Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Case Filed On: 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Case Opened On: 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Case Closed On: 11:29, 04 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:


Have you read the AMA FAQ?

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: A Content dispute and a Conflict of Interest

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer:Posted on the articles talk page, Talk:Discovery Channel. Also, spoke on the phone with a representative for Discovery Communications. The representative acknowledged the edits, but insisted that they were familiar with Wikipedia policy, and had not broken it.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: I expect that the suspected conflict of interest will be formally and properly addressed.


Discovery Communications appears to be favorably editing the Wikipedia entry on The Discovery Channel, which is owned by them. Specifically, a Discovery Communications IP address has "re-worked" the Discovery Channel entry to be significantly more favorable to Discovery Communications, most notably (and most ironically) by removing the reference to Discovery's reputation for guerrilla marketing. Here's the side-by-side comparison of the Discovery edits: . You'll notice the IP address that made that alteration is: , which belongs to Discovery Communications: . This edit was likely due to a negative article that was published about Discovery, which exposed their guerrilla marketing tactics. The article is available here: and here: . The pro-Discovery changes to the Wikipedia entry were made shortly after the publication of that article.

I have put information on this in the article's talk page: . However, I haven't edited the article itself.

Discovery Communications is clearly involved in guerrilla marketing. There are numerous credible articles on the web about this. All that's necessary to verify this is to go to Google and enter "Discovery Communications" and "guerrilla marketing". I have spoken on the phone with Anthony Lupo, who is representing Discovery through the law firm of Arent Fox, LLP. He insists that it's not at all against Wikipedia rules, and that their actions are perfectly legitimate. Seems ludicrous to me. Any help at all in reconciling this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have added this to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Discovery_Channel__.28history.7CWatchlist_this_article.7Cunwatch.29_.5Bwatchlist.3F.5D.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've edited the IP address in the "Other Wikipedians this pertains to:" section. It was a small typo. The proper IP address (now listed) is: The previous IP address was 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an information message to User talk: so that they know that we know they are Discovery Communications, Inc.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 16:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, here are some references to substantiate the claim that Discovery Communications is involved in guerrilla marketing. Most notable is their well-documented involvement with Interference, Inc., the guerrilla marketing company behind the recent ATHF "bomb scare" incident in Boston.

-- 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might also lend notability to this situation: Media Giant Bullies Internet Critic-- 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following my own and an administrative review, this case is being closed because the IP has stopped editing Discovery Channel Related articles. Any NPOV edits by this IPP may be removed/reverted. If you need additional assistance contact me.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 21:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:

AMA Information[edit]

Case Status: closed

Advocate Status: