Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:57, 9 April 2011

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-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:Ameena (film) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones User talk:JulesJDT Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:David E. I. Pyott Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:ShareFile Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tara (2013 film) Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:VML (agency) Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Nick Halkes

Nick Halkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
83.217.115.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all, I came across this article, which I found to be poorly written (not encyclopaedic in nature). Words like 'cuts' is slang and doesn't feel appropriate. It sounds like a press release with as many superlatives and fancy facts as possible.

examples of this: -Nick Halkes[1] is a U.K. based music industry executive known for signing and breaking multi-million selling[2] dance act The Prodigy.[3] -Nick's most recent, major A&R success with the band has been their 1.3 million selling "Invaders Must Die" on which he has a co-write on the title track,[4] a cut which enjoyed a list rotation on BBC Radio 1. -The Prodigy were the most played act on Radio 1 in 2009 scoring four A-list singles in a row. -Nick also runs a successful music publishing business (with cuts from writers ranging from A-Trak, Mujava and Princess Nyah through to cuts recorded by The Prodigy, Sash! and Joey Negro) and both DJs and gets in the studio as part of Kicks Like A Mule (with whom he enjoyed Top 10 UK chart success [10] as an artist and renewed profile following the Klaxons cover of ‘The Bouncer.’)

I also felt that it contained much promotion on the subject, including far too many details that would only be known by someone close to the subject, or possibly the subject themselves. The manner in which they are presented seems to indicate that they are written to maximise the positive light in which the subject is perceived - for example it talks about the works of some collaborators below (kelly price & rob davis) but does not mention the particular pieces that the subject worked on with those people. The final paragraph is more like a CV, as it contains details on the minutiae of his career - many items in detail which are possibly too insignificant to be considered suitable for biographies of this nature.

examples of this

-He is also a part time lecturer on the music industry to BA and MA students at University of Westminster in London

-Recent Kicks Like A Mule studio activity has included remixes on Kid Sister and Major Lazer with a single also released on U.S. indie Fool's Gold under the revised artist name K.L.A.M. An occasional song writer, Nick recently co-wrote a track on the Kenneth Bager album that is now gold in Scandinavia plus also co-wrote a song which was recently cut by Japanese artist Maki Goto. He has also co-written with Rob Davis (co-writer of Kylie Minogue's global smash "Can't Get You Out Of My Head") and Kelly Price who co-wrote U.S. number one 'Déjà Vu' for Beyonce.

-More recently Nick has used the Horx moniker for collaborative studio activity with both Jonny L on a cut called ‘18 years’ and with Adam F and Redman on a cut called ‘Shut The Lights Off’ which was released on Breakbeat Kaos, the latter scoring a Zane Lowe ‘Hottest Record In The World’[11] accolade. As Horx, Nick provided support DJ services on both the Prodigy U.K. Invaders Arena tour(including 2 dates at Wembley) and multiple dates on the European leg of the bands world tour. As K.L.A.M. the date sheet has included Bestival, Ministry of Sound and Fabric plus support dates on the Zane Lowe DJ Hero 2 Tour. Most recently Nick co-produced and co-wrote the single "Electric Boogaloo" for UK grime godfather and chart star Wiley. Nick was a keynote speaker at the 2010 'In The City' [12] music conference in Manchester and recently delivered 'masterclass' presentations at the Academy of Contemporary Music in Guildford, the Bristol Institute of Modern Music and the Brighton Institute of Modern Music. Nick has also contributed writing to the book Catch The Beat, which documents late '80s/early '90s underground club culture.

Why COI?

I edited this article to tidy it up and remove what I considered to be excessive. There were some problems with grammar, format etc in addition to the content issues described above. You can see my edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Halkes&diff=413577680&oldid=411788397

within less than 48 hours my edit was reverted back to the messy original article by IP 83.217.115.101 To give you an idea of user IP 83.217.115.101's contributions, here is there log http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.217.115.101

Of this user's 48 edits, 35 have been on this article, 5 have been on the band that subject of the article is a member of, 2 on the record label he was involved with and the remainder on related articles. Similarly, 35 out of the last 49 edits of this article have been made by that same IP.

I didn't want to get caught up in a editing/reverting war so was seeking advice here instead on how to proceed. Thanks User:HallucigeniaUK 15:12 (UHT) 20 March 2011

I've tagged the article for lack of reliable sources, promotional tone, and notability. Given the dearth of reliable sources I found via Google search, I think it's a candidate for WP:AFD. 99.175.156.171 (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahseen Jabbary

Tahseen Jabbary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tasen55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
82.168.91.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is an SPA. He created the article Tahseen Jabbary using content pulled from the subject's agency's profile, plus additional unsourced content, which conspicuously fails verification. The article survived AfD because somebody was able to see a little real, verifiable notability under the blather and create a decent, referenced, stub. There is very little in RS about the subject and the stub covers pretty much all that there is. Tasen55 continues to repeatedly wipe out this referenced stub with his preferred version of the article. His version has evolved a bit from the start but is still referenced only to improper primary sources (including Linkedin) and contains unverifiable claims. This is unacceptable in a BLP yet he makes no attempt to discuss or justify his edits. I have tried warning him and explaining things to him. He has been blocked before and not mended his ways. Nothing works. I originally tried sending this to ARV as a vandalism/spamming issue but it was rejected as not blatant enough. Given the single purpose nature of the account, the instance on using primary sources and the similarity of the name Tasen with Tahseen, I think we have a clear COI here. Although it is not totally clear whether this is actual autobiographical writing, the fact that he insists on adding an unreferenced alleged birth date and location for the subject (which I can not see published anywhere else) does raise this suspicion. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Tasen55 got blocked for a fortnight and things quietened down for a while but today IP 82.168.91.215, which is pretty obviously his, replaced the article with the COI/spam version again. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan B. Anthony List

Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ArchConservative93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BS24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 68.50.210.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 70.21.119.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 71.178.26.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NYyankees51 was investigated for sockpuppeting and was found to have edited from an IP address owned and operated by the Susan B. Anthony List organization. NYyankees51 signed SBA List IP entries here and here on August 27, 2009.

Subsequently, NYyankees51 was the most frequent article editor in 2009, without declaring his affiliation to SBA List. He was blocked in December, indefinitely. In 2010, NYyankees51 began the year with a sockpuppet, User:ArchConservative93, editing the SBA List article. When this sock was blocked, NYyankees51 started up User:BS24, again not declaring an affiliation with SBA List but editing it nonetheless. BS24 was blocked as a sock in November 2010. Before that, NYyankees51 edited the SBA List article using Special:Contributions/68.50.210.194, Special:Contributions/70.21.119.84 and Special:Contributions/71.178.26.97. All this is to demonstrate that NYyankees51 has shown a very strong desire to edit the SBA List article, even to the point of getting blocked.

After NYyankees51 was blocked in December 2009 and BS24 was blocked in November 2010, the editor waited for two months and then appealed his block. He was unblocked on January 11, 2011 by HJMitchell upon the promise of no more sockpuppeting. So far it looks like this promise has been kept.

However, the question of NYyankees51 having a conflict of interest remains. Here is a record of edits made by NYyankees51 and his sockpuppets, ones in which an overly promotional addition was reverted or ones in which unflattering information was removed or altered:

NYyankees said in his edit summary on March 29, 2011, that he was "no longer associated with SBA List". After reviewing the lengthy evidence showing that he has been working at the very least as a de facto volunteer for SBA List, promoting their cause by edit warring against WP:NPOV, I have to assume that the conflict of interest still exists. SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers, and NYyankees51 is clearly demonstrating by his actions that he has volunteered to help promote them. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, it should be noted that Binksternet and I have been engaged in content disputes for nine months now at the article.

