Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bookuser (talk | contribs)
242 edits
Line 257: Line 257:


:Bookuser has done a commendable job of going through all past edits and removing urls. Thanks! --[[User:Ronz|<span style="color:lime; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">&nbsp;Ronz&nbsp;</span>]] 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:Bookuser has done a commendable job of going through all past edits and removing urls. Thanks! --[[User:Ronz|<span style="color:lime; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">&nbsp;Ronz&nbsp;</span>]] 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-> Thanks. After reading (and thinking) more about Conflict Of Interest, I will try to avoid any further editing that involves COI topics. If I do feel the need to edit something, probably the best route for me is to make a suggestion on the article's talk page rather than editing directly. [[User:Bookuser|Bookuser]] 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


==[[Christopher Bennett Reeves]] {{coi-links|Christopher Bennett Reeves}} and [[Gabrielle Reeves]] {{coi-links|Gabrielle Reeves}}==
==[[Christopher Bennett Reeves]] {{coi-links|Christopher Bennett Reeves}} and [[Gabrielle Reeves]] {{coi-links|Gabrielle Reeves}}==

Revision as of 18:14, 31 May 2007

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    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.

    Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (2) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Metropolis, Crisscross, Nick Baker (1) section in COI/N Archive 12

    What is the policy when two of the major editors of an article have an undisclosed COI?

    It is clear from his long history of edits on the article that David Lyons is an WP:SPA created by a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. His edits either remove negative information about Baker and/or push POV that Baker is innocent and that his cause is well-supported. His only other edits attack articles that reference Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), which was highly critical of Baker's campaign. Frankly, no-one other than a strong supporter or possible family member could be bothered supporting Baker/attacking Metropolis to the extent shown by David Lyons in this article.

    As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these out on the article talk page, [1]. Given his undisclosed COI I do not think it is fair for David Lyons to be able to edit the article directly while I can only respond on the talk page.

    I would like to propose that either...

    1. Even though we both have undeclared COIs, that we are both allowed to participate in this article directly OR
    2. David Lyons is also prevented from directly editing the article and that his edits are confined to the article talk page as mine currently are. Changes that are then agreed upon on the talk page can then be added to the article.

    Either of these options would restore balance of power to the editing process of the article, and stop the page from once again becoming a promotional tool for Baker's campaign. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal take: this isn't a conflict of interest. What you are concerned with here is POV-pushing which is different. Put simply, David Lyons may have a certain viewpoint and is editing with that viewpoint, but you haven't mentioned why it should be profiting him to do so or anything like that. That said, POV pushing is bad. Are there any neutral editors at the article? Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no neutral editors. The history shows a balance of power between myself and David Lyons: he generally adds POV material and I correct it. Through this conflict a relatively neutral article has been created -- until now. As a member of Justice for Nick Baker it profits David Lyons by "getting the word out" and presenting Baker's case more sympathetically than it actually is. Baker's story was always suspect at best, and new evidence uncovered by Metropolis shows that the support group had actively misled the public about the facts of the case. COI policy notes this conflict of interest category:
    Campaigning
    Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.
    and
    Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.
    When David Lyons first brought up the idea of reporting me for COI, I told him that he also had a COI and that he should note this part of the policy...
    Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
    Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
    Rather than be accused of COI himself, he let User:heatedissuepuppet, a meatpuppet account, bring a COI against me. See the last paragraph here: [2].
    It is clear now that David Lyons is using the COI against me to get the upper hand to push the support group's POV. He should edit with respect to his COI. I look forward to a solution to this situation. Sparkzilla 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite his obvious COI, I have been trying to incorporate Sparkzilla's input into the article, and would direct interested editors here. Why Sparkzilla wants to confront the article combatively, talking about "getting the upperhand" is beyond me. For the record I have no connection with Heatedissuepuppet's account and at no point was (S)he ever shown to be a meatpuppet. Thanks David Lyons 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be posssble for some more editors used to dealing with COI issues to add their comments here? Thank you for your assistance. Sparkzilla 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have declared my COI as a published critic on the Nick Baker case. However User:DavidLyons, who is clearly an undeclared member of Baker's support group, is trying to use my postion as an expert on this case as a way to stop me correcting POV edits he has made that insinuate Baker' claims are facts. He is using COI as an excuse to get the upper hand in a content dispute - an abuse of COI policy. It would be very helpful if I could have some assistance to stop this POV pushing and restore balance to the article. Sparkzilla 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that I'm a neutral editor involved with the Nick Baker article. I have no connection to Metropolis (other than the fact that I read it sometimes) or to Nick Baker's cause. My comments on the matter are included in the RfC on the article's talk page. I believe as of right now the article is more or less balanced, giving both (Baker's and Metropolis) sides of the issue. I don't have any comment on the question as to whether there is a COI problem with either Sparkzilla or Lyons. Cla68 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clifford Williams (academic) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I have tagged Clifford Williams (academic) and User_Talk:Clifford Williams, welcoming him along the way. He seems notable, but the article is a mess. I tried to be kind to an obvious newbie. Bearian 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EServer.org (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org

    Similar SPAs:

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#eserver.org and Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, this is a classic COI spam campaign. User:Geoffsauer, some SPA's, and some IP's from Iowa create both the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles, edit them heavily, and add a bunch of eserver.org external links. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. (Requestion 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Let's put away the torches and pitchforks. This appears to be an electronic library that makes literature available for free to the public. It's sort of like Project Gutenberg. I checked a few of the articles that contain these links, and I did not see an intentional linking campaign. Is see a large number of independent users citing this database from various articles and discussions. Example: [3] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [4] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.

