Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 60

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grant Shapps

Given this news article in the Grauniad today http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/08/grants-shapps-altered-wikipedia-entry should the article itself not be tagged as having been edited by someone with a COI? As the content may thus be unreliable. feline1 (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that 83.170... is the IP in question. The reason I ask is that someone on the Grant Shapps talk page seems to point to a different IP address. Neither of those IP address has edited the article in more than a year. I am sure with the amount of publication that this issue is receiving that any COI/POV edits have been dealt with long ago or are being dealt with now. I don't think warning readers about possible unreliable content is necessary anymore. Sperril (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If there is content that seems unreliable to you, then you should be adding {{Fact}} tags to the article. The usual problem with editing your own biography is being biased, e.g., adding puffery and removing criticism. If the article looks about as balanced and neutral as any other biography, then I wouldn't put a badge of shame on the article. (And if it is, the first and best solution is for you to fix it, not to tag it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
We regard to this board - my inclination is that there are a bunch of experienced editors sorting things out over there and an active talkpage - I don't think action from this board would help.Fayedizard (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead

Notwithstanding earlier attempts to address this situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_59#Men_Opening_Umbrellas_Ahead this user has recommenced editing in unrepentetent fashion (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Opening_Umbrellas_Ahead&diff=513471835&oldid=511699414 and on the talk page protests that "How is my writing factual info on an article conflict of interest?" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMen_Opening_Umbrellas_Ahead&diff=513557907&oldid=513520048. I do not see any will whatsoever on the part of this editor to adhere to WP:COI's guidance. feline1 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher); users lgal01 and Kosmocentric

I am requesting that Kosmocentric and Igal01 be investigated for COI for their editing and substantial contributions to the article as a whole, and especially for their repeated contentious deletions in the "Criticisms" section of the above article. I believe both of these users will be found to be current members of the organization of the subject of the article (Andrew Cohen), and compensated employees of the subject of the article. I am requesting that these users be banned from further edits, deletions of the subject article or, alternatively, that their edits/deletions be reviewed in light of their COI. Hamsa001 (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Mellotron

This unregistered user has been editing the mellotron article for over half a decade now, always adding unsourced non-neutral material about the 'authenticity' of 'real' mellotrons over 'software'. More recently they keep going on about trademark disputes, suggesting they have a commerical interest in the trademark. They seem to have zero regard for wikipedia policies. feline1 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of unsourced stuff there that needs to be removed or for which sources need to be found.--ukexpat (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been removing it every few months for about half a decade now, but the same editor keeps putting it back! I was wondering if page protection might be a pragmatic way forward, as the editor in question never logs in--feline1 (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned on the article's talk page, can you provide diffs of exactly what the complaint is? I can only see two instances of stuff being reverted, and while your reverts are legitimate and backed up with policy, calling them "bullshit" doesn't help your cause. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the central focus of this user's interest may be the Birotron. Nonetheless I don't see how this amounts to a COI. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nihonjoe, as an administrator, has conflict of interest on Diaoyu_Islands Discussion locking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No evidence of a conflict of interest, wrong doing or otherwise.--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


As a administrator, Nihonjoe, lock Diaoyu_Islands discussion, 4 minutes after it was edited by Klilidiplomus , deleting original content and forwarded to Senkaku_Islands. Then Nihonjoe locked Senkaku_Islands discussion 5 minutes after it was edited by Klilidiplomus again.


I request investigation into if Nihonjoe coordinated with Klilidiplomus in the locking of Diaoyu_Islands discussion and Senkaku_Islands discussion.

Diaoyu_Islands history shows you locked the discussion 5 minutes after Klilidiplomus vandalized the discussion, deleting everything and replacing it with a forward link to Senkaku_Islands(Japanese version of Diaoyu_Islands). While on Senkaku_Islands discussion, Klilidiplomus made a 35,100 bytes final change. 7 minutes later, you locked that discussion as well.

Below is segment of Diaoyu_Islands discussion history:

(cur | prev) 16:15, 17 September 2012‎ Nihonjoe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (29 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Protected Diaoyu Islands: Edit warring / Content dispute (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite)))

(cur | prev) 16:10, 17 September 2012‎ Klilidiplomus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29 bytes) (-34,304)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 383764204 by Xqbot:

Below is segment of SenKaku_Islands discussion history:

(cur | prev) 16:16, 17 September 2012‎ Nihonjoe (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (35,100 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Senkaku Islands: Edit warring / Content dispute (‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite)))

(cur | prev) 16:09, 17 September 2012‎ Klilidiplomus (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,100 bytes) (+35,057)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 513135879 by Metal.lunchbox: rv undiscussed, cut-and-paste move. (TW))

Using wikipedia administrator privilige, NihonJoe with Klilidiplomus, lock down and monopolize Senkaku_Islands discussion and Diaoyu Islands discussion.

Diaoyu Islands being the Chinese name for Senkaku Islands. There is territorial disputes on these islands by China and Japan. As your name suggest, you may be affiliated to Japan. Nihonjoe in english is "Japanese Joe". Nihon means Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starrage (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 September 2012‎

  • I don't think that, alone, counts as a WP:COI. If any editor associated with a country (not just nationality; it may just be personal interest) was removed from articles about that country and its associated controversies, then those articles would become ghost towns. We'd lose most of our SMEs, and important articles would be edited by a handful of random passers-by. No thanks. bobrayner (talk) 09:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Please note that Senkaku Islands is currently subject to ArbCom sanctions; actions towards renaming or requesting a rename of the page are forbidden until 2013. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Bobrayner, you should appreciate a problem spotted by a passer-by. You should weed out any bad-apples in close-circles.

I know it is hard. But facts should over-weight emotions. Check into it, if you wish to give a solid opinion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starrage (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest only refers to cases where people have an intimate personal or economic interest in a subject. That is obviously not the case here (unless, say, Nihonjoe worked for the Japanese government, or something similar). As bobrayner pointed out, merely having an interest in a subject does not fall under COI. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict of interest or collusion going on here. All appears appropriate and in line with the ArbCom ruling. --Hu12 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The timing of the article protections was simply a coincidence. There are very clear article editing guidelines and sanctions spelled out on the talk page. As far as I know or can recall, I haven't had much, if any, interaction with Klilidiplomus here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. This just appears to be a nationalistic attack because I enforced the status quo regarding this dispute. I don't work for Japan, nor do I always side with the Japanese in these disputes. There is certainly enough blame in these discussions to be spread fairly evenly among all those countries involved. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nestor Capoeira

Just spotted this in browsing by chance, martial arts author has reinserted his own bio. He is actually notable from Google Books, but it needs someone from WikiProject Martial arts to edit the article down. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

happily, it appears to have been taken care of by Qworty. I suspect there is no need to template the talk unless the editor in question pops up again... Fayedizard (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Homer-Dixon

I'm a WP:BLPN volunteer and have come across what I think is a rather obvious conflict of interest problem around the article Thomas Homer-Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Jbghewer (talk · contribs). The COI is very clear in this edit summary. The editor in question has admitted the conflict of interest, but has persisted in editing. Recently, a re-puffed version of the Homer-Dixon article has appeared. It seems the user acknowledges the COI but proceeds "carefully [while] in discussion re possible COI" by expanding the article fivefold. I'm inclined to revert because of BLP problems with his sources; I posted on BLPN regarding this. In general, I think he should desist altogether. I'm wondering if someone here would agree. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Some eyes needed at Michael C. Seto, please?

Hi, folks.

I have a long and difficult history with an editor at Michael C. Seto. In order to avoid the predictable conflict, we could use some eyes to read over that article, make whatever needed edits, and input on the COI-tag on that page. The failed AfD from the other editor is here.

Thanks.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that both you and Jokestress should not be making bold changes to the page. You appear to work with the subject of the article, and Jokestress maintains an attack site seemingly against you, the institute you work for and the subject of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
That is quite reasonable. I list on my userpage the mainpages I don't edit and my long-standing invitation to user:Jokestress to do the same. Any help convincing her would save a lot of disruption.
Do you have any suggestions regarding the edits proposed on the talkpage or the tag on the main page?
— James Cantor (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"widely sought after" is a weasel, and I don't see anything in the source to justify it. I haven't looked at the others. A wikipedia article should take a neutral tone when discussing things. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Consumers Distributing

Canadian company Consumers Distributing went bankrupt in 1996; IP keeps adding unsourced spam content about the brand being revived by someone who now owns the name; opening discussion here in lieu of edit warring. (I made a brief, failed attempt to rewrite the content rather than simply revert, but I can't find a decent source that backs up any claims made). Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Update: the IP has made a legal threat on my user page... Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Reverted and IP given a final warning. Legal threat should be reported to WP:ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll get on it. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
IP blocked for making legal threats, but the user now appears to be editing as Consumers2011 (talk · contribs). Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Consumers2011 (talk · contribs) reported to WP:UAA.--ukexpat (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert Stuart

Edit warring and apparent conflict of interest regarding a painting by Gilbert Stuart, once credited as a portrait of Jean Baptiste Casmiere Breschard. Editor has used Wikipedia for long-term promotion of an agenda, namely hectoring the National Gallery for altering the subject's attribution, synthesizing sources to promote original research, claiming a debate where none has been published. The Stuart talk page discussion sheds light [1]. JNW (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Laurence Cox

The editor is an editor of Interface: a journal for and about social movements [2], and has been adding links to his journal in numerous articles: [3][4] etc etc, and continued to do so after warnings User_talk:Laurence_Cox#May_2012 [5], seemingly without disclosing his conflict of interest in any of the discussions. He confirmed his COI here: User_talk:IRWolfie-/Archive_4#Religion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland.

I'm looking for agreement that Laurence has a COI in adding links to his Journal into various wikipedia articles, and that he should not do so at any point. I also propose adding the COI notice to the Journal article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  • The guy has been a spamming mastermind at promoting himself with inappropriate links to himself and his magazine throughout Wikipedia. I just spent half an hour trying to strip a lot of them out, and there are still more to be gotten rid of. He should be permanently blocked for this. His only purpose on Wikipedia is to promote himself and his barely notable magazine. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if there's a problem here; this is the first I've heard about it. There was a discussion re the Religion in the ROI article; I edited it for the simple reason that having organised the only academic conference to date on new and migrant religions in Ireland and edited the book I am probably the only person active on WP in a position to add references to any published academic material on the topic. It's not an uncommon problem in what is a very small field, and causes problems for us in the area of peer review. I had understood IRWolfie's comment in May to relate to this.

Interface is a separate case: it is an online *journal*, which as one of the editors I do not think of as a website - if I cite a reference to an article in the journal (which has the merit of being the only *open-access* journal in social movement studies, and therefore a point of reference which can actually be looked at by people without university subscriptions) I think of that as an article not a website. I can see why it might look differently from WP, and if putting in such refs is a problem I don't have a problem not doing so.

I should also say that the Interface entry has been the target of what feels a lot like harassment from this end, and has been variously whittled down and scribbled on in red ink to the point where I wonder if there is any point in contributing to Wikipedia. I appreciate that like academia it has its own standards to maintain, but the level of sheer rudeness and aggressivity is pretty offputting. In universities too people breach rules as beginning writers, but good practice (in journal editing, for example) is to say it to them gently rather than in the tones of Qworty's comments. My brief response would be to say that my "only purpose on Wikipedia" is to disseminate knowledge on areas where I happen to actually know something by virtue of being part of the research processes that generate publications in specific areas.

This is a fairly normal situation for WP contributors, I think. It might perhaps not be obvious that for academics where we actually get rewards is for our scholarly publications. Time spent working on WP is not time which brings career or monetary rewards. My experiences over the last couple of years would certainly make me question whether it is at all pointful to contribute to WP on any area on which I actually have scholarly expertise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.97.255 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  • You are a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. Please read both those policies carefully and in their entirety, and then retire forever from violating them. The reason some editors may have been brusque with you in the past is because you are treating Wikipedia as your personal, free web hosting service, in order to promote your online magazine. This is a violation of our policies. If you want your own website, go out and buy one. Your violations of WP:COI constitute disruption, and make you eligible for an editing block. Qworty (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "retire forever from violating them"? What kind of language is that? The biggest problem I see here is WP:BITE/WP:AGF violation on your part. Please refactor and apologize for this comment, or I will escalate this into investigation of how you treat new editors; this comment is among the most appalling treatments of new editors I've seen (and LC is obviously new and inexperience, despite his few years of occasional editing; my remark here is not about his edits and potential mistakes, but your clear violation of our rules and spirit). You talk about a block; if this is how you treat other editors, I certainly see a potential block needed, but it is not on Lawrence. You mistakenly (pejoratively...) refer to a peer-reviewed academic journal as "magazine", and your link removal was often inappropriate; a journal special edition on Arab Spring seems appropriate in the Arab Spring article ([6]), you removed a blibliographic entry here, you removed the link to one of few academic journals in the social movement studies form the social movement page ([7]). Just three links I checked, and all three edits of you were disruptive.
    • Now, sure, Lawrence may have some COI in promoting his journal. Well, let's be frank, he does have a COI. He should at the very least disclose this properly on his userpage, and I think this was mentioned before (if I am right, shame on you, Lawrence, for not doing that yet!). As an editor with COI, you should also pay attention and log in, rather than edit as IP when the COI may be relevant. But having reviewed few more diffs, I don't see a problem; editors are allowed to edit in COI areas, as long as their edits are constructive, and Lawrence edits, to me, were mostly helpful (I see a lot of linking of relevant special issues in articles, ex. [8]). The only problem I see is if an article is suffering from an elink overload, and in such case, the issue should be discussed on case-by-case basis on article's talk page (and I'd argue that an academic, peer reviewed special issue is usually quite a reliable external link). On the final note, I'd certainly like to see Lawrence do some edits that would fall outside any COI link-adding, such as actually contribute content. This is, however, just a suggestion, not a requirement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but there is no chance an escalation will do anything but backfire for the waste of time it would be. He edited his journal for the only reason that he is the editor. He shouldn't be spamming his journal into different articles when he has a COI; it doesn't matter if it's relevant to the topic, he's promoting his own work because he has a vested interest in doing so; there are possibly many other superior links and sources which were available, but he choose Interface because he's the editor and has a big conflict of interest. Editors with a COI insert their links into articles they think are relevant, or they try to use them as sources wherever possible; it's targeting the right market. There is no acceptable excuse for it and I'm rather baffled that you don't see a problem with someone blatantly adding links with a conflict of interest, and instead rather choose to defend his insertion of links to his journal. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if it's relevant to the topic - of course it does; it is THE PRIMARY THING THAT MATTERS. We are here to build an encyclopedia; everything else is secondary (WP:IAR comes to mind, but even the sad excuse for a policy that COI is states that "COI editing is strongly discouraged." - not forbidden, and can lead to sanctions only if " editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia", which has not been the case). COI is only a problem if it is damaging to this project. If somebody has a COI yet makes constructive edits, it's not a problem. COI reviewers should focus on reviewing content; if it is disruptive, escalation to blocks can be helpful, but if it is not, than hounding of editors like seen here is what's really disruptive. Again, it would be nice to see that Lawrence would edit something other than just Interface-related topics, but as long as his edits in this area are constructive, there is no problem. And in no case COI gives an editor the right to say to others "go away, you don't belong here". Anybody who says so is doing grievous harm to this project themselves. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You've focussed on the first thing I said and ignored everything else; he is adding links to his journal to relevant topics because it generates more relevant hits to his website; every person with a COI who link spams does it to topics which they can tenuously make a connection to. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
He has added links to less than ten articles, and most of them to the articles that are clearly connected to the journal theme. It's one thing if somebody spams a for-profit links, it's another if somebody adds links of a peer reviewed journal. Sure, there's some COI here, but it's a good type of COI. Linking peer reviewed journals and articles relevant to the topic is constructive, and if it is done by the journal editor, I see no problem with it (although again Lawrence should have declared his COI on his userpage). I have reviewed the addition of the links and I support it in most cases. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have made substantial contributions to the small journal in question. Can you please disclose your connection to Laurence Cox. I now see why you didn't mind the links, they advertise your paper: [9]. Nice COI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
So, I see you decided to attack my person, rather than acknowledge or address my arguments. Seems like an expected development, sigh. That's not my paper, btw, that's a book review. As I declare on my userpage, I am a sociologist. A professional academic. I publish in a number of academic journals. I have never linked my own papers on Wikipedia, but I certainly don't believe there is any COI when a scholar from a field of x contributes to the articles related to this field. As you may now, scholars don't get paid for journal publications, and their work is peer reviewed and thus quite reliable. Adding links to relevant journal publication to Wikipedia articles is a clearly constructive form of editing, and once again I see nothing disruptive in what Lawrence has done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Attack the person? That you actually contribute to this very small and obscure journal that has few publications a year isn't a given. Maybe it would be nice if you had noted that some of the links removed contained links to your review. Please disclose your personal connection to Laurence Cox, or do I need to google for that as well? Your opinions about what is a COI in this case are worthless since you have a COI yourself. After saying that I attacked your person, you had the brazen audacity to complain at the current AfD that editors "have developed a rather strong personal dislike towards this journal", which is completely attacking those who disagree with you. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I have no personal connection to Lawrence. Unlike you, as it seems you've developed quite a dislike towards him, thus I could argue you not only violate BITE, but COI :> Seriously, your comments here are a violation of AGF, NPA, CIV, BITE... this letter soup is really getting to the point I think you should strongly reconsider if your involvement in this topic is indeed in the spirit of collaboration and encyclopedia building. Perhaps rather than discussing editors, you may want to take a short break and create some content? PS. I restored that link because it is relevant to the article topic, not because it has my tiny book review in it (I didn't even remember it was published in that issue). In any case, as I said before, I don't believe that academics have a COI, as we are not getting paid for publications (and anyway, do you know what "open content" means?). Ditto for editors, who don't get paid, either (and certainly not in the open content case as in the case of Lawrence and the Interface). We are promoting reliable, peer reviewed content because we are experts on that subject, and we decided to help Wikipedia, even through contributions here don't count at all towards tenure. There's no COI here. It's a simple as that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, COI does not require financial or professional conflicts. It can be a matter of topical promotion where there is any personal connection, even among experts and academics. COIs are difficult to appreciate especially for the people who have them; those apparently in a COI are in the worst position to evaluate their own conflict. And it doesn't matter if someone doesn't believe academics have a COI generally; they in fact can and often do. I've found many who cite to their own work and their colleagues' work and don't see a problem with it. The fact that they don't acknowledge the problem doesn't serve to diminish it. BTW, a strong personal dislike may be evidence of bias, but rarely rises to a conflict of interest because the personal connection is simply an opinion of another. JFHJr (㊟) 18:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Accounts
Laurence Cox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
109.77.97.255 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
88.104.15.65 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This whole thread is a couple users freaking out over nothing. I hate to say it but basically it looks like they're taking pleasure in piling on on a new and inexperienced user (who might have a COI here, but was upfront about it). Calling the editor "a spamming mastermind" is such over the top hyperbole that it clearly illustrates that the majority of the problem is with some of the users behind this report rather than Laurence. Likewise, any comments which disagree with Qworty and IRWolfie have been met with immediate attacks and accusations. These two users in particular have acted in a very non-professional - not so say rude and obnoxious - manner here. A bit of a WP:BOOMERANG (in a form of a warning) might be warranted. Volunteer Marek  18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I have notified an admin about this thread. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Although I have a reputation for being draconian about COI, my inclination is to suggest that we close this discussion with no formal action, but to ask Lawrence to keep to his commitment above, "if putting in such refs is a problem I don't have a problem not doing so". I wish both sides would take a fresh look at WP:NPA, with new eyes as it were, as both sides of this particularly obnoxious discussion involve highly productive editors I would hate to lose. Is this acceptable to all parties? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's what I was initially looking for (and a COI notice on the article talkpage). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
and I would remind Lawrence that the way to have such links inserted if they are relevant is to suggest them on the article talk p, disclosing the COI. If they are relevant, another editor will then add them. People sometimes add such COI links in good faith, but it can be impossible to distinguish from spamming, and it serves as a red flag here. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Talk page is a good suggestion. I still wish Lawrence would actually take part in this discussion, it is a bit ironic that all of this storm in the teacup might have totally passed him by. But perhaps it was for the best, considering that (IMHO) this thread might reached the harassment levels that might have well made him abandon this project altogether. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wärtsilä

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

Tag is currently in place, and I didn't see it placed or removed with a quick glance at the recent history. If issues continue, you can always request semi-protection over here. --Nouniquenames 14:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I just removed some copyvio text - definitely adverty, but I don't see any evidence of COI (which in this context, generally requires someone to admit it) - it does need someone to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of the article... It's just finding the time :( Fayedizard (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

User:InsightPR

Resolved

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

InsightPR (talk · contribs) blocked as a WP:SPAMNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
This appears to have been dealt with — anyone object to a close? Fayedizard (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Microsemi

Resolved

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

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

Now User:Bpq has admitted to working for the company. At what point do we put a copywrite Microsemi Inc. notice on the page? Hcobb (talk)

Gorilla Glass

Resolved

Hello. This editor:

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

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

Thanks. I cannot see much evidence that you've tried to discuss this with Maurojc before coming here. I've read through what info I can find in the talk pages, reworded the disputed section, and dropped a note to Maurojc. We'll see what this brings. In fairness, I can see Corning's POV here; they do not see GG as being the same as CG, and so object to the assertion that it's been sitting around since 1960 doing nothing. Equally, I can see the rest of the word POV which is, it doesn't matter what you call it nor whether the composition has changed slightly, it's still the same thing. It all smacks of counting angels on the heads of pins; best to be routed around. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
So, that ended badly for Maurojc, who registered a sockpuppet, refused to talk about the edit despite much encouragement, and got himself & his sock blocked. I've spoken to him by email subsequently, and he indicates that he will not try to change the article again. For my part I expressed the hope that he would come back and discuss the article with a view to reaching consensus. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests

I would like to bring attention to and request assistance regarding some fairly benign request edits: [13][14][15]

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

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

User: Luke-Jr

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

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

  • Note. This all smells like an attempt of gaming the system to me. I doubt anyone ever intended COI to imply developers of X are disallowed from making edits to X at all. HowardStrong, on the other hand, seems to be trying to push for a change to the standard BTC symbol via Wikipedia. --Luke-Jr (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Note. I have not. I have accepted the symbol that only you have claimed as standard though. B⃦ is your invention and google will show that. --HowardStrong (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article and these two editors have a checkered history, including reports at WP:ANEW and at WP:ANI ([16]). There appears to be some forum shopping, although Howard did not bring the EW reports, only the ANI report. I tend to agree that Howard appears to be using boards to advance his preferred version of the article. Procedurally, at least, Howard has not behaved well in his editing of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. My behavior is irrelevant. Luke-Jr has attempted to be a major force in this article as a developer with no initial discussion. I always leave discussion up for my major edits. I am open to having them questioned and removed. Luke-Jr hardly ever discusses his preferred changes on the talk page.--HowardStrong (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

dotConnectAfrica (again)

For the general information of the board. a PR statement on behalf of dotConnectAfrica appeared in the last seven days

The previous threads on this board are Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_59#DotConnectAfrica and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_59#DotConnectAfrica_2.

I'm posting here because a) all the relevant details should end up on this board at some point and b) this is the first COI I've been involved with that has off-wiki correspondence and I'm unsure of the what next action would be.Fayedizard (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Lisamcgrillis

The User:Lisamcgrillis appears to have a conflict of interest on the Lisa McGrillis she (or maybe he) isn't reponding to questions on the Lisa McGrillis talk page and also not on the talk page of the account. also there are questions about if she is the real Lisa McGrillis or not Redalert2fan (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The user has been notified and hopefully will make their way over here at some point (they asked a question at the help desk today. Can I assume we sit on this until the open deletion discussion closes? Fayedizard (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Good to hear that she asked for help (finaly), we will wait until she responds Redalert2fan (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Keyblade5

This user inserted references to papers by a research into a number of articles this morning. At least some are probably relevant, but others appear to be less than ideal RS. Would any editors more familiar with the field be interested in taking a look? a13ean (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Theatre Royal Stratford East

More eyes requested on this article, which had been static for some time when first one IP, then Stratfordeast, then the other IP began adding large amounts of promotional-style material, some at least copied from the theatre's website. I have semi-protected for 24 hours, reverted to the pre-COI version, and written a long explanation of copyvio, COI, NPOV, Wikipedia-is-not-your-noticeboard etc to Stratfordeast, suggesting he change his username and inviting him to propose changes to the article on the talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Colin_Turner_(author)

Resolved

I have checked the latest version, updated ISBN details, there is nothing to suggest this article needs deleting. There is no evidence of self-promotion only genuine information with updated information of ISBN'S and titles published by foreign publishers. RoniTurner (User RoniTurner) 9th October 2012 11.59 —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roni - thank you for getting in touch, it's always much easier when people do, and I'm sure you can help us - the problem here is not do much that the needs to be evidence to delete the article - it's more that we're not able to find any evidence that the article should have existed in the first place... it's really hard to find sources that back up any of the claims in the article - can you give us details of books that arn't self published for example? Or more attention in the media (The scotsman article is a start but it's really not enought on it's own)? Fayedizard (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)





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

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

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

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

Tomorrow's Company

Resolved

User:Clare500 is busily making edits to the article Tomorrow's Company which are written partly in a first-person style, and which have the overall effect of making the article into a press release for the company. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick search of the user's additions reveal that they are blatant copyvios from the company's website. I'll warn them about that. --Drm310 (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The article was speedy deleted but then recreated by the editor listed. It's up for speedy again and because the editor has failed to respond to notices, I think a block is in order. --Drm310 (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
And now the editor has deleted the speedy tag; someone else nom'd it for AfD. --Drm310 (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Now the page has been deleted and salted temporarily. I'm going to quit doing a play-by-play! --Drm310 (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sulake

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

One more thing - after waking up and having a more sane mind, I found that the editor copied information from Sulake's own website (especially http://www.sulake.com/press/awards/ and the profiles for each of their games)... This might mean that he doesn't work for Sulake, and it might be a slightly more innocent case of copying directly from the Internet, by an unaffiliated third party. Maybe he's just out to make the world a less critical place or something. Definitely doesn't rule out COI though. I copied (cross-posted) this message from GSK's talk page. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
So...--GSK ● talk ● evidence 16:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This one could use a lot more eyes, so I'm hoping other editors will go have a look. User:Michaels541 is a WP:SPA with an evident WP:COI who is determined to put unsourced material into the article and delete well-sourced material. Since he is an inexperienced user, the consensus of experienced editors is required in this matter. Qworty (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reported this user to WP:AIV. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
  • For the moment I have blocked Michaels541 for three days for disruptive editing of various kinds, including removing this section from this page. However, I am by no means convinced that this will be the end of the matter, so if anyone else has any contributions to make I don't think they should hold off because of the current block. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe this will be the end of the issue either. I'll continue to watch the Habbo and Sulake articles, especially for any sockpuppet behavior. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
(I hope I can still do this without a pseudonym. Please say if I need to register to give my opinion.) His unwillingness to open a meaningful discussion proves to me that this isn't a slightly more innocent case of copying directly from the Internet as I thought earlier. In addition to this, the aggressive edit warring proves this further in my eyes. I have nothing against actions taken so far against him. I'll continue keeping an eye on proceedings, as I've been requested to do. --86.5.226.63 (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I've registered for a pseudonym now :) I am 86.5.226.63. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bad B*tch Club

Resolved

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

"20:30, 29 September 2012 Orangemike (talk | contribs) deleted page Bad B*tch Club (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad B*tch Club)"[17] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Stefan Kanchev

Subject is dead; not sure whether editor of the same name is an heir/descendant, or just a big fan. Fawning descriptions from texts, fulsome praise: a hagiography. Sadly, I don't read Bulgarian, so I don't know to what extent this is cherry-picking from the sources. Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article[18] to tone it down a bit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Anthony Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

  • When I saw how he's been wikihounding and harassing you, I almost became physically ill. I have trimmed a lot of the WP:PEACOCK and unsourced assertions from his article and restored the vandalized tags, and have also taken him to AN/I on your behalf [19]. Please do not remove any of his edits from your talk page, so that the admins can see just how vicious he has been. I feel very sorry that you have had to suffer all of this. I will continue to monitor the situation. Qworty (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents here (without having read much of the above discussion). Cooper is notable as an author, but the page Douglas Anthony Cooper is too long; the article would be improved by shortening it considerably. I imagine the articles about books would have problems too. Also, people please learn to sign your posts, and use proper formating (indenting).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
JohnDopp, given the amount of time and energy you spend on Facebook railing against no kill and anyone who supports it, it's safe to assume that your issue with this author, who supports no kill, is probably not about his notability or the integrity of wikipedia. The notability issue has already been discussed. Ad nauseam. Drop it. You are wasting people's time with your disingenuous flag and this inane conversation. If you don't want to feel harrassed, stop harrassing others. Atelantix (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The *only* action I've taken was the inclusion of the notability tag on his bio article, which was not unreasonable and was not motivated by malice. I've commented on one of Cooper's blogs in the past, and for some reason, he now thinks I'm a "PETA thug" who's out to get him. At no time have I harassed him, and I've tried from the start to resolve this dispute amicably and impartially. I've certainly done nothing to warrant the outing of my personal information or the personal attacks that were launched at me, no matter how the subject of the article feels about my personal life or the content of my Facebook posts.
And if you'll note, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the no-kill debate. I've made very few edits to no-kill topics: it's not my focus. (Not that it's relevant, but I support no-kill efforts, I just question some of the methods of achieving those goals. And equally irrelevant, I do NOT work for PETA or any other animal welfare organization. The paranoid delusion that I'm some Terminator for PETA who's out to get Cooper for his support of no-kill is getting a little disturbing. Write your little article, Mr. Cooper, but keep Wikipedia neutral and factual, please.)
In the meantime, my thanks to those with cooler heads who have stepped in to improve the article. JohnDopp (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


I imagine JohnDopp agrees with me that it's in everyone's best interests to see this decided very soon. He is not opposed to No Kill, as he says, and if the article remains tagged, then it casts doubt upon Cooper's work, and even more importantly upon the on-going critique of shelter killing. This makes Wikipedia a vehicle for propaganda, and nobody wants that.
If the entry on Douglas Cooper is removed as insufficiently notable that would be fine. If its neutrality is approved and he is considered notable then that's also fine. It's the in-between state that makes Wikipedia a tool for people who wish to discredit the No Kill movement, and as I said, nobody here including JohnDopp wants to see that.
I have to say that Cooper is one of the most honest writers I've read, and a man's profession is being slandered. I think we all agree that this needs to be resolved immediately. We either lift those flags or take the articles down.
I'm glad that cooler heads have prevailed, and I think this could be decided very quickly. Has the entry even been submitted for proper review, so that a definitive decision can be made? Can I do it myself? Those tags discredit both Mr. Cooper and No Kill, and I think we all agree that Wikipedia should not be taking sides in an important debate about animal welfare. CandaceWare (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare
This doesn't appear to me to be "an important debate about animal welfare" at all. It appears to be a debate as to whether Douglas Anthony Cooper meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines which would justify us having an article about him. I suggest that all concerned address that issue, which is the only relevant one here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Would anyone mind/think it was a good idea, if I took a swing at the article as an uninvolved editor? Fayedizard (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Please ping me on my talk if you choose to do so while the AfD is open. It would likely change my vote there to have an uninvolved, experienced editor working it. --Nouniquenames 05:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I have smacked the article around a little bit... (looking at the history it appears I ran over John in the process - apologies) I've also proposed merging Amnesia_(novel) into the article and comments on this would be welcome. Ideally it could probably do with *another* uninvolved editor looking over my shoulder, but I'm pretty done now.Fayedizard (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly much improved. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Follow-ups

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

Speaking as an admin having dealt with this article for a very long time, and having dealt with subject both then and now, I do not think an SPI will be either productive or in our interests. It will all be forgotten and back to normal when the AfD is over. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd love to see what an SPI/CU would show. That said, I'm not convinced of socking necessarily, so the best we could find would be meatpuppets. Given that, zzuuzz may be on to something. --Nouniquenames 14:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Four of the individuals in question are known to me personally, and I can say with assurance that they are meatpuppets here specifically at Cooper's request; I do not personally believe that anyone involved in the editing of the article is a sockpuppet, despite the rampant WP:COI. I'm inclined to agree with zzuuzz: this will likely blow over once the AfD is closed. We've got a pretty solid consensus for "keep" now thanks to the cleanup (and a grateful tip of the hat to Fayedizard for the most recent work), the meatpuppets are losing interest, and the original concerns about the article have largely been resolved. Let's stick a fork in it. Regarding COI concerns on the HSUS pages, I'm happy to have another set of eyes look over my edits. I have considerable expertise with the history of the HSUS and its opposition groups and have a reputation for being outspoken and active on these topics on the internet, but I am not employed by or affiliated with any animal welfare organization, including HSUS. I do maintain a blog at humanewatch.info dedicated to confronting an opposition group, but I have not referenced that site in any way on Wikipedia and have endeavored to keep all my edits neutral and encyclopedic. If you believe I've strayed outside those guidelines or that my status as a blog owner warrants a COI disclosure, please let me know. I'm still finding my footing as an editor, and I welcome any feedback that helps me to improve. Thanks! -- JohnDopp (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
John, if you are involved with humanewatch.info then you have a very clear COI with respect to the Center for Consumer Freedom and I see you have made at least one problematic edit with respect to that organization. This conflict of interest would obviously extend to material on that organization in other articles, Humane Society of the United States for instance. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Two things. 1: It was referenced. 2: You appear to be a {{spa}}. We've been having a grand old time sitting around the campfire and singing kumbaya. Please either disclose your own COI (or POV, if you prefer) or avoid re-opening this wonderful barrel of fun. It's already been through this venue, AfD (closed), ANI, and a SPI (still open). --Nouniquenames 05:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. I am clearly not an SPA. I have no COI or even POV in this area, and I can't see how you can possibly conclude that from my edits. Referenced edits can obviously be problematic, as that one was. I am not trying to reopen anything, just addressing an obvious issue that should have been pointed out by the regulars here. Nothing more needs to be said other than that JohnDopp should follow WP:COI with respect to edits relating to the Center for Consumer Freedom. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I apologise if my glance at the 20 contributions attributed to your IP address led me to an incorrect assumption. --Nouniquenames 16:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I'll accept your non-apology. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

hmm... Nouniquenames - just because the IP isn't quite familiar with the nuance of wikipedia's policies doesn't mean that they don't have a point. ...and also, given the amount of fairly heated debate on this I'd like to put the loose ends though the right sort of process. IP - we try not to bite newbies, apologies if you're feeling bitten - but we've had quite a lot of people straightforwardly lying over this issue so it's difficult for us to trust the word of anyone new - we'll do our best to keep things straightforward.

So here's what I think should happen - we've had a bunch of stuff on and off-wiki that suggested a COI for John - so it would be nice to put the process though properly and then we can put the whole thing to bed. So I'm going to open a new thread at the bottom of the page - with the details that the IP just mentioned - we can have a polite conversation about it and either end up template the pages in question or not. I'd rather avoid leaving wikipedia open to the charge that the accusations against John were ignored simply because John was eloquent Fayedizard (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what nuance of policy do you believe my comment lacks? -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also relevent

I think it's useful to have some signposts around in case this comes up in a couple of years and people are searching the archives.

Fayedizard (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, following the ANI discussion, CandaceWare has started informal mentorship. --Nouniquenames 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Dorfman

The article was written and expanded by user:Lamerkhav he put various personal pictures[21] in the article that are not freely available hence I have put a COI tag .The user dispute this[22].I like community input of this matter.Also it would be good if someone could cleanup the article. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the gallery as it is in appropriate for a bio article - this isn't Facebook.--ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough Lamerkhav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The picture gallery was taken from the [23] that freely available

and this link was in the article from 2007 and it can be found in the Russian version of the article of the subject [24]. Lamerkhav (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


I don't have any close relations to the subject, nor any bias toward it. I met him twice in 1998 and 1998 in Israel in the youth club "Lamerkhav" in Beer-Sheva. This is where I got my nickname. I have his e-mail, and I asked him about some details in the article, but this doesn't meet the criteria of COI by any means. I gave biLamerkhav (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

And sorry guys, I was a contributor mostly in the Russian Wiki [25] In August, I gave birth to my baby and I don't have much time for Wiki. Lamerkhav (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dominic H. Francisco

Editor(s) who appear to have a close connection to the subject have edited these related articles exclusively. Editor has been advised about COI but has not discussed. Has repeatedly removed maintenance templates after warning, and without discussion on talk or in edit summaries. The underlying issue is that the references supporting this music career all appear to be self-published; I have tried, but failed, to find any reliable secondary sources. I have concerns about verifiability and notability. Comments from other editors welcome. – Wdchk (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My revision of maintenance tags was also reverted without edit summary or discussion. I am not going to revert again, but this could use help. Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 03:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the discography for deletion on the grounds that it almost entirely replicates content in the article. And I also nominated one of the albums for non-notability. I'd like to see how those get on. I've looked though the contributions and, although the usename is COIish, I don't see a way of distinguishing this editor from a fan -is there something I'm missing? Fayedizard (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
No, I don't think you're missing anything. We have the username, editing behavior and a non-response when the possible COI was raised twice by different editors. It could be argued that verifiability and notability are greater concerns in this case than COI, so I too considered AfD but decided to bring it here first to get some more opinions. – Wdchk (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
FYI - The remaining articles have been nominated for deletion here.Fayedizard (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Inmantec

Numerous spammy, directory-style and copyvio edits from "asst dean" of this school. I've reverted a lot of stuff already; in lieu of edit warring, I invite other editors to take a look. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Question

Since my COI is declared and confirmed, should this discussion be moved here?

Cantaloupe2 has made some mass deletions[26][27] on articles where I have helped the company contribute with a COI, where I would have been willing to improve the article based on his feedback. Additionally he removed an image that went through proper OTRS copyright channels[28]. His tone and editing behavior seems to suggest he sort of has it out for me, but his feedback is not entirely unreasonable and - like any Wikipedia article - the articles could use improvement.

I am not in communication with these organizations and don't have an active COI, but I do want to defend and improve the articles. Some like NetBase were written a year-and-a-half ago and would have been better if I wrote them today and some of his trimming is warranted. OTOH, I'm not interested in going through a six-month {{request edit}} process for year-old projects. Would it be Kosher for me to revert his mass deletions, improve and ask for feedback? What should I do? It doesn't seem like there is an opportunity for a reasonable collaboration with Cant, a relatively new editor with a confrontational approach to things. Corporate 16:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is inappropriate that you blatantly disregard Wikipedia policies and start his discussion on me without notifying me as you're required to do so per WP:COIN. For someone with your level of experience and calling me for "relatively new" you should know that this in unacceptable.
1.)verifiability through reliable, independent sourcesis expected. 2.) Simply because the verifiability criteria are met doesn't mean they should be included. Many references you cite come from disreputable sources, verbatim publication of subject's own press release, personal websites, blogs, etc. In HubSpot you utilized bombardment to make it seem as if they're more notable and important than they really are. Many references were disreputable or originated from the HubSpot itself. Company pages on Wikipedia is not a private space for their PR agent to WP:PROMO as they wish. If you do not like what I have to do, I suggest you start an RfC seeking outside opinion, as I have done in at least one case.
Cherry picking flattering facts to exhibit about company and adding many buzzwords to raise the article's search engine results page status in favor of your clients is a clear conflict of interest.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think (hope) that Cantaloupe and I have found a reasonable agreement for civility and AGF on our respective Talk pages. He is actually making a lot of neutrality tweaks I appreciate, in particular to articles I wrote years ago that were not very good. We may still have a few bumps to work out, but I think we will be able to work them out and in fact he will help improve a lot of my prior works. Corporate 17:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin action per Civil, AGF, Hound

I am afraid this matter is not resolved and I believe needs admin intervention. I believe that user:Cantaloupe2 has a WP:COI with Wikipedia, because his aim is to use the site as an outlet for his animosity against the field of search engine optimization, which is often – but not always – incompatible with our aim to create a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.

To show you what I mean, he has a habit of making extremely speculative and often insulting accusations of COI to myself and other editors and article-subjects, usually under the pretext of presumed corrupt behavior or conspiracy around SEO.[29][30][31] He has made comments like “SEO is basically the art of self-promotion and referencing each other,” accused me of using Wikipedia for SEO and other strange ramblings on the subject.[32] He has been very aggressive in urging for deletion of SEOmoz[33] based mostly on confrontational arguments. His aims to use Wikipedia against SEO have also resulted in some helpful edits, where he has deleted a large number of spam links and references.

