Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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

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

Unresolved

 – Matter now proposed for arbitration.

• Contents located on subpage, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, as this lengthy discussion is disabling the noticeboard. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Chabad_movement_editors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User has been indef blocked

• Myki-insider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Myki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I (along with other editors, such as User:HiLo48) are concerned about User:Myki-insiders edits to myki. His username obviously links him to Myki and the user has never attempted to claim they are not afiliated with Myki, OneLink, Connex_Melbourne, Metro Trains Melbourne or the Victorian State Government. As another user pointed out here and here they're edits seem to be a little POV and they are quick to "reword" (read remove) any obvious criticism. Being such a controversial and 'angry public' kind of project, I think sporadic editing is best by someone who seemingly works for the subject of the article. — Deon^talk 13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly alarming diffs include this one. — Deon^talk 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: User has been indef blocked (per username) - hopefully they don't just start editing under another username. — Deon^talk 04:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be using Wikipedia to promote an organization. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Action Against Hunger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Adamore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    
• actionagainsthunger.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.actionagainsthunger.org

WP:SPA account with no other edits than to promote Action Against Hunger (actionagainsthunger.org). Mass reference spamming, and promotional additions over multiple articles (including linkspaming) and on the the main article. I've reverted it to a non COI/spam revision, however long that lasts. Believed to be Amador Gomez, technical director of Action Against Hunger. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Action_Against_Hunger_Spamming --Hu12 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The COI has pretty much been acknowledged, see here where they said, "I may not have written in a completely neutral language, ok, but that would be because this is a cause i care about." That's a perfect example of why we have a COI guideline in the first place. Now, they did later apologize for this behavior, and there have been sufficient warnings about spam that the issue should be pretty much resolved (COI confirmed, editor has been warned about behavior, editor apologized, further misbehavior will lead to a block). -- Atama頭 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Edgar Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A.montenegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [1], A.montenegro's additions: [2] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [3]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [4]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I'm not well-versed in what can be done here - can someone lend a hand? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This notice was copied here, since no immediate action was taken on the COI board (which is the nature of this board, it's not for "emergencies"). LessHeard vanU made some helpful comments regarding the editor's actions.

I'm not sure that there is a COI here. The editor has not outed him or herself as the article subject, and a quick Google search hasn't shown any connection to "A.montenegro" and Martins. It may or may not be them, but I'd rather not speculate or risk violating WP:OUTING. I'd actually suggest that absent any other on-wiki evidence that you refrain from accusing the editor of being Martins for that same reason.

The NPOV problems are obvious, and the COI is irrelevant to me because regardless of the actual identity of the editor such whitewashing is unacceptable. I don't care if the editor is Martins, his friend, or just some fan, but I would suggest that any further efforts to remove sourced information from the article without discussing matters with other editors should result in a temporary block of some kind. -- Atama頭 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly advanced publicity/ad campaign for one company and its various products.

• Lbuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LaserBand LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• OmniBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand Dura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand Alert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StatBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FusionBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Original LaserBand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LaserBand 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Triage tag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wristband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Medical error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Patient safety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Barcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lbuser/Emergency response tags (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lbuser/Integra Labels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• File:Fusion Color R185.jpg
• File:Fusion Color R185.jpg
• File:Integra Logo for LaserBand.jpg
• File:LaserBand Alert Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Alert Photo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Corporate Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Dura Logo.jpg
• File:LaserBand Dura.jpg
• File:LaserBand FusionBand Printing.jpg
• File:LaserBand Integra.jpg
• File:LaserBand OmniBand.jpg
• File:LaserBand2 Logo.jpg
• File:LB2-ADULT-L3 Assembled.jpg
• File:LB2-ADULT-L3 Printing.jpg
• File:LB2-Adult-L3.jpg
• File:Mom and baby with wristband.jpg
• File:OmniBand Logo.jpg
• File:Original LaserBand Logo.jpg
• File:PLS-102-Z Photo.jpg
• File:PLS-102-Z.jpg
• File:StatBand E-Vac.jpg
• File:StatBand Logo.jpg
• File:StatBand Rapid.jpg
• File:StatBand Triage Tag.jpg

--Calton | Talk 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Welcome to the future – why wouldn't people create twenty pages to promote their products? Would someone more experienced in these matters give an opinion on what should happen to the product pages? Redirect to main article or delete? Where is the guideline re stuff like MyProduct® (i.e. registered/trademark symbols)? If kept, should articles like OmniBand mention that a particular feature is patented? Should a reference to the patent be included (pretty obviously not, unless some feature of the patent is important)? Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The individual product articles are pretty clearly spam, and I've tagged them. The rest of it is still a mess. The "®" symbol should not be used; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Rees11 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am usually prepared to assume good faith, but quite frankly I don't buy the copyright claims on most of those images. They are clearly copyright images of the company or scans thereof and I see no evidence that the company has given permission for their use. – ukexpat (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lbuser claims to have created all those images, which would tend to reinforce the impression that he has a COI. It seems unlikely that someone not associated with the company would create what are essentially marketing materials. Rees11 (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Freshchoicedak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fresh Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Freshchoicedak (talk · contribs) appears to be working for the Fresh Choice restaurant chain, judging from his username and edits that turned that article into a "fact sheet" about the company. May want a few more eyes to keep an eye on this article and user. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 06:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this user on a username violation. I've watchlisted the article and will try to help keep an eye on it for new accounts and any problematic editing. Sarah 09:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New account is now reverting the article back to the fact sheet revision, Clarkkemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 20:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the editor was username blocked, and encouraged to register under a new name. So this isn't block evasion. (Just thought I'd point that out.) I do agree with the COI concerns here, but I also have concerns with your handling of this issue as well. For example, there is currently an edit war not far from violating WP:3RR. The versions of the article being warred over are an unreferenced version, and a version that relies on unreliable sources. Also, Clarkkemp introduced a relevant and notable award that would be welcome in an article with absolutely no references, yet instead of including this the reference was removed with all other contributions. I'd really prefer that you actually talk with the editor about a compromise rather than revert everything they do, COI or not. -- Atama頭 22:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article has posted allegations of judicial misconduct in his legal case and his own theory on climate change, none of which were sourced. I removed the content per WP:BLP violations regarding the judicial misconduct and WP:OR for the climate change item. Unfortunately, it appears that he feels that there is a conspiracy regarding the removal of such content and that I am a part of it. See his comments on the article talk page my my user talk page. I would like to request some assistance in educating this editor on Wikipedia's policies as I believe that he has not and will not pay attention to my notes to him. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked the relevant sections for his perusal. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• wifione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management has been mired in content disputes for years now, primarily because of editors ostensibly sympathetic to the institute looking to remove any negative information, and embellish positive information. Wifione's editing of The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management is tendentious and aimed at whitewashing negative information about the institute, in a manner that strongly suggests some sort of affiliation and therefore COI. The user's editing also goes against Wikipedia:NOTADVOCATE#ADVOCATE. The user is not an SPA at first glance of his/her edit logs, but a careful perusal indicates that most of the edits have to do with IIPM or related entities, and are aimed at putting a positive spin on the article, and removing any negative information, by twisting wikipolicy, take this as an example or this or this or this edit which does not do what the editsummary says. The edits always seem like a PR exercise, to minimize the institute's criticism and to add questionable positive info.

Whenever the user has been asked about any affiliation with IIPM, he/she has evaded the question. To be fair, user is not being a vandal or revert-warring. But given the obvious pro-IIPM bias, and in tune with COI guidelines, it would be nice if the user clarifies any COI situation, either confirming or denying it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makrandjoshi, sorry for replying late. Let me assure you, there is no CoI. There is surely a content dispute on the pages in question - a look at the talk pages of the articles in question would be beneficial. When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI. Just for information, when you were warned with a future block by an administrator for harassing me last month, the same point was told to you by the administrator here [5]. You were also warned by administrator here [6] how I am not a CoI case. The administrator also informed you how he is ready to give you more evidence of the same --- you did not take the same up.

However, given this new CoI template, I'll respond to the exact diffs you have given.

1. Your first diff [7] shows the talk page discussions.

I would wish to understand what part of the discussions did you find CoI? (You were absent from the discussions here, till two days back) I do believe discussions are the basis for making NPOV changes. Don't you?

2. Your second diff [8] leaves out four intermediate edits. I'll focus on the biggest change on that for benefit, which is, reducing a major part of the controversy section.

