Case Opened on 00:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties[edit]

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Timmy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BostonMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Paul Pigman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mattisse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WeniWidiWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wjhonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Septegram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Salix alba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jefferson Anderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Advocated by AMA advocate Imaglang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka Neigel von Teighen) [1]

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by User:Paul_Pigman[edit]

The internal links to Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration, and Winterstar Symposium from performers/presenters' pages seems grossly overdone. They appear to fall under the WP:SPAM guidelines. These links have been persistently and systematically added by User:Rosencomet. When going through Rosencomet's user contributions, I find only five pages out of his approx. 850 total edits since August 2006 not connected to these links. (Those five might be connected as well. I do not know.) Of course, not every edit included inserting these links; he did do other edits on these articles. But his edit universe remains very focused on the ACE/Starwood, et al. performers. Since Rosencomet used the phrase "as executive director of ACE", he has a conflict of interest. The vast majority of these internal link insertions appear gratuitous and intended to increase visibility of ACE and its events. Several other editors have commented on this here, here, and here. Many of these inserted references seem to have little relationship to their appropriateness or significance to the subject. A representative but by no means exhaustive selection of specific examples are here, here, and here.

Additionally, editors who have attempted to change these links or argued for their removal have been subject to harassing and disruptive actions against them. Recent examples here and here. Hanuman Das has probably been the most persistent of these. Please see his block log for recent violations. Others have been Ekajati and 999.

Statement by Hanuman Das[edit]

I formally withdrew from the mediation here when the new mediator took over. I agreed not to edit the links in question, and I have kept that agreement. Please remove me from the arbitration. You may also note that this is the current mediation page, and I have posted no comments whatsoever on the page, since I withdrew before mediation started. The first mediation page is a complete red herring as the mediator never appeared or did any mediation. The only mediation which has occurred is on the page I have just given. I request that my name be removed from this request as I decline to participate. —Hanuman Das

Statement by Mattisse[edit]

If User:Hanuman Das has withdrawn I have very little issue here. He was the primary person who harassed me along with User:999 (who is on wikibreak) and User:Ekajati (who has not been named). I have no particular issue with Rosencomet separate from what people will cover here independent of my comments. My primary issue was the harassment. As far as Rosencomet is concerned, I feel he was enabled and condoned by those around him on Wikipedia. But he did not harass me or cause me personal grief. Therefore, I wish to withdraw from this arbitration as it has no relevance to me at this point. Sincerely, Mattisse 01:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WeniWidiWiki[edit]

Rosencomet the Executive Director of the for-profit organization ACE LLC created a wikipedia profile with the same name of a website he maintains called Rosencomet.com. This website is a commercial enterprise which promotes the for profit Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium and sells merchandise, tickets, etc. He created an autobiographical entry for Jeff Rosenbaum. His contribs show he has created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name and only single-mindedly edits entries which have something to do with this commercial endeavour. Several attempts at resolution and mediation have occured, and this mediation is still underway about the appropriateness of the links. However, a big problem with the current mediation that is not being addressed is that of Rosencomet's conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, and has not contributed to the mediation since being asked about his apparent conflict of interest. Since mediation is not compulsory, and he has apparently opted out, Arbitration is the last means of resolving this. - WeniWidiWiki 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ekajati[edit]

In my opinion, the ongoing mediation was going well and this RFaR was opened simply because Paul Pigman wasn't getting the result from mediation that he wanted. This is not the first time that he has attempted to bypass mediation or encourage others to join the mediation in an attempt to bias it in his favor. Vis. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

It's also not clear to me, is this about the Starwood Festival links? Or is it retaliation against Hanuman Das for bringing up a privacy concern? [9]. I'm happy to participate if it is the former. I've got no interest in a witchhunt against any user's past actions, either Hanuman Das's or Mattisse's.

Also, please note that I was not informed of this arbitration request by Paul Pigman, though everybody on his side of the dispute seems to have been notified. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also would like to note that despite Mattisse's protests that she is not involved in the situation any more, that she almost immediately entered an opinion on the mediation page. That tells me that she is still involved and should be a party to this arbitration. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 04:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that there was no a priori intent to spam. The citations with external links were repeatedly requested by Mattisse and her several sockpuppets. The person who placed the linking citations did don't believe they were needed, but was bullied into placing them by Mattisse. Mattisse then used the presence of the external links to recruit others to help her fight "spam". Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to broaden the scope of the RFaR to include the conflict of interest activities of two of the other parties, Paul Pigman and Kathryn_NicDhàna, who have also been spamming Wikipedia with links to their own site, paganachd.com. These two situations are incredibly similar. In both cases, the editors in question have conflict of interest issues and are adding links to their own sites to Wikipedia. In both cases, the links are wrapped as citations, and in both cases, there is (elsewhere on the site than where linked), commercial activity. However, where the Rosencomet case involves only supporting data, the Celtic Reconstructionist case involves a group of people using their own self-published research as references to support the repetition of their self-published research on Wikipedia. The beauty of this sitation is that it allows a much more refined arbitration: are both allowed? are both disallowed? is one allowed while the other disallowed, and why. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC) struck by Ekajati (yakity-yak) 16:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:999[edit]

I recv'd an urgent email from Hanuman Das about this RFaF. After reviewing it, I feel it is important for me to respond, although I will not have free time to participate until I return from vacation (my wife would kill me :-). I completely agree with Jkelly that local editors of the articles should decide the issue. However, it has not been local editors who have mostly been removing the additions. It has been Wikistalkers. First, Mattisse stalked Rosencomet, first removing the internal links, then adding citation requests. She was not a regular local editor of the articles in question: her first edits to each article was to interfere with Rosencomet. When local editors restored the links, she began using sockpuppets. When local editors continued to restore the links, she recruited other non-local editors, who then also began to stalk Rosencomet. These included BostonMA, Calton, User:Kathryn NicDhna. When other local editors such as Septegram supported the links as well, these users made multiple accusations of "spamming", urged on by Mattisse, in a rather uncivil manner. My recommendation is that these users abandon this effort except in cases where they truly were local editors of the article in question. I also urge acceptance of this RFaF, not as a referendum about the links, but about the stalking behaviour of these users who appear to be unwilling to let the actual local editors make these judgment calls. However, please note that while I would like to be involved, I will not be able to devote any significant time to this until January. -999 (Talk) 05:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Wjhonson[edit]

I would also like arbcom to take note then although I'm listed above, I was not formally notified of this action taking place. See my talk history here. I only became involved when I reverted, a revert of a Starwood link. I've never heard of Starwood, but my review of the link did not indicate any issue. It simply appeared to be a citation (ref) type link on a fact. I also feel like this open action is unwarranted as the mediation appeared to be going just fine. As I see it there is only one open issue, which is actually an issue cross-pedia not just on this festival. That issue being, when is an appearance at an event significant enough to be mentioned in the articles of the performers and how much leeway do we give to the main festival article to list ALL performers, even if they are non-notable in themselves. I also agree that these issues should be taken up on the local talk pages and resolved by locally-involved editors. This is not a situation for ArbCom. Wjhonson 00:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosencomet[edit]

I, too, think that this is an unnecessary move and one designed to short-circuit an on-going mediation, and it's not the first time such an attempt was made. The issue of these links should be solved by coming to some type of compromise, but so far all the moves in that regard have been from one side of the issue. It has been overblown with accusations of "taking over articles" and "google-bombing", but the history shows that from the beginning one person demanded citations on facts under several sock-puppets names, then accused the editors of linkspam when the citations were provided, actually created false pages to increase the impression of this being a big problem, enlisted help under false pretense, and never apologized for ANY of these behaviors.

Pigman says that the links "seems grossly overdone" and "appear gratuitous". At the least, this is a subjective value judgement. He has not, though, specified any rule saying how many or what kind of internal links are allowable, nor has his deletion of citations & links been selective; and they have often been accompanied by comments like "deleting gratuitous linkspam". WeniWidiWiki has misrepresented both the articles and organization sponsoring Starwood, and made a lot of the notion that it is "for profit", and said I have "created dozens of articles to promote his organization in one way or another, has made hundreds of links which go back to his domain name". Actually, ACE is not-for-profit: all money coming in goes to programming, and no one working on ACE activities is paid a dime; although it should not matter, since plenty of for-profit organizations like IBM and XEROX have Wiki article and links. And the "hundreds of links" claim is flatly false. He/she has also made a big deal about the fact that I haven't responded to anything in the last 2 days, as if not living on line means I've "oppted out of the arbitration".

Though I have tried to compromise by putting up, taking down, expanding, rewriting, and otherwise changing the work I've done, there seems to be no recognition of this. Instead, there have been repeated attempts to make this about me instead of the issue of the links themselves. I think Che is doing a good job, and the only way progress can be made is if the folks making these moves will stop being unilateral and driving people away from Wikipedia, and actually seek a constructive middle ground with guidelines both sides can agree to. This arbitration should not take place, and the people involved should continue the mediation already in progress, and save the arbitrators from an unecessary and unpleasant task. Rosencomet 05:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that those initiating this arbitration are guilty of that which they accuse others of. Let me also point out one difference between the cases, especially relevant since someone brought up the notion of warring Pagan factions or some such. I have not touched any articles written by or regularly edited by any of the people on the other side of this issue. I have not, as they have, claimed that they had no right to input data about an organization they have admitted to being officers in, and in one case claimed to have coined the name of. I haven't, as they have, reccommended the articles they've written for deletion and assembled a team to do it. I haven't used sockpuppets, or worked with those who do, or trivialized the fact that they do. I have simply inputted data I thought appropriate, tried to preserve it when I thought the reasons for deleting it were wrong, complied and/or compromised on several occasions, and sought guidelines for working to make better articles. I and my work have been sabotaged and vilified, but I have not retaliated with Rfcs or calls for arbitration, nor have I stalked the contributions of any of them. User:Rosencomet

Comment on Kathryn's update of 3/19/07 - see her "semi-statement below" Once again, Kathryn is trying to prejudice this arbitration against me even concerning discussions on a talk page. I added what I consider to be a quite valid feature of this event, child care and youth programming, under the appropriate heading. When Kathryn deleted it, I did NOT revert it, but discussed it on the talk page. But the response that came from Pigman (concurred with by Kathryn) showed, IMO, that the issue of the addition being "promotional" was just a cover for their personal and unsupported conclusions about the morality or "family-friendliness" of both the programming and the "social atmosphere" of the event.

Well, the reason it strikes me as advertising copy in this article is because of the strong integration of drugs and sex into the Starwood programming and in the social atmosphere outside of programming.

Yes, I admit this offended me, and my reaction reflected that. If there was any "attack", I believe it was this unsupported negative characterization. THAT is what my strong words were about, not just that a sentence I added was deleted. (Perhaps they were baiting me; I don't know.)

I opened the RFC only AFTER Pigman's comments, to focus on the issue of whether a mention of the fact that the event has child care and youth programming was appropriate under the heading "Activities". (I also hoped that this would help further differentiate between Starwood and WinterStar, which they have been pushing to have merged.) I had pointed out that whole paragraphs devoted to such programming exist in the articles of similar events, and quoted them. It seemed to me that the responses, for the most part, supported keeping the mention of the programming, but argued that the term "family friendly" may not be appropriate for various reasons. I accepted this, and re-posted the info without the characterization. Another editor has now deleted it saying (as he has said in the past) that child care and youth programming is "utterly unnotable". Again, I did not revert him, but asked for an explanation as to why he thought so, and whether his evaluation extends to the other articles with much more extensive language describing their similar programming.

I do not think I have done anything wrong here. I am asking for the opinions of other editors on the talk page of the article and not engaging in a revert war. Kathryn and Pigman, however, continue to ignore the conclusion of this arbitration that my editing is not prohibited, and seem to conclude that ANY defense of my positions, even on the talk pages, should be regarded as "agressive editing". Kathryn even calls asking for an RFC agressive editing.

I sincerely believe that Pigman, Kathryn and Weniwediwiki (who, on these issues, edit as one) have shown enough NPOV on this issue that they should be given the same admonishment against agressively editing these articles as I have been giving. They have shown a pattern of following my contributions far beyond this article, have called two mediations and an arbitration (and, IMO, ignored their results), have defended the actions of a serial sockpuppeteer on many of the articles I have created and/or contributed to, and are now casting aspersions on the subject of this article with no cited sources. I am not asking for blocks or punitive action, but I would like some recognition that much of this unpleasantness has been (and continues to be) instigated by this group. I would really like to see it stop; I certainly have not visited the articles they create or contribute to, reverted their work, and fought battles about it that drew in many other editors and arbitrators.