I have asked Cantaloupe to stop coming to my Talk page “looking for argument”[34] Another example was ”Cantaloupe, I have no desire to argue with you or defend myself against a barrage of accusatory questions. Please consider our discussion over and leave my Talk page.” Another one was “If you are willing to adjust your conduct as I have requested, you are welcome back to my Talk page as long as you are WP:Civil, assume good faith and avoid speculative questions, assumptions and accusation, etc.”[35] I have also posted a polite civility warning on his Talk page[36] asked him to read WP:HOUND[37] and recommended we pursue conflict resolution.

I believe Cant has used my COI disclosure, as well as the COI disclosure of User:Dennis Bratland, as a means to forgoe AGF and attack editors, creating a hostile environment and is using his editing privilege as means to stalk and target me. For several days, almost ALL of his contribs were directed at me or articles I have edited, shortly following his non-civil/AGF behavior.

I have become uncomfortable editing anywhere, due to the expectation of pouncing from this editor, so I have temporarily semi-retired until this is resolved. I would like to request a topic block on editing in areas where the editor is most likely to be confrontational and unlikely to be neutral due to his wp:COI, such as SEO topics and COI editors/accusations. Corporate 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not used to have all my edit contributions to go into my watch list and after going through complainants' contributions, it has come to my attention that it appears that he has been following me around and doing complete or sometimes stealthy reverts under my radar on articles that we were not involved in together as if he's making a passive aggressive retaliation. I created a noticeboard message in the past on him and I have notified him accordingly. He, in retaliation created the prior discussion on a noticeboard without notifying me in direct violation of requirement to notify involved editors. I don't have time ATM, but I will post what I think are his WP:HOUND retaliatory reversions. Please allow some time to collect evidence. For the edits I make, I've made attempts to leave comments on talk page. The complainant usually does not. I would like to request topic block on the complainant on areas where he's likely to add promotional materials which has been the cause of dispute. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm denying the allegation that I'm in "conflict of interest" with Wikipedia. I'm also in denial regarding his accusations against me regarding the AfD on the article SEOMoz.org which he has been following around. I find to be within reasonable behavior guideline to advance my stance and support with relevant WP guidelines.
Below are what I feel to be inappropriate vindictive retaliation by the complainant:
Not that either of us "own" any article, but I must defend myself against your claim of WP:HOUND It's my belief that the complainant is reacting to something they don't like by contentious retaliation and reversion sabotage.
I started working on this without any involvement of the complainant: he started following me around in the article & AfD SEOmoz.org and I am making a counter-claim for WP:HOUND.
  1. Complainant followed me back over 18months and reverted my contrib in part here
  2. Complainant went back and restored original research contents from questionable source that I edited in August 2011 here without leaving any edit summary.
  3. Complainant did the same here following me all the way back to August 2011 here
  4. Complainant Following me back 13 months and reverting. here
  5. Complainant reverted this article on SEO claiming "SEOMOZ is arguably most reliable" and another editor revereted him right back. here
  6. I removed a long list of brand. He consulted another editor herewho was in agreement with me, he chose to revert anyways.
  7. Complainant covertly initiated a noticeboard complaint against me here with total disregard for the requirement to notify whom he is complaining against.
Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


  • A few comments: Disclaimer: I have had some discussions with Corporate in the past concerning COI (among other things). I have approved (in some cases modified versions of) edit requests he has made. Before that, he and I worked together in rebuilding the {{request edit}} stack (with some major help from other talented editors). Cantaloupe irritated me from the start (mostly by soome poor editing). Also, for simplicity, I have adjusted Cantaloupe2's post above to a contiguous numbered list instead of a bulleted list incorporating blank lines. His text is unchanged.
Corporate:
  • has made some less than stellar articles in the past (based solely on his own admission, I did not check to confirm this)
  • failed to notify cantaloupe2 of a COIN discussion (see above)
  • currently seems to go out of his way to ensure that edits are acceptable to the community via request edits
  • generally seems quite pleasant to deal with
Cantaloupe2:
  • has attempted to remove undesirable content
  • failed to notify an involved editor of this discussion (I have done so[38])
  • has apparently adopted an attitude of WP:ABF in relation to declared COI editors
  • has tagged improperly and against logic [39]
  • has removed a properly licensed and tagged image as non-free with the assumption that OTRS validation might be wrong (his explanation)
  • seems to have a BATTLEGROUND mentality, at least in some areas of the site.
As to the diffs provided by Cantaloupe2,
  1. Corporate should not have removed the tags. Now both editors have shown difficulty with tags on articles (albeit in polar opposite fashion)
  2. Not seeing the accusation substantiated by the diff provided
  3. Again not sbstantiated by the diff
  4. Cantaloupe2 blanked a page into a redirect (not necessarily a terrible thing). Talk page showed 2 editors considered most (but not all) content to be duplicated elsewhere. Non-duplicated content was simply dropped, apparently not merged anywhere. Corporate restored pre-redirect page (which seemed within policy, if nothing else a very dragged out BRD cycle). Nothing improper happened here on either side.
  5. Wording preferences, mostly, based on the diff. Also, BRD.
  6. The diff, again, doesn't really support what is claimed.
  7. Again, poor choice of diff if what is claimed is accurate.

I wouldn't be against some sort of sanction for Cantaloupe2, but COI may be difficult to prove if it exists. This may be a poor choice of forum. I'd love to see an IBAN in place. Unfortunately, that would require taking this to AN (or maybe ANI). Hopefully that will prove unnecessary. --Nouniquenames 04:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is relevant.

"I also noticed that your contributions show many instances of aggressive deletionism, in particular on important marketing topics, the type of articles I tend to contribute to. I have taken the liberty of restoring some of the content you have deleted previously on articles on marketing topics. Some of these restorations may be erroneous as well and I'm happy to talk about them." user:Corporate Minion

This is a far cry from WP:HOUND. I didn't realize there was such a thing as an interaction ban; that seems like an obvious choice, though I would ask it be with all COI editors to avoid hostility to others like User:Dennis Bratland. Corporate 13:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I also usually explain in talk page. Your reversions sometimes don't have any comments. You're making me feel like there's a higher burden of standards for removal than for removal as shown by "it might be erroneous". You're restoring it until discussed, where I might leave it removed. This is simply a difference of inclusionist vs deletionist attitude. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe it could be helpful to include the discussion you've been having in which you advised him that moving would be not advisable, because he would get accused of "forum shopping". User_talk:Nouniquenames#Cantaloupe2
When I removed the image, I noted that it was until verified. I had doubt on the proper permission based on prior instances of images uploaded by Corporate removed for non-free use. I was trying to verify it. He later asserted he had proper permission. That was the end of it. I agree it would have been another thing if I continued to remove it after he clarified it. Once he clarified, it was done deal.
"Cantaloupe has irritated me from beginning", "Corporate is generally pleasant". In my opinion these are unnecessary subjective comments.
Mentioning that I'm a "new editor" comes across as an attempt to discredit my as an editor and I find it contentious. [40]. He later stated he shouldn't have said it that way.(I don't have the diff handy, although if needed, I'll go dig it up). Perhaps I was snarky to him too, but I think civility issue here isn't single sided.
Some of his contents are based on "gut feel" and personal assumption of accuracy quoting his own words "Cantaloupe, you basically have it right, but these policies are often complex, require editorial judgement, involve nuance, etc. For example, I will not delete the history of Coty Inc. even though it's almost completely unsourced, because it's probably accurate and is informative for the reader." He'd prefer to leave it in and assume accurate with no ground, while I would probably prefer to remove it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
An interaction ban works both ways. I don't know how it works, but if we both agree to it voluntarily - that would make things rather easy. Can we mutually agree to an interaction ban and get someone to make it official? Corporate 13:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I did mention to Corporate that moving the discussion now might be seen as forum shopping and advised how best to anticipate that. That was in context of telling him that, in my opinion, this may not be the appropriate venue depending on his desired outcome. I also advised he notify everyone involved here, especially Cantaloupe2. (Full post available at [41].) As to an IBAN: if you both agree, it becomes a voluntary ban. Nobody has to make it official, just stay away from each other. --Nouniquenames 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
An IBAN seems like the obvious choice. Very little of our engagement has been in article-space and I would quickly abandon any content dispute to end our interaction. The best thing to do is for us to go our separate ways and avoid each other. I would like an admin to please consider my request for a mutual IBAN, instead of a topic ban. Corporate 12:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Since talk page is a personal space, Corporate should be granted his wish in his respect. As far as IBAN extending into articles, this would be giving Corporate full reign in adding whatever he wants while I have no ability to remove it. We should have the right to edit and defend our edits through article talk pages and seek third party intervention throuth RfC and other means. Restrictions on staying out of eachother's talk page is fair enough. Anything extending further, I do not agree. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The spillover in this edit you made is disruptive and uncalled for. It was a legitimate request for his input. He was chosen based on unbiased input he provided on a similar AfD. You came in and muddled it up with personal drama that has no place in this discussion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Cant reasonably and fairly notified me about the AfD he initiated; I am indeed interested in the area. I went there, and gave an unequivocal keep opinion quite specifically disagreeing with some specifics that Cant had said there. I have frequently discussed many related matters with Corp, often taking a rather different position, so it is reasonable and fair that he notify me also. Neither of them could have been sure in advance what I would say, there or here.
I do not think that Cant's views can exactly be described as COI -- he has the same interest in opposing the WP-related work of SEO's that we all have, including Corp, who has led a effort to discourage those in his field of PR from using such tactics here. I think what he may have meant is that Cant has such a degree of aversion to their work that he has a degree of prejudice or bias against articles about them, just as some people have such an aversion to --for example-- scientology, as to wish to reduce to a minimum our coverage of individual scientologists. And I certain do regard such aversion as bias, and have opposed it consistently whenever I can; I have done so quite strongly a few days ago on a totally unrelated matter at another forum. . "Prejudice" and "bias" are strong words, and i can understand Corp for trying to avoid them, and in the context of an interpersonal dispute, I would also. Perhaps it might be best seen as a failure of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
We all bring our personal bias' to Wikipedia (and do our best to manage them). Content disputes can be resolved by fair-minded, intelligent and reasonable editors. However, when an editor has an ongoing battleground mentality and uses their editing privileges to target an editor in repeated and ongoing civility violations, not only is there no means to resolve any content disputes, but it creates a hostile environment that discourages participating here at all.
Our "content disputes" are largely imaginary. We have not had any significant engagement in article-space and I have no desire to argue about anything about any actual articles. I seek only to be left alone by this particular editor.
His comments above like "giving Corporate full reign in adding whatever he wants" and "right to edit and defend our edits" - to me this re-affirms a battleground mentality and that he feels it is his personal responsibility to make sure my edits comply with his sense of things. It would be an obvious choice to retire rather than make my every edit an invitation for more arguing with him. Corporate 13:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not a good idea to say that you will leave if another party does not leave you alone, when you have a much simpler way of dealing with them, which is to simply answer their arguments if their arguments seem relevant to the matter at hand, for they would be equally good arguments no matter ho said it & if they are good arguments, someone will say them; and otherwise ignore him. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark Jason Dominus

The user says he is the subject of the article. Over several months he has been repeatedly re-inserting an infobox containing what he claims are transliterations of his name in Korean and Chinese, even though there is no evidence that he has any links to those languages, races or countries. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that this be closed as off-topic. The complaint does not even state what the supposed conflict is. I have reviewed the guidelines at WP:COI and I do not think there is an actual conflict: I have not been adding inappropriate external links to the article, for example, and I am not adding self-promotional material about myself or my accomplishments. The complaint only concerns my name, which is a factual matter that does not advance my interests, or anyone else's.
This is simply a verifiability dispute. The appropriate response under Wikipedia policy would be for the editor to tag the disputed material with {{cn}} (which she hasn't done) and to request clarification on the article's talk page (which she also hasn't done). —Mark Dominus (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You are using the article as your own personal scrapbook. Please stop. If you want to decorate a page with irrelevant trivia about yourself, your user page, or some other website, is the place to do that. Also, I am not a "she". Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course there is a conflict of interest. A user claiming to be the subject of the article is editing the article? Why should this BLP have a different MOS look from other American bios? If there is a good reason with reliable sources, great. Put them on the talk page and discuss. If not, then let it be. I am I missing something here? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Should this BLP even exist? Does it meet the requirements of notability? --Malerooster (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The content guidelines at WP:Autobiography say "If Wikipedia already has an article about you… in clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself", which contradicts your claim that editing the article about myself is automatically a conflict of interest. I believe that adding my own name to the article about me is such a clear-cut case. —Mark Dominus (talk) 05:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
ah, but this is NOT a clear cut case since a few editors have already reverted you and have questioned why you are adding foreign language symbols to a US bio. Again, use the talk page to make your case and do NOT edit the bio going forward would be my advice, but who the heck am I. --Malerooster (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DePaul University

A contributor recently made several edits to a paragraph in the Controversies section about the dismissal of DePaul's former law dean, beginning on line 69. The paragraph, which had been relatively neutral, now uses unsubstantiated adjectives to praise the former dean ( "Weissenberger was a widley liked and nationally repected dean") and also makes unsubstantiated claims about actions of law faculty ( "The law school faculty apprised the ABA of irrregularities in the removeal of Dean Weissenberger and the appoinment of an interim dean"). The previous version correctly noted that the ABA found no irregularities related to distribution of tuition income; the edit implies that it found no irregularities in the dismissal of the dean (I have no knowledge either way about this).

I request that these edits be reversed to the previous version until if and when the contributor can provide substantiation for the changes.

I work at DePaul and, as Wikipedia's policies relative to COI have been clarified, now refrain from making direct edits, especially in as sensitive an area as the controversies section.

I made an edit request on the talk page on Oct. 9, but so far a Wikipedia editor has not responded (I know you all are busy).

I'd appreciate it if one of you could take a look at this. Thanks.

