thanks Arakunem for replying. Well, the COI tag was initially placed because I sourced subject’s employment and editors I mentioned couldn’t find it online. When I directed them to a basic Google search, they changed the tune to what you mentioned ("I am being short-changed", etc.). To me that screams bad faith, and I think tags are placed just to spite me.

I also thought that the fact article is fully sourced and neutrally worded means it should not have a COI tag, nothing is disputed?

It would seem like you presently agree with leaving the tag on, in effect making the opposing party of edit war seem justified (which is ok, I came here for uninvolved opinion). If I were to propose edits on the talk page, who would consider them? Most likely the very same editors who watch the page and I feel are being disruptive…

Even as such, I am willing to abide by this (only editing after proposal on talk page) if COI tag was removed. What are your thoughts?Turqoise127 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The COI tag is a cleanup tag. It's actually a two-part tag, partially to let people know that the article has been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and partially to request that the article be reviewed and to have problems resolved. It should be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page where particular issues are mentioned to be fixed. I see that both parts apply in this case; as someone with a personal connection to the article subject you clearly have a COI, and there is a rather extensive discussion on the talk page of the article. Until that discussion is resolved, I see no reason to remove the COI tag.

The orphan tag is a technical one, it means that few (if any) articles link to that article. That is certainly true, if you click on "what links here" you will only see 2 actual articles linking to it. Don't take that tag to mean there's anything wrong with the article itself, the whole purpose of the tag is to let editors know that they should consider linking to the article in other articles related to it. To give an example, Kunej graduated from the University of Zagreb, perhaps he could be mentioned in the "Legacy" section where it can link to his article. But really, that's all that the tag means.

I think one reason for this extensive conflict is that you're taking things far too personally, Turqoise127. You're assuming that the tags were placed simply to spite you. I know that you've had a long-running dispute with Drmies and there is some bad faith between you two which is understandable (if regrettable), but I see that you've taken to personalizing all disagreements with you on the talk page of the article and that's going to cause problems. I strongly suggest discussing ways to improve the article on the talk page rather than feuding with people. My personal advice is this; people have placed a COI tag on the article, so challenge them. Ask them what in particular is wrong with the article. Ask them what changes are needed to allow them to remove it. Know that the tag cannot be there simply because you are active in editing the article; the tag is not a mark to warn people that a person with a COI is editing the article. Find out what they want fixed, then work with them.

All good faith editors have one goal: to improve Wikipedia articles. You want that article to be in good shape and so do the other editors, so you're on the same side. You might have different opinions on what exactly constitutes an improvement, but that's how collaborations work. They can make suggestions, you can make suggestions, and you come up with a compromise. The article doesn't seem to be in any danger of deletion any time soon, so it's not necessary for you to be defensive about criticism that people might have, and the more you work with other people to clean up the article, the better shape it will be in and the less likely that people will criticize it. -- Atama頭 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you Atama, I will take your advice to heart. I do not mean to be difficult. I am maybe being unclear. What I tried to convey was that I addressed the concerns of other editors on the talk page and it fell on deaf ears. I came here in order for uninvolved editors to weigh in on this and/or indicate any other issues that need addressing; if not then to move the tag. I believe COI arguments on talk page have no basis. Like I said, the one claim about “how did I know where subject works” was shown to be invalid once I provided search results showing where subject worked. The other claim, my words during AfD 1, I explained.

If the tag cannot be there simply because I am editing the article, and that is what opposing parties claim, than it should be taken off?

Thanks for your time all who comment.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page of the article in regards to the COI tag, and I have the article on my watchlist to be able to respond promptly to further discussion. On a second review of the talk page, the problems being discussed are almost purely behavioral issues and not about the content, which is what the COI tag is supposed to address. I've made a request to clarify the concerns so that everyone can work to resolve them. -- Atama頭 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shufra

Hi. At Simplified English there has been a few weeks of back-and-forth over various mentions (e.g. and e.g.) of the company Shufra. There is explanation/discussion at Talk:Simplified English#Shufra but the reverting editors have stopped participating.

Myself and RickWojcik (talk · contribs) (he claims expertise in the topic, I have none, see details at the talkpage) do not believe the content is suitable, and suspect it is selfpromotion by employee(s). There are a large variety of IP addresses reverting us, that geolocate internationally. E.g. 62.163.207.134 (talk), 213.6.10.83 (talk), 192.117.42.222 (talk), 82.203.205.227 (talk), 62.177.201.103 (talk), 70.102.234.2 (talk), and 173.160.171.33 (talk) (all since early August)

There are also 4 items concerning Shufra at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2009, Aug 17 (#170, 172, 177, 188), which might be related (?).

Please advise or assist. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• In that un-cited state it certainly comes across as promotional. Unless they can cite that "Most companies require the services of" that company, then it doesn't belong, even with a Fact tag. The claim that Shufra's web site is more detailed than other sources is logical if that's their core business, but that puts them too close to the topic to be a reliable source. For full fairness, I've had a look at Rick's edits as well, since he admits a closeness to the subject. To me, his edits fall squarely within those I would expect of a Subject Matter Expert, and are nicely neutral and non-promotional. Furthermore he wants to discuss his edits, which the IP(s) don't appear to do. That "get over it" line is particularly unsuited to a collaborative editing environment. Arakunem^Talk 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. It appears that the Shufra editor is bound and determined to keep that paragraph in the Wikipedia article, and I do not wish to get into an editing war with him. I can see a justification for some material about checker tools and the STE standard, but not blatant promotion of the products and services mentioned. There are a great many technical writers who do not have access to a checker and still manage to write reasonably good STE, so there is no requirement of any kind to use such products. Moreover, there are aspects to STE that cannot be adequately supported by a checker, for example proper word sense usage. I would like to see that entire paragraph removed, but the Shufra editor will continue to restore it. What is the next step in resolving this editing dispute? RickWojcik 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)
    • I removed that content once again from the article. Since the IP user is completely unwilling to discuss these changes anywhere, if they continue to re-add it (against consensus, likely WP:COI, and WP:EL), then they don't leave us many options. Perhaps an admin here could throw a brief semi-prot on it to get the IP's attention (it would likely be declined at RFPP due to low edit volume), otherwise all that's left is {{uw-spam1}} through 4 and report to AIV. I'd hate to see it come to that, but the IP doesn't leave many options by not communicating. Arakunem^Talk 16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm an admin, and you're right that RFPP would reject a request without a second thought. I can protect it, but I don't know that it's a good idea; the IP hasn't edited in a long time and might not notice a brief (24 hour) page protection. Honestly, I think a block is more attention-grabbing anyway, and will lack the collateral damage that page protection will give (more constructive IPs and new editors would be prevented from editing the article). If the IP keeps up the attempts to promote the company without communicating, I'll block without waiting for 4 warnings because the IP is obviously not interested in actually improving the article at that point. Also note that the IP violated 3RR at one point, though that edit war is now stale and a block for that wouldn't be preventative. (Also nobody warned about 3RR.) -- Atama頭 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Chi-X Europe, User:SCL2010

• Chi-X Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SCL2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a self confessed COI and, despite advice on the article talk page and on their user page, appears not to understand that Wikipedia is not here to provide a place to promote their client. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Concur, though it looks like you and Ahunt have it under control. If SCL still doesn't get it after Ahunt's re-write, perhaps proceeding 1 paragraph at a time on the talk page, with his suggested text and a deeper dive into why it may or may not be appropriate, will help him to understand how to phrase his text. Arakunem^Talk 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese American University

This article has been edited recently by User:LebaneseAmerican. The edits are unreferenced and some are promotional. No response to my coi template on the user's talkpage. I don't think this qualifies as a username violation.

• Lebanese American University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LebaneseAmerican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a username violation in this context, but it's a blatant COI violation, as they have admitted now on your talkpage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, although I'm not sure what they mean by "my client." Anyways, what is the best course of action here? Some of the edits were just reorganization and somewhat constructive, but other are certainly not neutral. For instance s/he added a paragraph claiming that the faculty were "chosen on the basis of high merit and research accomplishment", but cited no reference. Although looking at the version prior this user's edits, there were already POV issues. I suppose I can go through it and fix these things if I get some time. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will go back and do some clean up today on this. Let me know what you think of my changes. Thank you for your patience. This is new to me, obviously. LebaneseAmerican (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Honest2009 and the Toronto city council election

Honest2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been active since September 2009. His history indicates that virtually all of his edits are related to Josh Matlow, a school trustee who is currently running for Toronto City Council. In the past year Honest2009 has edited the following articles (and no others):

• Josh Matlow (19 times)
• Toronto city council election, 2010 (18 times, mostly to the section on Ward 22 in which Matlow is running)
• Toronto District School Board (1 time)
• Michael Walker (politician) (1 time, Walker is the incumbent in the aforementioned Ward 22, this edit occurred prior to Walker announcing that he is not running for re-election(.

Dramedy Tonight (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Worky

Workyworks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Article creator, and username strongly suggests an association with the subject of the article. --Korruski (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whle I was discovering that the article was basically a copyright violation from a couple of sources, someone else has deleted the article and blocked the account. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Princessbekky‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - The article is back, along with a 'new' user who by his/her own admission is an 'interested party' --Korruski (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User: Communicat

• Communicat (talk · contribs)has posted a picture where he claims to be Stanley Winer of the truth-hertz website in both the summary and licensing sections.[10] Communicat has repeatedly inserted links ts to the truth-hertz website [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Communicat has also argued for using the truth-hertz site as a source, without saying he is Stan Winer at Talk:World War II and Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II Edward321 (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user here. Also here is a list of links to the truth-hertz site.Sean.hoyland - talk 05:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be surprised if Communicat was Stanley Winer. Winer is a better writer than Communicat is, besides he has done all the research and has all the original references, he wouldn't need to refer to Winer's book as Communicat does. I think this is more likely a copyright issue. Maybe Communicat has contacted Winer and asked for permission to use the image. In any case, this would have to go through WP:OTRS. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

truth-hertz.net as an RS is an interesting notion. The Guardian review of Winer's book "Between the Lies: Rise of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex" is quoted on the site as "There is much that is interesting here on official psychological strategies and the herdlike collaboration of journalists." and in the Guardian review itself the sentence that follows that one is "There is also much that is on the extreme edge of revisionism" followed shortly thereafter by "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name." Interesting mismatch. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see someone else already spotted it at Talk:World_War_II/Archive_39#Link_to_www.truth-hertz.net Sean.hoyland - talk 07:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the RS issue - it's not relevant here - The statement posted was in first person and contained no sign that Communicat was posting this as a third party. Read literally as written in context, it says what it says: "I, Stanley Winer, ...", posted by Communicat.

Petri Krohn's points are not unreasonable - if one assumes good faith here, that's a credible explanation, that Communicat is merely relaying such a rights release from a third party, and failed to notice that we expect people to note where they came from as distinct from the poster. This would not be the first time someone's done that, and from working with Communicat over several weeks I can imagine them having made such a mistake.

However, I have seen plenty of cases where fringe writers / advocates showed up here in shaky (and rarely, not so shaky) disguise and attempted to exert influence in ways not compatible with Wikipedia goals and policies. These people accidentally out themselves fairly regularly. Some of the disguises are rather intricate, including detailed attempts to forge new writing styles. Not presenting the primary sources and focusing on their own secondary source would unfortunately be typical - both because their goal here is to advocate and publicize their secondary work and opinions on issues, and because often there is wide disagreement that they've properly interpreted and reported on what's in the primary sources, and if you refer back to them it's rather easier to detect that the references often don't support the claimed information. There has been such a discussion regarding some other sources and Communicat ongoing for a little while, as you know, Petri, though that's not proof in any way.

Presumably Communicat will log in and clarify the situation in a reasonable length of time. There's no reason to take action immediately in any case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I made a Google Images search for the picture and found only one other use, here at the web site of International Institute of Social History. The quality of the photo makes me doubt if either Communicat or Winer has taken the photo. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

From the first moment I came into contact with Communicat I thought he and Stan Winer were the same person. To me, it's a WP:DUCK issue—I can't quite place my finger on exact reasons for my belief.

About the image, in this talk page entry he says "I have a good pic of Vorster", not "I have access to a good pic from my colleague Stan Winer". One more small piece of COI evidence. Binksternet (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After some more googling on the web I have to agree that Communicat is most likely Stan Winer. This link states that Stan Winer is a "South African-based journalist." He should not be using his books as reference and should not be posting links to the "Truth" site. However it would be OK if he made reference to the book and the site on his user page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on your Google images search Stan Winer/Comminicat is claiming to be the copyright holder for an image that appears to belong to the International Institute of Social History. Edward321 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up the COI issue. You continued attacks against Communicat are however starting to look more like a personal vendetta. I suggest you stop. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Communicat denied the allegation on his talk page but has not yet elaborated; he said he would do so when time allowed. As I stated above, there's no reason to rush this. Hopefully his forthcoming explanation will be productive and not too delayed... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No I am not Stan Winer, but I DO have Stan Winer's express permission to use / distribute his jpg of Vorster as I see fit, provided it's not for purposes of commercial gain. Winer's permission includes stating his name and consent on any relevant GNU/CC licence, which I have done accordingly.

Edward321's inference that the Vorster picture has been misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History is false and malicious. I challenge him to support his allegation with evidence.

I suggest Edward321 acquaints himself with WP:HARASS, which defines harassment as "a pattern of offensive behavior", the intended outcome of which, "may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely". Edward321's past and present behaviour is consistent with that pattern.

As regards the undone links to www.truth-hertz.net: they were repeatedly uploaded by me in the hope that somebody would eventually extent the courtesy of an explanation as to why the undone link was considered unreliable and/or inappropriate or unacceptable. When no such explanation was forthcoming, I eventually forced a long discussion at the WW2 talk page, and then gracefully accepted the consensus view that the work in question did not conform to wiki's high standards. I do not necessarily agree with that view, but I accepted it, never the less.

Subsequently, I provided another recent link at History of South Africa article, to a completely separate essay by Stan Winer, because he is a highly experienced and respected veteran journalist specialising in South African political issues, and I for one consider him to be an authority in the field. His essays and articles can be found all over the internet. (Needless to say, that link too was eliminated by Edward321).

If there is any conflict of interest here, I suggest it is the conflict of interest that exists between the personal political prejudices and subjective beliefs of a small clique of reactionary editors, and the requirements of NPOV. In the case of the former, they vehemently oppose or obstruct any reliable source (I don't necessarily mean Winer alone) that might be construed as presenting an unfavourable wartime image of the West; while in the case of the latter, NPOV rules demand that contrasting reliable positions be presented on the basis of parity.

The above matter has not yet been satisfactorily resolved; in the meantime, attempts continue to try discrediting me, as evidenced by this current "conflict of interest" notice as posted by Edward321. It is the latest in a long string of harassment and abuse, (and not only by Edward321), the intended outcome of which appears to be one of making editing unpleasant for communicat, to undermine communicat, to frighten him (as if that's at all possible), or to discourage him from editing entirely. Communicat (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your initial posting of the image credit, read literally as written, would have constituted sufficient justification of a presumption that you are Winer that we could have taken action including an extended block based soley on that and conflict of interest policy here. We have extended considerable patience and good faith to you to explain the situation in an innocent manner, if such explanation holds water. I am not saying that yours doesn't - I am saying, however, that blocking you presumptively based on what he found would have "held up", even if you explained later. Please be aware that you have gotten the benefit of the doubt here so far.

If Edward321 is stalking you, he has been finding a lot of very questionable stuff in doing so. He's probably pushing harder than normal social norms encourage here, but that particular image credit was entirely appropriate to bring here and to further scrutiny.

Winer himself needs to contact info-en@wikimedia.org and give that permission to the OTRS volunteers to properly log. Having a third party post such doesn't count under our rules on licensing and rights issues.

Edward321 is as I said above focusing unusually much on you right now. But it's not like you aren't a focus problem user at the moment. I've tried to indicate this in our previous interactions, that you're way out on or past the normal limits, and we're trying to give you benefit of the doubt and repeat chances on stuff. The reason why all Wikipedia edits are public (unless removed for abuse) is to subject all of us to public scrutiny for what we do. We've told you repeatedly before that your edits pushed things and that you were thus subject to additional attention and scrutiny. You may not have intended to do so here, but posting an image credit of that nature and not making it glaringly clear that you were passing on someone else's image copyright is a serious red flag on behavior. As I said above, Edward321 was entirely, entirely correct to bring it here to be reviewed when he found it.

This incident is indicating yet another way in which you seem to fail to understand how our community goals and policies work. There is a finite number of chances any editor gets on messing this type of stuff up before you aren't allowed to edit here anymore. I understand you're frustrated with Edward321 from all the context on multiple pages, but he's posting and calling attention to stuff you're doing that's outside our normal editor bounds. He's not making stuff up. Perhaps the stuff he finds isn't in the end actual issues, but it's not falsified. You're doing stuff that's calling yourself into question.

I am currently torn about asking for a Sockpuppet Investigation and Checkuser to see if you're editing from South Africa in Winer's near vicinity. We generally don't do that sort of thing, but you've raised the question in the way you posted that credit and though your explanation so far is not obviously false, it's also not overwhelmingly convincing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

George, please note the the "image credit, read literally as written" is not what Communicat wrote, but comes from the license template used, I believe in this case {{Self}}. I admit to making similar mistakes myself, when I first uploaded images by family members. I ended up creating multiple account at Commons for all the people whose archives I have access and license to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Edward 321, in claiming COI, has made a seriously false and malicious inference, namely that the Vorster picture was misappropriated or stolen from International Institute of Social History. I have challenged him to support his allegation with hard evidence. He has so far failed to do so. Edward321 earlier alleged falsely that Vorster was not even mentioned by the source as provided at the relevant text edit adjacent to where the (now removed) Vorster jpg was subsequently placed. Edward321 is now required to either retract his false allegations within a reasonable period of time or bear the potential consequences of WP:HARASS

Yes, the image credit was from the {{Self}} template. Yes, I am operating from South Africa, but not in Winer's close vicinity (though I don't see what that has to do with anything). And yes, I was under the impression that wiki was a non-commercial medium but, although I'm still not at all clear about all the licensing implications etc, it does appear that, while wiki itself is a non-profit organisation, it provides access to images that are open to potential commercial exploitation. I shall review this with the owner copyright holder. I shall also reconsider my own voluntary participation in wiki projects. I'm not entirely sure if all the associated unpleasantness warrants much future involvement. We'll see what happens. Communicat (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr. Susan Hardwicke - paid spammer

• Dr. Susan Hardwicke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - "social media" professional (i.e., paid spammer) who is editing articles about her political clients and their opponents. Most recently she has been polishing the article on Joseph DioGuardi to his benefit. Her userpage is also a shameless self-advertisement, written as if it were an article of the {{likeresume}} sort. Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I blanked her user page as it was clearly a violation of WP:UP#NOT. I let her know why I blanked her page and gave her some advice (she can include personal info but not a whole resume) and warned her that if she recreated the information or tried to promote herself again that her page could be deleted (per G11 criteria). The DioGuardi article bears watching, and I have it on my watchlist for now. As to everything else... Unfortunately as I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the community has been unable to come to a consensus one way or the other regarding how to handle paid editors. There is nothing stopping someone from coming to Wikipedia and being paid to create or edit articles, only our usual policies against poor behavior and content guidelines. The COI is blatantly obvious in this case, and this editor's actions very much warrant scrutiny, but aside from that we should deal with each issue as they come. Any blatant spam should be reverted and eventually we may have to weigh this editor's positive contributions against the disruption they cause. I'm sure that we do have a number of paid editors who are actually a net positive; for the most part they are talented writers and can potentially be a great asset if they comply with WP:NPOV, no matter what their motives are. -- Atama頭 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Autogynephilia, IP users User:70.57.222.103 and User:128.255.252.253

I've removed this entire section as this is a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. Do not reinsert this information again. -- Atama頭 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was about to send this to Oversight. Might I suggest a revdel is in order here, given the subject matter and the degree of outing? Arakunem^Talk 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I've also revdeleted the IP's response, because there was a discussion of Hfarmer's identity there as well (although Hfarmer is less careful about privacy I'd rather just wipe it all from this board). -- Atama頭 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ashleydennison on articles related to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans office

• Ashleydennison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -The user continues to create pages that pretty much amount to press releases on New Orleans Army Corps of Engineer projects, after USACE-MVN (talk · contribs) was blocked for a WP:CORPNAME vio, this user showed up, who just so happens to be the same name as the PR contact for the New Orleans office. The user has been warned about COI and continues to remove maintenance templates on articles where there is a clear conflict of interest. They have made no reply in response to the COI notice left on their userpage.Terrillja _talk 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The few (albeit non-deleted) edits I see from the user seem neutral and non-promotional. West Return Floodwall needs some copyediting to conform to the MOS and inline citations, but seems factual from the sources. I'll leave the user some non-template-bomb tips and keep an eye on things, but I'm not yet seeing any red flags, unless there are more egregious deleted contributions that I can't see. The line is often tenuous between COI and Subject Matter Expert, but these lean more to the latter to me. (Also commenting on the WRF article regarding an issue specific to that page). Arakunem^Talk 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Arakunem - Thank you, I see your notes. Is this issue resolved? I just want to understand what I'm doing wrong and how I can fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleydennison (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Things like "Construction will generate an increase in traffic and noise in the area; however, the Corps is making efforts to minimize these unavoidable impacts." is clearly not neutral. There is a big difference between a SME and a PR person. Either way, I'll be looking to see if they are even notable outside of what the corps deems important.--Terrillja _talk 19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Same thing for "The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the project and has committed to providing a 100-year level of risk reduction by hurricane season 2011 as authorized by Congress." I understand trying to make your employer seem committed, but it clearly isn't neutral.--Terrillja _talk 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The only deleted edit was to the now-deleted article Scoutmob. The edit removed notability and refimprove templates, but that's it. The article was deleted as blatant promotion, but Ashleydennison didn't create the article, and it's probably worth noting that the article doesn't seem to have anything to do with the US Army Corps of Engineers (the article was about an online coupon service company). -- Atama頭 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Terrillja, there are a couple of such phrases which will need to be pruned of that sort of tone (WP:SOFIXIT?), though I was referring to the overall. To Ashley, essentially you need to avoid using terms such as those Terrillja highlighted above. Presenting the facts without tempering them with things like "this unavoidable impact" are required per our policy on Neutral point of view (q.v.), but just presenting the raw facts without slant. Additionally please see WP:CITE which outlines the preferred style for adding citations directly to statements in the article, so the reader doesn't have to search through the references at the bottom to verify those statements. Arakunem^Talk 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that I have eliminated the most egregious violations, the main reason why I'm here is because the user needs to realize that they cannot just push out press releases as articles and ignore other users. To Ashley Dennison, my suggestion would be to write articles in your userspace and then ask another user to read through them and give you feedback. WP:MADEDRAFT has more info on that, I know that I can go through articles at times, other editors who have commented above may also be able to provide feedback. To ask us for feedback, just post on our respective talkpages (in my signature, by clicking the "talk" text). For more information on writing articles, check out WP:YFA, it has the basics of wikipedia.--Terrillja _talk 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Bizz Radio Basingstoke

The articles Bizz Radio Basingstoke and Basingstoke have been edits a number of times by people obviously related to the former. Until now I've just gone along with this and made sure the articles are WP:NPOV. However, User:BizzRadio registered today (11 Sep) and is changing sourced content. I wouldn't usually come here with an issue like this, but this business is based in my local area and I have had contact with them outside Wikipedia. As an administrator I would not like to be accused of blocking this account due to my outside interests (even though it's a role account). I'd be happy to continue editing the article but think it would be wrong to use my admin tools in this COI. I've left a note at WP:UAA regarding the username. Any assistance on this would be great. Cheers, matt (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)