It'll be good if you look at discussions here [9] which occurred from 22nd Dec 2009 till 25th Dec 2009 (you were absent throughout the discussions) where, before undertaking the change, I even placed the paragraphs for other editors' comment.

3. Your third diff [10] shows me removing M.Peri's statement from the article as I have claimed it is a self published source. Your request at the Reliability noticeboard here [11] is clear evidence of the fact the source was not an open shut case.

4. Your fourth diff [12] shows how I removed information about IMI. Please see discussions here [13] to understand how that was done after discussions (you were absent again).

I'll request you in the future to treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wifione, how does asking someone to clarify their COI harrassment? You have evaded the question in the past. Now that you have answered it, I'll take your word for it in good faith. And we can move on. Now about the links I provided and your responses to them. My first link was an example of your misinterpreting wiki policy. The discussions there show that apart from you, no one else thinks that using the word controversy is against policy. The second diff, all the intermediate edits were by you too, FYI. The difference speaks for itself in terms of how validly cited information critical of the institute has been removed in the course of "summarizing". About my third diff, if you read the RSN request, each and every person responding agreed that the article is WP:RS. And yet, you were removing it repeatedly despite other editors on the IIPM page asking you not to. The fourth diff, your edit summary said "moving to footnotes" or something, whereas you did no such thing. All these edits and numerous other edits by you at the IIPM page have been towards removing any information that is critical of the institute. You mention NPOV. Remember that when there is an NPOV dispute, the suggested path is adding VALIDLY CITED information about both points of view. Removing information under the name of NPOV is not right. I hope you will learn from your mistakes in the past and not remove validly cited information on questionable grounds. And finally, a very happy new year to you. :) Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTING is the harassment policy. Asking someone if they are affiliated with an article subject shouldn't constitute outing, per se; it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask and doesn't necessarily reveal undue personal information (a person can be affiliated with a company without being an employee, for example). Nobody is compelled to answer such a question, though, and repeatedly insisting on it could be considered harassment. Since Wifione denies having a conflict of interest it can be reasonable to assume that they are unaffiliated with IIPM. -- Atama頭 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, not Makrandjoshi, am the person who has asked Wifione more than once about possible association with IIPM. Wifione evaded the question, on three different talk pages, saying essentially "don't ask me that question" in each instance.

Such evasion strongly suggested a conflict of interest, especially after Wifione spent weeks of relentless and disruptive wikilawyering to remove each and every source containing negative information from the article, as well as inserting positive spin. Evasion, campaigning to remove negative information, and adding promotional information, paint a fairly clear profile of a person with a conflict of interest.

I will accept Wifione's denial of COI, but I also want to see a cessation of Wikilawyering on Wifione's part. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a CoI forum, and given that both Makrandjoshi (yes, happy new year to you too :)) and Amatulic have accepted their parts in moving on with this CoI, I'll let sleeping dogs lie and move on myself. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serin13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Serin13 is the creator and substantial contributor of Cerberus FTP Server. His contributions all revolve only around this product [14]. Material redacted per WP:OUTING.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promethean: sorry, but part of the above was well into attempted WP:OUTING. Do you want to rephrase? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serin13 outed himself by choosing a username identical to the one used at the Cerberus FTP support forums. Digging deeper for personal info would certainly constitute outing, but the direct connection to the product was already made clear. Regardless, the article for the product has been deleted so this is something of a moot point now. -- Atama頭 00:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted outing lies in digging further beyond the shared username to identify a named real-world person. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I agree that it was very inappropriate to go that far. -- Atama頭 20:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry: I had my wrist slapped for it way back, so tend to be cautious about that kind of thing... Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be unusually keen on inserting references to the textbook

• Herman, Gabor T. (2009), Fundamentals of Computerized Tomography: Image Reconstruction from Projections (2nd ed.), Springer, ISBN 978-1-85233-617-2

and other books by Gabor Herman into a variety of articles, without making any other substantive changes (aside from correcting the odd typo). Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused... Is "Klar Sagen" affiliated with the book in any way? Are they listed as a contributor to it, or affiliated with the publisher? If not, there shouldn't be any COI; having an interest in a subject is completely different than a conflict of interest. If this person is spamming, that's certainly a problem but this isn't the place to address that. -- Atama頭 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leca67 (talk · contribs) was blocked last month on the 19th for having a promotional username. They requested an unblock in order to change their username, this was granted and the change made [15]. However, no edits have been made under the new username and the editor continues to edit Leca where he/she seems to have a clear COI. There are also some copyright issues reported to this editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugeneacurry created this page. As his user page makes clear he is a pastor in the California Southern Baptist Convention. I have alerted him to WP:COI but he maintains that it applies only to editing pages concerning his family, friends etc rather than the religious organisation that employs him, despite the policy clearly covering this. He also reverted an advertising tag I placed on the page as it contained the organisation's mailing address and phone number.Haldraper (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention. Haldraper is mistaken and is engaging in a bit of tit-for-tat here since I was instrumental in getting him blocked for three-revert violations on another article. Eugeneacurry (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stick to the facts here rather than engage in mindreading as to my motivation which is irrelevant as to whether WP:COI has been breached?

Eugeneacurry created California Southern Baptist Convention and has edited it to remove contentious material, for e.g. an advertising tag.

Eugeneacurry's user page states: "Eugene A. Curry is currently the pastor of the First Baptist Church of Granada Hills in Los Angeles, CA." I suspect he is engaging in semantics here when he says "I am not an employee of the California Southern Baptist Convention". It may be they do not directly pay his wages, however he is a pastor of one of its churches and therefore has a close connection to the subject of the page he created and is editing.Haldraper (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a Baptist church in Southern California, is your church not a member of the CSBC? If so, there is a potential COI. -- Atama頭 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My legally independent church voluntarily associates with the California Southern Baptist Convention. We contribute money to it, not vice versa. To say the CSBC "employs" me is akin to saying the US government "employs" all American taxpayers, which is of course nonsense. I created the CSBC page 2.5 years ago when I was just beginning to work with Wikipedia (other SBC state conventions already had articles) and I was unaware that including a physical address was considered inappropriate. The address has since been removed and I have not tried to restore it. If the solons of Wikipedia really think that the content of the article is inappropriate or that the CSBC doesn't meet notability standards (I consider both options unlikely) I'll not protest it's rewriting/deletion. Though I do find it interesting that apparently no one had a problem with the page in its 2.5 year history until Haldraper was blocked after I reported his 3RR violation.Eugeneacurry (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's the kind of clarification that helps a lot on this board. You might have a bit of a COI but it's not a strong one. The article clearly has no POV issues so I've removed the COI tag (the tag isn't a black mark to stain the article forever, it only exists if there's something in the article that needs to be cleaned up). I do think that listing the physical address and telephone number of the organization is a bit much, you don't see that in articles because Wikipedia isn't a directory (phone numbers in particular are never listed). Such mistakes are pretty minor though, you haven't done anything wrong that I've seen. The removal of the advertising tag was completely appropriate, nothing at that article even approached what I'd consider promotional at the time, and I'm really confused as to why Haldraper would have added it. -- Atama頭 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have however added notability and unreferenced tags to California Southern Baptist Convention as it is not clear to me that the subject is notable and it clearly is unreferenced. – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

We could really use some community input on the Springer (orca) article. This article was stable until about three weeks ago when a large amount of content that I consider problematic was added to it, by a contributor with a conflict of interest. That contributor has apparently stopped editing, however at present the COI content is mostly still there and we need to deal with it somehow. At question are: processes for dealing with content added with COI, whether to revert to a version of the article that existed before the COI content was added, reliability of sources, due weight, and style issues. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thrill Girl (talk · contribs): edits to Ogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Zorbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) suggest a connection to this company [16]. Has been adding information to Ogo, which is a disambiguation page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that no one has gotten back to you here. I see User:Thrill Girl hasn't attempted to put the information back in since you posted this so I hope this might be over. Under no circumstances would that be considered appropriate especially given we have an article on a somewhat similar topic already. If it does happen again, could refer them to Sphereing though I'm weary of that since it'd be seemingly just advert info additions anyway. You've been in the right to revert her attempts to have it included, and your warnings to their talk page seem 100% justified to me, including the patience to use Uw-advert1 through 3. Checking your edit history quickly it seems we have very similar habits so I'm not at all surprised we're in agreement :) Thanks for the post, and again sorry on the timing. On a level 4 it's made pretty clear reporting to an incident board is next, so for all intents and purposes they're on an accidental but indefinite 1RR for any article their promo cruft is added to. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems she hasn't given up yet. [17] Is this justification for a block? The content has been toned down a bit but it's still promotional. (I'd only give a warning saying "you will be blocked next time" if that is what would happen!) Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Natasha Wheat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SandyPortland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This BLP of a US-based fine artist was created 13 October 2009, likely by a close associate of the artist. The creator has no user history prior to creating the BLP̦ and all subsequent contributions were either to edit and unflag the article, or to defend it on talk pages 1 2.

This webpage, linked to by the article's creator, shows that as the creator, SandyPortland, shares names with a coworker and workplace location of the subject. If the subject of the article and the article creator are in fact coworkers and artistic collaborators, this would seem to be a clear conflict of interest.

• Additionally, there is an apparent lack of good faith editing on this article. The creator has suggested an absence of personal association with the artist; removed an A7 Template—in spite of being the article's creator; and may have used puppetry to remove subsequent flags. The user JASON6752 has only one edit: the removal of the WP:!, WP:NN, and WP:SOURCES flags, which was immediately reverted. The opening of JASON6752's edit comment: WIKIPEDIA EDITING ABUSE. (caps not mine) looks like wikilawyer practice number 4 to me. Likewise, in defending the article, SandyPortland stated, 'I like this, Wiki rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia ignore it".'

The artist Natasha Wheat may meet WP:NOTE, but the circumstances of this biography's introduction into Wikipedia represent a likely controversion of WP:CONFLICT and a potential threat to WP:NPOV. —Infoporfin (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't establish notability but the notability tag keeps getting removed. This is being discussed on the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiral Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Snowded has been insisting at great length, and against talk page consensus, that Category:New Age be placed on the Spiral Dynamics article. Spiral Dynamics is a business management book and course series.[18] User:Snowded has cited no sources for the addition.

• [19]
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#removal_of_.22new_age.22_category
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#The_new_age_issue
• User_talk:Goethean#Spiral_Dynamics
• User_talk:Goethean#january_2009
• [20]
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Spiral_Dynamics

User:Snowded's user page links to his website. At his website,[21] he sells a series of courses on business management techniques.[22] He appears to be a potential competitor with Spiral Dynamics. It is possible that User:Snowded wants to paint his competitors in a certain light, and that s/he is using Wikipedia to do so. — goethean ॐ 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.

• The Spiral Dynamics article has been characterised as "New Age" for over a year and I was not involved in that original decision
• On two occasions in six months Goethean has managed to get one other editor (in each case) to agree with his position that the category is inappropriate and on this basis he claims consensus and has edited warned in defiance of WP:BRD
• I have said on both occasions that I do not think that the original Spiral Dynamics book and course series are new age, but that the assimilation by the Integral Movement is. More recently I have proposed changes to the article to reflect this which would allow the category to be removed and Goethean has refused to engage with any attempt at a compromise here
• The only thing I have been doing at great length is to get Goethean to abide by WP:BRD and WP:AGF
• My company is involved in the application of natural science to social systems and does not compete as far as I know in any way with Spiral Dynamics. Or if it does then any academic in Management Sciences (about 50% of my time) or any Management Consultant should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia.
• I have always believed in transparency on WIkipedia so my page indicates my political and other beliefs along with a link to my company's web page, if I was playing the game suggested by Goethean then I would not have done this.
• There appears to be a movement among supporters of the Integral Movement to remove any reference to New Age across a series of articles. This matches the doctrine of Ken WIlber that Integral has transcended New Age (a mean green meme to quote). This is a matter I am starting to look into, especially as pages on Integral tend to have a small number of editors who are part of that movement.

Goethean remains (I think) upset that I reversed his move of Integral Movement to Integral (philosophy). We had a similar position there, three editors heavily involved in the Integral Movement (some of them who publish books) making a decision that has NPOV aspects. I am pleased to say that the other editors on that page have taken a more open attitude and an a discussion is proceeding which will improve the article overall.

I think this is pre-emptive strike as I told him yesterday (the transparency principle again) that I was considering raising an ANI report about his refusal to engage in discussion. He would be better engaged in finding ways to resolve problems rather than insisting that 2 or 3 editors taking a position against 1 constitutes "consensus" without the need for discussion --Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note without much surprise that user Goethean did not see fit to notify me of this posting.

Yes, well I knew that you were following my contributions rather enthusiastically. — goethean ॐ 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some comments as an outside observer (I don't really know either of you, nor have I had anything to do with the article in question).

• It seems that Goethean was the one who removed the New Age category back in May, and the category has been around since August 2006. So Snowded does have a point (a technical one) about the fact that removing the category is a change that generally should be justified if anyone objects against it. Having said that, if there truly was a consensus reached that suggested that the category be removed, it should be removed. I don't see that there was a true "consensus", two people against one isn't much of a consensus. But the argument that there should be a source supporting the "New Age" claim is a valid one, and absent such a source I'd personally favor removing the category from the article.
• All of that is immaterial to the COI complaint. Even if it was determined that Snowded has enough of a COI that editing the article should be discouraged, the guidelines specifically permit an editor with a COI to participate in the talk page of the article. That means that Snowded is free to argue for including the New Age category regardless, or to make any other argument on the talk page of the article.
• I don't see that a COI actually exists. Possibly being a potential competitor is a far cry from actually being a competitor. It would be ludicrous to say that Snowded is not allowed to participate on any article where the subject creates business management books. That's like saying that a novelist can't edit articles about other novelists. I'm not saying there isn't a potential for a COI here, but it seems like a weak case for one.
• Being open about your affiliations is commendable. It makes it much easier to assume good faith in an editor, and I'm glad that Snowded is candid about the web site. If Snowded edits an article about his company (I don't see that there is one) or starts linking to his web site in articles (as an external link or a reference, for example), at that point I'd be concerned about COI issues.

These are my opinions. Again, I do support Goethian's side on the New Age category issue (based on what I've read on the article's talk page) but I don't support the COI concerns. -- Atama頭 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:John Brocks created article EKR, the articles was clearly promotional with no refs, so I added G11 Speedy template. I check back later and the whole tag has been deleted no explanation by User:JohnBrocks. I reread the article found this phrase "Peter Leutner teamed up with John Brocks from RadioWorks and EKR re-launched at Easter, 2009 after several months of test transmissions." Coincidences are interesting, are they not? Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nigelharris2001 created the article, not John Brocks. NG2K also removed the speedy deletion tag, which they aren't allowed to do (you can't remove the speedy deletion tag on an article if you are the article's creator, but just about anyone else can). Nigel Harris, by the way, is listed as one of the "presenters" of the radio station (either past or present).

I've gone ahead and deleted it. The article does seem overly promotional, and would require a substantial rewrite to fix it. -- Atama頭 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a Sock puppet? Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry. Assuming that these editors are the actual John Brocks and Nigel Harris mentioned in the article, since they are different people there's no sockpuppetry involved. -- Atama頭 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• ekr.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.ekr.net

Articles

• EKR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• European Klassik Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts

• Nigelharris2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• John Brocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Ianmartin558 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 86.171.40.189 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

--Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Sparkes (talk · contribs) has displayed a clear conflict of interest in writing a glorifying resume and then arguing for retention of "his article" Roland Sparkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roland_Sparkes. breach of WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO applies here. inclusion of a Twitter comment as a reference to himself as excellent just shows the extent of this blatant conflict of interest. inclusion of editing of other WP pages as somehow worthy of inclusion of content demonstrates this also. LibStar (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought WP:AUTOBIO only applied if the person created the article? ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one section of the guideline is about actually creating autobiographies, the rest of guideline involves participating in a biographical article about yourself (whether you created it or not). -- Atama頭 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

given that Mr Sparkes built up the article into a glowing self testimonial, it really is an autobiography. the article creator may have a connection to Mr Sparkers. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Belmont, Sutton is worth a look too: excessive hype for his book and website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes given that his book was just released on 21 December 2009 and a flurry of editing to direct people to his own WP site and excessive text on Belmont article sourced from his book...you have to wonder if this is too much of a coincidence or blatant new book promotion. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]