Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk: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:Discovery Land Company Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group 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: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:Richard Harland Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) 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 Draft talk:Juris Svenne Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Monero 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:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Janneke Parrish Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:David E. I. Pyott Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:ShareFile Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Steve Tappin Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:VML (agency) Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Laurence Cox

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interface:_a_journal_for_and_about_social_movements (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Interface:_a_journal_for_and_about_social_movements|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Laurence Cox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The editor is an editor of Interface: a journal for and about social movements [1], and has been adding links to his journal in numerous articles: [2][3] etc etc, and continued to do so after warnings User_talk:Laurence_Cox#May_2012 [4], seemingly without disclosing his conflict of interest in any of the discussions. He confirmed his COI here: User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_4#Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland. I'm looking for agreement that Laurence has a COI in adding links to his Journal into various wikipedia articles, and that he should not do so at any point. I also propose adding the COI notice to the Journal article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC) The guy has been a spamming mastermind at promoting himself with inappropriate links to himself and his magazine throughout Wikipedia. I just spent half an hour trying to strip a lot of them out, and there are still more to be gotten rid of. He should be permanently blocked for this. His only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote himself and his barely notable magazine. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Apologies if there's a problem here; this is the first I've heard about it. There was a discussion re the Religion in the ROI article; I edited it for the simple reason that having organised the only academic conference to date on new and migrant religions in Ireland and edited the book I am probably the only person active on WP in a position to add references to any published academic material on the topic. It's not an uncommon problem in what is a very small field, and causes problems for us in the area of peer review. I had understood IRWolfie's comment in May to relate to this. Interface is a separate case: it is an online *journal*, which as one of the editors I do not think of as a website - if I cite a reference to an article in the journal (which has the merit of being the only *open-access* journal in social movement studies, and therefore a point of reference which can actually be looked at by people without university subscriptions) I think of that as an article not a website. I can see why it might look differently from WP, and if putting in such refs is a problem I don't have a problem not doing so. I should also say that the Interface entry has been the target of what feels a lot like harassment from this end, and has been variously whittled down and scribbled on in red ink to the point where I wonder if there is any point in contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate that like academia it has its own standards to maintain, but the level of sheer rudeness and aggressivity is pretty offputting. In universities too people breach rules as beginning writers, but good practice (in journal editing, for example) is to say it to them gently rather than in the tones of Qworty's comments. My brief response would be to say that my "only purpose on Wikipedia" is to disseminate knowledge on areas where I happen to actually know something by virtue of being part of the research processes that generate publications in specific areas. This is a fairly normal situation for WP contributors, I think. It might perhaps not be obvious that for academics where we actually get rewards is for our scholarly publications. Time spent working on WP is not time which brings career or monetary rewards. My experiences over the last couple of years would certainly make me question whether it is at all pointful to contribute to WP on any area on which I actually have scholarly expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.97.255 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC) You are a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Please read both those policies carefully and in their entirety, and then retire forever from violating them. The reason some editors may have been brusque with you in the past is because you are treating Wikipedia as your personal, free web hosting service, in order to promote your online magazine. This is a violation of our policies. If you want your own website, go out and buy one. Your violations of WP:COI constitute disruption, and make you eligible for an editing block. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC) "retire forever from violating them"? What kind of language is that? The biggest problem I see here is WP:BITE/WP:AGF violation on your part. Please refactor and apologize for this comment, or I will escalate this into investigation of how you treat new editors; this comment is among the most appalling treatments of new editors I've seen (and LC is obviously new and inexperience, despite his few years of occasional editing; my remark here is not about his edits and potential mistakes, but your clear violation of our rules and spirit). You talk about a block; if this is how you treat other editors, I certainly see a potential block needed, but it is not on Lawrence. You mistakenly (pejoratively...) refer to a peer-reviewed academic journal as "magazine", and your link removal was often inappropriate; a journal special edition on Arab Spring seems appropriate in the Arab Spring article ([5]), you removed a blibliographic entry here, you removed the link to one of few academic journals in the social movement studies form the social movement page ([6]). Just three links I checked, and all three edits of you were disruptive. Now, sure, Lawrence may have some COI in promoting his journal. Well, let's be frank, he does have a COI. He should at the very least disclose this properly on his userpage, and I think this was mentioned before (if I am right, shame on you, Lawrence, for not doing that yet!). As an editor with COI, you should also pay attention and log in, rather than edit as IP when the COI may be relevant. But having reviewed few more diffs, I don't see a problem; editors are allowed to edit in COI areas, as long as their edits are constructive, and Lawrence edits, to me, were mostly helpful (I see a lot of linking of relevant special issues in articles, ex. [7]). The only problem I see is if an article is suffering from an elink overload, and in such case, the issue should be discussed on case-by-case basis on article's talk page (and I'd argue that an academic, peer reviewed special issue is usually quite a reliable external link). On the final note, I'd certainly like to see Lawrence do some edits that would fall outside any COI link-adding, such as actually contribute content. This is, however, just a suggestion, not a requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry but there is no chance an escalation will do anything but backfire for the waste of time it would be. He edited his journal for the only reason that he is the editor. He shouldn't be spamming his journal into different articles when he has a COI; it doesn't matter if it's relevant to the topic, he's promoting his own work because he has a vested interest in doing so; there are possibly many other superior links and sources which were available, but he choose Interface because he's the editor and has a big conflict of interest. Editors with a COI insert their links into articles they think are relevant, or they try to use them as sources wherever possible; it's targeting the right market. There is no acceptable excuse for it and I'm rather baffled that you don't see a problem with someone blatantly adding links with a conflict of interest, and instead rather choose to defend his insertion of links to his journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC) it doesn't matter if it's relevant to the topic - of course it does; it is THE PRIMARY THING THAT MATTERS. We are here to build an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary (WP:IAR comes to mind, but even the sad excuse for a policy that COI is states that "COI editing is strongly discouraged." - not forbidden, and can lead to sanctions only if " editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia", which has not been the case). COI is only a problem if it is damaging to this project. If somebody has a COI yet makes constructive edits, it's not a problem. COI reviewers should focus on reviewing content; if it is disruptive, escalation to blocks can be helpful, but if it is not, than hounding of editors like seen here is what's really disruptive. Again, it would be nice to see that Lawrence would edit something other than just Interface-related topics, but as long as his edits in this area are constructive, there is no problem. And in no case COI gives an editor the right to say to others "go away, you don't belong here". Anybody who says so is doing grievous harm to this project themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC) You've focussed on the first thing I said and ignored everything else; he is adding links to his journal to relevant topics because it generates more relevant hits to his website; every person with a COI who link spams does it to topics which they can tenuously make a connection to. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC) He has added links to less than ten articles, and most of them to the articles that are clearly connected to the journal theme. It's one thing if somebody spams a for-profit links, it's another if somebody adds links of a peer reviewed journal. Sure, there's some COI here, but it's a good type of COI. Linking peer reviewed journals and articles relevant to the topic is constructive, and if it is done by the journal editor, I see no problem with it (although again Lawrence should have declared his COI on his userpage). I have reviewed the addition of the links and I support it in most cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) I note that you have made substantial contributions to the small journal in question. Can you please disclose your connection to Laurence Cox. I now see why you didn't mind the links, they advertise your paper: [8]. Nice COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC) So, I see you decided to attack my person, rather than acknowledge or address my arguments. Seems like an expected development, sigh. That's not my paper, btw, that's a book review. As I declare on my userpage, I am a sociologist. A professional academic. I publish in a number of academic journals. I have never linked my own papers on Wikipedia, but I certainly don't believe there is any COI when a scholar from a field of x contributes to the articles related to this field. As you may now, scholars don't get paid for journal publications, and their work is peer reviewed and thus quite reliable. Adding links to relevant journal publication to Wikipedia articles is a clearly constructive form of editing, and once again I see nothing disruptive in what Lawrence has done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Attack the person? That you actually contribute to this very small and obscure journal that has few publications a year isn't a given. Maybe it would be nice if you had noted that some of the links removed contained links to your review. Please disclose your personal connection to Laurence Cox, or do I need to google for that as well? Your opinions about what is a COI in this case are worthless since you have a COI yourself. After saying that I attacked your person, you had the brazen audacity to complain at the current AfD that editors "have developed a rather strong personal dislike towards this journal", which is completely attacking those who disagree with you. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I have no personal connection to Lawrence. Unlike you, as it seems you've developed quite a dislike towards him, thus I could argue you not only violate BITE, but COI :> Seriously, your comments here are a violation of AGF, NPA, CIV, BITE... this letter soup is really getting to the point I think you should strongly reconsider if your involvement in this topic is indeed in the spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia building. Perhaps rather than discussing editors, you may want to take a short break and create some content? PS. I restored that link because it is relevant to the article topic, not because it has my tiny book review in it (I didn't even remember it was published in that issue). In any case, as I said before, I don't believe that academics have a COI, as we are not getting paid for publications (and anyway, do you know what "open content" means?). Ditto for editors, who don't get paid, either (and certainly not in the open content case as in the case of Lawrence and the Interface). We are promoting reliable, peer reviewed content because we are experts on that subject, and we decided to help Wikipedia, even through contributions here don't count at all towards tenure. There's no COI here. It's a simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC) FWIW, COI does not require financial or professional conflicts. It can be a matter of topical promotion where there is any personal connection, even among experts and academics. COIs are difficult to appreciate especially for the people who have them; those apparently in a COI are in the worst position to evaluate their own conflict. And it doesn't matter if someone doesn't believe academics have a COI generally; they in fact can and often do. I've found many who cite to their own work and their colleagues' work and don't see a problem with it. The fact that they don't acknowledge the problem doesn't serve to diminish it. BTW, a strong personal dislike may be evidence of bias, but rarely rises to a conflict of interest because the personal connection is simply an opinion of another. JFHJr (㊟) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC) interfacejournal.nuim.ie: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.interfacejournal.nuim.ie Accounts Laurence Cox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) 109.77.97.255 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) 88.104.15.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) --Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC) This whole thread is a couple users freaking out over nothing. I hate to say it but basically it looks like they're taking pleasure in piling on on a new and inexperienced user (who might have a COI here, but was upfront about it). Calling the editor "a spamming mastermind" is such over the top hyperbole that it clearly illustrates that the majority of the problem is with some of the users behind this report rather than Laurence. Likewise, any comments which disagree with Qworty and IRWolfie have been met with immediate attacks and accusations. These two users in particular have acted in a very non-professional - not so say rude and obnoxious - manner here. A bit of a WP:BOOMERANG (in a form of a warning) might be warranted. Volunteer Marek  18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC) I have notified an admin about this thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Although I have a reputation for being draconian about COI, my inclination is to suggest that we close this discussion with no formal action, but to ask Lawrence to keep to his commitment above, "if putting in such refs is a problem I don't have a problem not doing so". I wish both sides would take a fresh look at WP:NPA, with new eyes as it were, as both sides of this particularly obnoxious discussion involve highly productive editors I would hate to lose. Is this acceptable to all parties? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Yep, it's what I was initially looking for (and a COI notice on the article talkpage). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC) and I would remind Lawrence that the way to have such links inserted if they are relevant is to suggest them on the article talk p, disclosing the COI. If they are relevant, another editor will then add them. People sometimes add such COI links in good faith, but it can be impossible to distinguish from spamming, and it serves as a red flag here. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Talk page is a good suggestion. I still wish Lawrence would actually take part in this discussion, it is a bit ironic that all of this storm in the teacup might have totally passed him by. But perhaps it was for the best, considering that (IMHO) this thread might reached the harassment levels that might have well made him abandon this project altogether. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wärtsilä

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

In IP address, 194.251.142.28, is constantly making changes to this aritcle. Every time, it sounds more and more like an adverteisment or public-relations text. It seems like that IP address is assigned to the titular company. Every time the "Advert" tag is added, that user deletes it. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this article from being controlled by someone at Wartsila? I apoligize if this is the wrong format to bring this up, it just seems like a blatant COI. Adam850 (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag is currently in place, and I didn't see it placed or removed with a quick glance at the recent history. If issues continue, you can always request semi-protection over here. --Nouniquenames 14:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just removed some copyvio text - definitely adverty, but I don't see any evidence of COI (which in this context, generally requires someone to admit it) - it does need someone to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of the article... It's just finding the time :( Fayedizard (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:InsightPR

InsightPR (talk · contribs) has created one potentially problematic bio; name suggests a potential connection to http://insightpublicaffairs.com/ . Could use more attention from somebody in the COI field. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

InsightPR (talk · contribs) blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have been dealt with - anyone object to a close? Fayedizard (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Microsemi

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

I'm in an edit war with 208.33.250.10 over the Microsemi article and that IP is registered to that company. Hcobb (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty and Nouniquenames appear to have given the article some attention here, and it's looking much more wikipedia-friendly -is there anything more to be done? Fayedizard (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Anthony Cooper

I have done my best to avoid an edit war with Douglas Anthony Cooper, the subject, creator, and editor of that page. Unfortunately, because I suggested that he is insufficiently notable for a Wikipedia page, he is now engaging in a campaign of harassment against me, including wikihounding, personal attacks, false accusations, and outing of personal information. You can view the conversation on my talk page and Cooper's bio article. (As the author has identified himself on my talk page, I don't feel there's any WP:Privacy issue in identifying him by name here.)

Mr. Cooper has publicly stated that he doesn't care about maintaining the page, he's only interested in stopping "PETA thugs" from "vandalizing" his page. (I'm not affiliated with PETA in any way, and do not support them, so his paranoid announcement that he's the target of a PETA conspiracy is a little bewildering. I've been assuming this is a rational individual, but that outburst gives me serious pause.) The edits he's made are clearly driven by self-interest and spite rather than a desire to improve Wikipedia.

Unlike Mr. Cooper, I honestly don't have any ego invested in this. If the community deems the subject notable, I'm absolutely fine with that. However, I'm not okay with him generating his own self-promoting pages and attacking anyone who dares to edit or question them.

The following pages of questionable notability and definite conflict of interest were created by Mr. Cooper:

• Douglas Anthony Cooper
• Milrose Munce and the Den of Professional Help (novel)
• Delirium (Cooper novel)
• Amnesia (novel)

I've been extremely patient with this individual, and I would appreciate the intervention of more rational editors or an admin before this degenerates further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDopp (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• When I saw how he's been wikihounding and harassing you, I almost became physically ill. I have trimmed a lot of the WP:PEACOCK and unsourced assertions from his article and restored the vandalized tags, and have also taken him to AN/I on your behalf [9]. Please do not remove any of his edits from your talk page, so that the admins can see just how vicious he has been. I feel very sorry that you have had to suffer all of this. I will continue to monitor the situation. Qworty (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Qworty: where do I enter into a discussion here? You are simply unaware of the facts here, and if I have to bring forty witnesses on board, I shall: John Schiff is NOTORIOUS for his thuggery on behalf of PETA and HSUS. "I'm not affiliated with PETA in any way, and do not support them, so his paranoid announcement that he's the target of a PETA conspiracy is a little bewildering." This is, quite simply, false. It is counterfactual. It is a lie. And I intend to demonstrate this.

If it makes you physically ill, then it is because you imagine that I am somehow tormenting a poor innocent soul. Nothing could be further from the case. If necessary, I'll collect quotations from around the web to demonstrate what precisely we are dealing with here.

He knows nothing about me as an author, and I expect had never heard of me prior to his discovery that I was writing an expose of PETA. I am happy to have this entry removed -- I have tried to remove it myself -- but not by this man.

THi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.148.186.149 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have observed Mr. Cooper being harassed by Mr. Schiff in other venues, always in the context of cruelty to animals. Note: I may have a COI because I have read books written by Mr. Cooper. Pdworkin

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC) 

Apology, I am in error. I have read argumentative comments following Mr. Cooper's articles on PETA in the Huffington Post, but his interlocutors were people other than John Schiff. I made a faulty assumption because I have seen Mr. Schiff duelling with others on this subject. Apparantly I have been called a "sock puppet" in a discussion of these posts, a tendentious and false accusation, but the facticious, unsourced and combative nature of the accusation accurately represent Mr. Schiff's style as I have come to know it.

Pdworkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the page and see that the accustation wa made by an individual named "Quorty" whom I do not know.

Pdworkin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdworkin (talk • contribs) 09:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming a nightmare straight out of Kafka: I just tried to remove the entire entry -- yet again -- and *it won't let me.* Please: take it down. I would much rather it weren't there, despite Schiff's assertion that I've written the entire thing myself. (The Wikipedia process is maddening. But at least I'll get a good article out of it, by the end of which John Doppler Schiff himself will be quite notable.)

189.148.186.149 (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents here (without having read much of the above discussion). Cooper is notable as an author, but the page Douglas Anthony Cooper is too long; the article would be improved by shortening it considerably. I imagine the articles about books would have problems too. Also, people please learn to sign your posts, and use proper formating (indenting).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

JohnDopp, given the amount of time and energy you spend on Facebook railing against no kill and anyone who supports it, it's safe to assume that your issue with this author, who supports no kill, is probably not about his notability or the integrity of wikipedia. The notability issue has already been discussed. Ad nauseam. Drop it. You are wasting people's time with your disingenuous flag and this inane conversation. If you don't want to feel harrassed, stop harrassing others. Atelantix (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The *only* action I've taken was the inclusion of the notability tag on his bio article, which was not unreasonable and was not motivated by malice. I've commented on one of Cooper's blogs in the past, and for some reason, he now thinks I'm a "PETA thug" who's out to get him. At no time have I harassed him, and I've tried from the start to resolve this dispute amicably and impartially. I've certainly done nothing to warrant the outing of my personal information or the personal attacks that were launched at me, no matter how the subject of the article feels about my personal life or the content of my Facebook posts.

And if you'll note, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the no-kill debate. I've made very few edits to no-kill topics: it's not my focus. (Not that it's relevant, but I support no-kill efforts, I just question some of the methods of achieving those goals. And equally irrelevant, I do NOT work for PETA or any other animal welfare organization. The paranoid delusion that I'm some Terminator for PETA who's out to get Cooper for his support of no-kill is getting a little disturbing. Write your little article, Mr. Cooper, but keep Wikipedia neutral and factual, please.)

In the meantime, my thanks to those with cooler heads who have stepped in to improve the article. JohnDopp (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I imagine JohnDopp agrees with me that it's in everyone's best interests to see this decided very soon. He is not opposed to No Kill, as he says, and if the article remains tagged, then it casts doubt upon Cooper's work, and even more importantly upon the on-going critique of shelter killing. This makes Wikipedia a vehicle for propaganda, and nobody wants that.

If the entry on Douglas Cooper is removed as insufficiently notable that would be fine. If its neutrality is approved and he is considered notable then that's also fine. It's the in-between state that makes Wikipedia a tool for people who wish to discredit the No Kill movement, and as I said, nobody here including JohnDopp wants to see that.

I have to say that Cooper is one of the most honest writers I've read, and a man's profession is being slandered. I think we all agree that this needs to be resolved immediately. We either lift those flags or take the articles down.

I'm glad that cooler heads have prevailed, and I think this could be decided very quickly. Has the entry even been submitted for proper review, so that a definitive decision can be made? Can I do it myself? Those tags discredit both Mr. Cooper and No Kill, and I think we all agree that Wikipedia should not be taking sides in an important debate about animal welfare. CandaceWare (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

This doesn't appear to me to be "an important debate about animal welfare" at all. It appears to be a debate as to whether Douglas Anthony Cooper meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines which would justify us having an article about him. I suggest that all concerned address that issue, which is the only relevant one here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the edits to Mr. Cooper's entry, Johndopp has repeatedly flagged Mr. Cooper's page as to his notability. If one reads back through all of the edits to the entry, it would appear that Mr. Cooper's notability as a writer is well-established. Whatever undercurrent that may be at play here, it is surely unconscionable to allow for this repeated flagging. It is my hope that Wikipedia will quickly arrive at a decision regarding this manner, so that Mr. Cooper's entry will either appear or disappear, but no longer hang in limbo. If Wikipedia decides that Mr. Cooper's achievements merit an entry, then I sincerely hope they will prevent Johndopp from further mischief in this realm. (larkinvonalt/talk) 07:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkinvonalt (talk • contribs)

"If one reads back through all of the edits to the entry, it would appear that Mr. Cooper's notability as a writer is well-established". Nope. See WP:AUTHOR - I can see nothing in the article as it stands that establishes - via sources that meet Wikipedia requirements - that Cooper meets the guidelines. If you disagree, then tell us what has he actually done that specifically meets our guidelines - and provide a verifiable third-party source to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I'll leave the legwork up to the Wikipedia staff who will ultimately arbitrate this issue. But it would seem to me that someone whom Michiko Kakutani (of the New York Times) compared to Nabokov in a highly favorable review (in the New York Times) is at least somewhat notable. Also, Mr. Cooper's tenure at New York Magazine, the Village Voice and so forth also speaks to a level of accomplishment not achieved by so many writers. And of course, there is the instance of Mr. Cooper's second novel, Delirium, being the first serialized fiction on the internet. But what really strikes me as pertinent to this whole issue is that when Mr. Cooper himself asked Wikipedia to remove the entry about him (due to a stalking situation) his request was refused on the basis that he was too notable to be excluded. In any case, like yourself, I hope that this issue is decided with some alacrity, so that all involved may get on with other things in their lives. (larkinvonalt/talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkinvonalt (talk • contribs) 08:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone mind/think it was a good idea, if I took a swing at the article as an uninvolved editor? Fayedizard (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please ping me on my talk if you choose to do so while the AfD is open. It would likely change my vote there to have an uninvolved, experienced editor working it. --Nouniquenames 05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have smacked the article around a little bit... (looking at the history it appears I ran over John in the process - apologies) I've also proposed merging Amnesia_(novel) into the article and comments on this would be welcome. Ideally it could probably do with *another* uninvolved editor looking over my shoulder, but I'm pretty done now.Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly much improved. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-ups

...and to look at this COI conversation overall - the relevant page is templated, and the article is now on more watchlists, which I suspect terminates most of the original purpose of this thread. The two logical 'wash-up' actions I can see happening are a) a COI look at John on the Humane_Society_of_the_United_States page and b) seeing if people might want to open a SPI at the various accounts at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Anthony_Cooper - do people think either (or both) of these are reasonable... Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin having dealt with this article for a very long time, and having dealt with subject both then and now, I do not think an SPI will be either productive or in our interests. It will all be forgotten and back to normal when the AfD is over. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd love to see what an SPI/CU would show. That said, I'm not convinced of socking necessarily, so the best we could find would be meatpuppets. Given that, zzuuzz may be on to something. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Four of the individuals in question are known to me personally, and I can say with assurance that they are meatpuppets here specifically at Cooper's request; I do not personally believe that anyone involved in the editing of the article is a sockpuppet, despite the rampant WP:COI. I'm inclined to agree with zzuuzz: this will likely blow over once the AfD is closed. We've got a pretty solid consensus for "keep" now thanks to the cleanup (and a grateful tip of the hat to Fayedizard for the most recent work), the meatpuppets are losing interest, and the original concerns about the article have largely been resolved. Let's stick a fork in it. Regarding COI concerns on the HSUS pages, I'm happy to have another set of eyes look over my edits. I have considerable expertise with the history of the HSUS and its opposition groups and have a reputation for being outspoken and active on these topics on the internet, but I am not employed by or affiliated with any animal welfare organization, including HSUS. I do maintain a blog at humanewatch.info dedicated to confronting an opposition group, but I have not referenced that site in any way on Wikipedia and have endeavored to keep all my edits neutral and encyclopedic. If you believe I've strayed outside those guidelines or that my status as a blog owner warrants a COI disclosure, please let me know. I'm still finding my footing as an editor, and I welcome any feedback that helps me to improve. Thanks! -- JohnDopp (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad B*tch Club

• Bad B*tch Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ChrisPeacock111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I edited the page which i created and took down information i found out was incorrect and updated it with new information and cited my sources, added a reference table and updated the episode guide. I continue to get a message that it is "nonconstructive" which is very irritating because i made this page and added new information.

Colin_Turner_(author)

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

The article seems fully written by Roni Turner, to reflect on the works of the author Colin Turner. Looks like self-promotion within a family... (unsigned comment by IP user)

I just started some work in this and ended up prod-ing it - everything I tried to check unraveled underneath me...  :( Fayedizard (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, an IP has removed the Prod - would anyone mind taking a quick look and giving a verdict on the article? Fayedizard (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And following on from that - I went though again today and found that most of the books turn out to be self-published - I've got to the point of nomination for deletion, comments welcome.Fayedizard (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Gorilla Glass

Resolved

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

Hello. This editor:

1. Is presumably John C. Mauro (mauroj@c*rning.com), employee of Corning Inc.: Googling Mauro at Corning
2. His only edits are for rewriting the history of his company's product Gorilla Glass: [10] and [11].

Note: Maurojc deleted this information in August. In September, I read the article and by the way straightened its lead,[12] independently re-introducing the bit he deleted (it was glaringly missing to avoid a misleading lead). In October I'm back to lookup another info and was startled to see the lead missing that bit again. That's when I saw Maurojc had deleted it again (concealed as a minor edit) and decided to look this up. (This is why I dropped off Wikipedia in 2007: there are ten marketeers/COI for each editor; still, I'll strike this one before spam and entropy take over.) 62.147.25.230 (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I cannot see much evidence that you've tried to discuss this with Maurojc before coming here. I've read through what info I can find in the talk pages, reworded the disputed section, and dropped a note to Maurojc. We'll see what this brings. In fairness, I can see Corning's POV here; they do not see GG as being the same as CG, and so object to the assertion that it's been sitting around since 1960 doing nothing. Equally, I can see the rest of the word POV which is, it doesn't matter what you call it nor whether the composition has changed slightly, it's still the same thing. It all smacks of counting angels on the heads of pins; best to be routed around. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So, that ended badly for Maurojc, who registered a sockpuppet, refused to talk about the edit despite much encouragement, and got himself & his sock blocked. I've spoken to him by email subsequently, and he indicates that he will not try to change the article again. For my part I expressed the hope that he would come back and discuss the article with a view to reaching consensus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Luke-Jr

Luke-Jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user continues to push controversial changes to Bitcoin as a developer of the current mainstream Bitcoin protocol, Bitcoind. This is shown here: https://github.com/luke-jr Please act on this at your discretion.--HowardStrong (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

As further evidence, Luke-Jr is logged in on #Bitcoin-dev @ irc.freenode.net--HowardStrong (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. This all smells like an attempt of gaming the system to me. I doubt anyone ever intended COI to imply developers of X are disallowed from making edits to X at all. HowardStrong, on the other hand, seems to be trying to push for a change to the standard BTC symbol via Wikipedia. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I have not. I have accepted the symbol that only you have claimed as standard though. B⃦ is your invention and google will show that. --HowardStrong (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article and these two editors have a checkered history, including reports at WP:ANEW and at WP:ANI ([13]). There appears to be some forum shopping, although Howard did not bring the EW reports, only the ANI report. I tend to agree that Howard appears to be using boards to advance his preferred version of the article. Procedurally, at least, Howard has not behaved well in his editing of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. My behavior is irrelevant. Luke-Jr has attempted to be a major force in this article as a developer with no initial discussion. I always leave discussion up for my major edits. I am open to having them questioned and removed. Luke-Jr hardly ever discusses his preferred changes on the talk page.--HowardStrong (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that User:HowardStrong is an WP:SPA interested only in editing Bitcoin page; while per se being WP:SPA means almost nothing, it would be great to get a clear statement from User:HowardStrong about his own WP:COI (or lack of WP:COI) on Bitcoin. Ipsign (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

I would like to bring attention to and request assistance regarding some fairly benign request edits: [14][15][16]

Honeywell Aerospace donated some images - some I added to articles as non-COI images - while ones that are distinguishable as a Honeywell product or have Honeywell in the caption I submitted as a request edit. There's also a couple edits about a list of biofuel test flights and a basic summary of green diesel.

I have someone bugging me to just directly edit, because of the pace of the request edit queue. The requests aren't very important edits, but I would be grateful for anyone that will help out. Corporate 19:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sulake

• Sulake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Michaels541

Based on edits to the Sulake article by the user Michaels541, and concerns made by another editor, Michaels541 may be an employee of Sulake Corporation. This is also based on his other edits, some of which may even be considered vandalism, also indicating newness to the encyclopedia. GSK ● talk ● evidence 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thing - after waking up and having a more sane mind, I found that the editor copied information from Sulake's own website (especially http://www.sulake.com/press/awards/ and the profiles for each of their games)... This might mean that he doesn't work for Sulake, and it might be a slightly more innocent case of copying directly from the Internet, by an unaffiliated third party. Maybe he's just out to make the world a less critical place or something. Definitely doesn't rule out COI though. I copied (cross-posted) this message from GSK's talk page. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)