    → (Interjected.)   The links which Ronz supplied in his initial report here, to specific WT:WPSPAM and WT:EL discussion sections, were intended to support that "investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions" process. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Geoffsauer needs a friendly warning. I predict he will behave impeccably once he is informed. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [5], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [6]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [7] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I started going down the list of 322 links found by this linksearch. As User:Jehochman has correctly observed, some of these links are to individual digitized books in the style of Project Gutenberg. I have no objection to these so long as they are appropriate to the article and are added with local consensus. Other links, such as the one that User:Geoffsauer added to our Technical communication article on in this edit on 28 March 2005, present a directory of links in a style reminiscent of DMOZ. I personally think that Sauer's Eserver link to http://tc.eserver.org should be removed from the Technical communication article, since Wikipedia is not a directory. In fairness, that article probably has more external links than it needs. If anyone has time, I suggest they randomly look at some other items found by the same linksearch and see what they think.

    This editor doesn't seem to be a bad guy, but the profusion of DMOZ-style directories raises a warning flag. EdJohnston 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Wikipedia talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by this IP are troublesome: 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007 Shall we send Geoffrey Sauer a friendly email and ask him to look at this thread and explain? If he is using anonymous IP's in a sneaky way to add links, that's a real problem. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's fair. Also you might find out why he doesn't use his logged-in account when he adds links to Eserver or edits his own article. If he must do this, at least do it openly. EdJohnston 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately he hasn't enabled email. We seem to have a complex situation. Possible linkspamming and sock puppets, but the resource is somewhat worthy and has attracted some valid links. We probably shouldn't delete them all. We probably need to give fresh warnings before blocking because the old one is almost six months old. We also can't be sure that the sockpuppets are abusive. Maybe it's another person at the organization who's on dial up and doesn't have a Wikipedia account. How about we place {{uw-coi}} on all the fresh socks, and ask them to come here to comment? Maybe the user will help us solve this mystery. If not, we can start blocking. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I shrunk down the original set of 322 links to a more modest 14 links to be studied:

    1. http://antislavery.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org
    2. http://bad.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.bad.eserver.org
    3. http://clogic.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.clogic.eserver.org
    4. http://drama.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.drama.eserver.org
    5. http://elab.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.elab.eserver.org
    6. http://emc.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.emc.eserver.org
    7. http://feminism.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.feminism.eserver.org
    8. http://govt.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.govt.eserver.org
    9. http://history.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.history.eserver.org
    10. http://lectures.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.lectures.eserver.org
    11. http://mamet.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.mamet.eserver.org
    12. http://orange.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.orange.eserver.org
    13. http://poetry.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.poetry.eserver.org
    14. http://reconstruction.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.reconstruction.eserver.org

    These 14 links provide 'web directories with commentary'. So they may run into the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Directory unless they are really notable enough to deserve articles in their own right. Having articles would require reliable third-parties to have commented on their value. (A couple of the above links are not directories, but actual web periodicals, like http://bad.eserver.org, which is an online journal called 'Bad Subjects'.)

    I am not sure we should be accepting the above 14 as external links, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles created. Especially we shouldn't keep them if Geoff Sauer is not willing to discuss the situation, because we'd like the Eserver people to acknowledge our policies and agree to cooperate with them. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first resource on your list has Google PageRank of 6, and has attracted links from more than 1,000 different web pages, including many official university pages. This isn't run of the mill linkspam. See [8] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it takes extraordinary effort to get a PR6. It's interesting that you mentioned the antislavery.eserver.org link. Today, I just found User:Jlockard, a university literature professor, who spent the majority of his edits adding or fixing 63 antislavery.eserver.org links. At first I wasn't sure if this was a spamming but the more I looked at the diffs the more I was convinced. Very little value was added to Wikipedia, mainly just a bunch of eserver.org external links. There was even a run-in with a spam fighter back in May 2006 but the spamming continued. This is a tricky situation. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I read this discussion with interest, though I'm not a skilled Wikipedia user and don't feel qualified to contribute to the policy debate here about external linking. I'll respect your collective judgment about when external links are appropriate, and won't add any more without a clear policy decision that would encourage me to continue. In my judgment I have never added off-topic or poor-quality links to a Wikipedia entry, and would not do so. But I won't post here again, now that I see how my past contributions might be seen as self-serving. To clarify my past intent adding links to entries, as a professor of English with a speciality in technical communication I have edited entries and added links to online resources which I considered appropriate, as I understood it from my research, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines and existing entries. I don't know about an Iowa bias in posts about the EServer, though I do teach as many as 150 students per semester, all of whom use the site, and it may be that my students have posted some EServer-related entries. But I have never meant to injure Wikipedia's neutrality or credibility, and am concerned that anyone might consider my edits to have done so. I'll do my best, however, to answer any questions I can to clarify the reasoning behind any particular edits I have made.Geoffsauer 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful. For the future, I suggest you refrain from linking to your resources from articles. Instead, if you want to suggest a link, place a comment on the article talk page and let somebody else make the decision whether to add it to the article. I am not sure what you can do to restrain eager young students from adding these links. Maybe others can advise. Also, we have a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that might be very useful to you. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerson therapy (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Article on controversial therapy being edited by Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Panel Foundation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP lookup results:
    • 64.204.217.21 -  Possible - same geographical area (New York), but too populated.
    • 89.56.164.199 and 89.56.133.222 - wrong side of the country.  Unlikely.
    • 203.234.169.3 - Red X Unrelated - South Korea.
    Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Mullan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Has now added Robert Roskamp. Philip Trueman 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Across Five Aprils (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Would appreciate input from other editors on how to proceed - currently the article isn't sourced. Addhoc 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added some rules to COIBot. IP 70.90.144.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (70.90.144.0/22; Comcast Business Communications, Inc) also removed the reference. Added a {{unreferenced}} and {{coi2}} on the page, and a {{uw-coi1}} on the userpage. I think the subject of the article is fine, but it needs some independent references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, on my talk page (see history) the IP signed his name as Themoonisdown09, so I presume they are the same editor. Addhoc 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was also edited by Across Five Aprils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account also created/edited some pages about albums by the band.
    --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It was requested I file a COI/N report in the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#biomedcode.com_et_al. --Ronz 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wikipedia administrators. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE and BSRC Alexander Fleming… [ copyvio from mugen-noe.org website redacted ]
    Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. Afantitis 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One deleted on Afd in December 2006, one speedy deleted as blatant advertising earlier this month. Remaining three {{prod}}ed as blatant advertising by COI SPAs. — Athaenara ✉ 13:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forwarded (1): [Alexander Fleming] Thank you a lot for tour message. Why an article which refers to a governmental, non-profit institution with a history closely linked to the Greek Foundation for Basic Biological Research "Alexander Fleming" and research involved in areas of immunology, molecular biology and genetics and molecular oncology is not significant to be included in Wikipedia? --Afantitis 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Forwarded (2): [Tuberculosis Antimicrobial Acquisition and Coordinating Facility (TAACF)]Hi Athaenara, regarding your post to my listings as :conflict of interest and single-purpose account, from a different point of view, a wikipedia user should contribute only to the articles he/she had an expertise. This is may be a way to increase the high standard of knowledge which wikipedia provides. We have not all wikipedia users expertise in every matter.Is it possible to have your feedback on this? Thank you in advance. Afantitis 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To Special:Contributions/Afantitis: Please stop putting messages on my user talk page. The discussion is here on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 20:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Athaenara, instated of moving my questions from your personal discussion page it will be better and if you can give me specific answers to my questions and not only recommends my articles for deletion. Afantitis

    Forwarded (3): [Tuberculosis Antimicrobial Acquisition and Coordinating Facility (TAACF)] Dear Athaenara, instated of moving my questions from your personal discussion page it will be better and if you can give me specific answers to my questions and not only recommends my articles for deletion. Afantitis 20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard exists for the purpose of discussing Conflict of interest issues. As such it is the location of the discussion of the articles you have added. — Athaenara ✉ 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Athaenara, could you please provide answers to my questions? thank you in advance Afantitis
    If you will read the following Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:
    you will find your questions answered there. — Athaenara ✉ 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald E. Pearson (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    There are many uncited assertions and I think there is the possibility that the editor is too closely linked to the subject to be neutral. --Rifleman 82 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a warning and did a bit of cleanup. The article doesn't seem terribly fawning, and the subject is deceased. This could be a distant relative, in which case COI is a possibility, but not an automatic problem, depending on the writer's ability to remain neutral. The assertion of notability is thin. This needs more editors to review, and could be a candidate for AfD. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some cleanup, but a lot more is needed. He seems notable, if the facts can be verified and sources checked. Those are common problems with COI articles. Bearian 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanderbilt University established the Donald E. Pearson Award in his honor in 1980. I've referenced that. NPOV improvement continues. Sampearson10 has not edited it since the 23rd. — Athaenara ✉ 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trax FM (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Trax FM (section 18) in COI/N Archive 9

    • 217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I reported this IP to the noticeboard before about edits made to Lincs FM Group articles (the owner of Trax FM) who is deleting verifiable information from the article. The same anon editor has also now deleted information about a rival station from the Worksop article as well. The anon user's IP address is registered to the Lincs FM Group (source). Because of the editors deletion of verifiable information with no explaination or attempt at conflict resolution, and due to what I believed is a continuing conflict of interest, I am resubmitting this to the noticeboard. --tgheretford (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bookuser

    See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mitpress.mit.edu - Bookuser.

    I first thought this was a SPA spamming mitpress.mit.edu links. Bookuser has recently taken action to clean up some of these links [9], so I thought the problem was resolved. However, I just found that Bookuser used to be MITPress. [10], so I think it's important that other editors look at the situation from a COI angle. --Ronz 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I'm concerned that spam links are being addeded to mitpress.mit.edu, that Bookuser has a relationship with MIT Press, and that Bookuser is adding MIT Press books to articles to promote these books. Adding books to References sections without any indication that they've actually been used as references [11] [12] [13] is especially troubling. --Ronz 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bookuser has done a commendable job of going through all past edits and removing urls. Thanks! -- Ronz  20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    -> Thanks. After reading (and thinking) more about Conflict Of Interest, I will try to avoid any further editing that involves COI topics. If I do feel the need to edit something, probably the best route for me is to make a suggestion on the article's talk page rather than editing directly. Bookuser 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Bennett Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and Gabrielle Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Both of these articles were created by LostSentiment who also uploaded Image:Chrisreeves.jpg claiming to have created it himself. The image page contains a non-working link to an image hosting site. Neither bio looks anywhere near notable to me. Inexplicably, an administrator has removed the speedy delete tag from the "Gabrielle" article saying that it satisfies notability. Please note that both Christopher Reeves and Christopher reeves now redirect to Christopher Bennett Reeves and should redirect to Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman, as a misspelling if these bios are deleted.

    I've moved redirects back to the original, although a DAB page may make more sense. I suggest you AfD the pages if you have any concern. However, if the claim that CBR has Emmy's is correct then he is by any reasonable defintion notable. JoshuaZ 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Ulrich

    → See also: Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich and Articles for deletion/Blacksmith Books

