Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Linda Rabbitt Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths

The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we see Itsmejudith canvassing on Wikipedia:

Longevity myths

What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion.Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was frustrated, as you can tell, and this was a request and plea to work out what could be done. We had already discussed this on FTN on more than one occasion and I've asked for more eyes on the article. I'm genuinely looking for a solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IMJ posted that comment after I was already engaged in the discussion at the FT/N. There was no canvassing there at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the essay I wrote on Longevity Myths in 2005 preceded Guinness hiring me in November 2005, so there's no real conflict of interest.

As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.

And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.

I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both).Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that you want an article that covers everything from the Sumerian king lists to 20th century reports. I can't see that it can possibly be helpful. But that's for the article talk page, and perhaps needs to go to an RfC. I would be really grateful for uninvolved input on the COI question. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend interested parties view this and more particularly this about when Ryoung122 claimed a living person had died based on the word of an anonymous British government source, and was forced to retract it after complaints from her family. Considering we are quite often dealing with living people, the whole sourcing about supercentenarians is unacceptable in my opinion, particularly when a Yahoo group is being used to source people's deaths. O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The second link it particularly dismaying. BLP information should certainly not be handled in this manner. I won't comment on the COI as I don't think I'm uninvolved at this point, but I get the feeling that articles related to supercentenarians need much more outside scrutiny than they have been getting. Apparently they are written and maintained strictly by members of that yahoo group who now appear (see above) to apply their own standards of sourcing to this area of the project as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved people may also like to note that Ryoung122 has been discussed on this noticeboard before. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Links?Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous appearance on this noticeboard

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.

He used to have his own article, now deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)

He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122

Discussions at ANI too.

I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.

In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I improved Judith's first link above, because the evidence is almost all there. Basically I found Ryoung122 in Apr/May 09 doing exactly what he had been indeffed for, and what he promised not to do as a removal condition after 9 months of block, i.e., preserving his field POV as WP's, extensively and uncivilly. I was also going to add that last month he stepped back from the brink of edit warring after 3 reverts each on 2 articles, and agreed to mediation, which started well until our mediator disappeared on 1 Oct. That is, the last couple weeks he's (either been absent or) behaved much better than any time prior; but now I can't say that either, because there is credible evidence he's canvassing. IMHO, as long as all parties work to build scope consensus on these articles, it doesn't matter if he or other conflicted Yahoo-group members are blocked or not (see WP:WOP talk!); but I would really prefer guidance (please see my last graf on Judith's COIN link) about what to do with those who don't seek to build WP consensus but seek to bring unsourced, OR/SYN, POV consensus from Yahoo-WOP and preserve it at WP. So much evidence that I don't care to list it except for interested requests. Oh, the book Ryoung122 mentions sells for over $100, another COI, which is why I finally succeeded in pulling (or occasionally wikifying) much of the book's OR contents (about 70 sentences) from the article. JJB 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please review this edit about the distressing conflation of the yahoo group and WP:WOP. Please reread the WP:WOP talk page. The roots of this whole fustercluck can be discerned there. David in DC (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a line to Carcaroth, on his (?her) talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, we really need some regulars on this board to provide uninvolved input. Pretty please. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been trying that since three years before he wrote it as a thesis and began selling it for $100+! Perhaps, as my last sojourn here also shows, we should adjourn from this board to a heftier one, since there is no doubt expressed then or now as to the COI? JJB 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarm^talk 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is on a very limited question between two editors. Perhaps it is active again, was dormant for many months. Also see discussion on WP:FTN (passim). The COI question needs to be resolved separately from the content questions, still really needs uninvolved input. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I just commented that there so visitors will know that this is being (or related issues) at several different noticeboards. I'll look into this further later, probably over the weekend or something. Did the fringe theories noticeboard thread resolve anything, or is that also closed without resolution? Netalarm^talk 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The current FTN thread has run out of steam, no resolution, partly because people were waiting to see whether anything would happen here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Good faith prticipation in mediation is always preferable. But one can probably discern my prognosis from this statement.

Not happy with my edits in the past, this editor made a particularly dispicable accusation against me of anti-homosexual slurs. Please see here, here, and the collapsed portion of this talk page.David in DC (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC article and many external links added by representative of group

• BIPAC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yudanashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.96.186.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Yudanashi, who identifies himself here as a representative of BIPAC, created an article about this political action group, which reads like pure promotional material for the group. In the past few days, Yudanashi has also begun adding external links to pages on a BIPAC-owned website to many different articles about politicians. A representative sample link goes to a page that promotes not only the candidate but also BIPAC. It seems to me these links violate WP:COI as well as WP:EL. betsythedevine (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yudanashi here, after reviewing the WP:COI and WP:EL articles I can see how the external links are a conflict of interest and agree that they should be pulled as the sites are mostly run through BIPAC. I disagree that the linking of those sites should cause our Wikipedia article BIPAC to be deleted by Athaenara for speedy deletion under [[1]]. That article, while created by me, doesn't represent a conflict of interest because it is simply the history of the organization. I took great caution while creating that page to not be promoting of BIPAC but simply supplying the historical time-line of BIPAC. I think that the article should have a deletion discussion while I rewrite it from an even more neutral POV. Yudanashi (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted per {{db-g11}} as unambiguous advertising and promotion in and of itself, not because of your linkspamming activity on other articles. – Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Restarting the indents: I found some reliable sources for a story about BIPAC, whose treasurer turns out to be under federal indictment for vote-buying in Alabama. Yudanashi, who has re-created the deleted article with a bit less puffery than the original version, deleted this less-than-flattering information as well as other BIPAC stories currently making news in Alabama. Since the article is a new one, and Yudanashi and I seem to be the only 2 people editing it, I would like help and guidance from some experienced editor. Yudanashi claims on my talk page that the news stories of Alabama candidates being criticized for donations they got from BIPAC really refer to donations from BIPEC, a different group. I have yet to see a reliable source for that claim. I also take issue with Yudanashi's repeated claims for BIPAC (as it claims for itself) that it is "non-partisan"; check out the list of candidates they support and see how non-partisan you think they are:[2]. betsythedevine (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What we are talking about are 2 separate organizations. This has already been hashed out on the web at the | LeftinAlabama site

The first is BIPAC incorporated in August 1963 in Washington DC.| FEC PACRONYM Database, pdf The Second is "BI PAC" Incorporated in 1989 in Alabama (found by visiting the Secretary of State site and searching for the treasurer's name "Geddie"). These are 2 completely non-related organizations. The confusion has come in because some Alabama newspapers have had a typo in using "BIPAC" (sic) instead of BI PAC. [3] [4]Yudanashi (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the non-partisan angle, I submit our own separate press release wherein BIPAC recognizes pro-prosperity democrats.[5] Also this Bloomberg article which states the same [6]Yudanashi (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the non-partisan angle, you are supporting 68 Republicans and ZERO Democrats in 2010. Having a separate listing where you "recognize" some conservative Democrats does not make you bi-partisan. betsythedevine (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In 2010 BIPAC is supporting non-incumbents, what pro-business, non-incumbent, Democrat is out there? Over the course of the organizations history (which is more encyclopedic than just the 2010 cycle), BIPAC has contributed to candidates regardless of party line. As a pro-business group, many see that as ONLY GOP candidates, but this CQ Politics article notes the fact that this is not true.74.96.186.205 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC is entitled to support whatever candidates it want. It makes little sense to call your organization "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," terms implying an even-handed approach, on the basis that it has on rare occasions in the past supported a Democrat while spending millions to help Republicans. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subjects of its articles; it should not be subverted to give respectability to inaccurate claims that organizations make about themselves. Let me add that disputes such as this are precisely why editors with a WP:COI are discouraged from editing their own articles. Your loyalty as an editor should be to the goal of informing readers.betsythedevine (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing [nonpartisan] with bi-partisan. non-partisan means not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is non-partisan. It doesn't care about party line which includes social issues. It only cares about business issues and is thus non-partisan. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subject of its articles, so don't muddle the definition of bipartisan and nonpartisan which are two separate things. Countless articles have echoed the claim of non-partisanship without dispute, you are the only one raising complaint that those claims are inaccurate and I think it comes from a misreading of the words bipartisan and nonpartisan, just like the misreading of "BI PAC" and BIPAC in which you claimed the Alabama Secretary of State had the typo in the official paperwork, not the Decatur daily news. Yudanashi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be content to see the article say that BIPAC has no affiliation with either political party, but has given much more support to Republicans to Democrats. I think this gives a more accurate view of the matter than calling it "nonpartisan." betsythedevine (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

non-partisan means "has no affiliation with either political party" So does The group is non-partisan, but has given much more support to Republicans than to Democrats in the 2010 Congressional races work for you betsythedevine? Yudanashi (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The word non-partisan can mean http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonpartisan a lot of things] -- its implications include "free from bias" or "supporting the interests of no political party", neither of which applies to BIPAC. Either "has no affiliation with either political party" or "refers to itself as nonpartisan" would be OK. From the Wikipedia article nonpartisan: "Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party." betsythedevine (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You state that non-partisan means "supporting the interests of no political party". BIPAC in its giving does NOT support the interest of a political party. If it did, it would only contribute to 1 party. Period. Has BIPAC only made contributions to 1 party? No. BIPAC has made contributions across party lines which means that BIPAC is NOT affiliated with a political party. by definition "non-partisan".Yudanashi (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Supporting 68 Republicans and 1 Democrat would, in fact, support the interests of the Republican political party. BIPAC is officially "not affiliated with a political party" -- although when Republicans blew their dogwhistle in 1998, BIPAC came running[7], such lovers' quarrels have been very rare. betsythedevine (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would point to the quote in the article reproduced below as a demonstration of how BIPAC largely is serving the majority party regardless of who that is and it took 2 cycles after the GOP sweep of COngress for BIPAC to get back on board with the majority, not neccessarily the GOP. Quote from RNC chair "Many Republican members believe that Mr. Mack and Ms. Budde, having spent a lifetime of happy service to a Democratic majority, have never been entirely comfortable with their friends out of power."Yudanashi (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More promotional language: cherry-picking from a very critical Mother Jones article the throwaway comment that BIPAC is "a powerful force" is promotional and misleading. There is an ocean of "nonpartisan" money drowning US elections from major players such as the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, American Future Fund. I appreciate that Yudanashi is new to Wikipedia but I would like some consensus here that BIPAC currently rates maybe two paragraphs describing its origins and efforts, paragraphs that should be in NEUTRAL language. betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The language is not mine, but Mother Jones' who starts the article describing BIPAC as such:"For much of the past decade, the Business Industry Political Action Committee has been a powerful force in helping tilt elections for corporate-friendly candidates. The blue-ribbon business group, made up of more than 400 companies and trade associations—from Lockheed Martin to the American Petroleum Institute and the Financial Services Roundtable—maintains the "Prosperity Project," which includes a state-of-the-art database to track candidates' stands on issues from regulation to taxes to health care. Many of BIPAC's members circulate this analysis (PDF) to their employees. In the past, that's all a company could do—provide employees information it hoped would prod them to vote for pro-business candidates." None of that is a "throwaway comment" in the article. Yes it goes on to talk about Citizens United, but that is not an expose on BIPAC but on what could happen in a post citizens united world which belongs not on BIPAC's page but on theCitizens United Criticism article.Yudanashi (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that Yudanashi and 74.96.186.205 should cease editing the article in question. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for a while that Yudanashi would collaborate on creating a neutral article. But that does not seem to be happening. betsythedevine (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to as well and thought we were off to a good start with the proposal above quoted here: non-partisan means "has no affiliation with either political party" So does The group is non-partisan, but has given much more support to Republicans than to Democrats in the 2010 Congressional races work for you I think we have fundamental differences in the use of the word nonpartisan or not and to call my Mother Jones quote cherrypicking was a bit off because that is the tone of the opening paragraph which does provide a good example of what BIPAC does and not just what BIPAC could do. I am willing to collaborate with you on this article betsy and suggest that we move our collaboration onto the BIPAC discussion page where it is more relevant and use this for any 'artistic diffrences' you and I might continue to have.Yudanashi (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am just a regular volunteer Wikipedian trying to make the encyclopedia better in a bunch of articles and your constant pressure on this one article is very time-consuming. The article should be short and neutral. If there are things BIPAC wants the world to know about itself, it can post those claims on its own website, to which Wikipedia's BIPAC article links. The minute you insert one of those claims into a Wikipedia article -- that your group is "nonpartisan" or "powerful", for instance--you give the impression that Wikipedia endorses those claims. This is why Wikipedia typically blocks editors with a COI from editing their own articles. You really got a break here for a few days, but your arguments and edit-warring[8] [9] [10] over "nonpartisan" did not make a good case for letting you continue to edit the article. betsythedevine (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with editors Hipocrite and Betsythedevine that it would be better for the encyclopedia if Yudanashi, an obvious single-purpose account with a strong conflict of interest, stopped trying to control the content of the BIPAC article. – Athaenara ✉ 01:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman)

• Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Teel James Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RGriff1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (Robert G. Griffith) appears to be an autobiography of RGriff1935 (talk · contribs). Also possible coi with Teel James Glenn. Continues to remove coi and other maintenance templates without resolving many of the articles' issues--these are essentially press releases for performers whose notability may or may not be established. Possible afd candidates? JNW (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've PRODed them both as neither make any claims of notability, have any sources to indicate it, nor can I find any sources to either. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

PRODs were removed by RGriff1935, now at AfD. SmartSE (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Five days ago I warned RGriff1935 that editing here was a collaborative exercise and that communicating with other editors was essential. As there has been no response other than to remove the PRODs with no explanation, I've indefinitely blocked the account making it clear that any Administrator will unblock if convinced that the editor will work with others. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Greenman

• Ben Greenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anton Chekhov‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Porfirio Rubirosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goldman Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.65.226.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kentastic22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A review of this IP's edits shows the majority are devoted to shining up the Ben Greenman article or dropping a mention of Greenman into other articles, recent example here. --CliffC (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Kentastic22 is now making the same promotional edits to Ben Greenman and Anton Chekhov‎‎. --CliffC (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

13BIT Productions

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. We are not sure who to contact about this.

I am, indeed, one of the people behind 13BIt Productions. Many people have asked us why we did not have a wikipedia entry, so we decided to post the basic information about our production company - just the facts.There are already stubs to us on Wikipedia, so we figured we would put a list of our films and the awards we have done, as well as the subjects of our films.

Please let us know how we can comply with the conflict of interest guidelines. We are not interested in doing a puff piece on ourselves, we simply want to get the basic info out there.

Thanks.

Paul

paulv@panix.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulvee (talk • contribs)

Removed your HTML comment tag. --CliffC (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot find the article in question. Was it recently deleted? The Interior(Talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone speedied it as not asserting notability. --CliffC (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging from this search your company does not currently meet our notability requirements for companies and so we should not have an article on it yet. If it receives substantial press coverage then please come back here and drop a note and we may be able to help you write an article. SmartSE (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Author Promoting book - Decision Points

• Decision Points (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ted Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am watching "Decision Points" George W. Bush's memoir for BLP vandalism and Ted Cohen (talk · contribs) added an announcement of his book on Bush Into the article. I gave a stearn warning on his talkpage but since I am unable to attend my attention fully to Wikipedia right now to watch this account I am bringing it here for less busy eyes to watch. Considering this author is the one who broke the story of Bush's 1976 DUI arrest I am unsure if there is BLP issue here to with his addition. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted Cohen responds, "I would like to know why Crown Books is listed in a Wiki piece announcing bush's new memoir, with an attendant link to the publisher's website. I edited the Wiki article to include my book with a link to my website. I do not understand why what I have posted is considered out of bounds and would appeal to others to make their own judgments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I was reprimanded by "Resident Anthropologist" for inserting as an edit into the Decision Points Wiki piece (the piece promoting George W. Bush's new memoir by Crown Books) a reference to my new Bush memoir. I also included a link to my book's website - since the Wiki piece contained a link to promote Crown Books and Bush's new memoir. I would like others to let us all know why Crown's Wiki promotion is any different from my attempt to get equal space and equal time. Yes, I am the Maine reporter who discovered just weeks before the 2000 presidential election the 1976 arrest records of George W. Bush. Now I have written an imaginative memoir about Bush. The publisher released a new edition Saturday. To be called out for trying to balance Wiki's coverage of Bush's own book with my version of his life is without merit. I would like to know who is overseeing Wiki's balancing of fair reporting. Respectfully submitted, Ted Cohen - author of "Derision Points," 2010, Progressive Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Cohen (talk • contribs)

Firstly, thanks to Ted for using his real name and acknowledging that he is the author of the book, it makes life simpler for those of us dealing with this. I can't see any BLP (that's our guideline regarding dealing with living people) issue with the edit at all and I think that Ted Cohen's edit was made in good faith rather than as necessarily trying to promote his own book. That said, I can't find any coverage of Derision Points in the press, as would be required for us to mention it in the article. ResidentAnthropologist wasn't trying to stop fair reporting of Bush, he was only trying to uphold our guidelines on self-promotion, which were made with the aim of stopping wikipedia being spammed. If a newspaper had written about how you have published your book, then we might include it in the article, but as at present this has not happened, we should not include it. Please let us know if it remains unclear why this your edit was reverted. SmartSE (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Gary Herbert

• Gary Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Holdengreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SamRule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two users have been reverting each other for a month or two on and off. Holden adds controversies, which Sam removes, replacing them with a pro-Herbert section, and vice-versa. Sam has accused Holden of working for a rival campaign, and I suspect that Sam works or is affiliated with Herbert's campaign. They have both received warnings on their talk pages, but have not stopped. As one who doesn't like getting involved in disputes such as this one, I ask for assistance in remedying this drawn-out revert war. Spalds (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Holdengreen hasn't edited in weeks, but an IP has been keeping the flame. SamRule is here as a single purpose account for spin, and drops in content copied and pasted from other sites. Perhaps the article can be protected, with conflict of interest accounts blocked for edit warring, copyright violations, and general disruption. The passage I do have questions about is that involving the legal troubles of subject's son--though it's sourced news, I'm uncertain whether it's appropriate or necessary, and was likely added for partisan reasons. More thoughts welcome. JNW (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson and Arthur Alan Wolk

After I read an article about Wolk's lawsuits, I looked him up and found his Wikipedia article. If you Google Wolk, the top links are all about his libel lawsuits, but they were not mentioned on Wikipedia.

As these secondary reliable sources discuss, Arthur Wolk has sued dozens of people for libel just for mentioning court decisions that have talked about him, and I don't want to be one of them, so I'd like to be an anonymous editor.

Another editor says that this means I have a conflict of interest with Wolk because I want to be anonymous and not sued. I don't think that not wanting to be sued is a conflict of interest. I have done nothing but cite reliable sources. Can someone check my edits on these articles and see if I have written neutrally? If so, can you remove the COI tag? If not, please make the articles fair, and I will abide by your decision. Thank you.

(The owner of the Arthur Wolk article says that he works with Arthur Wolk, and is deleting reliably sourced information about him and turning the article into a press release. I don't understand why that's not a conflict of interest.) Boo the puppy (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have read, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arthur_Alan_Wolk and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FArthur_Alan_Wolk_v._Walter_Olson, and it is clear to me that:

• IP 76.98.165.58
• Christine DeGraff
• User:Lawrencewarwick aka LEW

are violating WP:PAID and should be blocked. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:PAID is a proposed guideline/policy but hasn't been accepted by the community. Even if it were, it wouldn't ever be a reason in itself to block anyone. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that a real world dispute is being imported into Wikipedia. Boo the puppy seems to be on one side, and those other accounts might be on the other. I will look at this more closely. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head. Both articles are at AfD, they are at best, marginally notable. SmartSE (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)