As for canvassing, I merely informed several people who had commented on issues regarding this article that an RFC had been opened, and welcomed their input. I get such notifications from others at times. I said not one word about how I thought they should vote and, in fact, some of them did not support my position. If I have done something wrong there, I apologize; this was the first RFC I've ever called. Rosencomet 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Statement by Kathryn NicDhàna[edit]

I hadn't planned on participating in this case, but as Ekajati has added me, I might as well make a brief statement. I first got pulled into this when, after seeing posts on WikProject:Neopaganism concerning the linkspam and non-notable articles by Rosencomet, I weighed in on the Taylor Ellwood AfD. Immediately 999 turned up on eleven articles I edit, eight of them where he had never appeared before. In one case he slapped a ProD on a sourced article. In another he began link-warring over a commercial, external link (not to Starwood). He admitted to some of this on my talk page, and I will provide diffs later if they seem notable to the pattern of harassment. At that time Ekajati also began placing "citation needed" flags on every sentence of some of the articles I was working on. Again, diffs later, if needed. Today she showed more of the same with these personal attacks and racism on my talk page: [10] [11]

Basically, I concur with Pigman, WeniWidiWiki and Guy that the ACE links are astroturfing, largely inappropriate, and "grossly overdone". I also agree wholeheartedly that Ekajati, 999, and Hanuman Das engaged in systematic harassment and attempts to intimidate anyone who removed or even questioned the links. Since 999 and Hanuman Das have disappeared, the pattern of harassment and intimidation appears to be continuing via Frater Xyzzy [12] [13] [14] [15] and new user Jefferson Anderson.[16] [17] [18] [19] --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As for Ekajati's accusation that I'm some kind of commercial linkspammer, as I explained to her on my talk page, the collective which with I co-authored the CR FAQ (and which was assembled for the sole purpose of co-authoring the FAQ) plans to offer a book version of the document for sale. The manuscript is not yet finished, but the printer we are planning to use (lulu.com) is setting it up so all proceeds go directly to our chosen charity. We won't see a dime of it, not profits, not our setup expenses, nothing. The charity chosen by the temporary collective is An Comunn Gaidhealach, Ameireaga [20], specifically for their Gaidhealtachd Grants program [21]. However, it seemed inappropriate to list them by name on the website before the book is published and the money received by them. In terms of Rosencomet claiming (I think this is what he was trying to claim) that I am an officer in some organization I've written about, this is not the case. Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism is not an organization. It's a Neopagan tradition, such as Asatru, Neo-druidism or Wicca. In any case, I don't think The CR FAQ has anything to do with the Starwood situation, and is just one more example of how Ekajati has attempted to intimidate those who have questioned the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update, 3-19-07: I would like the Arbitrators to take a look at what is happening here: Talk:Starwood Festival#Request For Comment: Child Care and Youth Programming? After one edit to the Starwood article, where I removed a phrase that seemed to me to be very advert-like, Rosencomet (talk · contribs) has started an RfC over the phrase. I think he is being very WP:OWNy. He's also once again veering into personal attack territory. The previous RfCs clearly expressed that Rosencomet has a WP:COI conflict of interest in this matter, and shouldn't be working on this article at all. It has been suggested in the arbitration that Rosencomet avoid "editing aggressively". While he has not been edit-warring on the article itself, I consider his attacks and accusations on the article talk page, in the arbitration, and on various talk pages, to certainly be "aggressive". He is also Canvassing for this RfC: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] . Rosencomet is no longer a newbie, and has been told many times that this sort of behaviour is wrong. He is also back to his habit of posting the same long rants and accusations on the talk page, and then copying and pasting them onto my talk page, even though I (and others) have expressly requested that he not do this. Thanks. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see response under "Statement by Rosencomet" above. Rosencomet 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Septegram[edit]

I was not notified of this RFA, which I find disturbing in and of itself since I'm listed as an involved party, and only heard about it through the good offices of another Wikipedian. I'm not sure I belong as a party, since I don't believe I have done any editing of the articles in question. My understanding of this debacle is that Mattisse bombed the Starwood article with {fact} tags (acting, it seems to me, in questionable faith), leading Rosencomet to put in links to what information zie had available. These were attacked, and the furball that ensued brought us here.
I believe there have been cases of inappropriate behavior on all sides, and have started to distance myself from this debacle. I am not optimistic that a conclusion can be reached that all sides will find reasonable, or even equally unreasonable.

Yes, Rosencomet probably overdid the linking of Starwood to performers and vice-versa.
Yes, others did respond perhaps overaggressively
Rosencomet says zie's made numerous edits in an attempt to comply with requests from people regarding this mess; I don't know and can't speak to it. I do know that this cluster**** has caused at least one editor who I held in fairly high regard to abandon Wikipedia entirely.
Yes, I'm getting disgusted with this whole dispute and the lack of flexibility and WP:AGF displayed by several people.

If the tone or content of this statement is not appropriate, I apologize, but not very heartily.
Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Salix alba[edit]

I've been involved from this quite early, and started the mediation cable case, and have participated in the various cases relating to Mattisse. Of late I've had to get on with real life, so have not been able to participate much. The worse thing about this situation has been user behaviour, however I hope that these issues have been largely resolved, although the use of words like stalking still concerns me. Another concern has been the lack of responsiveness of the wikipedia community as a whole, some people have been screaming Help! for a long time, but been completely ignored and even been met with derision, User:Timmy12 seems to have been the primary victim of this, a new user who got involved but was instantly met with some very hostile reaction, and responded in a similar fashion. It now looks like Timmy has left with a very poor experience of wikipedia.

As for the matter of internal links from pages of individual people to Starwood, I've found there seems to be a lack of suitable guidelines, WP:SPAM, WP:EL concern themselves with links to external sites and have little to say on internal links. The solution I proposed was that it is necessary to establish the notability of the fact that a person performed at Starwood. A link on the Starwood website or the performs lists of past tour date, established their presance, but not whether it was notable. A way to establish notability would be a third party source, i.e. not Starwood or the performer websites, which mentions a link between the two.

I must say I'm not surprised that this has eventually reached the status of Arbitration. --Salix alba (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:BostonMA[edit]

An editor pointed out to me that I had not made a statement in this case, and that it might be interpretted as a snub to the arbcom. I have presented evidence on the evidence page, which I hope will be helpful to arbitrators by providing some balance the pictures that have been presented. I would be happy to add more such evidence as appropriate, and to answer any questions put to me. I did not make a statement during the discussion on opening the case, because I was ambivalent regarding whether the case should be opened. I note that one of the arbitors who voted to accept this case suggested that efforts continue to resolve this case outside of Arbcom. At this point, I do not wish to add any user conduct issues. I note that one editor has raised allegations of stalking behavior on my part. To date, no details of the alleged stalking have been presented, however, I will respond to such an allegation if details/evidence are provided. My supposition is that the alleged stalking refers to my removal of external links to the rosencomet web site. I brought this issue up during a discussion on WP:AN/I [28] and in the absense of further explanation of the allegation, I will let that comment stand as my defense. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 23:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some action taken[edit]

I have just done a round of deletions of names from the Starwood festival page and a few deletions of Starwood mentions on other pages. I also assembled some 3rd-party sources referencing Starwood appearances on the part of many of the subjects who had mentions in their articles and added them. Some include interviews by the subjects discussing these appearances. I also provided links to a couple articles that had only been referred to in the past. (I would not be suprised if I did some of these wrong, in that I may have put links in the body of the text that belonged in the "Reference" section and such, and I welcome anyone changing such errors.) I hope this demonstrates my desire to improve articles and satisfy requests for 3rd-party sources. I have not added to the Starwood Festival page, only subtracted (though I did ask someone to fix a link to a band's page), and though I have added to the Jeff Rosenbaum article it was only to beef it up to avoid its deletion. If it can pass muster, I plan not to edit it any more, and I hope to ask others to handle any direct additions to the Starwood, WinterStar and ACE articles. I may still make more deletions to them for a while. Rosencomet 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/3/0)[edit]

Recuse. Dmcdevit·t 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, but don't quit mediating if you are making progress Fred Bauder 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, since I've been peripherally involved in the argument. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Un-recusing. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Conflict of interest[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible.