Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Smiths Group Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

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.

Nick Schwellenbach

• Nick Schwellenbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - was created by a user named Schwellenbach

Greensburger / Ziusudra / Eridu Genesis

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

I would like to express serious concerns about agenda pushing on the part of User:Greensburger.

I am trying to create an article on a famous archaeological artifact, known as the "Eridu Genesis", which inexplicably has not had it's own article at all until now, but was tucked away under the Ziusudra article. This led to a conversation with User:Greensburger: Eridu Genesis, and I really didn't grasp what he was trying to propose.

When I tried to make the move that I said I would, he reverted it, calling it vandalism [1]. So I then put a "split section" tag on the page, which he changed [2]. The ensuing discussion on the article's talk page is here: [3]. When I perused his talk page, trying to figure out where he was coming from, I noticed a discussion (Genesis 5 article) about the book Noah's Ark and the Ziusudra Epic by Robert Best, which appears as a reference on a number of Ancient Near East pages. The theories listed on the back cover of the book ([4]), that Noah was Ziusudra and was the king of Shuruppak in 2900 BC when the Sumerian river flood occurred, are obscure to say the least, and very fringe theories. Fringe books get published too, and simply the fact that somebody published it shouldn't give it credibility. More information about these theories is on its website [5]

The problem is that archaeological facts need to be "adjusted" to make these theories work at all. Two areas of original research which I see repeatedly all over the Ancient Near East articles are:

1) Attempts to link the "Eridu Genesis" Flood myth to the mention of a historic flood on the "Sumerian king list". The way to do this is to insert Ziusudra, the hero of the Flood myth, into the king list, right before the flood. (see the discussion mentioned above on the Ziusudra talk page).

2) And attempts to "re-interpret" the very long lives and reigns that ancient literature gives to ancient kings ([6] and [7]). This is entirely original research.

I also have to say I can't help thinking that this could be the author of the book himself, as his other editing seems to be in line with having a BS degree in Physics (about the author), and he's created and edited articles about other people with the same last name.

I hope I'm submitting this in the right place, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above sounds like an ordinary content dispute. I do not see evidence of any conflict of interest. "He sounds like he might know some physics; ergo he must be the person who wrote this book, who is also a physicist" is the weakest link to a CoI I've seen proposed here in a long time. Even if this editor pushes a fringe theory (which I'm taking your word for, for the purpose of the discussion), is there any good reason to think that he does so for a reason other than a perceived wish to spread the truth? –Henning Makholm 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the physics degree because that and the other circumstances I mentioned suggested to me that he might be the author of this book and that he might be quoting himself, and I thought that was against the rules.

The big problem is his persistently promulgating original research and fringe theories, which I also thought was against the rules. Sumerophile (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the article which Sumerophile is nominating for COI investigation is Ziusudra, so I formatted the header of this COI complaint accordingly. Greensburger has not edited Sumerian origin legend at all, so there is no reason to include that in this complaint. I don't perceive that a Talk page consensus was reached anywhere on Sumerophile's idea of splitting the Ziusudra article. There may be WP:FRINGE stuff floating around, but I don't believe that S. followed due process with G. on the issue of splitting the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was nominating the User:Greensburger, if that can be done. The problem is this fringe agenda has been spread all over the Ancient Near East articles, and possibly on Genesis and Noah-related articles as well. I'm vetting it in the Ancient Near East section, and came up unexpectedly against Greensburger again in the Sumerian king list article [8], in what appears to be another fringe agenda he's pushing - about when the Ubaid and Sumerian Dynastic periods occurred. Sumerophile (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether Ziusudra and Eridu Genesis should be two articles or a single article is open to debate, and can be discussed calmly on talk. This is a perfectly pragmatic question. I have misgivings about Greenburger's attempts to portray any of these floods as "historical", but looking at the debate, it appears clear that Greenburger is perfectly willing to base his argument on academic literature, while Sumerophiles behaviour is much more erratic. Perhaps Greenburger is pushing an outdated academic view, but the way to counter this is by citing more recent academic literature, not by removing his material. This is entirely the wrong noticeboard for this. If Greenburger presents a lop-sided argument, set the score right by citing academic literature, not by wikilawyering about it. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a fringe theory [9] using outdated sources for its base is very different from an outdated academic view. Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic or that his theories are sound, and his selective use of older material is a good example of what citing academic literature should not be.

And I do not appreciate being labled "erratic" for getting to the bottom of this, or for reporting concerns about this matter here. Sumerophile (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Just because somebody cites academic literature doesn't mean he's an academic" -- nobody claims that, but in case you have missed it, this is precisely how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:5P, and specifically WP:RS. I wouldn't dream of using http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/ as a source, nor do any of the diffs you provide show that Greensburger is touting that website. dab (𒁳) 12:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

dab, above you suggested Greensburger was pushing an outdated academic view. And no, he has not cited the website, merely the book that it is based on. Sumerophile (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

dab, I would also like to point out to you here, that Greensburger has in fact linked to http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/, on the Ziusudra article, which is now enmeshed in the Sumerian creation myth article. Sumerophile (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

dab, now we have a problem: User:Til Eulenspiegel is now re-linking the mythical Deluge (mythology) with the historic king list [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumerophile (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

National Policing Improvement Agency

• National Policing Improvement Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Serious Organised Crime Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Special Response Units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(See accounts and IP's below) is making many, many, many, many changes without leaving comments or edit summaries and clogging up recent changes and the page histories of National Policing Improvement Agency - (created by Amcluesent), List of Special Response Units, Serious Organised Crime Agency and others.

Claims he works for the NPIA, see [11][12][13][14]. All the accounts and IP's have similar edit patterns. --Hu12 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good work finding all the IPs. Probably a nice notice about COI and maybe an intro to editing template would be good. If anyone is thinking of blocking any of these IPs, it would probably be nice to report them to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses since these seem to link back to official UK national police departments. MBisanz ^talk 03:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable that WP might need to work with the UK police on some occasion, so let's be a little bit nice.

The only currently-active logged-in user in this group is Bamford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

We need to get the attention of Bamford, to persuade him to moderate this editing. I suggest semi-protecting both of the articles listed above and all the related UK police articles, to prevent the clogging up of recent changes. Bamford was recently blocked for six hours. Until we can abate the flood of changes, it will be hard to discuss article improvement. The usage of so many IPs is very peculiar by WP standards. My guess is that a number of police employees have been asked to add information, but only Bamford has created an account. I suggest we ask Bamford to agree to some conditions:

• Ask all his colleagues to create an account before editing
• Identify (by account name) all the other editors who have affiliations with his organization
• Provide edit summaries for all changes
• No editing under an IP address
• No reversion of anyone else's edits without a Talk discussion
• Participate in discussions in good faith, and listen to the responses
• No more than 20 edits per day on UK police articles (per editor) until this COI item is resolved.

I suggest semi-protection until this is closed. I welcome your comments on this idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Although I might not list it as directly, say "If you could try avoid editing under an IP address". Also, edit summaries are important, but for many new users, I suspect their easy to forget. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't block or protect. "Clogging up recent changes" is not a reason to pull out the administrative tools. Leave messages for everybody and explain site standards to them. Coach them how to do things the right way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this point of view. Very strongly. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Editing in a manner that messes up the tracking infrastructure and confuses ongoing review of changes is a form of disruptive editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It means our systems haven't handled it properly. It isn't disruptive in and of itself. Relata refero (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In this context, I don't see the difference. It's an edit pattern that's damaging the purpose of cooperatively creating an encyclopedia. It's academic whether this arises by directly impeding other editors or interacting badly with "the system". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Perplexing situation, there has been multiple attempts at dialog with little or no results. The latest response is a bit concernining, "I find this all rather sad and so pathetic that I can't even be bothered to debate this any further".--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Have a look at the three edits that he was blocked for. (After scores of normal ones.) He's blanked the page twice, which is fine, he receives a warning. But in heaven's name, look at the third, which he was blocked for. Sheesh! Relata refero (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarfication as some editors seem to be confused about this - the NPOA is an govt administration and advisory body set up to assist and give direction to Police forces in a number of areas - they are [i]not[/i] connected to operational policing as carried out by UK police forces. --Fredrick day (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess he's decided against any communication. --Hu12 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article talk vandalism [15][16]..--Hu12 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

More:
204.245.42.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
90.205.89.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I've protected the page due to the Anon switching IP's to remove the COI tag--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[17] [18] removed the COI tag, and added 5 links to npia.police.uk.--Hu12 (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More [19][20] COI tag removal.--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Maintenance_tag_vandalism --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Created another sock account Konemannn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Hu12 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment. User:Bamford was indef blocked, and controversial editing of the main articles seem to have stopped a week ago. How do we feel about removing the COI tags? Does anyone see a current problem with their neutrality? To refresh your memory, here are the articles concerned (add others if you see any that were edited significantly):

• National Policing Improvement Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI tagged)
• Serious Organised Crime Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI tagged and semiprotected)
• List of Special Response Units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Durham (HM Prison) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Low Newton (HM Prison) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Police Staff College, Bramshill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say another week would be good. There were 5 days between the creation of his last 2 accounts. MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

COI edit requests

I recently discovered the category Category:Requested edits. Does anyone watch this? I know unblocks and editprotected requests are watched well by admins, but I think this category should be encouraged to prevent COI abuses. Maybe even merging it with editprotected requests. Any ideas? MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There are some old requests still sitting in here, and they are pretty quick to handle. Does anyone object if we leave a permanent mention of this category up at the top of this noticeboard? (just below the bot item). EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, I'm still trying to figure out how to watch a category the Right Way. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Requested edits is probably the best bet. MER-C 05:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ebiser

Resolved

 – The articles are fixed, and the COI-affected editors have stopped work. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ebiser (talk · contribs)

I may not have time to get to this quickly, and I think it should be. Looks like an inappropriate username, spamming, and something else that at a glance looks like complicated spamming and promoting a single viewpoint, all with a very obvious COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We're talking

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

Ebiser S.A. of Spain produces and sells ... guess what. I've tagged the article and notified the user of discussion here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup at hydroxytyrosol. Although there are uncited claims in the article, I don't think any of them are dubious and/or exaggerated. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the main problem lay in the links to sites selling the stuff, and the indiscriminate list of patents. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sergiofmoya (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of User:Ebiser: "this is not advertisement. (lot of work to write it)" [21]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I left a message for Sergiofmoya asking him to join this discussion, but he has not edited since my comment. It appears the editors above who already worked on Hydroxytyrosol have restored it to decent shape. Ronz took care of Olive oil. I deleted the mention of hydroxytyrosol from Mediterranean diet, since the references didn't support it. Unless bad edits resume, this problem may be solved. It would not hurt for those interested to add Hydroxytyrosol to their watchlists. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Osho

• Resolved

   – This seems to be a resubmission of a complaint which expired with no action being taken. No specific problem was ever clearly identified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jayen466 (talk · contribs) - This single user keep son pushing his agenda with multiple articles about the topic. Possible POV/COI issues have been raised by various people in both the english and german language wikipedia. If he finds any small error he tends to revert much more massive changes. He repeatedly claimed to aim at a neutral article but any changes he makes read like love letters unless someone massively steps on his foot. It was previously suggested in the discussion page to notify people here to enable balanced revisions without single users interference in the future. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

We had this one already 15 days ago, User:Semitransgenic. Give over. -- Jayen466 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The archive of the previous (inconclusive) debate is here. There is no reason to re-open it. jalal (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The previous Osho complaint was filed by User:Semitransgenic, who has not been active since 5 February. In an exchange of User talk messages on 1 February, Semitransgenic told me he would provide further details, but they have not yet been forthcoming. If 62.47.23.131 (talk · contribs) believes there is still a COI issue with this article, he should give diffs of what he believes are inappropriate edits. Jayen466 is one of the editors who worked on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. This article, related to the topic of Osho, has been identifed as a Good Article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture

Articles:

• Enterprise architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Enterprise architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zachman framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Zachman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• (perhaps others)

Single-purpose accounts

• Metaframe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Nov 2007 - Feb 2008)
• Lockezachman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Jan-Feb 2008)
• Len Morrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Phogg2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Ron Gaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Brandy Downs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Greg Zorne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• Tom Corn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Feb 2008)
• MatthewFordKern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (July 2007)
• Mkernatmkerndotcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (March 2008)
• (perhaps others)

Metaframe self-identified as Stan Locke, managing director of Zachman Framework Associates (note similarity in Lockezachman username).

COI edits, which for some reason included removing references and templates, were brought to my attention on my talk page by Ronz; he will probably have more to add here. — Athaenara ✉ 06:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1#Help with Zachman Framework-related links?
• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Help with Zachman Framework-related articles

--Ronz (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lockezachman claims to "represent a group of about 60" [22]. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think it's time to semi-protect these articles, given all these new accounts joining in? --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture is protected because of the edit-warring there. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the Zachman Framework article for the past couple of weeks in an effort to clear up its problems and clear the tags. A few others have made some contributions, but they have been constructive in my opinion. I don't think that article needs to be protected at this stage.

Phogg2 (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronz: I have only just noticed that you restored important material on the Zachman Framework that users LockeZachman and Len Morrow had deleted for no reason that I could tell. Thank you. --Phogg2 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You might add User talk:Tom Corn to the list, he contacted me after I semi protected Enterprise Architect to complain about the Wrong Version I believe. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This tag-team edit-warring is getting tiresome. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, an editor named User:Metaframe, who is probably the same person as User:Lockezachman, made a very sensible contribution over at Data modeling#Data model, including a new image of the Zachman model. It is at Enterprise architecture, Zachman framework and Enterprise architect that he seems uninterested in paying any attention to our policies. Athaenara left a warning over at User talk:Lockezachman that included a big picture of a stop sign. Apparently this editor feels that only those references that are approved by his company should appear in Wikipedia. (We are not allowed to entertain any opposing points of view). Since he doesn't own Wikipedia, I'm not sure how he expects to make this happen. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lockezachman continues to revert out the TOGAF reference. I just left him a blatant vandalism warning. Would welcome some advice on how best to proceed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to consider an initial block for Lockezachman. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There appear to be grounds for a block on a particular editor, but while we're still meditating on that option, I see there is movement over at Talk:Zachman framework. A couple of editors have been trying to remove the POV issues with the article. Phogg2 appears knowledgable in this area and (though he is still included in the COI list above) he has made some useful edits. Ronz has removed the notability tag from Zachman framework in response to the edits by Phogg2 and Nickmalik. I'm still hoping that someone can improve Enterprise architecture, which is really the parent article for this whole area. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping that the recent progress is a sign that this is coming to a resolution. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:EmmSeeMusic

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

Other editors adding same links

• 66.152.202.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.124.182.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.124.195.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.124.245.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.68.106.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) owner of mandymoorepictures.com

I've run across this guy before, but never had the time to look into some very suspicious editing by him. I'm guessing that the many picture and forum links he adds (and re-adds) are all run by the same people or company. If not, he's still spamming them. Anyone have time to look into this? --Ronz (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The latest site that EmmSeeMusic addded is connected to a number of other sites. EmmSeeMusic added links to most of those sites: [23], [24], [25], and [26]. The websites probably belong to EmmSeeMusic, as they left a message on their talk page that said: "Your personal attacks against my websites are what is in question." I removed the links that were still in the articles and left the user a warning. BlueAzure (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He's added another. Given his history and the warnings he's received, I've left a uw-s3 notice on his talk page.--Ronz (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now 75.68.106.136 has contacted me on my talk page, claiming to be owner of [27] mandymoorepictures.com. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This revert of a spam link removal shows a certain chutzpah, since it uses popups. The total number of edits made by this user (through all his accounts) in 2008 is not large (less than a dozen, I think). Doesn't WT:WPSPAM have a highly-tuned system for dealing with these guys? Can't they block him if he persists after escalating warnings? EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be taken to WT:WPSPAM. I wanted the raise and discuss the COI issues first. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As the owner of the sites I stand by them as relevent links. I have been on wikipedia for a long time and my links for Hazel Mae, Suzy Kolber, Betty Nguyen, Giada De Laurentiis have better information, media, etc than their official sites. Regardless they are quality editions to wikipedia, IMO. They are not "SPAM" - I have ads on my sites to keep them up. I am a volunteer on weekends, I am not a wealthy guy. My posting of my sites on Wikipedia is not malicious. I just had to give my 2 cents. EmmSeeMusic (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your intentions may be, you can't keep adding these links against consensus. (The Wikipedia community gets to decide on the value of these links, not you). You've had plenty of notice. Do you understand that you may be blocked if you continue? EdJohnston (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So I need to present members of the Wiki community (besides myself) to dispute your claims that HazelMae.net and BettyNguyen.net are SPAM? EmmSeeMusic (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history. You are pigeonholing me into a typical malicious spammer category and my websites sites are far from that. I've had my HazelMae.net / SuzyKolber.net / BettyNguyen.net / Rachael Ray / Giada De Laurentiis links up for years, the regular editors of those wiki's did not have any issue since they actually know the subject of the article and believe the links are relevent. Those people are members of the Wiki Community.EmmSeeMusic (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You realize we're not having a long discussion about this. Since hazelmae.net is your own site, you are not supposed to add it anywhere. Nobody needs to pigeonhole you. Admins can block you for violating the rules, of which you've been notified many times. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, site owners should not post their own sites to articles. MBisanz ^talk 06:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Also, look at my complete EmmSeeMusic edit history." Yes, I think an in-depth look at his edit history is worthwhile. It appears to consist mostly (almost completely?) the addition of links which he has a COI, as well as what appears to be the removal of links competing with his own. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a spam report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:EmmSeeMusic_.26_related_accounts --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Teshkeel Comics

Resolved

 – No-one who commented agrees with the submitter that there is any problem with the neutrality of these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Teshkeel Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - corporate vanity pages. None of these entries seem newsworthy (local comic book company) and they have entered several other entries on wikipedia to promote themselves including:
• The 99 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jabbar the Powerful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sven Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would verify what the IP address is for each of these entries. I would suspect they are all from the same user. — 66.108.12.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18 February 2008.

COI users concerned:

• Teshkeel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Svenplarsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

No contributions for more than a year. MER-C 12:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Teshkeel Comics looks like a decent article. The comic is mentioned by the New York Times. Comics published in Arabic are a topic that deserves some coverage on Wikipedia, and what these articles have to offer is probably new information for many people. As MER-C points out, the people named above as COI editors have not been active lately. I removed some advertising language from the Sven Larsen article. Does anyone see a problem here that needs further study? EdJohnston (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to be one of our more burning issues. Only MER-C and I have responded in the six days since the complaint was filed. Can we close this? EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Serverware Group plc

Resolved

 – user aware of COI policy, no violations evident. MBisanz ^talk 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article created and maintained by a single editor, User:JediLofty. On his user page, editor writes that he is a computer programmer from Paddock Wood in Kent, England. As cited on their website, Serverware's "Core Development Centre" is also located in Kent. User has subsequently created a number of articles for this nonnotable company which read like advertisments and for which he is the only major editor:

Configuresoft, Inc.
Serverware Racing

COI users:
JediLofty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit iffy. I mean the user doesn't seem like a WP:SPA and has editted lots of unrelated articles. And in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Configuresoft,_Inc. he refers to the company in the third person (they) as opposed to the first or ambiguous (our, the, my). I'd suggest an uninvolved user, (might be me), ask him nicely if he feels he has a COI in the matter. MBisanz ^talk 02:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

According to his Curriculum Vitae (as posted on the website linked from his userpage), he worked for the company for 5 years: http://www.brainache.demon.co.uk/mates/cv.htm

Interesting, I'd say a company he worked for 7 years ago, in a capacity where he wasn't the owner or had direct control, wouldn't qualify as a non-editable COI unless he was going around bad-mouthing the company for making him redundant. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll freely admit to having worked for Serverware Group plc. I was a developer there, and was made redundant in 2001. I also spent some time working with Configuresoft, Inc. when they bought the IP to Enterprise Configuration Manager. While we're on the subject, I went to school with Wayne Pilbeam (18 years ago); would you like to nominate that for deletion too, Cumulus Clouds ;-)? In any article where I have a connection to the subject I am particularly conscious of WP:NPOV and strive to ensure that any information I add is cited and neutral. I think Cumulus Clouds is being rather WP:POINTy here, because I didn't like the way he merged articles into Central obesity without achieving consensus. See my Request for Comment on that issue. As for Serverware being a non-notable company, they created the software that went on to become Microsoft Operations Manager, which I'd have thought conferred at least a little bit of notability!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the article, found it interesting, but did not think there was any POV in there. This more than just a bit iffy Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

These seem to be neutral articles. They contain useful information and they have references. All of them have reliable sources except for Serverware Racing. (That racing team seems to have been covered in AutoSport magazine; someone should get the exact references and add them to the article). There could be fewer red links. Does anyone believe that these articles need to be fixed due to the COI? If so, what changes are needed? EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Configuresoft, Inc., proposed by the same nominator as the present complaint. Over there he has mentioned COI as one of the reasons for deletion. Considering WP:MULTI, It is not totally obvious why you would pursue two lines of critique against the same article at once (both here and at AfD). In such cases it would make sense for the nominator to tell each forum of the existence of the other debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumulus Clouds might shed some light on the reporter's motivations, I'm about ready to archive this one as resolved. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Close? The article creator has a technical COI but is cooperating. Three editors commented. So far no-one has agreed with the submitter that there are any neutrality issues that need fixing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexual transsexual

There have been allegations of COI problems at Talk:Homosexual transsexual, and I thought it would be nice if people who know way more about COIs than I do, and who haven't had the whole long saga inflicted on them, would please take a look. If I can summarize the background (probably badly), this cluster of articles is about a theory of transsexuality that divides transwomen (people who were born male and are now living as women) according to whether they are attracted to men or women. Offensively, it defines their current sexual orientation according to their birth sex, so that a transwoman who is attracted to men is considered a "homosexual transsexual" instead of straight. There was a major scandal related to efforts to discredit this idea, and it seems that long-time Wikipedia editor and prominent trans activist, User:Jokestress, was a significant player in the scandal.

This is the current issue: User:Hfarmer self-identifies as a transwoman who is attracted to men and has recently offered to post a photo of herself on the Homosexual transsexual page. User:Jokestress has lodged many protests about potential policy violations in these articles. Now she says that Hfarmer's offer to post a photo of herself is obviously a COI (but presumably Jokestress' own efforts to shape these pages is not).

What I would like from you: Could a completely independent, uninvolved someone (or preferably several someones) stop by the article's Talk page and give an opinion about whether posting a photo of yourself is actually a COI? I feel like we've got people tossing around policy names as if getting enough three-letter acronyms on your side will convince everyone to agree with you, and it would be nice to have a reality check. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should add a photo of themselves to an article without consensus from the other editors that it's OK. In this case, it's especially unlikely that there will be any reliable sources to prove that the person pictured can be correctly said to be a 'transwoman.' This is a surprisingly well-sourced article right now and I very much doubt that a photo of an individual Wikipedia editor is going to be a valuable addition, given that sources are unlikely to have published anything about that specific editor. Any photo should be of a person already covered in the media, so we can quote whatever the media said about their transwoman status. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think it a warning sign of some kind of agenda when someone is so hot about their picture being used in an article, especially as it's not depicting anything self-evident (where there'd be no verifiability concerns).

Since we don't know what is motivating this enthusiasm, and thinking of the possible legal consequences if it should turn out that, say, the poster isn't the person portrayed, it'd be better to err on the cautious side. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TStolper1W

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randell Mills (result: redirect to Hydrino theory)

• Hydrino theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TStolper1W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written what is essentially a vanity (i.e. self)-published biography of Randell Mills, an entrepreneur working in an area of unconventional physics. There is a legitimate question of whether there is a WP:COI generated by promoting the target of his work. In his defense, he claims that he has published the book on Amazon free from royalties and claims no other financial ties to Mills or his company, Blacklight Power. He has been asked to refrain from contributing to Hydrino theory, the main page on Mills' work, but shows no interest in stopping. Is there a case to prevent him from contributing at all based on this history? I'd appreciate some expert opinion on this. Ronnotel (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional information: Stolper is running a single-purpose account - he has only edited regarding Mills. Stolper was blocked once for edit warring on hydrino theory, and also continues to push his own personal POV on the article. Stolper's POV is in direct contradiction to the scientific consensus, which makes the edit warring and COI problems somewhat worse. Michaelbusch (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin note: awhile back, I restricted TStolper1W (talk · contribs) from editing the article Randell Mills, requesting that he limit himself to making suggestions on the talk page given his evident COI and related issues. However, now the Randell Mills article has been merged/redirected to hydrino theory, where TStolper1W is editing, and rather heavily at that. One option is to extend the sanction I placed on the Randell Mills article to hydrino theory now that the Mills article has been redirected there. MastCell ^Talk 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear (at least to me) that User:TStolper1W has a COI when contributing to either the original article Randell Mills or to the article where it now redirects, Hydrino theory. MastCell banned Stolper from directly editing the Randell Mills article here, and his notice to Stolper can still be seen on the latter's Talk page at User talk:TStolper1W#Notice. If editors who have a COI respond combatively to suggestions from regular editors that they be cautious, this inclines us to limit their editing to the article's Talk page, which is exactly the remedy that MastCell has established in this case. After perusing Stolper's talk page, and noting his approach when he receives comments and suggestions about his COI, I believe the situation fully justifies extending his ban at Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory. Ronnotel already notified him here about the WP:COIN report, but if he does choose to offer comment, we should listen carefully to what he has to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Provided Tom respects WP basic editing protocols I see no reason not to allow him to try to influence debate on the talk page. However, I would also like to hear more from Tom on this matter. Ronnotel (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My paperback book isn't a biography of Mills. It's an extensively documented and footnoted study of the reception of his work, in historical and contemporary context. The paperback book is available from Amazon for $10.25 + shipping. At that price, there is no profit. Writing such a study and making it available is a credential, not a COI. Mills is a real and original scientist. No pseudoscientist has ever been able to do all that Mills has done: found a company, direct it himself for over 16 years, raise over $50 million for it, recruit and retain scientists and engineers with standard degrees and research backgrounds to work with him and for him, make presentations at scientific meetings, and publish dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles about his work. TStolper1W (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. You were invited to contribute here because an administrator, MastCell, is planning to extend your existing article ban on Randell Mills to include Hydrino theory as well. Your blanket defence of Mills's wonderful work doesn't give us much reason to take you seriously, since you didn't make any reference to obeying Wikipedia policies. Please explain how you plan to moderate your editing in the future so that you don't continue to deserve a ban from the Mills-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We seem to be far apart. Michaelbusch has been biased in the extreme against Mills from the word go, as one can see from what Michaelbusch has done and has written in the discussion elsewhere. In this section, he added a charge against me of running a single-purpose account (see above). It’s illogical to ask me to edit articles about which I know less in order to edit the article about which I know the most. As even Ronnotel conceded at the bottom of my User talk page, I know as much about that material as anyone (other than Mills himself). Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be very unneutral. TStolper1W (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TStolper, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this COI discussion. This is not about your views of Mills, or your mis-understanding of my enforcing Wikipedia's adherence to the scientific consensus. Here we are trying to determine if your block from editing of Randell Mills should be extended to hydrino theory, nothing more. As Ed noted, you are not helping yourself. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It’s not a COI to have studied, since 1991, the reception of Mills’ work, nor to have written and made available an extensively documented study of that reception. It’s a credential. The Wikipedia wasn’t founded to enforce orthodoxy. Enforcing orthodoxy by silencing other views stunts the progress of science and always has. Refusal to allow a defense of Mills proportionate to the attack on him in the Wikipedia would be unneutral at best. TStolper1W (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that IS what wikipedia is suppose to do - we take the mainstream view on things using published sources - the "progress of science" is irrelevant to wikipedia. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this: TStolper1 may comment freely on the Talk:Hydrino theory. However, he is limited to 0RR in editing the article hydrino theory. This means that he may make an edit (as proposed text), but if it is reverted for any reason, then he may not reinsert it, in any form. This is an alternative to a complete ban from editing the article which would allow TStolper1 to contribute text suggestions directly, but not to edit-war. Expertise is welcome, but where there is a clear and well-documented connection as exists here, that expertise should be used persuasively on the talk page rather than by editing (or edit-warring) on the article directly. I'll open this for comment before imposing it. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. It does depend on him knowing how the 0RR works. I assume you'll be the one enforcing it so you'll be able to explain it if he winds up violating the ban due to misunderstanding. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a WP:1RR would give him enough leeway to avoid being blocked out of unfamiliarity yet have the same practical effect of preventing him from engaging in edit warring. Zero reverts seems akin to a topic ban. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, what is the connection to which you currently object? TStolper1W (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I like the idea of your proposal above, but I'm afraid Stolpher has considered it license to add bollocks back to the article - which I have just reverted. Please see hydrino theory's page history. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Goodlatte

• User Ks1123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User Marge60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bob Goodlatte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two single purpose accounts, likely the same person, continue to add overtly partisan, obviously inapproriatte text like: "An example of the system gone awry" and "There is also a growing concern that..." and "...which will force Congress to enact fiscally responsible spending measures...", etc. It all reads like a campaign brocure, and in fact is probably copyvio of one since the new text often strays wildly off the subject of the article. I've been reverting the changes but could use some help and a few more eyes. 2005 (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If they have similar editing style, times, etc, WP:SSP will probably produce a faster and more lasting result than a COI tag would. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The second account did nothing but revert back to the version by the first one, so unfortunately there is no "similar editing style". The reversions are the only edits of this editor, so I assume it is a sockpuppet but at the same time there is no evidence of sockpuppetry except a pretty logical guess. 2005 (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, checked their edit histories. Would be reason enough IMHO to file a SSP, but I've been known to have a liberal view of that. Try a Template:Uw-npov2 and Template:Uw-coi on each and work your way up. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the POV excesses are breathtaking. This deserves someone writing up the problem at Talk:Bob Goodlatte. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Annapolis Winery

Resolved

 – deleted by User:Acroterion. MBisanz ^talk 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have notice this article to be advertising. I'm not sure what to do next, but I've tagged the article and am placing this notice here. Annapolis Winery even has at the end of its article, "This wikipedia article was written by a member of the family who owns Annapolis Winery." Clearly, they are doing it out of good intention, but I believe this constitutes as advertising

Cheers, Tjbergsma (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's blatant spam, tagged accordingly. MER-C 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland Museum of Art

• Cleveland Museum of Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LAndrewsCMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Laura Andrews, a communications assistant at the Cleveland Museum of Art, recently made some edits to the article. She substantially expanded it, added pictures, etc. Her edits were later reverted as being inappropriate in tone. She emailed me, confused, asking what had happened. I'd like someone (or several someones) willing to work with her to make this article better. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits by User:LAndrewsCMA did create an article with a promotional tone. Unfortunately, there is no relevant conversation happening on the article's Talk page. Since this article is causing so much trouble, maybe stubbifying is the right thing to do. Promotional edits keep on being made, and then policy-enforcers sweep through and revert them, so we need a genuine improvement (even if it's only a stubbification) to stop the cycle of reverts. Any volunteers? :-) EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave her a message and try to help.--Slp1 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't really see the problem - she has not edited it for over a month. If she wants to be useful, releasing low-res images of star works of theirs we have articles on like The Crucifixion of Saint Andrew (Caravaggio) and Battle of the Nudes (engraving) would be a sensible way to boost their PR. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, thanks for your improvements. Can other editors look at Johnbod's March 1 version to see if they agree it's sufficiently neutral? EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - feel free to keep adding artist links after I got fed up doing so ... :) Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Organic chef

Resolved

 – Deleted as spam. MER-C 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The Organic chef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Clearly self promotional, but not quite SPAM. I am not sure what to do. Possibly notability also. Style also is well off. Lastly This really gets me. Triwbe (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tureya Ashram in India

• Tureya Ashram in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Omkarananda (talk · contribs)

Very slick single-edit SPA creation, clearly by experienced editor (is a new account allowed to create an article in semi-protected state as has been done here?). Poster asserts to be copyright holder of images in the Tureya Foundation Achieves [sic], which would imply a relationship with the organisation, perhaps webmaster@tureya.org [28]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say either stubbify it or AfD it. Its got too much content and sources (however inappropriate they may be) to go the Prod and CSD route. And of course the user should be warned with the right COI tag. MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Olaffpomona

Resolved

 – Its snowing outside. MBisanz ^talk 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Olaffpomona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User creates article for own company (Olsha Law Firm), links this and other (smaller) companies owned by themselves to different articles, and removes all tags from these articles (speedy deletion, not added by me, and notability and COI tags, added by me). As I don't want to be harassing him or her (I have already deleted other articles by same editor, tagged problems, ...), perhaps some other, uninvolved editor can have a look and try to solve this. Fram (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Olsha Law Firm as AFD on grounds of lack of notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olsha Law Firm. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

COI tag on Leon's

Over the past 18 months, an IP user (207.188.94.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has made less than 10 minor edits to an article which, as of a few days ago, s/he was revealed as being connected with (via the Helpdesk edit in the history). Now two editors have added the COI tag, which says, "The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.". This doesn't seem to fit with the minor contributions of the IP editor - is this correct use of the tag? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this removal of a paragraph of criticism by the IP editor I think the COI tag is justified. The comments by this IP at the Help Desk should be carefully listened to, though, since under WP:BLP the subject of an article is allowed to remove what they believe to be factual errors. It needs an investigation to see whether the removed paragraph is truly justified, since it may not be relevant to an article about the furniture store. (Misbehavior by a relative of the store owner seems remote, unless his activities are blessed by the store management in some way). Consider inviting the IP editor and the person who restored the COI tag to join this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Bettison

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Bettison (now closed as Snow Keep), and one of many news stories in the UK press today.

• Norman Bettison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This bio of a UK Chief Constable has been doing its best impression of a slow-motion tennis ball for a while now. It started as a puff piece, got turned into a hatchet job, I waded in and tried to de-POV it (and got barked at in the process), then found some neutral ground... only to have some IPs and now an editor, Webteam3 (talk · contribs), start replacing what seemed to be relatively neutral and sourced copy with what they're calling an "official neutral version" from the West Yorkshire Police. Problem: the "official neutral version" looks kind of whitewashed to me. I'm utterly perplexed as to how to manage this one. Could we get more eyes on it, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're talking

• 79.67.252.250 (talk · contribs)
• 194.152.91.186 (talk · contribs)
• Webteam3 (talk · contribs)

As long as WP:BLP is satisfied, Wikipedia is in no way obliged to use a version matching an "official neutral version", which can be guaranteed to put the best spin on anything controversial. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• 81.86.147.19 (talk · contribs) was also involved at one point, and got a 24-hour time out for edit warring. I agree with your assessment, but would like to be sure that there isn't a problem with the previous version before doing anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help and the discussions, I appreciate the feedback. However we find it frustrating that a previous editor who appears to be seeking to harm Sir Norman's reputation by including very carefully selected negative assertions, without any right to reply, seems to be considered "relatively neutral and sourced". This person has been very clever to reference only controversial, negative issues which in many cases were later satisfactory resolved. The same editor also, at one stage, published on the page a reference to "Sir Norman being a moron" which surely undermines any credibility he/she might pretend to have. Bearing in mind Wiki's policies on LPB being factual and non-controversial, we attempted at first to publish a straight lift adapted from Sir Norman's official CV on the West Yorkshire Police website. This was not only rejected by Wiki but resulted in my IP address being temporarily blocked for 24 hours for "vandalism". Therefore, following feedback on discussion pages and bearing in mind your policies, Sir Norman prepared the current version which attempts to respond to the negative issues raised in the previous unauthorised entry, ie Sir Norman's appointment to Merseyside, the Force amalgamation programme and the recent vote by West Yorkshire Police staff on the shift system. As an example, the previous author sought to raise negative capital with a reference to the fact that staff had rejected the shift system, by a slim majority, attempting to create a perception that Sir Norman was unpopular. However, it is a fact that officers in the Force have now voted by an overwhelming majority to accept the new shifts. It is also important to point out the changes were being made in the first place to better meet the needs of local communities. So we have attempted to answer his/her points objectively, whereas the previous Editor was being very selective with half-truths. I must repeat that this person appears to be seeking to damage Sir Norman's reputation which is why we have been forced to respond by publishing a biography which does not shy away from the accusations but attempts to meet Wiki's policies on LPB - factually complete and correct, not littered with tabloid assertions. I thank you again for your help and can provide any proof required that I am acting on behalf of Sir Norman, and I hope you will find that by carefully reading our version, it does provide a full and balanced view, as one would expect to read on a published biography. Otherwise, we will be forever having to respond to every negative issue the malicious author can think up next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webteam3 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there never is a "finished" version of Wikipedia articles. Whatever the problems, if you represent Sir Norman, you should read the Wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines. Being in this position gives you the right to reasonable correction, but not the right to demand your own version of the article, permanently. The guidelines suggest strongly that you help via the Talk page.

As it stands, the version you favour does need editing, and I agree with Tony Fox that it has a whitewashy flavour. Where it touches on controversy, it so underplays it as to leave readers no idea what it was about. For instance

"This was despite a difficult introduction when it was reported that Sir Norman had been involved in the investigation of the Hillsborough Stadium disaster in 1989 when 96 Liverpool football fans died. He offered to meet with relatives of those who lost their lives at Hillsborough to defuse the controversy"

is meaningless without explaining why his involvement was controversial. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Given the level of control that Webteam3 (talk · contribs) is demanding over this article, we ought to have proof that he/she is acting in some official capacity related to Sir Norman. Otherwise, WP:BLP is quite sufficient. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been mentioned in a news story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/29/nwikipedia129.xml —Random832 14:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but wrong in many respects. It hasn't been "locked down" (that was only what he wanted); it doesn't mention the conflict of interest guidelines; it omits the very real controversy about his role in the Hillsborough enquiry; and it doesn't grasp the basis of Wikipedia in collaborative editing. I see they don't allow comments.

Still, I take that (and the coverage in Police Review) as confirmation of the COI. I suggest Webteam3 (talk · contribs) and socks should now be held strictly to WP:COI guidelines.

The "official version", now it's wikified, is actually not too bad as a starting point. The semiprotection should calm down both the vandals and the socks. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please would Webteam3 upload a GFDL photograph. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Naseba

125.16.229.162 (talk · contribs) who is trying to remove fact tags and resisting clean-up on Naseba and associated articles such as Scott ragsdale, doesn't communicate. IP resolves to Naseba so clear COI. Also likely that Indira.ravi (talk · contribs) and Veena.ammadu (talk · contribs) are same editor. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistant little IP isn't he? Has he hit 3RR yet? Didn't look too closely at the others, but WP:SSP might be the best place. Do you think the article needs semi-protection at this point? MBisanz ^talk 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Gamers: The Movie

For nearly three months, Encyclopedia Mike (talk · contribs) has made dozens of edits across multiple articles that all promote a small independent film, Gamers: The Movie. The same user created the movie's article and an article on its director, Chris Folino. Many edits are trivial insertions to promote the film, such as this, this and this. As far as I can tell, the user's entire edit history has been a campaign to promote the film throughout Wikipedia. Conflict of interest? —Whoville (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoville, are you saying that any of those edits were inappropriate? COI requires bad edits. It doesn't matter if the contributor only cares about one thing, in itself; if he's merely self-promotional, then it's COI (and I suspect that's what you mean). I don't want to follow all the links unless you are asserting that some of them are bad edits, right? Pete St.John (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The links above are examples of where the film or its director have been inserted into articles with a non-notable connection. I don't think it's notable that Gamers: The Movie is an example of a "mockumentary" and needs mention in that article, or that because the film features a Loverboy song it requires a mention in the band's article. Or that This is Spinal Tap is in any way notably linked to Gamers: The Movie. That's the type of COI I'm concerned about. I've since found other edits from a second IP address that inserted Folino's name into articles connected to his birthdate, cities he lived in and lists of genuinely notable screenwriters and directors. A separate discussion is whether Gamers: The Movie and Chris Folino meet Wikipedia's notability criteria in the first place. —Whoville (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

These look like examples of spamming which needs dealing with; but unfortunately it only comes under the conflict of interest brief if there's solid evidence (e.g. self-identification, IP address) showing the editor(s) to be connected with the movie. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Help me out, then. Is there a different process for reporting this kind of spam? I figured it would be rejected as vandalism which is why I didn't report it at WP:AIV. Since there seems to be some consensus that these edits are inappropriate, I'd hate to think they'll be ignored because of a procedural technicality. —Whoville (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the author in question. The movie in question was critically acclaimed by several movie websites. Both the author and the movie were covered by major media outlets for film like CNN, ABC television and the Hollywood Reporter. All the facts are verified. I swear on a stack of bibles that I am not doing this to promote the film and I am receiving no financial gain from it whatsoever. I find this to be a talented up and coming director who made a very good acclaimed movie. As far as the links go, I am new on Wikipedia. I thought you were supposed to link your work. If it came off as overexuberant, I apologize. (Although I would say that linking a movie voted BEST FILM OF 2006 by two sources to LOVERBOY is hardly undermining LOVERBOY.) But I honestly want to follow and respect Wiki's rules. Most importantly, I would hate to see a notable subject penalized for my lack of procedural knowledge. I hope the articles in question stay. I believe this is an artist of merit. I would very much like make this an Wikipedia insertion considered scholarly and proper. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia Mike (talk • contribs) 05:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) --Encyclopedia Mike (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoville, if it helps you resolve this faster, I will refrain from making any further edits regarding Folino or the film in the future. Being new to Wikipedia I thought everything had to be cross referenced. Again, I will happily leave further authorship on this subject to others to avoid the appearance of conflict. Thank you.--Encyclopedia Mike (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Smith (painter)

Fairly obviously a self-promoting account, since he's responsible for just editing Peter Smith (painter) and adding a massive, spammy section to Mansfield advertising the same. Is he even notable? 91.84.79.118 (talk) 10:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. AfD it, adding to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Politician Dean A. Hrbacek

• Article: Dean A. Hrbacek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Single-purpose accounts with apparent conflicts of interest:

• Watchingthedog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Qp10io1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jbgtx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.128.112.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed "Photoshop controversy" three times (so far). — Athaenara ✉ 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Various users have been edit warring on the article about Hrbacek, a politician who is a current congressional candidate in Texas.

User JamesMLane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has attempted to engage the other users on the article talk page. The issues came to my attention on the Third opinion project. — Athaenara ✉ 18:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Cause article may need attention again

→ See also: COI/N archive 8 (two sections) and COI/N archive 14.

• Article: Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User Dbarnold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account user Dbarnold1 expanded the article four-fold today. Earlier discussions of COI edits to this article are in more than one COI/N archive; the difference this time is that quite a few references to independent sources (in addition to several citations of the organization's own website) were added. I'm posting here to draw the attention of impartial editors to it again. — Athaenara ✉ 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been in the Category:2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities since 2004 (diff). User Dbarnold1 removed it today (diff). I invited discussion on Talk:Common Cause#Question about removal of category. — Athaenara ✉ 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a student volunteer for this organization. However, I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest that would require me to withdraw from editing this article. I volunteer for their media and democracy department, which I made sure to not comment on as to avoid bias. I also made sure to cite credible sources for each statement made, pulling only from the organization's website for the mission statement, membership/funding data, and only two references to issues. — Dbarnold1 (talk • contribs)

Edits that promote company by the supposed new key person

• Intown Suites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Collierdaily (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Template:Intown Suites - I have discovered several edits within the last month on the page Intown Suites (which I initially created) by a user named Collierdaily. These edits, for the most part, have changed the content of the article from a near neutral point-of-view to a promotion of the chain (some of these changes I have reverted). One of the changes that has been made is that the "key people" section of the template has been changed from "David Vickers, Cheryl Vickers" to "Scott Griffith, Collier Daily." Not that doing this is anything wrong, but that the user who has been making the changes that promote the chain is one of the key people of the company. This user's contributions now list just 6 edits, all of the Intown Suites article.Tatterfly (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: A Google search of "Intown Suites" and "Collier Daily" produces just 5 hits, one of them which is the Wikipedia article on Intown Suites.Tatterfly (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FreeLife

Article

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

Editor

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

Freelifelegal has been informed of WP:COI and WP:U, but could still use some help getting a new username as well as assistance with editing FreeLife. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored this complaint from Archive_22, since the debate is heating up. User:Freelifelegal has been blocked for 3RR. Looking at Talk:FreeLife, that page shows a history of not-terribly-cooperative editing going back to April, 2007. There have been complaints about company supporters removing negative information at several points during the last 11 months. Barek has lately been doing some useful cleanup work on the article. In its current form, the article looks OK to me, but we may have to persuade Freelifelegal to edit more carefully in the future. Though Freelifelegal's user name may appear promotional, I wouldn't suggest blocking for username unless further issues appear. Anyone who has the time is urged to leave messages at User talk:Freelifelegal if you notice any further edits that seem worrisome. At this point, we can't consider the COI-affected editors to be newbies any more. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Jsteelefreelife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Jody Steele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Not sure if these are related, but may be.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I took me a while to get anyone to even comment on my edits. Finally Barek will be working to help create a balanced entry. I chose this username so that there would be no question that I was associated with FreeLife (a the suggestion of Jimbo Wales to our company). One of my first posts on the discussion page was that I was associated with FreeLife, was a newbie to Wikipedia, and would appreciate any help I could get to ensure I was not violating the COI rules. I received absolutely no responses until all my edit were recently removed without any explanation on the discussion page. There seems to be a tendency to immediately jump to the conclusion that anyone associated with the company cannot possibly make edits without violating the COI rule. I respectfully disagree. I am thrilled that Barek is now involved and I will work within the rules with his help to get this entry to where it should be.Freelifelegal (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

XBRL

Article

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

The page XBRL could use some attention. Almost all recent editors seem to have COI issues, large or small (including Lancet75, Colcomgroup, Mike Willis, and myself). I include myself in this category since I have been an editor of the XBRL specification, and I'm asking for some advice about the quality of my editing on the page and the talk page. Thanks! Dvunkannon (talk) 03:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

user Crlittle1

• User Crlittle1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

i see no other edits besides inclusion into many dozens of articles 'references' and 'see also' promoting author's own book, with 'helpful' link to amazon page for same. i left a notice on user's talk page, no response. if there's a way to blanket revert all of these i think it would be appropriate. Anastrophe (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They can't be "references" if he wasn't actually adding content to the article, and most of the other entries were under "further reading", with links to amazon.com. Rolling back now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks kindly. Anastrophe (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Affinion Group

• Tnspdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shearwater63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Affinion Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Two accounts, User:Tnspdr, whe has edited from an IP belonging to the company in question, [29] [30], and User:Shearwater63 , who admits to being an employee of the company, [31] are tag-teaming to remove negative information from the article. Tnspdr, who had been inactive since before Shearwater63 began editing, returned to revert warring after Shearwater was blocked earlier today for violating the 3RR and then warned for block evasion. In particular, the editors are interested in keeping the several other names under which the company has done business out of the intro. They also generally blank some or all of the section on complaints that have been made against the company.[32] -- Vary | Talk 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)