I was an intern at SBA List during the summer of 2009. The association ended after that.

I have extensively edited the articles of several organizations and their leaders: Values Voter Summit (which I created), Brian S. Brown (which I created), Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Frank Pavone, Conservative Political Action Conference, Live Action (organization), and Lila Rose. My editing at the SBA List article is no different than my editing at those articles, and I certainly do not have a COI at any of those articles, nor have any existed. Binksternet says "SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers", and I would like to off what information he bases that claim. As per my list of organizations' articles above, if my editing at SBA List means I am an official volunteer for SBA List, I must be an official volunteer for Values Voter Summit, National Organization for Marriage, Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Priests for Life, Conservative Political Action Conference, and Live Action. It seems clear to me that this COI filing is nothing more than an attempt by Binksternet to discredit me and to give him a license to take over the SBA List article. It's sad for Wikipedia when users make allegations such as this to try to win a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss other articles but those other articles are not in question here. You and I have debated content on a number of articles, and I have never tried to remove you from editing them in order to gain the upper hand in content disputes. Nor am I doing that here... I am simply noticing that there may be a conflict of interest issue at work, one which you never declared in the summer of 2009 and one which may be ongoing.

At the root of every COI issue is one of WP:NPOV. If people who held a conflict only edited in a perfectly neutral manner, there would be no need for this COI noticeboard. What I am demonstrating here is that your early COI was made clear by a non-neutral editing record in 2009 which extended into 2010 and 2011. You have a history of non-neutral changes to the article, removing unflattering information which is cited and accurate. Until I brought this issue forward, you had never declared your affiliation. With all the sockpuppeting, I think you have shown a high-handed conflict of interest relative to the SBA List.

The key question is this: If an editor has a known conflict of interest in 2009, can that conflict be declared null in 2010 or 2011, in the face of an editing history demonstrating the contrary? Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss other articles because my editing at those is no different than my editing at the SBA List, so by your standard, I have a COI at all those other articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tree shaping

Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a continuation of and earlier COI complaint in which Blackash was banned from editing the article but not from the talk page. Blackash describes themself as a Tree shaper and Co-founder of Pooktre.

Unfortunately rather than withdrawing from issues with commercial and personal significance, for example the name of the art and the various techniques used by various editors, Blackash continues to attempt to influence other editors on these matters as can be seen in the section [1].

Please note that I am making no claim that any of the statements made my any editor in this section are true or false but an editor who has already been banned from editing for having a COI should not be attempting to influence other editors on matters with a COI. I am suggesting that Blackash is completely topic banned until commercially sensitive issues have been resolved by editors with no commercial interest in the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin you are lying I was not banned for a COI. Rather you have continually made these claims all over different notice boards, without support of diffs. I was topic banned from main space of tree shaping because I tie up other editors' time to much. Give me half hour and I'll get the ANI link and rebut your claim. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I have also been Topic ban [2] form editing the main space of tree shaping (though allowed on the talk pages). Not because I've been uncivil, rude or even for editing the main article badly. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. Sums it up well "Blackash's fault here has been to seek fair treatment when the system is against her. IMO she has consistently tried to do right by the process. Apparently editors are now objecting more to the volume of her documentation than her arguments." diff Blackash have a chat 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to ANI [3]

Link to my listing of Slowart for a COI (which I'm guess is the earlier COI complaint that Martin is talking about) [4]

Martin is not a neutral editor ( Blue Rasberry pointed this out on the WP:NPOVN diff ) when it comes to the word Arborsculpture or edits done by the creator of the word Arborsculpture (self outed Slowart). When Slowart puts his own word Arborsculpture into the lead Martin didn't comment to him about his COI. He has now twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page section, the other time he made a conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content diff Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The". Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. Blackash have a chat 01:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin keeps saying there are commercially sensitive issues or spam but will not come out and say what they are. When I've asked about details, he harps on about COI instead of answering the content question. Even when asked by other editors about the spam he won't give details. [5] Blackash have a chat 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebut Martin's claim

Martin's link. What I was discussing was basically that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles. Having this definition as part of the article meets WP:NPOV as this is able to be verified. Admittedly in long winded fashion as it was the actual discussion that clarified it for me.

WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [6]
Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [7]
Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [8]

Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary.

Into the lead diff
Further down diff.
- SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall Title.

The closest I have come to COI would be when I added Pooktre to the lead after discussion on the talk page about which words should be in the lead.discussion my reasoning diff after 10 days with no comment on the talk page I put in the compromise diff I believe there should be no alternative names in the lead as this gives to much weight to these words in an art form that only has 4 books in English published and 3 of them write about there is no established name. From my POV ideally all alternative names would be removed from the lead, this meet wikipedia style guide lines about alternative names. On the other hand I do think Afd Hero has some valid points as to why the names should be in the lead. diff Which is why I offered the comprise and then 10 days later put it up. Blackash have a chat 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

About the topic ban: The community discussion that imposed the topic ban gave no particular reason. Multiple reasons were given in the discussion, including COI and disruption. I suggest that no one bother trying to say that the topic ban is "because of" anything in particular; all that really matters is that it exists and must be abided by.
In the previous discussion, the community did not agree to a talk-page ban. This means that Blackash is free to attempt to influence other editors on the article's talk page. Martin, if you think a talk-page ban is truly necessary, then you will have to go back to AN or ANI and make your case for extending it to talk pages, or to all namespaces. In the meantime, you are permitted to treat Blackash's comments on the article talk page just like any other editor's, which is to say that you may ignore them completely if you find them unhelpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to me to be the appropriate forum to discuss a COI issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Now is your opportunity to outline your concerns re COI what are they?and perhaps you could expand on the sensitive commercial points which you keep going on about.Topic banning someone for talking too much is ridiculous.It is a discussion page. We must remember Blackash is an expert in the field and provided the information I needed (as an end user)when I wanted to know more about the methods/techinques. The edits that have been done recently have not been good. Martin and Colincbn have been constantly attacking Blackash for her edits and the lead was OK when arborsculpture was giving Slowart/Richard Reames a marketing funnel,but now pooktre in also in the lead there is this huge conflict.The harassment of Blackash by you two editors has been going on for way to long and it was the reason I joined as a single purpose editor. I believe that you two are not uninvolved editors.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean when you say that I am not an uninvolved editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have not once ever attacked her over her edits. Period. The edits I made that she does not agree with were done to improve the page and I was discussing them with her cordially. I have no agenda other than to improve WP in accordance with Policy. I do not appreciate being disparaged over actions that are clearly done in good faith.

And for the record, I do not think a full topic ban is yet warranted. Yes, there has been some going back and forth between us over my last edits to the article (my first I think). But I was trying to help her see why I made them, in a spirit of compromise. I think it is clear if you look at my correspondence with her that I have always tried to behaved civilly and professionally. I do feel that she has yet to fully understand why she was topic banned, but I hope she will come to realize that WP is not the place to battle with her professional rivals. I think she is a good editor who simply gets conflicted (hence the C in CoI) when dealing with a subject so close to her. Colincbn (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, what exactly are you compromising over? I might add that I am also not criticising Blackash as an editor, we need subject experts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this be dropped. The topic ban is recent and specifically permits the editor in question to edit the talk page of the article and complaining about those edits so soon after the ban can give the appearance of browbeating (even if that isn't the intent). As whatamidoing says, you are free to respond to or ignore the comments of backash if you find them unhelpful. If the comments and discussion gets tendentious, then bring up the issue at ANI, but this is way too soon. --rgpk (comment) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with rgpk [sic]. I think we should give her some more time to see why the ban was put in place before we give up on her input. She has voluntarily suggested limiting her number of responses to edits she does not agree with. And while I don't think that is a restriction we have the right to put on her, if she chooses to do so of her own accord it shows she is beginning to see why her prior behaviour was considered disruptive. I think that is a good sign. Colincbn (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decima gallery

Decima gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quilla Constance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alexchappel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Username implies this is an interested party. Longterm account; many edits may be valid, but the appearance of conflict of interest and potential for promotional abuse is apparent. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what?

Wikipedia does not prohibit people from editing subjects that they have a connection to. We only care if they harm Wikipedia to promote themselves. If the edits are valid, then there's no problem and no need to mention them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly of me, thinking that WP:COI might be a concern. Must have misread the guideline. Let's everyone write about our businesses. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up: It's unclear whether the above 'so what' -- and one can hardly imagine a less effectual and more dismissive response -- is based on abstract observation, or an actual review of the edit history. It's not my intent to out the user, but it's apparent that the account is that of Decima gallery's owner. I'm not totally clear what is meant by 'harming' Wikipedia, but I'm fairly sure that promotional ends are discouraged. The article on Quilla Constance, coincidentally, was created shortly before her scheduled performance at Decima, and though it's filled with sources, I believe many of them are thin or unacceptable as reliable references. Though Decima's notability may be beyond question, the fact that the article has been so thoroughly constructed by the gallery's owner should indeed invite scrutiny, at least for tone and reliability of sources. That seems to be a reasonable rationale for coming here. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows that I question WhatamIdoing's change to the relevant noticeboard, which appears to have been inspired by this report: [9]. Changing the wording to "Merely having a connection to the subject does not violate Wikipedia's rules: reported users should be editing in a way that clearly harms Wikipedia to promote their own interests" appears to raise the bar and subtly alter intent; the COI guidelines state "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline's emphasis is on neutrality. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the noticeboard to emphasize the importance of neutrality, which I think is a more integral point. The subsequent passage makes clear that editors with conflict of interest are not prohibited from editing. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I too was puzzled by the "so what" response. According to WP:COI, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" (emphasis in original). I see few contributions to Wikipedia by Alexchappel beyond the two articles mentioned above, excepting to Piers Wardle, an artist who happens to have exhibited at Decima gallery. Smells like promotion to me, and a genuine COI. --CliffC (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add:

Piers Wardle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
80.177.221.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
78.146.205.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--CliffC (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts and follow-up, CliffC. All told, the lack of response to this, and especially the initial blunt dismissal of the report, represent one of the reasons I retired my account and return only periodically as a gadfly: here's a promotional account, lately relying on press releases as sources, that continues to edit without a hitch. I suspect it's because, in part, not many contributors have an interest in art related topics. So it goes, but it underscores Wikipedia's weaknesses, and the relative ease with which a savvy account (see also Nick Halkes above) can game the system in order to promote its interests. 99.175.156.171 (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss

Kiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ctjf83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is some edit warring and alleged disruptive editing going on in the article, with discussion at Talk:Kiss#Kissing image placement. In trying to avoid 3rr and further edit warring, and because a COI issue may be relevant, I'm posting here. If there is a better place, please advise. Note that User:Ctjf83 has even filed an RfD for File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg, which could also imply a COI, if not a clear attempt at gaming the system. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for notifying me of this discussion, second the FfD is for an unrelated picture, that I wouldn't have even noticed, had you not moved the same-sex picture down there...are you saying because I'm gay I can't comment on a same-sex picture? CTJF83 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Peña Esclusa

Alejandro Peña Esclusa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rd232 (talk · contribs)
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user has proved to consistently forward the propaganda version of the Hugo Chavez government at the expense of neutrality. The most recent and most obvious example is in the article about A.P.E., a political opponent of Chavez, in which Rd232 inserted slanderous claims (see talk page). On the talk page I clearly and repeatedly warned him that it was slanderous, but he reinserted it twice after I removed it. In both the cited articles he is consistently introducing the spin from the Chavez propaganda. His editing style is so biased that I have to suspect that he, directly or indirectly (such as through an NGO supported by Chavez, directly or indirectly), is in fact working for the Chavez propaganda machine. I have only mentioned 2 articles but if my suspicion is correct he should be banned from editing any article relating to Venezuela, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Paraguay, Colombia, Libya, or anything relating to world politics, as all of those are subject to their propaganda and attempts to bias the articles. (There may be administrators who have the same conflict of interest.) Lindorm (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well just so nobody can say I didn't actually deny it: I don't edit for anybody else, and never have. That takes care of the alleged COI. (As for the ~~"slander"~~ "libel", I merely reported the Venezuelan government's claims, explicitly attributed, along with Esclusa's denial. Oddly, in the middle of Lindorm's angst (which BTW got him banned from the Italian Wikipedia for exactly the same issue with the equivalent article... cf its talk page and his BLPN report July 2010) he said "only as sources for their own position." Which I did.) Rd232 ^talk 13:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to reach consensus with Rd232 on that article, see Talk page, but he is stubborn as hell in getting the page to stay potentially libelous but at any rate very NPOV (As Political Career he lists the government's accusations!). Lindorm (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's "very NPOV". (WP:NPOV). Though that's probably not what you meant... Anyway Lindorm has now forumshopped to WP:BLPN, so unless the alleged COI requires further discussion, let's leave it here. Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gore-Tex

Gore-Tex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GoreArchives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:GoreArchives has kindly declared their COI and suggested some text on the talk page of Gore-Tex here. Shootbamboo (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was good of them, but there might be a problem with them having a group account. The Interior (Talk) 01:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George H. Richmond

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/George H. Richmond (edit | George H. Richmond | history | links | watch | logs)
Richmond12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I dont know why this article got refused based off of conflict of interest. I dont see how there is a conflict of interest in this article. Please let me know what I can do to fix the article. Thanks. Richmond12 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name may lead one to conclude that you are in some way connected with the subject of the draft, which would amount to a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm a Wikipedian. I write articles and contribute pictures. Been doing so about two years now. I like writing about people and things and topics I know tangentially. Like if there's an author I've read that I like. Or a topic that interests me. Or a friend of a friend who's in the papers. That sort of thing. I can contribute my writing and pictures; I don't have much $$ to give.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about something. Suppose somebody wants me to write about a certain subject. Normally I wouldn't write about that subject. But I would consider writing about that particular subject, obeying all Wikimedia's rules, IF the party agreed to contribute money to the Wikimedia Foundation. And I'd alert people that yes, I was writing this because somebody contributed $$ to the Wikimedia Foundation. Would this be cool with people here? And I'd want to make sure that Wikimedia did, in fact, receive the contributions. Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure about the right way to go about something like this, but the Wikipedia:Bounty board has similar requests. That way the arrangement would be public, and other editors could scrutinize the articles. The Interior (Talk) 19:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's exactly what I'm talking about -- The Bounty Board. But it looks like it's obscure and few people keep track; and the dollar amounts are dismal. Do u know if the monies promised are truly paid? And do enough Wikipedians know about this whole thing to make it worthwhile? Wondering what your thoughts are about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further thought. It looks like the BB concept is a good one, but it's been poorly implemented, right? So, let me jump a little and ask this. Suppose I offer on my user talk page that if somebody wants me to work on specific subjects (eg starting an article, improving it, monitoring it etc) then they can send me a check to my address, but it's made out to Wikimedia Foundation. So I'm getting the check before doing anything, ok? Now I get the check, then write/improve the article, then mail it to WM Foundation. AND I post a notice on the discussion page that this is what I did. Would that be cool with people here? And where do I mail the checks to. That sort of thing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Riders Union (Los Angeles)

Bus Riders Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jay1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello. I am editing this article about the Bus Riders Union and I am also affiliated with it organizationally. I have declared the affiliation on my user talk and also posted my affiliation and editing plans on the article talk page. I want to be careful about upholding and respecting NPOV, RS, COI principles. I just finished a first round of edits to the article. I am also new to wiki editing. Before I do another round of edits to this article, could someone please check my work and let me know if this has any COI (or other related) problems? Jay1955 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Popoff

Need more eyes here. An IP and an editor claiming to be related to Popoff have twice attempted to white wash the article. I have to go to bed and I'm not going to be around much this weekend, so I have to pass the ball off to someone with more time. --Daniel 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TFWiki.net links

Over the years, links to the fan wiki TFWiki.net have been added to many articles regarding Transformers. While the website can be a good source of information, there is a COI problem: among the people adding the links are users ItsWalky and Chris McFeely, who are TFWiki admins.

UsedToRuleTheWorld (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case should they not be prohibited from adding in the link as a source? Thereby avoiding one aspect of a COI problem. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:UsedToRuleTheWorld is a sockpuppet of blocked User:EditorXXV, an editor who is also blocked at tfwiki.net. On a more relevant note, tfwiki links have been present on many pages for several years. Unless such longstanding use can be traced back to ItsWalky, Chris McFeely, or another tfwiki editor are they actually displaying a COI if they add more to other Transformers related pages? --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Pinto feature

Rabbi Pinto Users who work for him are actively editing the page. Posted information earlier dont know why it was removed despite a user who posted info earlier saying that this scandal shouldnt be ignored.

Rabbi's right hand man who owns property with the rabbis wife and has power of attorney for Pinto - rabbi’s translator, gatekeeper and conduit to the outside world in America is a longtime pornographer. The Rabbi is revered in the United States and Israel for his financial advice, especially in real estate, Suky’s own real estate business has faced a string of lawsuits, foreclosures and legal judgments. And while Pinto is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, his adviser’s involvement in the pornography industry would seem to run counter to the tenets of modesty espoused by traditional Judaism. http://forward.com/articles/136819/#ixzz1J47HjPxA

Additionally no mention of $60 Million organization and 3 employees. Is noteable. Pls assist, http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/ 65.112.21.194 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 295: / Line 295: @@
 :In that case should they not be prohibited from adding in the link as a source? Thereby avoiding one aspect of a COI problem. [[User:Mabuska|Mabuska]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mabuska|(talk)]]</sup> 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 ::User:UsedToRuleTheWorld is a sockpuppet of blocked User:EditorXXV, an editor who is also blocked at tfwiki.net. On a more relevant note, tfwiki links have been present on many pages for several years. Unless such longstanding use can be traced back to ItsWalky,  Chris McFeely, or another tfwiki editor are they actually displaying a COI if they add more to other Transformers related pages? --[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
+== Rabbi Pinto feature ==
+[[Rabbi Pinto]] Users who work for him are actively editing the page.
+Posted information earlier dont know why it was removed despite a user who posted info earlier saying that this scandal shouldnt be ignored.
+Rabbi's right hand man who owns property with the rabbis wife and has power of attorney for Pinto - rabbi’s translator, gatekeeper and conduit to the outside world in America is a longtime pornographer. The Rabbi is revered in the United States and Israel for his financial advice, especially in real estate, Suky’s own real estate business has faced a string of lawsuits, foreclosures and legal judgments. And while Pinto is an ultra-Orthodox rabbi, his adviser’s involvement in the pornography industry would seem to run counter to the tenets of modesty espoused by traditional Judaism.
+http://forward.com/articles/136819/#ixzz1J47HjPxA
+Additionally no mention of $60 Million organization and 3 employees.  Is noteable. Pls assist,
+http://www.forward.com/articles/136250/
+[[Special:Contributions/65.112.21.194|65.112.21.194]] ([[User talk:65.112.21.194|talk]]) 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards