Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

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

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

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

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

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:Alameda Belt Line Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Monica Behan Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Scott Bessent Talk:Shmuley Boteach Talk:Breyers Talk:Michael Calvey Talk:Cinq Music Group Talk:Clover Health Talk:Commvault Talk:CoStar Group Talk:Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Vincenzo de Cotiis Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Darnell Edge Talk:Edith Clement Talk:Nigel Edwards (health) Talk:Empire (magazine) Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:Eric Gallager Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Global Citizen Awards Talk:Golden State Foods Talk:GoToGate Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grayscale Investments Talk:Greystar Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Hannover Re Talk:Harsco Talk:List of Harvard University people Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Human Engineering Research Laboratories 2 Talk:Huron Consulting Group Talk:Illa del Rei Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Talk:Jats Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Christian Kälin Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Kennedy Center Honors Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Labcorp Talk:Lally School of Management Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Leviton Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of EDA companies Talk:Mark Twain Prize for American Humor Talk:Andrew D. Maynard Talk:Chris McCarthy (executive) Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MongoDB Inc. Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:Netvibes Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:One Energy Talk:Oneok Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Poster House Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Research Corporation Talk:Reworld Talk:Rivulis Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Royal Match Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Simprints Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:Spotfire Talk:The Student Room Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tencent Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Unity (game engine) Talk:List of University of Chicago alumni Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Martha G. Welch Talk:Wingtech Talk:Xsolla Talk:Zyn

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.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

User:ProEdits

ProEdits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User ProEdits states on his user page, "I am the webmaster for the following site:" http://robertpriddy.com and also http://www.saibaba-x.org.uk/ and the blog robertpriddy.wordpress.com Anyone interested can view the Wiki biographical page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Priddy" Robert Priddy is well known (and vocal) about his anti Sai Baba views. (as stated in the web sites) He edits for the Sathya Sai Baba page. With such a negative opinion how can edits be considered "neutral"? (as seen in his latest edits. Adding material about the BBC, after it had been deemed a BLP violation and removing information from a source, which he says "is a pro-Sai site full of massive attacks on critics" yet if he is a critic then there is an "agenda") Using information from his website has been banned. Why then is he allowed to directly write for the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page? The concern is his "agenda", and does that conflict with the goals/interests of Wikipedia?

J929 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J929, it seems you understand little about neutrality. A person can be neutral on many issues but biased on others. There is something known as freedom of speech, which also has relevance for Wikipedia no less, when that freedom is exercised with full grounding and source references, as I have done. You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me and other reasonable and measured critics of Sathya Sai Baba such as Andries and Ombudswiki. Your bias is witnessed by your massive pro-Sai Baba editing and removals of as much critical material as you presumably think will stand. I think the Sathya Sai Baba page is far, far worse in its adulatory attitude than it ever was, and it will hardly ever be accepted as 'objective' when you have added links to so many subjective pro-Sai websites.ProEdits (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the fact information from your own site is not allowed on the Sathya Sai Baba page and then removing sources with critical views on critics constitues an agenda. The sources you removed were not deemed inappropriate by any wikipedia body. so it is your opinion at work and we all know what that is. how is that neutral? please explain...
which pro Sai Baba websites are you refering to? i rewrote any edits of mine that refered directly to those sites. any content you removed was not from me.

J929 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J929, you want me to explain. O.K. Your idea of neutrality seems to be influenced by your desire that only positive and pro-Sai materials be made known. Neutrality does not mean never to make criticisms or present contrary evidence and viewpoints, it rather means to present a balanced view on any issue. On my websites you can see I deal with countless issues in what I consider - as a professional philosopher - to be a sufficiently balanced way in that I assess the information pro and con and arrive at a considered evaluation. That I no longer promote Sathya Sai Baba in a positive way is because I did so - clearly far too much - when I wrote so many articles in his journal promoting him and - still deceived by him - a book which earned his blessings. I am now concerned to right the matter and level the field, one might say. The sources removed were not reliable according to Wikipedia policy and contain many attacks on all critics of Sathya Sai Baba by user SSS108 (Gerald Moreno)."SSS108 runs several attack web sites" was voted as correct by 5 wikipedia administrators. The same admins. banned him unanimously from editing Wikipedia. I would advise you not to defend him by complaining I remove links to his attack sites at vishvarupa and sathyasaibaba.wordpress. ProEdits (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You exercise your freedom of speech to show you are very clearly biased against me" may i point out you run an entire website to crticising Sathya Sai Baba, a living person...

J929 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't so much a COI issue as POV. I suggest you both stop the personal attacks and concentrate on the article. Stick to reliable secondary sources, no blogs or web sites that are not owned by mainstream news organizations. Remember, everyone has a POV, and that's ok. The problem arises when POV sneaks in to the article. Rees11 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J929: Some clarification of my position is clearly called for, so I reply. I am opposed to Sathya Sai Baba nowadays because I personally know young men who told me in detail how he abused them - including oral sex - and was implicated in the decisions to murder four intruders to his bedroom in 1993 and in the cover-up afterwards. I cannot doubt all this, though I dearly wished to doubt, having been a devotee of Sai Baba for 18 years, wrote many positive articles and a book about him and was the leader of the Sathya Sai Organization in Norway until 2000. You evidently would expect me to keep silent about this? That he is a living person does not absolve him from all criticism, when he is so notable as he is. My websites mostly contain critical analysis of his massive claims and his entire 'teachings' and shown that they are very largely bogus in that they are vague, conflict internally on countless issues and contain totally absurd ideas about science, history and religions, despite his massive claims of being omnipotent and much more. ProEdits (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProEdits is continuing to rebuild a segment of the article that has already be deemed a BLP violation... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question At what point does a POV become a COI?

Thanks for your time...

J929 (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Radiantenergy:

User:ProEdits is no one other than Robert Priddy. His contributions and his userpage serves as evidence to this fact.
Next question is Who is Robert Priddy?

Robert Priddy owns negative defamatory attack websites on Sathya Sai Baba in the web and he is ex-follower of Sathya Sai Baba.

Robert Priddy websites were banned by Second arbitration commitee. They stated the following

Arbitration commitee stated that "Priddy maintains several web sites: http://home.no.net/rrpriddy/Nos/index.html is a conventional author's web site with links to many of Priddy's works. http://home.chello.no/~reirob/ titled SATHYA SAI BABA stories, myths and deceits http://home.no.net/anir/Sai/ and http://home.no.net/abacusa/ are attack sites containing large amounts of opinion and what appears to be personal experience and unverifiable original research.". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Robert_Priddy

The same 'Robert Priddy' whose websites were banned by second arbitration commitee is edit-warring and causing disruption to the article. His WP:COI with the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba' is well-known. Why is he allowed to edit the Sathya Sai Baba article?.
The following evidence to show his disruption to the article several times in the last 2 weeks trying to push his negative agenda on Sathya Sai Baba into the article.

[1],

[2],

[3],

[4].

Robert Priddy has been edit-warring and trying to add more and more defamatory material from old 2004 BBC documentary inspite of the WP:RS board here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question declaring the BBC material should be removed as its a clear BLP violation to the subject - Sathya Sai Baba.
As per the WP:RS recommendation I removed unneccessary gossip and presented BBC material in neutral tones but Priddy has been adding back more and more defamatory material from the BBC and there by clearly and repeatedly violating WP:RS decision again and again.
Robert Priddy editing is definitely detrimental to this article due to his strong WP:COI with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Please also note that this article already went through 2 arbitrations and may likely go into third arbitration if his edit-warring and disruption don't stop.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to answer this question, "At what point does a POV become a COI?" The answer is, never. While WP:COI and WP:NPOV are related they are distinctly different. Wikipedia's NPOV policy relates to editing an article to insert bias, either negative or positive, and applies to the actions of any editor. The COI policy relates to an editor who is editing in a manner that provides a conflict of interest because of their relation to the article subject or their edits. A conflict of interest is just a way of identifying when an editor might possibly be editing Wikipedia with ulterior motives because they might get some personal gain out of it (generally of either a financial or promotional nature). Often a person with a COI does have a particular POV when they edit, but there is no point that a POV "becomes" a COI. There seems to be some assumption that a COI is just a strong POV but that's not the case, in fact while a COI can often be harmless, editing to promote a POV is always negative. There is a noticeboard for NPOV violations that is separate from this one.

~~Also, if this editor has been editing in violation of ArbCom restrictions, WP:AE is the place to report those violations.~~ In this case, if Proedits is Robert Priddy then there is a COI because he is adding links to his own writings which could be seen as self-promotion. ~~But I would recommend arbitration enforcement instead of reporting it here, because I believe that violating ArbCom restrictions is a more serious problem.~~ -- Atama頭 19:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, effort and advice...

J929 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama: I have not added links to my own articles in the article page. Are you saying that links to one's own websites is not allowed on talk pages either? If so, then the material required for a proper answer could instead put directly on the talk pages, which would be very time-consuming for all involved. ProEdits (talk) 08:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i'd like to offer the latest edit from PoEdits citing the source http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/bbcbroadcastsecretswami.html for validity. Please note ex-baba in the title...
Wikipedia policy states to "produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"
If edits with such sources that state "Don’t miss the chance to see it and, above all, to record it!!!" are allowed (from a Wikipedia editor with ties to anti Sai Baba websites) can Wikipedia policy be upheld?

J929 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the reference is that the BBC is airing a documentary called "the Secret Swami" that would be a RS. There was certainly nothing particularly pro or anti-sai baba on that website.Simonm223 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please reduce the website address and something begins to become apparent...
http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/engels/shortnews/

it says...

Barry Pittard
Related
http://home.hetnet.nl/~ex-baba/engels/shortnews/foetus.html http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/80bdayanand.htm
the article is by Barry Pittard , another known anti Sai Baba writer... (At Call For Media and Government Investigation of Sathya Sai Baba. http://barrypittard.wordpress.com )
the page is further linked to another anti Sai Baba site (under Brian Steel)

further more the entire page is from http://www.rfjvds.dds.nl/ex-baba/ an anti Sai Baba site...
this was all added by Robert Priddy who holds his own anti Sai Baba websites, which are linked to Brian Steel and Barry Pittard. Wikipedia BLP "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"
is this edit using wikipedia as the "primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"? how can the source be reliable if one anti Sai Baba writer (Robert Priddy) simply quotes another 'friends' anti Sai Baba website?
what about this 'editing' does wikipedia policy adhere to? J929 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked farther into the prior arbitration cases. Recently, Radiantenergy had requested enforcement on ArbCom sanctions regarding ProEdit's usage of sources, but it was ruled that the ArbCom case he supposedly violated had no sanctions. The original case similarly had no sanctions. That means there's effectively no way to violate ArbCom sanctions, because there aren't any on that article despite having been through 2 different requests for arbitration. The only actions that resulted from either case were topic bans against certain editors (and ProEdit was not topic-banned). So mentioning arbitration sanctions here in this discussion is incorrect and should be avoided (I'd even go so far as to recommend striking out such suggestions above, as I have done).

I'd like to repeat that ProEdits should not be adding links to his (Robert Priddy's) web sites. That is a clear conflict of interest and is essentially self-promotion. I would like to also add that the second ArbCom case declared that some of Priddy's sites are attack sites containing lots of unverified original research and opinion, which further strengthens the argument that those sites should not be linked to. -- Atama頭 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, Thanks for explaining all the rules however I still have some questions and I will appreciate your response.

In the future, if an user / activist seriously disrupts the Sathya Sai Baba article due to their WP:COI with the subject what can be done?

Can other editors appeal for amendments to the second arbitration rulings requesting sanction on that disruptive editor?
My second question is if that's the case then which forum should be used for requesting amendments to the second arbitration rulings or for requesting sanctions on disruptive users - WP:AE or Is there any special forum for such requests?

I will definitely appreciate your response to these questions. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are serious disruptions then those should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Spamming, WP:BLP violations, edit-warring, etc. are all different problems that have different remedies. Spamming, for example, should be dealt with by warning the editor with escalating warnings which can eventually result in a WP:AIV report, which can then lead to blocks (possibly indefinite blocks). There is a BLP noticeboard that can help with such problems as defamation or bad sourcing in a BLP. Edit-warring should be dealt with by trying to get the editor to discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting, and violating WP:3RR can be reported at WP:AN3, but be careful not to violate the three-revert-rule yourself (I myself rarely revert more than once and never revert more than twice as a personal rule). But essentially, the COI itself is more of a footnote for the editor to bring up when other violations occur.

Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. Dispute resolution occurs when 2 or more editors disagree on the content of an article and can't compromise. There are many steps used to resolve such conflicts, including asking for a 3rd opinion from someone uninvolved with editing the article, making a general request for comments from uninvolved editors, asking for informal and formal mediation, etc. When all else fails you go to arbitration which is like Wikipedia court. The Arbitration Committee makes rulings based on the evidence and arguments provided. If the arbitration remedies seem to be insufficient to fix the problem you can make a request at arbitration enforcement to extend or amend the remedies, but the last arbitration case for this subject was well over 2 years ago. I think you'd be better off requesting another case, but again those cases are not accepted unless all other dispute resolution steps have been attempted and failed. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I note you state: "Edit-warring should be dealt with by trying to get the editor to discuss things on the talk page instead of reverting" I have tried this repeatedly with Radiantenergy, but he only failed to reply or avoids all my chief points. I try to reply to his accusations about me fairly. I was not consciously trying to promote myself but to provide further information for people willing to see both viewpoints.

I find the rules on reverting/vandalism somewhat arcane - does the rule involve that one cannot revert more than three times EVEN when sound reasons for the revert are given and not addressed by anyone? I note that, after your advice, Radiantenergy leaves the third revert to an accomplice like Sbs108. I am aware of how this rule applies.

As to my having made a link to one of my web pages, I had no idea that I was not allowed to do so in talk pages (see my querie to you above, so far unanswered), I realised I could not do so on the article page. I was misled, however, in that several of the pro-Sai editors have placed links to websites of SSS1208 (Gerald Moreno) whose web sites were formally banned by an arbitration panel of five persons see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I cannot locate who made thsse illegal links, but strongly suspect the currently active pro-Sai edit warriors, for who else?.Since I heard that NO links were permitted anywhere on Wikipedia to websites excluded by Arb.Com, I have therefore removed several of those links (to vishvarupa.com, sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com on the main article page and three links to saisathyasai.com on the top of the talk page). Since Radiantenergy follows the example of banned SSS108 in numerous ways, and supports all of his main agendas and methods almost to the letter - which I can document if required), I suggest that - even though he remains anonymous - he may well have a conflict of interest himself. If he cannot be identified, then is it not unfair that he can get away with what those who are open about themselves cannot.ProEdits (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I find the rules on reverting/vandalism somewhat arcane - does the rule involve that one cannot revert more than three times EVEN when sound reasons for the revert are given and not addressed by anyone?" - Yes, even if those reverts seem completely appropriate. Let me relate to you a real incident that I witnessed recently. An article in which I've been active in editing was also edited by an administrator, who had done a wonderful job getting the article into fine shape. For a long time the article had been semi-protected because of repeated vandalism and spam from anonymous editors, and other edits that weren't clearly vandalism but still lowered the quality of the article (badly-formatted edits, insertion of trivia, etc.) The administrator decided to remove the semi-protection to see if anonymous editors might be a positive thing, because it had been over a year since it was applied and there were some controversial real-life events at the time attracting negative attention. After the protection was removed there were some decent contributions from anonymous editors but the majority of edits were terrible. In the midst of this, an established editor came to the article and began a tendentious insertion of negative POV criticisms that were opposed by every other editor at that article (over a half-dozen of us). When I reported the editor for edit-warring, instead of him being blocked the administrator was blocked because he had reverted anonymous editors a few times (for very good reasons) and the tendentious editor twice in a 24 hour period. So I can say that the rule about 3 reverts is pretty much set in stone unless your edits are reverting clear vandalism (and be careful that it is really vandalism as defined at WP:VAN).

Links to your web sites on the talk page should be fine. It didn't register with me that you were only providing links on the talk page of the article, I apologize for that. This noticeboard posting is basically a huge wall of text and Radiantenergy has posted so much that it's easy to miss details. So yes, you're right that posting links on the talk page is fine and even recommended by the guidelines. As to Radiantenergy's potential COI, it's unfortunate that where conflicts of interest occur sometimes being honest seems to work against you. You've been open about who you are and are therefore restricted as a result. But if indeed Radiantenergy is affiliated with blocked editors and that fact becomes known, I wouldn't be surprised if a permaban would result. Meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry are treated the same, and an editor whose conflict of interest is discovered, rather than volunteered, is often treated harshly. I would advise against acting on these suspicions without evidence however, because it would probably backfire. For now assume good faith even if you disagree, and be content that so far their efforts to get you blocked have failed. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atami: I am relieved to get your positive and informative answer, even though I just removed the talk page link I'd made under the false impression that Radiantenergy knew what he was talking about. I have not edited Wikipedia for some years and was very rusty on the rules. One lives and relearns!ProEdits (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Radiantenergy:

User:ProEdits - First stop your accusations. I would like to remind you about assume good faith. Nobody is conspiring anything. Please stick to the questions and don't write elaborate explanations about your past animosity with some old banned user SSS108. To be frank with you I have stopped reading your explanationa as most of it does revolves around SSS108. It does not make any sense to me and I am not interested in knowing your animosities with that user. Please write short answers explaining the reasons about the current edit-warring you are involved with here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba&diff=314336858&oldid=314327369#Repeated_Vandalism_by_ProEdits_aka_Activist_Robert_Priddy.
Both The Daily Pioneer and the Asian Voice have been discussed in detail in WP:RS notice board and declared as reliable sources.
Inspite of knowing these two sources are reliable if you try to repeatedly delete them its considered as disrupting and Vandalizing the article.
In your response to deleting the 'Daily Pioneer source' in the talk page - your words were

Comments from User:ProEdits for deleting daily Pioneer source from the Sathya Sai Baba article:

"If he can prove that the statement on the Pioneer article about me is true, then it would be a different matter. But he cannot because it is entirely false! Therefore this particular atricle is UNRELIABLE as a source, whatever others may have opined about the general reliability of the Daily Pioneer on-line. Why was my rebuttal under comments to the article not included? ...""

What answer do you expect for your above comments?. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is no place for publishing personal opinions. I have already given my answer its not up to the editors in Wikipedia to prove anything to you or to any other activist who is directly involved with the subject Sathya Sai Baba. Declaring a reliable source as unreliable just on the pretext that it mentions your name is an unacceptable reason. This called as POV pushing. Again this source was declared as reliable in the WP:RS board.

I am trying to explain the wikipedia rules once again. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources publishes.

Also don't expect editors to include your comments to the Daily Pioneer in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

You removed 2 important reliable source from the article based on your personal opinion that its unreliable there by breaking the WP:RS decision that its reliable. This disruption and POV pushing and repeatedly deleting important reliable sources based on your POV has to stop. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiantenergy - In pointing out the huge similarities between you, your methods, your agenda, the way you push your POV to the utmost limits and the irrational entries - with SSS108, I did not intend to interest you. I am challenging the reliability if the Daily Pioneer epaper article and this matter will be brought up in due course in the proper forum. Wikipedia judgements are not set in stone for ever! Your disruptions are perfectly evident to anyone who read the great masses of largely irrelevant comments on every possible page - your constant repeating of the same points, and constantly avoiding valid questions and comments from all who disagree with you, and your collusion with J929 and Sba108 is patently evident not only from the way you share reverting so that none of you exceed the 3 revert limit. I assumed good faith for a long time, but you have given more than enough reason to judge that it can no longer be assumed. There is a limit to everything. You are pursuing an extremely antipathetic agenda against me, which was also shown from your calling for an Arb. Com. case after I returned to the issue after over 2 years and made one single edit! BTW, you owe me no "thanks". ProEdits (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward

Without rehashing the whole debate again - It is clear that user Benjiboi has a clear conflict of interest on a number of articles and has been using wikipedia in a promotional manner - two of which are going to be deleted via AFD and do not need to be discussed further. There are also problems with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which needs eyes and checking to ensure that the material is not promotional and the sources are good. Indeed, Benjiboi's first edits were promotional/COI as they relate to promoting themselves and this was back in 2006 - so eyes are need to check articles they have contributed to significantly and ensure that they are COI free. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What problems are there with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regarding a COI? I don't think a person's edits that are over 3 years old are relevant to the noticeboard. Alleging a COI and not providing any support for it isn't all that helpful. And yes, I'm personally aware of who Benjiboi is, I doubt too many regular editors wouldn't be, but I'm wondering what the specific complaints are. If you don't want to "rehash the whole debate" why post here? -- Atama頭 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article references his activity in his Sister personia, has photos of him stuck all over it (that he uploaded), has a sister talkpage where when the conflict of interest was raised and quickly removed by him, under an edit summary of formatting - I dunno I guess it's all in my head and it's not even worth checking to see if there are problems with the article or his other edits. Naw, let's just assume with two promotional articles about to be deleted that he was acting like the driven snow on the third. Let's not bother seeing what else he was upto in the last three years when his first edits here were promotional - I'm sure it's all fine and not worth looking into. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, containing notices for general attention is how noticeboards often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion in the archives of this very noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations, in light of the independent assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.
      And when you're done with that, try looking at Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That issue was raised two years ago, since then there have been a lot of edits, and some non internal sources added, but the article still reads like a press release. I am tempted to suggest stubbing it down to the original short mention of the existence of the org and urging that it be carefully rebuilt, omitting most of the blog and internal site citations... ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a Wikipedia Review posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the Sister Roma article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at Michael Lucas; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find I didn't add those but did try to fix them. I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that saying a person has a COI and offering practically nothing to support it is useless endeavor. Don't expect people to somehow know all the background to a case, or to spend hours searching for it. Notices come and go on this board and if you don't take the time to actually present a case, expect to be ignored.

Now, this is obviously a contentious case so I expect this thread to get long, be full of wikidrama and probably not lead anywhere. But for now I'm not taking sides either way. -- Atama頭 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the actual problem is rather negligible since two offending articles which Benjiboi has admitted were probably created in error are being deleted and there is given no evidence of obvious COI conflicting material at the other articles mentioned. The only possible problem lie in the realm of theory, namely in speculations about whether Benjiboi has a conflict of interest in certain areas that they edit, and if they have how they will manage such hypothetical conflicts in the future. Now frankly such speculation isn't really productive or necessary since the future will inevitably give us the answer - if Benjiboi does not edit in a manner that would suggest to us that they have a COI and are unable to manage it correctly then we can conclude that there is no problem - if a problem arises then we can act. Now, it would be wonderfully easy if Benjiboi would simply disclose whether a COI might arise, but he is not obligated to do so - and in fact it is much more useful if they simply show by their actions that they do not or that they can manage any conflicts of interest they might have in accordance with the NPOV policy. In short I believe no action of any kind is either called for or warranted - and that we should simply move along and see what the future will show us.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slut Night seems to be headed toward deletion. Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. looks to be possibly headed for no consensus (that's my guess at least), and then there's DJ Pusspuss which also seems to be in doubt (again, my speculation). But that still leaves Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which isn't up for deletion at all, and there are COI concerns there. So while I haven't taken a side and I don't know if I want to become part of this controversial debate (call me a wimp if you want) I don't know that it's resolved. -- Atama頭 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, I was agreeing with you but perhaps I worded it poorly. Maunus, just to clarify I think that both subjects were/are notable but were written poorly, which is of course fixable, and in the DJ one, sourced below current standards. Back in 2006 adding multitudes of external links seemed acceptable. I obviously wouldn't do that anymore. Vague accusations of COI aren't helpful. {{COI}} is a clean-up template not a badge of shame as Cameron Scott seems to be applying it. If there are NPOV or sourcing issues then simply state what they are. Given the hostility it would be rather foolish for anyone to add anything that isn't strongly sourced to any of these articles. Not sure how Slut night figures into the current COI accusations but it's likely being deleted so I'm not it matters either. For the record I didn't create that article or the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence one but greatly overhauled each being led by the sourcing. On the Slut Night one the website where most of the main articles about the subject is seen as SPS. If I had known that at the time I wouldn't have bothered trying to save it from deletion. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not attempting to make vague accusations - I was suggesting that the best attitude towards the accusations already made were to assume the best and leave the issue as long as noone has evidence that a COI is causing specific concerns for wikipedias integrity, which doesn't seem to be the case now. In short at present I don't currently care about whether you have a COI - but I would if your editing at anytime became disruptive or otherwise threatening to the encyclopedias integrity - stressing that I have no reason to believe that it will.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Cameron Scott's accusations, he's maligned me all over the place, this is but one example. And I very much appreciate your take, I tend to agree. I'm definitely concerned if there are COI issues on any article but thousands of editors tend to fix those to trim off puffery and add in NPOV where it's lacking. To me, even if someone is obviously COI they must be treated civilly. This has proved to be quite the tour through drama past, much of these incidents I had completely forgotten about. At one point I thought of creating a list of people I've been accused of but still feel it's a bit of a waste of energy. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you refrain from editing articles where you have a COI or highlight that COI to others? enough of the weasel answers, let's get a straight yes or no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Since you're not willing to clarify whether there is or isn't a conflict of interest (and you don't have to reveal information about yourself that would clear it up unless you want to, that's a tenet of how things are done here) but since there has been an ongoing pattern of edits from you that fit those that someone with a conflict of interest would make, which you yourself have admitted, we should take a page from WP:MEAT and treat the matter as if a conflict of interest existed, whether it does or not. What matters more than whether there is or isn't one is whether the edits are objective and well sourced. Although I haven't exhaustively checked every contribution, I'm not sure all of your edits, even all of your recent ones, are. I'm sorry to say it but you still write like you have something to promote. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: posts below include replies on a now removed comment [5]. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I pick up my torch and pitchfork? user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Smallbones, your hostility is alarming and unhelpful. Anyone who starts on Wikipedia generally starts in one subject area and grows from there. That I also worked on Sister Roma who works at Hot House Entertainment, etc etc really that surprising? No. This board isn't for witch-hunting. If you actually can show COI content it would go a long way to constructively fixing it. As for everyone else, this is but a fraction of the heat i got for participating at WP:Paid; sadly my cover is blown as I'm not a paid editor but that hasn't deterred the harassment. The hostility from both Cameron Scott and Smallbones is a perfect example of why paid editors and COI editors are likely to stay hidden and underground. We can do better than this. Focus on the content. While Cameron Scott is gleefully deleting material that they think isn't sourced they are missing that it's all likely true and verifiable. I encourage others to review the behaviours of all involved here not just their idea of WP:The Truth of they think is my identity. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not where the situation actually stands. The situation actually stands at this point:
- Benjiboi denied any financial interests two years ago on this very noticeboard and has confirmed that to still be the situation here in this very discussion only a day or so ago, albeit that xyr intention is to take the position entirely supported by Wikipedia:Outing policy of neither confirming nor denying assertions as to xyr identity.
- It has been pointed out that the editors with the quite apparent and unconcealed conflicts of interest at Hot House Entertainment are in fact M.brandonclark (talk · contribs) (who is clearly also 71.146.203.2 (talk · contribs) and who is clearly "Brandon Clark", Hot House Entertainment's erstwhile webmaster) and Hhbrent (talk · contribs) (who is equally clearly making no secret of being the Brent Smith, of "HH", mentioned in the article itself).
- It has even been pointed out that Benjiboi didn't actually write Hot House Entertainment as claimed, that being mostly the work of the aforementioned two; and didn't actually create, as claimed, that article, Sister Roma, or Steven Scarborough, all of which were created by Sfdrag (talk · contribs).
- It's been pointed out that people aren't doing their research.
On a further note, I point out the self-contradiction between saying that Benjiboi is "Sister Roma", and thus has a COI at Sister Roma and Hot House Entertainment, and that Benjiboi is "DJ Pusspuss" and thus has a COI at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. and DJ Pusspuss. One cannot have both. The real names behind both personae, one of which has been bandied about in these discussions (but I'm not repeating), the other of which is both in the original version of Sister roma and easily verifiable from elsewhere, don't match. The editors trying for a blanket conflict of interest here should note that this is a mutually exclusive situation. There's either the one conflict of interest or the other, not both.
Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Where has that claim be made? I see someone making a relationship link but nobody is saying they are the same person. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this "research" even going on? If User:Benjiboi does not wish to disclose his identity, and declares that he does not have a conflict of interest, it seems the extent to which we would need to assume bad faith to try to prove that he has a conflict of interest is quite extreme. His contributions don't get anywhere near disruptive, which would be a prerequisite for this sort of drama, in my opinion... If he's written an article that's not notable, we have procedures in place to deal with that. If he's edited articles in a way that reads less than neutral, we can deal with that. What's the point in all of this? user:J aka justen (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the current state of play is:

DJ Puss Puss - deleted at AFD
Sister kitty - deleted at AFD
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - multiple editors working on this and cleaning it up
Pink Saturday - I stubbed it and it's now NPOV
Trans March - needs eyes and sources checking, obvious promotional edits removed by me.
Sister Roma ???? Not looked at, no idea.
Hot House Entertainment ??? Not looked at, no idea.

--Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humble attempt to demonstrate a problem

"[Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence] was largely written by Sister Kitty Catalyst of the Mother House in SF."[6] Forget about who that is, let's just pretend it's unknowable. At the least, this article was written by a member. Cool Hand Luke 18:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

she's wrong, it was written by Sister Dana who writes most of the Sisters history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.10.219 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: posts below include replies on a now removed comment [7]. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As has been pointed out to all you, this is not a witch-hunt. What you do off-site is your business. As for this board - It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

As has been also pointed out none of those articles had untrue information as far as I'm aware - I certainly didn't add any on purpose if there is anything wrong on them. Meanwhile you seem to be looking to cast a greater and greater net of possible problems without actually showing any issue exists except by your novel original synthesis. Looking at number of edits might be helpful but an actual look at what I was doing on thise articles shows a much clearer picture of simply cleaning up other people's edits or in the Roma case, adding sourced content. Your increasingly shrill calls of concern ring quite hollow. Smallbones, you in particular seem anxious to simply assume bad faith at every turn. That bio of Catalyst? It seems it was first posted in 2005 and hasn't changed much since then. Then information there aligns with what was in her article; who cares what her day job is? Please stop the vague insinuations and generalized harassment. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benji - it just doesn't work to say all this is my fault because I'm persecuting you. This fits in perfectly with the purpose of this board It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time.' You appear to have been caught writing 2 autobiographies. It's extremely clear that paid editors are writing adverts on Wikipedia for gay porn. Your buddy above gave the perfect example, and it's an example with clear ties to the person you apparently wrote an autobiography about, and to you as the leading editor of the article. There's a clear case of a tendentious editor causing long term damage here. It's time you give us the truth and help clear up the damage that you've caused.

BTW on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence you are the leading editor (226/66)

Also it is incorrect to say that I'm making "vague insinuations." I've been as direct as politeness and the rules allow, and all you can answer is that I'm "assuming bad faith." Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming bad faith. On Wikipedia, tendentious carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete article content which is resisted by multiple other editors. There is no case of that here, at all. You have suggested and insinuated that I have been re-adding and restoring contested material - this is all based on bad faith WP:Outing efforts - which remains harassment. IMHO most of the porn articles are written by people in the industry and fans, I'm neither but you ... assume I must be. I'm the lead editor on tons of articles. Howabout LGBT? Want to slap a COI tag on that one too? Ridiculous, you obviously are escalating a personal gripe to outright hostility and simply wikistalking my work. Claiming a pattern of damage is nonsense but I'll assure you that everytime someone has harassed me in the past the same thing has generally happened, the articles they pick on in an effort to make a point improve. So whatever your motivation you will end up improving articles that I've shown an interest in, so for those articles' improvement I thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi's editing today has gone out of control, e.g. removing COI tags and budding edit wars. We have to move this discussion to a confidential format. Could an editor who knows how this is done please inform me? Examples of Benji today

Edit warring about COI tag at Sister Roma, starting at [8]

removing COI tags [9] [10] [11] and see his next edit there as well, and again there [12] [13] [14] [15] edit war starting at [16] Budding edit war starting at [17]

Example of a new editor claiming intimidation by Benjiboi at Sisters article, “Benji knows the rules and how to wield them like a weapon.” See user 1durphul’s comments at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#Clean_up and part of the dispute at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#501.28c.29.283.29_status_as_noted_on_other_articles_about_501.28c.29.283.29_orgs

Smallbones (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those COI tags were not based on any evidence, except for the fact that Benjiboy edited the article quite a lot. He was more than right to remove them in most cases (and to come clean, I removed one myself [18] with talk page explanation here [19]). I strongly suggest all involved editors (on both sides of this dispute) let go of all of these articles. Unwatch them, edit something else and let other editors (there will be plenty editors on most of those articles by now,due to by all the attention this has gotten) sort it out. Otherwise, this whole dispute will only turn more ugly I am afraid. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if those adding the tags would be willing to say what the problems are in the articles. Thus far, the only problem I can see is that several editors aren't particularly fond of Benjiboi. AniMate^draw 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is over at this stage, the worst articles were deleted, the ones that can be saved have either been extensively edited so they no longer read like adverts for his organisation and the Benboji account is so watched by multiple editors that any other problems are likely to be caught quite quickly. The COI board was as much use as a chocolate fire-guard but hey the end result was the same, so that's a win. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

So in summary we have mountains of bad faith accusations leveled against me whipped up by Wikipedia Review in an attempt to reveal my identity which remains a form of harassment. Four editors persist in wikihounding me and gleefully slapping COI tags on articles regardless if the articles are NPOV or not, simply asserting bad faith because they seem to be targeting me:

Cameron Scott (talk · contribs), who seems to prefer to assume bad faith
Smallbones (talk · contribs), who has been gunning against me despite logic and evidence of their assumptions being completely off-base
Schrandit (talk · contribs), who's the main COI tagger also cite-bombing articles of which they apparently disapprove
24.22.141.252 (talk · contribs), by all accounts a very experienced Wikipedia and most certainly a sock of User:Peter Damian or one of his enablers at Wikipedia Review.

Of the articles targeted? The DJ one was deleted, fine, it really didn't cut the notability threshold although in 2006 it seemed to meet the bar; The Catalyst one, which between the homophobia and hysteria was deleted certainly meets GNG (but oh well). Neither of them nor the dozens of others tagged as COI show much COI issues at all. There was never any effort to add glowing content nor remove critical content against consensus as this board's instructions specify and in fact I have bene continually harassed which seems to violate Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. Despite efforts to out, subdue and wikihound me I have been more than willing to address any actual issues here. I am hardly editing on behalf of any organization despite the ongoing and harassing accusations. It would be nice if the harassment would stop and the accusations that I'm in COI on dozens of articles would also cease, especially as no COI violation on any article seems to have been shown at all. Organized efforts to harass me, or anyone off wiki are disappointing but so is allowing on-wiki harassment to thrive and continue. -- Banjeboi

It's inappropriate to conclude that everything has been motivated by bad faith. I, for one, don't care who wrote some of these articles, but they tend to have a promotional tone and have all been written by an editor who has been cagey about revealing basic information such as "have you ever written articles for payment before?" I don't care who you are, but the fact that your first contributions were writing two promotional articles about the same person does not inspire confidence. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's inappropriate to assume bad faith about me but you seem fine with that taking a couple jabs yourself without apparently reading the above comments which refute (i) that I had previously addressed the question and (ii) why I was avoiding re-answering it - specifically because I was making a point that we can't write enforcible policies on paid editors who don't reveal themselves. As for those articles they weren't well written but I also didn't see them as promotional, certainly anyone else could have cleaned them up if they saw fit. I'm still not convinced they were the same person (no reliable sources when i looked supported that certainly) but that's also beside the point as those articles are gone so now let's actually see any COI evidence on the other thirty or so currently targeted.

Please get real. Those were the same person, and you started both on your first day of editing. Cool Hand Luke 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi is out of control again. Not many editors are caught apparently writing two autobiographies and adding adverts into porn articles for pay. He can't possibly claim that he doesn't have a COI with Sister Roma, but he does. There's plenty more evidence on the persona and the pornographers. At this point Benjiboi's reversions of COI tags is just disruption. Smallbones (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are your problems with the articles you continue to put the COI tags on? I asked you, and you've made some vague statements. I asked you to be more specific, and have heard nothing from you. Tags aren't supposed to function as a scarlet letter or a badge of shame. Article tags are meant to help us improve articles. If you refuse to explain what the problems are, other than Benji writing the articles, the tag is worthless. Either discuss in explicit and specific terms what issues need improving, or stop reinserting the tags. AniMate^draw 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, but which is conveniently ignored, most COI tags are based on the sole fact that Benjiboi edited the article, without regard to the extend of his editing or the content of his edits. Please address the actual COI issues on the talk pages of those articles if you add them. Even wiser would be for all involved editors to refrain from editing those articles at all. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: For the record, I just removed three of the COI tags myself, with an explanation on the talk page in each case, see [20] (Pink Saturday) with explanation, [21] (Pink (LGBT magazine)) with explanation and [22] (Peaches Christ) with explanation. I hope people will discuss rather than retag and revert. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read all of the above and the AfD's for the two apparent autobiographies. Benjiboi has a history of putting promotional fluff into articles and preventing edits to them. According to the apparent autobiographies, his personas have close ties to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Sister Roma who has close ties to pornographers. There is much more evidence on Benjiboi's ties to pornographers, and I will present it in whatever Wikipedia forum the rules allow. At this point we have to say that Benjiboi has a COI on these matters, or else say that no COI can ever be "proved" on Wikipedia.

On Sept 20, Benjiboi made 30 edits removing COI tags and corrective efforts of multiple editors. This is just part of a pattern of disruptive editing. Putting in a COI tag does not mean that the editor has to correct all the problems with the article immediately, nor does it mean that the editor has to write a dissertation length explanation of why he thinks there is a COI. Just read the above and the AfDs on the two autobiographies. Benjiboi is a text-book example of how paid editors can damage Wikipedia. Smallbones (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjiboi is sometimes passionate, but he's also a good faith and usually pretty reasonable editor, so I think we should try to avoid flogging him excessively. I agree there are still COI concerns over his editing those articles, and he probably needs to limit his contributions to the talk pages, but many of them have been radically pruned, so it's not shocking that he's feeling defensive and attacked (fairly or unfairly). My point is just that if we can try to resolve the situation amicably and without causing any more brouhaha that would be best. As always, the focus should be on the article content and how best to improve the content rather than the editors involved. I'm not attacking anyone for being frustrated over the reverts or the COI, I'm just suggesting that we try to work out our differences in as collegial a way as possible. My suggestion would be for Benjiboi to use the talk pages to raise any issues and for other issues to try and be patient and reasonable in addressing his concerns. I apologize if I'm out of line or missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI tagging every article he ever edited only dilutes and distracts from the articles where the COI actually might be an issue (which might well exist, I am not denying that). Edit warring over the COI tags on those articles, rather than actually evaluating the content of the articles to see if a COI claim is reasonable, is counterproductive. Most of the articles, as ChildofMidnight also says, have already been carefully examined by many other editors with great scrutiny and most COI issues seem to have been resolved by now. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smallbones, let's say that you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benjiboi has a COI on all of the articles you are insisting on tagging. What changes do you want made? Keep in mind, we tag articles so they can be improved, not to punish another editor. You are completely focused on proving your point about Benjiboi. Fine. That belongs in Wikipedia space. Article issues belong in article space. If you cannot cite problems with the articles other than Benji has edited them, the tags need to stay off. Vendettas have no place in our articles. AniMate^draw 22:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still not taking a side here but I'd like to point out that the COI tag states that the article might require cleanup and should be discussed on the talk page. When that tag is placed on an article, my suggestion is to always leave a note on the talk page as to what should be fixed. If you don't, then any editor could justifiably remove the tag because there's nothing to discuss or fix. The tag isn't necessary on an article that is fine despite being edited by someone with a COI. If it was, then we'd tag every article that had ever been edited by someone with a COI and never remove it. -- Atama頭 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's all focus on removing the promotional nature of these articles. Please notice that I have not put all these notices on the articles; I put on about 3 originally. Others have put on the tags as well, and Benji removed them. I put about 5 back on where they looked justified. Rather than complain about tags, why doesn't everybody just try to eliminate the promotional fluff in the articles, then remove the tags? Smallbones (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Smallbones, you keep repeating spurious claims seemingly in hopes that the villagers will rise up and see all the "promotional" content you are. Instead of making vague statements and generalized and, as far as I know, disproven claims please actually use each articles talkpage to present COI evidence besides "editor X is the main editor" which only proves you have a personal and malicious grudge and this is your method of punishment.

I can see why the COI tags would be debatable, the tags for the missing citations, the dead links and the failed sources are not debatable and Benjiboi has been removing those as well these last few days. Benjiboi has started hundred of articles and edited tens of thousands more - maybe 30 have been tagged for COI at any given time - this does not constitute a widespread effort to undermine all of his work. COI tags, just like any other tag, also serve to warn an uninformed reader of the potential errors and compromised interests on the page. - Schrandit (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schrandit, I can't say the term was invented for your unique brand of "help" but cite-bombing is an activity I saw you perform on other articles, I believe only on LGBT articles but perhaps there was others. You drop a few cite tags with no apparent discernment of why a statement would need to be cited - From Halloween in the Castro your asking for a tag on Halloween is now the United States' second most popular holiday (after Christmas) for decorating; the sale of candy and costumes are also extremely common during the holiday, which is marketed to children and adults alike. That information comes from our main article on Halloween and although it would be nice to cite that it seems like the only reason you threw the tag there was like all the other articles you simply threw on three cite tags with {{COI}} and called it a day. Similar with Trans March you request a cite for - Donna Rose, resigned from Human Rights Campaign (a national LGBT advocacy group) after the organization supported a version of ENDA that did not include gender identity even though it is cited in the previous section. You give every appearance of disapproving of LGBT culture and using this method of dropping cite tags, deleting content that had been previously tagged and adding various clean-up tags with no apparent effort to confirm if the information is true, sourcible or even needed in the article. Adding deadlink tags is helpful but do remember that too is a tag that means someone else needs to fix something not that the source is bad or that the content is no longer true. -- Banjeboi 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; currently COI tagged articles - most have been cite-bombed as well - by Schrandit (talk · contribs) are: Trans March, Theresa Sparks, BAYSWAN, International AIDS Candlelight Memorial (here they delete sources while cite-bombing and adding a refimprove tag), Global Health Council, Halloween in the Castro, Trauma Flintstone, The Cockettes, Fudgie Frottage. Smallbones (talk · contribs) has added COI tag on; Sister Roma, and is apparently busy grinding his censorship axe there; Heklina and Hot House Entertainment. I had removed all these tags as spurious and they have re-added them all with no commenting accept an obvious agenda to target articles I have worked on. I invite any others to read over these articles and look through the edit histories to evidence that (i) there is no indication of COI editing and (ii) to see what if any clean-up may help. -- Banjeboi 12:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtea and related articles

Ahertzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wut5880 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Youtea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Type Proanthocyanidin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tina Wu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These two users appear to be the cofounders of a new start up Youtea. Wut5580 created the article and it was tagged for speedy deletion but then that was rejected. Ahertzy has since created A Type Proanthocyanidin which is about the product that Youtea sell. This was also added to the Urinary tract infection article by Ahertzy, the product they sell is aimed at treating UTIs. I don't have time at the minute to sort things out but it looks like Youtea isn't notable (AfD?) and that the A Type Proanthocyanidin article should be merged into Proanthocyanidin. Could someone take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD for Youtea is here. -- Atama頭 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Tina Wu to the above list of problem articles, as it was created by Wu herself and subsequently edited by her, and has had notability and verifiability problems from when it was created. -- Atama頭 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and made some changes but don't have time to follow this. Ahertzy continues to edit after being warned. Rees11 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I've sent Tina Wu to AfD here too as they don't seem to be notable. I will also propose the merge between the proanthocyanidin articles. Smartse (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am ahertzy. Merging the proanthocyanidin articles is fine. My intent is and always has been to educate the public on the anti-adhesion benefits of A Type Proanthocyanidins. This has been supported by 12+ clinical studies. Research pubmed citations[23].
Yes I have a strong mission to reduce incidence of Urinary Tract Infections. I was a bit dissapointed in the UTI entry. 10 years after A Type PACs are proven as the source of anti-adhesion activity cranberries, and no mention of that compound existed in the article? It seemed very odd that the article would focus on cranberry juice and not the root compound in cranberries that help prevent UTIs. That is why I edited the UTI article. And the article actually makes the assertion that accupuncture may prevent UTIs, when the data is extremely thin with research executed by 1 team with an incentive in accupuncture.
I understand the issue with the YouTea article. As I mentioned, our intention was to give students a resource for learning how to succeed in business plan competitions. If this does not fit Wikipedia's criteria, then so be it.
Finally, I take issue with Rees11's comment "Ahertzy continues to edit after being warned." I am obviously a novice to Wikipedia and edited the articles after getting a more comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines (yes I read all about the guidelines prior to the entries but did not understand the nuances). Nobody ever "warned" me about anything. Your statement makes me sound like a schoolchild. I have been upfront, candid and professional in the discussion about my articles, and I would appreciate being treated with respect by Wikipedia's editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahertzy (talk • contribs)

Hello Azhertzy. I would like to point out in your defense that the conflict of interest guideline is quite different from, say, the vandalism policy. The former is a suggestion on how you might get along on Wikipedia if you wish to participate on articles where you have a close connection of some kind to the subject, the latter is a code of behavior that every editor must abide by. Your conflict of interest alone isn't enough to restrict where and how you edit unless you engage in disruptive behavior at the same time. The kind of disruptive behavior we often see coming from editors with a COI include spamming, editing an article to advocate a particular point of view, or adding original research, as well as edit-warring in an attempt to control an article's contents. I don't see that you've engaged in any of those behaviors or other disruptive behavior, and you've replied in a civil manner when drawn into situations that might make even the most reasonable person upset (such as questioning the notability of your company). In particular I'm impressed that you've included information that could be judged unfavorable to your company and product, which shows that you're willing and able to avoid bias despite your conflict of interest. I will say that I would oppose efforts to restrict your editing because you've been open and honest about your COI, and you have made positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I would hope, also, that if you have the time and the interest, that you might work in areas where you don't have a COI, because you could be a big help around here. -- Atama頭 21:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One further point: A type proanthocyanidin is currently a major fail per WP:MEDRS, which requires secondary sources. It's currently sourced entirely from primary sources, and the section Urinary Tract Infection Prevention is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: stringing together material from multiple sources in aid of an argument. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, thanks for your kind words. I will do my best to improve my understanding of Wikipedia regulations so I can make meaningful contributions. Gordonofcartoon, I am completely baffled by your actions and comments. I made a strong effort to cite the only credible secondary source for cranberries, A Type PACs, and UTIs: Jepson RG, Mihaljevic L, Craig JC. Cranberries for treating urinary tract infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1998, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001322. ^[1] But for some reason you deleted the citation and then state that my article is "sourced entirely from primary sources." Yes, it is sourced entirely from primary sources because you deleted my secondary source citation. That's like you kicking mud on my shoes and then complaining that my shoes are dirty. Really, this seems like a witch hunt. I did make a mistake in organizing my references. After the statement "A Type Proanthocyanidins found in cranberries and blueberries have been linked to the prevention of urinary tract infections"(deleted by Gordonofcartoon) I meant to insert this reference: (AB Howell, "Bioactive compounds in cranberries and their role in prevention of urinary tract infections." Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Jun;51(6):732-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17487930?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) but I inserted the Cochrane Review by mistake. I will do my best to make the A Type Proanthocyanidin article compliant to wiki standards.

User:Cheyenne99911

Please see [24], which has since been deleted by the User from his Talk page. Appears to be a COI editor coming in under another name, or else a meat puppet of the previous editors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a problem. e.Digital Corporation employees have been proven to try to edit Wikipedia to the benefit of the company. I don't doubt that Cheyenne99911 is yet another employee. See this statement from Talk:e.Digital Corporation from one of their lawyers:

"Surely Wiki understands how easy it would be for me or other biased parties to logon anonymously at a coffee shop and "go to town" on this page? You refuse to allow my edits or even allow me to respond to factual errors on the page, as counsel for the company, but you allow anonymous posts—are you really that dense.

It should not matter who writes it but whether it is true or false. If you refuse to correct the numerous errors that are false and damaging to my client, I will be forced to walk an entire block to Starbook’s to log on anonymously and make the corrections, or consider the company’s other legal options."

That's basically a warning that sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry will occur. There are also legal threats being tossed around as well. This is definitely not a good situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the lawyer who made these comments and implied a legal threat calls e.Digital his "client," a google search using the name he revealed shows that he is actually an employee ("General Counsel / Dir. of IT") rather than outside counsel. His other comments indicate that he is likely one of the people previously editing using one of the IP addresses registered to e.Digital. He has been unwilling to discuss his issues on the talk page. I'm glad this has finally come to the attention of admins. I reported it as edit warring but it was considered stale. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued Cheyenne a final warning for repeatedly removing sourced information. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Cheyenne replied to a different warning from a different editor by repeating that warning on their talk page, which is something that vandals will often do. I expect this to lead to an indef block. -- Atama頭 22:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it, I"ve reverted his "news alert" twice today. I"m on my way out, but someone should probably let an admin know. Dayewalker (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've been blocked 12 hours, we'll see what happens after the block expires. -- Atama頭 02:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the block expired, Cheyenne again engaged in disruptive editing of the same article and now has a 48-hour block. OccamzRazor (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StrategiCom and User:SCom09

Special:Contributions/SCom09. User is a single purpose account with a clear username violation (promotional, name of organization). I've tagged the article with a COI tag. Previously I had gone ahead and removed some promotional content from the article. Any thoughts on what to do next? Netalarmtalk 02:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've looked over their edits and I can't find much objectionable. In fact, they removed a great deal of promotional language in the article. Their name suggests affiliation with the company but I can't be sure. You might want to start with simply asking them about the affiliation, and also let them know about this thread here so they can provide input if they wish. I've left them a general welcome message for now. One odd thing I noticed, I see a number of edits that they reverted themselves, almost as if there was more than one person at the computer and they were bickering over what edits to make. That's plausible if this is indeed coming from the company itself (and a violation of WP:NOSHARE). -- Atama頭 05:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that promotional content wasn't removed by me? This. I don't see it as big of a problem now, since I've cleaned up most of it. However, the username does seem fishy. Either way, that user doesn't edit anymore. Netalarmtalk 02:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to this which removed some clearly inappropriate promotion information. Overall I don't think the edits they made improved the article from a style point of view (too many times they would say "StrategiCom believes that...", but most of the promotional language that is the real problem was already in the article before their edits. The user name is definitely fishy and I suspect it probably is a person working for the company. -- Atama頭 09:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of campus preachers

List of campus preachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Bro Cope has been editing this article in order to add information about himself. I removed his name from the list since it had no article of its own and the link provided linked back to the list article; this seemed unnecessary. Bro Cope took issue with this, and has made his (very strong) feelings known on the article talk page. His clear conflict-of-interest is indicated by the edit summary: "I am one of the founders of the movement." -RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong about this. I became involved when you took it upon yourself to delete my information from the list. I was content with just a little tiny mention. But when you took it upon yourself to edit out my one line mention, I took great offense. My strong feelings are a response to your unbearable arrogance. I am already a nationally known preacher, having been in the movement since it's very early days. I get thousands of hits on Google.

Who are you when it comes to street preaching? I've never seen you at any of our many conferences. What are your qualifications to be able to decide who should or should not be on this stupid list? Clear conflict of interest? What would that be? Restoring my one line mention is hardly a clear conflict of interest. I think I will suggest that your bias ought to get you banned from editing. You have a clear axe to grind, and that is clearly a conflict of interest.

Bro Cope's edits to Talk:List of campus preachers show major civility problems as well as failure to understand Wikipedia's notability requirements in his unabashed attempts at self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources documenting this than his presence would be welcome, but if there aren't any then I think its safe to assume that the conflict of interest prohibits neutral editing. From my understanding of PSU, I think the "Willard Preacher" might qualify for inclusion, either the current one or the more notable earlier one. Them From Space 04:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to explain matters to Bo on his talk page. I hope he can come around. -- Atama頭 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have been very even-handed in my approach to him, trying to assume good faith, and approach him with respect. His response has been aggressive and accusatory, for no apparent reason. I have no strong feelings about this article, or his presence in it. I only edited it because I saw his edit on recent changes. His attitude is wholly unjustified. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list of campus preachers? Seriously? This article needs to go to AfD. Rees11 (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I believe it should as well. There are too few entries to make it necessary, and the references are very scant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both are correct. I just hoped that if someone explained the situation to him he might calm down. In all honesty, Wikipedia can be a strange place to a newcomer and we often take our ways for granted. -- Atama頭 02:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Resolved

– Another sock bites the dust. -- Atama頭 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user 76.64.152.111 try to block all the users who edit the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article. He erase all other users contributions and try to block everybody editing this article by calling them sockpuppets. Considering he try to block everybody and don't want to cooperate I ask you to block this anonymus user 76.64.152.111. Thank you. User:Québécois1837

That's because they are sockpuppets. They've been proven so. I don't doubt that you are one too. Every time you try to make a new account it's going to be blocked, so I suggest you give up. -- Atama頭 02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI - Editor Not Revealing IRL Identity, Possibly Editing Articles About Himself

Resolved

– Understanding and responsibility met by an involved party

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Nathalmad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Luke Burbank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Too Beautiful to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Nathalmad may be the IRL person "Luke Burbank." His loud and vociferous participation in all discussions related to articles related to "Luke Burbank" creates serious disruption if identity is undisclosed. Please note the following evidence is all circumstantial, however, a preponderance of circumstantial evidence should cause caution for more intense alert. I would request higher-level attention to this situation which may represent an extreme manipulation of wikipedia for vanity purposes.

Kennneth Cooper biography

Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_H._Cooper - reads as promotional material, not written in a neutral PoV, unsourced comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.167.17 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, looks like we have a few WP:SPA's here:

I reverted Kenneth H. Cooper and The Cooper Institute. Cooper test is another to keep an eye on. None have been spammed in three months so it's not a real pressing issue, but definitely worth watching. Wknight94 ^talk 20:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Butcher

Extensively edited by JBAxis (talk · contribs) even after COI notice given. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Butcher is definitely notable, I can tell that from a quick Google News search. But that article is a mess, a terrible mess. To Jon's credit, however, he (Buckandthor) doesn't understand what the complaints about the article are based on and is repeatedly asking for help on his article's talk page. He says that his "friend and associate" was the one editing the article (who I presume to be JBAxis). I'm going to leave Jon a message on his talk page to give some advice. He seems well-intentioned, he hasn't made accusations or demands and I don't see that he wants to add promotional information to the article, he just wants to clarify some inaccuracies, which we should both respect and encourage. I'll suggest the best way for him to do so. -- Atama頭 23:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Park Ltd

Green Park Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Green Park Ltd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Appipark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First user input article about a company whose claim to fame is being "38th Fastest Growing entrepreneurial business in the UK". When first user was blocked as a promotional username, second was created and took up editing. As the first user was instructed to change user-name but not specifically to stop COI editing, this can't be regarded as sockpuppetry, but there is a clear COI. An A7 speedy has been declined, but article is at AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-tagged it it for G11 speedy, no idea why the user who tagged it originally untagged it. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And somewhat unbelievably, speedy declined...sometimes I don't know why I bother... – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G11 is typically for blatant advertising. I don't see any in that article, I see some pretty dry facts. For example, the first line of the article is, "Green Park Ltd is a supplier of interim management, interim executive and interim recruitment resourcing solutions." But let's say that the first line was, "When people think of management recruiting they think of one place, Green Park Ltd, where the real movers and shakers do business." That's blatant advertising. G11 is as much for style as content. Anyway the AfD looks like a speedy close, so this will probably get resolved regardless. -- Atama頭 22:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sieradski

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Daniel Sieradski. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a message about the COI, thanks for the notification. -- Atama頭 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hill International

Could someone take a look at this edit? Looks problematic, all around. -- Thekohser 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported the user name to WP:UAA as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:SOCY 7014

Resolved

– Spammy subpage deleted, other edits to lists reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOCY 7014 (talk · contribs) has created User:SOCY 7014/Rand Kannenberg, added Kannenberg's name to List of sociologists with copious details [25] and to other lists. Other editors have warned him, but my question is primarily what should be done about the article he's written in his userspace about himself. MfD? Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for G11 speedy. While there is some leeway in userspace, that subpage is clearly promotional and intended to be so. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Society

Reported the user to WP:UAA. In addition, I have serious problems with that article. -- Atama頭 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the TMs littered throughout are a giveaway that it is a product of a PR organisation. Very tempting to tag it for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the article itself for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Society. Tckma (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Inn

The Bell Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article The Bell Inn has suffered from persistent addition of spam / unnotable / unverifiable material. IP's User talk:82.11.234.188 and User talk:86.21.207.122 have been blocked for 48 hours, but a new user account User talk:Bingthewind has been created and is continuing to add similar material, and has already had Craig A sharp weir (the pubs landlord) deleted for non-notability. I can't help but think there is COI here, but can't prove it.

I am in danger of breaking the 3RR rule, not to mention getting tired of dealing with this. I am seeking advice:

are my editing decisions to delete this material justified?
how best to proceed? This person seems to be very determined, but won't enter into dialogue.

Thanks, Derek Andrews (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done the right thing. I'll keep an eye on it for a few days anyway. Rees11 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have. Now, I'm not going to report you or anything, but you're not in danger of breaking the 3RR rule, you already have. Also, reverting the edit as vandalism is inappropriate. They were bad edits but vandalism requires that the edits be willfully malicious, and the edits inserted don't seem to be. They're objectionable certainly and I support removing them but the methods you're using are wrong. I'm just letting you know this so that you might be more careful in the future, it pains me when a good editor gets blocked because they're violating technical rules in good faith.

Here's the real shame. I don't think there's any doubt that the IPs and the new editor are the same person. That means sockpuppetry to get around the 3 revert rule. That's an offense that might bring an indefinite block, but to squawk about it now might lead to a block against you as well because it would bring your own edit war to attention. Do you see the dilemma now? In any case, I'd say let Rees11 look over the page and stay away for a bit to let the 3RR thing blow over. If the editor comes back, Rees11 or myself might report the person so you could avoid the Plaxico effect. -- Atama頭 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the 3RR violation. Atama's right about that. Rees11 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and support. I think that part of the problem is the way the rest of the article is written and not referenced, which may give the impression that anything goes. I will try to work on improving that. I am also somewhat surprised that an article associated with no less than three wiki projects doesn't have more editors watching it. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can add a Wikiproject tag to an article. Once I ran across an article while patrolling that was in awful shape but seemed like a notable subject, and I removed the proposed deletion tag and cleaned it up a bit. I then added it to the Visual Arts project with a note on the talk page asking for someone to take a look at it so that it could be improved so that someone doesn't try to delete it again. It still hasn't been touched. So being part of a project is definitely no guarantee that anyone is paying attention to it. -- Atama頭 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Data Inc.

I created a page for Resource Data Inc., which I work for. Let me know if you see any issues, and I commented on the usertalk page why I think Resource Data Inc. is notable and I kept the page short and just to the facts to avoid any COI issues. -James JamesBecwar (talk)

Your openness about yourself and your posting on this page are certainly appreciated. You've definitely done the right thing regarding your conflict of interest. The concern with the article is about notability, and commercial entities have a more specific set of criteria at WP:CORP. I know that you've made a case for notability on the talk page of the article, but the burden of proof lies in the person who is adding or asking to preserve information in an article. Without sources your assertions of notability don't hold weight. I've done searches in noted publications and while I've found numerous mentions in local Alaskan papers such as the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Journal, such mentions are either press releases or simple mentions of who was hired in the company or what projects they've picked up. I can't find substantial coverage. If this isn't available, it's almost certain that the article will face an articles for deletion discussion and might be in danger of removal. -- Atama頭 17:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add, your sole "reference" in the article is to "BuyAlaska", a directory where businesses can list themselves. In other words, those are just the company's own claims, and that isn't a reliable source at all. -- Atama頭 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chili's

Resolved

– COI editor blocked for username violations, edits reverted and article cleaned up. -- Atama頭 23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BrinkerCorpComm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63.163.55.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These are probably the same user. Both made COI edits to Chili's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that have since been reverted. Tckma (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI tends to make me hungry when they talk about finely-grilled trout with dill, and now a reference to Chili's on this board. That's just not fair.

Brinker International is the parent company of Chili's, as well as other restaurant chains, and it's pretty obvious that there's a COI here. I'm reporting BrinkerCorpComm to WP:UAA for being promotional. -- Atama頭 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address belongs to "Brinker International Payroll." Rees11 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rammstein1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this is a COI but it smells like it. The user is a fairly new SPA that just made a long series of edits to the article, completely unsourced and full of marketeer-speak ("The Sheraton's signature bed is the Sheraton Sweet Sleeper Bed"). I don't want to just revert the whole mess but it would take me a week to go through all the edits. Help! Rees11 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Roadies

Promotional advertising copy, added by an editor self-declared as an MTV employee, is the root cause of other people badly trying to neutralize such advertising by retargetting external links to FaceBook. For details, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat at MTV Roadies. Better neutralization of advertising copy would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Fanatism

Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No matter how well sourced is my edit about the worldwide criticism against the brazilian sect "Universal Church of the Kingdom of God"; the User:Luizdl keeps reverting it. His contributions show he only edits "Portuguese Language" and "Edir Macedo", the founder of the sect. Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned Books Week

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, an acknowledged critic of Banned Books Week who maintains a website and an organization dedicated to denigrating Banned Books Week (see http://www.safelibraries.org), and who also comments negatively about Banned Books Week in the mass media (see article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMj2Fmuq6lqm4kdFfy5Vhp8-suQg), appears to be editing the Banned Books Week article to push his point of view concerning Banned Books Week. This concern over his conflict of interest has been raised before on the Talk:Banned Books Week discussion page. His last batch of edits - eliminating links to resources that contradict his views, attempting to add his own anti-Banned Books Week media quote to the article,and creating footnotes containing cherry-picked quotes that are provided without context - seem to confirm this conflict of interest. I would appreciate guidance and assistance on resolving this dispute. In the meantime, I will attempt to restore the article items eliminated by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Bibliolover (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Suffice to say that the COI is obvious and the editor in question acknowledges it and seems to have been making an attempt to comply with COI guidelines (posting a request on the talk page and waiting for over a week before finally doing it himself. -- Atama頭 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm new, but here's my question: when you examine the history of his edits, it is pretty plain that he is editing the article to reflect his bias - eliminating the word "banned" from the entire article, for example, even when I wikilinked to the Wikipedia article listing banned books, cherry picking quotes, eliminating links to information that contradicts his viewpoint, etc. It seems that he only has stopped because I challenged it and called attention to his actions. To the extent that the article addresses his belief that Banned Books Week is controversial - it's nearly half the article now - he has succeeded in making the article more about the controversy and less about the event itself. How does the Wikipedia community address this?Bibliolover (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

I request an editor peruse the sandbox version of Center for Class Action Fairness, edit if necessary, and copy and paste it from my sandbox into a mainspace version if it meets WP:N requirements. Thank you. THF (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the text to Ted Frank rather than create a new stub? – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that THF is, in fact, Ted H. Frank and is trying to avoid a COI by adding anything to that article either. But regardless it looks to me like there's enough to show that CCAF is notable enough for its own article. I haven't looked at the proposed article closely yet. -- Atama頭 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Frank could stand an update and rewrite, but Lord knows I'm not going to be the one to do it. THF (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lisashaffer

User:Lisashaffer has made several promotional, first-person edits to the article Lisa Shaffer. After the article was tagged for COI by User:Eric444, she blanked it. I have told her about the conflict of interest and would like to know what else to do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Epstein School

The Epstein School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - COI editor Clou2epstein keeps re-inserting promotional-brochure language about their technology program (among other problems); insists that he/she can be a neutral editor while admitting COI. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Respectfully, I believe your statements here are misleading. I have not re-inserted the previous information...I changed/edited it after our discussion and let you know that I did it. I edited out the language that you indicated that you felt was not neutral. You never indicated you had a problem with the educational VODCAST that was listed as an educational tool. In fact you stated that you did not know what a vodcast was. I must say, if you felt that there was an additional issue, you could have simply talked to me about it in the discussion. I am very easy to talk to, have worked continuously to improve the page and have been polite and courteous. I respectfully request that the tech section be reverted.

Below is the code for your review:Also, as I mention, I feel that I am qualified to be neutral despite affliation, since I am also an online community editor.

Technology:

Students live in a digital world where they are exposed to an extraordinary amount of information. The school's goal for students is to grow beyond the mechanics of technology and acquire research and critical thinking skills in order to become information literate. In today’s technological environment, information literacy is essential in building a foundation for success in the 21st century.

Informational Vodcast: More than ever, children are taking part in the online techno-social world known as Web 2.0. Children today are bombarded with messages and peer pressure to engage in online social networking. In an effort to ensure that students are educated in the safe, responsible and moral ways in which to use technology and the school created an online multimedia vodcast^[2] to help better understand both the benefits and the potential risks of online social networking.

ThanksClou2epstein (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has just removed the "COI" tag from the article (and not for the first time)! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I back up Orange Mike's assertions that the material you wish to insert is not encyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does read like an ad, and even if rewritten in a neutral manner in the proper style I don't see what value it has in informing people about the school. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're part of the technology/computer department at the school, am I right? If so, then that would explain why you want to emphasize the "vodcast" achievement over other aspects of the school, but this cuts to the heart of why the conflict of interest is such a concern. In many cases people just can't see their own biases even if it seems obvious to others. You've said elsewhere that there is no rule preventing you from editing the article because of your affiliations, and you're absolutely correct. However, if other editors view your contributions and think that they are inappropriate that COI is going to wave like a red flag. I believe that's what is happening now. I also think that the notability of the school might be questioned, I'm sure you have a lot of pride in it and it might be a great school but I see a lack of references independent of the school demonstrating notability. That might mean that the article itself could be deleted soon if other references can't be found. -- Atama頭 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I respectfully disagree and again request reverting the material. I have reviewed other pages of other schools and feel strongly that the content is not only inline with the spirit of the website, but also accurate. If you have specific issues with the content, then please feel free to let me know what they are and I will be happy to discuss them. As for your interest in understanding why I feel technology is important...from an educational standpoint it is critical. As mentioned in the tech paragraph, while many of us right here in the "wiki world" should understand, regardless of your educational background, whether it be History, Science, Education or Journalism...etc...in today's world technology is crtical for most careers. Thus, I thought it would be a particularly appropriate piece to ad to an online educational medium such as wiki.

As for your assertion, you are NOT correct....I have nothing to do with any IT department, however, I am skilled in technology....just never had an interest in making it a career. Clou2epstein (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:WaltonSimons1

User:WaltonSimons1 - Relatively new user WaltonSimons1 (joined August '09) has been extremely focused on disparaging and getting deleted an entry I've worked on for Little Nobody. He/She has yet to counter any of the claims that he/she is solely here with a hidden agenda to have this article deleted for personal reasons. Please see discussion about same on the deletions discussion page here: [[26]]

This is especially apparent since WaltonSimons1 has not contributed to ANY other article at all (see here [[27]]), aside from King Britt - where he/she actually fished for support in deleting the Little Nobody thread. The language this person uses has also been counter-productive and far from constructive, with comments like: "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté".

I have addressed this matter with Duffbeerforme, and we are getting together information/evidence to make the Little Nobody entry a more accurate and stream-lined article (we all agree it needs tailoring), although I personally cannot contribute to the writing as I received a COI notation, which may be fair enough as I am a fan; that's the reason I previously worked on the article.

In these circumstances, I really think WaltonSimons1 should also receive a COI, or at least actively work in other areas of Wikipedia before engaging in such a heavy-handed, unproductive approach.DSK1984 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is where an editor is connected to or is the subject of the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cameron, thanks for getting back so quickly. Just to fill you in, I believe the conflict of interest here is related to the subject of the article not in trying to promote or "sell" it, but the diametric opposite - a desire to see it deleted for whatever reasons.

All along, ever since the beginning of August, I've asked for some sort of explanation of his/her extreme interest in this entry - in somewhat unusual circumstances, as pointed out on Athaenara's talk page on 2 August [[28]].

On that page I pointed out that I noticed WaltonSimons1 was a new addition to Wikipedia, and that his sign-up and focus on the Little Nobody entry strangely coincided with the work of a very aggressive individual known as "V-Tron" on the Australian ITM Forum [[29]] who in late July and early August seemed to be irate and personally attacked Andrez Bergen (Little Nobody) as well as myself quite publicly on the forum threads there.

For instance this posting by him, which openly refers to the Little Nobody entry on Wikipedia: [30].

And this one which has a picture of the Little Nobody Wikipedia revision history - right before WaltonSimons1 got involved: [31].

And this one which refers to his smashing both Andrez and seems angry at me too: [32].

If you look at WaltonSimons1's profile, for starters his contributions page [[33]], you will find that his only postings have been on the Little Nobody entry, in apparent quest to have it deleted - other that one foray into the King Britt entry [[34]] on 11th August to actually fish for help..... in deleting THIS entry.

WaltonSimons1 has not once addressed the concerns I have raised about his/her motives here, nor answered the challenge about his/her relationship with this V-Tron character, in almost two months of being a member of Wikipedia. He/she seems to be obsessive about having the Little Nobody entry deleted, which does make me wonder about his/her background reasons.DSK1984 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass houses. Please see the COI notice on DSK1984's talk page from Athaenara as well as contributions related wholly to IF? Records and Little Nobody. I have not edited the content of Little Nobody whatsoever in a positive or negative way and merely participated in the deletion discussion in order to determine the article's verifiability as well as the notability of its subject. To date, nothing substantial has been posted to justify that the article ought to be kept. I have refrained from attacks whereas this user has been intent on drawing a tenuous connection with an Australian dance music website. I only posted the statement "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté" in response to repeated accusations as well as the nature of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danvujic

Danvujic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
D. Daniel Vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hollydan works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His own article has been tagged as copyvio by CorenSearchBot; it didn't seem to me an exact enough copy to tag for speedy on those grounds, and a quick search suggests notability doubtful but perhaps enough to avoid A7. His company article has been tagged A7. COI warning given. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.juxx.com.br/prof_data/materias/2004%20Cranberries%20.pdf

[2] ttp://www.epsteinatlanta.org/podium/tools/SlideShow.aspx?a=80919&ttl=Social+Networking+VII/

[1]

[2]

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