Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Rafail Ostrovsky – Speedied, author requested deletion – 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Rafail Ostrovsky

[edit]

Pure autobiographical vanity. This guy seems to pass WP:PROF though, so I've brought it here instead of prodding it. MER-C 09:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 29 December 2006 Deiz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Rafail Ostrovsky" (G7, db-author) MER-C 13:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Virgin Unite – Issue resolved – 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Virgin Unite

[edit]

Virgin Unite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created yesterday by Virgin united (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1] and is now being advertised as part of Wikipedia's fundraising drive. This raises the possbility of companies using wikipedia for advertising through participating in future fundraising drives. Catchpole 11:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine now, since it's been completely rewritten by several admins and deletionists. Most likely a speedy candidate in the beginning but it's no longer that way. The creator was blocked by Zscout370 for having a commercial username. MER-C 11:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the possbility of companies using wikipedia for advertising through participating in future fundraising drives. That concern is above our pay grades, as they say in the US military. Let's let the Foundation worry about that, shall we? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, exactly. And of course, there's always speedy/AFD for nuking the non-notable ones. MER-C 13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. No sign of corporate vanity editing since report. MER-C 03:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Alpha Phi Alpha – Reported by banned user – 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Alpha Phi Alpha

[edit]

Comment by banned user removed.

Ah, yes, Youtube links. I don't think we can deal with this until the controversy over them has died down. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube. Sorry. MER-C 02:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Robert F. Treat – Deleted on AFD – 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Robert F. Treat

[edit]

RedBeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - when the copy-editing tag I put on the article was removed, I saw that the user who removed it bears the same nickname as the article's subject, that he's already had an autobiograohical page moved to his userpage and that all his edits revolve around this same person, who is seemingly himself. // LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert F. Treat, hopefully deletion through AfD and then protection will do it. Deizio talk 14:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll prod the userpage in two months time if no other encyclopedic contributions are made. No article, no conflict of interest, no problem. MER-C 01:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Modified Luxury & Exotics – Speedied as corporate vanity – 01:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Luxury&Exotics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently has some connection with the niche luxury car magazine Modified Luxury & Exotics and is basically adding fluff to that article, and self-promotion to articles on luxury and exotic cars. I've looked at most of the external links to the magazine that they have added, and the webpages are very chatty with a very low amount of hard, useful information in them. I've reverted many of their edits, and left a message about basic Wikipedia WP:COI and WP:EL policy on their talk page, but it looks like they plan to continue. I've brought it here so the editor will get a more 'official' warning about their behavior, and so I'm not the only editor dealing with them. ^Blank ^Verse 08:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's corporate vanity. It needs to go, so tagged. MER-C 10:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bob Fink – Stale – 05:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Bob Fink

[edit]

Bob Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this and other articles on/by this Canadian musicologist need external review of notability and content. They were created by, and have continuing edits from, 65.255.255.* addresses [2], which correspond to Bob Fink and his publisher. This same IP range edits extensively to raise Fink's profile by self-links (see [3]) in ~~a walled garden~~ an interlinked set of various musicology articles, with continuing refusal to abide by WP:COI and WP:Autobiography guidelines. Admin attention over the COI would be particularly appreciated. His excessive and argumentative presence on Talk pages (see Talk:Divje Babe and Talk:Musical acoustics) also seems well out of the spirit of COI guidelines to "defer to the community's opinion". (updated) 86.139.249.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden? Where? MER-C 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts: I have not refused to abide by Wiki rules. 1. The page written in my Wiki bio was written by User:Victoriagirl, and one of us wrote in to her: "Good job" at the time, even though what was originally written there over a year ago (based on my publisher's webpage bios --as we didn't know any Wiki rules), was completely scratched by her. We thought that was ok.

2. Despite some disagreements, I immediately seized upon Craig Stuntz' offer to rewrite Divje_Babe entirely (see Talk:Divje_Babe) and I instantly agreed he should go ahead (8 hours before User:Rainwarrior did, who I believe is asking for this watch). That's "refusal" to abide by rules? Rainwarrior even placed, out of chronological order, a comment that he, too, agreed with Craig's proposal, putting it ahead of my agreement made 8 hours earlier than his. If one didn't read the time-date, it could appear that I was a "me-too" succumbing to a "band-wagon" preceeded by Rainwarrior and Craig. Rainwarrior at other times similarly moved around his replies out of time. This is not the first.

Virtually All Rainwarrior's recent edits and activity for many weeks has been especially targeting me (see his user tasks pages targeted on me), slandering me, without any grounds offered. Like the other pages which have material about ancient and prehistoric music (written long ago, and not by me), they will show that the edits (I dare Rainwarrior to quote them all in full) rarely have my name in them, and only sometimes are my webpages (but usually quoting material by other authors). How on earth does that "promote" my "profile"? This all is evidence and fact that Rainwarrior knows or has read time and again, but ignores because it doesn't suit his corrupt campaign against me. -- Bob Fink Greenwyk 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI COI: 1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." This shows that total silence is not what the rules prescribe from involved scholars as Rainwarrior seems to believe. Please "unwatch" me as I am playing by the rules. We also have offered to replace any and all edits, if irrelevant, made long ago, which possibly violate rules didn't then know. Maybe Rainwarrior needs watching?

(deindent) "The page written in my Wiki bio was written by User:Victoriagirl". Wrong. A look at the history shows that 65.255.225.0/24 (which is you, isn't it?) has made at least half of the edits to the article. Another problem is that the article lacks third party reliable sources and is almost completely unreferenced (so tagged).

You also need to keep an eye on our spam and external link guidelines. MER-C 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I do not in any way consider myself the writer of the Bob Fink entry, rather I stumbled upon an unencyclopedic article and did my level best to improve it. In this way, it was no different than many other articles in which I have chosen to participate. That said, I found the extent of the work to be more challenging and time consuming - in fact, I appear to have timed out. As the edit summary indicated, my edit concerned the Manual of Style and general clean-up, the deletion of redundancies and advertising. Also deleted was an essay concerning Rosa Parks. A casual glance will reveal that much of the text of the new article was a rewritten or boiled down from the previous version. Information concerning Fink's renderings, contained at the end of the previous version, was inserted under "Biography"; otherwise the section remains virtually unchanged. This is all to say that I can't in any way claim to have "written" the entry, nor do I. The description is made all the more unrealistic by the fact that other users have performed more than 50 edits since.

I should add that I'm pretty much your average rock chick disco doll, and know nothing about prehistoric music, the origin of scales, or any other area of study referred to in the article. My participation in the Bob Fink article was a result of the clean-up challenges offered by the entry as it existed in September.

Finally, I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my extemely irritation by the great number of anonymous edits and posts, and reluctance by these same users to provide edit summaries. These have had no other effect than to throw up roadblocks. Victoriagirl 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was careless -- I should have said that the article as it once stood was not any longer there, and was replaced by a "cleanup" by Victoriagirl (which I for one thought was fine. I have no complaint with her). I will agree there is a difference between "cleanup" work and having "written" the article. I was not aware of what great signficance that difference would suggest to Victoriagirl, but the exact fact, to avoid misinterpreting what I meant, is now to say that I meant this: I didn't do the cleanup of the current article. Victoriagirl did, and now seeing how she has responded, I now know I should have used that word instead of the broader term "written." I would've assumed that a cleanup happens by writing it -- but Wikipedia distinctions like that clearly I haven't found nor learned yet from the rules. I just don't understand the hostility or irritation it generates.

Since the cleanup (as the history will prove), I have done little content editing, if any, except for correcting dates, alphabetizing, and trying to find references that are on-line for the specific facts of the biography as allowed to me. The quantity of that may appear numerous, but the significance of them against rules (like centering the picture doesn't break any rules, does it? Or advertise me more than it being at the left? As to "advertising," that was part of the publisher's original write-up when not knowing the rules. The edits (all from the publishers computer) in "history" will show that since the cleanup, edits have been minor, dealing only with as said, dates, etc. The whole idea of a bio for me here was when my publisher asked me for info to put one together a long long time ago. If I have a bio in wikipedia, nice for me, its importace to me is mimimal.

As to "third party references" I simply don't understand that charge in this article. Specifically, please: What items or claimed facts in the article remain unverified or uncited? What exactly is needed? The list of works is factual, they can be found in libraries, and references to worldcat or ISBM numbers have been or can be provided. If I provide an ISBN or link (such as the link to the human rights commission) is that not a third party reference or link? I've read the citation rules, etc., and perhaps the person tagging it could explain which specific rule is not followed? PLEASE? I would appreciate the good manners of receiving specifics instead of attacks and accusations which seem to me highly provocative. (As when I take advantage of the wiki excerpt above regarding and allowing the citing of one's own work. Scholars in journals do it all the time. Here it seems to be a high crime, worthy only of great penalties. Bob Fink, Greenwyk 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by an anonymous user that began this discussion was not made by me (I did not know that this particular noticeboard existed until just now), but it matches my opinion more or less and I had previously linked the website search to one or two other people I had hoped might comment on the situation at Talk:Musical acoustics. That search will return less results next time the database updates though, because I have been removing those links which were directly added by a user with one of his IPs (each time with a link to the edit history where it was added). His IPs usually are of the form 65.255.255.* where * ranges from 33 to 52, though 40,41,42,50, and 51 were also used briefly by someone claiming to be Kate McMillan during a debate at that page some time ago. I'm assuming these are IPs from a Saskatchewan dialup ISP. There are also some older edits by 204.83.156.17, 28, 36, and 38, and a look at the edit histories of any of these IPs will reveal editing entirely related to the work of Bob Fink (adding links to his website, particularly, and often adding his self published book to the reference lists of article). I made a list at User:Rainwarrior/Bob Fink, because all of this anonymous editing makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the problem here otherwise.

My direct notice of this editing began after I made a few comments, without editing the article, about the content Mr. Fink had added to Musical acoustics. After his rather harsh reply, I looked again at the material in the article and became of the opinion that that information was irrelevant to the subject. After the editor claimed to be either Mr. Fink or his publisher, it began to look like a case of self promotion to me, especially as I began to find links to his website all over the place. (I made some edits regarding this at the time but they were reverted by Mr. Fink, and I haven't edited the article in quite some time pending consensus from other editors on the talk page, but it is slow in coming.)

I should point out, though, that at Divje Babe, I think a mention of his work regarding that artifact is entirely relevant, as it is mentioned several times in the published literature about it. I do, however, object to the manner in which it is currently presented (which was written by Mr. Fink). I've made very few edits to that article itself, though. - Rainwarrior 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: I have never heard of Kate McMillan until now. FACT: She has never used the same computer as the one I use (that Rainwarrior says has the same ISP or IP -whatever). Maybe this Kate uses the same Saskatoon server? FACT: Her link above shows she is very right-wing. I am well-known in my city as a left-wing activist. Why she would add links to any book I wrote or add links to my websites would be inexplicable to me, as she'd likely never agree to anything to help anyone with my left-wing politics, I'm sure. What's going on here??? FACT: The Talk:Divje_Babe page shows I am not the writer of the current Divje Babe article. Totally perplexed, Bob Fink, Greenwyk 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC). P.s. Anyway, if some person wants everyone to watch the edits made at my bio page, actually, what do I care, after all? Go for it. Whether the period goes before the close-quote or after it can be very exciting to witness. :O)[reply]

I was suggesting that she uses the same ISP as you, nothing more than that. Just pointing out that the IP contribution record shows. And the Divje Babe history and content shows that you did in fact write a great deal of the text of that article. You've also contributed lengthy argument to the talk page (along with reversion edits) over even very minor changes to the text you wrote in the article. - Rainwarrior 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have contributed comparably lengthy ship-galley volumes of writing to Talk, always the first to start the cannons rolling, and continuing your charming habit of naming your ad hominem false statements about me as "facts"; Rarely -- perhaps almost never -- fully quoting specifics (the kind one puts inside quotes) to back up the misinformation. I seem also to be so much more interesting to you than ANY of the articles involved -- I really am so flattered. You just follow me everywhere like a puppy. Awww shucks, golly jeepers. Giggle. Greenwyk 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Primerica Financial Services – Stale – 05:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Primerica Financial Services

[edit]

Primerica Financial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is apparently supervised by company employees. It has been edited by a company IP (12.163.2.10 (talk · contribs)), by a SPA who named himself for the company (until made to change), and even by someone claiming to be the company's representative. They've repeatedly removed even the mildest criticisms of the company. -Will Beback · † · 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have blocked the SPA because of a commercial/trademarked username. As long as the criticisms are sourced, they should be reverted and warned with {{test1a}}, etc. MER-C 09:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ingria – Closed per remarks below. – 05:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Ingria

[edit]

this page shows a long interwiki war. Some users and even administrators don't like ru-sib interwiki and try to delete it from the page. More of them - I have been attacked with this reason many times in my homepage. The last one was here. I'm really tired from this strange war and request for maintenance and protection. All arguments about the legitimation of ru-sib interwiki (which is not an external link) you could find in pages of discussion. --A4 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum-shopping? What has this to do here? If there's anybody who has a "conflict of interest" here it's you, because you are a contributor to ru-sib. This was last discussed on WP:ANI, you failed to find support there, so now you're trying to take it elsewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Scott Wilson Group – Withdrawn – 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Scott Wilson Group

[edit]

Scott Wilson Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Scottwilsonplc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which would appear at first sight to be a conflict of interest. The user has no other edits unconnected with this page. The topic is almost certainly notable per WP:CORP. Sam Blacketer 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Update: Other editors have now checked and verified the content and the tag has been removed. Full stand down. Sam Blacketer 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Albanian Film Database – Deleted. – 04:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Albanian Film Database [edit] Albanian Film Database (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) was created by user:Niklogoreci. The user has since written this page into a wide number of articles. The Albanian Film Database, by its article, is owned and created by Niki Logoreci. I see a big conflict of interest here. The web page itself seems to be only of slight notabiliy. Someone with a greater knowledge of the rules governing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest should probably take care of this.--Thomas.macmillan 03:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] It seems that the article in question was speedily deleted.--Thomas.macmillan 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] Yup - the article was plainly an attempt to spam a non-notable website. -- ChrisO 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Aliweb – editing by aliweb.com socks has subsided. – 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Aliweb

[edit]

The early history of Aliweb, beginning in May 2004, shows a variety of editors slowly building a small and increasingly encyclopedic article about one of the earliest web browsers, ALIWEB, an item of historical interest. This began to change when anonymous and apparently associated IPs began moving in:

12.203.102.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) August 2005
12.202.236.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) November 2005
12.202.236.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) December 2005, April 2006
74.131.81.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) May 2006 through September 2006
74.140.187.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) November 2006 through January 2007
Aliweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) June 2006 through January 2007

A closer look at the IPs

12.203.102.190 (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- WHOIS: Lexington, Kentucky, United States
- RDNS: 12-203-102-190.client.insightBB.com
- TRACEROUTE: tbr2-cl15.n54ny.ip.att.net
12.202.236.138 (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- WHOIS: Lexington, Kentucky, United States
- RDNS: 12-202-236-138.client.insightBB.com
- TRACEROUTE: tbr2-cl15.n54ny.ip.att.net
12.202.236.233 (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- WHOIS: Lexington, Kentucky, United States
- RDNS: 12-202-236-233.client.insightBB.com
- TRACEROUTE: tbr2-cl15.n54ny.ip.att.net
Aliweb (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- Self-Identified as "lead programmer" for aliweb.com (diff)
- aliweb.com, Advertising Technologies Corporation, Lexington, Kentucky, US (Alexa) (AboutUsBeta)
- aliweb.com (WHOIS) Advertising Technologies Corp. P. O. Box 498 Lexington, KY 40507 US
74.140.187.28 (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- Self-Identified as "aliweb@aliweb.com" (diff)
- WHOIS: Louisville, Kentucky, United States.
- RDNS: 74-140-187-28.dhcp.insightbb.com
- TRACEROUTE: 74-140-187-28.dhcp.insightbb.com
74.131.81.181 (talk • contribs • links • count • actions • logs || WHOIS • RDNS • TRACEROUTE • search)
- WHOIS: Louisville, Kentucky, United States.
- RDNS: 74-131-81-181.dhcp.insightbb.com
- TRACEROUTE: unknown.insightns.com ("firewall at 74.128.8.174 ... blocks ICMP (ping) packets")

→ The above whois/rdns/traceroute findings added by Athænara ✉ at 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contribs

→Detailed Contribs subsection moved 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) to Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#COIN for noticeboard brevity.

The burden of this little gang of editors (who may be only two or three, or even one) is too great for the article to carry. They need to be stopped, so that good editors may (and quickly, too, judging from what they have been able to contribute between increasingly determined obstructions) bring the article back into that encyclopedic zone we all seek here. Athænara ✉ 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 June 06 User:Aliweb declared 'I am the lead programmer working on Aliweb' [4]. Warnings about conflict of interest seem to have no effect. EdJohnston 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. One possible resolution, for the sake of the obvious historical significance of the first web browser ALIWEB (Archie-Like Indexing for the WEB):

Remove all commercial COI-pushing-sock additions to the text.
Add one short section specifying the absence of any connection to a website called aliweb.com. Include and reference the original ALIWEB developer's clear repudiation of that site.
Refactor the talk page (Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages), archiving the interference from the socks and nearly everything which relates to it, returning the emphasis on the current talk page to material pertinent to the historic ALIWEB browser itself.
Move the article to [[ALIWEB]], the name of its subject.
Get normal encyclopedic editing back up to speed—it could be a very good small article.

All this is aside from the possibility of continued interference from the socks, none of which have edited since 03 January 2007. I have not, myself, previously edited this article, but I can do this for it. Athænara ✉ 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the last good encyclopedic version of the article. The lengthy "closer look at the IPs" section is now located at Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1 (link provided above in that section's place) in a verbatim copy of the entire initial post. The remainder of the post is abbreviated here for eventual noticeboard archiving. Athænara ✉ 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Lengthy "A closer look at the IPs" contribs restored here because User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) returned:

Article: Five edits in less than five minutes, beginning 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) here
Talk page: Nine posts in less than an hour, beginning 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) here

[A] self-identified aliweb.com employee, determined to subvert an encyclopedia article about the historic search engine for promotion of a commercial website ... Athænara ✉ 09:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Aliweb COI/N section may be ready for archiving: the aliweb.com/anon reverts etc. have dropped to a very small fraction of the previous disruptions. — Athænara ✉ 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Amped (website) – Deleted on AFD – 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Amped (website)

[edit]

Amped (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article created by Bdickason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently the current "Content Director" of the website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of WP:WEB, to me. More an issue of encyclopedic notability than COI. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AFD, deletion discussion here. MER-C 06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

David Elliot – No edits by user in a month. Stale. – 11:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

David Elliot

[edit]

snarkart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("Gillian") has only edited pages related to David Elliot, and has been updating other pages to include links to said article. In this user's defense, all of the contributions seem to be appropriate and fairly NPOV, but I am pretty convinced that this user has a substantisl conflict of interest, in that they work for or are closely affiliated with Mr. Elliot.

The comments left on my talk page support this theory, as does the edit summary of File:Mossflower.jpg (which has now been deleted, see its entry in The Deletion Log).

I am unsure of what action is warranted, blocking seemes severe, but someone with more experiance than myself should look into this. --Matthew 05:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit by the user in question was one month ago, on 19 January. Issue resolved? Or no? — Athænara ✉ 02:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bridgestone and Firestone – Stale, unedited – 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Bridgestone and Firestone

[edit]

Firestone

[edit]

(Firestone was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988)

199.48.25.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.10 Bridgestone Akron, Ohio

199.48.24.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.11 Bridgestone Akron, Ohio

[5][6][7] Reverted by WP:VP2: [8] [9][10][11][12]

207.45.131.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.131.10 Bridgestone Tire, Antioch, Tennessee [13]

207.45.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.131.11 Bridgestone Tire, Antioch, Tennessee [14][15]

Bridgestone

[edit]

194.39.141.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=194.39.141.10 [16] Bridgestone, Belgium

217.155.151.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=217.155.151.245 [17] Jardine International - Clients - Bridgestone See: http:\\www.jardine-international.com/experience/bridgestone.htm

207.45.130.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.130.11 [18] Bridgestone Nashville Tennessee

What can be done?

Thanks Travb (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Firestone has been dealt with as it was merged with the resulting redirect protected and the new page hasn't been edited by the IPs in question. As for the other one... MER-C 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the other one since filing, too, except for Bridgestone (talk · contribs) who should be whacked with the banhammer very shortly. MER-C 12:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Eric Gordon – Not a COI – 11:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Eric Gordon

[edit]

I think there is somewhat of a battle ongoing between Indiana and Illinois fans about who (if anyone) is to blame for Gordons decision to back out of his Illinois commitment and heading to Indiana instead. Just look at the article's version history. I suggest a semi-protection for IPs. --Bender235 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Not clear that this is a well-defined conflict of interest, since there must be tens of thousands of fans on each side of this possible debate. EdJohnston 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-war, not related to COI guidelines and therefore doesn't belong here. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutrality Project might be more appropriate. — Athænara ✉ 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ken Hawk – Deleted on AFD – 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Ken Hawk

[edit]

Radiohawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor may be the same person listed in the above captioned article. I brought this issue up on WP:RFC and the suggestion was made to bring it here. The article appears relatively neutral, but is unsourced. I've read WP:AUTO and I'm not sure about the next steps in the process. Please review and advise. --Silverhand^Talk 22:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was essentially created by just one person, apparently the subject, in November 2006. He removed the 'unreferenced' tag which seems abundantly justified, and without adding any references. The article does not appear to claim notability, and it includes no press comments or third-party reviews of his work. It seems to fall under the Speedy criterion "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content" (see WP:CSD). I suggest you consider nominating it for speedy deletion using 'db-bio'. If you prefer the full-length process, nominate it at WP:AFD. 00:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion debate here. MER-C 09:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ Article deleted 03:41, 20 February 2007 UTC (log) for the third time. — Æ. ✉ 04:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Might be a candidate for WP:PT if it appears again. MER-C 07:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Trainer (games) – Situation resolved, stale – 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Trainer (games)

[edit]

Trainer (games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute over external links. I recently removed all external links from this article as they all failed WP:EL. One link was for a site run by User:Apache-; he has stated that he will continue to put up these external links each time they are removed, dismissing WP:EL and WP:COI as 'vague and ambiguous'. // Marasmusine 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:SPAM? And you're not alone, too, which is a good thing. Just looking at the history, User:Apache- might have violated 3RR as well. MER-C 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01:19, 5 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apache- (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Revert warring, spamming) MER-C 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apache-'s block has ended and his first act is to re-add the external links to Trainer (games). Marasmusine 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apache has shown utter disregard for the WP:EL and WP:COI guidelines, has gone right ahead and repeated the action that he was blocked for and has no interest in building the encylopedia or working with others. Not, imo, the kind of editor we need to have around, especially as he appears to be a WP:SPA. Deizio talk 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to place a {{spam4im}} on his talk page right now. If he adds those links again, I will place such template. MER-C 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit by the user in question was 6 January 2007. Are there any remaining issues related to the problem as it was first described here the day before? — Athænara ✉ 01:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's gone for good, see here. As for the article, it hasn't been edited in over a month. It's safe to close this. MER-C 11:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Serampore College – Somewhat stale, no further issues in a month – 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Serampore College

[edit]

Serampore College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article on a perfectly respectible and long established (nearly 200 years) College is being "attacked" by User The Hermes who has it in his had that this is some sort of fake College and diploma mill - neither of which is true. He has ignored several editors telling him where the degree issuing authority comes from and keeps adding derogatory remarks to the page. I am now getting too close and feel someone else needs to monitor this - and if necessary protect it for a while to let matters cool down. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit of a mixed case. The article itself describes the source of accreditation, but provides no link. Is one available? (I agree that it is up to The Hermes to disprove the validity of the information mentioned - a legislative act - but a link would be ideal here.)
- More importantly, on the talk page, User:The Hermes provided links to examples of people citing degrees from "Serampore Univeristy." You have failed to address some of his points - does the college use that name? If not, is there another institution that does - possibly a diploma mill? (If so, the article should so state.) If the college does use that title in any of its diplomas, that should be mentioned. Please do so; these are valid questions.
- In any case, this is content dispute, not a conflict of interest case (at least, nothing you've mentioned covers conflict of interest, as described at WP:COI.) Please (re)read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes about how to handle content disputes; it includes a lot of different options if informal discussions fail to solve the matter. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be no remaining problems with this article which require further exposure/attention on this noticeboard. Yes? No? — Athænara ✉ 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Closed. MER-C 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Richard James Burgess – Closed per below – 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Richard James Burgess

[edit]

Myuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user account seems to concentrate almost entirely on editing the article Richard James Burgess, or adding information related to Richard James Burgess to other articles . I suspect that Myuzo is either Richard James Burgess himself or someone with with a close personal connection to him. Memphisto 12:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I seems to me that, yes, he may have some ties to the article he's editing, but the edits he's made (and correct me if I'm wrong) seem to be neutral edits, with little to no POV in them. I think it may be inappropriate for an editor to write about themselves or another person they know well, but this is really just a guideline and the editor seems not to be editing in a harmful way. I would just suggest watching the page from time to time. → JARED ^(t) 14:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though not as obviously disruptive and resistant to policies and guidelines, this is similar to issues on Aaron Klein (Talk:Aaron Klein#Single purpose accounts) and on Aliweb (listed elsewhere on this noticeboard). It may need more than casual attention. — Athænara ✉ 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having reviewed the user's contribs during the past month this afternoon, I agree completely with Jared's original assessment. This section can be archived, I think. — Æ. ✉ 22:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Nothing to see here move along. MER-C 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre – Not a COI – 08:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre

[edit]

MattTyler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted edits by myself and User:CyberGhostface on these two articles. His reason for reverting is because he does not like where the main character of the movie ("Leatherface") is positioned in the cast list in the article. He says that Wikipedia has a set of rules in which the spot of the character listed in the article, should be exactly the same as in the movie credits. Here is the exact quote from his talk page:

"Sorry, but you shoudl realyl read Wiki rules for movie credits -- they MUST be the same as they are in the end credits of the chaotic movies."

Now that sounds made up to me, but if such rules exist, I would have no problem agreeing with this user. —mikedk9109^SIGN 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look like COI, just a content dispute. You could get a wider consensus by asking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Tearlach 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Octoshape – Disclosure, edits performed – 11:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Octoshape

[edit]

I am User:Henning Makholm, an employee of Octoshape, editing from an ad-hoc account for CoI segregation. (I'm not sure I am at the right place – if not, please point me to a better one). Recently an anonymous editor inserted a section into Octoshape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which contains several claims that make our technology look bad and which we contend are completely wrong. We would like to have that section removed: It is unquestionably unsourced and appears to be pure WP:OR, but I'm not comfortable removing it myself due to the CoI. Could some uninvolved editor please come round and do some disinterested trimming? I have put a request on the talk page, but I doubt that many uninvolved editors watch it - neither the talk page nor the article history seem to be crawling with activity. Octoshape 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: as you say, there's no source whatsoever for those stats. Thanks very much for raising it here. Tearlach 17:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Friday (talk · contribs) - Moved to WP:AN/I. Inactive. 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Friday

[edit]

Friday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [19].[reply]

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [20].[reply]

The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [21].

The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to report and discuss concerns about administrators' administrative actions is at WP:AN/I. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to move this entire thread there. Note that this is a continuation of a previous, ongoing pattern of incivil and disruptive behaviour by Light current, the previous discussion of which is still on AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility_block_for_review.

(Civility block for review section, WP:AN/I Archive 179.) 03:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, a review of StuRat's ongoing incivility would be welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC

If you're talking about the use of the term "deletionist", that has already been reviewed at the RFC, and the consensus seems to be that it is, indeed, appropriate to refer to "those who support nonconsensus Ref Desk deletions" as "Ref Desk deletionists". Also, I must say that if your response to a complaint is to attack the messenger in an attempt to discourage any further complaints, this is also highly inappropriate behavior for an Admin. StuRat 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the thread over. Do be careful when you copy and paste next time, though; you seem to have missed some of the other comments in the thread that would be relevant and of interested to persons reviewing your report. Don't worry; I've filled in the missing details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As would a review of User:Hipocrite's gross incivility and repeated attacks, which has been encouraged by countless administrators. -THB 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Discussion moved to WP:AN/I, 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC), now archived in WP:AN/I Archive 180. — Athænara ✉ 04:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Statik Selektah - Resolved. Inactive. 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Statik Selektah

[edit]

Statik Selektah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article created & edited by Statikselekt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggestive username, promotional tone, external links to record company/Myspace, and disruptive edits here and here suggest WP:COI issues. UnfriendlyFire 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the text is identical to that online here and here. So if it's not put here by Statik Selektah himself, it's a copyvio; if it is, it's COI. 86.145.94.9 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a warning in user's talk page and removed copyvio from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit by the user in question and the last comment here were over one month ago. Are there still problems with the article which need to be addressed on this noticeboard? — Athænara ✉ 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 05:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ball python – Stale – 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Ball python

[edit]

ArtKoen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently reverted edits by myself and others that remove a specific commercial links which violates the WP:EL guidelines, and is the only one that has issue with the link being removed. I have taken other steps, including WP:3O, WP:RFM and finally WP:RFAR. The link in question [22] is full of affiliate links, and the "articles" in question are available at their own sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.194.95.196 (talk • contribs)

Don't think there's a conflict of interest here, try WP:ANI instead as the arbcom recommended. MER-C 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~No edits by user since end of January—problem solved? — Æ. ✉ 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry for being an idiot about the obvious. "It's dead, Jim." — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nobody seems to be paying attention... MER-C 09:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Mike Cline - Discussion migrated to WP:AfD. 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Mike Cline

[edit]

Mike Cline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) discussion on his talk page. Referred here from WQA.

All these articles appear to promote his company's services, publications, and president:

Prometheus Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Orchestrator (strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rules of engagement (strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prime Directive (strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Strategic campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Center of gravity (military) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure I've found all the articles with such issues. --Ronz 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional edits promoting his company (as above, there are probably more):

Balanced scorecard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Cardinal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Digital dashboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Environmental scanning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Exit strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Key performance indicators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Orchestration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff) (Subtle: redirect to article to which he'd added his link.)
Organizational culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Prometheus (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Rules of engagement (strategy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Strategic enterprise management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Strategic management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Strategic planning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
Twelve leverage points (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff) (Subtle: redirect to article to which he'd added his link.)
Warden's Five Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (diff)
(Uploaded image of company chart)

→(Interjection) Explanation-Not a Company Chart-First Attempt to Tablized Some Info as Image. Was not satisfied with appearance and replaced with WikiTable--Mike Cline 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→(Reply to interjection) The table substituted for the image is equally blatant in attempting to use the encyclopedia anyone can edit for advertising masquerading as an article. — Æ. ✉ 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Athænara ✉ 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the company that promotes this product/concept has a VP named "Mike Cline."[23] The company promotion is a problem but also the articles themselves aren't that useful either. "Orchestrator (strategy)" never even defines its term. The Prometheus Process may be worth an article, but these component concepts certainly don't. Even there we need 3rd party sources to establish the notability. -Will Beback · † · 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a coincidence that the link has gone 404? Thank goodness for google cache. MER-C 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I sincerely do not want this to get out of hand and I will accomodate whatever suggestions you all have to correct any and all the above referenced articles. A bit of background. I began to expand the article information in Wikipedia, from the article Warden's Five Rings started by someone unknown in 2004 based on a suggestion from someone unassociated with the company I work for. The above topics and links are the result. While doing this I believed I was working within Wikipedia Guidelines but apparently I was not. I also very cautiously reviewed the style, content and discussions of other articles in Wikipedia to weigh my contributions against others to ensure they were consistent with that which was acceptable in Wikipedia. Apparently I did not succeed and this brings me to the confusion I have. The allegation if you will, is that because my company is involved with Strategy, my knowledge of Strategy related issues is inappropriate for Wikipedia--whether or not that knowledge is neutraly written, encyclopedic and verifiable with published sources. Thus, I understand the desire to avoid "advertising masquerading as an article" as noted above in Wikipedia. Despite the fact that none of the above articles and links "promoted" my company in anyway (they dealt with verifiable knowledge) I am subject to the COI guidelines and will correct matters. Where I am confused however, can be seen from just two of the many articles in Wikipedia where this so-called promotion is rather obvious, but apparently not unacceptable.

Consider the Brand article. There are eleven "Big Name Brand Consultancies", but no references provided. A quick click on Interbrand brings you to an article promoting Interbrand and its big name clients. The only reference are Interbrand produced, to include the Interbrand corporate website. A review of the history gives little insight as to who produced the article. I suspect many of the other consultancies linked articles are supported only by their corporate websites links.

Consider the Balanced Scorecard article. Its sources are the very gentlemen at Harvard that have a continuing vested interest in the subject at Harvard and through their publicists. Additionally there are numerous direct links to consultancies that teach the subject and sell their services. Since there is really no way to tell who contributed the information in this article, but if had been one of Kaplan's graduate students, would that be a COI?

These are just two examples that guided my contributions, although none of my contributions included any commercial links. I do not challenge any of the content in these articles. As far as I know they are accurate, neutrally presented and encyclopedic. But I trust you see my confusion. I contributed verifiable knowlegde on subjects used by many other companies and organizations other than the one I am associated with, but because of that association, the contributions are considered unacceptable in Wikipedia. And as yet, no one has seen fit to correct any of my informational mistakes I may have made. It appears it is all about the Editor not the Article. I can accept that and as I said above, will do whatever I need to do to accomodate the desires of the Wikipedia community. Lead me in the right direction and I will work it out over the next week.--Mike Cline 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First time I experienced an Edit Conflict, that was fun learn something new every day in Wikipedia.--Mike Cline 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, you use the phase "we need 3rd party sources to establish the notability" in a previous comment. I want to understand that Wikipedia concept more fully. I have searched for a guideline, but been unable to find one. However, I have seen the concept mentioned several times. To pose my question more succintly, where is "notability" established for the following article: Twelve leverage points? In this article, redirected from Leverage points (which also might apply to many topics in physics, geology, mechanics, etc.) the only references are papers written by the person the article cites. There is no 3rd Party reference. Additionally, an examination of the references reveals extraordinary bias and agendas by the author and those agendas are not even filtered out by the contributor. One of the references is nothing more than a blog article by the same author that repeats the previous reference almost verbatim, except this time on a website with explicit advertising. This is an article that has been on Wikipedia since 2003 so it must have passed the "3rd Party Notability" test. What is it about this article that makes it "Notable"?--Mike Cline 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this kind of "So-and-so got away with it, so why are you coming after me?" reasoning, see this September 2006 observation of the problem of "corporate vanity/vandalism" and the importance of remaining true to the encyclopedic mission. — Athænara ✉ 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athaenara. I read Brads post! I regret you feel that way and because I would not claim that "so-and-so got away with it" for any article I've cited. I believe most of what I've cited is encyclopedic, at least in terms of Wikipedia. I am merely attempting to learn how to interpret and follow Wikipedia guidelines. The best way I now how to do that is compare what has been accepted to what I am being told about guidelines--trying to to achieve some logic so that any contribution I make, regardless of subject matter, meets Wikipedia guidelines.--Mike Cline 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open question on "Notability" related to my question above. Below are a few 3rd Party references to John Warden, his concepts and the Prometheus Process in particular. Do these provide "Notability" for any of the questionable articles cited in this COI discussion? If they do not, why?

[[24]]
[[25]]
[[26]] (Entire Prometheus Process and many other strategic planning constructs are cited)
[[27]]* http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2003/Winter/art4-w03.htm (note 3rd paragraph)
[[28]] (note bibliography)
[[29]] (note item 7 of notes)

--Mike Cline 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of deletion too. Our missing /news.htm page proves that this is corporate vanity beyond doubt. Not speedy (as with the case of most corporate vanity), but rather a mass AFD. MER-C 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sent one to afd to determine community reaction, deletion discussion here. MER-C 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will too move my comments over too the AFD board, but will alert you that I have already begun the process of revert any contributions I've made on any subject related to Strategy. My deletions are clearly identified in the edit summary and I've given my rationale for each WP:COI on the discussion page.--Mike Cline 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted. Should the other new articles he created be listed in a mass AFD? --Ronz 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's five articles (first post in this section), right? Or are there more now? — Athænara ✉ 05:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the first four, but the COI stuff can be reverted on the last one. Unfortunately our evidence has disappeared as the google cache link does not work. As for the rest, they're aren't pure spam. MER-C 08:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion here. MER-C 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Discussion inactive, migrated to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestrator (strategy). — Athænara ✉ 05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ermac - Not a COI issue. 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Ermac

[edit]

MarphyBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User removed <<fact>> flag even after dispute did not turn in his favor. The line "This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character" is not factual as there is another character in the series that was created solely on rumour. The character called Blaze. He is based off a background image in the background of the 2nd Mortal Kombat game whom some thought was a playable character, but it never was, nor was it meant to be originally. It developed into a playable character much later.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zero activity in this section in over two weeks, and it isn't a COI issue anyway. Nu? — Athænara ✉ 01:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Not a COI issue. — Athænara ✉ 05:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

James Anderson (computer scientist) - No activity since report. 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

James Anderson (computer scientist)

[edit]

James Anderson (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - From time to time, I have made edits to the James Anderson (computer scientist) article. Editing the article has been very contentious at times because of the outstanding claims that Dr. Anderson has made.
The article recently came to the attention of Ben Moore, one of the authors of an article about Dr. Anderson. Mr. Moore is understandably sensitive about the whole issue because he has been roundly criticized for his reporting on Dr. Anderson's work. However, for this reason, I don't think he should be editing the article. He has repeatedly inserted weasel words to soften the description of this criticism. He has edited from the IPs 132.185.240.120, 132.185.144.120, 132.185.240.121, and 132.185.144.122. He has also edited as User:Benthebiscuit‎.
For the record, I didn't write the statement that so offends Mr. Moore ("[They were] criticized for irresponsible journalism"), but I think it's a fair summary of the criticism. I'm not quite sure how to move forward here. I'm also tiring of editing the article and thinking I might just drop the whole thing. Any assistance would be appreciated (or any hints on an appropriate Wikipedia forum where I should direct my pleas). Lunch 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of the article, by the users specified, since COI/N report:

132.185.240.120 (Talk • contribs) (none since 4 February 2007)
132.185.144.120 (Talk • contribs) (none since 4 February 2007)
132.185.240.121 (Talk • contribs) (none since 5 February 2007)
132.185.144.122 (Talk • contribs) (none since 5 February 2007)
Benthebiscuit (Talk • contribs) (none since 2 February 2007)

Conclusion: Inactive. — Athænara ✉ 05:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Panther (computer game) - Not a COI. 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Panther (computer game)

[edit]

Wgungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User repeatedly removed any mention of Battlezone, a video game probably inspired by Panther (although the article does not assert this); he has even removed See also links. Edit summary of removal of See also link: "RV due to speculation comes from the claimed relationship of Bzone being a copy of Panther, which is speculative at best"; no such claim was made in the article. Likewise, has repeatedly removed or muted mention of Panther from the Battlezone page. User page suggests close links to Atari. Has said on Talk:Battlezone that he sides with Atari POV that "Factually, there is no direct link between Panther and Battelzone." (sic) // ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Has this conflict, posted over 1.5 months ago, been resolved yet? — Athænara ✉ 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wgungfu has not edited the article since a revision ten hours before the first post in this section. — Athænara ✉ 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, they have had a significant number—at least 250—other contributions per Special:Contributions/Wgungfu. I recommend closing this. It appears it was only ever a content dispute. --Iamunknown 01:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Æ. ✉

Conclusion: Not a COI issue. — Athænara ✉ 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

XanGo - COI editor no longer active. 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

XanGo

[edit]

XanGo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mangosteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - AnonIP trying to remove criticism of XanGo MLM (multi-level marketing scheme). See edits for User:67.128.38.100. He (she?) keeps removing all critical information, or trying to insert material favorable to the XanGo MLM scheme. I suspect, but cannot prove, that this person is a participant in the scheme. I don't know quite how to deal with this. I've reverted twice today and don't know if this would be considered a content dispute or vandalism, so I'm not sure I dare any more reverts. Zora 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Geolocation puts the IP in Lehi, Utah. Guess where our little scheme is based? MER-C 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/she/it seems to have stopped for the day, but may return. If COI is likely, what next? Have the article semi-protected? Have the user blocked? Zora 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely vandalism anyway, so {{subst:test1a}}, etc, may be appropriate. MER-C 09:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The last edit by 67.128.38.100 (Talk • contribs) was over three weeks ago and the article's NPOV is in good shape. — Athænara ✉ 07:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Parmenides Publishing - COI issues resolved. 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Parmenides Publishing

[edit]

Re: Jennneal1313 (talk · contribs): This is not specific to one article, but I'd like a second opinion on this user's contributions; it's a subtle case. In some instances these are reasonable additions, but the user has several times changed an existing source from the edition originally cited (usually out of print) to the Parmenides Publishing edition; see this edit for an example. Individually, I'm not sure these are a problem, but collectively, they would seem to indicate a conflict of interest. Other opinions very welcome; thanks. Chick Bowen 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it spam, as it doesn't really add to the article. Good catch. Reverted. MER-C 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user e-mailed me about correcting information about books from her press. I told her that the links were what raised a flag, and that ISBN numbers and up-to-date publication info would not be a problem--I certainly see no problem with this. So I think this is resolved. Chick Bowen 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've run across these publishers before and have no qualms about deleting or RVing all of their posts. However, I do check the books, and twice with publisher spams found books that were well-connected to the article, so I left them. One I even added a sentence to the article to tie it in with the book better. Generally they are not well-regarded books being added, so it's easy to delet them all. Another time they were books for one of the university publishing houses, so I wound up checking all of them more closely, but none were particularly well tied in to the articles. The annoying thing about spam, conflicts of interest and the like, is it's not always so straight-forward. If they're updating out of date editions to current editions this may conflict with the article citations, so it might be better to parenthetically list the newer addition rather than deleting the old. KP Botany 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I told her to include both. This is primarily a scholarly reprint publisher, so it does seem useful to have an up-to-date ISBN for books we're already citing but in out-of-print editions. Chick Bowen 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a win-win in spite of the conflict of interest: she gets paid to do the tedious work we don't have to. KP Botany 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault for not checking all of the etiquette & how to's before updating the pages. I didn't realize I was replacing older editions. Now I only add our newer editions, and just with ISBN 13s, not the external links. If its a book of ours that isn't included on a specific author's page, I'm only adding the book with the ISBN 13 as well, no external links. I've changed my user page to reflect that I work for the publisher. I am a philosophy student and have read all of the books that I'm adding, so I try to ensure the books are actually relevant. Thanks to Chick Bowen for his suggestions about reconciling any conflict of interest and his help steering me in the right direction. If I do anything else verboten, please let me know. I want to do this correctly. --Jennneal1313 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The COI issues were resolved one month ago. — Athænara ✉ 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gordon Lish - COI edits ceased in early January. 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Gordon Lish

[edit]

Lishian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user account has existed for less than a month, and in that time he or she has concentrated, almost without exception, on editing either Gordon Lish or articles that mention Gordon Lish. Lishian also deliberately blanked Talk:Gordon Lish on December 24. I suspect a conflict of interest. My guess is that Lishian is either Gordon Lish himself or someone with with a close personal connection to him. Pat Berry 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: edit patterns look very suspicious. UserRandom is also prominent in having created a large number of redirects and links to Gordon Lish). There are also a few other users - Nominickel, Judge&Jury and The Hystorian - who have done little but pop up to add Lish material. The article needs serious attention to make it encyclopedic, including wikifying to remove redirect loops and duplicated hyperlinks. 86.140.183.135 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After analyzing the edit patterns further, I am now convinced that Lishian is Gordon Lish's granddaughter. Here's the evidence:

On 15 November 2006, a person at IP address 69.138.176.86 edited the Gordon Lish article and entered this edit summary: "i'm his grandaughter, nina"
69.138.176.86 began editing Wikipedia on 28 October 2006 and from the very first edit behaved exactly like Lishian, concentrating almost exclusively on either the Gordon Lish article or articles that mention Gordon Lish.
Edits from 69.138.176.86 essentially stopped after the Lishian user account was created on 23 December 2006. There have been only two edits from 69.138.176.86 since 18 December (probably because Lishian simply forgot to log in on those two occasions).
The last edit from 69.138.176.86, on 7 January 2007, was a request for AutoWikiBrowser registration. The username submitted in this request was Lishian.

What this all adds up to: 69.138.176.86 (Lish's granddaughter Nina) and Lishian are the same person. Pat Berry 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies, where another editor has called attention to Gordon Lish. Pat Berry 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment here was over one month ago, and the Rfc/B was removed earlier this week. Has the issue as posted here in early January 2007 been resolved? — Athænara ✉ 02:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Neither Lishian (Talk • contribs) nor 69.138.176.86 (Talk • contribs) have edited since early January. This particular COI/N issue has been laid to rest. — Athænara ✉ 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Tyson Foods - COI edits stopped in January. 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Tyson Foods

[edit]

Tyson_Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Most of the curent text in the article comes from corporate press releases. The tone is very boosterish and enthusiastic. Until I pointed it out, there was a first person sentence copied from a press release. All critical material is quickly deleted. There have been two main contributers/editors who seem to part of Tyson foods.

As far as documenting the source of the information this evidence is pretty damning. The phrase " the world’s largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork" from paragraph one is found almost 300 times on the corporate website; check google: search for phrase on tyson.com. In paragraph two, the phrase "The company produces a wide variety of protein-based and prepared food products" is also a staple of Tyson press releases and occurs on their website a like number of times: search for phrase on tyson.com. The phrase "value-added chicken, beef and pork" is a tyson corporate coinage that occurs nowhere on the net except for in tyson press releases or a few articles based on them.

The charity section comes pretty much ver batim from a Dec. 4, 2006 press release from the company, availble on the corporate website at [30] (captioned as a "news release" using the current vogue of corporately produced fake news).

The Sustainability section simply links to a tyson produced report rebutting the widespread allogations of enironmental abuses.

And the "controversy" section has been polluted by scare quotes and other interventions of Ederdn, the probable Tyson employee. The final insult is the last paragraph which lauds Tysons treatment of animals; the source of these sentences are the tyson press release of october 5, 2006, available at their website at [31] // BradB 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

199.66.3.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A check of the IP 199.66.3.5 confirms that it is in fact from inside of tyson foods corp; a traceroute goes through tyson-foods-inc-1105186.cust-rtr.swbell.net.

Ederdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made subsequent changes many of which are suspiciously of the same type and is also probably from inside Tyson. //BradB 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the "Tyson Renewable Energy and the Environment" section, the linked footnote is from the tyson corporate intranet (not accessible from outside)! that pretty much proves that the poster, Tedfordc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a Tyson employee. BradB 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last post in this section was nearly one month ago. The last edits to the Tyson Foods article by the three editors in question (see contribs links above) were:

- 19 November 2006 (Tedfordc)

- 29 January 2007 (199.66.3.5)

- 31 January 2007 (Ederdn)

… — Æ. ✉ 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: COI/N issues defunct. — Athænara ✉ 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Microsoft - Signposted. 09:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Microsoft

[edit]

Yahoo News reports: Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit "Microsoft Corp. landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site." I guess y'all know about it already. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think this is notable, but the question arises: where would it be placed in an article. It definitely shouldn't be placed in a trivia section (see WP:TRIVIA) because it offers no real encyclopedic value to the article. Maybe this would best be covered in an article for the Wikipedia Signpost. It seems notable enough to be included in an article there. → JARED ^(t) 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised with this. Ban away (yes, I do mean WP:BAN) if any paided M$ shills turn up. MER-C 10:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TechCrunch

[edit]

TechCrunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 131.107.0.75 (talk · contribs) (registered to Microsoft, fyi) and 67.168.165.27 (talk · contribs) are adding information regarding TechCrunch's conflict of interest to the TechCrunch article. I suspect WP:POINT and/or conflict of interest violations: partially as TechCrunch reported M$ were paying for Wikipedia edits and this page shows 67.168.165.27 was using the Wikipedia to prove a point. Your thoughts? Computerjoe 's talk 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've bundled this with the stuff above, as it's the same nonsense. MER-C 11:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signposted. MER-C 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: COI/N aspect defunct. — Athænara ✉ 09:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.