Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:108 Leonard Talk:A&P Talk:David Adjaye Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:Ames National Laboratory Talk:Avery Dennison Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Peter F. Barth Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Candalepas Associates Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Dutch Bros. Coffee Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:Falling-sand game Talk:Family Court Building Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Nicholas Fisk (author) Talk:Flock Safety Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Rich Froning Jr. Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gensler Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Michaela Guzy Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hyprov Talk:Don Ienner Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Justfly.com Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LastPass Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Masdar Talk:Millennium Management, LLC Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MOPAC Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OutTV (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Overseas Development Institute Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Sanctuary Housing Talk:Diana Senechal Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Sixt Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Still (film) Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sunobinop Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Romesh Wadhwani Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Vivek Kundra

66.171.128.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the anonymous user insists on the removal of negative information on the subject. Probable COI with the concerning subject, multiple edits in which negative (but well referenced) information have been removed without a proper explaination. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That content should definitely stay, however nobody should edit war and there have currently been 11 reverts on the page by both editors. I've requested semi-protection and given both editors a 3RR warning. Hopefully now it is posted here, other editors will be able to take control of the situation. Smartse (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP carried on reverting after 3RR and a final warning so is blocked for 55 hours. Smartse (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7oceans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now removed exactly the same content with no explanation, I've already made two reverts so can someone else please take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something smells funny there, either old socks or meat. I've reverted and left a level 1 warning. -- Atama頭 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. I have looked at this page before and was annoyed to see another backhanded way to inject information that is old hat into the article (AGAIN!). And I really made an omission not to tap out a reason. I have edited the discussion to reflect on the bias. What is funny here is Reconsider the static is vigorously defending the only contribution byTruPrint exactly one minute after its removal. Is there a way to investigate this further? -7oceans (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that you should report me and have my user checked! -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a sockpuppetry case here. -- Atama頭 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New update: I've requested that the article be semi-protected, it is now protected for a week. -- Atama頭 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've got another editor (EditorTwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) removing exactly the same material and using similar arguments to the other users. I've added them to the SPI. Smartse (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inexperience with the complexities of WP is not a crime. Did it ever cross your mind that all of you are also making similar arguments? From what I gather now, your bias stems from a purely clerical procedure or protocol. You realize that you are no longer talking about the content. From a procedure viewpoint: I would think if there were a debate, the text should be taken off the main page and debated in the discussion. To have a world-wide live audience while tabloid like postings are debated is what has given WP a bad name. The BLP guidelines urge caution. A different viewpoint is also not a crime.-7oceans (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing... We have a sockpuppet policy for a reason. When someone edits under different user names/IP addresses, or colludes with other editors off-wiki to create a false appearance of consensus, or false appearance at a lack of consensus, then discussion of the content can't really occur. -- Atama頭 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am watching Lord of the Rings. Does a cabal with a consensual chant rule this island? I did not know the tools available to me to invite other like minded editors but I am learning fast. In fact I am learning from you. Thanks. I firmly oppose speculative postings or sensationalism on BLPs. I do not believe that constitues COI. Neither does the opinion that sensitive issues on a BLP should be discussed offline. I felt I was right in categorically removing it while asking for a discussion in the talk pages -- 7oceans (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed that 7oceans has been using sockpuppets in their edit wars on Vivek Kundra, including one editor who I had never even seen before. Also, I was told that I am not a sockpuppet which is a relief. I believe that this is resolved though I'll wait a bit to see this through all the way. -- Atama頭 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're still removing the content whilst claiming that the consensus is to remove it. Aren't users who use socks supposed to be blocked? Smartse (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And on it goes, I'm getting a little tired of fighting the socks. Has 7oceans got mixed up between Lord of the Rings and Lord of the Flies btw? Smartse (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the next step here? I haven't had a dispute go this far before. I've made a couple of reverts, but I think a block would be in order. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PeterSymonds is the one who closed the case and blocked the sockpuppets. I'm not certain why 7oceans wasn't blocked at any point (they both violated 3RR and is a sockmaster) but you might want to ask. -- Atama頭 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually asked him, I'll see what he says. -- Atama頭 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter thought 7oceans was already blocked, 7oceans is blocked now. -- Atama頭 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy, looks like we might have another sock on our hands, also from Philadelphia and using similar rationales like "look at wikipedia policy". They're also attacking another editor. I've already reverted twice (in 10 mins) so it looks like this will need more attention. Smartse (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP 173.12.38.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously given 48 hours under the 7oceans sock case, who has returned to continue the war on the article. The new block duration is one month, but any admin may lift the block if the IP will confine his edits to the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, hadn't noticed that they had already been blocked as a sock. Smartse (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPA at Atmospheric water generator

Resolved

Mateyahoy (talk · contribs) is engaging in a slow edit war with anyone that edits Atmospheric water generator to maintain a version which mainly promotes Everest brand systems.[1][2][3][4] (note that the two most recent reverts remove references to NYT and Science Daily). Also, Mateyahoy's version includes two images from the Everest website which are obviously copyright violations, yet he keeps insisting they are public domain. Some help regulating the article and sanctioning of the SPA would be appreciated. T34CH (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T34CH (talk · contribs) has been taking down accurate information that others have put up and edited. My only contribution has been two images that show what an AWG looks like and how they work. I made both images and signed the appropraite waiver placing them in Public Domain when I uploaded them. If you check article history you can see any information I put up has been taken down or edited out except for the images. The information that was put up or edited by others is extremely accurate as to how an AWG looks and works. I have no interest in this other than to keep the information accurate and reliable. The information being supplied by T34CH is misinformation. I have suggested he put it in a seperate heading under desiccants but he seems bent on deystroying the real information, that has been put there by others. Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a thread at WP:ANI where I've replied, but essentially the COI seems to be evident and Mateyahoy has been showing signs of disruption. -- Atama頭 06:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Good luck! Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update about images reuploaded after deletion etc at ANI... please respond there.[5] T34CH (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images were re-uploaded with permissions :)Mateyahoy (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads fairly neutral. It is a good strategy to include lists of companies as an external link as a resource without specifically promoting any specific interest. Keeps WP honest as an encyclopedia. - Bismuthe (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes GreyWyvern did a good job of putting back most of the original info and getting rid of the misinformation. T34CH hasn't edited the page in a bit, so it looks like GreyWyvern's info will stay. :) Mateyahoy (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bruce Cairney is a sockpuppet and used to defame

Bruce Cairney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page has shown photographs of Master Bruce Cairney and he has nothing to do with this page or user name. This problem was brought forward in the last few weeks and the page was cleared and now there is more slander back there again. This problem has been going on with this user name for years - what does wikipedia do about this type of abuse? Bacmac (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wish I can help you but I can't find the specific incident which you are talking about. Can you include some relevant diffs as part of your evidence? I've looked over your recent contributions and I don't see any intersection with you and a user "Bruce Cairney". Can you also link to the pages where the offenses are taking place? Thanks, Them From Space 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining about an editor who hasn't edited in nearly 6 months? Or are you complaining about the message left at the talk page? I don't really see what "abuse" you're worried about. -- Atama頭 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) _(again!) I guess it has something to do with this guy and this link that was posted on the user's talk page by an IP editor last week. It seems reasonably legitimate for someone to post it to his userpage and I can't see how in any way there are any conflict of interest problems here. Smartse (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this was an active editor, and there was reason to believe that the editor was misrepresenting himself as Bruce Cairney then a WP:UAA complaint might be relevant. Otherwise I would say drop it. This isn't the first time that Bacmac has complained about this user, and last time there wasn't much to the complaint. I'm wondering if Bacmac is actually Bruce Cairney? If someone was impersonating me on Wikipedia that might make me uncomfortable at the very least. -- Atama頭 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK OK - you guys must not have read or checkd the previous problem that I refer to from a few weeks ago. I dont know how to navigate my way around real well and some of you guys out there could obviousley find the previius registered problem that resulted in the page being edited/ content deleted and see this is the same problem again. The user name "Bruce Cairney" is being used to defame and slander "Bruce Cairney" and yes your ... I guess it has something to do with this guy - is correct as you can see that he is the same guy whos photo was posted into this page. According to the feedback from the registered problem a couple weeks back, this is quite an unusual case where a user name is created to be used (by someone other than the named person) for the purposes of slandering an individual and to drive traffic to other slanderous websites that have been produced by a very active antagonist of the subject user name. Bacmac (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked the page, which you could also have done. I was actually involved in the last "problem" so I don't really need to check it. If you're concerned with people showing up and posting inflammatory things, I suggest you contact Ultraexactzz, they deleted the talk page last time. Ask them to either semi-protect it indefinitely, or "salt" it because an IP recreated it with the same attack info as before. Semi-protection will stop anonymous or new users from adding bad things to that page, and "salting" it will prevent anyone from recreating it again. -- Atama頭 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thnx Atama, i dont know how you can know so much detail , but it is all appreciated. I will follow your link and see where it takes me. Did i mention before that this is a false user account, ie/ someone claiming to be Bruce Cairney when they are not? Bacmac (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Bruce Cairney account could be blocked and its talk page protected if we saw evidence of abuse. So far the only visible problem is an IP editor who added a link at User talk:Bruce Cairney which is defamatory to the real Cairney. I have semiprotected that talk page for a month to be sure that doesn't recur. Meanwhile, I'll leave a message on the supposed Bruce Cairney editor's talk that he is being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen older pages within this user account have housed various derogatory comments. As well a photograph of the real Bruce Cairney was added after and while derogatory comments were on the user account pages - anyone who was editing their page and adding photographs would have removed the slander instead of leaving it. For what it is worth , I vote for the user name to be 'salted' or removed Bacmac (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about the uploaded images, but how would the fake Cairney acquire photos of the real Cairney? (Assuming those are real). If you can clarify how you come to be interested in the Cairney case, that would help. (There could be some rival martial arts instructors who are having a feud, and we need to be a little cautious here). If the problem has been 'going on for years' can you tell us more? Give us the name of one of the 'slanderous websites.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to acquire photos just copy them from the net - I dont understand your 'rival' comments etc - this is not the real Bruce Cairney his websites are located at www.choikwang-do.com.au & www.ckdmac.com.au and they show a current contact email address of ckdmac at hotmail dot com - check and email him if there is doubt about my claims, no use in me doing it cause i dont know how to confirm that on wiki anyhow. Bacmac (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Safehandling and PhaSeal

Resolved

– Editors have gone away for now, but promise to come back next year. Rees11 (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safehandling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created three articles related to PhaSeal, two were speedy deleted per G11. The third, Closed System Drug Transfer Device, is mainly about the product in general so potentially OK if NPOV. I removed some uncited information related to PhaSeal and the user has re-added it. Also when I tagged it to be checked for neutrality, three SPAs appeared on the talk page the next day praising the article. User has no contributions related to any other topic. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect both a COI and sockpuppetry. It's beyond credulity to think that two editors would naturally stumble upon the talk page of a new, somewhat obscure orphaned article to make their first and only edits as attempts to defend the article. However, absent any PhaSeal promotion there's probably no harm done. Assuming that the article is accurate I think it might be useful to have in the encyclopedia. I'll try to verify the NIOSH publication, I suspect it is available online. -- Atama頭 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was able to verify some of it, and also confirmed the claim that there are multiple peer-reviewed studies regarding the technology. -- Atama頭 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safehandling has attempted to reinsert info about Phaseal, as has Brendan tate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the likely sock/meatpuppets who commented on the talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came very close to opening a sockpuppet investigation but I've decided to assume good faith. The article has potential and I'm glad that it was created, and I assume that the editor(s) in question will be able to help expand it properly with the apparent knowledge they have. But if they keep pushing the PhaSeal thing, I might go ahead and open that case. -- Atama頭 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the two IPs who defended the article on the talk page, one is American and one is Swedish (product is made by a Swedish company), so I'm thinking it's meatpuppetry although could be a combination. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan tate has admitted that he and Safehandling are being paid, apparently by Phaseal, to "own" this article and represent Phaseal as the only true Closed system drug transfer device. See my talk page here.

Yes, I know this is bad and I'm sure some of you are ready to jump down their throats. But please, let's start by gently explaining policy to them and try to get them to understand that their boss has given them an assignment that can't be done. Maybe we can get them to contribute in a positive way. Rees11 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if they were blocked that would prevent them from coming under any pressure from their employers to keep doing this, whereas if they continue to have live accounts they'll have a dilemma if their boss asks them to try to slip references in unnoticed. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it isn't up and running yet, but there are proposed guidelines and proposed policy for paid editing. See WP:PAID for links to both. Going by the description of what they are doing, it seems to come under the realm of Paid Advocacy which, under the terms of the proposed policy in its current form, would be prohibited. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lets get some explainations going here...first up i am pretty much a wikipedia virgin, so if i am breaking some rules, i am doing it unitnentionally and with innocent ignorance...secondly, i do work for phaseal (i am their new copywriter) and one of many assignments i have been given is to create a wikipedia page, which so far it seems i have been unsuccessful in doing...thirdly, i did say to rees11 that i was told to 'own' the 'closed system drug transfer device' phrase, and i did also tell him that i know personally that this cannot be done. nobody owns anything on wikipedia....next, it is important to let the world know that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, and that the competitors false market themselves as being so to. there are over twenty independant, peer reviewed publish studies that verify this, and these scientific studies was the topic of one of the two sites that were taken down. the brief i was given was to make this clear on a reputable site on the internet, and wikipedia was chosen as that site... all i want to do is get the facts out on wikipedia, to let anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about the world of the closed system drug transfer device...next, i probably am guilty of being a meatpuppet and for this i apologise- as i said before i am a wikipedia virgin and didnt know how it worked....i am not interested in 'slipping references in unnoticed' (which to me seems impossible to do anyway), what i am interested in doing is getting the facts up, and once everybody is happy with that, to me this work assignment is over...and i wouldnt regard myself as a paid editor either, and if i was i wouldnt be doing this for the two dollars an hour that it would work out as....the thing with pushing the phaseal line isnt about the fact that i work for them, its about providing the correct information- that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, which as i said before, is a fact acknowledged in the oncology business....so if i have offended anyone, i am sorry and i i have broken any wikipedia rules then i am also sorry, but facts are facts are facts...brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we're harsh on people who have a conflict of interest with articles. Much of the time this is justified. I think in your case, we've been a little more forgiving because the whole "Closed System Drug Transfer Device" is a good subject to have an article about. When editors produce good articles we ease off because that's what Wikipedia needs. So know that at least I appreciate what you're doing, and if you're willing to follow the rules in Wikipedia then you are more than welcome to continue.

Here's the thing... You're an advocate for PhaSeal. I'm glad that you acknowledge that, and that doesn't automatically make you ineligible to be an editor here. We're not against PhaSeal. And we don't have any rules that say it can't be mentioned in the article. But if it is, we need to have references. We need to have something backing up the claims, and it has to be reliable. I see that attempts have been made to do that, and that's good. If you're supposed to promote PhaSeal, and developing a good article about this subject ends up promoting PhaSeal, then you and Wikipedia both prosper. Our conflict of interest guidelines state, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests." This may be one of those times. But know that your edits will be scrutinized, and may be questioned often. And there may come a point in which you will be asked to abide by stricter COI guidelines that suggest that you not edit the article directly, but that you instead make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to apply. For now, though, ask for advice and be open to others' suggestions and you'll be fine. -- Atama頭 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some new information has been added to the article about Phaseal by Safehandling which makes it look quite unbalanced - "In all of these scientific studies only the PhaSeal system met the definitional requirements to be termed a closed system drug transfer device" - that's the last sentence so it reads like the conclusion of the article. It has been tagged for expert attention but should this material be removed from the article until the issue is resolved? I'd also suggest that Safehandling and Brendan Tate discuss any proposed edits concerning PhaSeal on the talk page before making them to the article per WP:COIC. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need someone with access to those paid sources to take a look at them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I don't think that's the only problem, articles where all statements are verifiable can still be biased if the focus is weighted towards a particular viewpoint or conclusion. I think WP:YESPOV is relevant here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those last two paragraphs. Discussion of the article content should probably move to the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seriously, can you guys edit out half a paragraph that was both factually and referenced correctly, which then makes the other half of the paragraph false information? this is getting annoying, not because its taking me time to deal with it, but the things i have to deal with. i feel as though i have just been taken for a ride....you tell me that you want this to happen, so ok i do that in order to get the correct text reinstated, and because i have done what you wanted, you then say that you cant reinstate the text because of some primary source information rule?????? so which one is it? i am beginning to think this is a game to some people and that its not worth our time anymore.......brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, your conflict of interest is going to bring a lot of scrutiny to the additions you make to the article. It doesn't help that you cite the same studies as references that your company's web sites use. It's almost like you're using Wikipedia to host another web page for your company. Now, while we appreciate the information you're offering, it would be ludicrous for us to take your word that it is "factual". Even someone who didn't have the COI would have such edits questioned. -- Atama頭 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey atama,

you say that there is a problem with citing references that appear on our companies website. what company doesnt have relevant press releases, news items or in our case scientific studies relating to their business linked to their website? this is a fact of all companies who have an internet profile.

another fact is that these studies appear elsewhere (in credible scientific journals) before they get to our website. and if you look carefully, on the wikipedia page, no references are linked back to our website. in my learning about wikipedia i realise that this is a no-no, and so when i didnt know any better and did that, it was deleted and rightly so.

when you say that it would be ludicrous to take these published scientific studies as 'factual', does this mean that the publications that they first appeared in have no credibility either? as i said before, yes they do appear on our company website (just lik all other companies have) and i see this as a storing place for them, seen as how they are about us.

we are not trying to get wikipedia to host another phaseal website. we are trying to get across to anyone who is interested that there is a difference between what is a closed system drug transfer device and what is not. it just so happens that according to the definitions, phaseal is and our competitors arent which is backed by the scientific studies.

then you say that you are having trouble determining the reliability of Jorgenson. he is such a high player in this industry that his position and his reputation demand that he remains impartial. i only reference him because out of all the scientific studies relating to the performance of the phaseal system, he was the guy who did the studies comparing phaseal to the competitors. we have others where he is not the lead author/scientist, but he is associated with all the comparison studies. i wish it was different, but it isnt. this is/was his interest, and his findings were so conclusive that there was no need for anyone else to replicate them.

so i am asking you once again to ok what we want to put up on the page. it will be impartial because we are going to mention the competitors. it will be factual because the scientific studies have proved what we want to say, which is that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer system to meet the leakproof and airtight requirements of the NIOSH and the ISOPP definitions. and it will be referenced to the original sources of the information e.g. the original scientific journals that they were first published in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have another concern which I've added to the article's talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Closed_system_drug_transfer_device&diff=322977591&oldid=322953352, Brendan tate has made it clear that he is not just seeking to promote his employers but to denigrate their competitors. Unfortunately this is not going to be one of those occasions where outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this article during my research on drug delivery systems and then on to the discussion on this COI page. I think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. While the subject may be mildly interesting at best, I don't think that mentioning any specific manufacturer in a positive or negative light is necessary for the article. It becomes a brochure or a negative ad campaign. -- Bismuthe (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The full story?

It seems there's more to this than we've been told. Carmel Pharma (PhaSeal's manufacturer) and one of their competitors, Tevadaptor, are locked in a debate over ~~whose product is and isn't~~ whether Tevadaptor is or isn't a 'closed system drug transfer device', which seems to have arisen when Carmel petitioned the FDA to withdraw their approval of Tevadaptor as a closed system device; there are claims and counter-claims, and both companies have commissioned studies which they claim proves their position. (Details on article talk page.)

An attempt to weigh up the conflicting studies and draw a conclusion within the article would be unacceptable per WP:SYNTH, so I think at this point we should decline User:Brendan tate's request to reinsert his deleted text. The question then is whether the article gives coverage to both companies' claims, or we follow User:Bismuthe's suggestion that the article should not mention any specific manufacturers or brands. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously a controversial subject, whether products that claim to be closed systems really are, and which ones. I did a random sample and not all product articles mention brand names. Any mention of brand names in this one would be a POV magnet. I agree, just don't mention them. -- Atama頭 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree in view of the discussion on the article talk page, which is going round in circles and getting a little unpleasant (that suggestion that I might be working for their competitors!). In principle a mention of PhaSeal being first on the market might have been relevant, but we can't do that without mentioning there are others available, and the PhaSeal representatives will start up about their study if the article calls Tevadaptor a closed system device.

This whole thing is about which products meet definitions published by NIOSH and ISOPP, but those definitions are not mandatory so this debate is really only relevant within the pharmaceutical industry, not to the general reader - I don't want to see the article being turned into a battleground. Leaving the brand names out seems to be the least controversial solution, I know the PhaSeal representatives won't be happy with that, but I don't think they're going to settle for anything less than what they originally wanted so I can't see us reaching a solution that appeases everyone here. I think it's time to move towards a conclusion. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brendan tate has put a message on the article talk page saying he doesn't have any more time to spend on this but he will be "back to further the cause sometime in the first three months of next year". Looks like we can wrap this up for now. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfalls in Hamilton, Ontario

HamiltonCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is systematically adding potential spam links to articles concerning waterfalls in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. I'd suggest also checking existing links in these articles not added by this user to check for spam-ness. Tckma (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was perhaps a bit overzealous in adding the links, but the website in question is owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority which is a government agency. The website itself seems somewhat useful as an information resource. As for a conflict of interest, if HamitlonCA works for the city of Hamilton or the Conservation Authority maybe a note of caution would suffice. freshacconci talktalk 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a COI warning template on User talk:HamiltonCA. Tckma (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mass insertion of links skirts along the edges of our spam policy. I don't think the links themselves are particularly problematic, but when an editor adds so many in such a short time it's difficult to argue that the links were added with much forethought. -- Atama頭 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it skirts the policy, it breaches it IMHO. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's editing career on Wikipedia began and ended on October 28, and was all done in about half an hour. Maybe we can close this in a day or two. This report will remain in the archives in case the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodorsen's relativity theory

Resolved

– words deleted as discussed. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unusual posting for this board, but I would like to get some more opinions (and to share responsibility!)

Theodore Theodorsen (1897 - 1978) was an eminent Norwegian-American aerodynamicist who worked at NACA, the predecessor of NASA, became Chief Scientist for the U.S. Air Force, and wrote many papers and books. He also wrote a paper about relativity, proposing an alternative to Einstein's theory. About two years ago much of this paper was posted as a Wikipedia article, and deleted at this AfD, as a result of which a paragraph about the theory was added to the main article which read:

Although Theodorsen's life work was in aerodynamics, and he published numerous books and papers in that field, he had other interests. In particular, he wrote a paper, "Relativity and Classical Physics" which sought to show that the results of Einstein's general relativity theory could be obtained without resorting to curved space-time by a modification of Newtonian theory. The paper presents "a successful transformation of the theory of relativity into classical physics... The mathematical entities of the Einstein development have been redefined into rational physical quantities and rearranged in an organized classical framework. Einstein's 'space-time' has been eliminated and replaced by cognitive time." It was published in the Proceedings of the DKNVS Theodorsen Colloquium[1] (see "Final Years" below) and on two later occasions[2][3] , but it met with no acceptance.

In the course of wording this paragraph I had some email correspondence with Mr Theodorsen's son. He has now written to me again to say how much he appreciates the article: "...the result is excellent. I have read it over on many occasions. Our families are proud of it" but to ask us to delete the last six words "...but it met with no acceptance" from the Relativity paragraph. His arguments are:

From the very beginning (@1905) until now there have been numerous physicists who have and are still having serious reservations about Einstein's theories. A few have proposed alternative theories. On the other hand the other great theory, Quantum Mechanics (@1924), has been highly regarded from its inception with no attempts to challenge it. In fact physicists are currently having problems reconciling these two theories where they overlap.

Lastly, challenging theories such as father's are not easy to get published in prestigious journals or books.So you can see from where father's theory were published that it is not so much "no acceptance" but rather "limited exposure". Actually it is our hope that this Wikipedia article will create interest in father's work. By the way, here-in lies the great contribution Wikipedia is making.

There seem to me three possibilities:

A) no change

B) make the requested change

C) as a compromise, make it read "...but, perhaps owing to limited exposure, it met with no acceptance."

I suggest C, and propose to make that change if there is consensus. I am not happy with A - a small change, but it's deleting a fact in the hope of giving a boost, however slight, to a theory, contrary to WP:SOAP. I am posting here rather than the article talk page because I doubt if that gets much traffic. I would be glad of other opinions or alternative suggestions.

JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"..but it met with no acceptance" lacks a source. It sounds like we are criticizing something in Wikipedia's voice, but the thing itself might not be worth noting. If the world in general did not take any notice of Theodorsen's relativity theory, I'm not sure why we give it special attention. The proposed alternative 'limited exposure' would also lack a source. Sometimes things get limited exposure because they don't convince anyone. There have been a lot of wars regarding alternative theories of relativity that you may be able to find mention of over at WP:WikiProject Physics. On the other hand, if you merely listed his publications about an alternative theory of relativity without commenting on its degree of acceptance, this would not be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting way of looking at it which had not occurred to me. The words were put in out of a fear that his relativity work was being given too much emphasis per WP:FRINGE, but "gained no acceptance" is the sort of negative that can't be sourced - it didn't even make enough impact to get dismissive mentions that could be cited. My justification would be internet searches and a couple of hours spent in a university library, but that's OR, of course, not a reliable source. Well, unless any objection is raised, I will delete the words. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mediamannen probably working for Se og Hør

Resolved

– No edits since October 30. Reopen if the problem recurs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Se og Hør (Norway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mediamannen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User talk on Norwegian Wikipedia
User contributions on Norwegian Wikipedia
Block log on Norwegian Wikipedia

A writer by the name User:Mediamannen has claimed to be working for Se og Hør (Norway) on the Norwegian Wikipedia. [6] On no.wp and en.wp the writes has been focusing on the articles concerning this magazine and related issues. He has been reverted several times on no.wp, been blocked once and made at least one sockpuppet today. I just wanted to keep you informed. 3s (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (Please move this to the right place if I posted it in the wrong place. I'm not too familiar with en.wp)[reply]

I added Mediamannen's talk page and block log from the Norwegian Wikipedia to the above header. His account there was created on 29 October. He does seem to have been very busy editing the Norwegian version of the Se og Hør article, and he did manage to get blocked there on 30 October. I can't figure out the reason for the block. Since User:3s edits in Norwegian perhaps he can interpret. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked for edit-waring. He later created the account Fiskepinner and kept on editing the article. It now looks like he has withdrawn from Wikipedia, at least his last edit was 2 days ago. Hopefully this means that this will be no issue on en.wp. 3s (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textile enginrreing college pabna

Stale

– Per Rees11, and even if it wasn't stale there's no indication of a COI. -- Atama頭 18:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textile enginrreing college pabna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - matches article Pabna textile engineering college ‎ fetch comms 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user created the article a month ago and hasn't edited since. The article has multiple issues but I'm not sure COI is one of them. Rees11 (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Pie

Username is suspicious certainly. Aside from including a now-deleted copyright violation DVD cover image, their edits were actually productive. I guess it depends on whether they continue being productive or not. -- Atama頭 18:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iwaterpolo

Iwaterpolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user agrees he has a COI and since that edit has continued to add links without even as much as a mention on the talk page. I brought this up with the user about a week ago and received no response PDBailey (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The COI is that he is associated with SOCR and many of his edits are to add links to SOCR. PDBailey (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly recommend that Iwaterpolo no longer add external links to SOCR. I don't really have any comment about their other contributions to Wikipedia (which don't seem overly disruptive). -- Atama頭 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have no problems with his non SOCR related edits either. I guess the point is that he appeared to agree that he should not be adding links, then did. I then asked them to remove them and discontinue this activity and he ignored me (well, he has not added any more links in the last week). I didn't really know what to do next, so I came here. PDBailey (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The report seems both accurate and and appropriate. If he doesn't add more links, that's just fine. If he does, and enough time has passed that this discussion ends up being archived, search the noticeboard archives using the search field at the top of this page (just search for "Iwaterpolo" and I'm sure you'll find it). Then you can link to it in any further discussions with him, or anyone else. Thanks! -- Atama頭 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what am I not getting. What value does this noticeboard have, don't understand. Also, I undid all the edits with COI since the claim of COI. PDBailey (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the WP:COI guidelines have suggestions on how an editor can avoid getting into conflicts when they have a conflict of interest. A person with a COI who is causing disruption may find themselves under greater scrutiny once that COI is identified. But it usually doesn't automatically get them blocked or anything, in fact we have a number of productive editors who have COIs but still conform to WP:NPOV and other policies. So I guess the question is, what would you want to have done? -- Atama頭 01:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, this user's edit before this last week have included, (1) adding links to SOCR, after having these removed by me and another editor, (2) starting a discussions trying to get them readded and arguing against WP policy on links to Java applets, (3) requesting a third opinion on this topic when already in a discussion with three people, (4) starting a RFC on the same topic in the same place. Even then I had to drag out of him that he actually had a COI and he agreed that he really should have acted according to COI. Then he just went about his merry business adding links again and never following the COI process. I think an admin should tell him that his previous actions were not in line with policy (I don't think he necessarily sees it that way, so this would help), and that any contribution he would like to make is welcome and appreciated but that this one kind of contribution he is asked to make according to the COI rules which the admin would be happy to help him find resources for if he has questions.

Alternately, I think I should be told that all of the rules are really only there for people who deep down want to follow them and that I shouldn't worry too much about this stuff. PDBailey (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator would have no more authority than you or I to give such warnings. If you want a second person to do so, I will. All that an administrator can do that we can't is block them, and I doubt that they've done enough to warrant such a block. -- Atama頭 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, consider it requested. PDBailey (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left them the standard COI warning template, as well as a personal note that it is discouraged to link to UCLA sites, and also to encourage them to acknowledge their affiliation on their user page. Since it has been close to 2 weeks since the last COI edit I hope that they've already stopped. -- Atama頭 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(backdent) he is back at it again here adding a huge image of SOCR as well as a link. The rest of the article does appear to be a useful addition to Wikipedia's statistics pages. PDBailey (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the SOCR reference, since he has provided a different reference for the information already given. I've also cleaned up a couple of other things in the article. -- Atama頭 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that one, I had already deleted a page-wide screen shot of SOCR and an external link. PDBailey (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that screenshot was a non sequitur and totally unnecessary, at least the reference was somewhat appropriate (if unnecessary). -- Atama頭 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wright

Resolved

– Article deleted via AfD. Rees11 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MWICPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't usually traffic in COI matters, so I'm bringing this here for outside action. Matthew_wright (talk · contribs) has an interesting and self-promotional userpage, and avidly edits the article on MWICPS, an institution he founded and operates. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the article is a mess and doesn't look to be notable (at first glance). Matthew also put a vandalism warning template on the article that is meant for user name space, and removed comments on the talk page that were critical of the article. -- Atama頭 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's got the strangest citation format I've ever seen. Rees11 (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I'm sure that Matthew is trying to recreate our reference scripts using straight HTML. That's a new one to me. -- Atama頭 05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just learning from examples. Still new to Wikipedia's format. Sorry for the messiness.Matthew wright (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew wright has expressed himself aggressively to editors who have made edits he doesn't like, using the words "coward" and "vandal". He has described proposing the article for deletion as "vandalism" and has threatened to remove further instances. The COI and promotional nature of his editing is beyond any reasonable doubt. For example, in early versions of MWICPS he referred to himself as "A pioneering young American male, 'M. Wright'", and claimed his business's results are "impressive". The article, before other editors toned it down, was totally promotional, and Matthew wright has also added himself to Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, despite the fact that the article is about a completely different Matthew Wright (a former American politician now 50 years old, whereas this Matthew Wright states elsewhere that he is in his early 20s). Some of his edit summaries are somewhat puzzling; for example in this edit he gives the edit summary "Updated links and removed ambiguous statements", but in fact no statements are removed at all. Likewise in this edit he gives the edit summary "Rewrite for greater compliance with Wikipedia Guidelines on Verifiability", but makes numerous changes, most of which are do not appear to have anything to do with verifiability, including adding a particular user to a threat he had plced in the article to have users blocked if they make edits he doesn't like. And so it goes on, but I have spent enough time on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate doing your job and look forward to obtaining proper nobility in the future through further work with my school in South Korea. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's guidelines 'to the T' until doing some research after my article was first nominated for deletion. I did however think it best to leave this note to clear up any possible confusions that you or any other member of the Wikipedia community might still have in regards to me, my intentions, or the school in Korea.

In the beginning, I was not exactly sure how Wikipedia worked or how to properly create articles, much less even aware of the WP:N guideline (or any other guidelines for that matter), and as the date and time of the nomination for speedy deletion came eerily close to recent attacks by users of some particular website forums, it was a poor assumption on my part to assume even if it was one of these individuals, that they did not have a valid argument against the article. This may help the kind knowledgeable Wikipedian veterans to understanding my state of mind and "aggression" in the matter, and is truly the reason behind the first editing of comments and removal of nomination for deletion. I truly believed it was being vandalized and was not aware of the procedure for nominating and challenging nominations for deletion. I am now however and intend to handle matters such as these with greater finesse in the future. Sorry for any misunderstandings with that.
Of course the article IS 100% self promotional. I wasn't attempting to write a neutral article in the slightest, I was attempting to write an article about my own school so others could stumble across it (as they have and will continue to do for all time thanks to Google's cache). (see "I was not exactly sure how Wikipedia worked or how to properly create articles" above for explanation of self promotional article being posted.) This also explains why my user page was the way it was. I honestly thought it was a "user page", where you could put a complete profile of yourself if you felt like it, but I was obviously very wrong as it too was deleted (for reasons of which are still not completely clear to me).
For the record, I did 90% of the 'toning down' of the article after reading the appropriate guidelines for posting articles. I'm pretty sure the last post arguably follows all guidelines less the WP:Notability ones.
Either you read the name wrong or I typed it wrong (more likely), but there was no fraud or deception intended in adding myself to Wikipedians with Wikipedia articles. It was done after my nomination for deletion after becoming aware of the apparent COI issues must of the users voting were concerned about. It was intended to make it transparent that I was writing the article and a show of good faith. As my real name is Matthew Wright and my user name is Matthew wright, I can see where some confusion may have arisen on your part.
Article edits were done while multitasking. No argument about their spirastic-ness. On the charge of laziness while leaving edit comments that I thought no one even needed nor payed any attention to before-- guilty as charged. Won't happen again.
Last but not least, as the community (and guidelines) of Wikipedia know all too well, when dealing with living persons there is a greater possibility of negative impact due to carelessness of edits, comments, etc. For this reason I would (and have) ask(ed) users not refer to my school as "fake" or state matter-of-factly that it "does not exist". The school address is up to date, registered with the South Korean Ministry of Education with all appropriate licensure and registrations to legally operate in the country of South Korea. This is easily verifiable through direct communication with the Gyeonggido Provincial Office of Education (경기도 교육청) and let this be a reminder that the existence of the school is not in question- the notability of the article for inclusion into Wikipedia (which is not an archive or directory of all things in the universe), is (or was anyway).

I will repost the article (in a much more neutral tone) at a time of which the school has obtained significant notability. I am also thinking that Wikipedia Koren might be a better home for the article at that time as international nobility may never occur.

Thanks for your hard work in keeping Wikipedia a clean and well managed resource for everyone. Matthew wright (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MWICPS is now at Afd, and looking shakey. User:Matthew wright also looks to me like a speediable G11, clearly way over the top for a user page and not in compliance with the letter or spirit of WP:UP. – ukexpat (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hurstfield and Adam H. Hurstfield

Resolved

– Speedy deleted. Rees11 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdamHHurstfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User has very obvious COI with these two articles: Adam Hurstfield and Adam H. Hurstfield. Both of the articles are created by him. Have given COI-warning to the author on User talk:AdamHHurstfield. I have never reported any COI so I hope this is the correct way to do it. Ilyushka88 talk 19:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI is clear, and the claims made in the articles are unverifiable and probably untrue. The Hitmakers seems to be a non-show (I can't see that it's actually broadcast), and if he had really been nominated for all of these awards you'd think there would be at least one news article mentioning him. I've redirected the newer article to the older one, and I've nominated the older article for deletion. And you did this COI report just fine. -- Atama頭 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was speedy deleted as a hoax after the AFD discussion, but has just been recreated by Cravejr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've nominated it for speedy deletion per G4. This user has been an occasional editor since 2007 so not sure if this is evidence of another COI, but I don't see why anyone without a connection would want to recreate it. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again as Adam H., by a SPA AmberHopeEyre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both now deleted. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McGraw-Hill

It looks like staff at McGraw-Hill has started adding mentions of their books to quite a few articles. So far I've found:

96.248.91.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) and
198.45.19.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot).

Should the additions be reverted? - Eureka Lott 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The most disturbing edits were edits that linked to Amazon where the books could be purchased. Adding such links is a clear violation of WP:ELNO#5. Aside from that, the COI seems clear but mostly the additions were still helpful to the articles. I think you have too look at each edit on a case-by-case basis and not just revert them all en-masse. -- Atama頭 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the "Further reading" additions disturbing too. From what we know, it seems clear that they are doing so to promote their book. While the book may add to the article, the individual that added it is of concern. Netalarmtalk 22:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning. It would take a while to go through all this user's edits, since some may be appropriate and some not, and it would take an expert to tell the difference. I undid one of them, we'll see what happens. Rees11 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the additions stay? Netalarmtalk 00:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is common for edits by link spamming WP:SPA accounts to be reverted (see examples at WT:WikiProject Spam). When reverting link spamming, I try to exercise judgment, but in the case of simply adding a link to a book by a particular publisher, with no text in the article or the edit summary to indicate the point of that book, I would simply undo the edit. An edit summary might be "rv per WP:BOOKSPAM" or perhaps "rv unexplained addition, see WP:BOOKSPAM". Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a bot for that? Rees11 (talk) 01:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the spam links by the first IP with the help of some automated scripts. I'll see if mass rollback would be helpful in the 2nd IP. Netalarmtalk 08:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, not helpful at all. I've gone over some of the edits. If anyone else wants to help, just remove the book spamming. Netalarmtalk 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Myorganicfamily and User:Erinely

Miessence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - These two users, Myorganicfamily (talk · contribs) and Erinely (talk · contribs) have been editing this article with an obvious conflict of interest, and the former has admitted to considering Wikipedia an advertising "independent representative" with the statement "Any representative can represent the company in advertisements (including wikipedia) as long as the title "independent representative" is included whenever (in the case of the stub 'miessence') the tradename 'miessence' is used."^[1]. See my talk page for details (1, 2, 3) and my responses on the user's talk page (1). I was tempted to report to WP:UAA, but the advertising is not quite so blatant. If you think it is appropriate to file at WP:AIVU, by all means do so. Intelligentsium 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Honestly, I'd report both. The advertising was unambiguous and certainly a violation of WP:ELNO, and while it's good for one of the editors to attempt to discuss matters with you, declaring that their edits were okay because some rules outside of Wikipedia allowed them is a red flag to me. -- Atama頭 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Orangemike has blocked Myorganicfamily for spamming/username issues. -- Atama頭 17:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Management Limited

Resolved

– Edit was reverted. -- Atama頭 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Management Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The most recent edit to this article introduces a chunk of text that's written like corporate communications content. The IP address associated with the edit traces back to an address within the company that's the article subject. Since I work for a competitor of this company, I'm uncomfortable editing or reverting the addition in any way, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict on my own part. Mlaffs (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that it's hilarious that the company's name is "AGF". No other comment on it yet. :) -- Atama頭 00:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was already reverted by Orangemike. Looking up some of the text from the IP's latest addition using Google, I see a substantial similarity with what is written in other locations by AGF so undoubtedly the IP is connected to the company (possibly from the marketing department). Since the info has been reverted and hasn't been restored, and the article itself seems neutral enough in its current state I'll consider this resolved. -- Atama頭 22:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author creating article on own book?

Sjbauer1215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created the page Quest of the shadow-forge, describing a book written by a Stephen J. Bauer, which seems to suggest COI. I considered raising this with the editor as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, but am unsure whether I ought to do this on the talk page for the editor or the talk page for the article. I am also uncertain as to whether raising COI in this case could be considered harassment through outing, by connecting the username to the potential real name. Another disinterested reader (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I think you would raise the issue directly with the editor first (on the user talk page), then bring it up here if there is still a problem. Noticing this kind of similarity between user name and real name is not outing. Outing would be if you made use of some other information to link an editor with a real person where such a linkage would not normally be apparent within Wikipedia. Rees11 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that outing isn't a concern. Pointing out information that an editor has voluntarily provided (such as a username choice) and making statements about a person's identity based on that info is not a violation of our policies. If Stephen didn't want people to make the connection, he should have picked a different username. It's also possible that the editor isn't really Stephen himself, but a fan or someone who is otherwise associated with him (such as an agent or marketer). This seems to be a moot point now, because the article was speedily deleted per G7 after the author blanked the page. The editor's user page was speedily deleted as advertising. -- Atama頭 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the information. It certainly is impressive how fast events can move. Another disinterested reader (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tales of Beedle the Bard

Graemedavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This is sort of an unconventional request. About a year ago, Graemedavis came to the talk page and asked us to include his book in the article. The book is an analysis of Beedle the Bard and was released by a crowdsourced publishing company eight days after Bard came out. We sort of shrugged off the issue, and nothing happened. Recently he has come back to the article and once again asked for his book to be added. In full disclosure, he never actually edited the article, but he wants at least some mention of his book on several grounds, including that his book being released eight days after is significant, and also that not including "what is still the sole book of literary criticism on the subject" is making the article non-WP:NPOV.

The user opened a MedCab case which was held off pending further discussion, but I wanted to start a thread here first and see what people think. Can COIN still handle this issue even though there haven't been any actual controversial edits to the page, just recommendations? Should this book be included in the article, and if so, in what capacity? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been careful throughout not to post on the article page as I recognise that there would be a Conflict of Interest. Rather I have drawn editors' attention (on the talk page) to the existence of this book and I have been 100% clear that it is a book I have written (even my user name is virtually my real name). The response has been most unpleasant with attacks on me, the book (without reading it), the publisher, the editor. There are a whole range of behavioural issues here (in terms of Wikipedia's behaviour guidelines) and there are real problems where someone who actively tries to avoid conflict of interest has to put up with this level of personal attack as a direct consequence of not breaching guidelines (eg using a user name which is not their name, getting a friend to make a post - both wrong actions). There's an attack even in the introductory post above - note that "Exploring Beedle the Bard" has been published by a standard trade/commercial press and pays me a royalty. It was not crowdsourced. I believe the Beedle the Bard article now breaches the neutrality of point of view guideline because it excludes all mention of this book not because of the appropriacy or otherwiise of the material but because some editors have come up with so many fatuous reasons for excluding it and are so entrenched that a change of mind would seem a miracle. I think this matter should be discussed within the MedCab area as it includes NPOV and behaviour issues and I'm far from convinced the COI is even central (I have not posted anything to the article). However if users here feel some useful progress could be made here I'm willing to discuss. Graemedavis (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In full disclosure, the publisher is Nimble Books. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of books published by Nimble Books LLC are cited by Wikipedia articles. The press was established in 2004 and has published over 100 titles. It specialises in books which are quick to print, hence its name. I really think we need this discussion on a MedCab page. Graemedavis (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right venue for this. Graeme admits his COI, and has been pretty careful to abide by the voluntary restrictions suggested at the WP:COI guideline. This is essentially a content dispute, and should be handled by the usual means (article's talk page, or failing that, dispute resolution, which could include mediation). A question, has this book been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard? If it is deemed a reliable source by consensus then it might merit a mention in the article, if not, then I would suggest it doesn't. -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to RSN was the other option I had considered, but I thought I would bring it up here first since it's not a content dispute just yet. It went straight to MedCab, and I thought that it might be best to explore other avenues before going down the whole mediation process. But I suppose a post at RSN can't hurt. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmrAbbass

This user's sole contributions have been to create pages for Creative Minds, an elementary school based in Egypt. I believe all the pages have the same content on them. Since schools are not a subject deletable under A7 I am wondering what should be done about this user, as his current behaviour leads me to suspect an SPA. TheLetterM (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged them yesterday as spam and they where speedied, I agree that they do seem to be a SPA, hopefully they won't recreate them. Smartse (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tag on Creative Minds was removed by AmrAbbass, I've restored it and warned them about doing that. -- Atama頭 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex jamieson, User:Simon Kidd at Kevin R. D. Shepherd

Resolved

– Article has been GA-delisted, but discussion here found no evidence of COI.

--JN466 19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The article was created by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing Wikipedia on 10 September 2009. It was promoted to GA by Simon Kidd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who began editing on 27 September 2009; Simon Kidd started the GA assessment with his 14th edit to Wikipedia. Simon Kidd has explained on the article's talk page that he used to edit under a different account name, and has now chosen to edit under his real name; hence the short edit history. He has also stated that he does not know the subject.

A COI concern arose from the fact that two people with the same names as the two WP accounts involved have commented at amazon on Kevin R. D. Shepherd, praising his work. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong in this, but it seemed a considerable coincidence.

The subject's photograph used in the article was uploaded by Alex jamieson (talk · contribs), who claims to be the copyright holder.

The subject's website carries a prominent link to this article, even though it was only created quite recently.

The article is currently at WP:GAR (Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Kevin_R._D._Shepherd/1); the main concern is that it is heavily based on self-published primary sources. (There also seems to be some prior Wikipedia history, see [7].) --JN466 02:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should probably assume good faith in terms of the COI at the moment, it seems like the poor sourcing and GA assessment may just be honest mistakes by newbies who don't entirely understand guidelines for sourcing and the criteria for GAs. As I've said on the reassessment page, if has to be delisted as the sourcing is really poor, and from a quick google it looks as though a comedian by the same name (who doesn't have an article) is perhaps more notable than this philosopher. It isn't totally out of the question that Simon Kidd and Alex jamieson are just fans of his writing, and therefore it is quite likely that they might be have written reviews on Amazon and made the article here independently of each other. As for the link on the subjects website, maybe one of the editors emailed him to say? If Alex and Simon could let us know if they have had any communication with the subject about the article it would be useful. I personally would be interested to know where the photo came from. Smartse (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smartse, and thanks for your comments. I have contributed to the discussion on the GA reassessment page. Please read my comments about sourcing there. I would like to hear the opinion of others also, before any delisting decision is made. I'm not sure that the point about the comedian is valid: surely there are many entries in Wikipedia on subjects who may be less notable than that particular comedian! Each claim to notability should be assessed on its own merits - it is a question of notability, not relative notability. To answer your question here, I had nothing to do with the creation of the article, and had no correspondence with the subject on that matter. I have no photographs of him, and have never met him. I have been open about my intellectual interest in the subject and other topics in philosophy and religion, both in my Amazon comments and on my user page here in Wikipedia. I don't particularly like the term 'fan', since it seems to imply some sort of blind and uncritical adherence. I am an admirer of the subject's writing, just as I am an admirer of the writing of many other thinkers, in the same way, perhaps, that Jayen466 is an admirer of the writing of Idries Shah (an admiration I would share). I hope this helps to clarify my own motivation. I can't speak for Alex Jamieson. Simon Kidd (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smartse, your moving of 'Kevin R. D. Shepherd' to 'Kevin Shepherd' has resulted in a faulty link under the 'What links here' tool on the subject's page. It now shows that Laughing_Horse_New_Act_of_The_Year links to this article, but that is because comedian Kevin Shepherd (though not having an article himself) has been listed on the Laughing_Horse_New_Act_of_The_Year page, and the WP software has picked up on the coincidence of names. Can you fix this? Simon Kidd (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that now links to Kevin Shepherd (comedian). Smartse (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex may well have a conflict of interest here. A single-purpose account with enough access to the author to have taken a photograph seems likely to be personally connected to him. Simon's COI is not so clear, and looking at Simon's contributions I see participation in a variety of subjects. The GA assessment seems to have been a big mistake but I think it's an honest mistake and I don't think a COI exists. These are just my personal opinions. -- Atama頭 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obliged to point out that many of Simon's contributions to other articles have consisted in inserting Mr Shepherd's books as references, or updating such references: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] This contributed to my initial impression of COI editing. (Note that if other scholars have cited Shepherd's self-published books for facts, without comment, then it may be okay to use them as sources or add them as further reading, at least in non-BLPs.) --JN466 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that is a very good point. Honestly, I looked at the articles that Simon edited and not the actual edits themselves. That does seem more suspicious. -- Atama頭 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my lack of edit history is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, that I recently decided to edit under my real name from now on. This is an important issue for me, since I believe it is important to take responsibility for one's writing and editing. Since making that decision, I have discovered that I am not the only one with strong feelings on the subject (see here). I edited under my old pseudonym for about two years and contributed to a number of topics, many of which were entirely unrelated to the article currently under discussion. The reason that my recent edits have largely been limited to this and a few related articles is simply one of lack of time. Since it is a new article, I decided to link other articles to it where appropriate (or hyperlink existing references). As my user page makes clear, I have a wide-ranging interest in philosophical and religious topics, and in due course I expect to make contributions to a similarly wide range of articles. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do forgive any lack of Wiki etiquette on my part. I am, as you rightly say, a newbie. However, I will just talk plainly; a form of universally recognized etiquette, one might say.

Thank you for the above comments Smartse (talk). Firstly, the author in question has written eleven annotated scholarly books to date under the name of Kevin R. D. Shepherd. The author is known by that name, and therefore that name should surely not be arbitrarily changed to Kevin Shepherd. I did not use “Kevin Shepherd” as a redirect for that very reason. Perhaps, as a matter of courtesy, you would be kind enough to undo the edit. As you rightly note, there is a comedian by the name of Kevin Shepherd; Kevin R. D. Shepherd is not a comedian, but rather a serious writer addressing serious issues. In answer to your above observation: A judgment of who is more notable would depend on your interest, i.e., for comedy or philosophy. If you type into Google “Kevin Shepherd” you will get a comedian, and if you type “Kevin R. D. Shepherd” you find a philosopher.

Now, to the concerns expressed by you and JN466:

I am intrigued by the posed conspiracy theory.

Let me therefore state, I am currently the sole contributor to the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article. I have been an avid reader of his books for the past fifteen years; I have met the author on several occasions in the past, and had felt confident enough to write three reviews of the author’s books for Amazon UK on different occasions. I therefore thought I was probably more knowledgeable than most to write an article about the author and his work for Wikipedia. I trust you will agree that, the writer of an article should have a fair degree of interest in, and knowledge of, the subject he/she is writing about. The author gave permission for me to upload his photograph and was quite happy for me to be the known as the copyright holder. The picture box was uploaded following the assessment request. Also, as a matter of courtesy, I had informed the author I was going to write an article about him for Wikipedia (he expressed no objection), and I advised him of the article’s existence shortly after I had completed that article to my satisfaction.

As to the notability concern (yours, not mine). As you are both aware, notability remains a controversial issue within the Wikipedia community. Doubtless we could all trawl through Wikipedia and find articles or subjects that do not fulfill our personal criteria of what is notable. Some articles may have even left out, or editorially censored, material that we would personally consider as being “notable”. For me, an author who has written, to date, eleven annotated scholarly books on a diverse rage of notable subjects and issues, and those books have contributed to knowledge about those subjects and issues, and in turn been acknowledged and cited by other scholars, is sufficient proof of notability. Notability does not just resound loudly out from the rooftops, but can have significant influence in less extrovert ways.

Alex jamieson (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling concerns about a "conflict of interest" as a "conspiracy theory" could be considered a breach of etiquette, though as you have said you are new I won't criticize you for such wording, just know that such charged language can be objected to. WP:AUTHOR is a notability addendum which can allow for authors to have a place in Wikipedia even if there isn't much coverage of the person in the usual places. What you claim would certainly make the author notable, but you still have to show evidence of this (show where he has been cited by other authors).

Just a note, while the notability of particular subjects can and often is a controversial thing, the notability requirement itself isn't so notable. It's a widely-held standard used by the community to determine the merit of an article's inclusion. Our "personal criteria of what is notable" isn't important, what's important is the notability criteria that the community has agreed to through consensus. That is the threshold that the article would have to meet. This isn't really the place to discuss this, however, that discussion would belong on the talk page of the article. -- Atama頭 21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have noted what you say. I will seriously look into revising the text over the next few weeks and adding some further evidence/references. I also note that Smartse has not taken my comments about Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s name to heart.

Alex jamieson (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the COI tag as I can't see any evidence for it. Simon Kidd has agreed that the article should be delisted and hopefully him and Alex can work towards producing a better article, that is less based on primary sources in the future. How do we go about delisting the article though? Smartse (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added inprogress template to the article. I request that the article stays in place whilst revision is undertaken.

Alex jamieson (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, the article is simply being delisted from Good Article status. It isn't being deleted, and will certainly benefit from improvement. Smartse, I have done the delisting myself. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as long as the article is being improved and Alex isn't being insistent on the article containing particular information or being written in a particular way that is contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and I don't see any indication that he ever has), then I don't see why the COI tag can't be removed. And at this point I certainly wouldn't ask for the article to be deleted. -- Atama頭 17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for bringing this to an amicable conclusion, and good luck with the article. --JN466 19:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks to all concerned. It is hard being a newbie! I will certainly attempt to bring the article into alignment and of course request a reassessment once I am satisfied.

Alex jamieson (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoneAFK in Douglas Coupland and various articles on Douglas Coupland's works (relisted)

I am relisting this thread; the bot had archived it because of inaction, but it has not been properly addressed to date. GoneAFK has not edited since the opening of this thread. It is probably best to give this another week, to give GoneAFK an opportunity to comment.

Please see Talk:Douglas_Coupland#Story_2.

GoneAFK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be editing with an undeclared conflict of interest.

[17] (Vancouver/Burnaby IP),
[18] (note edit summary). --JN466 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their contributions do seem to be a single purpose account, having only related articles related to Douglas Coupland. Their edits certainly cause some concern and suggest a COI, namely inserting lots of images from a personal website. The articles about his novels also need checking, I found this, pretty much a total re-write of Life After God. I'm not entirely convinced of a COI, they could possibly be a devoted fan but it definitely needs clarification. JN has left them a note so hopefully they will be able to shed some light on the situation. Smartse (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikicheong and Niki Cheong

Niki Cheong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Niki (or some editor using his name) is editing his article; I just did a mass rollback and templated him. Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to point out that Niki's only edit prior to the edit of his (probable) autobiography was an edit to the newspaper that employs him. Just a note, the AfD for the Niki Cheong article is here. -- Atama頭 02:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Allied Artists again.

TechnicalExcellence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - See contributions log.

I'm thinking there is no way this user would just come back and edit articles related to Allied Artists all of a sudden, as the editor has not edited in a long time. This is also kind of strange, because the page was a redirect. Does anyone else think this may be a possible sock? Netalarmtalk 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The self-revert seems out of character for the particularly tenacious sock/meatpuppetry that was going on before. Also, look at the nature of the edits they made; they removed a lot of the "junk" that the socks were insisting on before, and citing WP:BLP as justification. They also apologized for undoing the redirect on the talk page. My opinion is that this is a completely uninvolved editor, look at their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied Artists International where they were strongly opposed to ChinaUpdater. As to why they edited after being away for a long time, maybe they were busy in real life? When I was new to Wikipedia I would sometimes go for a month or longer without an edit. -- Atama頭 19:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prmwp

Would appreciate third users' input at User_talk:Prmwp. Buckshot06(prof) 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my opinion, you might also want to invite Prmwp to comment here as well if he so desires. -- Atama頭 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the listings of living people that I have consulted show some degree of participation--inclusion or exclusion of material--by the subject. To say that this is "strongly discouraged" is a normative policy statement. From my personal empirical observation, it is simply not true in reality.

Whether such autobiographical participation involves inappropriate COI, is in my opinion, something that should be subject to critical analysis on an individual basis. There are potential v. actual conflicts of interests; convergent interests as well as conflicting ones.

I think that Wikipedia and its users have a strong interest in detail and interpretation that only subjects or their closest associates can provide. Aside from the interests of contemporary users, there are those of future ones. When the living subjects pass on there will be nobody to supply those details. Such information can easily be deleted, but it can never be restored.

As you can infer from the comments above, it does not seem appropriate to me to infer either COI or notability from the mere fact of authorship. In my view, each of these should be determined on its own merits, and articles should be edited to reduce possible COI.--Prmwp (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we have guidelines for a reason. We don't automatically say you can't create or edit your own biography. But we do say you shouldn't. As long as nobody objects, and you're open about it, everything is okay. Since people do object, it's not okay, and that's why we're discussing matters. By the way, are you the same person as User:Beerf? If you are, might I suggest that you choose one account and stick with it? Having alternate accounts isn't disallowed, but there are rules about such things. Thanks. -- Atama頭 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I had created the other account long ago and forgotten about it. I never did much with it. I created the new account because I had forgotten about the old account. I have no objection to getting rid of the old account.

2. I have been open about everything. If I had not been so, we would not even be having this discussion.

3. You say "We don't automatically say you can't create or edit your own biography." But one person objects precisely on those grounds. I am requesting that the biography be considered on its own merits in terms of notability and COI. If it meets notability criteria, I am asking for help in editing it to reduce possible COI.--Prmwp (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my objection, I believe that, absent you writing it, there would be no biography for you on wikipedia, thus nobody would have deemed you notable enough to write about. The very fact that you yourself wrote the article makes it, in my view, inadmissible in COI terms, as per all the guidelines. Why don't you focus your energy for a while on other subjects where you can make a contribution, instead of banging your head against a wall trying to memorialise yourself? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the guideline does state, "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." So generally an article should not be deleted because of a COI. On the other hand, notability might be an issue. There doesn't seem to be any coverage of "Francis Beer" himself, but his books are cited in Google Scholar. I'm torn as to whether it would merit inclusion. -- Atama頭 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Un regional info centre

Resolved

– Editor blocked, edits reverted. -- Atama頭 18:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual and largely unreferenced and poorly formatted contributions on UNRIC made by User:Un regional info centre, although not sure if information is actually valid or not, which is why I have not reverted yet. Name reflects a UN organisation. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User has been blocked. Smartse (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship or NPOV?

Also, are COI notices about action of an admin who edits the page of a company he worked at to consistently remove negative info appropriate if the editing is not recent, but is persistent? It's stuff that's not complimentary, but may or may not fall short of NPOV. Is this sort of POV pushing ever acceptable? This is a well-established admin. I'd like to hear views before leveling a specific charge.--CCritic (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are the the same editor who made this edit as an IP? If so, it's good to see that you've created an account; while I respect the right to edit anonymously without an IP address it is easier to work with editors who have a clear record in the project. Back to the matter at hand, do you have proof that the administrator worked at the company? (Did the admin declare it, for example.) If so, a COI claim might be warranted. However, if you see the COI guideline, specifically the section on non-controversial edits, you'll see that "removing spam and reverting vandalism" is generally okay. Negative information that is unsourced could be considered defamation and I'd argue that anyone should be allowed to remove such information. If that negative information is properly sourced, though, then such removal could be seen as whitewashing by an editor with a COI and might be worth at least a question about the behavior. Just keep in mind that it's best not to template the regulars; you'd be better off not leaving a COI warning template or anything along those lines, just ask them in your own language. -- Atama頭 19:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not asking about that user or Groupon; I had but removed the question; see my edits to this page. In the case in question, the user has admitted to having a position at the company. I have the proof. Please reconsider the question in this light. --CCritic (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would still depend on the nature of the information removed, but it's certainly possible that there is a COI concern. Let me reassure you that you can definitely ask a question about a COI without making an accusation. You shouldn't worry about reprisals for mentioning the person's name, any editor who is offended by someone questioning a possible COI should be pointed at WP:AGF and I would hope that an established administrator in particular should have enough experience to take such a question in stride. -- Atama頭 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you went ahead and addressed Groupon anyway: I'll reply: the user keeps reverting the IP's comment on his talk page as 'vandalism'. The user apologized for calling the IP's edits vandalism, but keeps doing it (latest example; per: "The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism". (emphasis original)) The IP certainly didn't add unsourced info, as you imply. It's sourced, and I think it's well-sourced. The ferocity and inappropriateness of the users responses suggests there's a COI. But I am not claiming there is one. I do think the inappropriateness of the vandalism accusations warrants an administrative response. It's no way to treat someone. It's a blatant violation of policy WP:CIVIL. OTOH, I agree that the IPs edit to Groupon should not stand as is. Two wrongs don't make a right. (Is that policy? It should be.) --CCritic (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's off-topic, I agree that Jwesley78 is toeing the line of WP:HARRASS, I'll leave them a note just so that they're aware. -- Atama頭 20:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Was a Lie

I have tagged this article, about a independent film due for theatrical release in December, with a COI tag, since an examination of contributions indicates that at least four of the accounts used to edit the article: Helicon Arts Cooperative, Sorrywrongnumber, Boxcarwillie and Filmsnoir are all single purpose accounts used (basically) only to edit this and related articles, such as those of the actors and creative staff involved in the film. In addition, several dozen IPs, all from the same area (69.23x.xxx.xxx), are likely to be COI editors as well, since they edit no other articles.

After I placed the tag another IP editor from a different range User:166.205.130.225 objected, and a discussion on our talk pages ensued (here and here). Following this, an editor, or editors, under a number of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx began a series vandalistic edits to remove the COI tag without explanation or discussion, and, indeed, to delete the discussion of my COI concerns on the talk page in toto.

I take the actions of the 69.23x IP editor as at least partial confirmation that someone has a powerful ownership interest in this article, presumably the producers of the film or their associates. I believe that semi-protecting the article to prevent the actions of the 69.23x IPs would be totally justified at this point (and I have requested it at WP:RPP), and that the nature of the four named editors I listed above should also be looked into. Sach (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud this user's vigilance; however, his sudden creation of an account and immediate preoccupation with reverting verified information in this particular article, 3RR violations, and bad faith accusations against others (of being socks, or "aliases" as he calls them), smacks of a COI itself. He is accusing editors of being socks with COIs; however, he provides no real evidence of either, other than the fact that these editors have all worked on this article over the years. There does not appear to have been any bias or false information introduced into the article by these users. The film and cast members appear, on the surface, to have a strong Internet/scifi convention following so such editing patterns are hardly unusual. I agree that caution should always be followed; however, repeated public accusations of sockpuppetry with no proof is defamatory and has no place on a Talk page. Thank you.166.205.130.225 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that while my account was created only three days ago, I extensively edited 20+ other articles (many of the film related) before ever accidentally coming across Yesterday Was a Lie, a film I had never heardd of before last night. If my intention was, as 166 has accused me of on my talk page, wrecking havoc on the article because I have a conflict of interest, I certainly took a rather round-about path to get there.

No, the truth of the matter is, I came to this article by happenstance, and recognized what seems clearly to be a COI problem. Simply looking at the contributions of the four accounts I named above provides the clear evidence: they have been used almost exclusively to edit this film's article or, in the case of Sorrywrongnumber, articles related to it (actors and creative staff). In addition, every single one of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx IPs that I looked into had only edited the film article. Combine this with the formatting anf language of the original article (which, for instance, mirrored typical contractual language for "with" and "and" billing for the actors) points strongly to a strong conflict of interest. Add to that the attempts to remove my COI concerns by brute force, and there's more than sufficient evidence to support my concerns.

In any event, I see little to be gained by the kind of back-and-forth thst 166 seems to want to engage in, so unless someone has something substantive to contribute, I suppose I'll retire for the time being. Sach (talk) 10:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly, I notified the four accounts named above of this discussion. Sach (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)One final thing which I noted on the article's talk page, but neglected to mention here. About a year or so ago, the article in question was up for deletion, and in the AfD discussion Sorrywrongnumber voted to keep, as did one 69.23x.xx.xx IP, with no significant edit history, and one other editor User:2Misters who had only 2 previous edits and has not edited since. This strongly suggests that the AfD vote was manipulated into a Keep, and is additional evidence to support my concern. Sach (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The issues on this article began here, with edits made by a registered account, User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, an account name with other issues that need to be reported due to it being the name of a public company, but also the name of the company that appears to be the distributor [19], an account that prior to October 11 had only edited once - in January 2008, that uploaded a new version of the film poster File:Yesterdayposternew.jpg and added it to the article. Eight minutes later, one of the 69.231 IPs, 69.231.234.235, edited the article, followed by Helicon Arts Cooperative uploading an update to already existing film poster, indicating it was the "MPAA cleared official theatrical release poster 11/09" and added to the article. While the 69.231.234.235 may be a coincidence, there had been no previous edits to this article since October 13, 2009. Slightly less than 3 hours later, H Debussy-Jones made major edits to the article. It was then that the IP 166.205.130.225 began editing the page, and within an hour, 3 IPs from quite obviously from the same IP range as the first IP editor (69.231.234.235) also began editing - those being 69.231.206.130, 69.231.207.238 and 69.231.201.204. There is something amiss with all of this sudden activity in response to someone previously unrelated to the article editing soon after the apparent distributor of the film made edits, especially when four of the five IPs from the same IP range and location. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One insignicant correction: I believe that "Helicon Arts Cooperative" is the production company and not the distributor; otherwise Wildhartlivie's account is accurate. Sach (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure of that - the print was too small to read on the official site. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point remains: Even IF user "Helicon Arts Cooperative" has anything to do with the actual company, and even IF the 69... IPs are related, or people at the company, and even IF the other editors are all socks (which is preposterous to suggest w/o solid proof)... There still doesn't seem to be a point here, unless there is bias and misinformation in the article. I don't see any. Between the three of us, tonight we have vetted and cited anything that needs citing, and there didn't really seem to be anything weighted or subjective in the article in the first place (IMHO)... just a series of facts. Trust me, I've seen company press releases. That article read nothing like a press release. The whole thing is moot, unless you can show that the facts of the article have been spun or manipulated to be misleading. Please remember that Wiki COI policy doesn't say that an article's subject can't edit the article; it says that an article's subject can't edit the article if the editor's aims are contrary to Wikipedia's aims and the editor's edits are non-neutral. I see nothing here to suggest this, and this is really a huge waste of time. All you have effectively done is change a few minor formatting issues (which I agree are improvements), and then stuck a COI tag at the top of the article, which accomplishes nothing and in no way contributes to the factualness of the article, since there were no "wrong" facts in there to begin with.166.205.130.225 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of information, not a vehicle for viral advertising. Sach (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck DeVore

I'd appreciate if someone with more experience with COI issues would take a look at the editing of Chuck DeVore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Chuckdevore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in particular the latest edit, today, which occurred after I posted a note about the COI guideline on the user talk page yesterday.

And I also would appreciate any editors with COI experience adding their opinions on the article talk/discussion page regarding the COI tag/template that is on the top of the article; the second-to-last section of the talk/discussion page is about that issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) thew

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards