Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 02:11, 10 September 2007 (→‎User:Jabaker75 and Cera Products-related articles: user warned, needs follow up). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Timothy Archambault
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Capital One
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Comcast
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:Edelman (firm)
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:Engine No. 1
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Steven Furtick
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Graph database
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Hong Kong Free Press
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Barry Irwin
    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:Nick Jordan (artist)
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Alison Lawton
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Lemelson Foundation
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Liberty Towers
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Mascot Books
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Lubos Pastor
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Vicki Psarias
    Talk:PureTalk
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Rainer K. Sachs
    Talk:Security AppScan
    Talk:Simprints
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Software license
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Alice Zorn


    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

    Global Panel Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Molefi Kete Asante

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

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

    I restored the encyclopedic version as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#MIRROR but I don't expect it to stick unless this most recent of several Coi spas, which were previously doing the same, gets some administrator attention. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]





    User Benderson2 and TREC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Timeline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Disruption 2

    Three (so far) on 189.* IPs:

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

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

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

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

    Long term COI Spamming by Toughpigs


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

    There seems to be a consideral ammount of promotional spamming from this user which began with his 3rd edit[9] on 16:46, 14 November 2005. Since that time there are very few edits outside of promoting his site own site http://toughpigs.com, and all the related wikia wiki's he's founded (See below). many of these links have been converted in to templates.


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

    Additions of toughpigs.com by "Toughpigs (talk · contribs)" ref [10] dating back from 2005 - june 2006

    [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

    Additions of flashgordon.wikia.com or {{wikia|flashgordon|Flash Gordon}}
    Flash Gordon (2007 TV series) [20][21]
    Flash Gordon (serial) [22][23]
    Flash Gordon (film) [24]
    Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe [25][26]
    Flash Gordon [27][28][29]
    Flash Gordon (1954 TV series) [30]
    Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars [31][32]
    Flash Gordon (TV series) [33][34]
    Alex Raymond [35][36]

    Additions of jfc.wikia.com or {{wikia|jfc|John From Cincinnati}}
    John From Cincinnati [37][38]
    David Milch [39][40][41]


    Additions of muppet.wikia.com or {{wikia|muppet|The Muppets}} ref [42]
    [43][44][45][46] [47] [48] [49][50] [51][52] [53][54][55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60][61][62][63] [64][65][66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] [88][89] [90][91][92] [93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102] [103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] [113][114][115] [116][117][118][119][120][121] [122][123][124][125][126][127][128]

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

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








    Sakina

    i am concerned that there's a COI on the above article involving Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who is intimately related to the websites sakina.org and dhushara.com (as shown on his user page). the article has undergone a major revamping by Dhushara, which includes the promotion of both sakina.org (as an EL) and dhushara.com (as a source) therein. he has also been inserting material, while not actually sourced, has been clearly obtained from pages on his website such as [147][148][149][150][151]. once having introduced his changes to Sakina in conformity to the unconventional views expressed on these pages (which don't appear to be otherwise verifiable), he has advertised the wiki article on the website.[152]. i had raised this issue on his talk page a few days ago,[153] but i received little other than counter-allegations of COI.[154] ITAQALLAH 12:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • i have attempted to go about removing some of the novel material authored by Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which is, in essence, present on his website and personal writings), but these changes have brought complaint from Dhushara, along with counter-claims of COI on my part (!). i would appreciate advice on how to go about this, or if a third party could look into the issue. thanks ITAQALLAH 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a coi by Dhushara's own admission. Also, Dhushara has spammed sakina.org and dhushara.com (follow-up spam investigation is needed for dhushara.com). --Ronz 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Kandisky123 - Promotion of commercial website

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

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

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

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

    http://spam.fauxlikeapro.com

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

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

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





    Scottrade

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

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

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

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






    Tidal power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I am retired! That's the truth! Believe it or not. FIG and co exploited my lack of knowledge about editing and had me blocked when I down talked his bias for barrages, in particular the Severn Barrage that he says will soon be built and I say will never be built. Since then his ego has been dented as he has tried and failed to debate me on the facts. When logic and reason fail he resorted to personal attacks on my good name.Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    210.9.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the same user. Fig 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only inappropriate edit I see so far might be this one: [183] - and that is only inapripriate because of the COI. It could really be fine if it was discussed on the talk page. Most of the mainspace edits from this account that I see are perfectly acceptable. Do you have any examples where they edited the article inappropriate? What is it that you seek here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This would have ended here if it were not for FIG allowing other UK and EU technologies. My question is does FIG reside in the UK or EU and if so what are his affiliations?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What about these [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192] ? What I seek here is some arbitration. I grow tired of defending the impartiality of this article against a sustained campaign by someone whose financial interest makes them considerably more motivated and persistent than I am. It is pointless me putting another warning on the user's page, since Tidalenergy now believes I am operating some kind of psychotic vendetta against him, and now slings mud at me at every opportunity. What I'd like is to be able to remove this page from my watchlist with the knowledge that other editors are aware of the COI of this user and scrutinise his edits accordingly. Perhaps a warning on the Talk:Tidal_power page? Fig 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI is declared and the comments on the main page are in line with the page as a whole. Nothing more is said then any other technology mentioned! Double standargs are FIGs best attempt to end the debate in his favourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When logic and free speech fail in any debate FIG resorts to smear and inuendo with comments about psychotic vendettas. Read below what is siad on the main page that he objects to and see for your self. He objects to my comments about a shrouded technology while allowing other more blatant comments along with full colour photos'
    While FIG hides behind his veil of hypocracy he slyly solicits in a campaign to have me blocked.
    If one looks at the comments on the main page they are in line with others made about similar technologies. Read it for yourself here below. My edits are in bold.
    Several commercial prototypes have shown promise. Trials in the Strait of Messina, Italy, started in 2001[8] and Australian company Tidal Energy Pty Ltd[9] undertook successful commercial trials of highly efficient shrouded turbines on the Gold Coast, Queensland in 2002. Tidal Energy Pty Ltd has commenced a rollout of shrouded turbines for remote communities in Canada, Vietnam, Torres Strait in Australia and following up with joint ventures in the EU.


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


    Chris de Freitas

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

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

    User:Awaskow

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

    Scottish Knights Templar

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

    There are worse cases, but the press release on the talk page is a bit much, and others have already objected. If he is asked to remove that and be more careful in future, the rest is probably ok. --Kyndinos 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    George McFarland

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

    NeuStar

    • NeuStar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Jvsheeran (talk · contribs) claims to be an official in the organization, and is repeatedly deleting anything in the article which does not match the corporation's corporate-approved boilerplate text. I have explained to him that the article on Wikipedia does not belong to NeuStar, and they can comment on the Talk page about the article, but he should not keep deleting all of the content which does not meet their corporate approval. Corvus cornix 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll warn the user not edit the article again. Clearly he doesn't understand our policies. - Jehochman Talk 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    eComXpo - COI Accusations Made against me

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Comments by xDanielx

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

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

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

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

    To avoid that you have to read the massive amount of content on the various pages throughout Wikipedia, here the short version. This [194] was the reference in question, which is a post on my non-industry related personal blog from April 2006. I added it because of the reasons I elaborated here (Item 8.). To avoid making it the only reference (because it refers to "experience" and "perception", which is always an opinion and never neutral), did I also refer to other sources, some of which also doubled as reference for other claims made in the article. e.g. [195] and [196]. If this should be part of the article or not is open for discussion. I explained why I am for the inclusion and like to hear what others think about it. Feel free to discuss this at the articles talk page. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining! — xDanielx T/C 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Cerejota

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

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

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

    However I must state that all of my edits have been done with accompanying talk page discussion, and with a willingness to discuss. I even reverted some of my tagging when User:Cumbrowski finally did a detailed argument [197] and it sounded reasonable to my ears [198].

    Unfortunately, User:Cumbrowski responded to my argument by launching a series of attacks, including legal threats [199] and alleging I am a vandal [200]. He went as far as inexplicably restoring some tags I had removed[201], as per his argument, as I stated in Talk! This is a total failure of WP:AGF on his part.

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

    Comments Cumbrowski

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

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


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

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

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

    Aaron Proctor

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

    Business Wire

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

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

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

    Jeff Bays

    User:Rugz, formerly User:Borgus, has indicated in the context of an image copyright discussion that he is the owner of "Borgus Productions" ([202]), i.e. presumably Jeff Bays (aka "Borgus"), an audio producer and media personality. Rugz/Borgus is the principal author of the Jeff Bays bio article and of Not From Space, an article about a work produced by him and his company. The article consists largely of text copied from the company's publicity releases ([203]). I'd appreciate it if somebody could lend a hand checking for neutrality and notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gothic chess

    GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has admitted on numerous occasions to being Ed Trice, the inventor of Gothic Chess and the owner of a business promoting the game. He has tried to get several editors banned from editing the article on Talk:Gothic chess and elsewhere - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286#User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule and User:GothicEnthusiast/2007-08-03 Gothic chess. He has edited the article itself on numerous occasions in connection with disputes on the talk page, and has alleged that InfoCheck (talk · contribs) and BenWillard (talk · contribs) are attempting to attack the game (see [204] which he gave to a number of other editors as well). When I told him he had a COI he responded with this. Hut 8.5 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has also repeatedly tried to take control of Talk:Gothic chess, removing other editors' comments ([205], [206], [207], [208]), even after multiple warnings that this is not the done thing. Oli Filth 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]



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

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

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

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

    Search Engine Strategies / Search Engine Watch

    I'm one of many speakers at SES, and a very occasional columnist for SEW. Even though these are relatively minor connections in my view, I'd like some extra eyes to look at these articles. The problem is that User:Lafmm is a VP of marketing for the owner of these,[209] and he's been editing the articles to make them reflect the corporate point of view. I've left him good COI advice, so hopefully he will restrict future editing to the talk pages. - Jehochman Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Aviation Week & Space Technology

    User:198.45.19.39 - This IP address's talk page states that it comes from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company and has been previously warned for posting link spam for one of the company's publications (Architectural Record Magazine). It's at it again, and is posting link spam about Aviation Week & Space Technology which is another of the company's publications. See: [210] and [211]. Nick Dowling 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jean Godden

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

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

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

    Carlo Davis listed as Godden campaign manager: [212]

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

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

    I've removed some POV pushing and advised Landsfarthereast about our COI guideline. Mikesmash, some of the stuff you added was inappropriate POV pushing. [213] I recommend that both of you take a break from editing this article. - Jehochman Talk 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Requesting a block for User:Landsfarthereast, the evidence is undeniable that he is the Godden campaign manager and he continues to try to fight with me on the Talk Pages of both articles. He got multiple and then a FINAL warning for such behavior.[214] I am through fighting with him. Mikesmash 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

    User:ChaplainSvendsen has a WP:COI since he seems to be a board member of that institute. He repeatedly tried to transform that article into a soapbox promoting the curriculum and whitewashing critique:[215][216][217]--Raphael1 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I would say there is a clear conflict of interest, among other issues. Chaplain Svendson has been canvassing by email. Chaplain Svendson is also a somewhat notable figure. That notability is relevant to this COI report. He is the individual who wrote an article for Esquire, and appeared on (mostly neocon/conservative-orientated) talk shows, denying the ill-treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. This establishes some history of contradicting the conventional wisdom in regards to accusations of torture and similarly distasteful practices. I do not believe Chaplain Svendson is being dishonest in his advocacy. However, the canvassing, the speeches and notably his "outrage" over what the majority of reliable sources report, in combination with his notable place in the Gitmo debate, certainly lead me to believe he has a clear conflict of interest and even more troubling, that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs". Vassyana 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please get your facts straight. I didn't write any article for Esquire. I was interviewed by a writer for Esquire. I had not control as to what that writer wrote. Again all I did was answer his questions about what I actually heard and saw. I have repeatedly stated that I did not know what went on in the interrogation rooms and was not making statements about everything that went on there. I do know as one of the briefers for incoming guards that every guard received a briefing on the protection of human rights and instructions on the Geneva Conventions. They received instuctions to not violate the human rights of the detainees. This included even using demeaning or insulting language or showing disrespect for their dignity and religious practices. They were told to refuse orders to mistreat the detainees. To refuse to particpate in violations. They had direct orders to take actions to stop it if they saw it. And to report it to authorities if they saw it. That is what the general population of guards were taught and held accountable to. If any guard became stressed out or showed a potential for being abusive they were given duty outside of the camp. ChaplainSvendsen 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)ChaplainSvendsen 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The "conventional wisdom" of Gitmo is that there is no torture. There are legitmate questions about the legality of holding prisoners there. There are questions about whether the Geneva Convention covers these prisoners. There are legitmate questions about whethter they have the right to Habeus Corpus (it's interesting to note that Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus are usually exclusive). But the accusation of torture is an extreme position that has not been supported by credible evidence. --DHeyward 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You must not know of this.:Report of Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt •smedleyΔbutler• 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the first sentence? "but not tortured" is the most prominent phrase. Good source for "no torture at Guantanamo" though. --DHeyward 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you download and read the report? Did you read what almost all Human Rights Orgs say? The vast majority view of almost everybody but BUSHGOV is that its torture. But then BUSHGOV claim that it doesnt torture. Like Abu Gharib. No torture there? Sorry but the small minority view of the same GOV responsible for Abu Gharib and Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch that they 'don't torture' and that they don't waterboard, but if they did waterboard it wouldn't be torture anyway, is not the 'world view' of a worldwide encyclopedia like Wiki. That is a fringe view. •smedleyΔbutler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the source you provided says it wasn't torture. Your own personal interpretation is not relevant. Your screed against what you perceive as "BUSHGOV" is even less relevant. There is no evidence of "torture" at Gitmo and that belief is not mainstream. --DHeyward 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can believe what ever you want. Some people believe that the moon landing was fake. Torture, Cover-Up At Gitmo? This issue is the Chaplain's COI after all. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" •smedleyΔbutler• 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So this new link was refuted by the precious you gave as it was the investigation into that report. Nice try again but no cigar. --DHeyward 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is Chaplain Svendsens COI. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" His defense of GITMO and why the BUSHGOV doesnt admit to 'torture' when almost everybody else in the world calls it that Proof are for somewhere else, not this board. Maybe you are looking for the GITMO article. Please quit distracting the issue away from COI. Thank you. •smedleyΔbutler• 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vassayana and I posted some of my feelings on the article page. IMO (no attack) he does not understand WP especially about promotion as he wanted to include information on how readers of the article could visit the school and on RS and VS as he wanted to include some claims from un-published papers he has. Maybe he needs a Mentor. He canvassed me too. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    What? "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "I am not a board member of the school." "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC"(above) •smedleyΔbutler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no problem with this distinction. I am a board member of the BoV but the BoV is not part of the school. So I am not a board member of the school. That would imply some vested interest in the school and would be a COI. The BoV is an independent organization made up of people who have the education and knowledge to evaluate its work. ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the "Board of Visitors" gets discussed in the article as well, User:ChaplainSvendsen who is a member of that board does have a conflict of interest.--213.235.193.1 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Just to be clear, is it not true that policy does not require editors with a conflict of interest to refrain from editing the article in conflict but merely to take greater pains to use appropriate editing techniques such as providing references and maintaining a NPOV etc.  ? COI editors can edit even though they have a conflict of interest? User:Pedant 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of soliciting support. What I did was to e-mail everyone who I could get addresses for who had edited the article informing them of the activity that was going on. In my mind it was an attempt to get the consensus everyone was talking about. You find people who are knowledgable and interested in the article and you get their imput. I certianly don't consider that soliciting support. I'd gladly accept a mentor and have been very grateful for the suggestions I have received. I'm thankful for the numberous additions to the aritcle of "neutral" information which have been made by taking the information I provided and neutralizing it so to speak. With my military background I respect rules and understand the neew to follow them. So here's a question which I keep asking but get no response. I have numberous reports which are public record which were distributed at the various BoV meetings. It verified facts which are authenticiated by the various school officials. How can they be used as citations? ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Primary sources can only be used if they are published by a reliable source.WP:PSTS Because such a source would count as self-published as well, we would have to make sure, that it is not unduly self-serving, there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it and the article is not based primarily on such sources. WP:SELFPUB --Raphael1 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Calvary Comics, Alec Stevens

    Articles are being edited by a publicist for the publishing company. [218] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoshiki (musician)

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

    I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel (#wp-en-help). The users Yskent (talk · contribs) and ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) (the record label Yoshiki works for), along with perhaps others (not confirmed), are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to fully protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators in order to edit it when it is protected (confirmed over IRC and by [219] and [220]). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:UAA, but further action, IMO, needs to be taken. These accounts are single-purpose accounts, yet they have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and are not really trying to engage in bad behavior. If they can understand the rules here, I feel they can become constructive contributors, and I would gladly mentor them if they wish to contribute. Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    eComXpo COI Accusation - Request for Relief

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

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

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

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

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

    • Comment It seems to me that, if your only involvement was as a panelist at a Con, and if you were not paid any cash honorarium, then that is not a conflict of interest to edit to article. But don't listen to me, as I am not a sysop. Bearian 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. Yep, that was my involvement with the company. I mentioned all details at the talk page and also referred to the recording of the panel itself. The previous discussion here at the noticeboard (before the request for mediation) said the pretty much the same, but no decision by the board could be made, because the other editor pulled the COI accusation into the mediation request. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise possible? Is there a chance we can get agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise? I have read through the AfDs and the DRV, and have seen the controversy about the sources. I can live with the sources that are still in the article. In exchange for the compromise, we would (if accepted)
    • Drop all the COI allegations;
    • The tags would be removed from the article;
    • The people who want to put back previously-removed sources would stop trying;
    • The people trying to take away further sources, or re-nominate for AfD, would agree to stop;
    • Anyone planning to open new dispute resolution cases, in all forums, would agree to stop.
    Who is willing to consider this? EdJohnston 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am. As I stated in the article talk page, I have no problem with the current version. I disagree there is no COI, however the talk page warns users about this, so I can live with that. However, someone please coach roy on the ins-and-out of forum fishing... Thanks! --Cerejota 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is content that does not fall under the COI allegation that should be re-added to the article to improve on its quality (probably re-edited and not as in its previous form). There is plenty of material on the talk page regarding that. None of it was implemented into the article, because I said that I won't edit the article as long as the COI allegation against me exists and is being used to discount my edits. If COI applies to me in case of this article is nothing "to negotiate" or "bargin with". Either I have a conflict or I don't, based on the definitions made in WP:COI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Quote: "agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise" This would not be a compromise, but a ratification of Cerejotas actions. Any argument from anybody that says otherwise would be wiped off the table. It would acknowledge the means used by Cerejota as right and the way to do it. It would make the efforts by me and other editors to reach consensus look like a waste of time. I don't think that this would send a positive signal to other editors. Again, this is not the time and place for this kind of debate. The COIN can and should only make a decission about whether or not COI applies to the editor (me) regarding eComXpo or not. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The current article is as close to the standard as it's going to get. roy, I say this all due respect to the experience and great passion you show in your editing, but you do not need relief, and you don't get a pass for relentlessly trying to beat a fellow editor to death over a minor article. You do not have that luxury, ever, no matter what you think the editor did/said/intended. It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs, but that's not going to happen if you keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like. Your COI is not about dollars or being a name in a brochure; it's about crossing the line from champion to...this. COI is your choice, not someone else's accusation. Flowanda | Talk 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to discount anything, but a) cerejota claims that my edits fall under COI and uses that as a reason to discount them and b) flagged the whole article as created under "COI" and reverts anybodies edit that removes the template. I do need relief from the COI accusations made against me regarding this article in order to do edits like any other editor. A normal discussion does not seem to be possible as long as the accusations are being repeated by cerejota over and over again. I don't discount edits from anybody, but I object behavior as demonstrated by cerejota and is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with the COI allegation. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note. What do you mean with "It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs". The current article is close to becoming a good article. A lot of editors contributed to it over the past 15 months. A "rigorous edit" would do more harm than good and would only introduce somebodies POV and undo hours of work by a number of editors, not only mine.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that I remember you User_talk:Cumbrowski#Cleaning_up_Affiliate_marketing. You made some edits to the article too, thanks. I wonder what made you believe that I, quote "keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like". If you would look at the events up close, you will hopefully see that this is not the case at all. I try the complete opposite of that. I am trying to avoid that somebody else gets away with ignoring everybody and everything else to get what he wants and to discount other peoples edits e.g. mine by making false allegations against them. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Info User:Burntsauce removed the COI template from the article temporarely until the allegations are confirmed or rejected by the noticeboard. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Quinacrine

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

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

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

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

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

    Louise Glover

    Louise Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has just gotten a whitewashing from User:Louiseglover. Can someone take a look at what should be restored to the article and what should be removed? Also, please take a look at the edit summaries. --After Midnight 0001 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Jabaker75 and Cera Products-related articles

    Articles:

    User:

    (Above added by me. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Jabaker75 is apparently a single-purpose account out to publicise Cera Products' products on Wikipedia. I've been away for a while and am not a good arbiter of notability anymore, but someone should take a look at Cera Products, CeraSport / Cera Sport, CeraLyte and prod/AfD/cleanup as needed. Resurgent insurgent 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user and asked them to comment here. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Columbia University's School of Continuing Education

    Columbia University's School of Continuing Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The article is far too long and full of advertising. For further explanation, see my comment on the talk page. Please examine this article and weed out the advertising, or if necessary, list it for deletion. Shalom Hello 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedied as copyvio. It's mostly a cut-and-paste from the university website. Sad to see this from a division of my alma mater. DurovaCharge! 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Children in a Burning House

    I've left him a {{uw-coi}} warning. Feel free to prod or AFD the remaining articles. - Jehochman Talk 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Ron Paul again

    Ron Paul supporters have been editing his article extensively, and have just reduced the WP:SUMMARY section Ron Paul#Political positions to exclude mention of his legislation which conflicts with some of his speeches, and have added statements that he wants to expand the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and votes against most federal spending, which are not supported by sources to say the least. I am at 3RR and ask that someone else take a look at it, please. ←BenB4 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you are implying that I am a Ron Paul supporter, again. You have accused me of this in the past and I have already explained that I am not a supporter and would never vote for him. There doesn't need to be 7 paragraphs of summary. That's a pretty non-political position. This has all been hashed over in the past many times and there has always been a bit of a running consensus to keep the summary an actual summary and not a duplicate of the sub-article. Turtlescrubber 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not accusing you of anything. User:Gloriamarie, an admitted supporter, added it, and you just reverted back to it. The seven paragraph summary is shorter than some of the other sections in the article and shows his positions on legislation which directly conflict with his stump speeches. I do not understand why you want to allow the POV of his speeches without balancing it with the position he has taken in the legislation he has introduced. That is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, a foundation policy. Why do you insist on reverting to that violation? ←BenB4 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One link folks: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There isn't a bona fide COI allegation here. I suggest closing this case to avoid clogging this board with content disputes. By the way, I like the article and suggest that you try to get it featured. - Jehochman Talk 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's a summary ;) Turtlescrubber 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Levan_Urushadze

    The creator and significant contributor of that article has admitted that he is a close friend of Levan Urushadze the subject of the article and that he is using Dr. Urushadze's computer.[221] I am almost certain that if a checkuser were run, all the above ip addresses and users would match. Note also that this article was speedy deleted on August 15 as it was considered vandalism back then. Also, the above users contribute to biography articles of other scientific staff and a conflict of interest should also be investigated with those articles. Pocopocopocopoco 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been warned, so unless he ignores us, that should be sufficient. As for the article, it seems to assert notability. If you think it's not notable, you can try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - Jehochman Talk 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=156835380"