Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward

Without rehashing the whole debate again - It is clear that user Benjiboi has a clear conflict of interest on a number of articles and has been using wikipedia in a promotional manner - two of which are going to be deleted via AFD and do not need to be discussed further. There are also problems with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which needs eyes and checking to ensure that the material is not promotional and the sources are good. Indeed, Benjiboi's first edits were promotional/COI as they relate to promoting themselves and this was back in 2006 - so eyes are need to check articles they have contributed to significantly and ensure that they are COI free. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • What problems are there with Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regarding a COI? I don't think a person's edits that are over 3 years old are relevant to the noticeboard. Alleging a COI and not providing any support for it isn't all that helpful. And yes, I'm personally aware of who Benjiboi is, I doubt too many regular editors wouldn't be, but I'm wondering what the specific complaints are. If you don't want to "rehash the whole debate" why post here? -- Atama頭 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That the article references his activity in his Sister personia, has photos of him stuck all over it (that he uploaded), has a sister talkpage where when the conflict of interest was raised and quickly removed by him, under an edit summary of formatting - I dunno I guess it's all in my head and it's not even worth checking to see if there are problems with the article or his other edits. Naw, let's just assume with two promotional articles about to be deleted that he was acting like the driven snow on the third. Let's not bother seeing what else he was upto in the last three years when his first edits here were promotional - I'm sure it's all fine and not worth looking into. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
      • So you're saying "I think this guy has a COI, please look at everything he's ever done with a fine-toothed comb". Generally noticeboards don't work that way, COI or others. You provide diffs or give some other evidence to make your case. If you're asking for help you're doing a pretty poor job of it with the tone you've taken. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, containing notices for general attention is how noticeboards often work. If you want something specific to get your teeth into, then start by reviewing the discussion in the archives of this very noticeboard, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations, in light of the independent assertions of a conflict of interest that have now been made, and that cannot be summarily dismissed as the activity of a "stalker" as was the case before.

          And when you're done with that, try looking at Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release where you'll find completely overlooked by the regular editors of the article (q.v.) and talk page (q.v.) a note that most of the content of the article is copied verbatim from a press release. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

          • That issue was raised two years ago, since then there have been a lot of edits, and some non internal sources added, but the article still reads like a press release. I am tempted to suggest stubbing it down to the original short mention of the existence of the org and urging that it be carefully rebuilt, omitting most of the blog and internal site citations... ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, first off, when starting threads about another editor on an admin board you should notify them. Secondly, you're assuming you know my identity and this seems to be entirely based on a Wikipedia Review posting deliberately intended to reveal my identity - they just might have their facts wrong but based on this drama I'll likely change my username to help ease the drama. Third, thank you Uncle G, unfortunetly that blows my cover for neither confirming nor denying if I'm a paid editor but, oh well, it does show a pattern of harassment against me and; in that case other editors cleaned up, I think, one reference in the R Family Vacations article. That same IP had harassed me on the Sister Roma article which several of us essentially rewrote from scratch to ed the drama. I think they went on to harass another editor at Michael Lucas; I believe they were targeting her article more than me but we may never know. The current case might be targeting the Sister Kitty article rather than me as well but I really don't care. As for the press release bits on the Hot House article? You'll likely find I didn't add those but did try to fix them. I think this is Atama's point and if not consider it my point. Please demonstrate what content is actually COI-affected rather than generalizing user x is bad. -- Banjeboi 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No, my point was that saying a person has a COI and offering practically nothing to support it is useless endeavor. Don't expect people to somehow know all the background to a case, or to spend hours searching for it. Notices come and go on this board and if you don't take the time to actually present a case, expect to be ignored.
Now, this is obviously a contentious case so I expect this thread to get long, be full of wikidrama and probably not lead anywhere. But for now I'm not taking sides either way. -- Atama頭 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the actual problem is rather negligible since two offending articles which Benjiboi has admitted were probably created in error are being deleted and there is given no evidence of obvious COI conflicting material at the other articles mentioned. The only possible problem lie in the realm of theory, namely in speculations about whether Benjiboi has a conflict of interest in certain areas that they edit, and if they have how they will manage such hypothetical conflicts in the future. Now frankly such speculation isn't really productive or necessary since the future will inevitably give us the answer - if Benjiboi does not edit in a manner that would suggest to us that they have a COI and are unable to manage it correctly then we can conclude that there is no problem - if a problem arises then we can act. Now, it would be wonderfully easy if Benjiboi would simply disclose whether a COI might arise, but he is not obligated to do so - and in fact it is much more useful if they simply show by their actions that they do not or that they can manage any conflicts of interest they might have in accordance with the NPOV policy. In short I believe no action of any kind is either called for or warranted - and that we should simply move along and see what the future will show us.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Slut Night seems to be headed toward deletion. Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. looks to be possibly headed for no consensus (that's my guess at least), and then there's DJ Pusspuss which also seems to be in doubt (again, my speculation). But that still leaves Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence which isn't up for deletion at all, and there are COI concerns there. So while I haven't taken a side and I don't know if I want to become part of this controversial debate (call me a wimp if you want) I don't know that it's resolved. -- Atama頭 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Atama, I was agreeing with you but perhaps I worded it poorly. Maunus, just to clarify I think that both subjects were/are notable but were written poorly, which is of course fixable, and in the DJ one, sourced below current standards. Back in 2006 adding multitudes of external links seemed acceptable. I obviously wouldn't do that anymore. Vague accusations of COI aren't helpful. {{COI}} is a clean-up template not a badge of shame as Cameron Scott seems to be applying it. If there are NPOV or sourcing issues then simply state what they are. Given the hostility it would be rather foolish for anyone to add anything that isn't strongly sourced to any of these articles. Not sure how Slut night figures into the current COI accusations but it's likely being deleted so I'm not it matters either. For the record I didn't create that article or the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence one but greatly overhauled each being led by the sourcing. On the Slut Night one the website where most of the main articles about the subject is seen as SPS. If I had known that at the time I wouldn't have bothered trying to save it from deletion. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I was not attempting to make vague accusations - I was suggesting that the best attitude towards the accusations already made were to assume the best and leave the issue as long as noone has evidence that a COI is causing specific concerns for wikipedias integrity, which doesn't seem to be the case now. In short at present I don't currently care about whether you have a COI - but I would if your editing at anytime became disruptive or otherwise threatening to the encyclopedias integrity - stressing that I have no reason to believe that it will.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant Cameron Scott's accusations, he's maligned me all over the place, this is but one example. And I very much appreciate your take, I tend to agree. I'm definitely concerned if there are COI issues on any article but thousands of editors tend to fix those to trim off puffery and add in NPOV where it's lacking. To me, even if someone is obviously COI they must be treated civilly. This has proved to be quite the tour through drama past, much of these incidents I had completely forgotten about. At one point I thought of creating a list of people I've been accused of but still feel it's a bit of a waste of energy. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Will you refrain from editing articles where you have a COI or highlight that COI to others? enough of the weasel answers, let's get a straight yes or no. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Since you're not willing to clarify whether there is or isn't a conflict of interest (and you don't have to reveal information about yourself that would clear it up unless you want to, that's a tenet of how things are done here) but since there has been an ongoing pattern of edits from you that fit those that someone with a conflict of interest would make, which you yourself have admitted, we should take a page from WP:MEAT and treat the matter as if a conflict of interest existed, whether it does or not. What matters more than whether there is or isn't one is whether the edits are objective and well sourced. Although I haven't exhaustively checked every contribution, I'm not sure all of your edits, even all of your recent ones, are. I'm sorry to say it but you still write like you have something to promote. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice: posts below include replies on a now removed comment [1]. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Where do I pick up my torch and pitchfork? user:J aka justen (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Smallbones, your hostility is alarming and unhelpful. Anyone who starts on Wikipedia generally starts in one subject area and grows from there. That I also worked on Sister Roma who works at Hot House Entertainment, etc etc really that surprising? No. This board isn't for witch-hunting. If you actually can show COI content it would go a long way to constructively fixing it. As for everyone else, this is but a fraction of the heat i got for participating at WP:Paid; sadly my cover is blown as I'm not a paid editor but that hasn't deterred the harassment. The hostility from both Cameron Scott and Smallbones is a perfect example of why paid editors and COI editors are likely to stay hidden and underground. We can do better than this. Focus on the content. While Cameron Scott is gleefully deleting material that they think isn't sourced they are missing that it's all likely true and verifiable. I encourage others to review the behaviours of all involved here not just their idea of WP:The Truth of they think is my identity. -- Banjeboi 22:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's not where the situation actually stands. The situation actually stands at this point:
    • Benjiboi denied any financial interests two years ago on this very noticeboard and has confirmed that to still be the situation here in this very discussion only a day or so ago, albeit that xyr intention is to take the position entirely supported by Wikipedia:Outing policy of neither confirming nor denying assertions as to xyr identity.
    • It has been pointed out that the editors with the quite apparent and unconcealed conflicts of interest at Hot House Entertainment are in fact M.brandonclark (talk · contribs) (who is clearly also 71.146.203.2 (talk · contribs) and who is clearly "Brandon Clark", Hot House Entertainment's erstwhile webmaster) and Hhbrent (talk · contribs) (who is equally clearly making no secret of being the Brent Smith, of "HH", mentioned in the article itself).
    • It has even been pointed out that Benjiboi didn't actually write Hot House Entertainment as claimed, that being mostly the work of the aforementioned two; and didn't actually create, as claimed, that article, Sister Roma, or Steven Scarborough, all of which were created by Sfdrag (talk · contribs).
    • It's been pointed out that people aren't doing their research.
  • On a further note, I point out the self-contradiction between saying that Benjiboi is "Sister Roma", and thus has a COI at Sister Roma and Hot House Entertainment, and that Benjiboi is "DJ Pusspuss" and thus has a COI at Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. and DJ Pusspuss. One cannot have both. The real names behind both personae, one of which has been bandied about in these discussions (but I'm not repeating), the other of which is both in the original version of Sister roma and easily verifiable from elsewhere, don't match. The editors trying for a blanket conflict of interest here should note that this is a mutually exclusive situation. There's either the one conflict of interest or the other, not both.
  • Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Where has that claim be made? I see someone making a relationship link but nobody is saying they are the same person. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this "research" even going on? If User:Benjiboi does not wish to disclose his identity, and declares that he does not have a conflict of interest, it seems the extent to which we would need to assume bad faith to try to prove that he has a conflict of interest is quite extreme. His contributions don't get anywhere near disruptive, which would be a prerequisite for this sort of drama, in my opinion... If he's written an article that's not notable, we have procedures in place to deal with that. If he's edited articles in a way that reads less than neutral, we can deal with that. What's the point in all of this? user:J aka justen (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the current state of play is:

--Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Humble attempt to demonstrate a problem

she's wrong, it was written by Sister Dana who writes most of the Sisters history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.10.219 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice: posts below include replies on a now removed comment [3]. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. As has been pointed out to all you, this is not a witch-hunt. What you do off-site is your business. As for this board - It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.

    As has been also pointed out none of those articles had untrue information as far as I'm aware - I certainly didn't add any on purpose if there is anything wrong on them. Meanwhile you seem to be looking to cast a greater and greater net of possible problems without actually showing any issue exists except by your novel original synthesis. Looking at number of edits might be helpful but an actual look at what I was doing on thise articles shows a much clearer picture of simply cleaning up other people's edits or in the Roma case, adding sourced content. Your increasingly shrill calls of concern ring quite hollow. Smallbones, you in particular seem anxious to simply assume bad faith at every turn. That bio of Catalyst? It seems it was first posted in 2005 and hasn't changed much since then. Then information there aligns with what was in her article; who cares what her day job is? Please stop the vague insinuations and generalized harassment. -- Banjeboi 21:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Benji - it just doesn't work to say all this is my fault because I'm persecuting you. This fits in perfectly with the purpose of this board It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time.' You appear to have been caught writing 2 autobiographies. It's extremely clear that paid editors are writing adverts on Wikipedia for gay porn. Your buddy above gave the perfect example, and it's an example with clear ties to the person you apparently wrote an autobiography about, and to you as the leading editor of the article. There's a clear case of a tendentious editor causing long term damage here. It's time you give us the truth and help clear up the damage that you've caused.
BTW on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence you are the leading editor (226/66)
Also it is incorrect to say that I'm making "vague insinuations." I've been as direct as politeness and the rules allow, and all you can answer is that I'm "assuming bad faith." Smallbones (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You are assuming bad faith. On Wikipedia, tendentious carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete article content which is resisted by multiple other editors. There is no case of that here, at all. You have suggested and insinuated that I have been re-adding and restoring contested material - this is all based on bad faith WP:Outing efforts - which remains harassment. IMHO most of the porn articles are written by people in the industry and fans, I'm neither but you ... assume I must be. I'm the lead editor on tons of articles. Howabout LGBT? Want to slap a COI tag on that one too? Ridiculous, you obviously are escalating a personal gripe to outright hostility and simply wikistalking my work. Claiming a pattern of damage is nonsense but I'll assure you that everytime someone has harassed me in the past the same thing has generally happened, the articles they pick on in an effort to make a point improve. So whatever your motivation you will end up improving articles that I've shown an interest in, so for those articles' improvement I thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's editing today has gone out of control, e.g. removing COI tags and budding edit wars. We have to move this discussion to a confidential format. Could an editor who knows how this is done please inform me? Examples of Benji today

Edit warring about COI tag at Sister Roma, starting at [4]

removing COI tags [5] [6] [7] and see his next edit there as well, and again there [8] [9] [10] [11] edit war starting at [12] Budding edit war starting at [13]


Example of a new editor claiming intimidation by Benjiboi at Sisters article, “Benji knows the rules and how to wield them like a weapon.” See user 1durphul’s comments at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#Clean_up and part of the dispute at Talk:Sisters_of_Perpetual_Indulgence#501.28c.29.283.29_status_as_noted_on_other_articles_about_501.28c.29.283.29_orgs

Smallbones (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of those COI tags were not based on any evidence, except for the fact that Benjiboy edited the article quite a lot. He was more than right to remove them in most cases (and to come clean, I removed one myself [14] with talk page explanation here [15]). I strongly suggest all involved editors (on both sides of this dispute) let go of all of these articles. Unwatch them, edit something else and let other editors (there will be plenty editors on most of those articles by now,due to by all the attention this has gotten) sort it out. Otherwise, this whole dispute will only turn more ugly I am afraid. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It would be helpful if those adding the tags would be willing to say what the problems are in the articles. Thus far, the only problem I can see is that several editors aren't particularly fond of Benjiboi. AniMatedraw 06:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is over at this stage, the worst articles were deleted, the ones that can be saved have either been extensively edited so they no longer read like adverts for his organisation and the Benboji account is so watched by multiple editors that any other problems are likely to be caught quite quickly. The COI board was as much use as a chocolate fire-guard but hey the end result was the same, so that's a win. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Convenience break

So in summary we have mountains of bad faith accusations leveled against me whipped up by Wikipedia Review in an attempt to reveal my identity which remains a form of harassment. Four editors persist in wikihounding me and gleefully slapping COI tags on articles regardless if the articles are NPOV or not, simply asserting bad faith because they seem to be targeting me:
Of the articles targeted? The DJ one was deleted, fine, it really didn't cut the notability threshold although in 2006 it seemed to meet the bar; The Catalyst one, which between the homophobia and hysteria was deleted certainly meets GNG (but oh well). Neither of them nor the dozens of others tagged as COI show much COI issues at all. There was never any effort to add glowing content nor remove critical content against consensus as this board's instructions specify and in fact I have bene continually harassed which seems to violate Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. Despite efforts to out, subdue and wikihound me I have been more than willing to address any actual issues here. I am hardly editing on behalf of any organization despite the ongoing and harassing accusations. It would be nice if the harassment would stop and the accusations that I'm in COI on dozens of articles would also cease, especially as no COI violation on any article seems to have been shown at all. Organized efforts to harass me, or anyone off wiki are disappointing but so is allowing on-wiki harassment to thrive and continue. -- Banjeboi
It's inappropriate to conclude that everything has been motivated by bad faith. I, for one, don't care who wrote some of these articles, but they tend to have a promotional tone and have all been written by an editor who has been cagey about revealing basic information such as "have you ever written articles for payment before?" I don't care who you are, but the fact that your first contributions were writing two promotional articles about the same person does not inspire confidence. Cool Hand Luke 16:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's inappropriate to assume bad faith about me but you seem fine with that taking a couple jabs yourself without apparently reading the above comments which refute (i) that I had previously addressed the question and (ii) why I was avoiding re-answering it - specifically because I was making a point that we can't write enforcible policies on paid editors who don't reveal themselves. As for those articles they weren't well written but I also didn't see them as promotional, certainly anyone else could have cleaned them up if they saw fit. I'm still not convinced they were the same person (no reliable sources when i looked supported that certainly) but that's also beside the point as those articles are gone so now let's actually see any COI evidence on the other thirty or so currently targeted.
Please get real. Those were the same person, and you started both on your first day of editing. Cool Hand Luke 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi is out of control again. Not many editors are caught apparently writing two autobiographies and adding adverts into porn articles for pay. He can't possibly claim that he doesn't have a COI with Sister Roma, but he does. There's plenty more evidence on the persona and the pornographers. At this point Benjiboi's reversions of COI tags is just disruption. Smallbones (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are your problems with the articles you continue to put the COI tags on? I asked you, and you've made some vague statements. I asked you to be more specific, and have heard nothing from you. Tags aren't supposed to function as a scarlet letter or a badge of shame. Article tags are meant to help us improve articles. If you refuse to explain what the problems are, other than Benji writing the articles, the tag is worthless. Either discuss in explicit and specific terms what issues need improving, or stop reinserting the tags. AniMatedraw 01:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, but which is conveniently ignored, most COI tags are based on the sole fact that Benjiboi edited the article, without regard to the extend of his editing or the content of his edits. Please address the actual COI issues on the talk pages of those articles if you add them. Even wiser would be for all involved editors to refrain from editing those articles at all. --Reinoutr (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit: For the record, I just removed three of the COI tags myself, with an explanation on the talk page in each case, see [16] (Pink Saturday) with explanation, [17] (Pink (LGBT magazine)) with explanation and [18] (Peaches Christ) with explanation. I hope people will discuss rather than retag and revert. --Reinoutr (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read all of the above and the AfD's for the two apparent autobiographies. Benjiboi has a history of putting promotional fluff into articles and preventing edits to them. According to the apparent autobiographies, his personas have close ties to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence and Sister Roma who has close ties to pornographers. There is much more evidence on Benjiboi's ties to pornographers, and I will present it in whatever Wikipedia forum the rules allow. At this point we have to say that Benjiboi has a COI on these matters, or else say that no COI can ever be "proved" on Wikipedia.

On Sept 20, Benjiboi made 30 edits removing COI tags and corrective efforts of multiple editors. This is just part of a pattern of disruptive editing. Putting in a COI tag does not mean that the editor has to correct all the problems with the article immediately, nor does it mean that the editor has to write a dissertation length explanation of why he thinks there is a COI. Just read the above and the AfDs on the two autobiographies. Benjiboi is a text-book example of how paid editors can damage Wikipedia. Smallbones (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Benjiboi is sometimes passionate, but he's also a good faith and usually pretty reasonable editor, so I think we should try to avoid flogging him excessively. I agree there are still COI concerns over his editing those articles, and he probably needs to limit his contributions to the talk pages, but many of them have been radically pruned, so it's not shocking that he's feeling defensive and attacked (fairly or unfairly). My point is just that if we can try to resolve the situation amicably and without causing any more brouhaha that would be best. As always, the focus should be on the article content and how best to improve the content rather than the editors involved. I'm not attacking anyone for being frustrated over the reverts or the COI, I'm just suggesting that we try to work out our differences in as collegial a way as possible. My suggestion would be for Benjiboi to use the talk pages to raise any issues and for other issues to try and be patient and reasonable in addressing his concerns. I apologize if I'm out of line or missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • COI tagging every article he ever edited only dilutes and distracts from the articles where the COI actually might be an issue (which might well exist, I am not denying that). Edit warring over the COI tags on those articles, rather than actually evaluating the content of the articles to see if a COI claim is reasonable, is counterproductive. Most of the articles, as ChildofMidnight also says, have already been carefully examined by many other editors with great scrutiny and most COI issues seem to have been resolved by now. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Smallbones, let's say that you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benjiboi has a COI on all of the articles you are insisting on tagging. What changes do you want made? Keep in mind, we tag articles so they can be improved, not to punish another editor. You are completely focused on proving your point about Benjiboi. Fine. That belongs in Wikipedia space. Article issues belong in article space. If you cannot cite problems with the articles other than Benji has edited them, the tags need to stay off. Vendettas have no place in our articles. AniMatedraw 22:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Still not taking a side here but I'd like to point out that the COI tag states that the article might require cleanup and should be discussed on the talk page. When that tag is placed on an article, my suggestion is to always leave a note on the talk page as to what should be fixed. If you don't, then any editor could justifiably remove the tag because there's nothing to discuss or fix. The tag isn't necessary on an article that is fine despite being edited by someone with a COI. If it was, then we'd tag every article that had ever been edited by someone with a COI and never remove it. -- Atama頭 00:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Let's all focus on removing the promotional nature of these articles. Please notice that I have not put all these notices on the articles; I put on about 3 originally. Others have put on the tags as well, and Benji removed them. I put about 5 back on where they looked justified. Rather than complain about tags, why doesn't everybody just try to eliminate the promotional fluff in the articles, then remove the tags? Smallbones (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Smallbones, you keep repeating spurious claims seemingly in hopes that the villagers will rise up and see all the "promotional" content you are. Instead of making vague statements and generalized and, as far as I know, disproven claims please actually use each articles talkpage to present COI evidence besides "editor X is the main editor" which only proves you have a personal and malicious grudge and this is your method of punishment.

I can see why the COI tags would be debatable, the tags for the missing citations, the dead links and the failed sources are not debatable and Benjiboi has been removing those as well these last few days. Benjiboi has started hundred of articles and edited tens of thousands more - maybe 30 have been tagged for COI at any given time - this does not constitute a widespread effort to undermine all of his work. COI tags, just like any other tag, also serve to warn an uninformed reader of the potential errors and compromised interests on the page. - Schrandit (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, I can't say the term was invented for your unique brand of "help" but cite-bombing is an activity I saw you perform on other articles, I believe only on LGBT articles but perhaps there was others. You drop a few cite tags with no apparent discernment of why a statement would need to be cited - From Halloween in the Castro your asking for a tag on Halloween is now the United States' second most popular holiday (after Christmas) for decorating; the sale of candy and costumes are also extremely common during the holiday, which is marketed to children and adults alike. That information comes from our main article on Halloween and although it would be nice to cite that it seems like the only reason you threw the tag there was like all the other articles you simply threw on three cite tags with {{COI}} and called it a day. Similar with Trans March you request a cite for - Donna Rose, resigned from Human Rights Campaign (a national LGBT advocacy group) after the organization supported a version of ENDA that did not include gender identity even though it is cited in the previous section. You give every appearance of disapproving of LGBT culture and using this method of dropping cite tags, deleting content that had been previously tagged and adding various clean-up tags with no apparent effort to confirm if the information is true, sourcible or even needed in the article. Adding deadlink tags is helpful but do remember that too is a tag that means someone else needs to fix something not that the source is bad or that the content is no longer true. -- Banjeboi 11:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The concerns of myself and the other editors involved are far from spurious. Of the hundreds of articles that you have written and the tens of thousands that you have edited maybe 20 have had COI tag added. Editors adding tags to the minuscule proportion of your work that you appear to have a very real conflict of interest with is hardly the grinding of axes.

Réseau de Résistance du Québécois

Resolved
 – Another sock bites the dust. -- Atama頭 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, members of the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois keep deleting information from the article about their organization. These RRQ members do not have a NPOV. One guy keeps creating sockpuppets and shows up a few times per day. Can you send some administrators over to monitor this article. A similar issue happened on the Scientology article a while back. Perhaps, you can just block all IP's that start with "70" that would probably stop the sockpuppet. Thank you. 76.64.152.111 (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The user 76.64.152.111 try to block all the users who edit the Réseau de Résistance du Québécois article. He erase all other users contributions and try to block everybody editing this article by calling them sockpuppets. Considering he try to block everybody and don't want to cooperate I ask you to block this anonymus user 76.64.152.111. Thank you. User:Québécois1837
That's because they are sockpuppets. They've been proven so. I don't doubt that you are one too. Every time you try to make a new account it's going to be blocked, so I suggest you give up. -- Atama頭 02:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Hill International

Could someone take a look at this edit? Looks problematic, all around. -- Thekohser 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reported the user name to WP:UAA as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:SOCY 7014

Resolved
 – Spammy subpage deleted, other edits to lists reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

SOCY 7014 (talk · contribs) has created User:SOCY 7014/Rand Kannenberg, added Kannenberg's name to List of sociologists with copious details [19] and to other lists. Other editors have warned him, but my question is primarily what should be done about the article he's written in his userspace about himself. MfD? Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged it for G11 speedy. While there is some leeway in userspace, that subpage is clearly promotional and intended to be so. – ukexpat (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Carlton Society

3MCarltonSocietyOffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), potential COI edits to Carlton Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reported the user to WP:UAA. In addition, I have serious problems with that article. -- Atama頭 18:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the TMs littered throughout are a giveaway that it is a product of a PR organisation. Very tempting to tag it for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the article itself for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Society. Tckma (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Bell Inn

Article The Bell Inn has suffered from persistent addition of spam / unnotable / unverifiable material. IP's User talk:82.11.234.188 and User talk:86.21.207.122 have been blocked for 48 hours, but a new user account User talk:Bingthewind has been created and is continuing to add similar material, and has already had Craig A sharp weir (the pubs landlord) deleted for non-notability. I can't help but think there is COI here, but can't prove it.

I am in danger of breaking the 3RR rule, not to mention getting tired of dealing with this. I am seeking advice:

  • are my editing decisions to delete this material justified?
  • how best to proceed? This person seems to be very determined, but won't enter into dialogue.

Thanks, Derek Andrews (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done the right thing. I'll keep an eye on it for a few days anyway. Rees11 (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you have. Now, I'm not going to report you or anything, but you're not in danger of breaking the 3RR rule, you already have. Also, reverting the edit as vandalism is inappropriate. They were bad edits but vandalism requires that the edits be willfully malicious, and the edits inserted don't seem to be. They're objectionable certainly and I support removing them but the methods you're using are wrong. I'm just letting you know this so that you might be more careful in the future, it pains me when a good editor gets blocked because they're violating technical rules in good faith.
Here's the real shame. I don't think there's any doubt that the IPs and the new editor are the same person. That means sockpuppetry to get around the 3 revert rule. That's an offense that might bring an indefinite block, but to squawk about it now might lead to a block against you as well because it would bring your own edit war to attention. Do you see the dilemma now? In any case, I'd say let Rees11 look over the page and stay away for a bit to let the 3RR thing blow over. If the editor comes back, Rees11 or myself might report the person so you could avoid the Plaxico effect. -- Atama頭 22:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the 3RR violation. Atama's right about that. Rees11 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice and support. I think that part of the problem is the way the rest of the article is written and not referenced, which may give the impression that anything goes. I will try to work on improving that. I am also somewhat surprised that an article associated with no less than three wiki projects doesn't have more editors watching it. --Derek Andrews (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Anybody can add a Wikiproject tag to an article. Once I ran across an article while patrolling that was in awful shape but seemed like a notable subject, and I removed the proposed deletion tag and cleaned it up a bit. I then added it to the Visual Arts project with a note on the talk page asking for someone to take a look at it so that it could be improved so that someone doesn't try to delete it again. It still hasn't been touched. So being part of a project is definitely no guarantee that anyone is paying attention to it. -- Atama頭 21:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resource Data Inc.

I created a page for Resource Data Inc., which I work for. Let me know if you see any issues, and I commented on the usertalk page why I think Resource Data Inc. is notable and I kept the page short and just to the facts to avoid any COI issues. -James JamesBecwar (talk)

Your openness about yourself and your posting on this page are certainly appreciated. You've definitely done the right thing regarding your conflict of interest. The concern with the article is about notability, and commercial entities have a more specific set of criteria at WP:CORP. I know that you've made a case for notability on the talk page of the article, but the burden of proof lies in the person who is adding or asking to preserve information in an article. Without sources your assertions of notability don't hold weight. I've done searches in noted publications and while I've found numerous mentions in local Alaskan papers such as the Anchorage Daily News and Alaska Journal, such mentions are either press releases or simple mentions of who was hired in the company or what projects they've picked up. I can't find substantial coverage. If this isn't available, it's almost certain that the article will face an articles for deletion discussion and might be in danger of removal. -- Atama頭 17:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me add, your sole "reference" in the article is to "BuyAlaska", a directory where businesses can list themselves. In other words, those are just the company's own claims, and that isn't a reliable source at all. -- Atama頭 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious Fanatism

Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) No matter how well sourced is my edit about the worldwide criticism against the brazilian sect "Universal Church of the Kingdom of God"; the User:Luizdl keeps reverting it. His contributions show he only edits "Portuguese Language" and "Edir Macedo", the founder of the sect. Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Sieradski

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Daniel Sieradski. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave him a message about the COI, thanks for the notification. -- Atama頭 23:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Chili's

Resolved
 – COI editor blocked for username violations, edits reverted and article cleaned up. -- Atama頭 23:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

BrinkerCorpComm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
63.163.55.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These are probably the same user. Both made COI edits to Chili's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that have since been reverted. Tckma (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI tends to make me hungry when they talk about finely-grilled trout with dill, and now a reference to Chili's on this board. That's just not fair.
Brinker International is the parent company of Chili's, as well as other restaurant chains, and it's pretty obvious that there's a COI here. I'm reporting BrinkerCorpComm to WP:UAA for being promotional. -- Atama頭 21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The IP address belongs to "Brinker International Payroll." Rees11 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

I request an editor peruse the sandbox version of Center for Class Action Fairness, edit if necessary, and copy and paste it from my sandbox into a mainspace version if it meets WP:N requirements. Thank you. THF (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (repeating request of September 14)

Why not just add the text to Ted Frank rather than create a new stub? – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming that THF is, in fact, Ted H. Frank and is trying to avoid a COI by adding anything to that article either. But regardless it looks to me like there's enough to show that CCAF is notable enough for its own article. I haven't looked at the proposed article closely yet. -- Atama頭 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Ted Frank could stand an update and rewrite, but Lord knows I'm not going to be the one to do it. THF (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree that it should be added to Ted Frank rather than having a separate article - it doesn't quite seem notable enough yet as far as I could tell looking at the references given in the sandbox version. Smartse (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone be WP:BOLD and make the edit to one or both of the pages? I think it already meets WP:ORG, but am okay with a redirect if CCAF gets the first section in the Frank article (which should happen regardless). I'm a little frustrated that I'm following the rules, have been making this request for over two weeks, and hand-delivered a draft with properly formatted and reliably sourced verifiable information, and nothing's happening. Compare Drum Major Institute, whose self-serving self-advertisement has been up without a single reliable source for over two years. If you want the WP:COI policy to work, then it needs to be policed not just for violations but with assistance for those who follow the rules and use the requested-edit procedure that COI asks us to use. THF (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I threw your text in at Ted Frank for now. I put in after Advocate of tort reform and before Recorded viewpoints to keep the career chronological. It looks like it isn't perfectly organized so if it needs to be moved up for some reason or the sections need to be tinkered with it should be easy enough. I did not do the redirect because it looks like it could meet WP:ORG but concern was expressed up above. Let me (or anyone else) know if you want the redirect now and it should be done. I was thinking that might kill of any chance of discussion, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that is the right place for it. If/when the CCAF section becomes bigger (more notable cases to record, etc), it could then be forked out into a separate article. If you think that it may be a search term on Wikipedia, it could be created as a redirect as well. Also, kudos to THF for going the extra mile to avoid a COI, even at the cost of some delay to the addition. ArakunemTalk 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lisashaffer

User:Lisashaffer has made several promotional, first-person edits to the article Lisa Shaffer. After the article was tagged for COI by User:Eric444, she blanked it. I have told her about the conflict of interest and would like to know what else to do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  • That's about all we can do right now. I'm sure the blanking was done out of frustration and I don't hold that against her (unless it becomes a problem, which doesn't appear to be the case). I like that you personalized the COI notice too, to let her know exactly what the problem was rather than the cold impersonal COI template. At this point we can only keep a watch on the page, and if she re-visits it, encourage her to discuss changes on the article talk before adding them to the main article. ArakunemTalk 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WaltonSimons1

Resolved
 – DSK1984 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


  • User:WaltonSimons1 - Relatively new user WaltonSimons1 (joined August '09) has been extremely focused on disparaging and getting deleted an entry I've worked on for Little Nobody. He/She has yet to counter any of the claims that he/she is solely here with a hidden agenda to have this article deleted for personal reasons. Please see discussion about same on the deletions discussion page here: [[20]]

This is especially apparent since WaltonSimons1 has not contributed to ANY other article at all (see here [[21]]), aside from King Britt - where he/she actually fished for support in deleting the Little Nobody thread. The language this person uses has also been counter-productive and far from constructive, with comments like: "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté".

I have addressed this matter with Duffbeerforme, and we are getting together information/evidence to make the Little Nobody entry a more accurate and stream-lined article (we all agree it needs tailoring), although I personally cannot contribute to the writing as I received a COI notation, which may be fair enough as I am a fan; that's the reason I previously worked on the article.

In these circumstances, I really think WaltonSimons1 should also receive a COI, or at least actively work in other areas of Wikipedia before engaging in such a heavy-handed, unproductive approach.DSK1984 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is where an editor is connected to or is the subject of the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, thanks for getting back so quickly. Just to fill you in, I believe the conflict of interest here is related to the subject of the article not in trying to promote or "sell" it, but the diametric opposite - a desire to see it deleted for whatever reasons.
All along, ever since the beginning of August, I've asked for some sort of explanation of his/her extreme interest in this entry - in somewhat unusual circumstances, as pointed out on Athaenara's talk page on 2 August [[22]].
On that page I pointed out that I noticed WaltonSimons1 was a new addition to Wikipedia, and that his sign-up and focus on the Little Nobody entry strangely coincided with the work of a very aggressive individual known as "V-Tron" on the Australian ITM Forum [[23]] who in late July and early August seemed to be irate and personally attacked Andrez Bergen (Little Nobody) as well as myself quite publicly on the forum threads there.
For instance this posting by him, which openly refers to the Little Nobody entry on Wikipedia: [24].
And this one which has a picture of the Little Nobody Wikipedia revision history - right before WaltonSimons1 got involved: [25].
And this one which refers to his smashing both Andrez and seems angry at me too: [26].
If you look at WaltonSimons1's profile, for starters his contributions page [[27]], you will find that his only postings have been on the Little Nobody entry, in apparent quest to have it deleted - other that one foray into the King Britt entry [[28]] on 11th August to actually fish for help..... in deleting THIS entry.
WaltonSimons1 has not once addressed the concerns I have raised about his/her motives here, nor answered the challenge about his/her relationship with this V-Tron character, in almost two months of being a member of Wikipedia. He/she seems to be obsessive about having the Little Nobody entry deleted, which does make me wonder about his/her background reasons.DSK1984 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Glass houses. Please see the COI notice on DSK1984's talk page from Athaenara as well as contributions related wholly to IF? Records and Little Nobody. I have not edited the content of Little Nobody whatsoever in a positive or negative way and merely participated in the deletion discussion in order to determine the article's verifiability as well as the notability of its subject. To date, nothing substantial has been posted to justify that the article ought to be kept. I have refrained from attacks whereas this user has been intent on drawing a tenuous connection with an Australian dance music website. I only posted the statement "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté" in response to repeated accusations as well as the nature of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, glass houses indeed. The only reason I lodged this COI submission was because you are quite clearly conflicted in your attention to this article, and this article only. Yes, I have a COI as I previously noted (above). I was being honest in my submission. But if a fan has a COI, it stands to reason that someone who acts the complete opposite should also be presented with a COI, in order that more objective souls than you or myself should work on the entry, defining it by its merits rather than the admiration or vitriol it induces.
I have never directly attacked you, WaltonSimons1, but I have pointed out some suspicions about your extreme interest in the Little Nobody entry, which has taken up 100% of your activities since you joined Wikipedia in August - see here [[29]] - but you have never addressed these concerns.
Instead you prefer to attack the people working on the entry, such as myself and Duffbeerforme, and mock our efforts to make the entry appropriate to meet Wikipedia needs. If you could be constructive in some way, that would be fantastic, but you act like it's your mission in life to see this particular article deleted.
And if you don't have a personal interest here, why is it that you have not worked on a single other Wikipedia entry in 2 months? DSK1984 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you want any of us to do. The editor you accuse of COI hasn't touched the article more than once. He has participated in the AfD discussion, but that's closed now. He has participated on the talk page, but that's what editors with a COI are expected to do. I don't see any evidence of COI. I would urge you to assume good faith and beware of wp:outing. Rees11 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I think the problem is this person Walton1 has been pretty annoying in his activities in the notes and on peoples talk-pages and often putting down peoples attempts to make the article appropriate for Wiki. Personally I think he's trolling but I don't think a COI is necessary.Popstarr69 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Rees11 and Popstarr69, I appreciate the honest feed back. DSK1984 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon Butcher

Extensively edited by JBAxis (talk · contribs) even after COI notice given. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon Butcher is definitely notable, I can tell that from a quick Google News search. But that article is a mess, a terrible mess. To Jon's credit, however, he (Buckandthor) doesn't understand what the complaints about the article are based on and is repeatedly asking for help on his article's talk page. He says that his "friend and associate" was the one editing the article (who I presume to be JBAxis). I'm going to leave Jon a message on his talk page to give some advice. He seems well-intentioned, he hasn't made accusations or demands and I don't see that he wants to add promotional information to the article, he just wants to clarify some inaccuracies, which we should both respect and encourage. I'll suggest the best way for him to do so. -- Atama頭 23:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that at User talk:Buckandthor, Jon (the article's subject) has asked for help getting the article cleaned up. Again I think that there is a lot of reason to assume good faith in this situation despite the conflict of interest. -- Atama頭 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

I'm not sure this is a COI but it smells like it. The user is a fairly new SPA that just made a long series of edits to the article, completely unsourced and full of marketeer-speak ("The Sheraton's signature bed is the Sheraton Sweet Sleeper Bed"). I don't want to just revert the whole mess but it would take me a week to go through all the edits. Help! Rees11 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left the editor with a spam welcome template, and I think it's best to treat this as more of a spam issue than a COI, because the promotion is pretty blatant. The edits are clearly not productive and if they continue this could eventually be brought to WP:AIV assuming that the editor doesn't wish to cooperate. I can't see that anyone has yet approached the editor directly about their edits, which should be the first step in any situation like this. There is also similar language inserted by IPs who may or may not be the same person, and it's a bit stale now but if the anonymous editing starts again I'd suggest asking for semi-protection. Hopefully, Rammstein1980 will respond to my welcome if they are willing to discuss matters. -- Atama頭 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV Roadies

Promotional advertising copy, added by an editor self-declared as an MTV employee, is the root cause of other people badly trying to neutralize such advertising by retargetting external links to FaceBook. For details, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#Legal threat at MTV Roadies. Better neutralization of advertising copy would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the worst of the promotional language has been cleared out, and the problematic editor is indef-blocked. -- Atama頭 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned Books Week

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, an acknowledged critic of Banned Books Week who maintains a website and an organization dedicated to denigrating Banned Books Week (see http://www.safelibraries.org), and who also comments negatively about Banned Books Week in the mass media (see article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMj2Fmuq6lqm4kdFfy5Vhp8-suQg), appears to be editing the Banned Books Week article to push his point of view concerning Banned Books Week. This concern over his conflict of interest has been raised before on the Talk:Banned Books Week discussion page. His last batch of edits - eliminating links to resources that contradict his views, attempting to add his own anti-Banned Books Week media quote to the article,and creating footnotes containing cherry-picked quotes that are provided without context - seem to confirm this conflict of interest. I would appreciate guidance and assistance on resolving this dispute. In the meantime, I will attempt to restore the article items eliminated by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Bibliolover (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Suffice to say that the COI is obvious and the editor in question acknowledges it and seems to have been making an attempt to comply with COI guidelines (posting a request on the talk page and waiting for over a week before finally doing it himself. -- Atama頭 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I know I'm new, but here's my question: when you examine the history of his edits, it is pretty plain that he is editing the article to reflect his bias - eliminating the word "banned" from the entire article, for example, even when I wikilinked to the Wikipedia article listing banned books, cherry picking quotes, eliminating links to information that contradicts his viewpoint, etc. It seems that he only has stopped because I challenged it and called attention to his actions. To the extent that the article addresses his belief that Banned Books Week is controversial - it's nearly half the article now - he has succeeded in making the article more about the controversy and less about the event itself. How does the Wikipedia community address this?Bibliolover (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I have not eliminated the word "banned" from the entire article. I even wikilinked it as one point. I am not eliminating links that disagree with my viewpoint. For example, the very long "Doug Archer" quote from a blog wherein the author stated he was a guest blogger was added by the newbie, it disagrees with my viewpoint, but I have not removed it. That's just one example. The only reason I stopped editing for a while was in self-imposed penitence for accidentally edit warring. I have returned to editing the article, gained consensus in the matter of the duplicative link, and fully explained the reason to re-add the Muncy link. I love the claim that the BBW controversy is now nearly half the article. The "Doug Archer" guest blogger quote is huge by itself, was added by the complaintant, and is the prime contributor to the size of the controversy section. If it were up to me it would be removed and replaced with a shorter response from a more reliable source. But I have left it for other editors to make a similar conclusion and edit according to their own wishes.
I am not being defensive, rather I am just explaining in light of the complaintant's comments. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
LAEC has been pretty cooperative in my opinion, and open to criticism. The removal of the map link was perfectly legitimate and in line with WP:EL. The cherry-picked quote was poor judgment but LAEC has acknowledged that. And the Wikipedia community has been giving its opinion in the article so I wouldn't worry about it being controlled by LAEC. -- Atama頭 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The map link aside, the long history of edits done by LAEC to the Banned Books Week article appear to be designed to overemphasize his views in regard to Banned Book Week; and despite his disclaimers, he did attempt to remove all references to "banned books" and the Doug Archer blogger quote until called on it. (I'd also note that the Archer quote is a direct response to LAEC's addition of another librarian blogger's quote that happens to reflect his views. Why one librarian blogger is a more reliable source than another librarian blogger is beyond me.) He is now trying to include yet another long quote from an op-ed on Banned Books Week in a reference - a quote that does not support any factual assertion in the article.
But I still haven't received a direct response to my question: is it appropriate for a declared advocate, who is directly associated with an organization and a campaign to denigrate Banned Books Week, to edit the Wikipedia article on Banned Books Week at all, much less in a manner that appears designed to reflect his biases and to support his campaign against the event? If corporations are disfavored editors - why not advocacy campaigns/organization? Bibliolover (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The answer to your question is a blanket statement. Everyone is allowed to edit every article until that privilege is revoked. So, yes, it's perfectly appropriate until it is shown that there's enough disruption from LAEC. That hasn't been shown, so it's fine for him to edit it until it is. Keep in mind WP:Plaxico however. You have created an account called "Bibliolover" and have been tenaciously pushing a positive agenda in the article. Your own COI might be questioned, but I'm giving you the same courtesy that I'm giving LAEC. The biggest difference I see between the two of you is that LAEC's conflict of interest is openly declared. -- Atama頭 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand your point; but is it COI to decide to try to maintain some balance upon discovering that one of the major editors of the BBW article leads an effort to disparage BBW, especially when his edits appear to tilt or spin the article's POV? (Can't apologize much for the name - I am a voracious reader and book collector.)--Bibliolover (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
One thing that I've learned after going over various disputes on this board and elsewhere is that bias is almost impossible to avoid. Even our NPOV policy acknowledges this fact. And that's okay, what's important is how that bias affects the article. I personally think it's a good thing that both yourself and LAEC are involved in the article. He has an anti-BBW stance, and you seem to have a pro-BBW stance. And that's a good thing because if you have both have biases, you have an interest in developing the article, an interest lacking in someone like me who has no opinion on the matter. It's healthy for people with opposing views to work on an article, but you have to be able to work together. If two people work on an article with opposing viewpoints, and compromise, then the article should end up with a net neutral slant as you keep each other in check. My hope is that the two of you can agree to disagree and work together on the article, and feel free to ask for outside help to mediate your differing viewpoints. -- Atama頭 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Epstein School

REPLY: Respectfully, I believe your statements here are misleading. I have not re-inserted the previous information...I changed/edited it after our discussion and let you know that I did it. I edited out the language that you indicated that you felt was not neutral. You never indicated you had a problem with the educational VODCAST that was listed as an educational tool. In fact you stated that you did not know what a vodcast was. I must say, if you felt that there was an additional issue, you could have simply talked to me about it in the discussion. I am very easy to talk to, have worked continuously to improve the page and have been polite and courteous. I respectfully request that the tech section be reverted.

Below is the code for your review:Also, as I mention, I feel that I am qualified to be neutral despite affliation, since I am also an online community editor.

Technology:

Students live in a digital world where they are exposed to an extraordinary amount of information. The school's goal for students is to grow beyond the mechanics of technology and acquire research and critical thinking skills in order to become information literate. In today’s technological environment, information literacy is essential in building a foundation for success in the 21st century.

Informational Vodcast: More than ever, children are taking part in the online techno-social world known as Web 2.0. Children today are bombarded with messages and peer pressure to engage in online social networking. In an effort to ensure that students are educated in the safe, responsible and moral ways in which to use technology and the school created an online multimedia vodcast[1] to help better understand both the benefits and the potential risks of online social networking.

ThanksClou2epstein (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has just removed the "COI" tag from the article (and not for the first time)! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I back up Orange Mike's assertions that the material you wish to insert is not encyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does read like an ad, and even if rewritten in a neutral manner in the proper style I don't see what value it has in informing people about the school. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're part of the technology/computer department at the school, am I right? If so, then that would explain why you want to emphasize the "vodcast" achievement over other aspects of the school, but this cuts to the heart of why the conflict of interest is such a concern. In many cases people just can't see their own biases even if it seems obvious to others. You've said elsewhere that there is no rule preventing you from editing the article because of your affiliations, and you're absolutely correct. However, if other editors view your contributions and think that they are inappropriate that COI is going to wave like a red flag. I believe that's what is happening now. I also think that the notability of the school might be questioned, I'm sure you have a lot of pride in it and it might be a great school but I see a lack of references independent of the school demonstrating notability. That might mean that the article itself could be deleted soon if other references can't be found. -- Atama頭 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply: I respectfully disagree and again request reverting the material. I have reviewed other pages of other schools and feel strongly that the content is not only inline with the spirit of the website, but also accurate. If you have specific issues with the content, then please feel free to let me know what they are and I will be happy to discuss them. As for your interest in understanding why I feel technology is important...from an educational standpoint it is critical. As mentioned in the tech paragraph, while many of us right here in the "wiki world" should understand, regardless of your educational background, whether it be History, Science, Education or Journalism...etc...in today's world technology is crtical for most careers. Thus, I thought it would be a particularly appropriate piece to ad to an online educational medium such as wiki.

As for your assertion, you are NOT correct....I have nothing to do with any IT department, however, I am skilled in technology....just never had an interest in making it a career. Clou2epstein (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on the user's talk page. I suggest moving the COI discussion to the article's talk page, and have started a section there for that purpose. I believe this is a simple misunderstanding and can be easily cleared up. Rees11 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Thank you Rees11. I appreciate that and I have responded to your reply on the talk page. I agree with you about confusion and I hope that my reply clears up any that may exist. I have continued to act in good faith and be polite. I have also invited discussion; and I have not only listened to the input of others, but have acted accordingly to remove the disputed language and stay neutral. I have reviewed other school pages that are held up as "good articles." I strongly feel The Epstein School page is within the guidelines. I again respectfully request that the COI be removed ASAP and that the REVISED vodcast language be allowed for 4 reasons:

1.The offensive Tech language is not even on the page. It was removed.

2. The technology section revision discussion was misleading and innaccurate.

3. There is now discussion about the tech section and I continue to work hard to improve the section.

4.I have acted in good faith to be informative and neutral and have invited discussion/input. 

Thanks, Clou2epstein (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Clou2epstein (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He's still editing the article; and I've had to remove yet more promotional language from it again. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the "resolved" tag, while this thing hasn't exploded into a big problem and Clou2epstein has been fairly cooperative, there are clearly still concerns about the editor's further contributions and promotional material is still being added and removed. -- Atama頭 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Danvujic

Resolved
 – Speedied as G12 and A7 respectively.ArakunemTalk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

His own article has been tagged as copyvio by CorenSearchBot; it didn't seem to me an exact enough copy to tag for speedy on those grounds, and a quick search suggests notability doubtful but perhaps enough to avoid A7. His company article has been tagged A7. COI warning given. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  • His article was Speedied G12, though he seemed to assert on Coren's page [30] that the text was not copyrighted (or copyrightable) by the source given. Alas I don't get to see the deleted article, so can't go on that hunt. If he is notable enough for an article though, he should be instructed as to the peculiarities of WP:DCM. Company article was A7'ed as well... ArakunemTalk 14:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I tagged the article for deletion, it was a blatant copy of another site that had a big copyright label at the bottom of it. He probably is notable but the article couldn't have been kept as it was. Smartse (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The proper action then, thanks. I guess we can close this for now, and any future article can be addressed at that point. ArakunemTalk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dudelsonphotos

It appears that the primary purpose of this account is to include attribution for photos that he has taken. In addition to the COI issues, this seems to be a form of linkspamming for self-promotion. (I won't even go into the User name violation.) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the info on COI, it was not my intent, but rather it was my intent to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia by placing photos I have taken - and own - onto Wiki commons and then onto the proper Wikipedia pages. In no way was i trying to spam and have taken note of this going forward (as i plan on adding more pictures to articles that need them) Dudelsonphotos (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand, and quite honestly I'm not sure this is a COI problem, which is why I brought it to the noticeboard. Offering your photos is appreciated and I hope you will continue to do so. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say my opinion is that the photographs would be helpful to the encyclopedia. I understand the reasoning behind the COI notice, but I don't see the harm in the photos. Regarding the linkspamming, I don't actually see any links being provided, only credit for the photo (which is not only allowed, but in most cases required). -- Atama頭 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I would mostly concur with Atama. As far as putting the photographer credit in the caption, I don't think that is the normal way of crediting. The caption is normally meant to establish context of the photo to the article, as should normally be brief as possible. The credits and attribution would be found on the image descriptor page. The captions guideline includes the following: Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. ArakunemTalk 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of that. -- Atama頭 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed all the photo credits (it looked VERY promotional to me)he is still credited in the file name of all the images though. TeapotgeorgeTalk 17:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Teapotgeorge - please revert those changes - you should not do that. Under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, any distribution of photos are required to include attribution. Mr. Dudelson has been kind enough to let us on Wikipedia use his photos, and we should respect the terms of that license. RayTalk 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have only removed the attribution from the articles NOT the image page itself. TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Dudelson hasn't commented on the attribution question and most likely didn't even know that he wasn't supposed to be putting the attribution in the caption. The terms of the license certainly shouldn't require such attribution, the attribution should be on the image page as they are on other images in Wiki(p/m)edia. -- Atama頭 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information. I was not aware that attribution in caption is frowned upon and will not include this in any contributions going forward. My intent has always been to provide a meaningful contribution to the encyclopedia and I will continue opening my archive in an effort to do this. I applaud every editor who participates in this great project and am happy to be a part of it. Dudelsonphotos (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know that it is even "frowned upon", but rather its "the way its always been done". Please feel free to comment at the above RFC that Ray opened. And thank you for your photos, and I hope you will continue to add them, as they do add a lot the articles! ArakunemTalk 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AVmedia

I've reported the editor for username violations and restored the tags removed from Mike Eman. I haven't reverted the latest IP edits though, as they've been mostly constructive. -- Atama頭 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tigerdirect12345

I've reported the editor to WP:UAA for violating username restrictions. I'm confused about what you said about being "previously blocked"; did they have a previous account? -- Atama頭 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
After I left a message on Tigerdirect12345's talk page -- which resulted in the talk page being added to my watchlist -- I saw the following in my watchlist:
16:12 (User creation log) . . The colour of shìt is orange (talk | contribs) created new account User:Tigerdirect12345
I then viewed the talk page for "The colour of shìt is orange" and saw that the user had been blocked for having an inappropriate username. Hope this helps. —BMRR (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
A perfectly auspicious beginning for an editor. Well, they're blocked now. -- Atama頭 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Potential Press and User:Greatpotential

Resolved
 – ArcAngel (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Greatpotential created the article on October 1, 2009. Username is clear username violation. If the only person that creates this article is someone affiliated with the subject, I would believe that it is not too notable. Netalarmtalk 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged article with CSD for advertising. Netalarmtalk 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Issue has been taken care of =D. Netalarmtalk 02:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CircularEvidence1

Resolved
 – Indef-blocked. -- Atama頭 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CircularEvidence1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits other than adding references to the book Circular Evidence by Colin Andrews, and other work by Andrews. This is pretty unsubtle stuff, I have left a warning. He also appears to be a believer in fringe theories, which is also a problem. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported the editor to WP:UAA, because the username is promotional (promoting the book "Circular Evidence"). -- Atama頭 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Totally misplaced protest of the deleted edits of an inter-wiki sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks to be a content dispute and not a COI issue at all. Can you explain how WP:COI has come into play? Are you suggesting that DIREKTOR is a member of one of these houses, for example, or is part of an organization in opposition to them? -- Atama頭 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have absolutely no problem with the interwiki links. I was simply reverting the edits of the IP sock of indeffed User:Luigi 28 (not a shred of doubt about the identity of the IP, this is him for the millionth time). That user has been blocked for moths and years but simply insists on editing here, this is why I revert all his edits regardless of merit. This guy needs to get the message. Also, I was the one that reported him so he also likes to go around badmouthing and insulting me. As I told old Retaggio on my talk: feel free to revert me at any time [31] (if I'm not mistaken Retaggio did in fact reintroduce the interwiki links).
Heh, User:Ilario is on a personal agenda against me (again), but apparently does not know where to report me for reverting socks... Nice one this time. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any COI whatsoever. I consider this resolved. Smartse (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing against no one, I could only see that some content has been inserted correctly without any problem. The interwikis are correct. The sockpuppet could be blocked but if the content is correct the content could stay intact because sockpuppet <> vandalism. We are working for the quality of Wikipedia and not for personal battles. If I would work for the quality of the article probably I should block the sockpuppet but I could keep the interwikis considering that they are correct. If someone delete also a neutral and unarmed content like interwikis probably there are some "personal" interests. --Ilario (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. You may be a sysop at the Italian Wikipedia but you should be aware of policies at the English Wikipedia prior to making complaints. Thank you. -- Atama頭 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates

Every single article created by Alexandergray (talk · contribs) has an external link to some WWW site run by "Alexander Gray Associates", so there's a glaringly obvious conflict of interest here. Many of the articles contained, and possibly still contain, some utterly atrocious prose. J. Morgan Puett, for example, contained (until I fixed it) a sentence reading "The daughter of a third generation beekeeper and painter respectively, Morgan’s work focuses on […]". No, her work is not the daughter of anything, and "respectively" has no referent.

But perhaps the worst prose in this little group of advertisements was this, from Bruce Yonemoto: "His photographs, installations, sculptures, and films appropriate familiar narrative forms and then circumvent convention through direct, over-eager adoption of heavily clichéd dialogue, music, gestures, and scenes that click in the viewer’s memory without being identifiable.". It got worse: "Bruce Yonemoto has set out to divulge a body of work at the crossroads of television, art, commerce, and the museum/gallery world.". So, basically, nothing specific at all, then.

I've trimmed some of this waffle, but the articles need further attention. In particular, several of them look like link farms, and one editor has already noted that all of the external links on one article appear to be primary sources, and non-neutral ones at that — press releases, autobiographies, publicity blurbs, and raw data. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottens

Ottens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is be the owner of the "online magazine" (i.e. website) Gatehouse Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article on which he has created three times now. I have deleted it for the third time. His talk page shows a long list of redlinks and other issues, I suspect he may need some help understanding what Wikipedia is for. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much textbook COI. I've left him a template and also suggested that he comment here. -- Atama頭 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as the Gatehouse Gazette article is concerned, if you consider that self-promoting, ok. I disagree with you, but the accusation is understandable, considering that I am the chief editor of the magazine.
I recreated that page when I was suggested to do so at Deletion review. The article had been deleted the first time because it lacked reliable, third-party sources. I recreated the article when there were such sources available, however then it got deleted, citing the entry as a "Recreation" of the first article. This was not the case so I contested that and was recommended to recreate the article -- for the third time -- showing the sources that I believe were sufficient to demonstrate notability. In this latest instance, you deleted the entry, without even granting the time for an AfD discussion.
The references to my websites listed on those other entries were not added by me. (Seriously, Clothed male, naked female?! What's going on there?) These also refered not to the magazine, the Gatehouse Gazette; rather, they linked to two of my websites, the first, The Gatehouse; the second, Forgotten Trek.
The Space Captain Smith article has little to do with me. I created it in the first place. It was deleted because it wasn't deemed notable enough. Another user recreated it a couple of days ago, this time including several reliable, third-party sources, yet you deleted the entry, claiming it was nothing more than a "recreation" of the first. This was not the case. For that reason, I've asked you to reconsider this deletion on your talk page but you didn't respond.
Altogether, I think you're overreacting greatly here and I hope you might consider this matter objectively and seize the witch hunt against me. Thank you. Ottens (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you didn't add the links on the other articles you can hardly be blamed for them. (On another note, Guy I recommend you use diffs rather than just linking articles, that's customary at noticeboards and helps pinpoint what you're talking about.) My personal COI concern was only about the Gatehouse Gazette article and since you've acknowledged that I don't see an issue any longer. I'll await Guy's response though. -- Atama頭 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually care who added the links, they were removed per WP:SELFPUB not WP:COI. It's merely an indication that a shitstorm might be coming (as has happened in similar circumstances before). Ottens appears to me to be a reasonably knowledgeable contributor on steampunk, albeit with some ideas that are rejected by other such editors. That doesn't make his website a reliable source, still less a viable article subject. The main problem was his having three times created an article on his own website. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It does matter a bit who added the links, for you seemed to blame me for them! (On a sidenote: I didn't create an article about my website; I created an article about the ezine that is published through it.) Ottens (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Note that I don't quite acknowledge the latter though: I wrote that I can understand how my actions in regard to the Gatehouse Gazette entry might be interpreted as advertizing, since I am the editor and recreated the article twice. (Though I hope you can see my reasoning there.) It was never my intention however to advertize. It's a free magazine, I'm not making any money with it. What good would advertizing do me anyway? Ottens (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
A conflict of interest need not have a financial motive, often it doesn't. For example, a person editing his own biography to add positive information doesn't do so because he wants to make money, he does so to make himself look good. Generally, a COI involved a financial and/or promotional benefit, or at least the potential for one. To answer your question, the good that advertising would do is to bring attention to the web site that you've put time and effort into. Whether or not that was your conscious goal, when a person is tied so closely to the subject of an article it is difficult or even impossible to avoid bias. -- Atama頭 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Noreen Fraser Foundation

Noreenfraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Conflict of interest with Noreen Fraser Foundation. Readding previously deleted material of non-notable organization. Basket of Puppies 00:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article subject seems notable, look at Gnews, but I agree with the COI. I'm going to report the editor to WP:UAA because they're clearly representing the organization. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Men of Israel

Resolved
 – Closing per latest comments including from thread originator. If actual COI problems are shown to exist the issue can be revisited. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Men of Israel is a gay porn film directed by Michael Lucas. The article was created by User:WatchingWhales, who has self-identified as a "sock" of User:David Shankbone, although this does not appear to be stated on the account's user or talk pages. David Shankbone has a relationship with Michael Lucas which has been discussed here before.User:David Shankbone was the only other editor of the page until I placed a COI tag on it. His reasons for using an alternate account aren't clear to me, and could be interpreted as deliberately deceptive.

There has been some discussion of this already on the article's talk page. Rather than admit that there may be a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed, Shankbone has chosen to downplay his association with Lucas by stating "My only association with Lucas is via my work on Wikimedia". Here are some of the photographs of Michale Lucas taken by David Shankbone over the past two years:

note that the photos taken in August of 2008 are described as taken at the home of Michael Lucas and link to a blog post which notes that Lucas invited Shankbone to stay with him. The image File:Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg includes Shankbone himself.

While I am not questioning the notability of the article's subject, the conflict of interest guidelines have concrete suggestions for situations such as this, which Shankbone has chosen to ignore. I suggest that, at the very least, Shankbone should voluntarily refrain from editing or creating any new Lucas-related articles and the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to do so should be treated as disruptive sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to include the two days Shankbone spent on the set of one of Lucas' films (the images themselves seem to have been deleted). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The photos of his documents, as I pointed out on the Talk:Men of Israel article, were to settle the birth name error for his Wikipedia article. Heh - believe it or not, I don't photograph my friend's identification papers as course of habit. It was the first time I had met him when I was at his office to do a Wikinews interview and...take those photos for the article (which solved an intractable problem caused by sloppy reporting in sources). Lucas, who obtained his Israeli citizenship this year, noticed my well-publicized work in Israel, and also saw all the New York City photography I've done. Because I had photographed two places he considers home, he invited me to photograph his third: Fire Island. We had very few good images. The blog posts make the purpose of the trip clear: to document the island's tourist season at its peak, when hotel rooms were going for $1,200 a night that Labor Day weekend. The photographs are found throughout Wikipedia, on the Internet and published. While I was a guest of Lucas and his husband, a prominent businessman, it was for Wikimedia and the creative commons. I walked around with a camera the entire time. I was probably an annoyance. They hosted three different groups of people, and we all did our own thing and barely saw one another. Lucas is not a friend, he's an acquaintance. I have photographed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people for this website, particularly New York City-based people. You could fashion a COI out of selectively looking at my contributions. For instance, I photographed gay marriage founder Evan Wolfson; wrote a biography of him that has changed very, very little in its year and a half of existence with the antiquated criticism section; interviewed him for a Wikinews feature article and my blog; I *would* call Evan a good friend; and yet if you were to poll all the editors at Same-sex marriage, where I have taken the lead in drastically re-shaping the article, they would all probably tell you that I'm seen as fair and neutral to all sides. You're using innuendo and select contributions to say there is an obvious COI, yet you have failed to actually show any articlespace evidence of this supposed COI. You can't just have weapons with a COI charge--particularly those flimsy ones--you also need a crime, which you have failed to show. -->David Shankbone 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Some discussion" huh. Quite a bit there if you ask me. :) As has been said on the talk page of the article, the alternate account of David isn't a sockpuppet. Per WP:SOCK, a sockpuppet is only "when an alternate account is used in violation of this policy." David's use of the alternative account seems fully in compliance with the policy. So I suggest not calling it a sock, even in quotes, as that could be considered offensive or an unfounded accusation. As to the COI concerns, a COI alone is rarely cause for anything but additional scrutiny toward an editor's actions. Certainly in David's case that scrutiny has occurred. But absent any other inappropriate behavior with those images and/or that article, I don't see why we should restrict David from it any way. WP:COI certainly doesn't state that it's necessary. Do you have any other complaints related to this that might show the COI to be a problem? -- Atama頭 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The term "sock" is in quotes because that was the word used by Shankbone himself. I use the term "sockpuppet" in the loosest sense and not as an accusation of any policy violation. Since he has admitted it is an alternate account, any accusation of sockpuppetry is moot.
To quote WP:COI, "edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged". I think there's more than enough evidence for a reasonable person to assume that there is a conflict of interest here. While the guideline may not expressly prohibit editors from COI editing, the community presumably created it for a reason. If Shankbone was not associated with Lucas, would he have created this article? The circumstances under which Lucas was indef blocked from WP could lead to the appearance that Shankbone is proxying for Lucas. Surely even if this is not the case, it would be best for everyone to avoid creating a situation which could be seen that way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No, actually. Shankbone has been open about using an alternative account and as pointed out is doing so in compliance. I believe as well that account was create solely because they were getting harassed ... on articles with Jewish subject matter similar to this situation. This board isn't for guessing who may have a conflict where - it's for demonstrating that an editor is consistently and purposefully violating COI likely by adding or removing content thus degrading the NPOV of an article. I don't think there is a case of that at all. Instead we have anons accusing and maligning and throwing in a bit of politics and bad faith. COI concerns are very real on many articles and those deserve all the help possible, I think there is hysterics with lots of bad wiki buzzwords enticing action where none is needed except maybe semi-protecting the article and talkpage if the harassment continues. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The community created the COI guideline because conflicts of interest often lead to serious problems. Look at other notices on this board and you'll see evidence of that. But the COI alone isn't a reason to ban a person from an article. Now, it's also worthy to note where a COI exists even if there isn't any other problem, so I'm not criticizing you for this notice, in fact I think it's totally appropriate. Does David actually have a conflict of interest... I don't know, he denies it, I'm not sure if he does or doesn't. Maybe someone else will have a different opinion. If you're wondering if anyone will do anything about it, I doubt that, unless something else shows how the potential COI is a problem. When you say the COI guideline has "concrete suggestions", actually the COI guideline is about as wishy-washy and open-ended as it gets. In particular, see WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest where it states, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." That should be a guideline on how to proceed here. -- Atama頭 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Could lead to the appearance" to whom? To our readers, who have a heavily-sourced article that you apparently see no problems with? This request is only born from the Wikipedia Review's drama-mongering. -->David Shankbone 22:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


It is my personal opinion that since you have obviously talked to Lucas in real life, and constantly upload his pictures, that you know him. You've met him, and you agree with him on several issues. It is quite obvious that you have an association with this man, no matter where it originates, and you have uploaded many of his promotional photographs for pornography films. You once wrote the name on your mailing address as "David Shankbone, c/o Michael Lucas" on a Chinese Wikipedia user page. [33] Aside from the fact that "Shankbone" is not your real last name, listing your address as "care of Michael Lucas" implies some sort of friendship or acquaintance with Michael Lucas.

In regards to the WR thing, David, let's put this in context. I have been banned from WR, but it wasn't for trolling the Board, and my comments are usually welcome there until they find out who I am. I always will feel as if I am a member of that Board, no matter what happens to it. You have been banned from the Board for behavior that could only be described as arrogant trolling. I am not surprised that you have a grudge against the members of the board. Not that this is on topic at all.

Benjiboi, you had two autobiographies on this website. I am not surprised that you would defend your fellow self-promoter. And before you accuse me of homophobia, I have no interest in the fact that you or "Shankbone" are homosexual. I stand firmly against any kind of discrimination. My interest lies solely in the fact that "Shankbone" has been protected by the Wikipedia community for much too long, and Wikipedia should put a stop to it. I don't see how he hasn't been banned yet. Spamming links to his blog should not encourage people to create vapid, unquestioning defenses of his behavior. Jonas from Nevada 216.241.55.204 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP above self-admits to being used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as User:Jonas D. Rand. -->David Shankbone 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Quit trying to divert the discussion toward my identity. You should be permanently banned from this site. Jonas 216.241.55.204 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no accusation here of anything COI related that violates Wikipedia policy. Sure, David has a connection to Michael Lucas; nobody's ever denied that. 216, you're right that it's always good to take a look at the content when somebody with a connection with an article's subject matter has contributed heavily; but sometimes those people are able to rise above the perceived conflict, and write a decent article anyway. In fact, it happens all the time. So in the absence of any specific concern about content, I believe this matter should be dropped.

A few side notes:

  • As a disclosure, David is a former client of mine and a good friend, and I talked this matter over with him this morning. But I'm speaking only for myself.
  • In the case of a duplicate account like this one, it's my firm belief that the accounts in question should link to one another. The SOCK policy ought to require this, and in the absence of a requirement, in my opinion editors should do so voluntarily. That all is just my opinion though, nothing more; apparently policy does not require that.
  • I believe that the IP address above should be admonished and blocked, since he has just admitted to being a banned user. But because of my connection to David, I don't want to issue the block myself. It would be best if an uninvolved administrator were to take a look at the situation.
-Pete (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"216, you're right that it's always good to take a look at the content when somebody with a connection with an article's subject matter has contributed heavily; but sometimes those people are able to rise above the perceived conflict, and write a decent article anyway." I don't believe this is the case with the article Men of Israel as it seems to be composed of positive quotes from rave reviews that doesn't look fit for an encyclopedia site. My accounts User:Nevadawp (lost the password) and User:Nevadawp2 can be blocked, but not the IP address. There are several edits that were not mine with this IP, please look at User_talk:216.241.55.204 for an explanation. As far as admitting his sock and linking it, I agree. But it seems that he is not able to edit neutrally on matters relating to Lucas and his films. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have noteworthy non-"positive quotes from rave reviews" that you feel would help add NPOV benefitting our readers it may be wisest to simply link to them on the article's talkpage and suggest what content could be added. In general, gay porn films rarely get mainstream press so IMHO this article should strive to balance what the "typical" gay porn reviewers state on what they note as noteworthy - warning, all likely to be quite positive - with what the mainstream media report. My hunch is that the mainstream ones will be more focussed on the non-sex aspects but any lengthy review will note some aspects that didn't work. See what if any recurring criticism comes from the top twenty or so reviews and look to adding that. Otherwise this is starting to smell like the recurring anons who have gone after both Lucas (director) and Shankbone in the past. In short, offer up something better for the article or move on. -- Banjeboi 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
To the anon, I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I've been told you're a banned user, User:Ionas68224. Is that correct? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, SlimmyShankerSleuths. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well if you're banned, you ought not to be posting, and especially not posting allegations about other editors. Please request an unblock by posting a note on your talk page. You can read how to do it here. But you can't keep on editing without going through that process. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AEB

There is no conflict of interest here, as COI is not generated by mere friendship with the subject of a BLP article that one has edited. I myself have met and photographed, corresponded and/or become friends with some BLP subjects whose article I've edited, precisely because I was editing their articles. COI must be established through the wording or weight in an article that gives the appearance of a slant or POV. I repeatedly asked on the Men of Israel Talk Page for those alleging COI to provide a quoted passage whose wording would be different if it were not for this COI on David Shankbone's part, and none were provided.

Another point that was ignored was the sock puppet/alternate account point. Just because David Shankbone was unaware or forgot of the distinction between an alternate account and a sock, or engaged in a bit of casual shorthand by referring to his aa as a "sock", does not mean that it's a sock. David was simply mistaken. You, on the other hand, Delicious, continued to insist on this term even after the distinction was pointed out to you on the Men of Israel talk page, and because a sock is indicates willful policy violation, you are in violation of WP:AGF by doing this. Ignoring this point, and merely repeating "David said himself" doesn't change this.

Unless you can point out specific passages that betray a POV from the article, or explain how this standard is not the correct one for COI, then you haven't made your case. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone univolved take a look at [34] the talkpage discussion which I removed and now has been restored twice by this thread's originator. I feel it does nothing but bring grief to Shankbone and is a form of harassment. A quick look at the article shows that there was no actual COI editing going on (as of this writing there's like 30? edits altogether). Logically the only reason is to again reassert he used a second account and accuse - with no actual COI content concerns- that he must have or might have some COI. To me this is smelling more like a grudge and Delicious carbuncle might need to be encouraged to simply drop it. That they are re-adding this talkpage personalized and harassing comments after everything above shows animosity that is unhelpful at the least. Could someone else consider removing it if it seems my assessment is on target here? -- Banjeboi 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree, and removed. The fact that it was only serving as a drama magnet for an IP engaging in block evasion was probably a good indicator that it wasn't serving any constructive purpose. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not willing to edit war over this, but I am starting to get tired of having my actions mischaracterized. I believe if it had been just about any other editor involved in this, the discussion would have been over long ago. For Benjiboi to accuse me of "harassment" for simply stating my belief that David Shankbone has a conflict of interest doesn't seem to me to be at all in keeping with my actions. I tagged the article for COI. I discussed my reasons on the talk page per the template. I moved the discussion to this noticeboard when it became apparent that it wasn't going to be quickly settled. We may disagree here, but let's not start imagining harassment and "outing" where none exists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's take your points one by one. I believe that Shankbone and Lucas have a relationship and I believe I have demonstrated that through the diffs provided which show personal contact over a span of at least two years. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you seem to be acknowledging that with your comments about friendship. Shankbone appears to be downplaying the relationship, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that they are more than just acquaintances. I have no way of knowing if the relationship is personal or professional.
As I have stated, I do not believe that Shankbone would have created this article at all, if not for his relationship with Lucas. Need I find specific phrases?
Once again, let me state that I have not accused Shankbone of "sockpuppetry". The term sockpuppet is frequently used on WP without connotations of policy violation. I do not know why he referred to his alternate account as a "sock" and it does not matter. I am very familiar with the SPI noticeboard and I would have filed a case there if I had any concerns. I do not. Shankbone has admitted that the account is his and I have provided the diffs several times now. There is absolutely no accusation of wrongdoing here. I am not violating AGF since I have not made any accusation with regard to sockpuppetry. It would be nice if people weren't distracted by this.
Without ignoring the above paragraph, it is my feeling that the use of an alternate account that isn't clearly linked to Shankbone's main account leaves him open to accusations of deceptive intent. Add to that the relationship between Shankbone and Lucas and you have the potential for other editors, readers, and outside observers to come to conclusions which do not show Wp in the best light. It is for this reason that I have suggested that Shankbone voluntarily withdraw from creating or editing articles related to Lucas. Whether or not any changes are made to the instant article is less important to me than finding a way forward. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
On one hand you say that my creation of this article with a sleepy article creation account has "deceptive intent" (even though your neck of the woods has known about it since June] because it's not linked to David Shankbone, as if I was trying to get away with something; on the other hand, you argue that I receive preferential treatment because I'm David Shankbone. Your arguments are all over the place. I was not aware of how solidified the negative connotations with "sock" have become on the site, but I do feel you exploited a use of the phrase in 2007 for full measure. I don't remember these prior discussions we had, to be honest, but I doubt I paid them much attention and they obviously left little impression upon me. Our core policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The way to move forward is to review the article, its sources and look for more angles that perhaps I did not cover. For instance, I do not give a synopsis of the film - a way to move forward in this topic that interests you would be to watch the video, search for reviews and write a snappy summary. Otherwise, I would just let it go. -->David Shankbone 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't misquote me. I said you left yourself open to the interpretation that your intention was to avoid scrutiny. I have no idea what you're referring to when you write about our "prior discussions". I have no idea why you keep trying to tie my actions back to something that is being discussed at Wikipedia Review - I have no control over what is said about you off-wiki. Everything about this episode has been abnormal, from the appearance of a trio of admins soon after I placed the COI tag on the article, to the repeated blanking of the discussion on the article's talk page, to the spurious accusations of "outing", to the repeated diversion of this discussion to the use of the word "sock" despite the lack of any accusation of violating WP:SOCK guidelines, to the extreme length of this discussion. So, yes, I think the fact that you are David Shankbone has been a factor here. Let's agree to disagree on the best way to move forward. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No, really, it could use a synopsis. Isn't it strange that this video whose article "other editors, readers, and outside observers" might stumble upon, dig up the diff history, research me, see some photos, and assume immediately that I must have some nefarious reason for writing it; won't it be strange to such sophisticated readers that I didn't write a film synopsis, describing the plot and Jewish man/man action? Ostensibly, this would be the only thing potential buyers of the film would be interested in, yet its not there. These sophisticated readers who delve into the minutia of an adult film title's Wikipedia article will be perplexed. If you add it yourself, they'll certainly look at all your article contributions, look back for the ones around the time you added the synopsis, and then they'll discover this discussion here and say "I knew it! And somebody else did, too!" It's as likely a scenario as anything else you've written here. You're perplexed why I would write this article, but I can give you two hints: I'm gay (you know this) and I have written on many Israeli cultural topics, interviewed their President, and visited the country twice on press junkets to photograph it for the Creative Commons (you also know this). I will leave it at that, as I feel I have explained myself to you thoroughly. -->David Shankbone 05:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Far from being perplexed, my stated belief is that you would not have written the article if you did not have this relationship with Lucas which you attempt to minimize and downplay. Since a reasonable person would conclude that you do have this relationship, I submit that you should have followed the suggestions in WP:COI and avoided writing about Lucas entirely, which is what I'm suggesting you voluntarily agree to do in order to prevent future discussions such as this one. You have provided links to discussions on Wikipedia Review which show that people are already discussing this article off-wiki. You are a prolific and valued contributor here, you should expect that your actions may be noted more than the average editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Delicious, I don't know what the issues are here, but knowing someone doesn't in and of itself put you in a COI in relation to their work. I see myself as a wikifriend of David's, by the way, so let me declare that up front, though I don't know anything about his knowledge of, or friendship with, Lucas. The essence of COI is whether advancing outside interests is being done at the expense of advancing the interests of Wikipedia. Often, Wikipedia's interests are advanced when we write positively about someone or a project of theirs. When I create an article about a great book I just read, I'm advancing that author's interests, as well as Wikipedia's (so long as the article's properly written); even if I personally know the author, that's still true. The COI issue kicks in if there is reason to believe Wikipedia's interests are not being served. Whether that's the case here, I have no idea, but perhaps looking at it that way will help. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for breaking that down into simple words for me, but it didn't help. You say you have no knowledge of Shankbone's relationship with Lucas - do you think that given the diffs I have presented here "a conflict [of interest] can be reasonably assumed" and Shankbone should be "strongly discouraged" from editing articles related to Michael Lucas, to use the words of WP:COI? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a "wikifriend" of David, and I know little about him except for the fact that he takes great photos. I've looked over the article, and I see no sign of any COI editing. In particularly, I cannot recognize anything that would indicate that the article "seems to be composed of positive quotes from rave reviews". While a conflict of interest "can be assumed", of course, I don't see how it can be reasonably assumed. In particular, you seem to have gone out of your way to explicitly collect material that might give that impression. I suggest you disengage and let it go. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course I have collected diffs and presented them here to show that there is a close and longstanding relationship between Shankbone and Lucas and therefore in my opinion a conflict of interest. Would any amount of diffs convince you that there is a COI here? Would a diff showing that Shankbone is a paid employee of Lucas change your mind? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
DC, I haven't seen any diffs about content, if that's what you mean i.e. showing inappropriate edits. In general, I'd agree with you that the closer we are to a person or group, the wiser it is to stay away from articles about them. But I have genuinely no idea what David's relationship is. His is an unusual case, because he's photographed so many people for Wikipedia and Wikinews, and he came to know them because he was editing articles about them or their projects. So we're faced with a cart-and-horse situation, in the sense that it's hard to judge whether the friendship has reached the point where it has overidden the Wikipedia connection, as it were. That's why it's important to focus on the content issues, and the question: are David's edits about this not in Wikipedia's interests, and if so, why not? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be ducking the question. Take a look at the diffs I have provided. If you like, read the WIkipedia Review discussions that David Shankbone has linked to. Do you think a reasonable person would assume that Shankbone and Lucas have a relationship? I'm not asking if you know that they do, I'm asking your opinion about what someone more removed from the situation is likely to conclude. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a wiki-friend of David, I've only maybe seen his name a couple of times in different places. I've been contributing advice to the COI noticeboard and COI guideline discussion so I think I'm somewhat familiar with the guideline. My suggestion, counter to DC, is that David should continue contributing to the article since he has obviously done such a good job so far. How can you argue otherwise? Nobody but an IP sockpuppet of a banned user has complained about the article's content, as far as I can tell. If and when David actually causes problems with the article would I suggest that he restrict his editing per WP:COI. I've seen one noticeboard posting from a museum employee who outed himself and asked if he should be allowed to continue editing the article about his museum, and he had taken the article from a stub to something that might be given GA consideration and not a shred of it was even slightly promotional and everything was well-sourced. If DC's unusually strict interpretation of the COI guidelines was enforced, that editor would never have been allowed to do so. Conflicts of interest need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what harm they might bring before we swing the COI bat around. -- Atama頭 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Is my belief that the article would not currently exist if not for the relationship between Shankbone and Lucas not relevant to all of the content of the article? Besides, this isn't that article about a museum. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Who cares why the article was created? The motives for creating an article aren't relevant in any case I'm aware of. What matters is what the subject of the article is, and what the content of the article is. The subject of the article is notable and the content doesn't have any credible complaints. So what's the problem? -- Atama頭 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
The Imperial War Museum does not charge for admission (correct me if I'm wrong on this point) so it is unlikely that anyone would interpret its Wikipedia article as promoting interests outside Wikipedia, even if it were edited by one of the curators there. David Shankbone created an article about a commercial product created by someone with whom he has a relationship and whop stands to benefit by its viewing, sale, and promotion. Although, in my opinion, it really ought not to make a difference, the fact that it is an article about a porn video, and (gasp) a gay porn video, makes it the perfect fodder for stories in The Register or discussions on Slashdot or Wikipedia Review. These types of discussions are directly damaging to perception of Wikipedia and certainly not in its interests. It is a very easy situation to avoid by following the suggestions in WP:COI, and this is all that I have asked for, that Shankbone voluntarily pledge to avoid writing about Lucas in the future. Imagine that Shankbone was a judge - do you think that if Lucas were involved in a legal case before him, he should recuse himself? And, if so, why? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I might be new to this lark, but ever since all that fuss about ol' Dukey, I've kept an eye on these pages, and I was just this afternoon talking to my wife and her friends about the whole business. And she was saying that if I happened to be as famous as ol' Dukey, then I might very well make a page about myself. But that sure is against the law. So I might have to get my wife to do it. Now she don't know a great deal about science and can't use a computer like I can (though I'm onto her about getting a wiki account - stop her spending all that time down the swimming baths). At the time we were having dinner and one of my wife's friends said he'd do it. I've known him for a good few months and he does us a good turn - so he said he'd do it for a few cans of heineken. Well, you can go a long way with heineken, that's what I always say. So he's going to make the page when I get famous. Isn't this a bit like Mr Shankbone's problem? If I gave him some heineken and got me a page, I'd want it to be good. I mean, he's not at my solo command! But I'd expect a decent standard and some nice pictures. Believe me, you've set my wife a conundrum and no mistake. Yours always, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
David isn't a judge, this isn't a courtroom, and your insistence on this issue is troubling. You've failed to give a single reason why David should be banned from the article. And that's what you're asking for, a topic ban from the article. This does happen from time to time in COI cases but only to prevent disruptive editing. Since you're the only person pushing for this I suggest you drop it, unless you have an example of disruption that David has done on the article. Do you have one? -- Atama頭 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not suggested that Shankbone be banned from articles pretaining to Lucas, I have asked that he voluntarily stop editing such articles. I'm sure that you can see the difference. I apologise if my question mislead you into falsely thinking that I was suggesting that we treat Shankbone as if he were in a courtroom. The judge analogy is yours, actually: "One thing I ask myself, is that if the editor were a judge, and the judge had a case before them involving the subject of the article, would that judge be expected to recuse themselves?" This is not a trick question and your answer one way or the other isn't going to be taken as an answer to the overall issue, so I'm not sure why you would be reluctant to answer the questions I posed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're not asking for the community to decide that David shouldn't edit the article then why do you keep bringing it up? David said he's not going to voluntarily stop editing the article and doesn't think he should, so the only way such a restriction would occur is through a ban. As to the quote from myself, it was an analogy to determine whether or not a COI exists. As I've already said, I don't know if there is an actual COI. Maybe there is. So the answer to your question, obviously, is maybe. But basically that's the end of it, I see a possible COI, enough of one that if there was any disruptive editing from David I would say that the COI is probably the motivation (depending on the actual nature of the disruption, of course). But absent any actual disruption it's academic. Since David doesn't agree to limit his participation on the article, and nobody seems interest in forcing him into that (whether or not you intended to suggest that) what else would you like to see? Did you want someone to review the article for neutrality? -- Atama頭 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(<==) And so, if Shankbone were a judge? Do you think he would or should recuse himself and why or why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares and why should someone answer your leading questions? As I see it, your complaint now is not about anything in the article (although that differs from your original complaint), but only that the article exists. Well, it passes WP:N, we want to be a collection of all human knowledge, we are run by volunteers who decide what they write on. Having the article is a good thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No one is compelled to answer my questions, but I've taken pains to show that they aren't intended to trick of trap anyone. You have decided to be aggressive and "in your face" rather than respond. Slimvirgin has simply ignored my question. Atama has provided an honest and considered answer. I take this as a sign that they are actually considering my viewpoint and willing to have a dialogue instead of simply trying to bully me into silence. If you feel I have been inconsistent in this discussion, please point out where because I certainly haven't changed my opinion that there is a clear conflict of interest here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind answering the question. We have an article about the subject, and it does state that if the judge might have an "interest at all in the outcome" of a trial then he'd recuse. So, I'd say that if he didn't recuse, there might be an outcry from certain quarters, but that might be all there is to it. Just like here, there's an outcry about it (hence this notice). The question is really about how close David is to the subject.
I've thought about this and I have a personal parallel in my own life. A couple of my long-time school-age friends (who I've been out of contact with for years) were brothers, and a cousin of theirs was a male model. A fairly successful one, he had even appeared on television. He was wealthy and lived in a large house. One year I traveled with my friends to this model's house to celebrate Independence Day. I spent pretty much the whole day there and if I was a photographer I would have had plenty of opportunities to take pictures of his house and him. But I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest, he's a cousin of old friends and while I temporarily had a lot of access to him you wouldn't say I'm connected to him. It's quite possible that David's connection to the article subject is no closer, he insists that he is no more than an acquaintance of his. I'm not saying there isn't a COI, and I think there's enough cause to suspect there might be, but no "smoking gun" to show that there is (something like a recent blog post from David talking about hanging out with his good friend Michael Lucas might make the COI clearer). Does that clarify things any better? -- Atama頭 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Atama. I haven't looked at Shankbone's blog for evidence of COI because I feel that there is enough evidence on-wiki to reasonably conclude that there is a conflict. Even if I were to find such a posting, I'm sure that there would be several editors here who would tell me that there's nothing wrong with the article content and so any COI is moot. Unlike the example you give, Shankbone has photographed Lucas at work and at play over a period of at least two years. Most people don't let casual acquaintances stay at their home for two days. If people can't see how exactly this type of thing ends up making Wikipedia look bad, I'll drop it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread should be closed, as it is not leading to anything of substance to this noticeboard. The thread was opened in good faith, wanting some additional eyes on a situation that appeared questionable. Additional eyes were directed that way. It was found that there's maybe a bit of COI, but that in itself is not actionable -- it needs to be combined with a pattern of POV-pushing, disruptive editing, or the like, for any action to be taken. Delicious Carbuncle, I think your posting the initial notice was a good idea; but everybody, we need to just drop this, unless there is new factual information about someone's editing that leads to a new notice. -Pete (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I don't mind if the thread is closed, but you are wrong when you emphasize that this "maybe a bit of COI" is not actionable since the specific action I have asked for is a voluntary one by David Shankbone himself. Perhaps the next time it comes up, more editors will be willing to support the idea and Shankbone will see that it is to his benefit. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2009 (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.

OXO International

Resolved
 – Indef blocked for spam/username issues. -- Atama頭 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI edits to OXO International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Oxogoodgrips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Tckma (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Devesh Dabas

Report belongs here, as it's clearly a conflict of interest issue. I believe the user doesn't understand our policies, or doesn't agree with them. I've tried to discuss the issue with the user, however they have been unresponsive. I think a block may be needed here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Devesh probably doesn't understand our policies regarding conflicts of interest. I would endorse a block if Devesh continues to add his details to the article in question. Crafty (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I hope that he takes notice of the block and responds to our concerns.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note that COI isn't a policy, just a guideline with suggestions, but Devesh seems to be violating WP:ELNO, WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, and probably others. -- Atama頭 16:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
. . . and as a result his edit warring resulted in vandalism. Crafty (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rio Grand

This user has been removing sourced content from the article Rio Grand over time, including removal of a whole member of the group, despite sources saying that said member was in the group. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The name certainly suggests a COI, though it could just as easily be that they are a fan (which is highly likely considering the fact that this is an article about a band). The removal of sourced information is certainly inappropriate. I've left a message at their talk page to respond here, and that there's a concern about possible COI issues. -- Atama頭 20:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lorenzo_(singer-writer)

Resolved
 – Indef blocked as a sockmaster. -- Atama頭 20:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This user has created pages for his releases (the latest being Lorenzo (EP)) and edits his userpage as if it was the article page for himself. He keeps doing so despite my warning him in late August about conflict of interest. I strongly suspect that this user is uninterested in editing Wikipedia past promoting his own music. TheLetterM (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a language barrier issue here. Notice that the article he created was entirely in Italian. Unfortunately, a certainly competency in the English language is pretty much a requirement to contributing to the English Wikipedia, unless you can find another editor willing to translate for you. You might want to try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if someone there is willing to leave him a notice in Italian, otherwise there's probably not much we can do for him. -- Atama頭 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, but I did notice that one of his earlier pages (as well as his userpage) was written in English, though to what extent I can't remember. In any case an Italian notice may be a good idea, but it doesn't take knowledge of Italian to suspect that he indents to promote his music on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not he's fully cognizant of the fact that what he's doing is not allowed.
By the by, just to check on whether or not Lorenzo is indeed an artist for Warner Bros. Records, I checked the website for Warner Music Italy. No such mention. I also found a [35] blog for Lorenzo, though most of his entries seem to be about the singer Laura Pausini. TheLetterM (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles A. Morgan, III

CAMorgan3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This brand new user made some good faith edits to the Charles A. Morgan, III article.

While I think these were all good faith edits I don't think they fully complied with our policies. Some references were removed, without explanation. And some other material about the principal was added without reference.

I think it is likely that there is a connection between User:CAMorgan3rd and the subject of the Charles A. Morgan, III article. I was going to leave them a heads-up on our policies on the kinds of edits someone can make to their own article without triggering a concern over a conflict of interest, when I realized that I needed advice about what our policies allow. In particular, if Morgan has falsely been described as someone whose research into SERE was sponsored by the CIA -- is the best approach for the principal to quietly trim the "false" but verifiable description? Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left the editor a welcome and asked them to address the COI concerns at this board. As to the other matter, since the subject is presumably still alive the policy that should concern you the most is WP:BLP. Per WP:V, our policy is "verifiability, not truth", so if a reliable source has a claim then it should be included in the article (the New York Times is generally considered a reliable source). But if claims (especially negative claims) are disputed on a BLP page, the usual procedure is to remove the material from the article temporarily while the matter is discussed. Since the editor disputes the information, that editor should discuss the matter (preferably on the talk page of the article so it can be found later, but here is okay also). If the editor doesn't want to discuss matters then I would suggest reinserting it. Again, being "false" isn't our concern, verifiability is. Ultimately it's up to CAMorgand3rd to produce another source contradicting the NYT. Even if that can be found, it would still be a good idea to say that he was accused of being sponsored by the CIA but that the accusations are contested and/or untrue (again you need a source for the latter). I hope that clears things up a bit. -- Atama頭 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User Premier-health edits to Medical tourism

Premier-health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - adds overlong, promotionally worded section for Germany, which may very well deserve an entry here but not one that links to site premier-healthcare.eu. Editing efforts are supported by user

AlBundy001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely the same person. CliffC (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All: I have edited the article accordingly and I hope that is meets the requirments now. Foregive the grief but I am new here. I whish the whole contribution would not be deleted, as it is not my intention to be promotional.Premier-health (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This editor has now removed his link but has raised WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument for his edits, never a good one. I'll be glad to edit the new section on Germany to trim its size per WP:WEIGHT and adjust its tone per WP:PROMOTION. Meanwhile, I still think account User:Premier-health should be indefinitely blocked under WP conflict of interest rules. --CliffC (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't generally block someone per WP:COI. Now, WP:SPAM while having a COI is a different matter. I see Premier-health's edits improving, the most recent edit is a far cry from earlier ones which were entirely promotional. We generally block to prevent disruption, not to punish someone for past mistakes. I think an indef-block is premature, as long as Premier-health doesn't use the AlBundy001 account in a manner that violates WP:SOCK and doesn't attempt to promote that web site again. -- Atama頭 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All: I will further work on the edit and make it more factual and perovide more references. In the meantime, I would be happy to take up CliffC's offer for a suggestion of improvemeent. RGDSD Premier-health (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BADBOYS BLUE

Resolved
 – User indef blocked, article protected

BADBOYS BLUE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admits to having a COI and officially representing Bad Boys Blue group. Basket of Puppies 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We'll see if it's a one-time "hit and run" edit or if they are going to try to own the article. Or collaborate constructively (though that's usually rare when "official representatives" of a band want to edit their article). -- Atama頭 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this article. I made some cleanups but they were reverted. The editors all seem to have an agenda and some of them have legal threats on their talk pages. Apparently there are several different groups claiming rights to the band name, and they have brought their fight to Wikipedia. I don't have time or inclination to sort this out. This article needs more eyes. Rees11 (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and reverted to your cleaned up version and left a message on one of the conflict of interest editors talk pages. I don't think this is a hit and run case, the editor in question has be editing this page for at least a year. --Leivick (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Any clear legal threats made in an attempt to control content can lead to an indefinite block per WP:NLT (or at least a block until the editor retracts the threat). If you want more eyes I'll watch it too for now. Thanks for the update Rees. -- Atama頭 21:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I just looked at User talk:Esoteriqa where Leivick already warned the editor about the threats, and yes that's pretty explicit. "In such case Wikipedia will get aan official document from our lawyers and Mr. John McInerney himself and you will have two options - write the true history and keep true facts or delete article dedicated to Bad Boys Blue at all becaue at the moment when you're keeping it the way it is you're breaking the law and supporting imposters who never been real members of the group." That's about as clear a threat as it gets. That kind of bullying isn't tolerated here, if not retracted I'm sure nobody would object to Leivick doing the block himself. -- Atama頭 21:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, in reply to Leivick, I was referring to BADBOYS BLUE when I was discussing "hit and run", not Esoteriqa. The latter editor has clearly been editing the article for a long time, I didn't realize at first that they shared a COI (and now it seems they are likely the same person). -- Atama頭 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The threats that appear on User talk:Esoteriqa were added by BADBOYS BLUE, who has already been blocked for posting the same threats on AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! Thanks for clarifying that. -- Atama頭 22:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Esoteriqa (talk · contribs) continues to revert my edits. Rees11 (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First, do you think or have evidence that Esoteriqa has a COI? They are clearly a single-purpose account but that in and of itself isn't really a bad thing nor does it imply a COI. Just wondering if you had a reason to believe that, I've looked at their contributions and I see nothing on any talk pages or in edit summaries that claim or leave a hint of a COI.
Now, as to the reverts, yes that's a problem. Esoteriqa has been editing the article since mid-2007 and I think has a feeling of ownership because of it. The wish to revert the edits of the now-blocked COI editor is good, but reverting everyone else isn't. See this edit where it is said, "Rev as per recent discussion.." yet if you look at Talk:Bad Boys Blue the most recent discussion was almost 2 years ago. There was a discussion at AN/I where Esoteriqa said, "I think that the article should be returned to the form it's been in prior to October 6" but since nobody commented on that I can hardly see that it has been "discussed". The last part of WP:BRD is being skipped. My suggestion is to drop a note on Esoteriqa's talk page and ask them to start up a dialog about the reverts on the article's talk page so that you can hash out the details of the content dispute. -- Atama頭 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Esoteriqa's edits include language such as, "Charismatic Trevor Taylor provided his unparalleled lead vocal, which proved itself to become legendary"! Hoorah for anybody who reverts that kind of spammy language (as I just did). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. That's simply awful. -- Atama頭 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence of COI beyond the obvious SPA and ad copy. Maybe it's time to move the discussion to a different forum, but I wanted to point out here that the situation is not resolved, since this is where the topic first came up. Rees11 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that they are a fan. Which shouldn't present a COI, I shudder to see the day when Wikipedia starts discouraging fans from editing articles about things they like, I think the project would die. But their edits are problematic. I have hope for Esoteriqa because they have been editing that article for years without a serious conflict I can see except for the occasional vandal. But this ownership has to stop. -- Atama頭 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I pointed Esoteriqa to wp:own but the user continues to revert to the spammy version of the article. Rees11 (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this "resolved," although it didn't turn out well. Esoteriqa continues to edit war and the article has been protected. Further discussion should take place on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dr Prabhat Das Foundation

There are quite a number of single purpose accounts editing this page, and one with an admitted conflict of interest is quite upset with the tags I placed on the article. I'm unclear of the organization's notability, and the validity of the secondary sources (some do exist, but nearly all are hosted on the website of the company). An editor with knowledge of the Bihar region of India and topic would be helpful. Please note also the following related article that has been proposed for deletion: Prabhat R. Das. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that neither article is notable, and certainly the one you linked in this topic is completely promotional. It's basically a brochure trying to advocate for the foundation. I'd suggest bringing it to AfD (seems too controversial for prod) and do the same with the Dr. Das' biography if the proposed deletion is contested. -- Atama頭 17:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Christ on a bike - can't we speedy the brochure as a clear advert? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have had a clean-up but cannot check the sources due to the language barrier, I have asked for a Hindi speaker to take a look. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The thought crossed my mind. But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up". (You've done a pretty good job yourself of cleaning it up, I barely recognize the article.) However much it is cleaned up, though, I think that the subject doesn't merit inclusion. There's very little coverage of this group that I could find in English sources (nothing in the news), and since it's an American charity I think that's pretty telling. -- Atama頭 18:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Since no significant changes have occurred in the article aside from extensive cleanup, and nobody else has done it yet, I've nominated the article for deletion. See the discussion here. -- Atama頭 07:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Joint Task Force-East

This was written by User:JTF.East. While I respect the US Army, it's not in our best interests to have their promotional materials here. - Biruitorul Talk 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a few small cleanups but I suspect the subject may not be notable. It mostly has primary sources (US Embassy for example) and no in-line refs. Rees11 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As written, the article doesn't do a great job of proving notability, but a Gnews search shows some promise. If notability can be established, I hope the article can have the more promotional language removed without having to gut it because as written it seems very informative and might have potential for a great article. -- Atama頭 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Marian Munteanu and User:Bogdan Munteanu

Bogdan Munteanu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) obsessively edits the Marian Munteanu article - so far, virtually 100% of his contributions relate to that article, repasting the version in an edit war, despite the express concerns raised by other users. The tone of his version is that of a CV/manifesto: "was one of the most important representatives of the movements for civil rights, for the establishment of democracy in Romania"; "Having this position, he has been participating at various activities focused on promoting and supporting strong moral values as well as the inter - confessional laic dialogue on the international arena."; "The initiative remained just a project due to the massive denigration campaign it was submitted to ever since it was founded, as well as due to the serious lack of material resources needed for a strong institutional system."; "He frequently meets with one of the most prestigious groups of intellectuals of those times"; "Despite de pressure and threats, he refuses to collaborate with Securitate (the communist political police)"; "The Movement intended to implement a program of selecting and preparing young persons, in order to sustain a healthy process of refreshing the political class. One of the main features of the movement was having as promoting criteria professional competency and professionalism. One of the organization goals was to later establish a political party of national-democratic ideological orientation, a doctrine formulated and sustained by Marian Munteanu [...]. An outstanding element (but highly criticized by the politicians of those times as 'elitist' and even 'extremist') was introducing the political competency examination as a condition to join the Movement." etc. etc. His version of the article involves serious attacks on Munteanu's political opponents, falsely sourced through WP:SYNTH: "dominated by GDS - The Group for Social Dialogue, a controversial leftish association from Bucharest"; "Afterwards, the Civic Alliance would become a political party and an annex to the political system, practically disappearing from the public life."; "[His] initiative remained just a project due to the massive denigration campaign it was submitted to ever since it was founded, as well as due to the serious lack of material resources needed for a strong institutional system."; "Although the Alliance's Congress initially accepted the program elaborated by Marian Munteanu, the executive leadership excluded all young candidates from the electoral lists for Parliament. Under such circumstances, Marian Munteanu refused to become a party member, withdrew as a candidate and did not participate at the elections. The National Alliance got a less than satisfactory electoral score (1%) and disappeared." etc. etc. The article used to be sprinkled with photos of Munteanu et al., which the user claims to have taken himself (which only adds to the suspicions). To keep this simple, I'm not commenting on the many ways in which the article otherwise breaks with the manual of style, the various guidelines and policies etc. etc.

Let me also note that a version of Munteanu's article, started by a user with the same username, exists on French wikipedia, and a similar one with the same source has made it on the Romanian wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How sure you are that he's the same? Disraelly (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be an absurd coincidence if it wasn't the same. The COI seems clear and the editor's actions are not in the best interest of Wikipedia, and seem to be intended solely to promote this person's legacy. Also, the accusation that everyone who disagrees with him is a vandal is disturbing. -- Atama頭 17:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The user has yet again pasted his version into mainspace... It seems his tactic is to edit war for ever. Dahn (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not a very good tactic. :) -- Atama頭 16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I've left him a request on his user talk page to try to discuss things at the article talk page rather than continuing to edit-war, and I've also put the article on my watchlist. -- Atama頭 17:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

COI issues for member of licensed profession

I apologize in advance for the length of this explanation, but the issue is somewhat complex.

I have not hidden that I am a Chiropractic Physician. I have become quite interested in the whole WIKI culture, and have written several pages, so while I am still a relative "newbie", I am getting past that. Several pages have been hit with COI flags. From everything I can discern, the reasoning is as follows:

A certain editor placed a COI flag on a page I wrote about a facility in Lausanne, Switzerland, built by a JV between the IOC and the city of Lausanne. Why? because I was 20 years ago, on the Board of one of the tenant organizations, with which I have nothing to do today. Likewise, on a page I wrote, for a World agency, which today administers that same organization. Which, by the way, I would have voted against, had I still been on their BoD.

Another editor suggested that his logic was either that this meant I have a "vested interest" in the relationship; or WORSE....that: "You are a DC, and are editing pages regarding Chiropractic, and thus have an implied COI on the subject, as you must be interested in PROMOTING your profession" generally. If I were editing a page on medical issues, the opposite logic (with the same result) would prevail; "you are a DC, and thus one could make a case that your are anti-medicine, and thus have a COI problem editing anything on the field of medicine". Catch 22? We can thus only write about subject of which we have no interest and thus likely no knowledge?

So are we to believe that DC's cannot be altruistically trying to promote the public good? And that we are, still today, interested only in "promoting Chiropractic" (assumption is that we are a commercial entity)... MD's are only interested in the public good (assumption is that they are all altruists, involved in a charitable entity). This clearly biased concept (which is or was, deliberately fueled by the AMA [res judicata]) is per se problematic, and unfortunately pervasive in the media.

I propose that this is a clear double standard; i.e, if any MD can edit articles on medical subjects without a presumption that s/he is trying to PROMOTE his/her profession, then it is in my view tantamount to a general slander of my profession, that this logic is applied unilaterally. Moreover, if the logic were to prevail and extend existing policy, then by extension no Jewish person should be allowed to edit articles on Judaism, for fear of positive bias, nor on Christian issues for fear of negative bias. Likewise, vice versa.... this is stretching a policy to fit a bias, and, I suggest, taking it from the ridiculous, to the sublime.

Who would be able to write on technical matters? What is the consensus?? Drsjpdc (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

These don't sound like COI from your description. An MD might have a COI editing an article about the hospital where he works full time, but no COI editing an article on setting a broken arm. And I don't think MDs are held to any different standard, or shouldn't be. But it's hard to tell without specifics. If you'd like to point us to some particular examples I'm sure people here would take a look. Rees11 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
To allay your fears that Wikipedia is hostile to experts in this matter, you might want to see WP:COI#Citing oneself where the conflict of interest guideline states, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." Anyone claiming that you have a conflict of interest simply due to your profession is doing so in opposition to the guideline we use for judging conflicts of interest. -- Atama頭 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe some clarification is in order as the aforementioned "another editor". In point of fact, I noted to Dr. Press that his COI was not in promoting chiropractic in general, but in his history of edits promoting himself and his organizations. Several of Dr. Press' contributions (including an earlier article on the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic and an autobiography) have already been deleted for such promotion. The COI that Dr. Press is currently referring to involves the creation an article on the World Federation of Chiropractic which administers the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic (FICS), an organization Dr. Press founded and has previously written about here on Wikipedia (a clear case of WP:COI that has been dealt with satisfactorily by the introduction of a new, more balanced article). The "certain editor" mentioned above (not me) tagged World Federation of Chiropractic as a COI because of their relationship with FICS. Whether or not this is an actual COI is a point that can be determined in this discussion. I would suggest to Dr. Press that by omitting the facts as I have stated them, he has not allowed for a full assessment of the conflicts of interest involved. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If what WikiDan61 says is true, then a COI accusation is far more credible. I'd like to see the doctor's response to this new information. -- Atama頭 19:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Though I have now, no doubt that Dan tries to be fair, he can be a little pedantic on this matter... (Sorry Dan, I know you don't like that word... give me something a bit milder, and I will use that). What Dan fails to mention, was anything about the MSI page, which is the facility in Switzerland... I truthfully stated (above) that I was the founder of one of the organizations which is now a tenant. (Likewise esentially at the WFC). The pages I wrote as a "newbie" were removed, and on reflection, correctly, under the WIKI policies, but this now is an absurd extension of mere suspicion that I still harbor some kind of desire for self-promotion. I assure that, that is wrong. A: I have no need to self promote, and B: I am only interested in seeing the truth come out.

Atama: Wakari mashita - As I said, truthfully (see above), I did found an agency 20 years ago, which today is administered by the WFC, and, as I also stated, a tenant at the MSI. Frankly, had I been consulted, (which I was NOT) I would probably have voted against allowing them to do go to the WFC thing. How can I harbor a COI if I only report that, in fact, they administer FICS from their offices? If anything, this is somewhat of a statement against interest (legally, an exception to the here-say rule)... I was not in any way embellishing. Just reporting. That cannot be COI. It was not I, but DigitalC (kudos to him) who finally posted the FICS page. I wrote the WFC one. What has any of that to do with the MSI in Lausanne? My interest in either is not even "vested" and I simply want to clear the air on the other theory, as it WAS proposed by one of the editors involved as a possible reason for the COI flags. And, BTW I appreciate the references re policy on that idea. At least we all agree that that alone is not COI. What about the rest? OH, and Dan - I still think that the page on FICS, even the original one should have been critiqued and repaired, not deleted, just because of what was inn that case, admitted COI. Under WIKI rules, if the page deserves to be there, it should have been saved by another editor. I DID write an autobiography.... which was all true, but probably crossed the line on the COI matter, and was deleted. Can we let that pass? I understand more now. Drsjpdc (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Drsjpdc (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim that I agree or disagree with the COI call on WFC. Only that I believe it was Dr. Press' involvement with FICS that led to the COI charge. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ii desu ne. :) I see the reasoning behind the COI claim, as weak as it may be. The problem is that drive-by article tagging isn't useful. The Template:COI tag is only useful when POV problems are obvious in an article, or when accompanied by a suggestion on what needs to be cleaned up in the article. As I see that neither is the case in the article I'm removing the tag (and I commend you for not doing it yourself, Dr. Press). -- Atama頭 20:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Domo Arigato gozaimashita - Drsjpdc (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Drsjpdc doesn't have a problem with COI on the majority of the articles he has edited, including the WFC and MSI articles. DigitalC (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

David M. Huntwork

I have nominated David M. Huntwork, an autobiographical article written by Dkhunt (talk · contribs), for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Huntwork. Editors may wish to comment on the conflict of interest issues raised by this matter. (I should note that the editor has already been warned about COI but with little apparent effect.) -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I like the word "sockpuppety". He seems to have taken his activism to Wikipedia, which when combined with an autobiography is certainly a COI concern. -- Atama頭 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "sockpuppetish" would have been better, but anyway... -- ChrisO (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jon Butcher

This came up a week or so ago and the editor went a away for a little while. Now he's back. His recent edits aren't too bad from a COI perspective but some of the style and formatting needs help. And the article is still in desperate need of cleanup. Rees11 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him

Resolved
 – page in question now deleted

The User name Bruce Cairney has been used to put derogatory comments, contains photo of Bruce Cairney and make some editing in articles on wikpedia seem to come from Bruce Cairney when they have not. This has been continueing since 2006 and still no one does anything. What does wikipedia do about this type of internet stalking occuring within its pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous request for assistance on this when docglasgow Dec/06 interviened on editing of user page ... Revision as of 14:53, 4 December 2007 (edit) (undo)Bacmac (talk | contribs) (→User name created to Slur an individual) User name created to Slur an individual You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 09:36, October 4, 2009


In which articles? I can find no article about anyone called Bruce Cairney? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron Scott - It is the ÜSER NÄME" - User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bruce_Cairney. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place for this. Username violations are handled at WP:UAA. This might be a more complicated matter than what UAA handles, though. I'm going to copy this to WP:ANI to get administrator attention and comment from other editors, we'll see what happens. I would have replied to this notice long ago but it was incorrectly placed on this page and I kept missing it! :) -- Atama頭 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've also nominated it for speedy deletion -- not sure if that's correct, it's a strange situation. But I think it should be dealt with asap. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange indeed" - Thanks , i am not very experienced on wikipedia and find it can be very confusing to navigate for some things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tahir Abbas

The second is clearly a COI editor w/rt Tahir Abbas; the IP address is likely the same person, logged out. Both are removing templates (unreferenced and coi). Both are ignoring the relevant warnings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Drtahir007 pretty much claims to be Tahir Abbas himself on his user page. I like your edits to the article, and as it stands now it doesn't look bad (just needs more references). But my opinion is that Dr. Abbas should keep his hands off the article himself unless he agrees to abide by WP:NPOV policy. -- Atama頭 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've worked on the article a bit, he is clearly notable. I've also given him some friendly advice and told him about WP:AUTO which no-one seemed to have pointed him too before. Hopefully he'll get the message that it is best to let others work on the article. Smartse (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Even when the article comes from someone with a COI (or even the subject) it's always good to have new articles about notable subjects. I'm not surprised you were able to find references, the article seemed to have potential. Excellent job! -- Atama頭 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Could someone take a look at the references for "He is Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a member of the Lunar Society. Abbas has held numerous research grants and has worked with government departments, universities and civil society organizations throughout Asia, Europe and North America." I removed it as I couldn't find any mention of these in third party reliable sources but User:Ecoman24 added some of what I would consider to be unreliable sources to back it up.... Then they reported me to WP:ANI (!) Cheers. Smartse (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Drtahir007 now wants the article deleted as they don't like the way it is now, it already went to AfD in 2007 and survived, so deletion is out of the question. They keep on removing sourced info about their education and family. Another IP has also done this and removed the COI notice again. I'll try to engage the user again but they don't seem to be willing to discuss. Smartse (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've sent out WP:OWN warnings/notifications to the IP numbers. Hopefully they'll see what they're doing wrong. Netalarmtalk 05:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Trilemma

Trilemma has added to the Alan Grayson article multiple times a 3rd hand account [36] of an internet "poll", [37] that consisted of a radio box linked from the Orlando Sentinel web site. Trilemma added text that suggested that the unscientific poll represented the views of “the Orlando Jewish community,” [38] and “Orlando Sentinel readers” [39]. here Trilemma discloses “a background in methodology”. If Trilemma has such a background, and knew that this poll was unscientific, doesn't that mean Trilemma purposefully misconstrued the facts, and included this poll knowing that it would be misleading?

I asked that question here, to which I received a non-answer that merely side-steps the issue.

Trilemma has deleted information from the Alan Grayson article solely due to claims of “what sounds like a PR firm's output” and similar. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] For example this “PR statement” [45] was written here and is backed by two high profile editorials about Grayson. (WSJ and Vanity fair in the article) Is this an example of "THIEF! THIEF!" by Trilemma?Scientus (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A better question is, is this an example of a conflict of interest? What are you asking here? Are you just wanting to settle a generic content dispute? Forgive me for missing the point here. -- Atama頭 23:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Article in the Observer reporting possible COI and POV pushing

Edward McMillan-Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Michał Kamiński (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following news article was raised at WP:ANI#Edward McMillan-Scott, Michal Kaminski and the Observer and I thought it ought to be commented here. I'm afraid I'm no expert in identifying conflict of interest of POV pushing, so I thought I would rais it here. Stephen! Coming... 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The following usernames were noted in the ANI report as ones that have suspect editing patterns, similar to Strasburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is named in the article:
Thanks. Stephen! Coming... 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added links to the users. Smartse (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP identified as originating from the house of commons is 194.60.38.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Smartse (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent edit by the IP was to add the website www.dirdiver.co.uk to a diving article. I wonder if there could possibly be any connection between that website and someone from the House of Commons? Just idle curiousity. I would hate to see this turn into another scandal like this one. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
See also this SPI on Strasburg, now closed. Stephen! Coming... 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw the checkuser has gone through and the offending accounts blocked: also including user:Redbus09 and User:Wikiprofile2. No mention of Xerxes23 - is this one unrelated? Were Redbus09 and Wikiprofile2 the only others that showed up? As this case seems to be making the news at the moment, it's important to make sure there aren't any others left hiding in the woodwork... Many thanks, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Scott Adams

User:Browserguy claims to be Scott Adams, and has extensively modified this article. I reverted the edits and warned about autobiography, verifiability, reliable sources and BLP. I have an ugly premonition I'm about to be skewered as an induhvidual, and want to give everybody a heads-up. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll get kicked out of Dogbert's New Ruling Class. I'm fairly skeptical that Browserguy is Scott Adams (for one thing I'm sure he'd pick a more imaginative user name). -- Atama頭 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked, with instructions to confirm his identity to OTRS to be unblocked. Steve Smith (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Josef Tal

Dear editor,

Please refer to Josef Tal, and Talk:Josef Tal#COI. I have already asked about the COI template in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and received the answer : "There is an obvious WP:COI here and it is appropriate that this is discussed on the talk page and that the article be tagged. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)"

I argue that my edits are in the best interest of Wikipedia. I would like to ask for a neutral editor to check the article and assess whether or not my edits conform to the standards and guidelines of Wikipedia. In case the editor finds a specific biased clause or any other flaw in my edits, I shall fully support a subsequent correction to be made or discussed. Etan Tal (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a conflict of interest, as defined by our guidelines. I don't believe that Etan is arguing that there isn't. By our guidelines, any person who has a close connection to an article subject has a COI, and being the subject's son certainly qualifies.
What Etan is arguing is that the COI isn't causing a problem. And it's true that the guidelines don't restrict an editor with a COI from editing. It gives suggestions on how to avoid problems, and suggestions on how to resolve them, but doesn't say that Etan is unable to edit. Saying "it's just wrong" isn't really a valid argument. Etan has been very open about who he is, and has asked other editors to point out what he has specifically done that was incorrect. Nobody has yet given any support to the claim that the COI is a problem. Etan has even declared the COI openly on his user page, as the guidelines recommend.
The COI tag that was placed on the article specifically says, "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." What cleanup is required? What NPOV violations have been listed on the talk page of the article? I see nothing, so the tag is meaningless.
I've also looked over the article itself. It seems to be well-written with extensive sourcing and without being overly promotional. I don't see any basis for NPOV or other complaints at the article. So unless someone comes up with a real complain about the article itself, I think all is well. I'm going to remove the COI tag from the article and leave a comment on the talk page. -- Atama頭 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, and for removing the tag. May I have your permission to copy your full response to the relevant talk-page? Etan Tal (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really agree that the article has "extensive sourcing", many of the apparent inline citations are in fact notes that seem to be pretty unverifiable. Etan has done the correct thing by declaring his COI but needs to ensure that any content added to the article comes from reliable sources and not from their own personal knowledge. I'm not sure whether we need the entire list of every piece of work either. Smartse (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Etan, you have my permission to copy it if you like. Smartse, granted, "extensive sourcing" might not equate to "proper sourcing" and certainly we want to avoid original research. The article isn't perfect, but it isn't the sort of non-notable, highly-promotional article that often gets created by someone with a COI. I hope that Etan is willing to listen to criticism that will help improve the article. -- Atama頭 16:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

COI IP at LendingTree

In this edit an IP editor at that company deletes a (poorly) sourced statement critical of that company. Several other edits were made by the same IP.LeadSongDog come howl 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a COI warning, they haven't edited since August and to be fair the content removed was poorly sourced and shouldn't be included. If a reliable source can be found then it should definitely be added. I've added the IP links for the IP of the diff and another IP which also links to the company and has edited the article previously. I'll watch the article to check that they don't remove any well sourced criticism, but there isn't currently any, anyway. Smartse (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume it was just a lapse of judgement, not bad faith, but thought it should be noted.LeadSongDog come howl 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

question

Resolved
 – Actually, this was brought up at the correct place (WP:AN) before it was placed here, where an extensive discussion occurred. -- Atama頭 21:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Im an admin on the dispute infested Persian wikipedia. There are only 8 admins. Our laws are basically copies of EN WP. I need advice from you. My question:

An admin gets involved in a content dispute in an article with some users (7 or 8 other involved editors I reckon). Some r against him, some side with him. Anyway, after a while, he leaves the dispute and quits editing the article entirely, and the fight of course continues and the article is heavily edited every day one way or the other. A month later, the fight heats up again between the same parties. Edit wars break out. The admin (who has not been involved for a month now) jumps in and (citing disruptive behaviour and edit warring) blocks the main responsible user for 24hrs. It turns out this blocked user was the same person the admin was involved with in their intense dispute a month ago. Now some ppl are crying foul, and claiming that since the admin was involved a month ago, and has therefore conflict of interest, he was hence not justified in blocking the user, whether he was right or not.

Do u guys agree? Is a month enough time to not be considered involved? When does one become de-involved? A month after you leave the article? A year after? Was this admin justified in blocking the edit warring user?

I'll read your input. As always, I'm grateful to the wealth of advice u give me.--Zereshk (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a tough one since you have so few admins. As a rule of thumb, if you were involved at all, month, year, decade, whatever, it is always best not to do the blocking since folks can cry foul no matter how much time has past and whether its "true" or not. Being an Admin seems like a completely thankless job and folks on all sides probabley won't like you, but to bad! Maybe block ALL parties that are edit warring and try to get as many "un-involved" eyes there as possible. Just my two cents from a person not wanting to be an admin. Best of luck! --Tom (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
This board doesn't refer to conflicts of interest between editors, but conflicts of interest in regards to article subjects. You may have better feedback posting at WP:AN (especially since your question is in regards to the appropriate actions of administrators, and that board is for administrators). But if you want my advice, even though there are only 8 administrators, as long as there are more than 1 that administrator who was previously involved should ask one of the other 7 to do the blocking. As to when they become uninvolved, I would say that time wouldn't be the factor. Even a year later they might be considered involved. As long as the dispute is one that the administrator was previously involved with, and the editors are those the administrator was in a content dispute with, there's still a conflict of interest. -- Atama頭 17:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Serbian Cultural Club and User:SKKlub

SKKlub closely resembles an abbreviation for Serbian Cultural Club. The article was created by the user an is promotional in nature, including a events listing,list of principles, and a list of goals. The article has no references, but has a ton of external links. The article would most likely fit criteria for deletion, either PROD or even CSD G11. Netalarmtalk 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left them a COI welcome for now. A posting at WP:UAA might be warranted, as well as a G11 tag on the article. -- Atama頭 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that someone nominated it for G11 and it was deleted. On another review of SKKlub's edits, I don't think a WP:UAA report is needed. The Serbian Cultural Club article wasn't the first article created or edited, and their edits are mostly positive. I'd say that now that the article is deleted that we should leave it be. -- Atama頭 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CiCi's Pizza

Resolved
 – Indef blocked per WP:UAA report. -- Atama頭 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

CiCi's Pizza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made possible COI edits to CiCi's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Claims to be a role account for the company's PR department in the edit summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tckma (talk • contribs)

User:Original4d

Stale
 – If the editor starts this up again, bring it up, otherwise there's not much to do. -- Atama頭 06:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Original4d is an account based solely on WP:SPAM and advertisement. Appears to represent an estalishment offering 4-Digits gambling services (known as "4D" in Singapore), posting URLs, etc. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer current, as the user's last edit was on September 2, 2009. However, I don't think this user was doing anything wrong. The user has not spammed, advertised anything, or posted any URLs. Please be more careful when reporting users in the future. Netalarmtalk 03:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
This edit is clearly a URL post, written in an advertising manner: "For more information on 4D game in Malaysia, visit "www.magnum4d.com.my"" -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were referring to the bottom link that the user fixed. Nothing else to do now, since this was from September 2. Netalarmtalk 04:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Autrylibraries

Resolved
 – User blocked as a role account Smartse (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Posting a lot of links to www.autrycollections.org. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:UGL international office

I reported them to WP:UAA and they've been blocked. I've reverted their edits to General Labour Union (Italy) as they where clearly promotional in tone. Haven't looked at Renata Polverini though. Smartse (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NGOWatch / Jon Entine

This user has self-identified as Jon Entine, head of NGOWatch.

Apart from making some uncontroversial corrections, he has deleted well-sourced (e.g. from a Cambridge University Press book) criticism from the article about his organization several times, refusing to discuss his reasons except claiming it was outdated, and added promotional language [46]. He has also deleted several other users' talk page comments [47]. As he continues to do both despite being made aware of the applicable guidelines, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on this.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with the characterization of the above poster. When I encountered the article, it referred to a different organization entirely, known as NGO Monitor, which he or another poster misrepresented as this organization. The material form Cambridge University Press referred to the other organization, which has absolutely no relationship to NGOWatch. The so-called criticisms came from one website, and referred to NGO Watch shortly after it was founded in 2002. In fact, NGOWatch never got off the ground, and remained a dead website until 2007, when it was removed. I had no affiliation with the past website. I was part of a team that founded a new website, also known as NGOWatch, with an entirely different mandate. Even though the criticisms referred to an organization from 7 years ago--and the criticisms were purely opinions, citing no facts, which in itself would using normal ideological filters disqualify it from being posted on Wikipedia, I preserved those hyperbolic and inflammatory criticisms under a new heading on the site referring to the former NGOWatch. At present, there have been no criticisms or compliments of the new site, so there is nothing new to post.

I believe the above person is violating the standards of Wikipedia, and I advise others to watch if he/she should impose his ideological filters in an attempt to distort information that should be as neutrally presented as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjonrun (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest in this matter is clear. However, it's not obvious that there is actual misconduct in addition to the COI. I'll look into it and give an opinion and encourage others to do the same. -- Atama頭 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elijah White

User keeps on creating pages for himself, most recently at MaC Renegade. His userpage at this moment serves as a draftboard for said article; a version of which was speedied yesterday. The user's has made very few edits to other pages, and given that the user's username is the apparent real name of MaC Renegade, I am convinced that this user is using his account purely to promote his music. TheLetterM (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear cut, looking at google for "MaC Renegade" they don't appear to be notable and writing autobiographies is never a good idea. As there aren't any articles left though I can't really see what can be done. I've left them a note to draw them to this discussion, hopefully they will get the message and not make the article again. Smartse (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I tagged his userpage for A7 deletion, he removed the tag, I replaced the tag. He also recreated MaC Renegade (for the 3rd time). I think that it's time for an administrator to do something about this, so I've left a notice at WP:ANI (because let's face it, administrators don't generally look at this board). -- Atama頭 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely. If he shows some contrition, feel free to unblock but I wouldn't hold my breath. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International

Resolved
 – article deleted. Rees11 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of what appears to be a two-sided WP:COI edit war between Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both sides of the disagreement seem to be able to support their respective cases fairly well, but the results are anything but encyclopedic in content. At a bare minimum, the text and reversions thereto swing from one side of WP:NPOV to the other, and no middle ground appears to be forthcoming. I'm at the end of my rope regarding trying to gain consensus between them, and have gone so far as to post the article for WP:RFC. Any assistance available would be appreciated. Alan (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is either editor affiliated with Allied Artists International in any way? Or is there any other indication of a conflict of interest from either one? Remember that a conflict of interest does not simply mean that a person violated the NPOV policy, in fact there is a NPOV noticeboard that governs those disputes. Conflicts of interest occur when one or more editors working on an article have some kind of connection to the article subject that might indicate a motive other than improvement of the encyclopedia, or if their edits are made to advance or defame some entity that they are closely associated with (for example, an editor spamming his employer's web site link across various articles). -- Atama頭 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a actually a whole nest of inter-related articles. While it's one of the nastiest edit wars I've seen, I don't see any evidence of COI. There are now multiple admins involved from multiple notice boards, and the article has been blocked for a week. It's far from over but I don't think anything more is needed from COI/N for now. Rees11 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation Rees11, that's what I had suspected. :) -- Atama頭 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Article is now up for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nehara Pieris

I'm not convinced there's a real COI here. This is an article about an actress, and it's not unusual for such articles to be edited by fans. For the most part, fans are exempt from the COI guidelines (otherwise we'd have serious problems with any pop culture articles which are almost exclusively expanded by fans), the exception being when some other COI might exist aside from the article subject itself. For example, a fan editing the Star Wars article is not only allowed but expected, but if that fan ran a web site called "starwarsfanimania.com" then adding that web site to external links, using it as a reference, or mentioning it in the text of the article would be a COI. In any case, without any claim from Nimonline that they are officially representing Pieris or other indication of a COI I think this is just a matter of an editor who was adding too much "fluff" to a BLP. Their more recent edits seem to be more tame, I think Nimonline is learning what is and isn't appropriate and their edits are improving as a result.
On a side note, I removed some inappropriate external links (Facebook, MySpace, Youtube) and tagged it as an unsourced BLP, there's still quite a bit of work needed to bring this article up to speed. -- Atama頭 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: On further review, I believe that the COI complaint is a valid one. The article was initially created by Neharalive, who was later blocked for username violations. Not long after the block, Nimonline began editing the article. They are in all likelihood the same editor. Despite this, I have been trying to improve the article, but in the process of trying to find sources for the article I discovered that her only coverage was in blogs and social networking sites. Generally when that occurs you are dealing with a person who is trying to promote themselves but has not reached notability. Based on this, I have brought the article to an AfD. -- Atama頭 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

User:Saber, etc. has just e-mailed me, admitting that he was paid to write an article about this person and asking how he can further advance his paid goal. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is full of puff and makes it sound like college sponsored work placements were paid employment of importance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The subject is pretty notable though, all that's needed is to keep it neutral. This makes me wish we could settle this whole WP:PAID debate so that we can decide what to do with these editors. -- Atama頭 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
We can create articles about them and allow them to edit their friends articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyren

Resolved
 – Editor indef blocked as self-promotional spammer. Article on its way to deletion. -- Atama頭 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has created article Lachlan Carrick linking to a website that matches their name http://www.cyren.com.au . User talk page and article tagged COI.  7  07:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Buckley

Lord Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor at 68.5.46.237 continues to re-add unreferenced potential COI material despite receiving full series of uw-warnings and requests for comment on article talk page. Closely related isp number in Aliso Viejo California has identified themselves in the past as the son of the article's subject, making same sort of unreferenced additions to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: If this is in fact the subject's son making these edits, they now appear to be adding material that's making unreferenced claims about themselves as well. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Energyforeveryone, User:Energyissues and User:Energytoday seem to be SPAs with an interest in this planned solar energy development. The development is probably notable, but these users' contributions are spam-like in nature. Especially when adding a section to the Solar energy article, which I am minded to delete on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA, COI, all true. Let's look at actual "damage" done however.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My main goal was to provide up-to-date and factual information on the Sunrise Powerlink; since the SDG&E article and related articles were outdated related to this project. The Sunrise Powerlink is truly a test-case in Southern California and many, many people have opinions on it. My only hope is that when they turn to Wikipedia for information on the project, they have current information. Thanks! Energytoday (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Conflict of Interest Marvel Super Hero Squad

There's already a thread of this over on the Edit War Noticeboard [[48]], but I guess this is a new problem. User:98.235.186.116 was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, User:71.199.246.246 joins in. It smells like conflict of interest but when guys named X-Fan and 7thCynic, moderators on the forum that keeps getting deleted, post about how they are the undoing the revisions and use "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)" as their reason for removing content, the conflict of interest is pretty blatent. Warnings have been put on all appropriate talk pages, but they're not going to be happy until their site is on the page. Can anyone review this and give some guidance? Talk seems one sided, and now there's vengeance deletions going on. Help? Tomson elite (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. But your revision was undid by the 7thCynic guy 3 minutes after you did it.Tomson elite (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And again, 7th Cynic reverts 2 minutes after Dayewalker User talk:Dayewalker came through and cleared it up. Sock puppetry, multiple reversions (as fast as the edits can be fixed), revenge deletions. This is apparently a hot button issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomson elite (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
And I guess this is also a three reversion rule thing too? Just wondering how thick this plot gets. Tomson elite (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
A bad situation. As to WP:3RR, the hard rule is that if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours on an article you can be (and almost always are) blocked to stop the behavior. Superficially, assuming that he isn't one of the IPs from before (not a bet I'd make) The7thCynic has only reverted 3 times (one more and they can be blocked). -- Atama頭 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfricanPressOrganization

AfricanPressOrganization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made potential unreferenced COI edits to Press videoconferencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted their edit and reported the username to WP:UAA. I noticed that another user African Press Organization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in March and that they created the Press videoconferencing article. Having looked at it I'm not sure if it is notable to be honest, I can't see how press videoconferencing is any different to other videoconferencing. Do you think we should WP:MERGE? Smartse (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added a {{mergeto}} tag. Tckma (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Manuel P. Asensio

An editor claiming to represent Asensio has been actively editing the article, turning it into what reads like an extended press release, with "references" that are links to what appear to be copyright violations of newspaper clips on the Asensio website. He also made what I interpret to be a legal threat on the talk page[49]. I've replied on the talk page, but this is pretty much above my pay grade so I'd request that uninvolved editors step in. I do think that the article needs to be fleshed out, and I also think that the views of the subject of the article need to be carefully considered, but I think that what's being added and removed here is not appropriate.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor has materialized with a clear-cut legal threat[50]. I'd like to encourage this person to work to improve the article, so far to no avail.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for making legal threats. He requested an unblock with the promise to retract the legal threat, but the unblock was put on hold until he could decide which single account he would use to edit the project. In the meantime, the article is up for deletion (but so far it has been a unanimous keep vote). -- Atama頭 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, everything seems to have simmered down, for now. Thanks to all concerned for their assistance.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a side note, the editor in question (the person representing Asensio) has been unblocked. I have hopes that this won't mean a resumption of disruption in the article. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's true. For some time a number of IPs and SPAs have edited the article disruptively, culminating in the recent unpleasantness. Let's hope it's all over, but definitely the page needs to be watched. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - Jehovah's Witnesses page

LTSally is a major contributor to the Jehovah’s Witness page, who is openly opposed and somewhat extreme in his opposition to Jehovah’s Witnesses. He states his opposition to Jehovah’s Witnesses openly on the Wikipedia site on his personal page and encourages people on his pages, to leave the Jehovah’s Witness religion, and that he will show them how. He is a Jehovah’s Witness. He states that he is “inactive,” a term we use for persons who are Jehovah’s Witnesses but who don’t attend meetings or engage in the ministry.

He states on his page, that if he were found out, he would probably be disfellowshipped, which he doesn’t want, because then he wouldn’t be able to associate with some of his friends, he states. So, he keeps his opposition and work against Jehovah’s Witnesses hidden. He writes on the Jehovah’s Witness page about disfellowshipping, in a way that gives the wrong impression about the subject, giving only parts of information about disfellowshipping that are misleading. This is true about most of what he is contributing to the Wikipedia pages on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of the things he has written on the Wikipedia page (most of which has since been edited) can be considered slander, both in the dictionary and legal definition of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LTSally Some of the comments, give a very misleading impression of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In trying to correct the situation, my edits are always deleted, as have been some of the clarifying information placed on the talk page. It might be termed “cyber-bullying”.

I feel that the conflict of interest is resulting in misinformation being present both on the Wikipedia page on Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in the talk pages, and his personal talk pages, which encourages people to leave the Jehovah’s Witness religion and which presents slanderous and false comments concerning the Jehovah's Witness religion.Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

I think that LTSally has a strong POV which is not the same as a COI. I think you should both focus on 3rd party scholarly sourcing, though religious scholarship generally does not deal with the question of authenticity which may be important to (former) Jehovah's Witnesses. Andries (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
LTSally made a really good point on his talk page, "If I have a conflict of interest because of my negative experiences with that religion, then you have one because of your continuing involvement with it." I must say that I'm uncomfortable with any editor who preaches on his user page, whether for or against an organization, but that shouldn't invalidate his participation in any Jehovah's Witness articles. If his edits are in violation of WP:NPOV then that is certainly not good, but that's also not automatically a COI. -- Atama頭 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
One further point - is LTSally's user page screed really appropriate per WP:UP?
  1. ^ http://www.epsteinatlanta.org/podium/tools/SlideShow.aspx?a=80919&ttl=Social+Networking+VII/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_37&oldid=1086355840"