    Aside from the obvious COI concerns, I think there are some notability questions about all 3 articles as well. I'd really like some advice on how best to handle this situation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD would be the best way to go. MER-C 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed boilerplate warnings on the talk pages of all four articles (I have added his publisher's article to the list), as well as the author's talk page ... given the suggestion to go the WP:AfD route, I have refrained from adding the WP:CSD#A7 tags on them, which is the 3rd step of my draft protocols for speedy deletion ... OTOH, if there is no activity within the next 24 hours, I will proceed with the speedy delete tags ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Pulrich just doesn't seem to grasp the concepts of WP:N and WP:RS ... adding links for his patents to his own biography, and linking to the blog of a "Well-known Hong Kong novelist and writer," while citing just the names (but no dates) of NN publications that have reviewed his book, just don't cut it, IMHO ... WP:V is not about how much has been published by the subject, it's about how much has been published about the subject.
    We can point him to WP:BK, WP:AUTO, and WP:BIO, but if he won't read them, and instead puts things like
    1. a registration form for a 45 minute, HK$390 per seat lecture his wife will be giving,
    2. Amazon linkspam to 44¢ used copies of an autobiography that "devoted several pages" to her,
    3. Google search results for Bloomberg L.P. articles with trivial mention of her, and
    4. links that require a subscription to read
    as substitutes for "reliable source citations" in the article about her, then what are we to do?
    I blame myself ... I gave him Too Much information, and he just cannot process it ... <Heavy Sigh!> ... since he refuses to dialog on any of the Talk pages, should someone maybe try to contact him by email and hold his hand off-line to guide him through this ordeal?
    So, take these to AfD and give him another week to "improve" them, and they will still be just vanispamcruftisements ... four {{Orphan}} articles with no WP:A that violate WP:COI ... at least he'll see that it's the consensus view, and not an arbitrary decision by a few faceless "deletionist" editors with an agenda ... personally, I have better thing to do with my time here on Wikipedia. —68.239.79.82 19:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all your attention and effort 68. I'm going to respond at greater length on your talkpage so as to avoid cluttering this section with my comments and questions. But first, I have to make a sandwich or I'll die of starvation before I get to your page : ) Doc Tropics 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done the deed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Ulrich. The publisher probably needs separate treatment and his wife seems more notable, so I've left those alone for now. MER-C 05:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks MER-C, I was still debating and procrastinating when you stepped up to the plate and did what I should have. I'll nom the publisher Blacksmith Books for a seperate AfD, but I agree that the article about Jing Ulrich is the strongest of the 4 and may merit inclusion. Thanks for all the help. Doc Tropics 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've documented my WP:A concerns about his wife's article at Talk:Jing Ulrich#No WP:A for WP:N should someone decide to take it to AfD as well ... OTOH, I thought that the WP:COI of having been written by her husband should have been sufficient ... can't we just add "written by self, close relative, or business associate/employee in violation of WP:COI" as a speedy deletion category and avoid all of this in the future? —68.239.79.82 16:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose any such CSD. While COI often causes problems, and is generally a bad idea, if a self-written article is well sourced, or can be made well sourced, is or can be made NPOV, and establishes notability, there is no reason to delete it. Determining those things is what afd or prod are for, not speedy. DES (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, CSD is no longer on the table for Jing Ulrich (just documenting for an AfD that it is not well sourced, even though upon a casual review it appears to be) ... but your point about "no CSDs based on COI" is noted, and I withdraw the suggestion ... COI is an AfD issue, period. —68.239.79.82 06:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, COI is our problem at this noticeboard. We can delegate to AFD if we wish. MER-C 13:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad ... what I meant was, A COI cannot be deleted by CSD; it must be an AfD decision, period. —68.239.79.82 21:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Common Cause (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Two Common Cause sections in COI/N Archive 8 & one on COI/N talk page.

    Anonymous IP address 208.201.146.137, which is assigned to Common Cause, has continued to edit the article Common Cause, despite being warned to stop previously. Are the administrators ever going to take action to stop this, or are they all on vacation? XINOPH | TALK 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    XINOPH, how about sending an email to Common Cause and inviting them to look at this page, as well as the talk page for that IP showing all the warnings. It's possible that there are multiple clueless users involved. Maybe we can get the attention of their IT department and convince them to circulate a memo.
    In addition to that, I support a short block for this edit.[14] IANAA. Jehochman Talk 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is IANAA? — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAL is netspeak for "I am not a lawyer." So, IANAA is "I am not an administrator." XINOPH left a message on my talk page requesting a block of Common Cause. Jehochman Talk 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool beans. I added it to the Glossary. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catanich 2

    → See also: Catanich (section #20) in COI/N Archive 8

    This user was previously indef-blocked for writing promotional articles as a business, with an indef-block notice on the user page. Received the following comment:

    This foolish user has wrecked his reputation. If you Google for "Catanich Internet Marketing," the name of his business, a very ugly result shows up from his Wikipedia user page. It would be a good deed to delete or rename his user page (with permission, of course). Your block will prevent the user from damaging Wikipedia further, but we should not vindictively destroy his business. Do you understand the problem here? For the record, I've never communicated with this person. I don't know him at all. Jehochman Talk 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did a quick Google search on "Catanich Internet Marketing" and notice that there are various other references to our action. I am amenable to restoring the status quo ante on this one if possible/appropriate (so long as the outfit doesn't provide paid services involving Wikipedia) but would appreciate input on how to proceed here. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Catanich has complained that Wikipedia is wrecking his business. We should listen to this complaint because it is seriously affecting him in real life. I suggest:
    1. Get a statement from Catanich that there will be no more abuse of Wikipedia. He now knows the consequences.
    2. Unblock Catanich so he can change his user name to something else. This will most likely prevent his user page from showing up in Google searches for his name.
    3. I volunteer to monitor this user to make sure there is no more trouble. As a professional SEO, one of the main contributors to the COI guideline, and a frequent contributor to this board, I don't think he will get away with anything while I am watching.
    Thank you for considering this. Jehochman Talk 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wrecking his business"? All that's happened is that the search results in Google accurately reflect the fact that he has been using Wikipedia for promotional services. The user was warned repeatedly, and WP:COI mentions the possibility of unintended consequences. Right to vanish doesn't apply to users not in good standing. nadav (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The warnings Catanich actually saw were for copyvio. Catanich didn't make any edits between this COI warning,[15] and his block.[16], so he makes a fair point when he says "Your 'articles on behalf of clients' policy was unknown to me and I will abide to this in the future".[17] If Catanich demonstrates that he understands our content policies, and unequivocally agrees to follow them, he should be unblocked so he can exercise the right to vanish. This would be a great kindness by us. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, fair enough. nadav (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: references to the company (full name) in talk pages discussing the incident would also come up in various internet searches, although only until the various talk pages are archived. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The User and User talk pages are his main problem. The keyword, his name, appears in the title of those page, which is the main factor that will drive them to the top of the search rankings. Jehochman Talk 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah woah woah! I have no objection to letting the guy cover his tracks, but you should all be aware that he received a warning for using WP for promotional and advertising purposes a mere 14 minutes after creating his account! It was over a month later that he set about posting / editing about a dozen articles to add references to his paying clients, which elicited to my copyvio tags, which led to his assertion / admission that he had permission to use the copied text because the subjects were clients of his firm. This was not a good faith / novice error, as contended by the editor. Be that as it may, I don't think he'll try it again, and hopefully this will deter others similarly situated from doing the same, so there's no reason to make the guy suffer further. Let's allow him to vanish, not because he's innocent, but because we're reasonable and forgiving people. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a note offering this option in User talk:Catanich#Your request to unblock --Shirahadasha 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As things currently stand the user has left a message on User Talk:Catanich requesting to vanish, but has not agreed to the statement I've asked him to agree to as a condition for unblocking, so I haven't unblocked. User:Jehochman has left a note reminding the user that agreeing to the condition is needed to proceed further. It might be worth having an outside admin review the statement I've requested this user to make in order to unblock to ensure that this whole approach, and the particular wording, is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reporting. I've left a {{uw-spam1}} warning and removed the links added thus far. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chicken Stock Festival

    This article takes a very promotional tone toward the festival, particularly in the section entitled "Performances at ChickenStock 2007." It completely departs from formal style and looks a lot like a press release. It also links to a myspace page. --Steven J. Anderson 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Stock Festival. MER-C 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul W. Bryant Museum

    Bryantmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Promotional and conflicted article. RJASE1 Talk 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul W. Bryant Museum. MER-C 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AUParty

    Resolved

    The principle contributions of this user seem to be creating American Unicorn Party and re-creating it following deletion per AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Where and how was this resolved? — Athaenara ✉ 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc Fiszman

    Marcfiszman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introduced in the beginning a couple of links to nearthwort.com:

    Some time later the links were changed to an mp3-file somewhere else on that server. In his latest edits, the links were changed from nearthwort.com to marcfiszman.com.

    I removed all the links added by Marcfiszman, and gave the user a welcome message and a coi1-warning, as it seems that the editor is involved in the website. He responded on my talkpage with a question, and I explained the situation. Apparently Marcfiszman thinks my removal is overzealous, and he started to reinsert the link to marcfizman again. Link addition is reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Victoria and Albert Museum

    Another one with similarity to the library links, this time a museum. VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Webteam of the Victoria and Albert Museum is adding external links to wikipedia to a website where they are affiliated with.

    User has been notified of WP:COI (and has responded to that), but is still adding links only. I'm posting here to record the situation, I will try and explain the user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am going ahead and remove the linkadditions by user:VAwebteam to external links sections. Please consider using the links as (proper!) references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to this little discussion because I noticed and was surprised by a deletion of the link from Don McCullin. From my PoV, the article is mildly enhanced by the presence of the link. I then looked at a couple more of the relevant articles; again, I thought that the articles benefited from the links.
    VAwebteam may indeed have a "CoI" here; but it seems to me that it's a compatibility of interest: What draws attention to the V&A also helps WP readers. (You may of course disagree.)
    We read above: User has been notified of WP:COI but actually that page says next to nothing about linkspamming. (It does talk of Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links) [my emphasis] and Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages; neither is relevant.) Instead it refers the reader to WP:SPAM. This too isn't helpful, referring the reader back to COI and also to WP:LINK. The V&A links don't seem to fall within those classes best avoided.
    Here's an idea. Don McCullin (a photographer) has a talk page, which has two project templates. It's obvious that one (biography) is huge in scope compared with the other (History of photography). VAwebteam should be encouraged to go to the discussion page of the latter project, explain what he/she/it -- and incidentally, doesn't "team" ownership of a username break some spam-irrelevant policy? -- proposes to do; and then if there's agreement, should feel free to go ahead and do it. Ditto for fashion, interior design and the rest. -- Hoary 15:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may very well be that the links can be relevant (but then, they are probably better as a reference, not as an external link). But WP:COI clearly states, that "... but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)" .. therefore, it is better to discuss on the talkpage, and let uninvolved editors add the links. Being commercial or not, it now appears to be promotional (even if there is no direct financial gain from adding the links).
    As a sidenote, why include one museum/library and not all the other ones which also have information. Again, it is better to discuss which of the musea/libraries/&c. are going to be the few that are included (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NPOV). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, thanks for your message. I had already spotted the situation & sent a message to the VAwebteam talk page. I agree most, even all, of their links so far are probably useful, but still support them being warned off. I think they should restrict themselves to suggesting on talk pages (article or project) that a link might be useful. If other editors agree, they can add it themselves. Johnbod 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Who adds it? If VAwebteam asks at "my" project talk page, then I for one will say "Sure, go ahead." If most people agree with me, I (and I think those other people) will be delighted if VAwebteam goes ahead and does the dreary work of adding the links. Anyway I'm sure that (i) in all the cases I looked at the links benefit the articles, (ii) I've got more interesting things to do in my life than add a single link to each of dozens (?) of articles. -- Hoary 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You add it - your understandable reluctance to do so is the best way to limit these links to the really useful ones, and you have no COI. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the examples I looked at, no, the links are better as "external links" and not as "references": (i) it would be bizarre (if not fraudulent) to imply that an article depended on web pages that are actually extraneous to what's put forward in the text; (ii) "external links" seem the natural place to add links to images that are highly relevant to but not specifically mentioned within the text.
    I tend to agree - is this about the bots not being able to pick up references? We should not really dictate editorial policy on that basis, and I don't want spam references that actually aren't references at all, but added hastily to get round COI restraints. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    therefore, it is better to discuss on the talkpage Which talk page? Should VAwebteam ask in Talk:Don McCullin and be told yes or no, ask in Talk:Dorothea Lange and be told yes or no, and ditto for dozens of pages on photography? Sheesh: just how many man–hours do you want other people to devote to this? Much better, I think, to ask once in the relevant project page, see what discussion ensues, and act on that.
    Unrealistic. They should go to every page & see if people are interested enough to do it themselves. Otherwise every museum in the world will add all its little exhibitions & online features. Johnbod 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a sidenote, why include one museum/library and not all the other ones which also have information. VAwebteam would be doing the former for reasons that are blazingly obvious and that also are similar to the reasons why I (and I venture to guess you too) edit certain pages and not others. VAwebteam's addition to the Don McCullin page of a link does nothing to stop addition by somebody else of a link to a different gallery or to stop later removal of these links by an editor who discovers that the wealth of images in some other site renders unnecessary the links added previously.
    Again, it is better to discuss which of the musea/libraries/&c. are going to be the few that are included (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NPOV I don't see how NPOV is an issue. VAwebteam has a clear PoV and neither hides it nor (as far as I know) sabotages the work of people with different PoVs; it's similar to the way in which my PoV on the relative merits of the two photographers leads me to work on Seiji Kurata and not the considerably better known Mario Testino; this admitted bias of mine does nothing to hinder anybody else's efforts to create an article on Testino. -- Hoary 16:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For all I see, there has been no discussion on any talkpage where this user has been involved in and where it was deemed OK to add external links to pages (as for many of the other COI-discussions here). And even then, the person has a conflict of interest, and therefore, it is better discuss (also per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:EL; also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer may be of interest, as may be the statement in WP:SPAM "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."). It may be more work to discuss, but how am I, as an outsider, supposed to see whether the link-additions are NPOV when an editor is only adding the links? A link to a discussion in a wikiproject or to the talkpage in the edit summary would be helpful. There are many links that are suitable as external links on some pages, but WP:NOT#REPOSITORY says that we only should have a few (also per WP:EL); are linkadditions by someone who is involved in the website then the best person to decide whether his/her link should be on the page (how does the person decide whether his page is one of the better pages, and why this link and not other musea as well)?
    I just saw this diff (I removed the link earlier because it was added by user:VAwebteamI removed the link because I thought user:VAwebteam added it, but the user only changed the text of the link, sorry for the misunderstanding). The link was there as an 'external reference', though it could easily be used as a reference in the text (good example, diff), which, I think, gives more value to the link and it gives more attribution to the text (and I am sorry if I violated WP:POINT here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I sat on the sidelines, quietly doing my WikiGnome thing, but I can't keep my mouth shut any longer ... after seeing the above comment about the VAM link in the fig leaf article, I decided to take a look and use it as an example of {{cite web}} usage, since I had just made reference to it on User Talk:VAwebteam's Talk page (I also invited them to participate in this discussion, BTW, with a direct link so that they did not have to search for it) … what I found in that article led to some Major Surgery, which I documented on that article's talk page, but that's what compelled me to add some comments here.
    1. That article had two ELs to a NN website (www.SandowMuseum.com) honoring Eugen Sandow, a 19th century bodybuilder, that apparently hasn't been updated very recently … every page contains the footer,

      copyright ©1998 - 2001 R. Christian Anderson - All Rights Reserved

    2. The decision of which museum/library/etc. may be linked to a Wikipedia article should be based on a Very Simple criterion: WP:Notability
    3. Victoria and Albert Museum has an article in Wikipedia, and since it has been around since 1852, it should be considered a WP:Reliable Source. Period.
    4. SandowMuseum.com does not have an article, however, in this case, I feel that it is an appropriate link because (a) it's a citation is for a paragraph that talks about how Eugen Sandow made a living from photographs taken of him in the nude except for a fig leaf, (b) the paragraph is linked to his Wikipedia article, and (c) the page referenced in the citation has the title "Eugen Sandow Wearing a Figleaf" and begins,

      Photographed in New York in 1894, Sandow wears a trademark "figleaf".

    5. I feel that Beetstra placed the VAM reference in the wrong place, so I moved it to a more appropriate location (compare the before and after versions)
    6. The choice of where an EL belongs depends on a simple rule of thumb: "If you can find an appropriate place to use it as a citation, then do it that way, otherwise add it to External Links."
    I don't think that allowing ELs to VAM is a slippery slope situation; if anything, their inclusion adds verisimilitude to Wikipedia's credibility! OTOH, if it were not so relevant, I would have eliminated both of the SandowMuseum.com links without asking for anyone else's opinion or approval … but one of them just had to go because one link to any NN site is sufficient, and if the one that I chose to delete had been the only one (it was very off-topic, with only a peripheral mention of "figleaf"), then there would be none there now.
    In conclusion, (a) links to VAM should not be forbidden, (b) the links should be added as cited references whenever possible, and (c) VAwebteam's contributions should be monitored for a while, as any newbie should be when they are going to be around for the foreseeable future … to be quite honest, I would consider it an Honour to be allowed to help such a venerable and respected institution in their efforts to become a responsible contributor to Wikipedia, so I volunteer to supervise their activities for the next few weeks while they come up to speed.
    Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 05:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the elaboration, 68.239.79.82. I think I should clearly state here, that I indeed think that there is nothing wrong with the links, they are from a respectable, reliable source, and for what I have seen in the reference on fig leaf, I indeed think that they give valuable information (sorry for the misplacement, I was already a bit doubting the position). Looking at the approx. 275 links that are on wikipedia, it seems to me it is extensively used, though I saw some cases where there may be a more appropriate use. But that is beyond this discussion.
    The thing is (and I have argued that earlier with other libraries/musea as well), WP:COI states

    Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... 4. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

    (underline by me). Now, people working in a library/museum do have extensive knowledge about a) the things they have in the library/museum, and b) know their website. That information is certainly an advantage for wikipedia and we should, indeed, stimulate them to add content to wikipedia (in that case a CoI is a compatability of Interest, as it was described above). But they also work for the organisation where they link to. Since I believe that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm, I think that also such linkadditions should be considered, discussed. So when I see an account adding links to a certain domain only, I will investigate that. It may be that such an editor is actually adding content with references to many different articles, and, as I have argued before (in other discussions, e.g. diff), I do not have a problem with that, how can I have a problem with clear improvement of documents. But when edits are only addition of links, I will give a (good-faith) warning that their edits can be explained as spam ({{uw-spam1}}; and for registered accounts I also do place a welcome message; {{welcomeg}}, in this case that was already there). In this specific case, I also asked the editor to review WP:COI. I presume that such messages do encourage the editor to consider the edits.
    When the spamming is to bad links, I may remove (almost) all occurances of that link (depending on specific use) throughout wikipedia (even if that means that other 'bad links' stay). When one account 'spams' (note: I use the word 'spam' here in the wikipedia definition) a good link, I may choose to remove the links added by that account only (as I have removed the additions by this account, with help of others; I have, by the way, not removed the links where they were used as proper citations). As per most of the policies and guidelines here, when in doubt, edits should be discussed before they are performed. I therefore do not have a problem if established users reconsider my removals when they do believe that the use of the link is correct.
    My reasoning if this constitutes a COI may be completely wrong here, but seen there are at least 4 cases in the recent past about people working for a library/museum (European Library, EServer, Mitpress.mit.edu (user:Bookuser) and this) that add links to their website, filed by different people, I guess this should be addressed.
    I hope this explains. Have a nice day, Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Points taken, and your concerns are both valid and shared by many, myself included, so let's just focus on the VAM case:
    1. Special:Statistics says (as of 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)):

      The English-language Wikipedia currently contains 1,808,773 articles.

      ... so I really don't think that "approx. 275 links" from employees of this museum is "excessive."
    2. The fact that "they are who they are" grants them an exemption to WP:COI for adding references, but not for ELs of dubious significance, e.g., a link to "audio interviews with photographers" added to Documentary photography, one of your reverts with which I concur ... anybody care to ask Jimbo about this?
    3. Someone needs to help them climb the learning curve, and be able to add either a reference/citation or just an EL as appropriate, or else nothing at all, and I have volunteered to do that.
    Were they a younger, smaller, more narrowly focused museum, like the Guggenheim for example, adding links to 275 "art related" articles only, I might have raised a flag here, too ... but I'll probably add the same VAM reference that you added to fig leaf to the article on Michelangelo's David (as I'm sure you would have if you'd thought of it), and I have no COI problems with it if VAwebteam does it first.
    The Guggenheim doesn't have an art collection that covers things going back to the 16th century, and that is what makes the difference, i.e., the fact that the VAM has the potential for impacting an order of magnitude (10x at least) more articles just in the "art related" area alone, not counting the other areas to which it can contribute ... I mean, we're talking the entire history of the British Empire here as just the "core focus" of their collection, and that ain't small.
    The Good Thing about raising this flag is that we can catch them while they're still in the cradle, and raise them so that they can contribute without any supervision or constant follow-up damage control ... assuming that we have not already soured the milk, and we'll never hear from them again. (D'oh!)
    Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, the "history of the British Empire" is not the "core focus" of the V&A, nor even covered by them as such, and they have works of art going back to the 4th century, as described in their article. Johnbod 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad! I meant to say, "entire art history of the British Empire." :-) —68.239.79.82 21:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't what they do either - they have tons of European stuff; they cover applied/decorative art worldwide, sculpture worldwide & non-European art (post antiquity). Plus fashion & other stuff. Johnbod 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to correct, there were 275 links to the site on wikipedia when I looked at the statistics, by far not all of them were added by user:VAwebteam. I think I cleaned about 40 of them, the rest has been removed by others, certainly not excessive or alarming, but it does raise some flags (the old linkwatcher bot had a built-in treshold of 3 links by one user....). The other occurances show that the link is judged by its value, others have used the link in all the other cases. Hope this clarifies a bit. I hope they will join us, and maybe they can even help us find (and fill!) some gaps in wikipedia's coverage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh! I wasn't going to go there, but thnx fer the clarification (although a 1:8 ratio of anything should raise a flag!) ... I guess I had assumed that your WP:BOT was tracking additions by WP:USERNAME in addition to URLs in articles ... although I've never written one myself, one of my hobbies is mentally reverse engineering bot algorithms, and this one looked trivial:
    • scan all articles modified within the last <time-period> for "www.vam.ac.uk"
    • in members of that set, scan the associated history log for "VAwebteam"
    Seeing that you ran a bot, I had assumed that your mass-revert had been bot-assisted, because even your humble friend and narrator is not Monkish enough to manually scan a user's edit history and open every article on it. :-)
    FYI, the reason why I keep wikilinking the WP:SHORTs in my posts is for the benefit of the nuggets ... it's like a part of my DNA reminding me that someone who only discovered Wikipedia within the past <48 hours> will read this page, and just like happened to me when I was that green (and you, too, gentle reader), their first thought is inevitably, "What the four-letter-expletive are they talking about?" ... think of it as a genetic predisposition to embrace the extended spirit behind WP:DBTN based upon "it's always the First Time for somebody," so just remember a time when you knew less about it than they do now, and don't just write it off as a symptom of my OCD ... having said that, maybe Some Other Editor will remember to wikilink more often. —68.239.79.82 03:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK! Is this resolved now? — Athaenara ✉ 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    GOSH! I hadn't realised putting what I thought would be helpful links would cause such a fantastic debate. When I embarked on looking at Wikipedia pages my intention was to add links to established articles to point visitors to other helpful information. I didn't feel it was right to rewrite articles people had carefully set up, even adding a little further information I felt could upset the balance of the article. The V&A's pages I linked to held pages of information and images that might overload a page in wikipedia if reproduced there but might enhance a reader's knowledge or interest if they visited them. I put the links in 'External links' as I thought it would misleading to put them in as a 'Reference' as I had not written any of the content on the wikipedia page and just thought an 'External link' could be added if a visitor to wikipedia thought it might be useful.

    The content on the V&A's site is written by specialist curators who write with an unbiased point of view so I thought it was safe to link to it. Also, the V&A is not a commercial organisation so again thought it was ok to link to it. When I looked through many of the related topics on wikipedia users had already linked to the V&A, eg. Art Deco but I see this link has been removed. I'm wondering if something in the workings of wikipedia has been a little overzealous in removing everything to do with the V&A now we have been highlighted!!

    Obviously it looks like I need a bit of hand holding to get used to contributing to wikipedia and would like to take up offers of help. Already, the information provided on this page and mytalk page have been very useful. So, just to clarify... - if I go to a talk page of a related article and ask to add a link it's ok? - if I add content and then put a related link, books in as a reference that's ok? - if I add images and say where I got them from that's ok? I'm not fluent in wikispeak so am deciphering slowly... Hopefully this has not prevented me from contributing to wikipedia as it would be a shame not be able to share the V&A's information and images. Thank you for all your help and interest. VAwebteam 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your response. I think what you describe is indeed the way forward. Hope that you can help us enhance the wikipedia (I am sure you can), and if you have questions, remarks etc. don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    VAwebteam ... I think that a better approach than leaving messages on each individual talk page is to collect a list of articles and proposed links on your own sandbox page (I'll show you how to make one) and review them with Some Other Editor ... I'm in a rush at the moment, but now that you've resumed contact, let's close this COI/N discussion, and move further dialog to the VAwebteam talk page ... look for my message there, and we'll star your lessons ... everyone kewl with that? —68.239.79.82 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be ok by me. Johnbod 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas Carswell

    Possible autobiographical editing by a British MP. RJASE1 Talk 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At first glance, this is as clear a case of WP:VSCA as I've ever seen ... his only contributions to Wikipedia have been the edits to the article about himself ... but, he's not the original author of the article (it was created over six months before he first touched it), which certainly takes at least half the weight off of the COI issue ... and, since he's a MP of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, then his WP:Notability is pretty much established de facto, regardless of the lack of WP:Attribution.
    I say, "Either revert his edits and tell him not to do it again, or else take it to AfD" ... but be prepared for arguments that his WP:N sufficiently trumps any failure of WP:BIO or WP:A as a reason for deletion, because we're not talking about a "first year, assistant basketball coach at some NN junior college" who has made beau coup edits to an article about himself that was created by one of his students ... that one would probably be closed as Delete within 48 hours. —68.239.79.82 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible corporate spam

    I left a {{uw-coi1}} on this editor's Talk page. I think it's fine to put db-spam on all the pages listed above, except for the main company page at STMicroelectronics. EdJohnston 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    STMicroelectronics is one of those articles which duplicates company website content, almost all of which should be cleared out of any encyclopedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    All of Stmicro's edits have been reverted, including creation of the new pages and the edits to STMicroelectronics linking to the new pages. Only thing I can't figure out is how to undo the reference page from ST6 to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.  :) --FeralDruid 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    They've created more, and re-created deleted articles; St6 microcontroller ST10 STR7 STR9. All tagged again. EliminatorJR Talk 12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor just created List of STMicroelectronics microcontrollers‎, on which I placed a notability tag. He removed most warnings from his Talk page, but kept a small amount of discussion. It is a concern that he won't respond, or adjust his strategy. EdJohnston 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed. I've just reverted your prior comments about WP:COI back onto his talk page, and added an additional comment questioning his relationship with the company. -FeralDruid 15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted the List as copyvio...it was direct cut and paste. I've also left a note on the creator's talk page, and cautioned that if this behavior continues, a block might follow. AKRadecki 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh, I hadn't even checked for copyvios. It does seem, more and more, as if Stmicro works for the company. -FeralDruid 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A report to show the deleted edits as well:

    (link is now monitored on COIBot) --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Plains Art Museum (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Plainsartmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains Art Museum
    Article created and edited by above user. RJASE1 Talk 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tania Chen (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Apparent autobiographical editing. RJASE1 Talk 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged this as autobiographical, someone removed it, and the same person(s) keep removing tags. Bad! Bearian 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raritan Computer (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    various BBC-owned IP addresses

    The BBC-owned IP addresses:

    all have a history of editing BBC-related articles. Some of these edits were flagged as CoI, others not, but appear to be so on reflection (e.g the removal of deletion nomination from an article about BBC radio presenter). I wonder whether someone shouldn't contact the BBC, and ask them to run an article on Wikipeida's CoI policy, in their staff magazine, or on their intranet? Andy Mabbett 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Some of the edits from these addresses are also fairly juvenile vandalism that doesn't reflect well on the BBC ([18][19][20]). If these came from BBC employees, I'm sure their employment contracts say something about actions disreputable to their employer. 86.140.181.239 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wendy Higgins

    User:Wendyhiggins has created a self-promotional userpage and has edited several articles related to her animal rights activism. Among these is the Dr Hadwen Trust. Since the edits may be legitimate, I have decided not to revert them, and instead to seek a second opinion here. YechielMan 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch. I've reverted some of the edits, warned the user and tagged Dr Hadwen Trust. This needs attention from a careful editor to restore or confirm neutral point of view. Once that's done, remove the {{COI}} tag. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Leanne Pooley (New Zealand Filmmaker) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Article created by SpacificFilms (talk · contribs), which is the above person's production company. RJASE1 Talk 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Hilbe (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Jhilbe (talk · contribs) and Joehilbe (talk · contribs) (probably the same person) creator and primary article editor. The only contributions of these users is to this article. RJASE1 Talk 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=134867692"