Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Access Industries Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Carbon Trust Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Qorvis

• 38.100.14.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aadd01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratfinx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Underscore77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gscott3303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Various assertions on Twitter that PR and lobbying firm Qorvis is engaging in "wiki-washing" for clients. (This is just a heads-up — I've no personal knowledge of the organisation and its activities, but thought I ought to raise this here in case people are unaware.)—A bit iffy (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The few edits I checked are definitely alarming. The search you linked (for "qorvis wikipeda") shows a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up. Regardless of whether or not a close connection can be immediately made, the edits need checked immediately. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The details can be found here if anyone is interested. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added links for the users mentioned there. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to be kept posted on the progress of this investigation, as I consider this to be an important issue for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been very busy the last few weeks but I plan on doing one of my case studies on this issue from Tuesday to Thursday. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

ProjectPM has been researching this extensively in the previous weeks and months. Our current research is at this link - http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Qorvis - and is by no means complete but the best way for us to discuss this rapidly evolving situation would be to contact one of us directly. Danger123 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked through a fair number of edits a few days ago and found quite a few problems either removing sourced negative information or adding positive info. There are also a number of barely notable articles created by these accounts which I've nominated for deletion. I don't think their editing is as widespread or as problematic as Bell Pottinger's, but if necessary, someone could start something similar to Wikipedia:Bell_Pottinger_COI_Investigations to ensure everything gets dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good that people are willing to look into this. I now have a lot of free time over the next 10 days so I can assist in investigations/actions (if I can work out where to start). Now, as regards the ProjectPM thing: I'm not totally comfortable going down that road as their investigation into Qorvis doesn't seem focused on its Wikipedia activities, but on its wider PR activities which I think should be out of scope for us here. So I prefer to go with OIYeller21's case study thing, or what SmartSE suggests. What do others think?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that because we can't govern their off-wiki activities, they shouldn't deeply scrutinized but they may be important when showing the overall habits of the company. Ultimately, I think there will be enough on-wiki activity to make an assessment without the need of extra evidence (off-wiki activity).

I run a children's charity so I've been very busy this Decemeber. After Christmas, I'll be able to actually put some time into the report. I'll also make sure to set it up in a way that others can add information/evidence and I'll incorporate a Bell Pottinger type list so that accounts and articles can be investigated and dealt with on a case by case basis. Sorry for the delay, all. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

While I can't speak to any company's edits, or any other handle than my own, I can say that this is my personal account and it's true that I often make edits at work. No one guides my edits and I'm careful not to let anyone direct me toward editing Wikipedia in any way that diminishes the project that's being built here. That said, through my work in (mostly) foreign affairs I am exposed to worlds of information and like the rest of the world, I use Wikipedia pages (and in particular, the citations on those pages) to anchor my initial inquiries into the various people, places, things, ideas, etc., that are new to me. My work provides me with constant unique opportunities to investigate these things through travel and research from which I add what I hope is helpful to Wikipedia. That said, I enjoy editing Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is important. When an edit of mine gets flagged or stricken I very much appreciate the clear, concise, respectful approach the Wikipedia community has to socially monitor the integrity of the project's knowledge. It is a welcome break from the trolling that diminishes discourse throughout much of the social web. As I said at the beginning, I can't speak for any handle but my own and don't speak for any company or group. My expertise is very niche and my edits intend to enhance Wikipedia. Please let me know if (and where) I've failed in this, that my edits may be rectified and any future editing I do conformed to community standards. Beyond that, happy holidays. If I can assist you in any way, please don't hesitate to ask. --Ratfinx (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting Ratfinx and sorry for not notifying you of this discussion. I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to tell us - you've sidelined the issue of whether you work for Qorvis or not (not that it is terribly important). What I can say, is that regardless of whether you edit articles without external guidance or in a purely personal capacity, there have certainly been problems with some of your edits and many fit a pattern that I would expect from an editor working for Qorvis. In particular, many of your edits have been related to US-Equatorial Guinea relations, when EQ is known to have employed Qorvis. Amongst these edits was this which removed unsourced (but relatively easily sourced) content from Riggs Bank, creating articles about the embassy and ambassador of EQ to the US which are of questionable notability. Similarly, along with other editors listed here you substantially expanded Sam Dealey who I just discovered is an employee of Qorvis. Judging by the commons description for his portrait, Avalos2008 is Dealey (note that I have nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation). Whilst he is probably notable as a journalist, the article contains original research, is promotional in nature and by failing to mention he now works for Qorvis is not neutral. That you edited the article just 12 minutes after Avalos2008 makes it seem extremely unlikely to me that you edit independently as you suggest above. Just in case further evidence of working for Qorvis was required, your commons uploads include a Qorvis logo which you claim is your own work! (Again note that I have nominated it for deletion).SmartSE (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've said all that and it is abundantly clear that Qorvis employees edit Wikipedia, whether in their free time or as part of their job, I would like to provide advice of how you can do so, whilst being a net benefit to the project. There is good general advice at WP:BESTCOI, in particular, I would encourage all editors to disclose that they work for Qorvis if they are editing articles related to Qorvis' clients or employees. Secondly, if you find negative unsourced material included in articles, you should make a concerted effort to find reliable sources, rather than removing it (as in the case of Riggs Bank). If you cannot find any, then you should remove it, but note on the talk page that you have a conflict of interest so that other editors can also look for sources themselves. If you wish to create new articles you should first ensure that either WP:CORP or WP:BIO is met and once the article is written, it would be ideal if you notify this noticeboard, so that they can be checked over by other editors as soon as possible. If you are open about your motives for editing, you are more likely to be treated with respect by other editors as well as avoiding any embarrassing media coverage which could arise if your 'dirty tricks' are discovered later on. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I see how those edits would be cause for concern. Best response I can give: My bad. Lesson learned from your thoughtful advice. I hope that my edits since Riggs Bank and Sam Dealey have been up to standard. If not I hope that your watchful scrutiny will help guide my past and future contributions.--Ratfinx (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul S. Farmer

• Paul S Farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Stephen Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please canyou help? A COI tag was put on this article originally, but after being raised here by Moonriddengirl in September it was removed. I now see another editor has replaced it last month. Can I seek approval to remove, having done so much to clean up the piece earlier? Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be neutral and factual to me. I would think that there is no reason for a COI tag unless it is to note the reason for other defects in the article. I believe there is a talk page equivalent to the article COI tag and that's where the notice should be, if at all. However, I will wait for other editors to give their views before making any changes. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its not normal for the subject to edit their own page other than basic corrections of fact, dealing with vandalism etc. However having looked at the page it appears neutral, although the closure of the school probably needs to be directly discussed rather than the somewhat enigmatic statement at the moment. However the talk page does need to be flagged to make the subject's involvement clear. Otherwise I think its OK to remove the COI tag, but it needs watching.

That said I think there is a bigger problem with Dick Sheppard School where Paul is a major editor and where he was an active participant in the various controversies there. For such a participant to make major changes is and will always be problematic whatever the intent. I'd suggest a propose changes on the talk page but don't edit direct there other than basic references and error correction --Snowded ^TALK 19:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not normal for the subject to edit the article: it's unfortunately normal for them to suffer in silence. However, there's no actual rule prohibiting such editing so long as the end product is what Wikipedia would want, and unless there is an actual, identifiable problem, then that tag should not be used. Its purpose is not to warn the reader or shame the editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agreed that on that article the tag can be removed, I am tempted to put it on Dick Sheppard School where there are large edits being made to the history of a dispute by an interested party. I know about suffering in silence having enduring various forms of vandalism on Dave Snowden so I'm sympathetic but there are limits. If you look at the edit history of the user then they all seem concerned with reputation management which can easily become problematic. I repeat my suggest that he uses the talk page rather than editing main space as a way forward if he wants to avoid this sort of accusation in the future. I have put the pages on watch so happy to look at them.--Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks all for your time and advice. I'm still learning. I have just reviewed Dick Sheppard School and removed two sentences which had no citation/reference. Do I wait for further comment before removing COI tag for Paul S Farmer or does someone else do it?

Whilst I'm here I should explain that I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated. --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can always pipeline as follows Paul Farmer on the articles in question. If you create a series of articles about other namesakes, and they are notable, then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. I also suggest that you would have been better fact tagging that paragraph you deleted. --Snowded ^TALK 06:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Phenomenex

• Phenomenex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Phenomenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phen2248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mg2248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phenomenexhplc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phenusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pr guy phenomenex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article seems to be the target of a multi-year effort by the company to promote itself. There appears to be a once yearly update by the company, with promotional wording mixed into the updates, which though most edits may not constitute a gross violation of wikipedia policy, does look unbalanced. An examination of Fasha Mahjoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may also be in order, considering that two of the aforementioned editors edited both articles, and the latter subject is the CEO of the former subject. This article has been spam-clean-up'd atleast once before after promotional material was added. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed it, but in doing so I seem to have broken the infobox; could somebody help with that? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing bracket. Fixed. CIreland (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

¡Muy muchas gracias! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We've got what looks like a sockfarm here; the pattern is consistent, but the spam accounts change with the seasons. I've put a spamusername block on those eligible, but a Checkuser would probably reveal something which would surprise none of us. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User: Rej3ctzNWO

• The Rej3ctz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rej3ctzNWO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to represent the music group The Rej3ctz, as their management company, based on this message. Seems to be violative of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

International Acquisition Group

• International Acquisition Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hbuckner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hbuckner has created and recreated the article International Acquisition Group which is clearly promotional. From his userpage he is a "Business Analyst for International Acqusitions Group (IAG)" Sparthorse (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gen Next

• Gen Next (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael P. Davidson (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael P. Davidson|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Allamricn03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only purpose of this account is apparently to publicize this organization and its Dear Leader Michael Davidson; all edits are to that purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hästens

• Hästens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Infocoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elfibon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lara.hastens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (account created at the same time as Elfibon)
• Laurablake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems that there are a few editors active] who, with intervals, try to add marketing material (which I deleted [1][2][3]) or delete criticism [4] (which was added by me). They don't respond on Talk pages and they may well be different people (except Elfibon/Lara.hastens). I'm not sure how to deal with this. It seems that I'm the only one watching that article, but I don't want to be watching this article for eternity since I'm not really that interested in the subject. Han-Kwang (t) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

PandaBoard

• PandaBoard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ngunasekera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dingo aus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ngunasekera recently made some sizable changes to the article. I believe that they are [Outing redacted], an employee of Texas Instruments. LMB caught the edits and said, "We may have been raided by TI's PR department -> PR style into Wikipedia style". Ngunasekera submitted a PandaBoard article to AfC and shortly after its rejection, it was created in mainspace by Dingo aus. Since then, the two accounts have edited most of the same articles. I can not find any solid indication that Dingo aus is linked to TI or Ngunasekera but I thought it was worth noting given the odd way that the article was created.

I feel that the PandaBoard article is fine as it stands but felt that a report needed to be made as the link between the user and TI isn't that easy to find and the two user's edit history may need checked. I would do it myself but I'm heading out now to make a delivery. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TopGun

• Indians in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TopGun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks 174.138.162.218 (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the neutrality of the editor's work, please report at the neutrality noticeboard. This board is for reporting incidents where a conflict of interest is evident. The Interior (Talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

chess

• Chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chess aesthetics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Azlan Iqbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is editing these two articles (several edits to chess today) and adding as a reference a paper written by himself/herself. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I filed this, the paragraph in question was removed from Chess aesthetics by another editor. There has been a lot of debate over a sentence added by the user to chess. Five other editors have reverted it, but at present it is in there, but without the original reference to this editor. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My own COI - request for review/advice

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

This user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.230.113.150

has been systematically removing my research from the above articles, and also has removed a comment I made from a talk page. (Contributions posted above shows this.)

I have flagged the two articles as COI-check, as I am the author of the materials removed. There are so few researchers in adaptive grammar that COI on the topic area at least to get an article up and running is nigh-impossible.

My thinking is to just sit back and let the wheels-of-wiki deal with this now that I've COI'd the articles in question. Any other suggestions? (Moving this from another page to here.)

QTJ (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever else this is, it - the current removal - is not COI. I suggest per WP:COI that you argue for the inclusion of your research in the talk pages of the articles and see if anyone bites. It's difficult for an outsider to make a determination, which is a problem. I have some difficulty in estimating whether a book published by Ibis Publishing, and a paper in a journal called "Perfection" - neither of which I've found by quick googling - are reliable sources or not. You might get feedback from the talk page of WP:RS as to whether either is a reliable source, which would help the case. Much the best, of course, and the thing that would be a proof against Wikipedia:Fringe theories is evidence of citation of your work in other RS. Ah! I see you've done that at Talk:Adaptive grammar. I'll have a think... --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I self-flagged AS COI to avoid going back into the article and perpetuating an unsightly self-concerned back-and-forth. The rest I now leave to the natural processes here at WikiPedia. Cheers. QTJ (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed both and reverted with a presumption in your favour, as explained at Talk:Adaptive_grammar#Jackson_removal_issue. I'll watch the pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I now return to my regularly scheduled cave. QTJ (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm

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

I'm accused of COI regarding the xxxterm article as I've written a review of the xxxterm browser (article's topic). The review was submitted to OSNews site, where it got published after editor's overview. I properly disclosed the fact of my authorship both in the article (by (1) replacing the nickname I was credited with on the OSNews site with my name as it is displayed in my Wikipedia signature and (2) specifically starting the WP:RS/N#xxxterm draft sources discussion on the topic). As I don't believe the accusations of COI have proper grounds, I would like to ask the community to either confirm or reject my opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another editor on the talk page trying to establish consensus. Dmitrij is acting in good-faith but fails to understand certain wikipedia policies and guidelines. I encourage any interested editors to refer to the talk page where numerous editors have have noted a POV issue. I also encourage editors to refer to the page history where even more editors have noted a POV problem. To offer a brief history on the issue:

• the article was nominated for deletion (the discussion is here) for notability reasons. The result of the discussion was to userfy the article to Dmitrij's namespace.
• On the day the AfD discussion closed (Dec 5th) Dmitrij wrote an article to try to make the subject notable as noted in his comments in the AfD. Note that while the article is not self-published the article is user-generated sp:sps. He continued that he would promote the article to help spawn third party articles to help establish notability.
• the very next day (Dec 6th) Dmitrij proposed the article be returned to the mainspace based on his new article that he argued established notability. This notion was rejected. It was only until another source cropped up (9 days after his article) that notability for the purpose of inclusion was considered satisfied in his request to move (refer to the talk page).

I believe that this pattern (starting with the POV problems) demonstrates a conflict of interest because the user has stated and has accomplished outside promotion of the subject. Note also that I am not arguing the article is not notable, but that I'm providing background on a suspected COI problem. Thanks for taking the time to read. Johnathlon (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cave coordinates

• Horse Lava Tube System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• other cave articles & templates
• Leitmotiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Firstly; a disclosure. Leitmotiv and I are already in dispute over this issue. Leitmotiv is actively engaged in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about the above system (1; 2) and other caves (links below) on Wikipedia. His user page says:

One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.

and has previously said:

That's [controlling the publication of inappropriate [sic] coordinate information] why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud

I believe that he therefore has a clear conflict of interest; not least since his books will lose exclusivity if that information is published in Wikipedia. The book is advertised as including maps.

Prior discussion is at:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 22#Template:Infobox ukcave.
• Template talk:Infobox cave#Merge from Template:Infobox ukcave
• User talk:TParis#Your comments regarding the merge of cave infoboxes
• Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Coordinates for personal residences or holdings

The issue of CoI was also raised by other editors in the above TfD; in which Leitmotiv himself referred to an "obvious conflict of interest" and "conflict in interest". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Response: First I want to point out a few things that may be sidestepped here.

• PotW's incivility toward me and not assuming good faith in my edits.
• PotW's inability to first come to my talk page and talk to me about the matter at hand and express his concerns in a normal fashion, but instead immediately accuses me of wrong doing and thrusts the conversation here.
• PotW's inability to give direct answers to my concerns or questions which helps neither of us. He often responds with redirects to other parts of Wikipedia, but does not explicitly say exactly what he means or what part of that page he is concerned with. I feel that this is in part on purpose and with intent to irritate, intimidate, troll, throw in red herrings, or in some manner try to affect some means of filibustering.

But that is neither here nor there. So I must now defend against myself against these allegations, and how do you exactly prove a negative? I am not familiar with most of the ropes on Wikipedia and I am still in a learning phase, probably always will be, so I would ask for a little patience on everyone's behalf. If there are some rules in this proceeding that I must follow, please speak up immediately, and especially guide me in how to prove a negative. I would also like to point out that COI is probably inherent in every one of us as Wikipedia editors who have outside interests. I could just as easily accuse PotW for being pro-anticensorship, but he may fare better because he is in a pro-anticensorship environment here at Wikipedia.

Since PotW is the accuser, I would like for him to explicitly show how I would lose exclusivity. I am completely at a loss. It was I who created the Horse Lava Tube System pages. If I was in any way concerned that Wikipedia would beat me to it, I wouldn't have created the page to begin with. It's very likely that if I hadn't created the page in question, no one else would have either. You can probably surmise there may indeed be items I have not posted on Wikipedia and am saving for my book project, however, in juxtaposition to PotW's lack of good faith, those unpublished items are not coordinates as he erringly interpreted.

Finally, PotW's quote from my userpage notes that my book is "not for public consumption". At this point, the book/s don't even exist! Does PotW even know if they will ever be? Lots of projects get started and never finish. This one is no different and has come close to not finishing many times.

In summary, if I get this straight, PotW is suggesting I'm competing with my own edits on Wikipedia, for a book that is not for public consumption, and for a book that is only theoretical at this moment in time?

I will now address PotW's minor point, the "nip this in the bud" quote. At the time of that posting (Sept. 2010), I indeed felt that way. But after much time and learning some of the ropes on Wikipedia, it no longer holds true. At that time, I honestly thought it was a good idea to not have coordinates for commercial caves. I have since changed my position. I learned some things. In this manner, my response from Sept. 2010 is not applicable to anything today, because it only applies to my understanding of Wikipedia at that point in September of 2010. If I was held to things I did and believed two years ago, it's not so different than increasing that number to 10 years ago, or 20, or 30. Can I hold PotW's to his views and statements for when he too was learning the ropes at Wikipedia? Should I take his statements from 5 years ago and act as if they are concrete, unchanging, and unwaivering? That seems to me, insincere to PotW and is not assuming good faith, which I feel in conclusion, is the root of why PotW is here posting in the COI noticeboard, whether he's aware of it or not. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you ignore this report, although you might occasionally view it to see if any uninvolved parties have a question which you wish to answer. The COI guideline is astonishingly vacuous when it comes down to it, and is often only useful to provide guidance to a new user, and to alert other users about a potential problem (so edits can be more carefully scrutinized). For the case in question, you appear to have an interest in the topic, but there is no COI as that term is used at Wikipedia. I have participated in the discussion at Talk:BLP and have quickly scanned a couple of the other locations where the cave coordinates issue has been discussed, and it appears that US cavers generally do not publicly disclose cave locations in order to avoid the vandalism that would arise from indiscriminate publicity—the fact that you share that view is not a COI issue, it just means you share a view that is widely held by US cavers. The claim in the report about your books losing exclusivity if coordinates information is published in Wikipedia is very fanciful—your books will be wanted by a small number of people interested in caving, and apparently will have a total of around 100 pages of info which would not in anyway lose its interest because of what an article here says. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat COI on DJ Dan

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

I have a self-disclosed COI on this article. I corrected a recent edit which contained a negative accusation (which is true) to be more factual using a better reference regarding dates and the responsible party. I believe I corrected the accusation using neutral wording but I would like the diff examined: [5] SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the diff and read the sources and think that your edit is fine. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Eidos Institute

• Eidos Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jaimi090 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eidos Institute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 60.241.222.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jaimi090 declares his COI with this edit: "I am writing up a new page for the ceo of the Eidos Institute".

The other users appear connected; it seems likely the IP will be linked to one or both of the above users. Note these are the three main editors of the article.

The article does not appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G11; I have proposed deletion. I also note that a similarly named article was deleted before after AfD. I do not have priveleges to verify if the article qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. I am reporting this clear case of COI so that those more experienced in dealing with these matters can advise on or themselves take appropriate action.

Thank you --MegaSloth (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the PROD as it was previously nominated for deletion through AFD making it ineligible for PROD. I've also checked the version that was deleted after that AFD in 2009 and don't think it qualifies for G4, mainly due to the awards and mentions section that was not present before. Those sources aren't enough to satisfy the GNG though, so we may need to revisit AFD, but only after making sure there aren't more sources out there. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked and couldn't find any significant coverage so sent it to AFD here. If it is kept, then we need to clean it up quite majorly, but that may as well wait until the AFD is finished. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Apologies about the PROD - I thought that as this was a new article albeit with the same title, a PROD was appropriate. Clearly I was incorrect. I will bear that in mind in future. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)