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kris (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Not sure this is really COI though. --Malerooster (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing it. Are you questioning whether this is a COI for me or whether I posted my request in the right place? I want to learn to work within the system correctly. Kris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually this board involves people who might be editing their own bio or an employeee editing a company article ect. Thank you for your candor about being from DePaul, which is a good disclosure to make. There are a bunch of different boards for reporting problems. Usually, the article talk page is the best place to start and go from there. --Malerooster (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Swizzle stick

User recently edited article to put in a lot of material to claim Jay Sindler as the inventor of this piece of barware and point back to his company. The IP edit traces back to spir-it.com, the company in question. I can find exactly one reference which might be independent of Sindler's company which repeats this claim, but the statement is unsourced and is in a popular work which could also depend on the company's claim. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Investigating further I find that this 1920 reference definitely disproves the Sindler priority claim. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The article details antecedents to the Sindler claim. But the Sindler claim seems to me to be, in essence, a re-invention and a very successful commercialisation of the stick. I think we can lay some weight on http://www.spiritfoodservice.com/Who/Default.aspx?sub=60 and we can probably check that US Patent 1,991,871 is as represented on that page. We might also be prepared to cover the International Swizzle Stick Collectors Association in the article. However this is slightly beside the point, which is your concern over Rpantely and the IP. I guess we can but hope that she or he enters into discussion here; and failing that, keep the article on our watchlists. I kinda intent to add back some Sindler stuff to the article, but I'm torn between wikipedia and some IRL stuff which I really should be getting on with. Feel free to add a neutral coverage if you will. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Checking the article talk page I see that I had already looked at the patent back in 2010. It clearly shows the implement as a spear for fishing the olive/cherry/whatever out of one's drink, but none of the other uses, and especially not stirring, are addressed. the word "swizzle" doesn't appear either. The patent could, I suppose, be mentioned, but there's no question but that an implement by this name was already out there before his cocktail garnish spear hit the scene. Mangoe (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that the founder of Spirit, Jay Sindler, patented the implement known today as the American "swizzle stick." The patent (1,991,871 filed in 1934 and approved in 1935) is displayed on our website under Our Heritage. The implement he invented was used for stirring and spearing. What other confirmation do you need to substantiate this on wikipedia and credit this inventor? I am happy to upload the patent document and alter the content to refer to his invention as the "American swizzle stick." It's important to note that folks in the cocktail industry often interchange the term swizzle sticks for both cocktail picks and stirrers. You might want to check with the ISSCA to verify my point. Please advise. Rpantely (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've examined the US patent as shown by the USPTO site. I confirm what Mangoe found. It does prove something: it proves that at that time, he did not think he invented the swizzle stick in the sense the WP article defines it, an instrument for stirring drinks. The relevant page is [42]. From the first paragraph: This instrument pertains to eating instruments and relates mores particularly to an instrument for picking up and conveying to the mouth articles of food such, for, example, as olives, cherries, etc. which are commonly used as garnishes for food or drink. It then gives the example of "securing a cherry resting at the bottom of a cocktail glass." It then goes on to say that "I contemplate so shaping the handle portion of the instrument as to give it a secondary utility, for example, to provide fa convenient surface for the reception of advertising matter or to serve as a paddle or spoon-like instrument , which, upon reversal of the implement, may be used for eating ice cream or other soft foods. "
Now, this is a primary source, and cannot be used as such to form a judgment. But it could be used with a quotation in a sentence such as "in 1934 Swindler patented a similar implement, described as " ". I think this disposes of the matter. If there is a secondary meaning of being used as a pick, then sources must be found for this. And the patent given could then be used as saying that "In 1934 Swindler patented an instrument for ... ". It does not prove that nobody had patented something similar previously. But I see no evidence at this point that a pointed instrument not useful for stirring is called a swizzle stick. And Swindler's patent did not claim otherwise--for whatever reason, this possible use did not occur to him. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So, can I add to the article as you suggested (in 1934 Jay Sindler patented a related cocktail implement, described as a...and often referred to by the same name.) indicating the cocktail accessory this man invented which has gone on to become a major branding element for bars & restaurants today or not? Incidentally, did you research the image claiming that the items pictured are in fact "three common coffee swizzle sticks?" I don't believe this is accurate...Rpantely (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Multiple article spam/COI

Nomdeplume6000 has added links to the Washington Independent Review of Books to all the above articles. Typically Nomdeplume6000 has added a paragraph beginning with "In a review for the Washington Independent Review of Books, {reviewer} writes that ..." and ending with a quote from the WIRB review cited. Usually the quotes are the quality of book jacket blurbs and add nothing to the article. In a few instances Nomdeplume6000 has simply added a link to the WIRB review to the title of a book in the article. Even without knowing whether Nomdeplume6000 has a relationship to the Washington Independent Review of Books, it's hard to see that this activity is anything but promotional (i.e., spam).

Nomdeplume6000 may have previously edited as 76.106.68.17 and other users.

-- BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Humane_Society_of_the_United_States

So following this: "John, if you are involved with humanewatch.info then you have a very clear COI with respect to the Center for Consumer Freedom and I see you have made at least one problematic edit with respect to that organization. This conflict of interest would obviously extend to material on that organization in other articles, Humane Society of the United States for instance. -- 92.2.82.159 (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)"

statment from an IP in a previous (and far reaching) thread - I felt it was best to open this. Can I have some people to look into it? Fayedizard (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks! Yes, as I mentioned in the aforementioned thread, I am the owner of the [43] blog which is sharply critical of front groups for animal use industries. The blog posts within are written by several contributors, and my role is primarily that of a researcher and webmaster.
It has not been my intent to introduce bias into these articles, as evidenced by my occasional contributions to the refine the section on criticism against the HSUS, as well as working with the complainant at the IP address above to amicably resolve questions about membership numbers.[44] Contrary to various accusations in the dispute that spawned this discussion, I am not affiliated with or employed by PeTA, the HSUS, the ASPCA, Animal Rescue Corps, or any other animal welfare organization, nor am I "pro-kill", vegan, "anti-writer", or the sockpuppet of any user.
My goal is to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia resource, not to push an agenda. My area of expertise for the past eight years has been animal welfare, and I have been reluctant to step outside that sphere. I'm happy to answer any questions regarding my involvement in these topics, and will be happy to address (or step aside to let others address) any perceived bias in my edits. Thanks! -- JohnDopp (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I am glad this is finally being examined. I count 41 edits of the article "Humane Society of the United States" by JohnDopp. His website very specifically targets the HSUS's most prominent critic: HumaneWatch. Now, HumaneWatch certainly deserves critics -- I don't mean to defend them -- but a person who runs the website specifically devoted to that task is in no position to edit an article on the HSUS. I do not believe that he is employed by the HSUS. "Not affiliated" is probably correct, technically. But when you have made a personal specialty out of defending an organization, you are incapable of neutral commentary. (I would never think to edit the HSUS article myself, since I have published criticism of the organization. It would be an egregious COI. And I've written *much* less about the HSUS than has JohnDopp. In fact, very few people can match the volume of his output on this topic.) 189.148.171.180 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper
I would prefer that only neutral editors participate in this matter, and not instigators who are currently banned for harassment and engaged in an off-wiki campaign of harassment. (Please note that Mr. Cooper has signed his name to both IPs and his website, so there should be no WP:PRIVACY concerns on that regard.) -- JohnDopp (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Based on your posts above, you definitely do have a COI. If you are going to edit in related areas, you do need to make it a point to disclose the COI. Further, it is very highly recommended that you do not edit directly in any related areas (see Template:Request edit/COIinstructions). --Nouniquenames 17:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
We would all prefer neutral editors. I am in no way trying to impugn JohnDopp's character. It may well be that he does not understand that his editing of articles about animal welfare constitute a COI. We all have different ideas about what "conflict of interest" means. It is true that I have my biases here, which is why I would never edit the article about the HSUS. I think for the betterment of Wikipedia, it is good to have this kind of discussion in a calm and neutral fashion. So I will have to agree with Nouniquenames that this is a COI requiring at the very least disclosure, if not recusal.189.148.181.176 (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper
Several things here - If you are Douglas Anthony Cooper, then "I am in no way trying to impugn JohnDopp's character" is slightly spoiled by this article you wrote [45], secondly, "We all have different ideas about what "conflict of interest" means" is true in general - but helpfully wikipedia has it's own Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest definition that we use to exactly avoid this problem.
Lastly, something that I think you'll find very useful - is that wikipedia doesn't work on votes - it's counter intutive, but it's true. Sometimes it looks like it (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee and Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus), but the point of the discussion is to apply the policies of wikipedia to any given situation. The reason that I'm mentioning this to you is that the part of your article were you write "The truth is that the notability issue was decided unanimously in my favor. Full disclosure: most of those votes were made by my mother, using dozens of sock puppet accounts. " - kind of make it appear that you've not followed this. And so it follows that having a bunch of people show up and agree with you doesn't make the your case any more compling, certainly compared with simply finding out what the policies and pointing out which edits made by which editors are allowed/not-allowed by which policies. Fayedizard (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


  • Completely uninvolved editor here - regardless of the discussion, 189.148.186.149 has been blocked and the user in question has above used two different alternate IP addresses from the same range to post here, signing his name in the same way after each one. This seems like an fairly unambiguous case of WP:EVASION. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
As such, I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/189.148.186.149. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit strange. How could I be a "sockpuppet" if I sign with the same name? We have two wireless IP addresses at home, and I don't check to see which I'm using. I am me, I assure you. (FWIW, the "voting" comment was intended as a joke. My mother doesn't know the meaning of the word "sockpuppet." And neither do I, it appears. But if it means having "a bunch of people show up," all of them with the same name, that is not what is happening here.) And I've respected the ban, which I was told meant not to edit articles. Nobody suggested I couldn't discuss -- on talk pages -- circumstances relating to the ban itself (which was of course very much about JohnDopp's COI). In fact, I've done so a number of times, with no complaints. More information has in fact been *requested*, which I take it was an invitation to post. As for his character, I am going out of my way not to impugn it here, in this discussion -- I am restricting my remarks to his COI. It's an attempt to be polite, which I believe is appropriate. But I have said what needs to be said about the COI, and most people here seem now to be aware of the relevant facts. If you take the concept seriously -- and I believe you do -- I have no doubt that you'll come to the appropriate conclusion.189.148.245.39 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper
Note - I have copied response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/189.148.186.149. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have responded over there, and will here as well: I am addressing matters related to my ban. Period. That ban involved JohnDopp's COI, with regard to me and animal welfare general, in particular the HSUS. I have discussed nothing else, nor shall I. As far as I know, this is permitted. If someone wishes to clarify this business -- someone rigorously neutral -- I would welcome the clarification. Until then, I shall continue to restrict my remarks to JohnDopp's COI.
If you'd like to silence voices in that debate, then that simply indicates that you (Wikipedia) do not take WP:COI very seriously. In fact, if you decide that JohnDopp's COI is not serious enough to warrant an article ban, then we have to assume that there is no such concept at Wikipedia. You are in effect saying that it is impossible to have a WP:COI. I will take it as permission for me to edit the HSUS article, which I would never have done otherwise. (My COI there is flagrant, but minuscule relative to JohnDopp's.) Note that this will result in JohnDopp desperately attempting to make my ban permanent, but it hardly matters: other animal welfare activists will arrive at the same conclusion, and will edit accordingly. Not to call JohnDopp's activities a WP:COI means that anyone can write about whatever they please. This is a separate matter from the ban (which is deliberate a distraction), and requires addressing. My ban does not affect the process or reputation of Wikipedia. The decision to nullify the concept of WP:COI is vastly more important.
A further note: the editor who opened this complaint against JohnDopp never intended this to result in a serious decision. He wrote on JohnDopp's page: "Hi John, As part of my general desire to dot i's and cross t's I've opened this thread - I'm sure it will be fine. I would say in passing that all the COI board is really empowered to do is put a small templated on the articles in question - so if there is some COI you have lurking around - then do mention it (via email if privacy is a convern and we'll be able to close the thread quickly."
In short: it was decided in advance by Fayedizard that this was a minor matter, to be addressed in a sort of show trial, so that justice would appear to have been served. I've encountered all manner of condescension from people here who clearly do not understand the meaning of the term "conflict of interest." Or who understand it, but simply think it's more important to protect a member of the editorial community.189.151.26.154 (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Douglas Anthony Cooper
In short - no, it is not acceptable (and you can either accept my "neutrality" or not, but I have never been involved in anything related to these subjects or editors in any way). Regardless, you don't actually need my "opinion" on the matter - it is very clearly spelled out in policy. You were blocked for harassment and moving to another IP (intentional or otherwise) to avoid that block and continue editing is not okay. Arguing that you are "addressing your block" is a fallacy - your are furthering your campaign of allegations that someone else has a COI. That is entirely inappropriate. If you want to address your block, you have the ability to do so on your original talk page by appealing the block; in doing so you are asking for an uninvolved admin to review the case and make a determination as to whether or not you accept your original conduct was unacceptable. Hint: arguing you were within your rights to harass another user because of an alleged conflict of interest is probably not the way to go. From WP:COI - "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this COI guideline". WP takes COI seriously, because it is contrary to the spirit of the project, but it takes harassment more seriously, because that impacts on whether the project can function at all. Once you have addressed your block (either by having it shortened or waiting it out) you are free to return and make any allegations you like, provided those allegations do not breach WP:HARASS. Until then, I would strongly suggest you restrict your editing (with any IP) to your original talk page only (the only legitimate way to "address your ban") and the talk page and sub-pages of the one particular admin who has requested you discuss these matters directly with him. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

In the sincere hope that the IP has learned in the above conversation, I'd like to steer this back to the original topic. JohnDopp has admitted his ties above. I would contend that he does have a significant conflict of interest that included the Humane Society article. --Nouniquenames 15:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Tej Gyan Foundation

"We have spiritual organization in India. We wish to add our profile in Wikipedia. We have already try to do this three time with different editors but our article deleted from Wikipedia for different reasons every time. Please bid if you have very good experience and if you are familiar with Wikipedia. Also please send us the links of approved articles written by you on Wikipedia." [46] Gigs (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Shoestring Venture

"Looking for a Wikipedia writer that will put together an article about my business book onto Wikipedia. The book has an accompanying website shoestringventure.com (which publishes articles about startups, etc). We have were interviewed on radio shows and we have others cite our book on Wikipedia." [47] Links to their site exist in a few places on Wikipedia already. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Khusi Hona Orphan Project

Author of the article clearly names himself as the founder of the organization the article covers in the last paragraph: "Meet the Founder: Matthew van Rooyen is the founder of The Khusi Hona Orphan Project." Further evidence of this can be seen at http://www.changemakers.com/changeshop/khusi-hona-orphan-project which is the website most--if not all--of the articles' content comes from. Besieged talk 20:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You can speedy delete such articles under criterion G12. Gigs (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson

Eric C. Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've recently proposed a significant rewrite to the article for Eric C. Anderson, and I'd like for an independent editor to review the new draft. I am working with his company, Space Adventures, and wish to avoid making direct edits due to this conflict of interest.

As I've explained more fully on the article's Talk page, the current article is disjointed, information lacks context and most sources included are primary sources. My proposed draft draws from numerous profiles of Mr. Anderson in science and business publications and provides more detail about his career.

For anyone who would like to review this draft, the edit request is here and the draft article is here. I'm happy to discuss details of the draft with independent editors and hope that if agreement is found to do so, that someone will merge it into the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mark Desvaux

Recent contribs of the user Wikiralphster combined with creation of the promo spam likely conflict of interest page Mark Desvaux, strongly suggests single purpose account for promotion of "motivational speaker" and associated for-profit products. — Cirt (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editors, This is my first full wikipedia article and I realise, having now read guidelines that it does not meet a number of them. My apologies. The article was submitted in good faith. I would really like to rectify, and further learn about WP guidelines and how to edit correctly and would appreciate some advice. Is the following possible:

- As a newbie, how can I put forward suggestions for changes rather than make the changes?
- I am a fan of [Urban Myth Club]'s music, and subsequently became interested in subject's other work. Is this a COI if I edit either page?
- I have found a number of credible references which I can add to the original [Urban Myth Club] page which I believe will show notability. Can I do this?
- I would like to suggest that if notability is agreed on [Urban Myth Club], [Mark Desvaux] is redirected to [Urban Myth Club] for time being until additional citation are found. Is this an option?

Thank you in advance for your help, Wikiralphster (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

For info - the article is currently at Afd. Fayedizard (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas Lore

"I'm looking for the right person to do the following: 1) Wikipedia editing - and working on an existing page. There is a wikipedia page focused on me ( Nicholas Lore ) which needs some improvement. 2) Create a new article page for Rockport Institute (www.rockportinstitute.com) Please write back including what and how you charge. Either hourly or by the job would work for me."[48]

See also: [49] Gigs (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Article is now up for deletion [50]. Qworty (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

greenglobaltravel.com

IP which only adds links to the website above, which self-identifies as a magazine but appears to be a blog. I uw-coi'ed the IP recently, but so far there's no response. a13ean (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: appears to have several contributors but unclear editorial oversight, struck bit about it being a blog above. a13ean (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a clear case of refspamming. These should probably be removed and the link blacklisted if it keeps up. - MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Google Analytics ID: UA-28592081 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
Accounts
Demarcowill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
181.31.159.104 (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)
109.80.44.109 (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)
190.2.57.241 (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)
186.54.244.136 (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)
2.227.162.22 (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)
74.176.161.234 (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)
85.237.211.46 (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)
186.52.176.23 (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)
186.52.150.198 (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)
190.135.26.70 (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)
108.128.224.135 (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)
User continued and is blocked. Did some cleanup, and because of the extent of the abuse, it is now blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible COI

I never considered the possibility of this, but on reading some of the community's discussion about COI - is a man considered to have a conflict of interest when editing about Christianity (or religion in general), if he is technically an employee of the Catholic Church (as clergy)? St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so. Besides, even if you do have a COI, that doesnt forbid you from editing anything. It just means that you should declare on your userpage that you work for the Catholic church and if anyone brings it up in a discussion its relevance, if any, will be unique to that discussion and not a blanket statement about what you should be editing in general. ☮Soap☮ 00:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say yes, that is a conflict of interest. That said, it's almost certainly not a particularly problematic one. As long as you edit Wikipedia for the sake of editing Wikipedia and to further Wikipedia's goal in line with our policies, you will be fine. Just be extra careful if anyone challenges your edits in an area where you might have a COI. The fact that you came here to ask about it shows that you want to do the right thing, and that's really all that matters, so you should be fine. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Celtechm related paid editing

I don't see an elance listing I can tie directly to these, but they don't smell right. Gigs (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  • User was paid $225 to recreate Easy projects, which had been previously deleted at AfD. Probably too notable to delete. Tagged with COI tag for now. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The sources on Carvalko look weaker than that one. Refs look minor and primary. He certainly fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. I may take it to AfD. What do you think? Qworty (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Go for it. From a quick scan it looks like somewhat notable work, not very notable person. Adjunct professor so probably fails WP:PROF. BLP1E on the high single profile case he tried. Could probably be mentioned in other articles related to his work. Gigs (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and put Carvalko up for AfD [52]. The sourcing is incredibly weak, and by no means is he notable per WP policies. We'll have to decide what, if anything, to do about these other coi/paid articles. Qworty (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

COI on Chris Lindsey

Chris Lindsey has had a few edits by Silvertire (talk · contribs) who, according to his edit on my talk page, appears to be Chris Lindsey himself. I've explained to him that his edits were a.) non neutral and b.) a copyvio. Right afterward, 69.137.82.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (who appears to be Chris logged out) posted a few comments on his talk page and restored the copyvio content.

Can I please get a few extra pairs of eyes watching the Chris Lindsey article so neither of us breaks 3RR? And maybe someone who can articulate the COI policy a little better? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

He's inserting a copyright violation anyway. Explain copyright to him before COI, since that's a bigger issue. Gigs (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Stamps.com Page Changes

Hello Wikipedia editors,

I am trying to update our Wikipedia page for Stamps.com. I am an employee of the company. The items I am changing are: - Deleted some non-relevant copy in "Company History" - Added 3 new executives, new company location, employee count, and added company blog to external links - Added paragraph on what product actually does (see "Product Description") - Included Better Business Bureau rating for company - Updated stock market from NYSE to the NASDAQ

Do you think my updates will be approved?

Please let me know. Thanks! Eric— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stampscom (talk • contribs)

I would be more worried about your user name, but I don't report or comment on those matters. --Malerooster (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello Eric! First, I'd like to applaud you for taking your concerns to this board. That shows that you're willing to contribute in a collaborative manner, where most people in your situation (editing on behalf of an organization) try to "sneak" in edits or force them in (via spam, for example) so this speaks well for you. I have some advice for you. If you haven't already, please familiarize yourself with WP:PSCOI which is a simple guide for editors affiliated with organizations they are editing about. I'd also encourage you to request a username change; it's laudable for you to openly declare your affiliation with Stamps.com but your name does violate our username policy. Simply changing it to something like "Eric-Stampscom" to show that you represent yourself as an individual would probably be enough. Finally, I suggest that you take your proposed changes to the discussion page of the article and propose them there. See what other editors have to say. If you don't get a response in a few days, just be bold and make the changes yourself. If someone objects to your changes, refer them to the talk page to discuss it. Thank you again for bringing your concerns here. -- Atama頭 16:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Eric, your edits look fairly neutral. I made some small syntax changes, but I think they'll remain. --FeldBum (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wickedictionary and Derek Abbott

  1. Possible spam promo of Wickedictionary, prior history of  Confirmed socking on Wikipedia page of its author, Derek Abbott.
  2. Socking investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bunzil, prior  Confirmed sock case page at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bunzil.
  3. Ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickedictionary.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to keep an eye out for this one

Another elance job [53]. One of the paid editors has already responded to it, so it may be appearing here soon. Qworty (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the redirects CSSI and Neutral tax (The Neutral Tax) for that second one.--Hu12 (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Another (with a history here), which was deleted (Tangiers International) and had an unsuccessful attempt a while back Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2007-11-17#Tangiers_International--Hu12 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers

{{request edit}}

Have requested edits to article in question on Talk page. Would appreciate if a neutral editor could review and make changes or give feedback on how changes could be improved. Thank you.

I've fixed your link above to make it easier to navigate to the talk page of the article. -- Atama頭 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you - I've also broken out the new version of proposed changes in the article's Talk page to make it easier for editors. Would appreciate attention to this when possible. Regards. -- Danellew (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marlene Aguilar

Blatant COI article submission, previous discussion can be viewed at the AfC talk page. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Wow. Quotes herself over forty times on how wonderful she is. I don't think I've ever seen a WP:AUTO writer so much in love with herself. Would love to go through this one line-by-line with a fine-edged red axe if and when it somehow moves into main space. "Her lovers include the legendary drug baron Howard Marks who was connected to the IRA, the CIA, MI6 and the Mafia." LOLOL. Completely unsourced, of course, so if she didn't write it herself, someone was taking notes under multiple beds. For once, I'd love to see the primary sources. Qworty (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Jordan Alan and his films

String of articles about a film director and his films, being edited by his assistant. The director's article Jordan Alan has been around since 2005 and has had many editors; the film articles are mainly the work of SPAs including some short-lived ones I have not listed.

User Jordanalan become active a few days ago, and is at present username-blocked because at WP:RFPERM s/he said: "I am the personal assistant for Jordan Alan." S/he went on that s/he was "trying to upload all of his movie posters to his Wikipedia Pages for all of his films. I would ideally like to be able to upload these official posters ASAP as the release dates are coming up soon."

This user will no doubt return under a new username, and the promotional intent is clear. As an indication, an IP (which from the timing I have little doubt was Jordanalan not logged in) edited Terminal Bliss to replace sourced statements that the film: "was panned by critics" and "was a box office flop" with unsourced assertions that it "garnered rave reviews" and "went on to unprecedented success."

Mr Alan is probably notable, but it is not clear to me that his films meet WP:Notability (films). They are made by his own company, Terminal Bliss Pictures. Sourcing is thin, and some long lists of links are just links to IMDb entries for all the other films - a "walled garden".

Eyes are requested on these articles to assess notability and to ensure that they do not become a spam-fest. JohnCD (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Updating "Backend as a service" article

Hi all. I've been working with Kinvey, a backend as a service (BaaS) provider, to improve the Backend as a service article, and have prepared a draft of a new version of the article. Given my COI on this topic, I've posted a message on the Backend as a service Talk page asking for editors to take a look at the article I've written and, if appropriate, replace the existing article with it. You can find the draft of the article at User:ChrisPond/Backend as a service. I previously asked over at WP:Computing, but haven't received a response, so I was hoping someone here might be able to take a look at my draft and check it for neutrality. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reply to my post on the Talk page over at Backend as a service, or my user Talk page. Hopefully one of you will have a chance to take a look at this. Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than the current article, and I don't see any obvious problems with a quick scan. Thank you for disclosing. Gigs (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply, Gigs! Do you think you'd be willing to move the draft over, or could you recommend another editor who could? I definitely want to avoid making the edits myself due to the COI. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done Gigs (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving this into place for me, Gigs, I really appreciate it! I just noticed, though, that the article still has the category tags disabled. Do you think you could reenable them so the page displays in the correct categories? Also, as I noted on the Backend as a service talk page, there are a few other articles that I think should link to the Backend as a service article. If I gave you a list, would you be willing to take a look and, if appropriate, add in the links from those articles? There are only three or four, I believe. Thanks again! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Post them here so other editors can see as well. Total transparency is required for this sort of thing, so we don't violate the policies against meatpuppetry. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Gladly! Definitely want everything to be transparent here. The previous Backend as a service article was an orphan, but there are three pages which seem like obvious candidates to better incorporate this article into Wikipedia as a whole:
  • Cloud computing -- The initial section of this article contains links to a number of "... as a service" computing platform articles. BaaS seems like a good addition to the list, now that the article is up and running.
  • Software as a service -- This article specifically mentions BaaS, but the mention is not wikilinked to the current article, although the other "... as a services" mentioned are.
  • Baas -- This is a disambiguation page; adding BaaS here might help users locate this article.
Beyond these three pages, I also noticed that there was previously a page about this topic located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BaaS which was removed due to being promotional. If possible, it would be great to have that old page redirect to this new, neutral article.
Please do let me know if you have any concerns, but if these seem okay, could you add in the links? Thanks again for all of your help on getting this article up and running, Gigs, it is appreciated! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
These edits seem reasonable to me and are  Done Gigs (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks again for all of your help in getting this article up and running! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 20:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

PrismTech Ltd WP:COI

Appears there has been an ongoing WP:ARTSPAM campaign intended to Seed wikipedia WP with numerous Non-Notable PrismTech product articles by multiple WP:SPA advertising-only accounts. See also -Spam Case.

Accounts
ChrisLloydPT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
PrismTechPeter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Kraftywerk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Kgardner2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Slindley61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
217.36.231.1 (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)
213.48.91.42 (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)

--Hu12 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk)

Hi Hu12, I hope this is the right area to start a discussion with you. I have an avid interest in many areas (gaming, computer software, karate, grammar, scottish culture, etc.), and hope to be a contributing member in each of these areas on Wikipedia. As I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, please go easy on me (^^). Any tips would be much appreciated, I'm always looking for ways to improve! Most of my edits thus far have been updating information on pages that I have knowledge about, or correcting grammar. I do my best to remain neutral, I am used to writing with neutrality as I have had to write many scientific papers in university. I eagerly await your reply! ChrisLloydPT (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

By making the decision to promote your company is an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and you, because your not neutral. Creating and editing Wikipedia article about your companies products and services is "promotion" and a conflict of interest.
--Hu12 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Is is against the guidelines to update out of date information? That was my intent here. Would having more independent journal/newsletters/publications referenced improve the notability of the related articles? As a side note "because your not neutral. Creating" I'm not being paid, this is just me being a little OCD! I appreciate that CoIs are difficult to manage, so any specifics on what exactly is wrong with the pages would be helpful (as to my eyes the changes I made were factual). — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLloydPT (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
If you work for, or are closely connected to PrismTech, then it doesn't matter if you are specifically being paid to edit Wikipedia or not. If you have a relationship with PrismTech, you should declare it. Gigs (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

13 (musical)

There's quite a bit of editing here from SPA-type users. Judging from the names and the apparent agendas at AfC, they appear to be cast members and people close to the production. With such a full court press from editors with COIs, it makes me wonder if there wasn't encouragement or coordination of this. Gigs (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I've trimmed back some of the worst excesses. One of us should probably try to get this user [55] blocked for inappropriate user name. I have no idea if that account is going to edit-war over this. Seems quite zealous in terms of promoting this. Qworty (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also gone ahead now and reported him for promotional user name [56]. Qworty (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It is strange that the activity would arise now, after the play has closed for so long. Gigs (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Must be some weird kind of obsessive WP:FANCRUFT. Or someone has a crate of old CDs to sell. Qworty (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Despite two warnings, the promotional account is once again adding unsourced material to the article. Qworty (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

They've now been zapped for the username. Hopefully that should stem the tide. --Drm310 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Miss World Sock COI?

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


Seems there are multiple accounts Creating subpages for some existing Miss World articles, recent edits appear the other accounts may be abondoned or consolidated into one account, MWMainPage (talk · contribs).

Accounts

MWMainPage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1959 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1958 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1957 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1956-1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW1951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
MW19501 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
121.54.46.10 (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)

Existing articles

Not sure what to make of this.--Hu12 (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

MissWorldMainPage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
OK. clear Miss World Pageant organization SOCKing...--Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Tagged, bagged and cleaned up--Hu12 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several articles related to Michael J. Saylor and MicroStrategy

Over the past two years, Crysb has made substantial edits to these articles that add positive information and minimize negative information about Michael J. Saylor, his company (and its products), his book, and his charitable foundation. This editor also added references to Saylor's book to 15+ other articles (listed in detail at User talk:Crysb#Affiliation with The Mobile Wave.3F). I am concerned that this is a COI marketing effort. I brought up my concern on the editor's talk page in June (User talk:Crysb#Affiliation with The Mobile Wave.3F) and did not see a response, although the editor contributed to other articles in July and August. I commented again in August and did not see a response, although the editor hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since then.

One example is Michael J. Saylor, which in July 2010 included a referenced Controversies paragraph with 11 sentences. After Crysb began editing the article in September 2010, the information in that section turned into a small part (4 sentences) of a "Career" section with a lot of positive information. I'd say that the 2010 version had undue weight on those "controversies", but the current version buries them among paragraphs about his business philosophy and speaking style.

Crysb created (and wrote the bulk of) these articles on Saylor's book and five products by his company: The Mobile Wave, Wisdom (application), Usher (application), Alert (application), Emma (application), and MicroStrategy Gateway. According to the references given, not all of them are notable enough for independent articles.

I have no personal connection to this topic; I noticed these edits after Crysb added a reference to Saylor's book (The Mobile Wave) to an article that I watch. That reference was not useful to the article, so I removed it, but judging and fixing all of the rest of these articles is a job too big for just me, so I'd like to ask for another perspective. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

An additional concern: Techjazz (contributions) started and wrote an article for the co-founder of Microstrategy, Sanju Bansal, and this editor discloses affiliation to the company at Talk:Sanju Bansal. I appreciate the disclosure, but that article also hasn't had much external attention and should be evaluated for COI-related issues. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Tara Hewitt (Wirral politician)

This article is being repeatedly edited by the subject of the article, Ms Tara Hewitt, in some cases repeatedly deleting verifiable facts that she does not want on her page. As far as I can see this page is being used as a form of self promotion.86.130.208.213 (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the links above. I assume the username is the one that was desired by the IP. --Nouniquenames 16:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
You should always notify the user of this sort of discussion, which I've now done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NCsoft

Sean Hannity

Appears to have edited articles with insertion of her own name [57] in Sean Hannity, [58], [59] also in Sean Hannity [60] at LGBT Rights in Uganda, [61], and [62] at Frank L. VanderSloot. She had been previously apprised of COI and her reply was at [63]. although another editor had apprised her of this policy, I did so again at [64] and now at [65] (official notice as she seems to think COI does not apply to editing about oneself or citing one's own work. Collect (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

She also added an external link to an article that she wrote to LGBT rights in Uganda. Andrew (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"Look at me! Look at me!" has to violate WP:SELFPROMOTE. Her addition to the Sean Hannity article is clearly an attempt to get an article about her within another article. The Frank L. VanderSloot bit was a name correction that anyone would have made if aware of the misspelling. However, I don't know why it is there to begin with, especially as the first mention, since she is not notable and her piece is mostly summarizing an article by Sean Cockerham and other news sources already mentioned in our article (that she puts her name is in the title of a piece she wrote is also odd). At best, her Idaho Statesman piece could be used to cite an "and others" bit at the end of the sentence.
Her addition to LGBT rights in Uganda might be acceptable (at least moreso than the blogspot link there), but would be better if she had suggested its use as a source on the talk page to support a bit saying that American churches have influenced anti-LGBT laws in Uganda, but not to further her career or give her attention. Still, given other behavior (and that she's an WP:SPA so far for this behavior), I'd support a topic ban in article space (but not talk pages or elsewhere) on posts relating to herself, but this isn't the place to suggest that, AFAIK. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SELFPROMOTE refers to "advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos. Examples include links that point to commercial sites and to personal websites, and biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." As long as the editor is including links to reliably published sources, regardless of whether she authored them, then it is not a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTE. I see nothing here that would call for a topic ban. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SELFCITE talks explicitely about this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Add WP:CANVASS per [66] (not to mention poor grammar and spelling). Collect (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Re SELFPROMOTE and topic bans: Her addition to Sean Hannity was a ref to her personal website, and the entire point of it was "pay met attention!" in a manner that in no way helped the article, just to glorify herself. That's self promotion. There's nothing forbidding topic bans as a means of dealing with editors out to get attention in the articles (it's that or constantly revert them until they do give up or something block worthy). The point of bans is to prevent them from doing something disruptive, effectively a preemptive revert of what will eventually get them blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to make this perfectly clear, every single on of these conflict edits, with the exception of the VanderSloot one, was made in Oct 2010. That's before she was notified of COI, for what it's worth. The VanderSloot on is a simple typo correction, and all other edits made in the last two years have been user talkpage comments.Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
And the CANVASS disappears? IITC, folks who have been informed of the COI rules do not get another bite just becuase they ar emaking a "minor edit" - the stricture is strong or else it becomes non-existent. Collect (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I put another Notice on her Talk Page. I am not sure she saw the other one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you are calling canvasing, Collect? The general notice posted on the article page, which you cited above, is not canvassing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Her post to you which copied a post she made on my UT page is CANVASSing, and is pretty clear as such. Cheers -- BTW, you just hit 4RR in under 24 hours on the BLP -- I again suggest you self-revert, as any admin noting it can issue a block -- as you have been given multiple warnings before. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18
06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm an involved editor on the page and added much of the content that referred to Chang. It's not canvassing, it's simply proper notification of an involved editor. I'm surprised (or at least I should be) that you can't tell the difference. And you can turn off the bolding; it doesn't make your arguments any more persuasive. BTW, I did not hit 4RR -- your harassing witch hunt failed yet again. Stew on that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Seattle Biomed

WP:SPA user talk:Boydmero1 has been contributing content to Seattle Biomed as shown in the history here. I asked this user to add references and offered to help if they wanted to talk about best practices. Now this user is adding references, but in many cases the references do not support the statements being made or are otherwise weak. Could I request that anyone else provide a second opinion? This user does not respond to their talk page, so I think that bringing the conversation to the article's talk page and directing them there is best. I would appreciate anyone who could check it out and then post 1-2 sentences of guidance. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Frances Hugle

The user Cheryl Hugle has disclosed that they are a relative of the subject of the article, Frances Hugle. There are numerous editors who have spent walls of text on the Talk:Frances Hugle attempting to get Cheryl to understand the Wikipedia content policies and intent behind the policies and have proved unsuccessful at convincing CH that her interpretation and applications are incorrect.

At this point I have run out of ideas and patience and think that we have come to the point where we need to ask User:Cheryl Hugle to stop editing this article or its talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to disagree that according to Wikipedia guidelines, I may be found to have COI. I never tried to hide my biological relationship. I thought that would be dishonest.
Yet this article is not about self-promotion or advancing any particular point of view, and that should be readily apparent. There is no personal benefit to me in writing, not writing, editing or not editing of this article other than the satisfaction of knowing I did my best to share a piece of history mostly buried following the death of Frances yet of continuing value and interest to many in the field.
And, it is most definitely about contributing information of historical significance to the extent that this info could be reliably cited (much info on this subject was never included because independent sources, such as articles in journals written 45-60 years ago still need to be located.) I have taken supplying citations very seriously.
On the other hand, this discussion has been initiated by one editor (who has limited support from other editors and was recently asked to remove himself from the discussions, not by me but another editor) and has been caught using spurious interpretations of Wiki guidelines to cast unreasonable suspicion about article content and the reasonably sourced nature of an unbiased, description of the article's subject's body of work.
This is a thinly disguised attempt to have the person most technically knowledgeable on the subject of the semiconductor industry and its early technologies removed from the discussion and editing so that unreasonable and fallacious arguments can be advanced, ultimately leading to further deletions, sabotage of the article and final removal of the article. This intent is clear also on his own talk page.
I am sure this is not about improving Wikipedia's reliability or content (which the contribution of the article in question was written to serve) but rather it is a determined position arising from the need by the initator of this discussion to 'win' regardless of the more reasonable or fact based positions of other editors, myself included.
Finally, a number of unfounded criticisms of me have been made. That these have been addressed by me should not result in criticisms of me. That is the purpose of the Talk page. And, it is not appropriate to demand an editor be removed simply because ones attempts to sabotage an article and ones attempts at justifying this are addressed and refuted by the one under attack, in this case me. Stating that discussions (actually, largely unfounded edicts effectively refuted) have not resulted in a 'win' for 'me' (the initiator in this case) is not enough reason to remove the editor who has pointed out obvious fallacies in dishonest attempts to represent Wiki policies and thus have ones way with sabotaging an article, its content, references, etc. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Take care to avoid the boomerang, Cheryl. You were also asked to stop editing the article, and have recently removed tags regarding the reliance on primary sources and original research notes within the article. I might add, that these changes not really addressed well in your edit summaries, except that you didn't agree with them. The problem as I see it is that you continue to assert significance of the subject based on limited support from the sources you have been able to provide. I commend you on your thoroughness in search, and it is possible there is coverage of this subject that is not accessible right now. However, you are not helping your case by accusing editors of having malicious intentions (i.e. sabotage) when we are applying the same notability guidelines and policies as we would to any article. The editors who disagree with you, including myself, are not some cabal of editors out to get you. Also, your behavior represents a kind of ownership of the article, which is discouraged because it stymies the ability to improve articles when there are disagreements. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That certainly is worded to sound reasonable but you are also the person evidently collaborating with Red (per his talk page) remove the article entirely. Forming a gang does not lend credibility. Your claims still have to have merit.
"I might add, that these changes not really addressed well in your edit summaries, except that you didn't agree with them."
They are addressed on the Talk page in detail as you know and that is totally unfair and misinforming considering that valid sources are sufficiently supplied to establish notability, something you have continued to dispute.
"The problem as I see it is that you continue to assert significance of the subject based on limited support from the sources you have been able to provide."
This position of yours has been well refuted by editors other than myself including a Wikipedia administrator.
"However, you are not helping your case by accusing editors of having malicious intentions (i.e. sabotage) when we are applying the same notability guidelines and policies as we would to any article."
Very doubtful since it has already been noted, and not just by me that your tagging is not appropriate.
"Also, your behavior represents a kind of ownership of the article, which is discouraged because it stymies the ability to improve articles when there are disagreements."
That is a totally biased interpretation. I have stayed involved because there has been a great deal of misinformation posted on the Talk page and as noted, an enormous amount of cavalier and arrogant behavior on the part of certain of the editors, not all by any means, but a few. These include yourself and Red and it is clear you will not stop your attempts at destruction and misrepresentations until this article is pulled. I do not know your reasons... young male ego? aggression? a need to 'win'? To me your arguments have been weak and often entirely inappropriate and when discussions have been opened to try to understand them, an arrogant, "I am a Wiki editor" attitude has been displayed. Threats have even been made for simply asking for clarifications.
In the context of baseless interpretations, tagging, removals of text, references, etc. It seemed wise to keep checking what tactic might next be employed and whether it was legit.
If you launch repeated attacks, make baseless accusations regarding content and or authorship, then yes, you should expect that anyone who is interested in the matter might ask you to either explain yourself more fully or present a counter argument (more complete information) to demonstrate the error or inappropriateness of your position/edit.
This is NOT about ownership. It is about hoping that responsible editorial policies will prevail. If that were happening, I would gladly excuse myself at least from the need to make regular checks. This has not been a pleasant experience for me as I am sure you can imagine and has certainly diminished my appreciation of Wikipedia as an organization. I do realize there are many excellent contributors and totally selfless and competent editors, but from this vantage, there also seems to be too many immature young men using Wikipedia editing as a tool to prove themselves competitively. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Another note about the accusation that I am treating this article with a sense of ownership:
The record will show that in almost every case I have not undone the edits of other editors. Even in cases where I felt the readability or content was hurt, I left other editor's contributions alone because the purpose of this article (and probably most on Wikipedia) is community involvement.
AND, I have continued to seek resolution where glaring differences exist, for instance with Red, on the Talk pages. On the other hand, he has reverted editing to continue tagging, a condition that had already been reasonably challenged and undone by others, generally not myself. You and Red and one other want this article deleted. You have made that clear. Not everyone agrees with you and since I have supplied a number of the arguments proving your reasoning is not sound and have stayed more involved than others are apparently able, it will be easier for you to accomplish a stepped discrediting of content (including by deleting it) finishing with a complete deletion of the article if I am blocked. Frankly, it is not me that is taking possession but you with a very clear non-consensual mission. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this COI report is unfortunate in that it steps on a well-intentioned newbie. The debate on the talk page has been scattered without the clarity of different postions/opinions as are seen in structured AfD debates. Cheryl has a COI; that is a given. Cheryl is not familiar with article tags, interpreting policies, or discerning consensus. I will give her a lot of latitude. Her comment just above about "non-consensual mission" indicates that she believes consensus is on her side, but that is not the impression I get. The talk page does not make consensus clear to a newbie. An objection will be raised, Cheryl will offer some text that argues her position is correct and supported by policy. Consequently, Cheryl believes she has carried the day. See Talk:Frances Hugle#Notable inventions section.
Cheryl has not provided secondary sources for claims that Frances invented the integrated circuit before Kilby and Noyce or that Frances "was the first person to file for a patent describing how to make a microprocessor". Cheryl is currently interpreting primary source patents to make those claims. A patent does not prove she was first. In any event, the claims in the article are not widely held and run up against WP:UNDUE. To support her position, Cheryl must interpret the patents. N and p materials become integrated circuits. An array becomes a microprocessor. Other editors are not voicing support for Cheryl's position.
I believe that if Cheryl understood she does not have consensus, then she would back down. She has said as much. As it stands, the talk page discussion is not clear about consensus. Other opinions are not given in the talk section I pointed to above, but Don and Red Pen do comment in the following section. I believe Cheryl's closeness to the subject keeps her from seeing the big picture. Cheryl's interpretations are not being supported, they are being attacked.
I do not think it is necessary to shoo Cheryl away from the article, but we should make it clearer on the article talk page that Cheryl has not garnered a consensus. Red Pen, Jethrobot, Don, and I have trouble with her overgeneralizing what can be said from the limited sources about Frances Hugle.
The article talk page also has some distractions. That has not helped to sort things out. I am indifferent about reporting Frances Hugle's faith. I don't see it as significant to her technical contributions, but I don't see a need to suppress such information. Only Malerooster has made it an issue. As I've said, seeing consensus on the talk page is difficult for a newbie. Glrx (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess I dispute the implication that this COI notice board posting is somehow swooping in on an unsuspecting newbie. The editor has been editing for about six months; and explicitly aware of wikipedia's COI for a month; and has not shown any moderation of their editing and approach nor any interest in becoming anything other than an SPI editor about an article where they have an obvious COI.
and then we have this [67] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was drawn into this because the Frances Hugle article appeared to be in a mess months after it was created, a mess that I thought depended to several misunderstandings that I could help clear up. I never expected to waste so much time on this. I only expected to spend time cleaning up the original article and adding references. And periodically, as more info came to light, contribute additional content. As stated below, I have been engaged in discussions about this article for ~ two months, no more.

As far as being an SPI, well, not exactly... I tried about five years ago to enter a discussion on Wikipedia's Talk pages, regarding human anatomy. I found my points and analogies lost on the other editors. I also wrote an answer for Wikianswers on the same subject, mostly a series of quotes taken from experts. The experience proved futile when a Wiki editor obliterated the contribution based upon her preferred (and erroneous) understanding.

These contributions were under a different user name.

I decided to attempt another contribution to Wikipedia because it seemed that I had enough sourced info for a short article on a topic of interest to the general public and not sharing would be irresponsible.

At the moment though, I am again not feeling inclined to involve myself too much with Wikipedia. But those feelings could change if I thought any of the articles on the subjects of interest to me could possibly be improved with my contributions. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"To support her position, Cheryl must interpret the patents. N and p materials become integrated circuits. An array becomes a microprocessor. Other editors are not voicing support for Cheryl's position."

I am sure I never said N and P materials become integrated circuits (I did say semiconductor devices are comprised of N and P materials, a commonly known and undisputed fact.). I also never said an array is a microprocessor. I have very carefully adhered to (and offered, actually copied from other sites) descriptions and definitions that can easily be found in popular literature and pointed out that those definitions are included in the patent claims.

Furthermore, you and Don presented technical arguments, each of you addressing a different patent. Since these statements were based on glaring technical misunderstandings, I offered the popular definitions for that terminology and indicated on which lines of the patents corresponding wording was located. I was definitely NOT interpreting. And, this is well documented on the Talk page.

Following these explanations of terminology addressing the statements made by you no one said anything. There were no arguments, comments, etc. But, you are right, in the case of Don's comments, there were additional statements by Red and Don.

So I think the quote from your comments is a gross misinterpretation of the events that transpired. Nothing occurred that proved or even indicated I was interpreting a primary source. Quite the contrary. While I appreciate your support for my newbie status, I have to correct misunderstandings as they arise since if we continue this way, we will certainly not be able to take better informed decisions.

Finally, I have certainly not been involved with editing at Wikipedia for 6 months. Actually, once the article was resubmitted to Afc, I lost use of a computer for months. I was only able to check the article again in early September and found it mired in problems. I have worked since then to tighten its content, provide additional citations/references and address the questions and concerns of the other editors involved. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think the intentions of two or more of the editors commenting here are sufficiently revealed in the foregoing discussion so I would like to point to the section, Proposed Merge and Redirect to Tape Automated Bonding on the Frances Hugle Talk page where their desire to delete the article is clearly expressed. It was also discussed on Red's user or Talk page but possibly that has been deleted.

In the case of the proposed merger, several editors expressed their opinions and the discussion concluded with the decision not to delete the article as requested by Red and Jethro.

"we should make it clearer on the article talk page that Cheryl has not garnered a consensus."

Yes, if that is truly the case, it should be made clearer. But I will admit, I have begun to generally discount comments by Red since I find little justification for his knee jerk and negative reactions to my comments.

Furthermore, if someone makes a comment that they are basing on some false interpretations or misunderstandings (generally well intentioned), I am not assuming that when I address those, they are necessarily still of the same mind. People generally present reasoning and it is this reasoning that becomes the basis of our acceptance or further discussions. So, I do take the name of the Talk page seriously, that misunderstandings are to be addressed and consensus sought, it at all possible... and for this reason, I do present the rationales that underpin my positions. If those are not reasonably challenged, I am certainly not able to see consensus is against me. Oops, forgot to sign Cheryl Hugle (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

as per ususal, tldr; but, as for the "discussion" on my talk page, it was not "deleted" so much as "archived" and is not really a "discussion" either: User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom/Archive_10#Frances_Hugle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with I Jethrobot moving to turn the article into a redirect. I ended up disagreeing with the redirect, but the underlying issue is that secondary references for Frances Hugle are sparse.
Red Pen has insisted on better sources. That activity is not frowned upon but rather encouraged.
Consensus does not mean that editors must debate issues with you until you agree with them or they agree with you. That process would never converge. Editors are often involved in many different articles, and they don't have the time or the inclination to enter extended debates. If an editor makes his position clear, then he is done. Editors post their position, those positions are weighed with an eye toward policy, and then a consensus is determined. It's not a vote, but an editor in a one-against-many situation probably does not have a consensus. Glrx (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus does not mean that editors must debate issues with you until you agree with them or they agree with you."

What I see is that Wiki statements of policies are being abused at times with tendencies to misapply on the part of some editors. Over generalizing becomes the norm and important details and qualifiers of stated policies are studiously ignored.

I have pointed this out in several instances after reviewing those policies. I do not understand how infallibility or only the purest motivations can be automatically assumed on the part of all Wiki editors in each and every instance.

If such a supposition is a core feature of Wikipedia policies, then what is the purpose of a Talk page? Why not just state, "Only the opinions of approved Wiki editors will be seriously considered, anyone else pointing out inconsistencies between Wiki stated policies and their (ab)use by Wiki editors will be considered engaging in counterproductive and contentious activities." Cheryl Hugle (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any people who have not been involved in the article discussion that wish to provide an outside analysis and guidance for how to move forward? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I added my comments on bottom of the talk page here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Following this COI request, a very predictable and unfortunate situation has arisen, the removal of verifiable information from the article (relevant Wiki policy guidelines regarding acceptable sources as well as the exact text paraphrased will be quoted in a separate statement) replaced with a meaningless and incomplete selection of a few of Frances' patents with an entirely misleading and misinforming comparison given following the mention of one of these patents, Frances' isolation patent.

Frances' isolation patent had not previously been included in the Notable Inventions section (now deleted) but appears to have been included very recently to imply that Frances' work was a later version of work already patented by Noyce. This unjustifiably implies the contributions of Frances should be considered of lessor (later) value, and possibly an attempt to take credit for work already patented. This sullies and discredits the subject in the mind of the casual reader without justification whatsoever.

The patents now being compared in the article are not comparable:

In the case of the Noyce patent, one of the four major claims was later dismissed by the US Patent Office and the other claims if challenged might also be denied. The body of his patent essentially describes the properties of insulating materials and diodes and how these perform the same functions in semiconductor circuitry that they perform in any other type of electrical application.

The Frances patent on the other hand describes a means to substantially condense circuitry by largely removing the intrinsic barrier (insulating) regions. Following her invention, a substantial part of the wafer previously needed for the isolation of devices(40%) became available for increasing device populations.

The Frances patent represents one of the core technologies that enabled the development of microprocessors and the essential features of her isolation patent are still in use today.

Aditionally, improvements to isolation technology are many and they continue to be patented such as this one in 2012: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/8138571.html

I strongly suggest that those rewriting the section on Frances' contributions/patents/inventions either read the material they are seeking to characterize/compare, or refrain from comparisons and other statements that may unfairly discredit or incorrectly characterize her work.

I suggest that the patent section either list the patents or refrain from listing them altogether. The selection as it stands contributes absolutely nothing but a false impression to the casual reader.

Finally, everyone has biases. The most common type being a favoritism for ones mother culture. Our 'mother' culture definitely includes Noyce as a (maybe the) key figure in semiconductor technology. So, it is entirely normal to apply different standards when reviewing assumptions we have accepted by virtue of being a member of a culture which incorporates those assumptions.

I think this is the fundamental reason my position appears to be 'wrong' and COI is a convenient presumption.

The information in the Frances Hugle article challenges us to consider a largely buried piece of history (though still with enough sources to be modestly revealed) and the biases (including gender, racial and cultural) that our dominant (and incomplete) industry histories uphold.

189.172.40.237 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs of the past (and present), such as the fact that women's contributions to science have frequently been glossed over and ignored. We can only cover what the reliable sources cover and present that data in context that the greater academic community sees it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the recommendation here/on the article talk/on user's talk pages; there was a suggestion that the discussions with this editor on the article talk page had missed an opportunity to present a plain English view of what policies have been applied to the content and why, I attempted to do so on the user's talk page User_talk:Cheryl_Hugle#Wikipedia_content_rules_-_summary, but based on the user's response, I dont think that had any great effect. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mark Stephens (solicitor)

Page being edited from IP address owned by subject of article with no COI acknowledged. 94.72.236.203 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be enough regular editors to keep up with the IP edits. Since the COI-affected IP has been participating for a long time, any semiprotection would have to be for a year or more. I suggest this report be closed unless the pace increases. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:User:Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari

Resolved

Businessman who wants to brag shamelessly about himself, including about how some snooker celebrity said he was the best Arab player he'd ever seen or something. Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I blanked all his userspace drafts, since someone volunteered to write him a somewhat neutral mainspace article. Gigs (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. I came across this discussion on this COI noticeboard and checked out the userspace draft and -- get this -- I thought it was an articlespace article and began editing it as if it was a real article. Yikes. Well, it looked like an article; I just did not notice the word "User:" before the article title. Sheesh. So I trimmed the "article" substantially -- like most of it -- then I felt bad for the guy and researched him and restored text with proper references, thinking (still) that it was a real article. Finally I realized my mistake -- and floated a real article entitled Suhail Abdul Lateef Galadari, not really thinking much about whether this person passed requirements such as notability. At present I am not sure whether this article meets the WP:GNG but maybe it should be recast as an article about the Galadari Family in general, which would probably pass WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. That's exactly why we have WP:FAKEARTICLE as a guideline, user drafts should not appear to be articles because they are indexed in Google and can easily mislead readers. It's OK to have a working draft in userspace temporarily, but it should usually have the draft banner at the top. Now that you have written a real article for him, there's no further need for his drafts. Gigs (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me the link to Fakearticle. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Crap_Towns

Editing pages about own book and selves. 195.99.172.179 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  •  No action taken — I don't see any particular problems here. The involved editors haven't inserted anything particularly promotional or controversial. You can add {{connected contributor}} on the talk pages if you like, but since their usernames are real names, I don't see much benefit. Gigs (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_60&oldid=1189656384"