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
Line 1,528: Line 1,528:


:I would say there is a clear conflict of interest, among other issues. Chaplain Svendson has been [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] by email. Chaplain Svendson is also a somewhat notable figure. That notability is relevant to this COI report. He is the individual who wrote an article for Esquire, and appeared on (mostly neocon/conservative-orientated) talk shows, denying the ill-treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. This establishes some history of contradicting the conventional wisdom in regards to accusations of torture and similarly distasteful practices. I do not believe Chaplain Svendson is being dishonest in his advocacy. However, the canvassing, the speeches and notably his "outrage" over what the majority of reliable sources report, in combination with his notable place in the Gitmo debate, certainly lead me to believe he has a clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and even more troubling, that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to [[WP:SOAP|"right great wrongs"]]. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:I would say there is a clear conflict of interest, among other issues. Chaplain Svendson has been [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]] by email. Chaplain Svendson is also a somewhat notable figure. That notability is relevant to this COI report. He is the individual who wrote an article for Esquire, and appeared on (mostly neocon/conservative-orientated) talk shows, denying the ill-treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. This establishes some history of contradicting the conventional wisdom in regards to accusations of torture and similarly distasteful practices. I do not believe Chaplain Svendson is being dishonest in his advocacy. However, the canvassing, the speeches and notably his "outrage" over what the majority of reliable sources report, in combination with his notable place in the Gitmo debate, certainly lead me to believe he has a clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] and even more troubling, that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to [[WP:SOAP|"right great wrongs"]]. [[User:Vassyana|Vassyana]] 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::Please get your facts straight. I didn't write any article for Esquire. I was interviewed by a writer for Esquire. I had not control as to what that writer wrote. Again all I did was answer his questions about what I actually heard and saw. I have repeatedly stated that I did not know what went on in the interrogation rooms and was not making statements about everything that went on there. I do know as one of the briefers for incoming guards that every guard received a briefing on the protection of human rights and instructions on the Geneva Conventions. They received instuctions to not violate the human rights of the detainees. This included even using demeaning or insulting language or showing disrespect for their dignity and religious practices. They were told to refuse orders to mistreat the detainees. To refuse to particpate in violations. They had direct orders to take actions to stop it if they saw it. And to report it to authorities if they saw it. That is what the general population of guards were taught and held accountable to. If any guard became stressed out or showed a potential for being abusive they were given duty outside of the camp.[[User:ChaplainSvendsen|ChaplainSvendsen]] 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

:::The "conventional wisdom" of Gitmo is that there is no torture. There are legitmate questions about the legality of holding prisoners there. There are questions about whether the Geneva Convention covers these prisoners. There are legitmate questions about whethter they have the right to Habeus Corpus (it's interesting to note that Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus are usually exclusive). But the accusation of torture is an extreme position that has not been supported by credible evidence. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
:::The "conventional wisdom" of Gitmo is that there is no torture. There are legitmate questions about the legality of holding prisoners there. There are questions about whether the Geneva Convention covers these prisoners. There are legitmate questions about whethter they have the right to Habeus Corpus (it's interesting to note that Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus are usually exclusive). But the accusation of torture is an extreme position that has not been supported by credible evidence. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::You must not know of this.:[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/07/military-report-gitmo-detainee.php Report of Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Bmedley Sutler|<font color="#000000">•'''smedley'''</font>]][[User_talk:Bmedley Sutler|<font color="#CC00CC">'''Δ'''</font><font color="#CC0000">'''butler'''•</font>]]</span> 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
::::You must not know of this.:[http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/07/military-report-gitmo-detainee.php Report of Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Bmedley Sutler|<font color="#000000">•'''smedley'''</font>]][[User_talk:Bmedley Sutler|<font color="#CC00CC">'''Δ'''</font><font color="#CC0000">'''butler'''•</font>]]</span> 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:37, 6 September 2007

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Dan Barouch
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Scott Bessent
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Centre for European Policy Studies
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn


    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.

    Global Panel Foundation

    The latter is a résumé for an individual who presides to the other two institutions; long but slow warn-and-revert war between inside editors and COI patrollers. Lately an inside editor has resorted to verbal aggressiveness, hence this report. --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The following users are all insiders of the organizations and have tried to restore cleaned-up or unsourced deleted content on all three articles - interestingly, as one user leaves, a new one takes his place:

    --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]

    All of the accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on the Ellenbogen-related articles with evident conflict of interest varying from apparent to obvious. It doesn't matter where they are on the planet: look at the contribs. — Athaenara ✉ 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    One month after maf's initial report here, this crew of COI SPAs is still multiplying accounts and proceeding with near-impunity. — Athaenara ✉ 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Still a problem I am afraid. I have suggested redirecting the Ellenbogen page to the Prague Society for International Cooperation, which is his only claim to notability anyway. Even that group comes perilously close to failingWP:ORG, but would be a hard AfD because it has managed to insinuate itself into the shadow of notable people. Even those claims are probably dubious, For example, a google search on Baroness Cox and the Prague Society turns up mention of a single symposium and lots of Wikimirrors. [1] Anyway, something needs to be done. Eusebeus 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I tried editing these for a while until I gave up, & I commend those who perservered. I never did figure out the relationship between the two organizations. I think Ellenbogen has enough refs to show notability at AfD. I am not sure of the organizations, Societies that claim to do their work behind scenes are hard to document & I have a deep skepticism about claims to their importance made by anyone related to them. DGG (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Dice

    This is a soapbox matter rather a straight COI but COIN is probably the best noticeboard for it. "John Conner" is a pseudonym used by Mark Dice until recently. His internet radio show and writings appear similar to Alex Jones (radio). Under either name he is known for self-promotion. For the past couple of years promotional edits favoring him have been made to Wikipedia. In the past he's been sufficiently non-notable that most of the references have been removed. The "John Conner" article was successfully AFDed twice, and speedily deleted a couple of more times too. Obviously it's been recreated several times. The various promotional efforts have paind off and he's probably notable enough now to merit at least a short article. If so, we need to watch it closely to prevent it from becoming a soapbox for fringe theories. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is another one that needs to be looked at more carefully not onyl for COI, but notability. He's merely famous for stalking and for being in the news, not being or doing anything per se. I've tagged it, too. Bearian 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    208.54.15.129 is still actively COI-editing the article, adding links for videos the subject has made as (wholly not-RS) references, for example. I have referenced some of his additions, but I wouldn't waste energy on arguing against their deletion, and I'm frankly tempted to stubbify the article. As Will Beback pointed out, there's a soapbox issue here, too. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72.192.187.241 is the most recent of this ilk. — Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72.89.204.101 blanked the page three times so far. — Athaenara ✉ 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Thanks to Athaenara's cleanup work, the Mark Dice article is in good shape now. Can we close this COI report? The last major promoter, 72.192.187.241 (talk · contribs), has not edited since 16 August when Athaenara gave him a COI warning. The other IP, 72.89.204.101 (talk · contribs) looks more like a vandal. Except for those two, there have been no COI edits lately. Since the recent bad edits (since 1 August) have not been frequent enough to justify blocking or semi-protection, I don't think there is anything still to do besides keep the article on our watch lists. EdJohnston 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernard J. Taylor

    Article on playwright created by a person claiming to be the webmaster for his promotional website who is also adding promotional information about the playwright to other articles and has started an article about at least one fictional character in playwright's plays. WP:OWN issues are arising -- user is removing appropriate templates. Erechtheus 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the COI admission. I've left a warning. Block indefinitely on the next COI or spam edit. Somebody needs to go clean up this big mess. This user has been a prolific spammer. Jehochman Talk 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User maintains webpage:
    Can we please indef block this abusive editor?
    Grab your mop. Every edit from this account is self-serving COI or linkspam, hitting multiple articles. (e.g. [2][3][4]) Wikipedia is being abused for a publicity campaign. The editor has been warned up, but persists, and has been leaving obnoxious messages with any editor who opposes. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    48 hour block for WP:NPA violations. Follow up with specific evidence of linkspam, etc. if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The most vitriolic personal attack is this one.
    Whether or not problems resume, here are the external links that need to be checked. Many look like spam. The editor claims to be the webmaster of this site, so he obviously should not be adding all these links:
    1. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
    2. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from User:Siebahn - This one is OK
    3. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/ linked from Bernard J. Taylor - Also OK
    4. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/BOOKINDEX.html linked from Image:Bernard J. Taylor.jpg -OK
    5. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Books.html linked from Detective fiction - SPAM
    6. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
    7. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Lesley Garrett - SPAM
    8. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/htsbronte.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
    9. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Htspages/Heights.html linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/w - No issue
    10. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from List of musicals: A to L - SPAM
    11. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from Battle of the Alamo - SPAM
    12. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Muchado/Mado.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
    13. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Nosferatu/nosmoore.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
    14. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/pp.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM
    15. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/ppintro.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM
    I hope the editor will agree to stop spamming, clean up the above mess, refrain from further COI edits, and agree not to make further insults. Jehochman Talk 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll leave this at a 48 hour block for now. If problems resume the duration will escalate rapidly. DurovaCharge! 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleaned up the linkspam listed above. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked 69.218.220.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for blockevation. Agathoclea 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Block on the sockmaster extended to one week. Report additional problems here and I'll respond appropriately. DurovaCharge! 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder even about the notability. I don't know about the US venues, but the UK ones - Tonbridge ... Eastbourne ... Rotherham - have a rather small-town flavour, and these productions may even be amdram. And his books track to iUniverse (ie self-published). AFD? Gordonofcartoon 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by SP edits, two more likely socks, the latter getting uppity about being expected to provide published sources for biographical data: Gordonofcartoon 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    24.93.115.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Update: just noticed more advertising at Nosferatu The Vampire (musical), Pride and Prejudice (musical), and Much Ado (musical). Gordonofcartoon 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Westgate / advertising

    I was told this might be the right place to ask. Westgate Resorts looks like a huge advertisement to me. Am I right? It may be a notable company, but I don't think all of those resort links need to be there. --blm07 15:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a public relations campaign to me. Editor JRoss09 has only edited articles about Westgate Resorts, its founder, shareholders, affiliates, and places where he can add links. I'll warn him about COI editing, and see what he has to say. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to fix the main article for formatting and erasing junk from it. Bearian 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done some more cleanup, but it still needs work. Jehochman Talk 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NBC Universal IP address inserting program ads

    IP whois shows this user(s) is at NBC Universal itself. Editing includes (in addition to a "Fxxx Y**" edit) a history of "this xNBC show coming on at date/time" adverts in Travolta, Eisner and NBC employee BLP articles. I'd suggest that an IT administrator that presides over that IP range at NBC be contacted by wikipedia that wikipedia should not be used to spam upcoming NBC shows and to post in a manner that I'm sure NBC would not want to be associated with. Piperdown 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added another possible NBC SPA-COI account (Stephenb214) to the list. Jehochman Talk 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've semiprotected Michael Eisner and Becky Quick for two weeks. The account and IP address don't show any recent activity. If this is an ongoing problem, please post the relevant account or IP. I take this very seriously and I agree: this is the type of situation where it's important to act quickly and with discretion. I don't know whether this is good faith action by a new user, whether it's coming on orders from management or some well-meaning low level employee acting alone, but it's the kind of thing that could really cause negative press backlash for a firm. DurovaCharge! 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Still spamming: [5]. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Theatre Under The Stars (Houston)

    Created by, and extensively edited by, a new editor with the exact same name. I tagged it for COI2. Bearian 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [[WP:PROD|Proposed for deletion]. YechielMan 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits were reverted 3 times or more in a matter of days, and the page was blanked once, by the same user. Does this violate the rule on 3r's? Bearian 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MFauntroy (talk · contribs)

    Wrote his own biography and significantly contributed to father's biography, as well as self-promotional editing in other articles. Videmus Omnia 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also removing negative information concerning his uncle. Videmus Omnia 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've warned the user. If he continues making COI edits, please let us know. Jehochman Talk 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Katrina Swett

    I've left a warning for the user. Please report this as an inappropriate username. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the swift response. I'll be down the hall, to the left. =).--Flamgirlant 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    broken <s> tag fixed.--Flamgirlant 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added content and citations I found with a Google search. Bearian 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Branding brand

    → See also: Special:Linksearch/*.collegeprowler.com

    I have tagged the article for: conflict of interest, reads like an advertisement (peacock language, photos and interests of the principals, etc.), red links, lacking third-party sources, and unverified sources. This is an article for PR firm by a PR firm. WP:NOT, WP:OR

    The conflict is that the former employer of three principals and the creating editor have a suspiciously similar name. The creator of the article has most recently only been creating or editing articles about persons or entities that are clients and principals of that PR firm. Also, the editor has made lots of edits, but has not even bothered to make a user page or a user talk page. WP:COI

    I have not suggested to delete it entirely, as it may be notable, or just my error.

    Also, there's possible copy-vio of pictures? Bearian 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh yeah!

    Joey Rahimi = Collegeprowler = College Prowler = Branding brand = Branding Brand = Alumni of United Nations International School [[6]]!

    From Joey Rahimi: "Joey Rahimi (born April 20, 1979) is an American entrepreneur and co-founder of College Prowler, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based publishing company of college guidebooks and collegeprowler.com, one of the fastest growing websites in its industry. The company was established in 2002 as a project in an entrepreneurship class at CMU's Tepper School of Business.[1] He attended the United Nations International School and graduated with an International Baccalaureate. Upon being accepted into Washington University in St. Louis, Emory University, New York University, and Carnegie Mellon University, Joey decided to attend Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [2]"

    Also, note the Usertalk on Collegeprowler has several copyright violation notices! Bearian 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Images have been tagged as no source/license. Videmus Omnia 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The portraits in the article are copyvio from company website here. Videmus Omnia 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I unclosed this as there are three more articles that the concerned user has been editing where COI is applicable. MER-C 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedompress (talk · contribs)

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Patriot (AfD closed with Redirect to David Steinman on 24 April 2007).

    See the above user's user page for self-proclaimed COI. Videmus Omnia 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, yeah. This might be grounds for deletion, but I'm not sure. YechielMan 10:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Looks to me that David Steinman is notable. I removed a bunch of advertising language, and took off the 'advertisement' tag, leaving just the COI tag. I suggest that the content of the article on Freedom Press (U.S.) could be merged into David Steinman. For some reason, articles that small publishers submit about themselves are usually dreadful and don't talk about anything notable. The references should be put into citation templates. In their copious spare time, other editors could search for some reviews of his books to help develop third-party sourcing. If this were done, the 'COI' tag might be removed. EdJohnston 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedompress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked on 13 July as a role account, and there is no indication that the editor has noticed, or has tried to create a new account. I sent him some Wikipedia email so he is at least aware of this discussion. EdJohnston 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced the article Freedom Press (U.S.) with a redirect to David Steinman. The history is still visible under the redirect. EdJohnston 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'd be happy to add additional references for David Steinman. I have created a new account but I'm not sure how to relate it to my former username, freedompress. I don't fully understand why Freedom Press (U.S.) was removed when there is an article about the publishing company Freedom Press in the U.K. Thank you for your help.NY12345 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas Hubbard

    I'm looking for unbiased opinions on recent edits of Military logistics by Hubbardaie. Although sourced, his edits focus on his own Applied Information Economics model, work he has done for the Navy all referenced to his recently published book. In my opinion this borders on self promotion and assigns undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. Ehrentitle 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In retrospect, I can see excluding my point for an article that short. I could see it as a subsection or a separate article. The military logistics article should be much longer. I compared it to the length of the artillery page and infantry page. I think it should be at least as long as those.Hubbardaie 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Coi Spa Hubbardaie ("aie" presumably for "applied information economics") has created at least four additional articles, listed above. — Athaenara ✉ 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch your name-calling. Perhaps I'm automatically COI for no other reason than my publications but the SPA label is out of line. I've edited lots of articles for a long time with absolutely no reference to me. Stop the labels or I'll just refer to you as Racist Athaenara or Child Molester Athaenara (you can pick).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubbardaie (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2007.
    by the way, one of the "Hubbard family" articles is redundant. I'm not sure how that happened. One simply has "family" capitalized in the title and the other does not.Hubbardaie 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears someone just redirected the duplicateHubbardaie 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not a SPA, it should be no trouble to point to say a dozen edits from the last month that are not about "Applied Information Economics", or "Hubbard", or disputes and discussions relating to same. Looking over your contributions log, I have trouble identifying those. Could you please provide such links? Facts are a better defense than name-calling. –Henning Makholm 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In defense of HubbardAIE, he didn't say "dozens". He said "lots", whatever that means. Again, facts first.BillGosset 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, I did not say "dozen", Henning Makholm pulled that rule out of thin air. Care is always needed about the facts. In fact, I found in short order three edits I made that had absolutely no reference to me: Anti-globalization, Nobel prize in Economics, and Vulcanization. I believe one would suffice to refute the "single" purpose position. Technically, I would need a dozen if I were accused of being a "sub-duodecad purpose". But, fortunately, I was only accused of being single purpose, so three is more than enough.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed he didn't actually create the article reference for his name but he did fill in some bio information after someone else created it. The sources on these other articles are mostly other information, not his book. We used this guy's methods in my firm a few years ago and he would know best. I've also edited some of these articles and added a couple of references. Other than listing himself as a "prominent Hubbard", the sources on the "Hubbard Family" article appear to be independent geneological resources.BillGosset 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh? It sure looks like he created the article himself. OR did you mean this or this? –Henning Makholm 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I only created the article because someone else made it a link on the AIE article which I did write but linked to nowhere. Feel free to remove it or nominate it for deletion. Seriously, I don't care. I kept it short and factual because I figured someone would protest. You will notice that the hubbard family article uses two independent references.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This brings up another topic I've wondered about. I've published quite a few articles around financial portfolio management and statistical models. I haven't referenced all of my own articles in Wikipedia yet but if there is a rule against that, then that would seem to elliminate some of the most qualified people from writing on most topics (people who are published in that area). Is it frowned upon to reference one's own work? Even if it is supported by the work of others? In other AFD discussions I've seen, COI was itself not sufficient reason for deletion but a lack of supporting references can be.Hubbardaie 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would minimize further changes by yourself on any of these articles unless it is a purely minor change like fixing a link. The military logistics page includes only one brief comment about AIE and you provide one source. I added in the military logistics discussion that it should stay in but it would be a smaller part if the article grows (and it should). The other articles seem to have several other sources besides your own. And it's not like you are just referencing a business website for marketing since the work you cite has been published in respected sources. Still, its a fine line to walk. I would resist the temptation to make further changes yourself.BillGosset 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm... I smell socks. BillGosset, are you sure that you're not Hubbardaie? For example, your only edit to Talk:Measurement is to sign a comment left by Hubbardaie three minutes earlier – which spoke of Hubbardaie in the third person, agreeing with him(self). –Henning Makholm 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, we have used the same computer, but we are two different people. Bill has visited and he previously revealed in the Military Logistics talk that I did work for his firm - you can verify those comments. He must have wrote the comment you refer to before I signed off and then corrected it later. We talk about wikipedia a lot. I've explicitly used the "HubbardAIE" username to be as forthcoming as possible when I write articles. Actually, I'm suspicious of most of you regarding your agendas and sock-puppet status. I didn't even have to admit that much. Most of you don't.Hubbardaie 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically, I'm more like a "meat puppet", but I don't like the sexual connotations. He's ok but I'm really not attracted to him that way:-) Seriously, we only use the same computer when we are both in the same office. We should talk more about our arguments so the wiki-cops aren't so suspicious.BillGosset 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, comments from an admin:

    1. It is generally inappropriate to write about yourself, especially a bio about yourself. I will be userfying it in a moment. For more information about this, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is okay to occasionally cite one of your own works, see Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself, but it really needs to be kept to a minimum.
    2. We don't need duplicate articles, so I've redirected Hubbard Family to Hubbard family.
    3. It is acceptable for you to write about areas inwhich you are an expert. In fact, it's encouraged. But it is also recognized that if you're an expert, you will be knowledgeable about other references, particularly secondary sources, and it is preferred that you use those rather than referenceing your own works on a large scale.
    4. User:BillGosset: I've dropped a welcome template on your page...I would suggest that in order to avoid the appearance of wrong doing, you carefully consider what and where you edit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with collaboration, but even "meat puppets" (in the non-sexual sense) are discouraged.
    5. Be careful about civility...the responses above very quickly got a bit heated. If you really are an academic/professional, you will understand the need to act professionally, especially here.

    I am always available to answer questions. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree on all points. Here are my individual responses:

    1. I just made a note in your talk page (before I read your points here) that I was always ok with deleting my autobiography - which I honestly would not have written except that someone else made my name an article link (I felt obligated to fill in, who else would?). I wrote a point in the talk page that someone should then, at least, remove the article link to my name. I've recused myself from making any further changes to that article.
    2. Thankyou for redirecting the duplicate. I'm not sure how it happened. I think it was the first full article I created and I may have done something klutzy with it.
    3. Again, my username is meant to disclose my identity for the purpose disclosing my identity when making references to my articles. I was quite explicit during the creation of the AIE and the AFD discussion. I will at least make sure that additions to future articles include at least a majority of other sources besides my own.
    4. I'm sure Bill was kidding when he refered to himself as merely a meat puppet. We know each other, have similar intersts, and live near each other, so we will probably be commenting on similar articles. Even though we have long since disclosed our relationship (non-sexual) in wikipedia, I agree we should steer clear. On the other hand, if Bill always discloses that we know each other, I don't see the harm. We'll both be sure to do that when we edite the same topic.
    5. My apologies on the heated-sounding responses but I thought the SPA label was unfair. By the way, I claim only to be informed on my topics of expertise. I don't always claim to be a "professional" and I meet lots of professionals in heated debates. On the other hand, I concede your point for the purpose of productivity and community in wikipedia.

    Hubbardaie 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Lucas (porn star)

    I was not aware of this noticeboard until just now. I'm bringing this over from the BLP noticeboard, and I've edited my comment a bit to focus on the COI issue. The other editor's comment was just added today. The page is currently under full protection due to the continual re-adding of several contested passages which are violations of BLP, one not mentioned here which involves another individual. In this case, I don't think there is any doubt of the subject's notability. The issue is his desire to control the content of his page, via his own edits, and now, apparently, through recruiting others to edit his entry. Here is my edited BLP noticeboard post and a comment placed there by another editor: -Jmh123 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page [7], I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas), an entry that in my opinion was clearly intended to sell a DVD, that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See also Lucas Entertainment (now merged with and redirected to his biography). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comments? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can offer my observations. When I first came across this article, I immediately noticed some conspicuous omissions vis-à-vis what I'd read about this actor Andrei Treivas (Michael Lucas): e.g., Lucas's work as a male prostitute in Europe and in NYC, Lucas's work under Jean-Daniel Cadinot, the fact that Lucas founded his production company with money he earned from working as a prostitute, and the fact that Lucas located his company in NYC (instead of the more traditional Los Angeles) because of the lack of competition in NYC. Over time these facts were added and some balance was achieved. Along came 216.57.17.234 (hereinafter referred to as "216") who proceeded to, at times, systematically, and at times, haphazardly, delete any mention of these facts or anything else s/he didn't like, most times without any edit summary and almost never with any dialogue on the talk page. The only time 216 wrote on the talk page was in response to a challenge to an awards box; s/he wrote that the challenging editor should go to Johnny Hazzard's page or Chi Chi Larue's page and edit their awards boxes, in effect saying, "this is my page, leave it alone and go edit somebody else's page." I cannot be sure that 216 and Lucas are one and the same, but it's a well-known fact that Lucas is a shameless self-promoter. 216 has added and re-added material that promoted the products of Lucas's production company, sometimes using the same phrasing as that used in the company's website. In a 4 April edit on a related page, that of Lucas's "La Dolce Vita" film, 216 added the entire plot section lifted directly from the production company website. And in one peculiar addition on 24 April, 216 added "lungfish" to the list of animals living with Lucas in NYC. Go try and find anything on the internet about lungfish and Lucas -- you won't. Based on her/his history, I don't think it will be sufficient to place the page under partial protection or to even block 216 from editing. 216's confederates will simply come along and edit as they please, as seen in the activity of Theshape4 while the page was under partial. I don't know the exact jargon to express this, but I would suggest two things: have the activities of 216, Lucasent, and Theshape4 investigated for the issues you've raised; and, have the page placed under the form of protection whereby additions can only be made by an authority from Wikipedia. Thank you for your good work. 71.127.230.77 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This fight has broken out again, and there is edit warring, name calling, and the like going on. If anyone wants to check for sockpuppetry, unregistered user User:Lucasent and User:216.57.17.234 are both engaging. The other IPs on the anti-Lucas side are nearly all the same individual. While he is being accused of changing IPs deliberately, it may simply be in the nature of his system. At any rate, he doesn't pretend to be more than one person. The situation is too heated for me today; I have other things that I must do. If anyone wants to step in, please do. -Jmh123 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: 216 returned 20 July, edit-warred over the article in question (although never reaching the 3RR limit) until Durova protected it 14 August, the 5th time this page has been protected. Anyone else see a trend here? -- llywrch 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Molefi Kete Asante

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

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


    Patrick Murphy

    Edits about a political candidate being made by In2itionmedia (talk · contribs), a single-purpose-account which is the name of the media group that operates the candidate's website. Article hijacking of a disambiguation page. Videmus Omnia 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add to that vandalism of an opponent's page. Videmus Omnia 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous...the other candidates have pages with their history and campaign promotional materials. How is this a "neutral resource" if all the candidates can't have pages with background information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by In2itionmedia (talk • contribs)

    • thats fine the only reason i moved it was because the patrick murphy page was all about the guy running. the reason i didnt change anything on his page was because i commented in the discussion and thats my defense Gang14 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter DG Tompkins

    Looks like almost all of his edits have a conflict of interest. --Ronz 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I redirected the biography page, which was practically empty. The table pages may be worth deleting, but I'll leave it up to others. Tompkins seems to be inactive now. Mangojuicetalk 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James Sherley

    I'm having a little trouble with a couple of accounts that appear to have probably been created by MIT professors or students. The only edits these accounts make are to the James Sherley article, and these accounts usually turn half the article into a defense of MIT's not granting Sherley tenure. While MIT's position merits mentioning, it shouldn't dominate the article, and be careful of the links the accounts add also, as they do not always back up the statements being made in the article by the attack accounts. Chicken Wing 09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Saaty's

    The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)is being vandalized or recreated with strong POV and COI. It appears the inventor of AHP and his wife, Thomas and Rozann Saaty (Usernames TSaaty, RozannSaaty), are repeatedly deleting citations of published papers that point out flaws in the AHP method. It appears that the accounts were created specifically with the single purpose in mind and with a conflict of interest because the only edits made by these accounts so far have been recent changes to this article. Both should be considered Coi and Spa. The last edit by RozannSaaty amounted to replacing the entire existing article with what was clearly blatant advertising. The last edit by TSaaty was to simply delete the entire article. They have been invited to articulate their rebutals to these papers without deleting the citations but they appear unwilling to do that with a neutral point of view.Hubbardaie 12:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    unwikipedian? Good word. That's definitely going in my dictionary.Hubbardaie 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Easywayout (talk · contribs)

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juniper Shuey

    The above two articles were created by the SPA Easywayout (talk · contribs), which also happens to be the name of a collaboration between the two artists. Strongly promotional in tone. Videmus Omnia 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll send these to WP:AFD. Shalom Hello 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anne Lindfjeld

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Lindfjeld

    The names are too close for coincidence. Seems like an autobiography. It's a poorly written article, with bad links. Also I sent this to WP:AFD. Bearian 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tlrp

    This user seems to be creating articles about itself and its principals, in violation of conflicts rules, and inserting spam links into other articles as spam. It and they may be notable. It is a suspicious situation, and may involve a single purpose account. Bearian 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been on both sides of this type of situation. I've written an article about a method I personally invented but I made sure there were plenty of independent, notable and verifiable sources and then I voluntarilly removed myself from further substantive edits in the article (it passed a speedy delete vote unanimously). The problem with this article is that the only "reference" cited is what appears to be an unpublised internal document and links to their websites. It also seems highly unnecessary to simply list names of directors in an encyclopedic source. In general, its just a very light treatment of whatever this is supposed to be. It should probably just go up for an AFD discussion.Hubbardaie 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SSRC is certainly a highly reputable organisation, and their major projects are probably notable--at least once they have been going for what is now 7 years. However, their PR people are like pother PR people, and the main article is as much spam as information. My personal touchstone for excessive spam is excessive emphasis on individual names or project names, and I have just removed some. The principal investigators on a project of this size are normally already highly notable, but the same can not always be said for the administrators. So I think the thing to do is to work on the articles individually according to their ordinary merits. (As is not unusual, the PR people have somewhat missed the boat--what would show notability is discussion of substantial published work and third party reviews of it, rather than just research plans--just as with anything else.) I'm watching them all. DGG 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cogswell College

    Some dude (User:Joel_Lindley) constantly deletes anything from this article if it is not negative enough. I see that *he* reported a conflict of interest with someone else, and people investigating it found out that "Joel" had been involved in some sort of incident with the college, apparently involving the better business bureau. As the person responding to HIS conflict-of-interest report noted, he has an epinions page containing details of his experiences with the school, and he is constantly trying to make the wikipedia page for the school match the opinions in that page by deleting any material that could be considered positive. the latest, for example, was that he deleted a link to a story in IGN (a neutral, third-party publisher with a decent reputation and which is fairly well-known in the gaming industry) because it was "an ad for the school.")

    He definitely seems to have some personal issues regarding the school - as pointed out in the response to his conflict-of-interest (in the archives), he was accusing some anonymous guy of a conflict, and the anonymous guy traced back to a law firm in chicago, while the college is in california. As the previous "investigation" showed, he had filed a better business bureau complaint against the school, and, according to a epinions review by someone with the same name, apparently some sort of civil rights complaint against the school as well. In the discussion for the cogswell page, he seems to admit having had some sort of "past" with the school. Although he seems willing to leave the page as it is alone for the moment, I'm not quite clear from his recent discussion entries what his actual position is.

    He also constantly is threatening people with various sanctions for posting anonymously, which, at the least, seems like it should be discouraged, but i don't know where to go to complain about that.

    Joel's previous conflict-of-interest report and responses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Cogswell_College

    Camaier 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Competition law

    User:TedFrank has been recently editing the Competition law article, in such a way that is politically motivated by his place of work - the American Enterprise Institute. This is a conservative think tank which lobbies for the viewpoints of certain economists, which the Competition law article deals with, e.g. Robert Bork. It began with a section (now) titled "Chicago School" where he complained of the first sentence using the word cranks. I changed that and accordingly removed the neutrality tag here because that had (I thought) been the complaint. User:TedFrank then added more and more objections, and the whole thing deteriorated. I made edits a number of times to keep up. I probably am to blame, for being too sarcastic on a few occasions which is poor form on my part. It seems now however the user has another agenda, the page being called "pro interventionist", "eurocentric" and in his view now "not even a B class on closer inspection." The latest complaint is about a nobel prize winning development economist being in a footnote, because undue weight is being given to him and not for two conservative economists, Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook. The theory part has an entire section for what's known as the Chicago school, but now the entire article is tagged to be rewritten, presumably with the conservative outlook of User:TedFrank's thinktank. I would like to ask for some intervention and am happy to take any advice offered on this one from administrators who don't have a particular political interest. I'll stop editting the article in the mean time.Wikidea 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the opposite of serious. Before I saw this complaint I asked two Wiki administrators, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Cool Hand Luke, who are also attorneys, to inspect my edits for COI problems, and both found that my suggestions and tags were appropriate.[8] [9] [10] For example:
    THF is entirely right. I cannot understand why we should cite two of Posner's books inline without even hinting about what his views are or they are or why they became influential. This section still reads as if a capitalist cabal of cranks was sinisterly stationed into positions of power by Ronald Reagan. It mentions some of the key players and documents their relationships, but nobody could read this article and have any idea why the Chicago School thinks as they do. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad faith of the COI accusation can be seen by the fact that one of Wikidea's examples of my alleged COI--which occurred on the talk page--was self-reverted twenty seconds later. The real problem here is WP:OWN: the article is shoddy and unbalanced and Eurocentric and violates NPOV, but the editor does not want to edit collaboratively, and has inappropriately attacked every editor who has objected to his version of the article, in this case making uncivil personal attacks against me and accusing me of "vandalism" because I added an NPOV tag and objected to his edit-warring. This complaint is utterly inappropriate: I have made thousands of edits here without a legitimate problem, yet am being accused of an "agenda." Every suggestion I've made for editing the article is legitimate. Where is the COI problem because I'm discussing these issues on the talk page and simply asking for NPOV to be adhered to? I'd like to see Wikidea investigated and sanctioned for the violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV, and I strenously object to the violation of WP:BLP that appears in his personal attack here that my edits are "politically motivated." THF 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to an inquiry concerning this thread on my userpage. In view of the opening comment above, hopefully it will not be necessary for anyone to raise civility or personal-attack concerns again with regard to this article. With regard to the substance, I don't see any overt COI issues at this time, but I remind everyone to adhere to the fundamental policy of NPOV. This article, as I've mentioned on its talkpage, should address all significant perspectives on competition/antitrust law in a wide range of national settings. We have plenty of editors with relevant legal and/or economics background and this should be a fine article if everyone edits with our policies in mind. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoubtedly THF's employer would disapprove of the article's slant, but this is not a COI issue. The article is in fact seriously biased, and THF has made many legitimate suggestions to improve it. It's true the THF has opinions, but this does not prevent him from contributing well-sourced and NPOV text—he does not appear to be censoring the article. The principle author also has a bias, as shown by the heading he originally gave the Chicago School—which is the dominant line of thought in US competition law—he titled it "neo-liberal radicalism". This term is both POV and apparently an invented neologism. Wikipedia is better off because an editor with a complimentary point of view (THF) helped fix this problem. I think further cooperation would greatly improve the article. Cool Hand Luke 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Counsellors, I did not mean the COI was serious, I meant it was a serious issue for WP:LAW. I alerted Newyorkbrad. We need a well-balanced article with references to law from many countries. Sorry for the confusion. I am happy to make suggestions and edits, although antitrust is not my area of expertise. Bearian 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally wikidea, accusing the AEI of complicity in these edits is a very serious claim. As THF points out on Newyorkbrad's talk page, it would be illegal for the AEI to do this. It's one thing to accuse users of bad faith, but it's quite another to attack third parties. I think you should carefully edit your remarks. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, it is illegal for my employer (or for me) to lobby. It is not illegal for my employer to edit Wikipedia, though they do not do so. My employer's most likely reaction would be "Why are you wasting time on the Internet instead of writing another law review article?", but I do resent the personal attacks, which force me to waste time defending myself, and reduce the spare time I have to make productive contributions to Wikipedia to the detriment of the project. There should be some consequence for what has been repeated disruptive behavior by Wikidea, and I'm not the first editor who he has tried to bully away from collaborative editing. THF 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not satisfied with the unanimous rejection of his complaint here, Wikidea is now engaging in personal attacks on the competition law page. I object, and would like Wikipedia rules to be enforced. THF 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addition Just to restate, no one has said that Ted, or his Luke acting with him, is being paid to lobby for certain changes, but his edits are overwhelmingly bias, according to the place he works. This is not some conspiracy theory, it's the far more mundane allegation that the User is unfit to be commenting on this page because of the pursuit of his slanted viewpoint. The so called "personal attacks" that he is referring to above, by the way, were exactly the same comment as I've posted here to begin with. I was then threatened with blocking, because Luke happens to be an administrator, when I tried to revert its deletion from the talk page. It seems a typical thing to do, according to the conservative philosophy they hold - start posting POV tags on pages, rubbish people who reply and object to deletion of good material, accuse them of breaching WP:OWN, don't compromise and keep writing until the other gives up. An example of the same pattern of action can be found on the Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle page. Wikidea 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's simply not the case that only left-wing editors are permitted on Wikipedia and it's not the case that the mere fact that I hold views consistent with the United States Supreme Court on competition law prohibits me from participating on any law-related articles. Wikidea's admitted refusal to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and his continuing this disruptive vendetta, despite not being able to identify a single non-compliant edit I have made, should face some administrative sanction. THF 18:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Match (magazine)

    Comments There's been a lot of discussion on the talk page, user's talk page, and in the wikitext of the article itself. The creator with the "self-evident" nomiker has been editing it again, possibly in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV policies. Should we place a COI2 tag on it? By the way, I wikified the introductory paragraph. Bearian 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the COI2 tag to the article and noted COI on Matchmagazine (talk · contribs)'s talk page. not sure what the next best step should be?--Hu12 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors named above, Matchmagazine (talk · contribs) and TomBoy78 (talk · contribs), have not done anything more to the article since this report was opened, on 8 July. Can we close this as a COI? I would also remove the {{COI2}} template from the article. Some neutral editors have pitched in since July and made improvements. EdJohnston 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Light Children

    Marisa Canales

    International Securities Exchange

    Lauren Jones, etc.

    -- Suspicious doings by spa editors at these articles, which all smack of boosterism. THF 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark R. Graczynski

    Graczynski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -article appears to have been started by its subject. --A. B. (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art

    Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Peter Doroshenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The Centre's own press office have admitted to cleaning up the article. The current version has a long unreferenced section hyping the program and is not consistent with other UK gallery articles.212.85.13.113 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both articles are problematic and have been edited by the same group of local editors such as Surface01 (talk · contribs) and Kjhughes (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what to do beyond slapping on COI tags and praying for rain. It's way past my bedtime anyhow. Shalom Hello 05:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Paul

    In the future, I predict Wikipedia will be a political campaign battleground. For Ron Paul, the future is now. That article is being edited by strong supporters (some of whom admit to it on their userpage) and several talk page commentators have complained that it reads like an ad. Sourced critical commentary has been removed as "hearsay" and a list of his political positions has been repeatedly removed from the intro. Given that Paul's positions are quite divergent, very unlike typical Republicans, I feel the summary of political positions is important. It would be nice to have some neutral editors have a look. BenB4 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I normally deal with the "cheapo" COI reports, such as where the author's username is identical to the article, so it's pretty obvious that the article should be deleted. The Ron Paul page has almost 100 references, and it's way out of my league. I think the best place to resolve your concerns is Wikipedia:Peer review or perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion. Shalom Hello 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me naive, but it looks like a fairly fair article. Let's face it, he's controversial. I agree that WP will probably become a battleground. Bearian 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's sourced, and you too can add sourced info to balance it out. The problem just might be that ROn Paul is so unambiguously awesome that any article about him will seem like an add. Basejumper 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    David W Solomons

    Dwsolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is David W Solomons. The vast majority of his edits are adding links to his own site. He has now uploaded content and is linking that instead. Nice to have free content media (if he genuinely owns all rights) but it's still vanity. Can anyone find any edits by him that are not promoting himself? Guy (Help!) 08:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He is continually adding music created by himself and if someone were to verify where the music came from by looking at his user page they'll find his website. He is definitely not interested in adding the music created by others to build up Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. He also seems to be using Wikipedia to store his files WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The only reason he makes his music GFDL is to promote his own work. Jono1970 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I thought that was the purpose of MySpace. Bearian 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the Solomons Usertalk page, User:Moreschi is adamantly defending the uploads. I don't understand how they're being used but he seems to feel they are important to Wikipedia. -Jmh123 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an issue with the account being created solely to upload music files created by himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dwsolo He was adding links to his website before but has stopped. He appears to have no intention of adding any text despite having knowledge on the subject being a composer. He has also been told that he should only upload music files with no reference to his name. I believe the sole purpose of his account is self promotion. Jono1970 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frank R. Wallace

    User:Bi may be involved in WP:COI edits. This user and his website are cited as competitors with the organizations of Frank R. Wallace (1932-2006). This status is stated on a Nouveau-Tech Society homepage. (Pax Neo-TeX and it's author are listed in the last paragraph.)

    To note, User:Bi has been heavily involved with editing the article on Frank R. Wallace. These edits may be an obstruction (such as Afd nominations). Edits also seem to go against guidelines which suggest to avoid or exercise great caution with COI edits on articles and their Afd discussions (rather than extensive participation). Many articles are available that User:Bi could be extensively involved in that do not violate Wikipedia’s policies. The article on Frank R. Wallace (and his company) is not one of them, as per User:Bi's COI.

    (Represents separate issue from self-promotion COI --above-- which mentioned link spam. That incident is on it's way to resolution... a self-promotion link to User:Bi's site being mostly considered as inappropriate.)

    Though a COI is possibly evident, can compile references or examples of COI edits if this would be helpful. Thanks. J. T. Lance 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article on Frank R. Wallace, and the conduct of Bi and other involved users, is now the subject of a Mediation case. The Mediation Committee now has jurisdiction. Also, I would not consider this a normal COI case. Rather, Bi evidently has an anti-Wallace POV, and J. T. Lance has explained why he might have that POV - but that still doesn't tell us what to do in a complicated dispute resolution situation, so I've decided to punt and let MedCom handle it. Thanks for the report. Shalom Hello 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the MedCom case is closed, but I still can't be bothered to do anything about this article. Shalom Hello 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for helping. A concern though was with User:Bi’s COI (noted above) more so than dispute resolution with MedCom (previously closed incident). Would it be beneficial for an editor to post a tag on user's page found to have a COI, or to ask user's with a COI to gain consensus on talk page prior to additions to articles? I hope this is okay. Thanks again. J. T. Lance 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Tamil language television channels

    List of Tamil language television channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Galaxy7953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    202.76.226.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This user is a single purpose account devoted to adding items from the Galaxy TV network to the list above. The aggregate diff of his edits to this article shows an addition exclusively of shows with the word "Galaxy" in them, similar to his own username. I recommend that these all be reverted, and I wouldn't be horrified if the article got deleted altogether, but I want a second pair of eyes to review this and execute the revert if it's appropriate. Shalom Hello 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. I also dished out a few speedy tags. MER-C 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some links readded 26 July, but I don't see the problem. Is someone contending that these aren't Tamil language television channels? THF 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Biscayne Landing

    User (and "anonymous" but same user based on IP address) from the PR firm representing Biscayne Landing are regularly deleting/spinning sourced information. In addition, they are threatening to sue wikipedia if any negative information is included in Biscayne Landing article. User_talk:Marketingsupport While some minor NPOV edits are valid, the large amount of POV edits make it difficult to replace improperly deleted info without reverting entire article. Additional problem with Munisport article by same user(s) --RandomStuff 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed this because a report came to WP:SSP regarding the three editors listed here. The page history is too muddled to attack the COI by a normal method - i.e., take out whatever the COI-editor put in. Instead, the article just needs to be kept neutral. At first glance, it seems neutral at the moment, but if these folks persist in POV pushing, the next step is probably dispute resolution. Shalom Hello 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Anime Detour

    This single purpose editor has repeated removed a cleanup tag and twice replacing it with a note directing readers to an external website.[12][13][14][15] (comments justifying actions[16]) The editor's more recent edit was to place a self referencing message asking the article to be written, which was the purpose of the original cleanup tag[17] along with this demand for the article to be "fix" instead of having the cleanup tag reapplied.[18]

    Because of his/her edits and username and indications of WP:OWNernship over the cleanup tags on the article, I highly suspect that the editor is connected to the convention which the article is based on. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    With these three edits,[19][20][21] he has effectively declared WP:OWNership of the article. --Farix (Talk) 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    His userpage proves the COI beyond doubt. It's almost laughable. I'll add a warning, and I'll check for 3rr. Shalom Hello 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user had never been warned before. If he continues, a short-term block may be necessary. Until then, just keep an eye on the article. Shalom Hello 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this have been sufficient enough to be classed as a warning?[22]At the time, it wasn't clear that there was a COI, but the guideline was referenced and one of the links above also demonstrates that he/she responded to the message. --Farix (Talk) 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Although the blatant assertions of ownership have gone, I still read a tone of WP:OWN into the "under construction" tag in conjunction with a statement about the article being "under construction until further notice" [23]. Gordonofcartoon 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I put the under construction tag there, because it served the purpose better than the bold text that was previously there. MER-C 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, how dare people who actually run the convention update a wikipedia article about it! The link in question goes to Anime Detour's website, which is the best source for information there is about the convention. It's not like this is a political link or something like that-- the site provides just information about the convention, nothing more and nothing less. The user in question runs the AD website, in fact, and is part of the board for Anime Twin Cities, Inc. (the parent company which runs Anime Detour), so he is rather knowledgeable about the subject. Jtrainor 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NBC Universal (again)

    Brought this up before [24], and it's happening again. NBC Universal IP address editing the BLP's of an NBC employee [25]. Piperdown 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Bernard Hass

    Subject appears notable from Ghits, but apparently all contributions are by subject of the article. Left uw-coi tag on user's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be recently active. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is pretty objectively written - it's not spammy or anything. I say just leave it for now. The Evil Spartan 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    State University of New York at New Paltz

    I'm afraid that an edit war over COI/POV is about to break out. On the talk page, User:RadicalHarmony has accused the unregistered User:137.140.48.96 of being an employee of the SUNY New Paltz and of making POV edits and thus having a COI here: Talk:State_University_of_New_York_at_New_Paltz#Crazy_POV_edits. User:RadicalHarmony has also admitted to his own POV and COI. (My interest is that I'm an alumnus, class of Dec. 1986, and a member of its planned giving club, the Tower Society.) What should be done? Bearian 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There doesn't seem to be any immediate danger of an edit-war: the article hasn't been edited in over a week. A good starting point might be to zap all of the material that's gone unsourced since March - if nobody's interested in referencing it, it should go. Of the edits by the IP listed above, I notice only that this section is largely a copyvio of this page. — mholland (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the advice. User:RadicalHarmony has also contacted me about this on my talk page. Bearian 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    {{subst:COItop|Stillwater Mining Company|sternly warned, stopped editing|13:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)}}

    The accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on promoting Stillwater Mining Company (and related companies) by creating or editing related articles with evidence of a conflict of interest. all links added by these sock-accounts have been cleaned.

    → See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Stillwater_Mining_and_related //Hu12 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) |}[reply]

    Paul Truong

    Polgar is the wife of Truong. She makes many edits to this page that may or may not constitute a conflict of interest. I'd like others to weigh in and take a look. Among her edits is the occasional removal of statements that support the fact that she is, in fact, married to him. She also keeps adding statements about a chess program that she and he run at a university in Texas. So any other eyes and comments on this would be appreciated. Metros 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be old at this point. I sent SusanPolgar email, offering to help with any problems that come up. Mangojuicetalk 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Technical analysis

    Rgfolsom, who acknowledges his COI (he runs writes for a technical analysis business), keeps removing a POV tag from an article where there is a dispute over the NPOV status of the article. (Among other problems, the article has a criticism section.) I don't object to Rgfolsom editing articles where he has an "expertise", but I do object to the POV-pushing of this pseudoscience and undue weight given to the minority view that there is any validity to technical analysis. THF 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And there seems to be some unusual tagteaming going on with Sposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). THF 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (belatedly struckthrough with apology to Sposer 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I do not acknowledge a COI, and I do not run a technical analysis business. A similar COI accusation was made against me in an arbitration case that was decided in this past March -- the committee ruled unanimously in my favor. The suggestion by THF of sock or meat puppetry shows an incivility and lack of good faith that speaks for itself. --Rgfolsom 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The committee ruled unanimously that you had a conflict of interest, but the other editor you were in a dispute with had acted worse than you. The committee did not write you a permanent blank check, much less absolve you of a COI. I have no idea what your relationship is with Sposer, but it's curious that the two of you edit the same articles at the same times. There is tagteaming going on that is preventing any single editor from fixing problems with the article; that can be for innocent reasons. THF 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (strikethrough 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    :::I have no connection with rgfolsom. If we were playing tag team, he probably would have told me about this page the 2+ weeks ago, when it was posted. Instead, I found it on my own today. Note that I have removed some of his edits in the technical analysis article. Sposer 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Further to your accusation, my expertise is technical analysis, and specifically Elliott Wave (in fact a interpretation that Rgfolsom's employer would disagree with). I found these pages on my own. I have also made a couple of minor factual corrections/additions to the NYSE page (my employer), although I have decided to stop that going forward. I have also been involved on the talk page for the George Soros article, and made a change to the Sicko article, which got reverted (and was more in line with your thoughts there). I have been tracking this page, and despite your accusation here, even defended your edits on Sicko as not being COI. You will tend to find technical analysts interested in editing pages on that subject, just as you will find economists on those pages, etc. I suspect many of the policy-oriented pages you edit have Brookings Institution types shadowing as well. There is no tag-team or collusion.Sposer 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Daphne Rosen

    Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. Videmus Omnia Talk 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Games Workshop

    81.109.165.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this IP is owned by Games Workshop PLC[26] and has been used to edit articles relating to Games Workshop products. Most of their edits are old – I only came across this IP in the last couple of days - and This isn’t a very serious case but some COI edits have been made, by adding what looks like promotional spam to pages. [27] [28]

    Most of their edits are just clean-ups [29][30]. Others are unsourced and possible spam [31]

    These are the articles that this user has edited with a possible COI:

    I'm not sure what action to take, generally this IP has made constructive edits elsewhere and is mostly cleaning-up articles where they have a COI, but a games workshop IP editting Games Workshop articles has the potential for real COI issues--Cailil talk 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor doesn't have many contributions, and none of them seems to provide a COI/spam problem. I would say it's not a problem. We don't necessarily discourage editors from making minor changes about subjects that concern them; we mostly suggest they avoid major changes or spam-like insertions. As there are one or two edits that might be a problem, I've simply templated the IP; hopefully this should resolve the problem. The Evil Spartan 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addition on 14th August. Appears to be an author adding to his own article. It looks like this address is a proxy for multiple addresses in the company. There's not much to do unless we start getting WP:PEACOCK issues; I suggest closing in a few days if no one else adds anything. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Enfield 8000

    So far, I have recommended suggesting the changes on the talkpage, but I do not believe they will heed the warning - after the previous COI warning, they continued to edit the article, so they dont seem to be very responsive. I am not sure how to proceed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Buy.com

    (Moved from WP:AIV)

    209.67.181.254 (talk · contribs)

    This user is apparently someone at buy.com who has, according to the original complaint, been editing the article to remove a great deal of (admittedly unsourced) negative information based on "personal experience". S/he justifies himself on the talk page. Daniel Case 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    COI  Confirmed through RDNS. MER-C 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Provide diffs please. If the editor has been making good edits, but not following WP:COI, there is a case for WP:IAR. The editor should be gently informed of our rules, and asked to notify us of future problems via the talk page or this noticeboard. - Jehochman Talk 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    City Harvest Church

    These are a series of "megachurches" in Singapore that have recently been getting a lot of attention from obvious COI accounts. I've been trying to nip things in the bud, deleting sermon schedules and whatnot, but I've noticed that my cleanup tags are getting deleted and other edit wars are starting, so it would help if we had a couple other non-COI editors who were helping to keep an eye on things. Thanks, Elonka 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Newcreationcorpcomms is an obvious source of concern, particularly the outgoing message on the user page. Recommend COI caution at the user talk page. DurovaCharge! 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Kong Hee also seems to have a conflict of interest. Accounts that have edited the City Harvest Church have also edited it. Kong Hee is the senior pastor of City Harvest Church. Champlainant 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MobMov

    The draft you created includes some very respectable third-party sources, and more are provided at [32]. At present, it seems that the cultural phenomenon of do-it-yourself drive-in movies is what is significant. The phenomenon is currently addressed in Drive-in_theater#Decline, although that article does not have proper references. I suggest that MobMov is correctly placed in the Drive-in_theater article and that some of the references you found might be added to that article. I'm not yet convinced that MobMov itself is notable enough for a free-standing article. As a first step, you might try enhancing the section in Drive-in_theater that talks about this; a section header other than 'Decline' may be appropriate. EdJohnston 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Amy Mihaljevic

    see also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic
    see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic

    The user above is the author (James Renner) of a book about this crime victim[33], and is editing the article to include his own theories, citing his own book as a source. The article was fully protected per WP:BLP, listing here as a record for our WP:COI experts. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP above (suspected to be same SPA) removing maintenance tags and IfD notices. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that removal of the COI tag from the article. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    National Academic Championship

    National Academic Championship is being edited by user Mensa1960, whose only edits are to this article, and who claims on the talk page to be "a member of the National Academic Association" (the semi-fictitious group which runs the National Academic Championship. It is likely that this user is Chip Beall, as he is the only known member of the "National Academic Association" and a previous user under the name "CharlesBeall" disappeared from Wikipedia after similar conduct. Whether he is Beall or not, he does admit on the talk page to editing an article about a product that he sells.

    User:Mdomino

    Mdomino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is uploading Ashley Bickerton creations and claiming to be the creator of the images, then adding them to the Bickerton article. He or she has also been editing the Bickerton article. Either Mdomino is Bickerton, in which case he's violation WP:COI with his edits, or he is not, and therefore the images he is uploading are not his creations. I have left a message on his Talk page. Corvus cornix 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mdomino has indicated on my talk page that they represent the gallery which shows Mr. Bickerton's work. I have pointed them to the WP:CP page and how to prove the right to release images. Corvus cornix 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Hudson

    • Mark Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Both COI and BLP issues. The subject's daughter, an up and coming musician, is apparently both adding information about her work to her father's bio, and also trying to delete information -- Her father, a music producer, was fired in 1995 because of allegations of sexual harassment. The story has multiple sources, including the Los Angeles Times,[34] but there is disagreement as to how much of the Wikipedia article space, if any, should be devoted to this incident from over 10 years ago. --Elonka 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    American Chess Association

    Edit protected the article for one week. Refactored speculation about user's real name. DurovaCharge! 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Grace Evangelical Society

    SPA entirely devoted to POV hyping the notability of this organisation and writing it into prime position in related theological articles. See [35]: "I'm a member of GES, and have been one for years. I have also been far more successful in editing in a "Neutral POV" than has been found in Wiki on this issue for years ... You've seen the changes I made to the Lordship page, now take a good look at the juvenile nonsense it replaced ... etc". Gordonofcartoon 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • [Since I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to put my defense. I'll for now leave it here.]

    While I don't understand some of the jargon in the above accusation, and I freely admit a conflict of interest [since I am a homeschooling mom member of the theological society under discussion] I also argue I am far better at putting at arms length my conflict than the very juvenile bias that has been on display in the Lordship Salvation debate for years on Wiki. Apply your standards evenly. The GES represents the minority position in the debate and I am intent on learning and putting into practice your standards, but I'm new and am still learning. I've no interest in arguing the debate or hyping my side on wiki. But the majority position shouldn't be the only one allowed as an entry. Was the John F. MacArthur (an advocate of the majority position in the Lordship debate) entry really not written by his staff? Gordonofcartoon has made declarations on the discussion page like that the GES entry, "wrongly gives the impression that the GES is the prime mover relating to this school of thought. It ain't." This is easily shown to be a falsehood but I can only show it, so far, with primary sources: that is, the two biggest names in the majority position of the debate have recognized the GES as the main voice of the minority position. But, so far, I havn't found secondary sources that explicitly affirm the GES as notable. May I have more time? Johanna Sawyer 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a commonly moot point here whether mere membership of a group counts as a significant conflict of interest. But given that you don't yet seem sufficiently familar with how the neutral point of view, verifiability and original research policies work, I think there's a problem.
    You can't make editorial inferences along the lines of "X are important because Y published them or Z engaged in debate with them". That much I could spot and remove, but it makes me worry whether there may be specialist problems I can't spot in the selection of material - especially if your general synthesis of that material is informed primarily by the GES itself. Gordonofcartoon 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sapientis

    FIx it then. You can re-edit the article to be less spammy, and remind the subject we are discussing of his COI issue. He can edit, he just has to avoid being unfair. Basejumper 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick check suggests Sapientis is likely to be notable, with some mentions in the mainstream press. I've given User:Dzehr a friendly reminder about COI. Basejumper's advice is sound. Raymond Arritt 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tj galda

    Crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:Joe_animator (Reported by user:Ronz).

    Article created by Joe animator, who seems to be the subject, Subject seems notable, but article needs cleanup for style. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Arc of MA


    My name is John Thomas, I am the Deputy Director for The Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts affiliate of The Arc U.S., a non-profit advocacy organization that works on behalf of people with developmental disabilities. I do not understand your term "blatant promotional" on whatever content I may have posted in an effort to clarify the mission and size of our organization. I have never posted before, so may have inadvertently done so in an improper manner - however, I welcome your proof of any of the content accuracy.

    After reviewing Wikipedia over the last few months, I have concluded The Arc does not have any presence of note on Wikipedia – an exception being an external link at the bottom of the page dedicated to Mental retardation where there is a reference to “Association for Retarded Citizens” an outdated acronym formerly associated with our organization.

    Our homepage is www.arcmass.org and our national URL is www.thearc.org

    Our state organization is 50 years old - you may view a chronological history I have documented at the following link: http://www.arcmass.org/Home/WhoWeAre/History/tabid/117/Default.aspx

    As mentioned, we are a non-profit, and despite the extensive size of our combined national affiliates, my office is small, we have no dedicated IT professional, nor any media or public relations staff (that would be me, informally). To put things into perspective, despite having a master's degree in public administration, my annual salary is $53,000, so I am not posting content to increase personal or organizational revenue.

    My only goal is to provide more accurate and up-to-date information on Wikipedia on behalf of the constituency my organization represents. I welcome any assistance you may offer to help in this effort that would seem to benefit both Wikipedia and people The Arc represents (people with disabilities).

    I have blocked this user name indefinitely as it contains the name of the organization the user has been promoting. -- But|seriously|folks  03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Mr. Thomas, I appreciate your desire for Wikipedia to have accurate information, but the core issue here is our conflict-of-interest guidelines, which strongly discourage you from editing articles about yourself or your organization. Wikipedia is supposed to be an independent reference source based on reliable, published secondary sources. We are not a place for organizations to promote themselves. I realize that you were unaware of these policies, but we guard this nature of the encyclopedia pretty carefully, so that may have been part of why this received such a strong response. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NetSuite

    While I don't have definitive proof of conflict of interest on the part of any given editor, the article seems to devolve into press release/marketese pretty frequently (removed here), would appreciate another pair of eyes or two. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Benderson2 and TREC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruption 2

    Three (so far) on 189.* IPs:

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

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

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

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

    Long term COI Spamming by Toughpigs


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

    There seems to be a consideral ammount of promotional spamming from this user which began with his 3rd edit[36] on 16:46, 14 November 2005. Since that time there are very few edits outside of promoting his site own site http://toughpigs.com, and all the related wikia wiki's he's founded (See below). many of these links have been converted in to templates.


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

    Additions of toughpigs.com by "Toughpigs (talk · contribs)" ref [37] dating back from 2005 - june 2006

    [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46]

    Additions of flashgordon.wikia.com or {{wikia|flashgordon|Flash Gordon}}
    Flash Gordon (2007 TV series) [47][48]
    Flash Gordon (serial) [49][50]
    Flash Gordon (film) [51]
    Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe [52][53]
    Flash Gordon [54][55][56]
    Flash Gordon (1954 TV series) [57]
    Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars [58][59]
    Flash Gordon (TV series) [60][61]
    Alex Raymond [62][63]

    Additions of jfc.wikia.com or {{wikia|jfc|John From Cincinnati}}
    John From Cincinnati [64][65]
    David Milch [66][67][68]


    Additions of muppet.wikia.com or {{wikia|muppet|The Muppets}} ref [69]
    [70][71][72][73] [74] [75] [76][77] [78][79] [80][81][82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87][88][89][90] [91][92][93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114] [115][116] [117][118][119] [120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129] [130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139] [140][141][142] [143][144][145][146][147][148] [149][150][151][152][153][154][155]

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

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

    Robert Prechter

    User Rgfolsom works for Prechter, and is edit-warring to sanitize the and POV-push on Prechter-related articles[156] [157] contrary to talk-page consensus after losing multiple WP:3O rulings and RFCs. Editor has announced that he will violate WP:3RR to sanitize Robert Prechter article on specious grounds of WP:BLP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). THF 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    THF is venue shopping his accusations -- administrators can please look here to see what an admin said on the BLP noticeboard, especially about THF's removal of the reputable source in the first diff listed above. The BLP noticeboard diff also includes another diff that will shed light on my "losing" other rulings and RFCs. Please let me know if I can answer any questions, I welcome help from any administrator.--Rgfolsom 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's so much that THF is venue shopping, as that he is being told that this is the appropriate venue. I am perfectly willing to concede that Rgfolsom may well feel that he is defending The Truth from vandals; but that doesn't diminish the fact that there is a major COI here on all three articles (Ted left out Socionomics, currently the subject of an AfD2 discussion that Folsom is active on), and that Folsom is often the sole advocate of the edits he makes. If there weren't a COI involved, we'd still have a bad case of a WP:OWN problem. --Orange Mike 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the third noticeboard that two or three editors are using to edit war by other means (after failing on the other two noticeboards).
    These diffs show that THF especially sides with the critics' material, and uses a conjectural interpretation of a source.[158][159][160][161][162][163][164]
    As I explained on the BLP notice board, the diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I have appealed for an administrator's intervention. Regarding the suggestion of a COI, administrators may wish to know that there was an arbitration case about these issues decided earlier this year: here's the text of the decision--Rgfolsom 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A March 2007 arbitration decision did not give you imprimatur to repeatedly delete a July 2007 verified reference to Prechter's investment results or to violate WP:NPOVD by removing an NPOV tag without talk-page consensus. THF 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference is not "verified," and there is obvious reason to believe that you yourself do not have access to the reference, as I show here. Administrators can please check talk page and diffs above to learn all they need to know. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger

    Accounts

    CHTRCwebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Gsberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dr. Gary Berger
    Brykat73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Benwalsh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    70.232.102.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    70.144.190.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    74.227.105.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    64.105.227.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    → See also:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#promotional_additions_for_Dr._Gary_Berger_http:.2F.2Fspam.tubal-reversal.net

    mostly clean however additional monitoring will most likely be needed. --Hu12 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    HughesNet

    • HughesNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP address 67.142.131.41 has made edits that read like they were written by an Public Relations department. Many of them are weasel-worded. Here's a link to the changes. [165] I have WHOISed the IP and it resolves to HughesNet. [166] Because HughesNet is an ISP, there is a possibility that they are not guilty of these charges, however the additions are phrased exactly how the HughesNet Public Relations people would probably phrase them, making it likely that they have been behind these edits. Life, Liberty, Property 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I see these edits as amounting to the addition of unsourced positive material about the merits of the company. The wording very much resembles the style of a press release rather than an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitley

    Username, promotional tone and focus on citing thefatherofhollywood.com suggest a possible COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gordon, didn't you !vote Keep at the AfD for "Father of Hollywood"  ? DGG 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted Keep for Hobart Whitley, as he looks notable. The COI over editing it is a different matter. Gordonofcartoon 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a pretty likely coi. Editor is likely Gaelyn Whitley Keith given the edits and username. Note that the book publication date according to Amazon is 21 March 2007, which predates almost all of the edits on the subject. --Ronz 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these articles look AFD-able. Do a POV-ectomy on whatever remains. Looks like a single purpose COI account, but not active enough to be particularly worrisome. DurovaCharge! 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Topiarydan

    Editor was given coi warning on 04:20, 28 May 2007 [168] for edits to date.
    Editor was given uw-spam2 warning [169] for edits on 29 July 2007, for spamming Topiary Communications's website, personalpro.com.
    Editor has repeatedly justified his edits by pointing out similar behavior from others. --Ronz 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a soft-ish block warning because I'm not sure this editor understands site standards. Follow up if problems continue. DurovaCharge! 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Alasdair Taylor

    Scottish artist of borderline notability, but the subject of a campaign by Alasdair Gray and others to raise his profile. Gray's blog post on the topic [170] has a comment from an Avril Rennie that "He has been a good friend of mine for almost 40 years now". I've tried to deal with this with a light touch, but I'm not getting much useful response to my advice about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a sincere editor and a possibly notable artist, so I've handled this gently. Follow up if problems continue. DurovaCharge! 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I think a cluebat mentorship is needed about basic policies, particularly the need for citation. Gordonofcartoon 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've suggested WP:ADOPT. Suggest a soft touch here: this is someone who's trying to honor a deceased friend. If there were no notability I'd recommend a polite delete. This may turn into a decent article. The editor's tone is a bit emotional, and being so close to the subject makes it hard to write about, but it's not a formal COI. More like a poor choice for an editor's first article. DurovaCharge! 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be enough material for notability: the two texts from the retrospective brochure, and Alasdair Gray's statement (he's eminent enough that I think his blog post can be taken as a data point). But however soft the touch, the OR is going to have to go at some point. Gordonofcartoon 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a plea not to be too hasty in removing stuff from the article. I've recently succeeded in acquiring some books with a view to improving the West Kilbride article (which still needs a lot of work), and I'm sure I could use these to supply refs on North Bank Cottage and Portencross. But it's likely to be a while before I can get round to doing this. WP:ADOPT is a good idea.
    --NSH001 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously views vary, but a lot of people go by the hardline advice at WP:V: Jimmy Wales' comment that unsourced information should not be left for long, if at all. It can always be re-added when sources are available.
    But by far the better method is to follow WP:V and not to get into this situation in the first place; i.e. if editors don't add material until they have the source. Then there is none of this potential for antagonism when the unsourced material is challenged. Gordonofcartoon 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum: I'm backing out of this (I've reached a point where it's hard to be objective about the material itself). However, a little background research makes me less certain about lenience being appropriate. This is not the first article where Avril.rennie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written about a friend and then complained about the application of Wikipedia standards.

    • Sandra Brown (campaigner) - see [171] ("I do not agree with you that the article reads like an advertisement. I know Sandra Brown personally, and I count her as a friend. But I have written the article in a very balanced manner, without overstatement or inaccuracy of any kind")

    Other unsourced articles with potential COI were Margaret Kidd (now dealt with, but originally "a piece about the pioneering (woman) lawyer Dame Margaret Kidd whom I had the privilege to know" [172]) and Phillip Clancey (see [173] where she's conducting OR on a blog "I am a relative by marriage of the late Dr Phillip Clancey ... I wish to write a piece on Wikipedia about Phillip, and should value any contributions from yourself or others").

    One mistaken creation of an unsourced article with COI is excusable, but this is a pattern. Gordonofcartoon 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Xirrus

    I have watched over the last week as various editors have tried to respond to this company's vanity postings. They were deleted once with a db-spam and now the TE's JLmerrill and Chomperhead have started trying to reinstate them. I was so upset by such persistent violation of the rules given above every page edit box not to promote your own company that I created this SPA to join the effort to defeat this. Chomperhead is either a colleague or employer of Jlmerrill and both are employees/owners of Xirrus. Can I prove it beyond doubt, no. Is it likely, well first Jlmerrill avoided the issue chomperhead denied it then admitted that merril was an employee. I looked up merril on linkedin.com where he is listed as marketing/technologist. When I edited his user page to reflect his employment it was blanked and deleted. Chomperhead has already edited merrill's edits on nawlinks page before he claims on the xirrus talk page to have done research and "outed" me.

    I request that jlmerril and chomperhead be blocked and that Xirrus be deleted and protected so they can't reinstate it again under yet more names. I will be responding to the call to police corporate vanity pages by editing others with db-spam, I have to start somewhere. If you wish to block me as an SPA as well as these two then so be it.

    Eloheim 06:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put Xirrus up for AFD. It certainly doesn't look notable. Gordonofcartoon 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sakina

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

    i am concerned that there's a COI on the above article involving Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who is intimately related to the websites sakina.org and dhushara.com (as shown on his user page). the article has undergone a major revamping by Dhushara, which includes the promotion of both sakina.org (as an EL) and dhushara.com (as a source) therein. he has also been inserting material, while not actually sourced, has been clearly obtained from pages on his website such as [174][175][176][177][178]. once having introduced his changes to Sakina in conformity to the unconventional views expressed on these pages (which don't appear to be otherwise verifiable), he has advertised the wiki article on the website.[179]. i had raised this issue on his talk page a few days ago,[180] but i received little other than counter-allegations of COI.[181] ITAQALLAH 12:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a coi by Dhushara's own admission. Also, Dhushara has spammed sakina.org and dhushara.com (follow-up spam investigation is needed for dhushara.com). --Ronz 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Lounsbury

    • Michael Lounsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the original author of the page is the subject (as he has admitted on my talk page). In order to try to get a broader view, he says that he's had several colleagues add to the page. However, this still presents a COI problems, and it's unclear if the new usernames are actually just sockpuppets or not (it seems at least plausible that they're sockpuppets, and that he's simply striving to keep the page from deletion). In any case, the page appears to be fairly neutral, so I promised to remove the autobiography tag, but I would like to ask for some verification. The Evil Spartan 17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kandisky123 - Promotion of commercial website

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

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

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

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

    http://spam.fauxlikeapro.com

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

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

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

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

    User has created a number of articles about family members, and one about his/her apparent late father's architecture practice. Articles include:

    John and Joshua have decent claims to notability, although the articles are very wordy (a huge excerpted obituary as well as full account of tombstone inscription for John), and links and references are pretty niche. However, I saw little in Hannah Marshman's article - she was a female missionary in India (uncited claim she was the first), she opened a school and was well-known in the community etc. There is also an extremely lengthy excerpt from an obituary which seems to dwarf the article somewhat. Brookie is an admin and likely well aware of the guidelines, perhaps we'll get a better idea of Brookie's thoughts during the current AfD. Given the nature of the articles it is perhaps self-evident that there could be a WP:OWN issue here, the AfD nominator has certainly expressed concerns that Brookie summarily deletes fact tags without comment or addition of references. Deiz talk 12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings! If any of the articles on my relatives - some quite distant - are thought NN, then they can of course go through due process as they are at present - that's the system! Tag deletion has happened on a bad day - and as well as being rather dumb,probably shouldn't have - slapped wrist and lesson learned! Was not aware of any ban on relatives contributing to articles and as long as what is produced is balanced then I personally can't see any major prob's with that - useful articles might not be created if interested parties can't contribute on areas of interest. As for comments re style and other content - this is of course open to anyone to edit. I don't propose to contribute to any afds on these articles and will let the system take its course as it should. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 10:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Deiz's assessment of notabilities. John Clark, Joshua and Hannah are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is my personal yardstick for notability. One style/content point that applies, though, is the guideline Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources - long obits etc should be summarised. Some of the sources seem insufficiently specified: books such as "John Clark Marshman (a trustworthy Friend of India)" (2nd Edition), Sunil Kumar Chatterjee (2001) track to a now-defunct niche website. Gordonofcartoon 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TheLadders.com

    This new user's presence on Wikipedia seems to be exclusively dedicated toward stalking [182] articles I edit [183]. I have posted a personal information warning to this new user's talk page because he is attempting to identify Wikipedia editors on websites stored off of Wikipedia. [184] This new user is linked to this dispute [185], in which an online vigilante group has been threatening other Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors have a right to anonymity. Situations like this should warrant a temporary block. See this edit summary [186], and the example posted above by the new user. Abe Froman 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I urge User:Brownkit to refactor his above attempt to expose the identity of another Wikipedian. The article he has reported to us, TheLadders.com, DOES read like an advertisement. If the advertisement problem is found to be serious, nothing prevents User:Brownkit or anyone else from nominating the article for deletion. He could also ask editors here to look at the article and give their opinion. I myself wouldn't nominate it for deletion as it stands though it might be shortened. I took out some excess external links from the article (see Talk:TheLadders.com).
    Some people would not qualify this as a bona fide COI issue, though I suggest the issue be left up for a few more days to get more comments. User:Abe.Froman may consider if he wants to seek remedies for Brownkit's comments about his identity through admin channels. EdJohnston 05:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Dante Santiago Autobiography?

    David Rocker

    • User:63.118.207.251

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.118.207.251

    David Rocker founded and recently retired from Rocker Partners LP, which is now know as Copper River. 63.118.207.251 IP from Copper River office in NJ blanked large sections of reliably sourced material without explanation. Piperdown 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only one change. Watchlist and revert as needed. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottrade

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

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

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

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

    Electronic Arts

    Madden Nation

    Writing Motivation

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading Motivation Questionnaire. The rest smell like original research, but I'm not really sure what to do with them. MER-C 09:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they read like mainly self-serving entries. Perhaps sweeping edits can be made to remove original research and reach consensus? I'm too new to feel confident in running amok with these, yet, but felt I'd weigh in with my opinion. Trainstock 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hedgestreet

    → See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Hedgestreet_http:.2F.2Fspam.hedgestreet.com

    Entergy

      • They appear to have stopped after I issued a warning. I've created a new template, {{coi-stern}}, which is a more strongly worded version of {{uw-coi}} useful in cases like this where a conflict is clearly presumable. Raymond Arritt 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tidal power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am retired! That's the truth! Believe it or not. FIG and co exploited my lack of knowledge about editing and had me blocked when I down talked his bias for barrages, in particular the Severn Barrage that he says will soon be built and I say will never be built. Since then his ego has been dented as he has tried and failed to debate me on the facts. When logic and reason fail he resorted to personal attacks on my good name.Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    210.9.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. Fig 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only inappropriate edit I see so far might be this one: [210] - and that is only inapripriate because of the COI. It could really be fine if it was discussed on the talk page. Most of the mainspace edits from this account that I see are perfectly acceptable. Do you have any examples where they edited the article inappropriate? What is it that you seek here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This would have ended here if it were not for FIG allowing other UK and EU technologies. My question is does FIG reside in the UK or EU and if so what are his affiliations?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about these [211], [212], [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218], [219] ? What I seek here is some arbitration. I grow tired of defending the impartiality of this article against a sustained campaign by someone whose financial interest makes them considerably more motivated and persistent than I am. It is pointless me putting another warning on the user's page, since Tidalenergy now believes I am operating some kind of psychotic vendetta against him, and now slings mud at me at every opportunity. What I'd like is to be able to remove this page from my watchlist with the knowledge that other editors are aware of the COI of this user and scrutinise his edits accordingly. Perhaps a warning on the Talk:Tidal_power page? Fig 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI is declared and the comments on the main page are in line with the page as a whole. Nothing more is said then any other technology mentioned! Double standargs are FIGs best attempt to end the debate in his favourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When logic and free speech fail in any debate FIG resorts to smear and inuendo with comments about psychotic vendettas. Read below what is siad on the main page that he objects to and see for your self. He objects to my comments about a shrouded technology while allowing other more blatant comments along with full colour photos'
    While FIG hides behind his veil of hypocracy he slyly solicits in a campaign to have me blocked.
    If one looks at the comments on the main page they are in line with others made about similar technologies. Read it for yourself here below. My edits are in bold.
    Several commercial prototypes have shown promise. Trials in the Strait of Messina, Italy, started in 2001[8] and Australian company Tidal Energy Pty Ltd[9] undertook successful commercial trials of highly efficient shrouded turbines on the Gold Coast, Queensland in 2002. Tidal Energy Pty Ltd has commenced a rollout of shrouded turbines for remote communities in Canada, Vietnam, Torres Strait in Australia and following up with joint ventures in the EU.


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

    National Sexuality Resource Center

    nsrc.sfsu.edu Linksearch current
    americansexuality.org Linksearch current
    caliber.ucpress.net Linksearch current
    americansexuality.blogspot.com Linksearch current
    SexualityResearch.net Linksearch current

    → See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#WP:COI_citation_spamming_of__http:.2F.2Fnsrc.sfsu.edu

    Long term obvious WP:COI, through the use of citation spamming and exclusive Promotion of National Sexuality Resource Center. Sexperts (talk · contribs) is a self admitted employee of the National Sexuality Resource Center[220] as evidenced on his/her userpage. The accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on promoting National Sexuality Resource Center and their two online publications, American Sexuality magazine, and Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of the NSRC, through links, citations and articles.--Hu12 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. The editor appears to have actual knowledge of the field so I've left a caution about the spam blacklist instead of a block warning. I hope this yields a broader and less promotional strategy. If problems continue, recommend (in order):
    1. Add the above sites to spam blacklist.
    2. Pursue block/ban as single purpose WP:COI, WP:SPAM account. DurovaCharge! 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have some of the pages Sexperts has edited on my watchlist, and feel that the enforcement of perceived COI violations looks more like hostility to expertise to me than enforcement of conflict of interest rules. I am troubled by this, and so decided to comment. (I do not know Sexperts and have no relationship with his/her organization.) --Pleasantville 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If a person is genuinely interested in sharing expertise then surely he or she will share references to colleagues' work as well? DurovaCharge! 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris de Freitas

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

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

    User:Awaskow

    The article is not that bad. Needs some more sources but was not the puff piece it might be, there are worse offenders. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Scottish Knights Templar

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

    User:Biblebelievers

    Supporter of the anti-Semitic group is trying to sanitize the articles, and making anti-Semitic edits; has disregarded COI warning left 18 August. THF 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    George McFarland

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

    NeuStar

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


    eComXpo - COI Accusations Made against me

    I found the noticeboard on the user page of user:jehochman who is active in discussions and problems regarding COI. He was not involved in this dispute yet. I don't want to repeat everything from my request for help at jehochmans user talk page.

    See my request here: User_talk:Jehochman#Help_Needed_-_eComXpo_article_conflict_and_personal_attacks

    I ask to be relieved from the COI accusations against me that were made by another editor during a dispute over the eComXpo article, which were IMO only made to prevent me from acting on that users edits, which are in conflict with the decisions made during the articles AfD debate and the deletion review that followed. I consider those edits an act of vandalism and request that actions will be taken against this editor to prevent him from performing similar attacks against me or other editors in the future.

    My suggestions to how to improve the article before it was vandalized can be found at the articles talk page. I also elaborate why the edits that were made by the disruptive editor are not only vandalism in the sense of being clearly against the decisions made during the preceding debates (see also comments by other editors on the talk page), but also why they were just wrong from an editorial point of view.

    I never had those kind of problems with any editor before. I advised him on the talk page that I will consider any further edit to the article by him as vandalism until this issue is resolved and that I was seeking for outside help, review and mediation. Please advice how to provide from here and please help to solve this conflict. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You might start by stopping throwing around "vandalism". vandalism is narrowly defined, and consists of things like replacing an article with gibberish or putting random profanity into it. Regular editing, no matter how strongly you disagree with it, is not vandalism. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Seraphimblade. I hear you and I am fully aware of my accusation. I don't know if you reviewed yet what happened and when it happened, but that would help to get an understanding of what seems to be going on here. If the edits are done to dismantle the article piece by piece, to get it slowly down to skeleton and deleted, because you are not happy with the decisions of the AfD and the Deletion discussion, I do consider them vandalism. It does not matter if you blank an article by doing one edit or 20 or more over a period of a few weeks to get the same effect. Ignoring every attempt for discussions by multiple editors and then make accusations to get them out of the way for some time might not be vandalism but general misbehavior within the community. There were processes put in place to resolve disputes. What do you call it, if somebody ignores all of that and does what ever he likes to do, regardless what other people think or say about it? No mediators showed up yet and I and another editor try to convince the (IMO) disruptive editor to wait for this to happen and use the talk pages of the article for his argumentations instead. No luck so far. He ignores it and does what ever he feels like it. Let me know if I am saying anything wrong here and what better terms I should be using to discribe this. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy is my friend, so I am going to listen more than talk. My advice is that attempting out-of-process deletion by dismembering an article is a bad thing. We don't need to call it vandalism. "Out of process deletion" is a good and accurate name. If an article needs AfD, I think it's best to nominate with all the content intact so editors have a chance to see what's there, find references, and make improvements.
    I'm also a speaker at eComXpo. This is a virtual trade show that is most likely notable, but don't take my word for it. In general, I don't think that being a speaker at some large venue that has many speakers is a strong conflict. I speak at a lot of different places, and I don't feel any strong allegiance to them. Can we get a decision as to whether speaking at a trade show creates an automatic conflict? - Jehochman Talk 02:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea to make a decision on whether or not it is considered COI to be an UNPAID speaker (I consider this an important factor, because it changes the whole premise) at a conference with no other ties to the conference or not. I don't for the reasons I explained during the discussions at the AFD and on the articles talk page. However, I think that revealing this fact by the editor, as I did in my case (and lead to the COI accusation as a direct result of it) should be encouraged because it is helpful, because it makes somebody potentially more biased, so does the fact that somebody attended the event and maybe even paid for it (which could add a positive or negative bias, depending on how the convention was perceived). Somebody who does not like conventions at all and consider them all useless has also a bias and can not be neutral to 100%. Btw. I even pointed to my presentation and its recordings as evidence for how far my involvement with the event was. those are my 2 cents to the general discussion. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by xDanielx

    I think that if Roy has any conflict of interest with this subject, then it is very small to the point of negligibility. Per WP:COI, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." I think it is clear that Roy has an interest in the subject, but I don't think that there is any clear conflict. The Wikipedia article may have some very small influence over the business and/or karma of EComXpo, and any spillover this may have on Roy personally is surely negligible. I do not think that opinions formed by attendance to an event should be interpreted as a COI -- the same logic would prevent me from editing the PHP article because I use PHP and have written on the subject, etc. It would also prevent practically from anyone from editing any contentious political argue, as any editor is likely to have been involved in discussions on the issues.

    The self-reference Roy added was perhaps borderline, keeping in mind that "using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." I haven't looked into it enough to express a comprehensive judgement. In any case, I don't think anyone cares greatly about the single reference, and it shouldn't prevent Roy from otherwise improving an article in which he has expertise.

    Regarding the issues surrounding Cerejota's edits - I agree that they don't fit Wikipedia's definition of vandalism, but I do agree with Roy that Cerejota's editing was aggressive to the extreme. In five and a half days, this revision was turned into this. The pruning was almost exclusively Cerejota's; the intermediate edits were just small revert wars, in which Cerejota acted fairly aggressively (though not to the point of absurdity or incivility). Per WP:AGF, I think it's fair to attribute the behavior to immediatism - very radical immediatism in my opinion, though others may differ. I won't deny that I suspect his views may have been contextually amplified by recent wikipolitics, but I don't think it's necessary to debate. To avoid having to rewrite most of the article, I proposed a response to the issue here, -- I'd appreciate it if others would offer their thoughts on it.

    — xDanielx T/C 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    To avoid that you have to read the massive amount of content on the various pages throughout Wikipedia, here the short version. This [221] was the reference in question, which is a post on my non-industry related personal blog from April 2006. I added it because of the reasons I elaborated here (Item 8.). To avoid making it the only reference (because it refers to "experience" and "perception", which is always an opinion and never neutral), did I also refer to other sources, some of which also doubled as reference for other claims made in the article. e.g. [222] and [223]. If this should be part of the article or not is open for discussion. I explained why I am for the inclusion and like to hear what others think about it. Feel free to discuss this at the articles talk page. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining! — xDanielx T/C 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Cerejota

    What warranted the WP:COI tag was the inclusion, and my snowball removal of a non-reliable, non-notable blog/webpage controlled by User:Cumbrowski/Roy as a source for some of the content. He recognizes he did this (I again commend User:Cumbrowski for being forthcoming, however, being forthcoming doesn't mean then the sources is a good one).

    This demonstrates, in my opinion, he is not just a run-of-the-mill speaker in the conference, but someone who has shown additional professional interest in the topic, going as far as talking about it in glowing terms. Since he wrote the original article, and is in general responsible for the contents (which, over my objection, has been considered notable by AfD and DRV), the COI is right there: even reversion of his original linking is not enough, and our readers must be warned that the recreation of a previously deleted page was done by someone who might have a COI (which is what the tag says), regardless if the topic is now considered notable or not notable.

    xDanielx I think does a pretty fair assessment of my actions: I have been aggressive in editing but civil in discussion.

    However I must state that all of my edits have been done with accompanying talk page discussion, and with a willingness to discuss. I even reverted some of my tagging when User:Cumbrowski finally did a detailed argument [224] and it sounded reasonable to my ears [225].

    Unfortunately, User:Cumbrowski responded to my argument by launching a series of attacks, including legal threats [226] and alleging I am a vandal [227]. He went as far as inexplicably restoring some tags I had removed[228], as per his argument, as I stated in Talk! This is a total failure of WP:AGF on his part.

    As a result I submitted a request for mediation on eComXpo, skipping informal mediation because such attempts - for example xDanielx - in the talk page have not been successful, and because the false allegations of extreme behavior, such as vandalism, and the inclusion of legal threats, make me uncomfortable with informal mediation at this point. Thanks!--Cerejota 06:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Cumbrowski

    1. I commented on the type and order of the edits made in detail here Talk:EComXpo#To_Re-Add_to_the_Article_.2F_Updates
    2. I provided several examples to illustrate how the user created "reasons" for edits via tactical edits he did before (within hours or less)
    3. Active responses to the discussion were made AFTER his edits. Comments prior to this consisted primarilly of statements about what he did rather then responses to comments made by other editors
    4. The article could and cannot not be protected to prevent continued removal of content by the editor. arbitrary and draconial deletion of content is in my understanding an act of vandalism. The edits included the removal of content, which I reverted. I made clear that the way he executed his edits are unacceptible and that I am seeking help to find a mediator. Ignoring this showed to me that he did not intended to come to any type of consensus other than a "consensus" that reflects his own opionion
    5. My first attempt and Daniels attempt to stop the deletion process of user Cerejota failed prior the vandalism accusation from my side. My accusations were actually a direct result of the actions mentioned in the paragraph above
    6. I repeat again, that I did not make any legal threats against user Cerejota. I made clear what I meant and not meant by my statements and appologized for the unlikely but not impossible case that he misundertood it.
    7. He started afterwards (the talk page comments are not entirely chronologically, it is critical to check the date stamps of the signatures) to repeat the suggestions made by me at the beginning about how to approach this problem and also responded to daniel to address his "taking a step BACK" suggestions.
    8. User Cerejota seems to be very fluent in wikitalk and in the various procedures within Wikipedia. I regret that he did not tell me how to request officially a mediation process when I indicated this intention in PLAIN ENGLISH
    9. That he initiated this mediation process by himself now gives room for hope. I attempted again to assume good faith by making a proposal that should be acceptible by Cerejota, if is quest to come to a consensus is honest and not just the attempt to ratify what he already did against the consensus of the community.
    10. My proposition remains open until Cerejota agrees or actions are taken that indicate that it is as successful as the attempts prior to this one

    --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Note: I just wanted to mention that the written discussions by user Cerejota were indeed civil, however, his actions under the given circumstances were not (don't quote this without the last part). I changed my tone when I felt that he mocked me and other editors by pretending that we do not exist and ignored over and over again our attempts of written communication and discussion with him. Communication that is not directed at anybody and sounds like he is talking to himself is not the type of communication I am referring to. Actions are as much part of the processes and communication as written comments. Actions speak even a much more clear and absolute language than comments ever could. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you be so kind as to provide me a link to where did you propose mediation, before I did? I must have missed it. However, please be advised that you did do a legal threat, and your "apology" amounted to repeating the threat. I provided a link to the relevant text, so I will let other judge. Thanks!--Cerejota 02:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His alleged "threat" took the form of "if X were to happen, then I would do Y; but X has not happened and will not happen, so I will not do Y." (X = libel/slander in a non-virtual setting; Y = legal action.) I think it's comparable to me saying "if you were to murder my wife, I would call the police." Technically it may or may not be considered a legal threat, but it's not, well, threatening. (Though I agree it's probably best to avoid the issue entirely.) — xDanielx T/C 03:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your representation is fair: I know cases of editors who have been banned for doing exactly that. WP:NLT is serious business, and since there is no legal difference between wikipedia and the "real world", accusing me of slander and libel is a legal threat. Perhaps Roy should be less trigger happy, and accept his COI, instead of threatening those who point out his admited COI with hypothetical legal action as a way to seek to intimidate and poison the well. WP:NLT exists precisely for these types of situations, when editors seek to intimidate other editors with legalese. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would I "accept" a COI, which I don't have? Should I quit doing what I do now and apply for a job there? I think they are looking for people. Wait, I can't, I have other things to do. Sorry Cerejota, but I can't do you the favor and make things true afterwards. I don't know how it can be a legal threat if you state what your actions will be (not would), if the (highly) unlikely, almost virtually impossible, event being described actually happens. It did not happen yet and it is highly improbable that it will ever happen, unless the person is going for it to try to find out (also highly unlikely). In the latter case I just say: "Try me and find out". If I don't going to act as I stated, sue me for making legal threats, because as far as I know (I am no lawyer, if you want to know for real, contact one) are real legal threats where you don't act on as you claimed, a reason for a lawsuit.
    Its interesting how the COI debate was nicely diverted to move away from the original question to discuss how many "IF's" turn a statement into a threat.
    Who will/can make a decision regarding the original question, if COI applies to me in case of eComXpo or not. I would like to fix the article and make the changes, which I posted on the talk page and Cerejota agreed upon, but forgot to implement (even though he said he did it). He might forgot to press save or something like that, I don't know. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please ignore my question about who can make the decision regarding the COI issue. It is part of the RfM. I would like to have that one addressed first, because Cerejota will bring this up in other discussions as long as it is not resolved (as he also does with the "legal threat" accusation, which I also would like to get settled somehow, because it distracts from the original discussion as well). Any suggestion for how to get that out of the way are appreciated. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Proctor

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

    Business Wire

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

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

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

    Jeff Bays

    User:Rugz, formerly User:Borgus, has indicated in the context of an image copyright discussion that he is the owner of "Borgus Productions" ([229]), i.e. presumably Jeff Bays (aka "Borgus"), an audio producer and media personality. Rugz/Borgus is the principal author of the Jeff Bays bio article and of Not From Space, an article about a work produced by him and his company. The article consists largely of text copied from the company's publicity releases ([230]). I'd appreciate it if somebody could lend a hand checking for neutrality and notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gothic chess

    GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has admitted on numerous occasions to being Ed Trice, the inventor of Gothic Chess and the owner of a business promoting the game. He has tried to get several editors banned from editing the article on Talk:Gothic chess and elsewhere - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286#User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule and User:GothicEnthusiast/2007-08-03 Gothic chess. He has edited the article itself on numerous occasions in connection with disputes on the talk page, and has alleged that InfoCheck (talk · contribs) and BenWillard (talk · contribs) are attempting to attack the game (see [231] which he gave to a number of other editors as well). When I told him he had a COI he responded with this. Hut 8.5 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has also repeatedly tried to take control of Talk:Gothic chess, removing other editors' comments ([232], [233], [234], [235]), even after multiple warnings that this is not the done thing. Oli Filth 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



    Just a short note to say that i've mentioned on the Gothic Chess talk page that I feel there is a clear conflict of interest here.

    On a side note, really long posts like the one above probably don't help on a page like this - i think to be concise is useful here..... - Purples 07:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding one more voice that GothicChessInventor is using the Wikipedia article as advertising and anything he thinks is negative to the ad is immediately attacked and/or removed without dialogue on the talk page. He has made numerous changes to the article itself which is a clear violation of the a Conflict of interest. Since he insists on editing the page directly even though there is clear COI, I feel he should be banned from editing it. In addition since he clearly is attempting to overflow the talk for Gothic Chess he should be warned. neoliminal 00:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. A look over the various Talk pages gives me great concern about the behavior of the game's author. I believe this case deserves a full COI investigation.
    When a new issue gets posted to this noticeboard, there are some regular editors who often look into the case and leave comments. If those people are still considering getting involved, there are four points you might want to look at.
    1. It does seem to be a case of an editor with strong real-life connection to the topic who acts like he owns the article, per WP:OWN.
    2. There have been some technically blockable violations of WP:TALK at Talk:Gothic Chess. It's possible that the game's creator is now aware of the problem.
    3. The game's inventor is still bossing people around, and until recently was putting special div boxes to highlight all of his own comments. (Recently annother editor removed them all).
    4. It may be worth getting a consensus here from uninvolved editors whether they perceive that a real violation of WP:COI is taking place. Discussion threads that get started here carry some weight when cited in other forums, and occasionally they have consequences.
    5. The desired result (in my view) is to get the article into a neutral state, which would imply that the game's inventor will have to get with the program, one way or another. I have some thoughts on how to do that that I might share after others have had a chance to give their opinions. We'd need to start with an agreed-upon list of article problems to be fixed.
    EdJohnston 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Search Engine Strategies / Search Engine Watch

    I'm one of many speakers at SES, and a very occasional columnist for SEW. Even though these are relatively minor connections in my view, I'd like some extra eyes to look at these articles. The problem is that User:Lafmm is a VP of marketing for the owner of these,[236] and he's been editing the articles to make them reflect the corporate point of view. I've left him good COI advice, so hopefully he will restrict future editing to the talk pages. - Jehochman Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aviation Week & Space Technology

    User:198.45.19.39 - This IP address's talk page states that it comes from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company and has been previously warned for posting link spam for one of the company's publications (Architectural Record Magazine). It's at it again, and is posting link spam about Aviation Week & Space Technology which is another of the company's publications. See: [237] and [238]. Nick Dowling 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean Godden

    Please see my post on the BLP noticeboard just now. It appears according to this that Godden's campaign manager is attempting to out users and causing a huge disruption. I wandered onto her opponent's page when I noticed an IP user vandalize it yesterday. Please help on that page; I am bowing out. I simply added two sources and cleaned up one article, and suddenly I myself am accused of being some sort of political operative by User:Landsfarthereast, Godden's campaign manager. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    His livejournal account: (charming name) http://psshutthefuckup.livejournal.com/profile

    The AIM name listed: Landsfarthereast, the same name he posts under on Wikipedia. I asked a friend and apparently the IP address for that name is linked to a defunct Bellingham IP address. Carlo used to go to school in Bellingham and has that location listed on his livejournal.

    Carlo Davis listed as Godden campaign manager: [239]

    Please address this ASAP, I'm tired of the revert war that's torn the page apart for days.

    Mikesmash 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed some POV pushing and advised Landsfarthereast about our COI guideline. Mikesmash, some of the stuff you added was inappropriate POV pushing. [240] I recommend that both of you take a break from editing this article. - Jehochman Talk 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address which earlier vandalized the site is back and is pushing POV on both articles. He had previously been blocked from the Szwaja site and was accused of sock puppetry. Request a block since this seems to be a single purpose account. Mikesmash 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I am not a sock puppet nor a vandalizer. Mikesmash is unprepared to accept reasonable editing. My block was for less than an hour, after the admin who blocked me realised that Mikesmash basically lied when asking for my block. I have edited a number of articles, am not a single purpose account, and think that an admin needs to take a serious look at Mikesmash's behaviour. He is actually a campaign staffer for the oponent of Jean Godden, per his own admission. I foolishly tried to hold him accountable for poor citing, then copyright violations. he cleared the copyright block through a friend and then said that I was vandalizing by putting the notice back up until an admin had looked at it 201.240.31.236 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting a block for User:Landsfarthereast, the evidence is undeniable that he is the Godden campaign manager and he continues to try to fight with me on the Talk Pages of both articles. He got multiple and then a FINAL warning for such behavior.[241] I am through fighting with him. Mikesmash 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not a campaign staffer of the Szwaja campaign. I am not and have not "admitted" it. I did a little bit of volunteer work, but am not part of the campaign team in any way.. And yes, this editor did vandalize the page several times, trying to blank out the entire thing for no apparent reason and was blocked from editting it because of it. I did nothing through a "friend", as I don't know any of the editors and admins that battled with him in that revert war. Mikesmash 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to assume best faith by Mikesmash and have to believe he missed the copyright template notice that much content had been copy and pasted from another website verbatim and that there were no instances of page blanking. This editor assumed that since the standard copyright template states that it must remain up until administrator intervention that indeed it must remain up until administrator intervention. Some edits were made to the base article (removing all the links to the copywrited material) and rewording some of the language, but in place were no new cites at all and the warning notice was removed. I replaced it several times after recent change patrol bots thought it was vandalism. The campaign volunteer editor asked that I be blocked and I was blocked for less than an hour until the blocking admin saw what had happened. I am in no way affiliated with either campaign and have largely tried to either insert sourced materials, added cites, and removed POV statements.201.240.31.236 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

    User:ChaplainSvendsen has a WP:COI since he seems to be a board member of that institute. He repeatedly tried to transform that article into a soapbox promoting the curriculum and whitewashing critique:[242][243][244]--Raphael1 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    What? "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "I am not a board member of the school." "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC"(above) •smedleyΔbutler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the "Board of Visitors" gets discussed in the article as well, User:ChaplainSvendsen who is a member of that board does have a conflict of interest.--213.235.193.1 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just to be clear, is it not true that policy does not require editors with a conflict of interest to refrain from editing the article in conflict but merely to take greater pains to use appropriate editing techniques such as providing references and maintaining a NPOV etc.  ? COI editors can edit even though they have a conflict of interest? User:Pedant 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    SEVERN BARRAGE - TIDAL POWER vandalism

    FIG seems to be playing both ends off against the middle in his attempts to have his pet project about the proposed multi billion pound Severn Barrage in the south west UK.

    He has repeated vandalised my edits, harrassed me and solicited others to assist his bias attacks with the point of dismissing anything that may conflict with tidal power barrage technologies.

    He has vandalised and removed large parts of my edits on Tidal Power's main page and when asked to arbitrate, has run for cover. Rather FIG has resorted to under hand tactics aimed at silencing debate and discontinuing edits about alternative tidal power technology. He cites far fetched examples of COI while inciting authorities to block me. He has repeatedly used Wiki for his own benefit and has censured the sharing of facts about the industry just beacuse he does not understand the science. As a person with an industry background I have tried to reason with him> I try to bring ALL the news into a forum for the benefit of all. FIG on the other hand has been unable to make any positive contribution or ethically add to the debate.

    It is my opinion that the FIG is a blight on Wiki and should be discilpined. I urge those with the authority to act to investigate his action on both the Severn Barrage page and the Tidal Power page to see for themselves just hwere his sympathies lay. Tidalenergy 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you alleging a conflict of interest? If so, where's the evidence for conflict of interest? (If not, this complaint shouldn't be here: please reread the instructions at the top of this page.) -- Hoary 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had you trouble with you and FIG before. I would appeal to an independent third party for arbitration. But in any event I do allege COI as is clear from FIG's edits. About how barrages are taking over the world (when olny three exist) in an attempt to slinece the dispertion of information about tidal stream.
    I have made it abundantly clear I have a background in tidal stream. So where is the conflict of interest. Logic suggests as well as Wiki guidlines that someone has to have access to the facts and the right to place them online or else how does one get access to the info? If FIG wants to can someone why not the blatant commercial advertising about this that or the other deployment by companies along with full colour pictures being placed on the main Tidal Power page. FIG would have us all abide under the hypocracy of his version of double standards.
    I suggest arbitrators examine both mine and Tidalenergy's edits and come to their own conclusions. People should read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tidal_power for the background to this dispute Fig 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FIG has blatantly vandalised my edits ( and got away with it) about the dozens of tidal stream turbines being installed around the world because he has a penchant for tidal barrages that have huge negative impacts on the eco system, disruption to transport not to mention cost billions. He has stated on his edits that the Severn Barrage will "soon be built" despite the fact that no Government or investor will pay billions for the few mega watts it returns when there are better cost alternatives. He has solicited people with comments like those above in order to villify me and have me blocked form telling the other side of the story. That of Tidal Stream technology and the lastest advances. FIG has repeatedly avoided my attempts to debate the facts and has rather drawn a long bow about some sort of COI to muddy the waters and hide the fact that he is so heavily predjuiced he is blind to the central issue--- that of the free and un feathered spread of information for all. Freedom of free speech is in jeopardy here if these actions go unchecked.
    This should never have come to this. FIG should have followed the guidlines for disputes that I have submitted to. FIG has run for cover and tried in vain to twist facts and figures in an attempt to disrupt my edits and have me blocked. He has harrassed me from forum to forum in his endeavours to see me stopped. H ave repeatedly asked him to cease and desist but he continues with impunity. I would appeal to those in authority to please stop this person from thier mis-use of the system. Tidalenergy 22:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the most effective methods of resolving a dispute is to step away from it, even temporarily. Tidalenergy and Fig appear to be arguing unproductively, with more heat than light. Situations can sometimes become so heated that the original point of contention becomes a side-issue. I recommend that both parties take a break from this topic or even from Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    ::::: Very wise words. I give my word that I will step away from this if FIG will agree to do the same. I wish to part in peace not in pieces. How about it FIG --- maybe we could talk it over and be friends??? Tidalenergy 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They who walk away first are the winners. - Jehochman Talk 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said Jehochman. Tidalenergy 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Calvary Comics, Alec Stevens

    Articles are being edited by a publicist for the publishing company. [245] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Yoshiki (musician)

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

    I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel (#wp-en-help). The users Yskent (talk · contribs) and ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) (the record label Yoshiki works for), along with perhaps others (not confirmed), are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to fully protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators in order to edit it when it is protected (confirmed over IRC and by [246] and [247]). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:UAA, but further action, IMO, needs to be taken. These accounts are single-purpose accounts, yet they have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and are not really trying to engage in bad behavior. If they can understand the rules here, I feel they can become constructive contributors, and I would gladly mentor them if they wish to contribute. Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    eComXpo COI Accusation - Request for Relief

    When I first contacted the COI Noticeboard and requested relief from the COI accusation made by User:Cerejota against me, were things discussed, but no decision could be made due an official Request for mediation that was made by Ceretoja. The request was rejected yesterday, because one editor that was added by Cerejota to be part of the mediation did not sign the agreement for a mediation of the issues with the article eComXpo.

    It is now back to when I made my original request for relief of the COI accusations that were made against me by Cerejota in combination with the article to the conference and trade show eComXpo.

    I explained in detail my involvement with eComXpo here to demonstrate that COI does not apply to me, because I am not employed by them not have any other vendor/client relationship that would be relevant for having a "conflict of interest" if I am editing the article.

    For a complete summary of the events that lead to the accusation in correct chronological order, see this page at my user space.

    I request that the COI accusations made against me will be rejected that I will be able to work on the article again (and remove the COI template from it) without hearing this argument against me and any edit I make in the article in the future. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It seems to me that, if your only involvement was as a panelist at a Con, and if you were not paid any cash honorarium, then that is not a conflict of interest to edit to article. But don't listen to me, as I am not a sysop. Bearian 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Yep, that was my involvement with the company. I mentioned all details at the talk page and also referred to the recording of the panel itself. The previous discussion here at the noticeboard (before the request for mediation) said the pretty much the same, but no decision by the board could be made, because the other editor pulled the COI accusation into the mediation request. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise possible? Is there a chance we can get agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise? I have read through the AfDs and the DRV, and have seen the controversy about the sources. I can live with the sources that are still in the article. In exchange for the compromise, we would (if accepted)
    • Drop all the COI allegations;
    • The tags would be removed from the article;
    • The people who want to put back previously-removed sources would stop trying;
    • The people trying to take away further sources, or re-nominate for AfD, would agree to stop;
    • Anyone planning to open new dispute resolution cases, in all forums, would agree to stop.
    Who is willing to consider this? EdJohnston 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quinacrine

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

    I agree 100% with your response. MayberryQS's changes to the article were highly POV and caused important negative information about quinacrine sterilization to disappear from the article. One sentence dropped was the FDA's comment that quinacrine sterilization was an "unsafe use of this drug product." I hope that your Talk message will get the editor's attention. EdJohnston 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=155989269"