Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Access Industries Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Carbon Trust Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk: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:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek 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:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Amway Australia

• Amway Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Insider201283 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has for years been clear violator of NPOV and accused by many others of this, and posting promotional edits including links to their own sites, posting only commercially promotional positive edits, deleting negative edits. When in reality the real image of these companies is less than positive, and neutral media sources report a much more neutral/negative image. User claims to "not work for any direct selling company or any affilated organisations", but repeatedly posts references promoting his own non RS sites, which he has admitted are his own (pro-Amway/MLM sites), and he and his sites also admit to being a paid member of Amway, as do other sources, and is admitted on WP throughout discussions.

Due to the nature of MLM, being a affiliate/member of an MLM organisation and "not working for the company" are mutually exclusive. It is a members job to promote the business. Even if not officially holding a PR employee title of the company, every member in the organisation is involved in PR/self promotion, and is very difficult to keep NPOV and avoid COI. Whilst not the only member to contribute in this manner, other less WP experienced members are more obvious with their POV, but tend not to spend as much time crafting the POV as this member. Im sick of articles sounding like promotions, and editors reverting valid neutral edits from relaiable sources, only to get in to edit wars so others can keep their POV.

Shouldn't WP ban affiliates of MLM groups, mostly SPA, to continue editing these articles? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Financeguy222 generally. This situation needs more looking into by higher-ups.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Insider201283 hasn't been notified of this discussion. From a good faith point of view, I think it would be a good idea to do that.

I disagree with the suggestion to ban "affiliates of MLM groups". By and large, these affiliates are just folks and will have a perspective on the organisation that might not be otherwise available. Our usual WP:COI appear to be adequate. Is Insider201283 a distributor of Amway products? --Thepm (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

COI notification added to talk page.

Of course, very true, they can offer some interesting perspective (as can the Church of Scientology) in theory, but in practice here only seem to be heavily biased. What about the "promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality"? Many of the MLM related articles end up sounding like advertisements and propaganda brochures, write about every success and sales most often from non verifiable/RS, yet do everything they can to delete the negatives and legal problems, when in reality these groups are controversial to some degree. The articles struggle to keep any sign of neutrality, and get filled with all kinds of positive spin and weasel words.

What other suggestions do you have so we can prevent them from sounding like promotional puff pieces, except to limit editing from involved members? More obvious disclosures still would not fix the neutrality problems.

Anyone who is paid to represent Amway and promote it falls under COI does it not? IMO this case falls under campaigning, self-promotion,financial and several other examples of COI.

Without "outing" the specific identity of Insider, he is well known in the MLM community (identities which he has admitted to on WP) as being a distributor (what they call an IBO) and promoter of Amway.

Financeguy222 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Financeguy, I fixed the indent of your comment above (hope you don't mind) and have notified Insider201283 of this discussion. When I asked above whether Insider201283 is an Amway distributor, I was asking whether it was openly acknowledged by Insider201283 or whether it was merely assumed.

it is important that the articles have a neutral point of view. If there are reliable sources with negative information, this should be included and we should not allow someone to remove them without good cause. It might be helpful at this point if you provided some specific examples of deletion of negative information and/or promotion of inappropriate information. --Thepm (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, does this one never let up? First of all, as it clearly states on my user page, I do not work for Amway and never have. I suggest people refer to this discussion in a mediation case I was involved in when this issue was raised some years back. More than a decade ago I actively built in Amway distributorship, I have not done so for many years and that business was transferred to my former wife. Like many other people I continue to maintain a membership primarily for the purpose of getting Amway products at wholesale price. I may or may not decide to build an Amway business in the future. Some years back when living in Paris and with not much to do I discovered the ridiculous amounts of, frankly BS, on the internet about the company and business model and began engaging critics and that eventually resulted in me starting some independent sites about the company. I continue to do operate them to this day and apart from googleads receive no renumeration to do so. On those sites I post and comment both positively and negatively about company and distributor operations. In other words, I blog about a company and research it and collate information on it. I have a collected a large number of books, research papers and newspaper articles on the company and have I think become somewhat of an expert on it's operations and culture. Like a number of independent people who have done similar, rather that just read rants on the internet and the occasional misinformed journalist who has done the same, that has indeed led to me having a positive view of the company. Alas I've learned that in the eyes of the dedicated anti-MLM critic, anyone with a positive viewpoint can immediately be dismissed as biased. Indeed, when editing articles by other companies in the industry - ie direct competitors to Amway - I've been accused, when including information that might be considered "positive" of having a COI there as well!

FinanceGuy222's claims about my edits here are patently false. I have contributed significantly to articles in the direct selling area including both negative and positive aspects. By contrast FG222 actively deletes well sourced information that does not fit his POV. For example he will cite court cases where Amway has been involved, and delete information where Amway won the case or it was dismissed. He has just done that again today as part of wholesale deletions on the Amway Australia article. He for example insists on rewording information on a tax case involving Amway in it's most "negative" manner, and deletes the fact that Amway won the case completely on appeal. I am unaware of a single time where he has edited any of these articles without a very clearly and strongly negative point of view. In the article on Network 21 (for which I wrote the "controversy" section, including introducing new material!) he insists on using a small town US newspaper article as a source for the subject of a UK court case and refuses to allow the court judgement itself as a source, which shows the newspaper articles description of the case to be incorrect. Hypocritically he has now used that same court judgement as a source for the judges opinion on third parties not involved in the court case - a clear misuse of a primary source. In the current Amway Australia article, FG222 insists on including highly POV wording from a question in NSW parliament about Amway, but deletes the fact that the response by the Minister was what might be interpreted as "positive" - ie there were no problems. Personally I think that particular matter is so minor, based on a primary source, and given the response, un-notable, that it doesn't even deserve a place in the article. It's simply untenable to include it and ignore the response! FG222 has demonstrated a clear inability to edit these articles in NPOV way, indeed he doesn't even make an attempt to and generally refuses to discuss his concerns on talk pages. I encourage third parties to look at the Amway Australia article and FG222's wholesale deletions of my attempts to improve the article with what he claims are non RS sources. These sources include the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, books by independent academics, corporate annual reports (for sales figures) and such. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, FinanceGuy222 has now reverted my edits 4 times, in violation of WP:3RR and I have reported him. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

To say I make it the "most negative" is completely false, I dont appreciate those claims, especially from someone who has been accused of COI/POV many times by many editors.

I find your attempt to flip around the NPOV argument amusing, if anyone wants to edit/mediate those articles, or discuss my edits they can do so or discuss on those pages, not clog up here.

What I do not appreciate are your blatant falsehoods.

For example, in the Amway tax case, I clearly stated they had a "partial win" (after Tax Office said they were in violation), exactly the wording of the source. no POV.

In the parliamentary source, there is no POV, I simply stated the business practices were "questioned" at a very high level of state, worth mentioning as the company is controversial.

Im constantly having to fix wording of editors who try to put positive spins on it, when it is neutral or negative in reality. I try to keep it to the source wording as much as possible. It is Insider who attempts to remove these and give them extreme POV, and accusing me is an attempt to divert attention away from his own acts.

This is not about me, lets stick to the matter at hand, of COI, and that as a result the articles don't read encyclopaedic like at all, but of promotional puff pieces, that are not a fair representation of the companies.

Financeguy222 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is about you as well, see the top of the page - "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited". As for the tax case, yes, you clearly stated the had a "partial win", but you deleted the fact that on appeal they had a complete win. With regard the parliamentary source, you took a highly POV "question" from a primary source (which should be avoided) that gave a POV of problems and then neglected (and deleted) the response to the question in the same source, which indicated there was no controversy or problem. Yesterday, as a start on improving the article, I added a series of factual information on the history of Amway Australi, no POV at all, and all based on reliable and verifiable sources - including sources you had used - and you deleted the lot claiming the sources were not RS! I would suggest you have a cognitive COI here. Ask yourself honestly, are you able to edit this and related articles in an NPOV way? Ask yourself why you included the parliamentary question, but not the Ministers response, which from is far more important. Why have you removed the fact that Amway won the tax case completely on appeal? Why, in related articles, have you insisted on including allegations from court cases, but fought tooth and nail to have the fact the cases were dismissed not included? Why did you claim a court judgement was not a reliable source about that court case, then use the same court judgement as a source for the judges opinion on parties not even involved in the case? None of that is the actions of an editor trying to be "neutral". It's quite clear that anything you read that is not negative you consider "promotional". That's not what "neutral POV" means. FG222, can you honestly state you have a neutral, or close to neutral POV on Amway and network marketing? You've challenged me - could you give some of your background and interests as to why you're editing these articles? What's your interest in them? Why are you so determined to remove factual, sourced information that puts the companies in a "positive" light? --Insider201283 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As already stated, youre detracting from the discussion at hand here, as to your claims about me with handling court cases etc, I have no recollection of any of what you are saying to be true, and if you have issue I advise you to bring it up on the relevant talk page.

I have absolutely no involvement with MLM groups or competitors, so I am able to provide NPOV. My mission is to provide unbiased articles here on all topics and I despise propaganda POV and COI. MLM articles in particular tend to attract zealot MLM affiliates dogmatic in their assertions, then attempting to shoot down others (No one else has ever accused me of major WP violations except you, whereas you have been many times, ask yourself why is that? Possibly for very good reason).

Why do you insist on promoting your own sites and unverifiable sources in the refs, and spinning (way beyond what this article deserves in way of encyclopaedic information) some RS/some nonRS ref articles into wording beyond what the source states into some kind of perfect dream company notion, when in reality these companies are dogged by court cases and pyramid scheme claims etc (which arn't even mentioned in the article, so I can't be that POV can I)? To accuse others of POV/COI is laughable when so many others feel you are.

Now lets get some other people's opinions Financeguy222 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not use any of my sites as sources nor are any of the sources I use unverifiable. The reality is Amway is not "dogged by court cases" nor by pyramid scheme claims except by the likes of yourself - and every single time they've been found not to be a pyramid. Relative to it's size, Amway is involved in very few court cases. Yet the myths persist. Perhaps because MLM articles tend to attract zealot MLM critics who are dogmatic in their assertions and then attempt to shoot down others? I've noticed today you've been deleting numerous factual claims from related articles. Granted they were usually poorly sourced, but a proper contribution to Wikipedia would be to find a proper source and correct it rather than simply delete stuff. What possible motivation could you have for deleting the entirely uncontroversial facts (albeit outdated) that Amway owned Peter Island? Or that Chloe Maxwell operates an Amway business[1]? Or that Libby Trickett is an Amway spokesperson[2]? --Insider201283 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, from my point of view, this looks less like a COI matter and more like a good old fashioned edit-war between two editors with sincerely held but opposing points of view. My suggestion is that you identify specific edits that you don't agree on and seek a formal third opinion. --Thepm (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He can't identify any specific edits that are problematic. This appears to be harassment by Financeguy222 couched in terms of a COI dispute. I looked at the article after seeing it mentioned on the 3RR board and found Financeguy222 page blanking and POV pushing. His contribution history shows an unhealthy obsession with Amway. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, FinanceGuy222 is currently under a 24hr ban for edit warring [3]. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any recent specific edits in error, but the Insider does have a clear conflict of interest in regard Amway — not because of present financial interest in Amway, but to flog his blog. He had made "whitewashing" edits in the article Amway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I vehemently object to this comment. Both regarding a supposed COI "to flog my blog" (Really? how does that work?) or "whitewashing". As already I pointed out, I've added controversial issues not previously covered. If you have a problem with any of the edits on this article or any other article I made, then point them out rather than making unjustified personal attacks. It's unfortunate that people with a particular POV feel they have to resort to personal attacks and COI claims rather than pointing out any actual problems. That kind of rubbish has what led me to take almost a year off editing here. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm coming to this discussion late (in large part because I just returned yesterday from a 6 month hiatus). This subject is certainly not new to me, my first involvement in a discussion about Insider201283 was two years ago, see here.

To begin with... No, MLM affiliates and members are not banned from articles related to their businesses. We don't have a blanket ban on anyone because of COI concerns. There have been a number of efforts to enforce rules on Wikipedia when an editor receives some kind of financial compensation (directly or indirectly) from the edits they make, see WP:Paid editing for the failed attempts. The best authority we have on the subject is simply an essay which merely offers advice on how to deal with the subject. We treat all cases on an individual basis, look at what disruption (if any) the editor has caused, and come up with a way to prevent further disruption.

Since no actual disruption has been presented, my best conclusion is that Financeguy222 has tried to use a COI claim to stifle an opposition to his POV, which should not be permitted. Considering that he was recently blocked for edit warring I think this is a safe conclusion. As to allegations that Insider201283 is trying to promote their blog, that would certainly be troublesome, but I don't see evidence of that. If Insider201283 was promoting their blog, that would be a problem. I can't even find a link to that blog anywhere. -- Atama頭 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I will take more care with my edits, the last thing I want to be associated with is a POV.

The issues I have in general are filling the articles with junk content that does not really add much to the article as a quality encyclopaedic article, but only serve to promote Amway. For example all the fluff information about their internal computer systems, which celebrities are paid to endorse the company etc. Certainly on the "celebrities" own page entries, the mention of endorsements seems only for the purpose of promoting Amway. Other celebrities such as Jacky Chan (who endorses possibly hundreds of products, has not a single one mentioned on his article). Does not seem worth noting. What are other's opinions on this?

Another issue, the way the page is broken up into sections or now lack of. Insider's POV is that the Controversy section be removed, IMO to sanitize the image. I think the majority perception is that these Multi Level Marketing companies / money making schemes are steeped in controversy, apart from general perception this is justified in an encyclopaedic means by all the court cases and legal battles. The main Amway article has such a section, listing all the pyramid scheme court cases, lawsuits and other issues. Would it not be fair to have a section collecting such incidents due to the nature of the business and related incidents? Some are already mentioned in the article (which are both positive and negative outcomes for Amway) and were previously in a Controversy section in months past). Whilst we should be careful not to harm the image of anyone, the problem I have is such careful whitewashing/weasel words used to clean up the image to an unrealistic positive POV that ends up sounding like a promotional puff piece, and distort or play down any negative aspects, not a realistic view, nor a fair encyclopaedic entry.

In particular, Insider edited in his own site Amwaywiki filled with his own POV 3+ times into the article after I had removed it and pointed out he was doing so, then he lied about doing so.

Viriditas claims I have an "unhealthy obsession with Amway". Which when put in perspective if you look at Insider in comparison to myself that statement looks ridiculous. Insider has made thousands of edits on the subject, and little else, and is reported to have started 23 or more pro-Amway websites, and contributed his POV to just about every other Amway related website and article on the net. If my interest is unhealthy, Insider's is terminal.

It has also been reported recently that Insider is the founder of several websites focused on professional Online Media Management/Reputation Management services for companies. This is a great cause for concern in regards to his COI and any article he edits.Financeguy222 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simply more false and offensive claims from Financeguy222, whom I have reason to believe is the one who has "outed" me (ie linking my wikipedia identity/real identity - a serious WP offence, any admins reading, feel free to contact me to discuss) with similar false claims on what I believe is his blog. His pointing it out here is indeed "outing" in itself, clear WP:Harassment. On other matters, FG222 does not seem to understand that a convenience link direct to a PDF file of a court judgement on another wiki (of which I have very little editorial input) is not a link to "my own site". Given this has occurred only twice out of the "thousands" of edits he claims I do (and one of those wasn't even me who put it in, though I did inadvertently re-add it as part of a larger cut and paste of material FG222 had blanket deleted, and I later changed that link to a better source without any input from other editors) not exactly a major problem is it? As for removing the "controversy" section, what I am suggesting, and discussing in talk, is incorporating the controversies in to the main body of the article (for the Amway article as well), as is recommended in WP:Structure, part of policy WP:NPOV. Not exactly "removed". Financeguy222 has made clear his POV here, with the statement that "the majority perception is that the MLM ... schemes" etc are "steeped in controversy". This is in fact false. The vast, vast majority of RS coverage of Amway is not "steeped in controversy" at all. Alas some editors refuse to let the sources lead them and know what they know, evidence be damned. It is not up to us, for example, to decide what is "fluff" or not. Amway's ecommerce websites and systems have received extensive 3rd party coverage in quality sources. Given they're a leader in the ecommerce world, coverage of their systems would seem more than appropriate. Financeguy222 would like that information to not be reported, but is adamant that a *question* posed in a state parliament and part of the transcript, with *no* media coverage at all, be highlighted and published in an incredibly misleading and highly biased and POV manner [4].--Insider201283 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll await response from others in regards to the article content/direction/fluff by someone not accused by others of POV/COI multiple times. I intentionally stated it was "perception" then backed it up by mentioning the court cases etc. The fact of the controversies can be seen in many RS sources, looking at Amway alone, which lists about 5 pages worth of Controversy. To claim these companies are not controversial clearly indicates your POV, thankyou for supporting my argument.

Youre attempting to out me, and link me to other websites. Considering I don't own any websites on the matter, it is a little curious. Your ID has previously been outed here, and you have admitted to owning those Amway sites previously. You can't out something that is already out.

Having said that, I still attempt to be careful and respect the wp:harrassment/outing. I was careful not to mention names, state exact websites, or the exact details, nor linked to the references proving the ownership/possible conflict. But I think if an editor had/has a website dedicated to reputation management services, this could be a serious cause for concern for their ability to have NPOV and very likely to have a serious COI, which is inline with accusations levelled at Insider several times here and elsewhere by others.

You're accusing me of making false statements? You just admitted to posting your own site several times (which you have also done in the past), then try to play down that you have much to do with your own site, yet flog it here multiple times. With as many pro Amway sites as you do, and apparently earning somewhat of your living from Amway, how can you seriously keep a NPOV? As you stated above you have not been active for "many years" in Amway, but on another source dated 15 months ago stated you had "3 Amway businesses". These contradictions in your story still do not draw attention away from the "reputation management" issue, that is a very serious issue I outlined above, with a potential for massive COI. I have intentionally not named more details here, but I think admins should give very careful consideration to the matter, and I am prepared to offer more information if need be.Financeguy222 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Financeguy222 is continuing with these false allegations. This is clear WP:Harrassment. Reporting to oversight. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to engage in speculation regarding User:Insider201283 identity and relationship with Amway. However, as a person who regularly engages in public relations work on Wikipedia on behalf of Amway he is required to make an appropriate disclosure and conform to our conflict of interest guidelines. His current declaration of interest is inadequate and does not conform to professional public relations practice, see Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics 2000. He is welcome to edit within our guidelines. This was my response to his oversight request, but has not been discussed at length with the oversight committee. A more definitive resolution could develop after discussion if User:Insider201283 continues to pursue the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem may be more point of view editing than conflict of interest. Insider201283 seems to have a strong interest in maintaining a positive point of view in our articles about multi-level marketing. To that end he familiarized himself with our guidelines respecting reliable sources and has marshaled sources with serve his purposes. He is often right when he removes negative information from sources which do not satisfy our guidelines. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fred, I am extremely upset at this response. I requested the help of oversight to deal with the false allegations of FG222 and instead you are repeating them as if they are true! What "declaration of interest" is it you are expecting me to write? Do I have to disclose I (like millions of others) use googleads on some websites and make money from that? That I'm an Amazon affiliate and have made $16 off them? That I have a membership card with my local supermarket and get rebates, just like Amway? Every company I ever worked for? I'm sorry but this response is deeply offensive and appears to be simply repeating FG222's false allegations. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have made several claims about involvement, some which contradict what you stated above implying you have not been involved for years

I am not making any accusations, perhaps some were made in the past, but everything Im saying now is verifiable, including your involvement in some sites some would deem suspect to your COI position. I am not making claims about exact associations. To continue to state I am harassing you and outing you (when you have outed yourself already), then attempting to out me or link me with some website, and making all these other claims is harassment, and being reported to oversight ::Financeguy222 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Insider201283 is right now whitewashing and removing negative sources from Multi-level marketing [5][6][7][8][9] (the last one being subtle POV pushing via replacing negative sources with positive ones). I see that in Talk:Network_TwentyOne he's aggressively fighting any negative sources. I'm not surprised at all to find that he appears to have a COI. Maybe it's time for a topic ban on MLM articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief, I removed a self-published website that has previously discussed and removed, and an opinion piece columnist (both of which are recommended NOT to be used under WP:RS) and replaced them with solid RS sources, as well as rewrote and added new material, including new criticism material not previously mentioned. Funny how you don't mention that! --Insider201283 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion for a topic ban for this editor. I am seeing considerable evidence of POV pushing and contentious editing on their part. Background research on the editor indicates that a COI may exist. I don't want to out the editor's identity here, as per WP policy, but if it's necessary, this case can be taken to WP admin privately and an assessment can be made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI, RIR is not an uninvolved editor. He(?) and I are in dispute with each other over on theUSANA article, where, in my opinion he appears to be trying to block/remove as much "positive" information from the article as he can and I'm assisting another editor in getting the article to a higher standard. Note of course that if all of these COI allegations were correct, it means I'm actively "writing for the enemy" as USANA is a direct competitor of Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I researched more. He has been POV pushing and wikilawyering the MLM article since 2008. Previous whitewash attempt in March[10], February[11], March [12][13] (wikilawyering a valid source in RS/N until it was rejected here), August 2009[14], July 2009[15][16], June 2009[17][18]. His last constructive edits were in February-March 2009[19][20][21], back when the article said nothing negative about MLM. Oh, wait, that was because Insider20183 was removing all negative sources and info with no attempt to integrate it[22][23](yeah, those two are rants, but he makes no attempt to integrate the info)[24][25] and adding positive info[26]. Most egregiously these removals back in 2008[27][28][29]. Those were also his first edits to the article. All the constructive edits are addition of positive info and removal of spam. I have found no additions of negative info in this article. And in the talk page, this is representative of how he wikilawyers negative sources out of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing unsourced false claims? Guilty as charge! Getting rid of sources like this - guilty as charged! Good grief. Seriously, doesn't the fact that this kind of stuff is almost entirely sourced to non-RS material, and not reflected in RS material, give you just pause to think perhaps it's not entirely accurate? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've looked over Enric's allegations and I'll go over them one at a time. It's a lot of stuff dumped at once so I'll go through the first paragraph first.

• This diff shows the removal of a self-published source, compliant with our guidelines at WP:SPS.
• This diff also removes that source.
• This diff is nit-picking; I would personally say that any criticism is by definition "alleged" (because a criticism is a kind of allegation) so adding the word wasn't necessary, but it's hardly "whitewashing".
• This diff is something I have mixed feelings about. I'd consider a column in USA Today to be a reliable source if used properly, calling it a non-reliable source isn't totally accurate. But Insider was correct to remove it, because it actually contradicts the information that it is supposed to support. The article stated, "Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling", but the source said, "In a multi-level situation, I make money off my sales and also the sales of those I bring in to the organization", which indicates that MLM does include actual direct selling.
• This diff could have used an edit summary for explanation, but I only see references being moved around, not completely removed, so calling this a whitewash is absurd.
• A claim that Insider has aggressively fought negative sources in Talk:Network TwentyOne is a subjective determination. What I mostly see is a conflict specifically with Financeguy222. I don't see such a problem interacting with other editors on that talk page. I'm not saying it's Financeguy222's fault, but sometimes editors don't get along for whatever reason.

I'll look at the second paragraph later. Indeed there's a lot to cover. So far what I mostly see is that Insider is following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies properly (in those diffs) but his edits are spun to have a sinister motive because of the belief of a COI. I might find something more damaging in the other paragraph after I analyze it. -- Atama頭 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

He still has an Amway membership and says he might build it up again someday; he makes money off Google Ads on his myriad pro-Amway/pro-MLM websites. These are to me clear evidence of COI. He clearly and openly discloses on his user page that he has a pro-Amway/pro-MLM POV, as he is expected to do given his COI (Amway's history of political shenanigans in the U.S. are clearly of no interest to him, which is reasonable enough). I repeat, he clearly discloses all this. What more do the complainants want him to do? (Full disclosure: it took me over a decade to forgive a friend who invited me to an "informational meeting" that turned out to be an Amway recruiting pitch, complete with advice on how to commit tax fraud by making false claims about purchases purportedly for "business purposes".) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in MLM in the past (in my case, it was Excel Communications) and that left me with a very low opinion of the whole concept. So if anyone wants to know where I could have a bias, it might fall along those lines. Regardless of my personal feelings, we don't ban people because they have a COI. We ban people because their actions are disruptive. I'm trying to find examples of this disruption. As Orange Mike pointed out, Insider has disclosed his affliations, which is a courtesy we'd like to see from anyone who might have a COI regarding the subject they are editing. As I said, I'm still looking things over though. -- Atama頭 18:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not a fan of either Excel (not enough margins in communications to support an MLM model, so asking for trouble) or tricking people into meetings or promoting tax fraud (clearly unethical)! None of them are however inherent in the model - though the model has some features that may attract people who are less than ethical (primarily the low startup costs - both from a corporate perspective and a rep perspective). I had a reference talking about that issue that I was thinking of using for the MLM article. Can't find it now :( --Insider201283 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not saying it's Financeguy222's fault, but sometimes editors don't get along for whatever reason." Atama, It's not about getting along, I just really don't like seeing promotional POV. For him to accuse me of outing and false allegations to the point of harassment, when he already outed himself here, then to whinge and report me, only to then try and out me is completely hypocritical. Insider has been accused by many many people over the years of the exact same thing. Elsewhere (where he has outed himself) he has made different claims about his role as an Amway distributor, which contradict what he stated above and in his disclosure. Having websites dedicated to a potential reputation management service does not automatically mean COI, but if several independent people suspect someone has COI/promotional POV due to the editing content, at minimum the person should give pause to think perhaps what they write could be more neutral. As per his disclosure he has a biased positive POV, which harms his neutrality on the topic when it comes to reporting such things as controversies, all the legal problems etc. This is the main issue of his edits that keeps being dragged up time and time again by multiple editors. Financeguy222 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's thing isn't it, as pointed out by Viriditas - you "can't identify any specific edits that are problematic". By contrast, Financeguy222 is a guy who wants this primary source (not reported anywhere - but read it yourself) summarised in the article as "Amway Australia's distribution practices were questioned in Australian parliament for being dishonest, unethical and inappropriate". This is the guy who repeatedly deleted edits to the article, based on published books by academics and media like The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, and Sydney Morning Herald as "unverifiable self-published sources", resulting in him receiving a 24hr ban[30]. Who exactly has a NPOV problem here?.

More lies. Apart from admitting in your talk that you have a positive POV. THE SPS was your own site, which you denied putting in, yet in fact flogged it and tried to promote it in the article after it was removed multiple times, then you lied about doing so after I notified you you were doing so, even after you have being told off in the past for doing exactly this. The 24hr ban was for reverting your POV/COI promotional editing (attempting to promote your own site, puff up the article etc), after you whinged about it I received a temp ban, and I have not touched the article since to see if you improve, or slowly add in your POV, and diffuse negative refs as you have done so in the past. The POV issues has been outlined above some in precise detail, by myself and others, and over the years. Your disclosure about your true involvement in Amway is also unsatisfactory and contradicts other online sources you have outed yourself on. Such lies do not do you any favours if attempting to appear honest and neutral. Financeguy222 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, as pointed out by Viriditas - you "can't identify any specific edits that are problematic". All that needs to be said, your POV is clear. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas is understably ignorant to the topic, and did not have time to go through your thousands of hours worth of contributions towards Amway/MLM to see your obsession with it.

You are constantly wikilawyering, I have already provided specific examples:

1.Being warned for promoting your own site, then proceeding to post it multiple times after I reverted it out. Then lying about it.

2.Spinning as much of the controversies as possible, even removing the "Controversies" headline in AA article, even though these money making schemes and companies are inherently controversial, and articles do not reflect reality, but a PR sounding commercial POV.

3.Adding all the fluff content which is out of proportion to an encyclopaedic entry, such as what computer systems they are using,excessive slant to promote content related to growth, sales etc which at least could be better worded to not sound like a fluff piece/ad. Apart from sounding clunky it sounds like reading a promotional pamphlet, not an encyclopedia, when in reality Amway is dogged by pyramid scheme accusations and court cases.

4.Same again with mentioning who is contracted to endsorse AA, which you colorfully phrase as "engagement of brand ambassadors" obvious Amway propaganda.

5.In a general sense, a large proportion of entries youve ever made on the subject, spinning it to a positive POV/slant, adding subtle, sometimes not so subtle positive adjectives where they previously did not exist, or giving longer entries to positive refs, and playing down/removing negative ones.

Since it is many people accusing you of such disruptive behaviour, it is obviously a real degree of POV you are pushing that is offending so many editors.

Financeguy222 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the indenting on FG222's reply (hope you don't mind). FG, can you provide specific edits that illustrate your five points? --Thepm (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some references. The edits by Insider201283 / Icerat used a lot of self published and questionable sources, promotional in nature, which is not always a bad thing if used well, but the MLM company articles often end up sounding promotional, and how "amazing" they are without editorial realism, and struggle to be balanced or what reflects an encyclopaedic entry.

Reverting back in his own site issue:

Revision as of 13:06, 21 April 2011

"posting promotional edits including links to their own sites,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=427019259&oldid=425160778

Revision as of 17:08, 21 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=427021346&oldid=425192656

Revision as of 20:17, 21 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=425266055&oldid=425220457

warning of linking to own site

03:28, 22 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amway_Australia&diff=426528637&oldid=425276331

Revision as of 04:50, 22 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=427021346&oldid=425284374

"Why do you insist on promoting your own sites?"

Insider: "I do not use any of my sites as sources "

Revision as of 08:11, 22 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=427019259&oldid=425302418

Not the first time this site has attempted to be promoted and called out as promotional.

Crafting "bad news"/controversy.

There are thousands of edits dedicated to MLM/Amway made by Insider, enough to cause many people to accuse of POV. In more recent times:

Deletion of "Controversy" section

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=425019664

Makes the article more difficult to read and obfuscates the whole article, even though the controversies are sometimes in AA's favour, big tax precedent decisions etc, it appears to be a way to sanintize their image, especially in conjunction with all the "achievements" edits. Why take away formatting and lump it all into one big block of text?

As shown in these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=425192656&oldid=425153831

All the positive listing of unspectacular achievements, anniversary celebrations, detailed description of their internal computer system, their use of social networking services such as twitter? These are not very notable events, and dilute the articles informative value. I do not see the point of an article describing all of these, especially when coming from promotional SPS, but even if not. Except to fluff and promote, why are these worth noting?

Revision as of 17:08, 21 April 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=next&oldid=425192656

The mention of who the brand's endorsers are, again, more fluff, not to mention the phrasing "engagement of brand ambassadors" is Amway propaganda as opposed to paid endorsement contracts. Apart from serving to promote Amway, why would you mention who is paid to endsorse a brand? This is not normal for other brands.

These are recurring themes over most of "Icerat"'s edits, and the COI problems as outlined above.

Financeguy222 (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FG222, you may want to review WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Icerat (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

FG222 is continuing to refuse to follow wikipedia policy, reverting attempts to remove a POV imposing structure, contrary to WP:STRUCTURE. A third perspective would be appreciated. The specific issue is listed on NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Amway_Australia here. (ps I have recently changed username) --Icerat (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections are the result of poor Wikipedia article editing. As Icerat pointed out, they are discouraged because they lead to a POV imbalance. What's better is to integrate controversies in the body of the article, which is more difficult to do than lazily tossing them into a controversy section. I know this well from extensive personal experience, but the end result is a much better quality article. When you say it makes the article more difficult to read, that's actually not the view of the community at large, as evidenced by what is written in our NPOV guideline.

There may be merit to your claim of Icerat trying to promote his own website(s), but exactly what websites would that be? You have diffs but I can't tell what websites you're talking about. Maybe Icerat can disclose for us what the websites are, or Financeguy222 perhaps you can state what they are. It's not really clear. If this really is occurring, there may be a legitimate complaint about promotion, especially where a COI is involved.

As to your complaint about fluff in this edit, I can see where you're coming from. That history section seems to go a bit too much in-depth describing the affiliate's progress, and should be trimmed down. As for the use of SPS, that's a valid claim, though we don't completely disallow SPS we certainly don't rely on them for anything controversial. But the section is a bit much, for example the sentence "On April 18, 2011 Amway Australia celebrated 40 years in business" is 100% unnecessary (it already says that the company started in 1971 in the lead). The proper response to something like this is to trim out what isn't needed, challenge anything that is supported by a weak source, and fix it. You don't wipe it all out and say, "still up to your old COI NPOV tricks I see". That's being disruptive and shows a complete unwillingness to collaborate, in fact it's borderline WP:OWN. And you're really shooting yourself in the foot with such tactics, as I said I see some legitimate complaints from you but they're lost in the noise about COI. -- Atama頭 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

While I do see aspects of Icerat's history that raise concerns about a possible COI, I had a look at the diff edits and felt this particular isolated example (i.e., whether or not to have a controversy section) is really more of an editorial dispute. Controversy sections ideally should (not must) be avoided, but I've seen quite a few cases where it serves as an acceptable solution, at least temporarily until such time that an appropriate way can be found to weave it into the main text. But the 2 controversy examples in this case really aren't substantial enough in themselves to warrant a separate Controversy section and it would be fairly simple to move the 'controversial' text into the main text (as to where it would be best located, I haven't an opinion). What's surprising to me is that Amway Australia has its own article, since the content could easily be folded into the main Amway article -- which happens to contain a massive controversy section. The main article mentions controversial detais pertaining to Amway in Canada, India, the UK, Belgium, and Poland, etc., so it seems quite odd that Amway Australia would be given a free pass and not have anything in its article that addresses controversy with the company in general (having a controversy section with a link "see Amway: Controversy" might be an option). At first sniff, it smells as though the article spinoff may have involved a little PR whitewashing. FinanceGuy's COI concerns may not be entirely unfounded, given the narrow focus of the Icerat's contributions and the partisna position stated on his/her userpage[31] and I can see how that such suspicion would have been cause for hightened sensitivity during the dispute (I haven't checked the history for past disputes between these users). IMO, Icerat walks a fine line and has quite a tendency for WP:TE/WP:DE, which I have observed through firsthand interactions on other articles. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a comment on the "brand ambassador" issue: This is definitely not Amway-specific propaganda. Lots of companies use this. We have two or three dozen articles that directly link to the redirect Brand ambassador. Choosing that language only shows that the editor is keeping up with the marketing industry's euphemism treadmill. It is not an unfair promotion of Amway to use the newer industry-standard terminology instead of the older terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, Rhode Island Red is not an uninvolved editor, as we are in dispute in another article, ironically it's a competiter to Amway, yet RIR is making similar COI noises there and where, IMO, he' crosses the line in to WP:TE/WP:DE - but that's not a dispute for this discussion. In any case, it appears some editors believe that having a difference of opinion on the legitimacy of an entire $119 billion global industry constitues a COI. C'est la vie. Re WhatamIdoing's point, yes I was just using standard terminology used by both Amway and other companies, frankly it's not that important if people want "ambassador" instead of "brand ambassador". Re the Amway Australia article's separate existence it was involved in an AfD before I become involved in it and the conclusion was that it was independently notable. The two minor "controversy" issues mentioned are pretty much the only RS "controversy" anyone has been able to come up with for the company in Australia. Believe it or not an article doesn't have to address controversy/criticism if little of it exists! Alas they often end up having it anyway as some people have a particular POV they won't let go of, so something has to be included for the sake of reaching a consensus. In any case, WP:STRUCTURE suggests avoiding such dedicated sections and that's what I was trying to follow in the edit FG222 kept reverting. In my view the very labelling of these two topics as "controversial" is POV editing. A question was asked in parliament years ago, a response was given that there was no problems, it received no media coverage whatsoever. Controversy? Where? FG222 objected to (by repeatedly deleting) the Minister's response about their being no problems being included in the article. The other issue was a minor tax dispute on business deductions, Amway won on most points, then won the additional points on appeal. There was some minor secondary source coverage because like many tax rulings it affects other companies. "Controversy"? No, not really, and best I can find it's certainly never been referred to that way in secondary sources. FG222 objected (by repeatedly deleting) the fact being included that Amway had won all points on appeal. The first "controversy" barely deserves even mention, the second at least has some coverage, but neither should be POV-labelled. It's exactly what WP:STRUCTURE points out to avoid. Re Atama's question regarding "promoting my own blogs", I think that FG222's problem is(was) with a PDF file of an Amway Asia Pacific annual report that was linked to. His problem being the file is on the amwaywiki.com server. That open wiki happens to be a site I host (though only occasionally edit). The annual report was used (and the copy on Amway Wiki directly linked to) by another editor, not me, well before I got involved[32]. When I re-installed a large swathe of text FG222 had deleted that source was also reinstated. Note that the source is the annual report which is RS, not Amway Wiki, which is not RS. FG222 doesn't see the difference. In any case last week after FG222's complaints here I went through all the sources used and this source (again, added by another editor, not me) is the closest I could find to him claiming I'm "promoting my own blogs" so I found a copy of the PDF on archive.org and changed the link to that version. --Icerat (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues at stake here. One is the COI issue and the other is the specific editorial conflict pertaining to Amway Australia. I just had a chance to review the article in depth and check the references and I found potential problems with most of the citations (offline sources, questionable sources, outdated content of questionable notability etc.). In fact, almost all of the references could be reasonably challenged. I see very little content in the article that establishes the notability of this subject as a stand alone article. Spinning off Amway Australia so as to distance that affiliate from the controversies associated (and described in detail) with the parent company seems misleading and whitewashy to me (I'll go back and review the discussion that led to the spinoff). That being said, while FinanceGuy's reversions may not have been the best course of action in dealing with the issue, his frustration is understandable, and subsequently posting on this noticeboard was the proper step to take to address it. As for the COI issue, I think that there is enough evidence to raise legitimate concerns but it might be difficult to pursue the issue further here without risking outing the individual in question. The issue might have to go to a user conduct RfC or to WP admins offline for further (discrete) investigation. I suggest that further comments about the editorial issue be taken back to the article's talk page. Hopefully, some of the editors who are now newly aware of the issues will weigh in there and help to resolve the matter amicably, because so far it has received little attention from editors other than Icerat and FinanceGuy. Failing that, an RfC about the article content might be the next step. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discrete offline investigations?! Good grief, people are already paranoid about admins and cabals and whatnot, do you want to give people something real to fret about? As I'd said, the content of the article is definitely questionable, and now it seems to be that it's odd for the Australia branch to have its own article. An AfD to request a merge or delete might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment wasn't meant to stoke paranoia. It's just a statement of reality -- sometimes it's difficult to get to the bottom of COI issues without outting the editor, so if there is evidence of a COI tied to the user's real identity, it's best to let WP admin handle it (with due discretion applied). My warning was both to prevent the editor from being outted and to prevent anyone else from getting in trouble for outting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, cry me a river. As it happens I privately provided links to the blog with the BS on it to an admin right back at the beginning of this piece. How about instead of COI! COI! COI! you and FG222 actually work on problem edits? Right now on a related Amway article your defending a clear piece of COI based on a primary source website that doesn't even exist any more and when it did didn't even mention the topic of the article. Meanwhile, on an article about a competitor to Amway (USANA) you're also claiming I have a COI while challenging as OR even the most minor of edits to the article (by another editor, not me) backed by an RS website source because interpreting a table on a company website requires knowing what the company does. I could be a paid employee of both Amway and USANA and be sitting in their head offices and my editing is a world closer to NPOV than that of editors like yourself and FinanceGuy222, who for whatever reason clearly have some enormous bias against multilevel marketing companies, and no matter what RS sources say, damned if you're going to let that get in the way of Wikipedia reflect your opinions. I'm half tempted to challenge both of you as having COI, as there's a hell of a lot more evidence of it in your edits than mine. Which competitor do you or have you ever worked for? Do you work for or have you ever worked for any company with a connection to the retail industry? Do you work for or have you ever worked for any companies providing services to any companies in the retail industry? Do you work for or have you worked for any organization that is involved in promoting, say getting a college education instead of starting a business? etc etc etc. Stop attacking the editor and start dealing with the edits. This kind of obstructionist harassment, wikilawyering and tenditious editing, when really it's nothing more than a case of I don't like it is precisely why I gave up on wikipedia for a year and why many others give up permanently. Frankly it's pathetic. --Icerat (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to be too keen on avoiding conflict, perhaps a longer vacation would be in order. Seriously, taking a break is often a good idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a afd in March apparently [33], that was before I got involved. The article at the time it was decided to keep looked like this. Shortly afterward Financeguy222 started editing the article (ie widespread deleting) and it was soon like this. Please, read it. You'll note his neglect to mention the tax case was won completely on appeal, and completely failing to mention the response from the minister regarding the parliamentary question - leaving a heavily POV statement that gives the exact opposite impression of what was actually in the source. Frankly I think that kind of repeated blatant POV editing (even after being called for it) deserves being banned from the article, but hey, it's me being accused of COI and POV editing here isn't it! :-/ In any case this earlier version has some problems too, with at least one non-RS source, but also has several other RS sources currently not used. FG222 deleted pretty much all of it, even claiming A Current Affair, a well known and major current affairs show on Australian TV was " a paid press release tv program"!!! But we clearly have independent notability, with several news articles, news TV coverage, IT magazine coverage all independent of the company and independent of the US parent company. One of those sources points out for example that it's the largest direct selling company in Australia. That's notable. One of the issues with going for a single monolithic Amway article is that, while there's many commonalities obviously, the various companies around the world have different business models (sometimes significantly) and even brands (Xplore Capital, Emma Page in Australia for example). A monolithic article with true BALANCE would have the main article heavily focused on Amway China which makes up more than half the companies revenues and yet is currently barely mentioned. It's WP policy to try and get away from the US-centric focus there is now and decent articles on non-US companies is in my opinion an important part of developing that. What else are your concerns with the article Atama? The "40th birthday" stuff was undoubtedly weak and is already gone. The ecommerce development stuff got significant independent coverage, and mentioning sales for what, 3 years, isn't exactly extensive coverage for a 40yr old company. Note that some draft guidelines from the Companies project suggest both that subsidiaries have separate articles, where warranted, and that info (for public companies) like long-term stock histories be included. Year to year revenues (if available) would also be a valuable addition to company articles. Anyway I'm going to look at some of the earlier RS-backed material deleted by FG222 and see about reincluding it. Oh, as for the men in black theories ... Well, a day or so after FG222 was given a 24hr ban for edit warring this article, an australian anti-amway blogger with a remarkably similar style and nickname to FG222 "outed" me on his blog (including my wikipedia nickname and real name and phone number) and posted a whole bunch of falsehoods about me. Despite clear statements from me, under my real name, that these things are false, Rhode Island Red has clearly decided to believe it. --Icerat (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The main purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with COI issues, which is why I said the following yesterday "I suggest that further comments about the editorial issue be taken back to the article's talk page." You're going into a lot of detail on editorial issues and it doesn't seem constructive to do it here. The goal here is to resolve the conflict and you seem to be perpetuating it both on this noticeboard and, now, on the Amway page with respect to an edit I just made and which you tried, inappropriately, to revert.[34] I'm starting to see a pattern of WP:DE/WP:TE. FinanceGuy hasn't made any new edits in the past few days and seems to be avoiding conflict and letting other editors weigh in on the issue; that's wise. It wouldn't be a bad idea if you did the same. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

COI is entirely about editorial issues. The fact you think it isn't shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of the COI guideline. Any other use of this noticeboard is clear harassment. I could be the President of all the various company articles I've contributed to and if I follow V, NPOV, and RS then I'm perfectly welcome to edit. --Icerat (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You seemed to miss my point. The first goal here should be to resolve the conflict you are having with the other editor. I suggest, yet again, that you post these editorial details on the article Talk page and then link to it here; it's better than having forked or duplicative discussions. I don't think arguing the COI issue the way you have been is going to resolve it. I also don't see any evidence that you are being harassed. Surely, you aren't referring to this discussion? The editor who you were having the conflict with took an appropriate course of action by posting their concerns here. That's what the page is for. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(a)FG222 (or someone remarkably alike whom he communicated with) also "outed" me on an external site and provided enough information in this discussion to make that site easily discoverable. This is clear harassment (b) FG222 is the one who has failed to provide evidence of editorial problems yet (c) you, an involved editor in disagreement with me on another article (a "COI" which you failed to mention when you joined this discussion), came into this dispute with these mysterious off-wiki COI claims - clearly to make me "feel threatened or intimidated", ie harassment (d) this bogus COI claim keeps coming up virtually every time I edit wikipedia - and if taken further (even went to arbcom with an admin once) it always gets dismissed - eventually. It's nothing more than a blatant attempt by editors with a certain POV (including, frankly yourself) to try and prevent an editor with a different perspective contributing to wikipedia. That's harassment. What's more, these claims are *always* full of outright lies. FG222 has made many of them here and I have to deal with this BS getting posted here because frankly there's not enough NPOV experienced editors around to deal with these kind of topics. They simply don't have the time. I see it again and again on MLM related articles, where people coming in with a "positive" perspective on the industry are virtually always intimidated into stopping contributing to WP through these type of intimidatory tactics of claiming a COI by editors who clearly are not editing in an NPOV manner. There's a reason why virtually all the edits I made a year+ ago on these "controversial" articles - and where I was accused of having a COI - still remain despite me taking a years break. There's a reason why virtually all the edits I made 2years+ ago on these "controversial" articles - and where I was accused of having a COI - still remain. Why? Because I follow WP policy and make a good faith effort to do NPOV edits. I delete the stuff with no sources, both positive and negative. I add stuff with sources, both positive and negative. Then I take a break and come back and have to deal with this tactic of intimidation, often involving outright lying, again and again. Yes this may be part and parcel of dealing with wikipedia - but it shouldn't be. And frankly RIR, you are part of the problem. I should be contributing to making WP a better place, not dealing with crap like this. --Icerat (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see very little in Icerat's edits that appear to be clear POV editing. It's obvious that he's a 'supporter' of MLM as a concept and Amway in particular, but I don't see that as a de facto COI. For me it's similar to a devout catholic editing the article on Pope Paul VI. Their edits are not automatically POV and the fact is that their interest in the subject is likely to make the article richer. We can't simply defenestrate every editor that has an interest in a topic.

Editors do not edit in isolation. If a particular edit, in good faith, takes a slightly more positive or negative view of a subject than is warranted, that's likely to be corrected before too long. Problems arise when there is systematic, excessive promotion or denigration of a subject over a period of time. I don't see that in Icerat's edits.

What I do see are two editors that are unable to assume good faith of each other and I think the discussion here is exacerbating that. I recommend that this discussion should be closed on the basis that it's not going anywhere. Both editors should resume discussion about content and resolve any issues that arise through the normal dispute resolution processes. Thepm (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Icerat mentioned I am "even claiming A Current Affair, a well known and major current affairs show on Australian TV was " a paid press release tv program"". We can move this to talk if need be, but it's laughable.

To claim ACA is a credible source of information to be used in an encyclopaedic manner is a complete joke. It's known chequebook journalism and promotional pieces are in no way balanced, respected nor credible, and are a complete joke. More like paid opinions. Aligning yourself with such trash tv and such biased views is a good representation of your own beliefs and your own edits here and on other sites.

"COI claim keeps coming up virtually every time I edit wikipedia", It's no surprise, and multiple accusations of COI should give you a hint that your edits are giving many others the impression that you are continually disruptive and imbalanced in the eyes of many people.

You outed yourself here some time ago, but then harass me and claim I outed you, yet hypocritically in the same sentence continue to try and out me.

After you outed yourself here I googled your many pseudonyms and found many different pages confirming your identity, including your own pages, and information on a site owned by you in the reputation management industry. Then there is the site you (icerat / Insider) outed yourself to owning, which you claim you "occasionally edit", another false claim since several thousand edits you made on there personally averages out to multiple edits a day, and is in no way occasional. To state you occasionally edit it is a blatant falsehood and attempt to downplay your attempts to promote it here after being called out for it multiple times.

Financeguy222 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again. FG222 is again violating WP:OUTING here with his allegations. Thepm - not surprisingly, I agree with you!--Icerat (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

After trying to work towards a resolution of this conflict and then witnessing Icerat's disruptive editing and edit warring first hand,[35][36][37] I think a user conduct RfC (with the goal of having this user barred from editing any article related to Amway) is warranted. The user's conduct, editing, and background is strongly suggestive of a COI and it is extremely counterproductive. This conduct must stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

<yawn> User Rhode Island Red has a clear pattern of using and/or rejecting sources to push a particular POV. He regular disrupts editing on companies in the direct selling/MLM industry with edit warring tactics and tenditious editing, often using blatantly hypocritical stances in giving his reasons to support or oppose a source. For example, he argues on Amway that a list of company directors on a no longer available website for a no longer existing company is a sufficient source for an involvement with a company, but on USANA a list of sponsors on an official website, or a list of certified products on an official website is not considered sufficient. Rarely, if ever, does he make any attempt to initiate bringing in third opinions through use of various Wikipedia Noticeboards, instead reverting others good faith edits or debating with little attempt to reach consensus on talk pages. This destructive, rather than constructive, style of editing is apparent on a wide range of MLM-related articles. When someone, such as myself, has challenged his editing he has launched a vendetta, attacking me in this forum and submitting ridiculous claims of edit warring and now this silly RfC attempt. He clearly has some sort of vendetta against the MLM industry and is using wikipedia to advanced that interest. As such he clearly violates 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. If anything needs "investigating", it's the type of blatant POV pushing indulged in by editors such as Rhode Island Red and Financeguy222 --Icerat (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was way over the top, totally uncalled for, and extremely uncivil. I have tried very hard to at least be diplomatic in discussing the possibility that you have a COI. I haven't made this personal at all. I just happen to be of the opinion that the matter won't get resolved here and so probably should be addressed through a user RfC. Rather than trying to de-escalate this situation, you seem to be doing everything in your power to make it worse. When you get malicious and make comments that are at least borderline personal attacks, you cross the line again. That and the evidence of a possible COI, the disruptive editing, user history, etc. indicates to me that there's a problem here that needs more attention. I don't expect you to openly agree with my assessment; I'm content to let the system take care of the issue, and if that means an RfC is necessary, so be it. Just because I hold that opinion doesn't mean you have to heckle me from the sidelines and invent asinine counteraccusations. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh right, so you making and supporting, both here and elsewhere on WP, various personal comments about me, including false accusations of offwiki activities, is just fine, but my commenting entirely on your editing behaviour is over the top and uncalled for personal attacks. uhuh. For others interests, Rhode Island Red has earlier submitted a 3RR report against me for replacing a tag after he, 4 times within 24 hours note, removed an article tag related to an ongoing discussion on a noticeboard and in talk. This sustained harassment has to stop. --Icerat (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of COI, I see from his user page that Rhode Island Red claims to be a scientist and in academia. I also note his contributions to wikipedia are heavily weighted towards articles related to nutrition/pharmacy. Many of those edits are removal of what might be termed "positive" information from articles on non-pharmaceutical nutritional products and/or nutritional companies, many of which, like Amway, USANA and Monavie are in the direct selling field. He may very well have a far far more direct COI in this area than I do. His edits certainly raise concern of POV issues. For example here he added the fact a case by Amway against producers of a critical film was dismissed while actively removing the sourced fact they were convicted and fined on appeal. In his 3RR claim against me, he complained about me removing (rather neutral and unimportant) unsourced information because it was based on a dead link [38] to the now non-existent website of a defunct company, instead saying I should have looked for a replacement link, whereas here he removed information from the Amway article about their ranking by Deloitte as a 'Global Power of Retailing' because of a dead link, while at the same time going on to highlight controversy in the lede with a rather POV worded statement. A moments search found the Deloitte source again and I've now replaced the deleted information. In an OR/Noticeboard discussion on this same article, regarding the "dead link" information he objected to me removing, he defended the use of a now completely non-existent source document, which was a simple web page of company directors, while here on the USANA article he disputes the use of exactly the same kind of primary source material for information on a companies sponsorships. On that same Amway issue he supports the inclusion of information based on research into the affiliations of people associated with Amway, whereas here on the USANA article he challenges the inclusion of sourced information that a person cited in the article as critical of USANA and MLMS is the founder and operator of multiple competitors in the nutrition industry. Not to mention his weak and baseless accusations of COI against me on this thread and elsewhere, based on rumor, falsehoods, and innuendo, while simultaneously holding the position that the indisputed founder and CEO of a variety of nutritional companies has no COI when critising USANA, a competitor in the industry ( Is this Synth). This is a clear pattern I'm experiencing of Rhode Island Red explicitly (mis)interpreting Wikipedia's guidelines on a case by case basis to fit his POV. Given his userpage admission of being an academic and scientist with interests in medicine and pharmacology, I'm forced to wonder if either Rhode Island Red or any of his immediate colleagues receive funding or are otherwise connected with companies that may be in competition with nutritional companies such as Amway, USANA etc, such as pharmacy or medical companies. Having said that, I used to work in research at a major medical school (not in nutrition) and at that time I too had a very critical POV of virtually the entire nutritional industry. That POV has since been modified by actually studying and researching in the field of nutrition, but from that prior experience I can perfectly understand why Rhode Island Red may have the POV he has, even if he has no monetary COI. Indeed I still have that personal POV for the majority of the industry. Either way Rhode Island Red is clearly struggling to uphold WP:NPOV on these articles, and in his dealings with me, and I suggest perhaps he needs to consider whether he should be editing these articles at all. --Icerat (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you use this time while you are under 24-hour block (for edit warring)[39] to reconsider your approach to WP. You are taxing and diverting resources, and it will be better for everyone if you excercise some patience and much needed diplomacy. Every time a minor issue issue comes up you issue forth a tome filled with complaints and barbs about other editors -- it is clearly having a disruptive and counterproductive effect. And I don't see how pointing a finger at me with a bunch of vague accusations is going to help the perception that you may have a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm taxing and diverting resources? You're edit warring over tags, then making trivial (though technically correct) 3RR complaints, making bogus COI claims, deleting sourced material because you don't like it, and generally refusing to deal with matters in Talk. So far you've expressed very little interest in developing consensus in these articles. Look at the "Welcome to Life" section of the Amway article, where you have again removed sourced material about a case being won on appeal [40], instead only leaving the initial case which was dismissed. Yet you continue to not even discuss your concerns in talk[41]. --Icerat (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice the change regarding the court case because of Icerat's misleading edit summary, which said "update link and info on Forbes" and mentioned nothing about edits to the section that was under contention (and incidentally led to said user's block for 3RR violation).[42] Solution is simple; user should not cloak contentious edits (i.e. reverts) with misleading edit summaries. Editors should also be aware that this noticeboard is not a forum for general complaints. If the comment doesn't pertain to COI, then it likely doesn't belong here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary was not what you claim. It was "fix POV editing and replace removed, sourced information. Next time ask someone who can read Polish"[43]. Here is where you removed the sourced information in the first place, with a claim in the edit summary that was false, I'll be generous and assume perhaps you misunderstood the polish. That doesn't excuse completely changing the section from "Amway won" to "Amway loss". Here is where you removed sourced information about Deloitte ranking. I re-added it and updated the link [44] and also updated the Forbes ranking information and link [45], you deleted them [46]. You then went on to do an extensive rewrite of the "Politics and Culture" section, using as sources several self-acknowledged "left-wing" sources, including one marked clearly as "opinion", with little or no attempt at WP:BALANCE, even going so far as to ignore official responses from Amway, linked to by the publishers in the same sources, pointing out errors. This a clear pattern of failure to observe WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE. This pattern of editing on a variety of health/nutrition related articles, and particularly of companies in that industry, and your background as stated on your user page leads me to wonder if you have an undisclosed COI, as noted above, hence it's relevance to this discussion. So I ask again, directly this time - do you or any of your immediate colleagues receive funding or are or have been otherwise connected with companies that may be in competition with nutritional companies such as Amway, USANA etc, such as pharmacy or medical companies? --Icerat (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor above should show some humility and not assume the authority to interrogate other WP participants. This editor will be more than happy to answer any COI questions should they ever be posed by anyone whose authority on the issue matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So what you're saying is you don't want to just easily settle the matter so we can move on, you want me to submit a formal report on this noticeboard? Didn't you just complain about "taxing and diverting resources"?--Icerat (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Icerat should recognize that there is no "matter" to "settle". This thread is a discussion of whether or not Icerat has a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think all of you should see Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_3#Many_sources_are_not_WP:RS as there is some relevant information in that piece that relates the COI matter at hand. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#FitzPatrick_.26_Reynolds.2C_False_Profits will provide even more insight.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More enlightening details suggesting COI. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean more enlightening details suggesting I'm trying to create articles that follow Wikipedia policies, and getting obstructed in that process by various editors with hard anti-MLMs POVs and attempt to use self-published POV sources to push that view, in violation of Wikipedias policies, and in a matter which is an "incompatibility (with) the aim of Wikipedia" and "trying to promote (their) own interests " - ie a COI. --Icerat (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on Icerat, in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article you expressly stated "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." which turned out NOT to be true as I showed in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Careful_with_some_of_these_soucres.

The efforts to try and claim any of Kiyosaki's books were in any way reliable (and given how much egg Trump just got his face with regard to supporting the totally goofy Obama wasn't a native American nonsense trying to use him to support Kiyosaki and his cat business partner nonsense is going to work less now then back when it was suggested) was just insane. As I asked years ago why are articles out of the peer review area like Cruz, Woker, Sandbek using Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff rather than any of the MLM supporters? Peer reviewed paper in the fields of anthropology, law (Juta) and psychology use Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff and yet nothing to date on the pro-MLM side of similar quality has been presented. In fact Scene of the Cybercrime, 2nd Edition (2008) by no less than Elsevier puts MLM in the came class as pyramid, chain letter and Ponzi scemes (pg 102) and refers the reader to http://skepdic.com/pyramid.html for more information.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The only effort I tried to make that Kiyosaki's book was in any way reliable was with regards to his opinion. The Business School book is not an RS for facts, I did not try to use it for anything, it was merely in a list I was attempting to compile of sources. Ends up it was self-published, which I accepted. This is the same discussion where you rejected sources like a book published by Wiley and written by Professor Xardel, a top business professor (indeed former head) from one of the world's top business universities, ESSEC. More than happy for people to read those discussions to see the kind of zealotry I'm having to deal with. --Icerat (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't reject it; I stated and I quote "Xardel's book is through Blackwell Pub who is now a part of Wiley. Now Wiley InterScience is "The leading resource for quality research" but this is not under that imprint. This is a maybe. We need to know the quality of the different divisions." Also I pointed out in the link above (and user:Arthur Rubin agreed) Kiyosaki had so many credibility issues (per John T. Reed) that his opinion wasn't worth much and with Trump demonstrating what has to be the worst political judgement since Gary Hart told the press corp to "Follow me around" Kiyosaki's opinion is worth a lot less now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, this is a year old debate on a talk page, not even regarding actual edits, and has no place in this discussion. You don't like MLM, I get it. I don't like most MLM operations either. We're mostly in agreement. --Icerat (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ch interpreter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have asked Chuser about a possible WP:COI. Andy Dingley advises that this constitutes a personal attack. If he's right, a retraction and apology is in order and I've promised to do that and would like to do it promptly. I would appreciate advice. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a completely appropriate question to ask. Andy's response to you was somewhat heavy-handed. I agree with what Arcangel said. Looking at Chuser's contribution history shows a strong interest in the Ch interpreter and Harry Cheng, to the extent that it seems to be a single-purpose account. And they did pick "Chuser", as in "Ch user" as their user name. COI is something that does get considered at AfD, and WP:COI states that a person who has a COI should declare such if they are participating in a deletion discussion.

The other thing to keep in mind is that if a person refuses to answer a question about a COI, they can do so. Pestering them about it can be considered harassment. In your case, you placed a question on their talk page once, which wasn't answered, then asked again in an AfD where you suspect a COI may be relevant. I don't consider that harassment, and again if they refuse to answer, that's that. You also should take care to avoid outing them, but you certainly haven't done that either. I think that as long as you don't push this issue further you're fine.

If Andy Dingley or anyone else gives you grief for posing the question, you can feel free to reference this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "...if a person refuses to answer a question about a COI, they can do so..", is there a specific policy for COI questions, or are you referring to the general rule that nobody is required to answer any question? Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a general rule about harassment. Hounding anyone to answer personal questions could be considered an attempt to "out" them. But it doesn't even have to be related to a COI. Demanding that an editor reveal their gender or age, or educational background, or anything else of that nature isn't allowed either. -- Atama頭 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would still disagree (as previously noted at AfD) that COI has any substantial significance for WP:N. WP:N is demonstrated solely by external sources. COI accounts are still permitted to express opinions. Neither of these overlap. Articles don't become notable because uninvolved editors especially like them, and we certainly shouldn't start to discount demonstrated notability (from our external sources) just because an evident COI-problematic account also likes them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100%. If the subject can be shown to be notable, then it doesn't matter who presented the argument. This isn't a court of law where we'll dismiss evidence due to some technicality. However, if it's known that an editor has a COI that could bias their opinion, a closing administrator may give their opinion less weight. If it is revealed that a COI was hidden and later revealed, then the editor's opinion may be disregarded completely (depending on the circumstances). Regardless of all of that, though, is it appropriate to ask someone if they have a COI when there's just cause to think they might? Sure, if it's done respectfully. It's certainly not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a waste of time because even the nominator now agrees the topic is notable, COI or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The nominator was Msnicki - I don't see that expressed by that editor. TEDickey (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If, by "nominator", Tijfo098 means me (I'm not, technically, but it seems likely he may think I am) then his statement is untrue. I do not agree that notability is satisfied. WP:CORPDEPTH requires multiple independent reliable sources offering significant coverage the product. I don't think they're there and I've explained why.

Further, I object to Tijfo098's unhelpful description of me as shrill and his accusation that I've engaged in personal attacks. If I sound shrill at all, it is because I've been the target, not the maker of such attacks.

I also object (as Tedickey did when he reverted them) to Tijfo098's unjustified removal of the COI and notability tags from the article under discussion and to the premature claim in his edit summary that "consensus at AfD seems clear".

Tijfo098 is welcome to join the debate, but this doesn't appear to be the most helpful way to do it. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the COI tag, bearing in mind your edits regarding WP:SNOW, but note that the AfD is not closed, so perhaps the Notability tag is still pertinent TEDickey (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainview Academy

• Fountainview Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fountainviewkid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User continues to make edits and undo other editors on Fountainview Academy page despite receiving warnings from multiple editors over conflict of interest due to his admission that he is a graduate of said school. In a similar (but much less serious) situation, he continues to edit and revert on Southern Adventist University despite the fact that he has admitted he goes to a sister school and his high school is a feeder school to that college. BelloWello (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the results of this investigation, this might be a moot point. But if that investigation comes out negative, something needs to be done about this editor. This is one of those cases where a topic ban might be warranted, at least, considering their consecutive blocks for violating 3RR at the Fountainview article. -- Atama頭 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think this user needs to be notified more on exactly why his COI is a problem, as he is still asking questions about it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but BelloWello has spoken several lies on here (at least in my view). First, I do not attend a "sister" school of Southern Adventist University at least in the strict sense. Second, the academy I attended is not a feeder school to the college. There are a few "feeder schools" that I can think of for SAU such as Colledgedale, Georgia Cumberland, etc. but my school is not one of them. Finally I would argue that I have not engaged in any controversial edits other than removing tags such as Historic Adventist and other labels designed to make an institution appear more extreme than it may actually be. BelloWello has a history of doing this, over on the Southern Adventist University page. Feel free to check out the talk page and see what the other editors have to say. I am trying to provide a NPOV angle on these articles. Finally, I have other editors who can vouch that I'm trying to do the best I can. Fountainviewkid 04:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That article is not the main problem, it's Fountainview Academy, according to BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You are undoing other editor's edits on articles that you are somewhat associated with. COI is strongly discouraged under any circumstance. [47]. BelloWello (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, while it is strongly discouraged, if he can edit from a completely NPOV, then there is no problem with his editing. Please explain to him how he's not doing that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said previously, the problem is he is reverting editors who do not have a conflict of interest in such a manner to make this article (as well as others such as SAU) more promotional in wording and content, even when these claims/edits are not backed by reliable, secondary, reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A conflict of interest on its own isn't a problem, which is something I've struggled to get people to understand sometimes. But Fountainviewkid has been blocked twice, consecutively, for edit-warring on an article where there's a COI, just in the past week. Just on a side note, the sockpuppet investigation concluded as negative (the Checkuser didn't even bother to check if Fountainviewkid was a sock due to a lack of behavioral evidence). I'll follow Fountainviewkid's suggestion and check out the talk page of the article. -- Atama頭 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the tone of his additions, but, otherwise, this isn't a major problem, unless Fountainviewkid does it repeatedly.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't reverting editors on articles you have a COI on a problem? BelloWello (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When you're doing it because another editor is adding bias and an WP:AGENDA?Fountainviewkid 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really getting out of hand. You've called admins corrupt and "nazi," you constantly make unfounded accusations of bad faith and agenda editing. For the last time, please STOP the personal attacks. BelloWello (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the answer to BelloWello's question, "Isn't reverting editors on articles you have a COI on a problem?"

Wikipedia isn't too hung up on who does something. We care about what is done.

If you've got someone with a connection to the subject—say, a student at a school—and they do a terrific job of improving an article about that subject, being as fair as humanly possible about it, then the English Wikipedia has only one thing to say about it—and that one thing is: "Thanks!"

If the results are noticeably unfair—say, the student is mad at the school, so drags up a lot of minor scandal and "accidentally forgets" to list all the good things, or the student is trying to burnish his résumé by making the school look better than it is, so details every trivial positive thing and "accidentally deletes" anything negative—then we care about what's going on. Then, we care because the person is hurting our product and abusing Wikipedia for his own ends, not simply because the person has a connection to the subject.

The reason we caution people about editing subjects that they're connected to is this: Sometimes, humans don't know how much their connection prevents them from seeing the subject fairly. You can imagine, I'm sure, someone who has just had a particularly horrible experience with a company thinking that the company really is, overall, just as awful as his one, tiny, isolated experience showed. In such a situation, they might believe that they're being fair, but actually be very unfair. To be successful editors, people with connections to a subject must work extra-hard to overcome any possible (even subconscious) biases they have. If they are successful at this—if they produce a fair, unbiased article—then we're all happy. If they're not successful at this, then we have to consider ways of fixing the bias and presenting a balanced view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what we have here is literally a garden-variety content dispute. BelloWelllo appears to be absolutely determined to add the unsourced claim that the academy is "conservative", and to remove non-controversial information, e.g., that there's a garden on campus for the students to grow carrots, that they are involved in fairly typical community service activities, etc.

I think that this could be largely resolved if both editors would actually supply sources for the claims they're making. BelloWello, as you're the person who brought the dispute here, and as the claim you're making about conservatism is far more contentious than Fountainviewkid's claims, I suggest that you start—either by promptly and credibly sourcing that assertion about conservatism, or promptly removing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note:This has been brought up at ANI as well:WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents#Is BelloWello canvassing?.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Open Web Analytics

• Open Web Analytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Padams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article tagged for notability, and the majority of article's edits are by the developer. Xxxdownload (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion here. -- Atama頭 23:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sentosa

Maglame (talk · contribs)

Hi I discovered User:Maglame making considerable contributions of non-notable content on Sentosa resort items since last year. Though he has repeatedly had comments made on hist talk page about the notability of his content, see the history of the talk page, he appears to be disregarding the suggestions as obviously wrong and has removed tags related to advertising such as [48], without any change to the article itself. He does appear to make some useful edits to areas related to cartoons, but I get the strong impression that he is working for something related to Sentosa. Can someone who is more able and experiences with handling COI stuff please handle this? Sadads (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maglame isn't the only person who believes the article is not advertising; see [49]. Editors are generally permitted to remove tags that they think were wrongly placed or do not apply.

I looked through Maglame's work on Sentosa, and I do not see any problems. For all I can tell from the editing, this person might be a fan, or might be thinking about going to the resort on his next vacation.

Here's what you need to understand: Wikipedia doesn't actually care if people working for Sentosa improve the article about their employer. Wikipedia cares if someone harms an article for his or her own purposes—whether that purpose be to make money, or to get back at a company he's mad at, or any other personal purpose. Adding one or two sentences of description to the list of attractions, or starting stubs on possibly notable attractions, or linking to other articles, isn't harming Wikipedia: it's helping. I agree that the help is not always executed perfectly (those stubs need sources, and the typos need to be corrected), but this editor is making an apparently a good-faith effort to improve (or at least to expand) Wikipedia's coverage of a notable Asian resort.

Your response to that effort was to bomb the editor's page with deletion notices and to report abuse of a conflict of interest, without any evidence showing either a real connection to the subject or actual harm to Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is that you put yourself on a private, voluntary, silent interaction ban with this new user: please completely ignore the editor. There's three and half million other articles out there that this editor has never touched, and many of them would benefit from the attention of an editor like yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Kid richmond

• Kid richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kidrichmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just a notice of a COI case. Editor created the article possibly as a form of promotion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I speedily deleted the article, it was written like a PR piece. I also closed the AfD as speedy delete. The COI is pretty obvious too, but unless the editor becomes active again, I hesitate to block per WP:REALNAME or other username reasons. -- Atama頭 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

B.G. Mahesh

• B.G. Mahesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bgmahesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The biography of the person has been edited by a few times by a user with the same username (possibly the same person). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your COI note on the editor's talk page was relevant and probably the only action needed at this time, unless that editor becomes disruptive. Thank you for the posting. -- Atama頭 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Debashismaiti

• Debashismaiti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creation of CSD/G11 articles Debashis Maiti and Debashis Maiti - An Upcoming Talent in Bengali Poetry. User page and User Talk page both heavily self-promotional, and includes large amounts of non-English text, which makes discussion of the situation difficult at best. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The non-English text was poetry that was being promoted. I've deleted the user page as an advertisement, cleared out the same material from the talk page, and left a formal warning about self-promotion. If this continues the account can be blocked as a promotional-only account. -- Atama頭 17:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards

• Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Women in Film and Television International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Women in Film Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wif-la (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is clearly associated with all three articles, created two of them, and heavily edited the third. The user's other edits consist of adding information about the organizations to other articles. Regardless of whether these organizations are sufficiently notable to remain and regardless of whether the edits to other articles would otherwise be acceptable, this is a single purpose account with an agenda. All of the edits to the other articles should be reverted, and the three articles listed above should be heavily scrutinized. Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

iba dhaka university

• Institute of Business Administration, University of Dhaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Esha795 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Institute of Business Administration is a business school under University of Dhaka. Recently the school made big headlines in Bangladesh, as a professor was charged with terrorism charges for founding the organization Hizb ut Tahrir and was reported to have played a major role in BDR mutiny.International news agencies like BBC carried news on the professor and the organization and although it was banned by the government, the professor discharged zihadi leaflets among students in almost all universities in Bangladesh.BBC also reported it was having a major influence on the student community of Bangladesh.

As University of Bristol and DePauw university had major controversies and these controversies were not only added to their main wikipage but also had a separate wikipage just on the controversy.So to maintain neutral point of view of the article which has many unreferenced sentences and opinions i added this page .However one wiki user maintains COI and repeatedly deletes the section i have added .

Therefore i would like expert editors to have a look on this and maintain decorum including ensuring NPOV. Dualumni (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)