Terpene

thcscience_admin

Decima gallery

Username implies this is an interested party. Longterm account; many edits may be valid, but the appearance of conflict of interest and potential for promotional abuse is apparent. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So what?
Wikipedia does not prohibit people from editing subjects that they have a connection to. We only care if they harm Wikipedia to promote themselves. If the edits are valid, then there's no problem and no need to mention them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Silly of me, thinking that WP:COI might be a concern. Must have misread the guideline. Let's everyone write about our businesses. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
To follow up: It's unclear whether the above 'so what' -- and one can hardly imagine a less effectual and more dismissive response -- is based on abstract observation, or an actual review of the edit history. It's not my intent to out the user, but it's apparent that the account is that of Decima gallery's owner. I'm not totally clear what is meant by 'harming' Wikipedia, but I'm fairly sure that promotional ends are discouraged. The article on Quilla Constance, coincidentally, was created shortly before her scheduled performance at Decima, and though it's filled with sources, I believe many of them are thin or unacceptable as reliable references. Though Decima's notability may be beyond question, the fact that the article has been so thoroughly constructed by the gallery's owner should indeed invite scrutiny, at least for tone and reliability of sources. That seems to be a reasonable rationale for coming here. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It follows that I question WhatamIdoing's change to the relevant noticeboard, which appears to have been inspired by this report: [1]. Changing the wording to "Merely having a connection to the subject does not violate Wikipedia's rules: reported users should be editing in a way that clearly harms Wikipedia to promote their own interests" appears to raise the bar and subtly alter intent; the COI guidelines state "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The guideline's emphasis is on neutrality. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've edited the noticeboard to emphasize the importance of neutrality, which I think is a more integral point. The subsequent passage makes clear that editors with conflict of interest are not prohibited from editing. 99.153.142.106 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I too was puzzled by the "so what" response. According to WP:COI, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" (emphasis in original). I see few contributions to Wikipedia by Alexchappel beyond the two articles mentioned above, excepting to Piers Wardle, an artist who happens to have exhibited at Decima gallery. Smells like promotion to me, and a genuine COI. --CliffC (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Add:

--CliffC (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and follow-up, CliffC. All told, the lack of response to this, and especially the initial blunt dismissal of the report, represent one of the reasons I retired my account and return only periodically as a gadfly: here's a promotional account, lately relying on press releases as sources, that continues to edit without a hitch. I suspect it's because, in part, not many contributors have an interest in art related topics. So it goes, but it underscores Wikipedia's weaknesses, and the relative ease with which a savvy account (see also Nick Halkes above) can game the system in order to promote its interests. 99.175.156.171 (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

George H. Richmond

I dont know why this article got refused based off of conflict of interest. I dont see how there is a conflict of interest in this article. Please let me know what I can do to fix the article. Thanks. Richmond12 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your user name may lead one to conclude that you are in some way connected with the subject of the draft, which would amount to a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I'm a Wikipedian. I write articles and contribute pictures. Been doing so about two years now. I like writing about people and things and topics I know tangentially. Like if there's an author I've read that I like. Or a topic that interests me. Or a friend of a friend who's in the papers. That sort of thing. I can contribute my writing and pictures; I don't have much $$ to give.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering about something. Suppose somebody wants me to write about a certain subject. Normally I wouldn't write about that subject. But I would consider writing about that particular subject, obeying all Wikimedia's rules, IF the party agreed to contribute money to the Wikimedia Foundation. And I'd alert people that yes, I was writing this because somebody contributed $$ to the Wikimedia Foundation. Would this be cool with people here? And I'd want to make sure that Wikimedia did, in fact, receive the contributions. Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the right way to go about something like this, but the Wikipedia:Bounty board has similar requests. That way the arrangement would be public, and other editors could scrutinize the articles. The Interior (Talk) 19:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's exactly what I'm talking about -- The Bounty Board. But it looks like it's obscure and few people keep track; and the dollar amounts are dismal. Do u know if the monies promised are truly paid? And do enough Wikipedians know about this whole thing to make it worthwhile? Wondering what your thoughts are about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Further thought. It looks like the BB concept is a good one, but it's been poorly implemented, right? So, let me jump a little and ask this. Suppose I offer on my user talk page that if somebody wants me to work on specific subjects (eg starting an article, improving it, monitoring it etc) then they can send me a check to my address, but it's made out to Wikimedia Foundation. So I'm getting the check before doing anything, ok? Now I get the check, then write/improve the article, then mail it to WM Foundation. AND I post a notice on the discussion page that this is what I did. Would that be cool with people here? And where do I mail the checks to. That sort of thing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Riders Union (Los Angeles)

Hello. I am editing this article about the Bus Riders Union and I am also affiliated with it organizationally. I have declared the affiliation on my user talk and also posted my affiliation and editing plans on the article talk page. I want to be careful about upholding and respecting NPOV, RS, COI principles. I just finished a first round of edits to the article. I am also new to wiki editing. Before I do another round of edits to this article, could someone please check my work and let me know if this has any COI (or other related) problems? Jay1955 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Peter Popoff

Need more eyes here. An IP and an editor claiming to be related to Popoff have twice attempted to white wash the article. I have to go to bed and I'm not going to be around much this weekend, so I have to pass the ball off to someone with more time. --Daniel 06:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

George Lefferts

The only edits he has made are to the article George Lefferts. The edits he has made show he definitely has a COI with the subject of the article. Crazymonkey1123 public (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Brookwell McNamara Entertainment

Self-professed rep for the company, turned the article into a lengthy promotional piece, with all references linked to company's website. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 03:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping

This is a continuation of and earlier COI complaint in which Blackash was banned from editing the article but not from the talk page. Blackash describes themself as a Tree shaper and Co-founder of Pooktre.

Unfortunately rather than withdrawing from issues with commercial and personal significance, for example the name of the art and the various techniques used by various editors, Blackash continues to attempt to influence other editors on these matters as can be seen in the section [2].

Please note that I am making no claim that any of the statements made my any editor in this section are true or false but an editor who has already been banned from editing for having a COI should not be attempting to influence other editors on matters with a COI. I am suggesting that Blackash is completely topic banned until commercially sensitive issues have been resolved by editors with no commercial interest in the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin you are lying I was not banned for a COI. Rather you have continually made these claims all over different notice boards, without support of diffs. I was topic banned from main space of tree shaping because I tie up other editors' time to much. Give me half hour and I'll get the ANI link and rebut your claim. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I have also been Topic ban [3] form editing the main space of tree shaping (though allowed on the talk pages). Not because I've been uncivil, rude or even for editing the main article badly. Hilarleo Hey,L.E.O. Sums it up well "Blackash's fault here has been to seek fair treatment when the system is against her. IMO she has consistently tried to do right by the process. Apparently editors are now objecting more to the volume of her documentation than her arguments." diff Blackash have a chat 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Link to ANI [4]

Link to my listing of Slowart for a COI (which I'm guess is the earlier COI complaint that Martin is talking about) [5]

Martin is not a neutral editor ( Blue Rasberry pointed this out on the WP:NPOVN diff ) when it comes to the word Arborsculpture or edits done by the creator of the word Arborsculpture (self outed Slowart). When Slowart puts his own word Arborsculpture into the lead Martin didn't comment to him about his COI. He has now twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page section, the other time he made a conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content diff Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The". Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. Blackash have a chat 01:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Martin keeps saying there are commercially sensitive issues or spam but will not come out and say what they are. When I've asked about details, he harps on about COI instead of answering the content question. Even when asked by other editors about the spam he won't give details. [6] Blackash have a chat 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Rebut Martin's claim

Martin's link. What I was discussing was basically that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles. Having this definition as part of the article meets WP:NPOV as this is able to be verified. Admittedly in long winded fashion as it was the actual discussion that clarified it for me.

  • WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
  • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [7]
  • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [8]
  • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [9]

Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary.

  • Into the lead diff
  • Further down diff.
    • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall Title.

The closest I have come to COI would be when I added Pooktre to the lead after discussion on the talk page about which words should be in the lead.discussion my reasoning diff after 10 days with no comment on the talk page I put in the compromise diff I believe there should be no alternative names in the lead as this gives to much weight to these words in an art form that only has 4 books in English published and 3 of them write about there is no established name. From my POV ideally all alternative names would be removed from the lead, this meet wikipedia style guide lines about alternative names. On the other hand I do think Afd Hero has some valid points as to why the names should be in the lead. diff Which is why I offered the comprise and then 10 days later put it up. Blackash have a chat 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Two points:
  • About the topic ban: The community discussion that imposed the topic ban gave no particular reason. Multiple reasons were given in the discussion, including COI and disruption. I suggest that no one bother trying to say that the topic ban is "because of" anything in particular; all that really matters is that it exists and must be abided by.
  • In the previous discussion, the community did not agree to a talk-page ban. This means that Blackash is free to attempt to influence other editors on the article's talk page. Martin, if you think a talk-page ban is truly necessary, then you will have to go back to AN or ANI and make your case for extending it to talk pages, or to all namespaces. In the meantime, you are permitted to treat Blackash's comments on the article talk page just like any other editor's, which is to say that you may ignore them completely if you find them unhelpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
This would seem to me to be the appropriate forum to discuss a COI issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Martin Now is your opportunity to outline your concerns re COI what are they?and perhaps you could expand on the sensitive commercial points which you keep going on about.Topic banning someone for talking too much is ridiculous.It is a discussion page. We must remember Blackash is an expert in the field and provided the information I needed (as an end user)when I wanted to know more about the methods/techinques. The edits that have been done recently have not been good. Martin and Colincbn have been constantly attacking Blackash for her edits and the lead was OK when arborsculpture was giving Slowart/Richard Reames a marketing funnel,but now pooktre in also in the lead there is this huge conflict.The harassment of Blackash by you two editors has been going on for way to long and it was the reason I joined as a single purpose editor. I believe that you two are not uninvolved editors.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean when you say that I am not an uninvolved editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have not once ever attacked her over her edits. Period. The edits I made that she does not agree with were done to improve the page and I was discussing them with her cordially. I have no agenda other than to improve WP in accordance with Policy. I do not appreciate being disparaged over actions that are clearly done in good faith.
And for the record, I do not think a full topic ban is yet warranted. Yes, there has been some going back and forth between us over my last edits to the article (my first I think). But I was trying to help her see why I made them, in a spirit of compromise. I think it is clear if you look at my correspondence with her that I have always tried to behaved civilly and professionally. I do feel that she has yet to fully understand why she was topic banned, but I hope she will come to realize that WP is not the place to battle with her professional rivals. I think she is a good editor who simply gets conflicted (hence the C in CoI) when dealing with a subject so close to her. Colincbn (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Colin, what exactly are you compromising over? I might add that I am also not criticising Blackash as an editor, we need subject experts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Martin/ Colincbn Claiming Blackash has a COI is attacking her when you dont back it up with specific edits and also stating why it is a conflict of Interest. There have been instances where you both have been willing to go against Wiki policy or supporting Slowart/Reames inappropriately.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this be dropped. The topic ban is recent and specifically permits the editor in question to edit the talk page of the article and complaining about those edits so soon after the ban can give the appearance of browbeating (even if that isn't the intent). As whatamidoing says, you are free to respond to or ignore the comments of backash if you find them unhelpful. If the comments and discussion gets tendentious, then bring up the issue at ANI, but this is way too soon. --rgpk (comment) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with rgpk [sic]. I think we should give her some more time to see why the ban was put in place before we give up on her input. She has voluntarily suggested limiting her number of responses to edits she does not agree with. And while I don't think that is a restriction we have the right to put on her, if she chooses to do so of her own accord it shows she is beginning to see why her prior behaviour was considered disruptive. I think that is a good sign. Colincbn (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Gore-Tex

User:GoreArchives has kindly declared their COI and suggested some text on the talk page of Gore-Tex here. Shootbamboo (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That was good of them, but there might be a problem with them having a group account. The Interior (Talk) 01:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed so, now blocked as such. – ukexpat (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Chevrolet Vega

The editor Barnstarbob, formerly Vegabob is a self-declared collector and enthusiast of the Chevrolet Vega. 85% of the article's edits are by this editor. He has included six photographs of his own car in the article — and has crafted the remainder of the article heavily around other promotional photographs and Vega advertisements. He has expanded the article to include sections that highlight trivial aspects of the car (application of fake wood siding, paint chemistry) — while disconnecting, micro-managing and scattering the heretofore conveniently overlooked information (e.g., creating sub-classes of praise and criticism by the source of the criticism, auto press, etc.) that shed clear light on the car's record of extreme flaws (e.g., extreme rust issues, extreme recall history, extreme safety issues, damage to it's manufacturer – all of which are routinely covered in sources outside 'enthusiast sources'). He has only recently acquiesced to including the information, even now in the article introduction, but on his terms only. While some of the trivial information that constitutes the bulk of the article is actually interesting, many of his citations lack transparency and thus rely on his interpretation of their content. Several sections of the article are supported by what appears to be fairly anecdotal sourcing, e.g., the aforementioned fake wood siding section. He discourages other editors from shaping the article (or just see discussion page) and has declared openly that he wrote the Chevrolet Vega article on Wikipedia, both on Wikipedia and off Wikipedia. While much of the problem seems to be wp:own, there's also a clear COI. And adding or making edits to the article has become futile. It's clear there's something approaching an edit war going on now (again), and while this editor's enthusiasm and persistence are laudable, it's time to throw the issue open to other editors who are more Wikipedia than Vega loyal.842U (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kinda see what you mean. In fairness, glancing over the Chevrolet Vega article, it's pretty impressive overall, despite having only one main contributor. I added four references; so far, they didn't get deleted. Definitely looks like a case of article ownership. Generally if the contributor uses pictures of his own car, it's probably not that bad, since it's one of those topics that's hard to get pictures for. Needs more inline citations; without these, we're kind of having to trust whoever put the reference in. And we need to keep tabs on neutrality -- if WP has an article about the Vega which skims over the huge flaws, it will make us all look biased.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
More -- Barnstarbob deleted TWO inline references that I had added. There are few inline citations, and he deleted them. Uncooperative fellow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The article has an impressive quality, an interesting quality, that's strangely overwrought. The level of promotional and trivial information doesn't help the article, but inflates the subject's importance-- while glossing over and scattering the serious information. There do seem to be quite a few photos of the Vega in Wikicommons, many of them by Barstarbob, and quite a few by others. And now the intro has been again re-spun to minimize the car's notoriety and defend... something, I'm not sure what. Very little of the serious critical information was in the article a week a go... and my sense is that most of it will be white-washed out by next.842U (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I'm less up on the details of the article. I used to drive a Vega by the way. It burned oil. Every coupla hours, had to add more oil. No kidding! Wondering: how badly do u want to fight this. Is it worth it? The car is no longer made.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Additional comment: I think it needs attention from someone with greater editing power than me, like an admin. What I'm saying is that I agree with 842U's side of things; not sure that this is worth battling over; might be better to get the attention of power-users here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
The article is viewed circa 500+ times per day; it's worth having a balanced article that isn't created by someone with an agenda about the subject of the article — I'd say. 842U (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

L. L. Clover

For the last five years, Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) has been editting wikipedia promoting his own work. In 2006, for example he cited one reference in Edwin Edwards, which was his own MA thesis.

In 2008, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn was filed because the majority of his articles were being deleted as unnotable.

It appears that most recently he has been creating articles about unnotable religious figures, like L. L. Clover, and then bases the wikipedia articles on his (Billy Hathorn) own publications. I nominated three of these unnotable articles for deletion (here, here and here). In each one I've added tags and voiced my concerns about the contradicting sources, missing sources and so on, but have never received a reply back. Instead, Billy (the creator) of the articles keeps citing himself and removing tags without explanation.

For example, concerning the fact that two sources contradict one another I put the tag here, and when it got removed I again put it here. I posted the issues on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary.

The creator the article's response was to remove the tags without comment and cite his own article. (His name is Billy Hathorn and the article he cited four times is "Austin Toliver Powers" by Billy Hathorn. It's the same article cited by himself in related articles like L. L. Clover (out of 19 foonotes, 10 are his).

To save an article from deletion, he lists the subject's books and citing himself three times (Hathorn adds Hathorn, "Powers and Clover.") I'd also like to point out there is no evidence of these books on google books.

If an editor cited himself a few times and was willing to talk about it that's one thing, but I did a little searching and found this:

He has only published what appears to be three articles in local history papers, but has cited his publications in these articles: Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, Earl Williamson, A. T. Powers, L. L. Clover, Barbara Staff, Robert L. Frye, John Tower, Ray Barnhart, Don W. Williamson, Tedford Williamson, American Baptist Association, Crane, Texas, James M. Collins, Tom Craddick, Frank Kell Cahoon, James A. McClure, John Grenier, Mangum, Oklahoma, Port Lavaca, Texas, Henderson, Texas, John N. Leedom, Sheridan, Arkansas, Jimmy G. Tharpe, Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Angelo, Somerset, Kentucky, Winthrop Rockefeller, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Jesse Helms, Plano, Texas, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, Taylor W. O'Hearn, Sam H. Jones, DeLesseps Story Morrison, Orval Faubus, Edwin Edwards, Albert Estopinal, he even cites himself on other people's alumni pages here List of University of North Texas alumni and List of Southern Methodist University people. (Click on those and look for "Billy Hathorn.")

Looking at his page, he has received warnings as far back as 2007 about creating articles about unnotable people:

Your talk page seems to indicate that you have been cautioned about these things many times. A number of your articles have been deleted for the policy violations. Yet, your editing behavior in those areas doesn't seem to have changed. Just today you have created several articles on non-notable individuals, some of which appear to be copied straight from the obituary section of a newspaper.
Yet you've intentionally defied that community consensus by just re-creating the article with a slightly different title. Unfortunately, actions like this do not help to show good faith on your part.

For those of you keeping track, that's nearly 50 articles he's cited his own three publications on wikipedia. That's just what I've found, there may be more. I posted this on the other notice board, but this appears to be the correct spot. Can someone send him a warning?

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn for more. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

TFWiki.net links

Over the years, links to the fan wiki TFWiki.net have been added to many articles regarding Transformers. While the website can be a good source of information, there is a COI problem: among the people adding the links are users ItsWalky and Chris McFeely, who are TFWiki admins.

UsedToRuleTheWorld (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) - Banned sock puppeteer post.

In that case should they not be prohibited from adding in the link as a source? Thereby avoiding one aspect of a COI problem. Mabuska (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
User:UsedToRuleTheWorld is a sockpuppet of blocked User:EditorXXV, an editor who is also blocked at tfwiki.net. On a more relevant note, tfwiki links have been present on many pages for several years. Unless such longstanding use can be traced back to ItsWalky, Chris McFeely, or another tfwiki editor are they actually displaying a COI if they add more to other Transformers related pages? --Khajidha (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

:::Irrelevant. People connected to the TFWiki should not be adding links to it. Doing so violates policy. UncooperativeKeyboard (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC) - Same banned sock puppeteer as above.

Okay, just wanted clarification. --Khajidha (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Just ignore the sock puppeteer's opinions on his own work. Mathewignash (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User fedosin and physicist Sergey Fedosin

The user page of Wikiversity user "fedosin" says he is physicist Sergey Fedosin, as is probably w:User:fedosin, which would raise serious WP:COI issues with the many links he has been adding to (probably) his own papers. Furthermore, both at Wikiversity and in an email being sent out to physicists, the Wikipedia article Strong gravitational constant is being cited by Sergey Fedosin as if it were evidence for acceptance of his theories. User fedosin is the creator and main writer of the two articles Strong gravitational constant and Gravitational induction. His efforts to add his own theories to Ball lightning were denied on that article's talk page, but there has been understandably little pushback on the two articles he created himself, articles which only a trained physicist could even decipher. Not sure what can or should be done about this. betsythedevine (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think that Fedosin has been widely linking to his own work within Wikipedia, you might have a case. It would be more persuasive if you could provide diffs. A possible remedy is that Fedosin could be notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, but I think we would need to see more evidence first. You might also open a discussion at WT:WikiProject Physics to ask for comments on the article content. If it were well-prepared, it is possible that a second AfD nomination could be considered. The first AfD seemed to have got very little participation. You should also speak to the closer of the first AfD to get his opinion as to whether a second AfD would be wise. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed, I did ask the closer of the first AfD for advice on his talk page. is this the evidence you suggest?
In my opinion, these contributions run counter to WP:COI. betsythedevine (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out another Fedosin-relevant deletion debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants. Fedosin didn't contribute to the AfD discussion, but the articles have the same titles as a set of Fedosin-authored, Fedosin-citing articles at Wikiversity. Bm gub (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

  • About e-mails. Yes I sent some e-mails of such text:

Good day. The article Strong gravitational constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant is under intensive discussion.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strong_gravitational_constant .

It was necessary because too little people discussed the article, only Bm gub, Fedosin and Robert a stone jr. In the letters as you seen no any evidence for acceptance of any theories.

Also about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Selfconsistent_gravidynamic_constants. In Wikiversity is article Selfconsistent gravitational constants , which was reedit by me. I found it before in Russian Wikipedia in very bad condition. I think it may be useful.

About deletion of article "Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter". Up to now I do not understand why it was deleted. It was simple translation of Russian version. Fedosin (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The email that was forwarded to me contained that text plus an additional paragraph: "As you work in field of gravitation you could see my last paper about General Theory of Relativity at http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0109 " Whatever the intention behind sending it, I think the email implies that Strong gravitational constant is a legitimate Wikipedia article concerning a notable topic rather than a self-published physics essay. betsythedevine (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
http://viXra.org??? Wow. Just when you think you have seen it all in the field of crackpottery... Hans Adler 13:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
'Vixra' is 'arxiv' spelled backwards. See http://vixra.org/why for an explanation of why they exist. They appear to be a Salon des Refusés for material that could not be accepted in Arxiv. From the examples given above, one assumes this is WP:FRINGE material. There are 31 links in Wikipedia to vixra.org. If there is a campaign to add these links, it could be reported at WT:WPSPAM. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

<--The discussion of the content of these edits seems to be ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Speculative_physics_theories_being_promoted_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikiversity. No matter how valuable the material might or might not be, Wikipedia's "Conflict of Interest" policy strongly discourages self-citation: "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged." In addition to our policy on conflict of interest, Wikipedia has a policy against using its articles to publish academic research that has not been the subject of review articles: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. ... Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." I am sure Professor Fedosin has been acting in good faith, adding material he thinks is important to Wikipedia. Having been informed of Wikipedia policy, Professor Fedosin should not make future edits that violate these policies. betsythedevine (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that discussion is invited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant (2nd nomination). I restored "Strong gravitational constant" to the state "owned" by Fedosin and undid the re-direct, so that people can discuss the material in a coherent way.betsythedevine (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Project Manager Battle Command, and more

I came across KellyHeyn's edits on Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical, which I found to introduce clear POV'd content, and so reverted them, and warned the user. Further discussion with the user (see their talk indicated that the user has a conflict of interest (the "If I reword it any other way it needs to be restaffed for release" line) and investigation of the content indicates that it has been directly copy/pasted from the organization's websites (i.e. military websites). After I explained about conflict of interest and copyright violations to the user he seemed to disappear... but came back later, about a day or so ago, adding back the content to Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical and more POV'd, copy/pasted content to Project Manager Battle Command. The POV'd content in Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical has been removed, but when trying to find an old version of Project Manager Battle Command to revert to, so as to remove the POV'd, copy/pasted content, I discovered that the article has always been full of this kind of content -- and furthermore, the user who created the page, PEOC3T, also created several others while under a clear conflict of interest -- see this diff. These other articles are also POV'd and seem to be copy/pasted from military websites, though it's harder to tell with all of the Wikipedia mirrors out there, as these articles have been here for a while. So far as I can tell, the content of these articles has stayed in their POV'd state since their creation and are clearly quite unencyclopedic... and I have no idea how to fix them to be better wiki articles. So I figured this would be the best place to ask for help, so I'm asking for help, here. Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Long Range Acoustic Device again

An IP from the parent corporation of LRAD is again removing unflattering information from the article about the company's main product. I have engaged the IP in conversation about the guidelines, so we are past the vandal stage. More eyes are always good. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an admin should check and see if the user is from the same IP. If they are that would make it a very obious and simple COI. Sumsum2010·T·C 23:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse and Unconditional love

PsychEDUInfo's short editing history seems obsessed with a therapist, author and motivational speaker called Asa Don Brown. The user cites Brown's 2008 PhD dissertation, quotes from his iUniverse-published book [10] [11], and blog post [12] and links a local press item mentioning the publication of the book.[13] The style is mainly to add quotes from, or references to, Brown's work without consideration for what's already present in the article. The account has also edited Capella University, which from a Google search seems to be where Brown is based. I've altered but not entirely removed his contributions, leaving some in the above articles to give this contributor the benefit of the doubt, though I don't expect they can stay in the long term due to WP:WEIGHT. I welcome advice on how to proceed from editors more experienced with this situation. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have placed coi tags on the articles and user talk page, with a message about this discussion. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Independent Community Bankers of America

Albert removed references and turned the article into a load of spam crap. I reverted and posted a welcoming warning about spam. I am not a terribly active contributor so others may need to keep an eye on the article and/or user. Shootbamboo (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the main diff.[14] Ridiculous. Block please? Shootbamboo (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; its been turned into something looking close to a promo. Having the references is more appropriate.--Whiteguru (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Akbar S. Ahmed

There is a single purpose account that has been adding puffery and potential copyright violations to this article for a couple of years now, and also has been blanking the article's talk page where these concerns were mentioned. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep it on my watchlist. Thanks for reporting. -- Ϫ 09:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cubic Corporation

Marketing spiel, not checked for copyvio. I've no time to edit, but Wikipedia's coverage of corporations is shit - I hope you guys can find a way to work with the company rather than just blocking them. - hahnchen 23:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was an unsalvageable spamfest and has been deleted as such. – ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Gosier

Quite a shameless self-promotion by the subject. Already tagged as {{autobio}} but not sure now how to bring it more in line with WP:NPOV. Probably could just leave it as is but thought I'd better make a note of it here in case someone experienced at COI cases would know whether the autobio tag is necessary here or not or whether it needs a trimming. -- Ϫ 09:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with OE. Subject notable, but there's promotion going on. Would one way of dealing with this be: (1) remove non-legit references (2) remove unsourced material (3) keep watch on the article. Wondering what u think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Smita Agarwal

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Smita agarwal (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Kindly check out this page and let me know if there are problems.

Now at Afd here. – ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Dino Dini

Looks like a repeated pattern where Dino himself edits his own article in an overly flattering way (the IP address is from the university where he teaches, the edits are all about him, and the university, and it's his usual schtick). I don't want to edit war and I know better than to engage with the man so I'm bringing it up here. Hopefully somebody else can keep an eye on the situation if it really is a problem. It might be worth keeping an eye on the NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences article too. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

COI and Shane Company

Can someone keep an eye on Shane Company with me? There's a pattern of COI whitewashing (like this), I could use a sanity check that nothing is being lost in the edits from these likely-COI single-purpose accounts. I'm not watching this noticeboard, so feel free to drop a {{tb}} if a response is requested. tedder (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Now on my watchlist. -- Ϫ 22:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Mine too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jana Revedin

Self-promotional biography. What's worse, she keeps spamming reference sections of articles with entries for her German novel, "Lysis". --Morn (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion as an unsourced BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dog training

User adding promotional mentions of "The Jingler", a dog training device marketed at http://www.doglistener.co.uk/ (site name = username). No recent additions of the link, but has cleaned up a link to it in the past. --CliffC (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's limited and focused contribution history, it's quite likely they have a COI in this matter. Your templates on their talk page seem appropriate. At this point I don't think further action is warranted unless they edit again. Considering that they made one edit in 2006 and then didn't edit again until more than 5 years later, for two days, then stopped, suggests to me that it's unlikely we will see activity from them soon. But if we do, their possible COI is noted. -- Atama頭 18:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

John Prendergast

My initial impression of this user was that they had a clear conflict of interest (see this comment), but also that they were communicative and open to feedback. I had hopes that over time, they would read some of our policies and become a valued editor. They have already uploaded several great pictures and obtained permissions from Prendergast's organization for copyright-free status. But much time has passed, and the editor seems to be unwilling to respect Wikipedia's policies. User:Jespah edits exclusively on John Prendergast, Prendergast's organizations Enough Project, Not On Our Watch, and the Satellite Sentinel Project, as well as Prendergast's new book Unlikely Brothers. They have been exerting extreme ownership of these articles.

This ownership manifests itself in edit warring over minor changes and aggressive talkpage messages to any editors who make changes they disapprove of. Below are some difs of comments by User:Jespah.

  • Ownership, accusations of stalking [15]
  • Asks me to "leave my work alone and stop policing this page"[16]
  • accusations of vandalism, harassment[17]
  • accusation of "bullying"[18]
  • Tells a new user they must ask Jespah before making minor formatting changes to page[19]
  • "Stormtroopers"[20]
  • "Fascistic behaviour"[21]
  • Aggressive talk page messages to editors who make changes: [22]

As their talk page indicates, this editor also has a long history of copyright violations as well.

In closing, I hope that User;Jespah will agree to follow our best practices guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. But from their comments on the talk page, it is fairly clear that this editor has no intention of relinquishing control over this article. Comments would be much appreciated, here or at Talk:John_Prendergast#Conflict_of_interest. Thank you, The Interior (Talk) 18:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Above user uses the signature "Nell", not "Jespah". The Interior (Talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As a sidenote, there may be an issue of meatpuppetry or socking as User:Voile appeared at Talk:John Prendergast solely to note that they were planning on removing the COI tag. This was Voile's first edit on Wikipedia.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


As I posted on the discussion page of the article: I take pride in my work here and really to want to be a good editor. It is sometimes a difficult process. If people want to remove, alter anything from the page in question, please let's discuss so that we can remove the unsightly tag. Thank you.

I am not Voile, but I do agree that it is unfair to leave a tag on a page no one seems to be wanting to discuss. The issue at hand is making the article the best it can be. That is my concern.

Clearly, I respect Mr. Prendergast's work. The article is factual. I have declared my willingness and eagerness to work with you on this. I don't know how else to relay that to you. Please, may we get on with it - if you object to anything in the article, please tell me.

"The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research." Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, once individuals have identified themselves, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums."
"When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline."

I read what you see below, which is posted above our discussion and see some similarities. Unless someone else points out changes they feel should be made to the article, I see no need for the tag to remain.

"I have to say, from my point of view, this looks less like a COI matter and more like a good old fashioned edit-war between two editors with sincerely held but opposing points of view. My suggestion is that you identify specific edits that you don't agree on and seek a formal third opinion. --Thepm (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"He can't identify any specific edits that are problematic. This appears to be harassment by Financeguy222 couched in terms of a COI dispute. I looked at the article after seeing it mentioned on the 3RR board and found Financeguy222 page blanking and POV pushing. His contribution history shows an unhealthy obsession with Amway. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)"

Additionally, I tried to explain to you, User:The Interior that someone else's bio contained errors, confusing another person of the same name, who I know. You never seemed to believe me.

I have accepted all changes to Mr. Prendergast's page. When I argued one point with you User:The Interior, you ignored my pov until another editor agreed with me.

Really, I would like to end all of this, begin anew. Are you with me?

I'm having trouble making sense of this post. Did you copy other unrelated comments by other editors into this thread? The Interior (Talk) 22:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


"CoI isn't in of its self a problem with an article, but a potential cause of problems. These templates do little to identify the specific problems with the article itself rather than the user. Articles tagged with one of these templates would be served better to be tagged with a suitable specific template identifying the suspected problems with the article. ie, one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup As such these templates have little utility to help clean up articles, and are redundant to the suitable cleanup template."

The issue you have is obviously with me and not with the bio of Mr. Prendergast. There is no reason his page should have to suffer because of that. Therefore, I want to remove he tag and feel perfectly justified in doing so, unless you have issue with anything within the article.

Nell, please accept my assurances that I have nothing against you as a person. I don't know who you are, or anything about you. The reason I posted to this board is so we can listen to the opinions of other editors and move away from the unhealthy dynamic of a personal dispute that has coloured our interations in the past. The Interior (Talk) 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

Thank you. I appreciate your post. I strongly feel that the tag should be removed, as no one has cited anything in the article re non-neutrality. We can continue our dialogue, and I do want to cooperate with you. The tag was placed on the article without talking with me - without ever discussing the reason for reducing a photo. I just think that is civil behavior. As long as the tag remains on the page, it lengthens the issue of personal dispute. There has not been one complaint cited of non-neutrality.

I feel embarrassed for anyone to see the tag on the cite, as it reflects poorly on the subject, Mr. Prendergast, and that is unfair.

Please understand. Thank you.

From :(Raising the Integrity of Placing COI Tags

"It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)"
Half an hour ago I reverted another attempt to remove the COI tag, and received a query on my talk page. I would like to record here some of my response: The sooner the SPA editors stop editing John Prendergast and stop arguing about the COI tag, the sooner it will be removed. Strident suggestions that it be removed serve only to indicate the appropriateness of the tag. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned that Jespah has not commented on the ownership situation. They seem to be exclusively focused on getting the COI template removed from the article, and not the underlying reasons why it was placed there. In my opinion, the COI is something Jespah and other editors can work together on, but the ownership thing is a dealbreaker. The Interior (Talk) 18:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "the ownership thing is a dealbreaker". I do not know Mr. Prendergast. I like and respect his work. I have spent a lot of time on the piece and am trying to comply with all requests and changes. What more can I do? Please read the paragraph below. You seem to have an axe to grind with me, and that is why I feel that your involvement in this is not productive. The issue is the neutrality of the article.
"It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Editors need to take responsibility prior to tagging someone else's hard work in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF. Editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. In a case where an article I had written was tagged the "COI editor" did not contact me at all prior to tagging my article. When trying to communicate with the "COI editor" and asking for specifics they said " I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation". I believe it is important to the integrity of WP that a COI editor become "well versed" in what they are doing before they take action.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)"
"When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline."
Jespah 22:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see my reply to you on my talk page where I advise that you must fix your signature. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (see WP:BURO) and we do not have precise rules about when a COI tag is appropriate. In some case, it is extremely obvious to all uninvolved editors that the tag is warranted, and this is one of them. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
All uninvolved editors includes a lot of editors who are not involved in this issue, so you really can't say all uninvolved editors. I am working with an editor on the page and will continue to improve it. There is no conflict of interest. So, the tag is inaccurate. Additionally, I have demonstrated my willingness to improve the page and don't see any benefit to anyone by continued use of the tag. It strikes me as odd that the editors talking the most about COI have not suggested nor made any changes to the article.
Jespah 04:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the COI question is a fair one, and the tag proper. I have shared the COI concern in the past. User:Jespah is an SPA account, editing only, or nearly only, John Prendergast and related articles. Even a brief review of the revision history of John Prendergast shows that the article, under Jespah's authorship, has a marked tendency to accumulate fluff and formatting idiosyncracies (e.g, particularly large photos) that are at the very least unencyclopedic, if not directly contrary to Wikipedia policies and practices. Jespah / Nell is within her rights not to disclose her identity or interests, but absent a denial of the COI I think it's entirely appropriate to alert potential readers of the article to it, readers who may be seeing the article in one of its interim stages, before other editors have gotten to it to bring the thing back in line. JohnInDC (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake. I had forgotten this series of exchanges on my Talk page, archived beginning here in which Jespah / Nell denies a direct affiliation with Prendergast and / or his Enough Project. It's not quite exhaustive and unequivocal but it's a start, and if there is no actual COI then I suppose there's some question about the propriety of the tag. My concerns about bloat and tone - and the ownership issues - remain, however. JohnInDC (talk) 00:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the tag can be removed. The article as it currently reads is not overly bloated and is neutral in tone, and Jespah has made every effort to work with other editors and comply with WP:NPOV. Our goal as editors should be to strive to get maintenance tags removed. If we're ever to have a good article out of this then the tag must be removed at some point and I think that point has now been reached. If Jespah does not want to formally declare on their user page their connection with the subject then evidence of the COI still remains on record on the talk page. -- Ϫ 06:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I commented on the article Talk page as well, the gist being that this wrestling match has been going on for really quite a while and I think the tag should stay in place until it's clear, or clearer, that Jespah is in fact now understands and is willing to abide by the policies re puffery, ownership and the like. Really the easiest way to get a COI tag removed is for the subject editor to stop exhibiting (what appears to be) one, and I think we should give that process a couple of weeks at least to play out. JohnInDC (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. I have not seen any acknowledgment that COI is or even could be a problem. To demonstrate there is no COI is pretty simple: take a rest and stop insisting the tag must go, and listen to other editors. The most benign interpretation of events is that Jespah is a massive fan of the subject and all of his associated articles, and that Jespah has very close contacts with the subject's photographer (see File:Prendergast_headshot.JPG). That's great, but even massive fans needs to show they understand that Wikipedia is not a free website for promotion of worthy causes. Johnuniq (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you User talk:OlEnglish for listening and for agreeing that the COI tag should be removed. I want the tag removed, as it reflects poorly on the subject of the article. The mistakes, misunderstandings made are mine. The editors insisting on keeping the tag are not offering any assistance, suggestions or edits, to which I have emphatically stated I am open. It will take a while to put together another article. I have stated that I have, in the past, felt ownership of the article, and that is more a matter of autistic behavior than of wanting to defy editors. I have been working with the only editor who has made any suggestions and edits since this all began. With all due respect, it is apparent that not all of my entries are being read. Someone said that I obviously have a close relationship with the photographer of a photo I posted. Simply untrue! In obtaining permission, I have to contact people. I am more than willing to cooperate with you. I simply ask that you remove the tag so that it does not reflect badly on the subject of the article. If I somehow fail to meet your standards, you can ban me from Wikipedia.

Jespah (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I worry that the foregoing simply underscores the concern that Jespah is more interested in using Wikipedia to burnish John Pendergast's reputation than in collaborating on a proper, high quality article. The COI tag is there to flag potential problems with the article (in particular, its objectivity). The tag does not reflect at all on the subject. It is merely a warning to readers of the article that what is stated therein be taken with a grain of salt. I agree that, as it stands, the article is fine. But given the months-long history of seeming COI / POV edits here, I worry that at some point in coming weeks (i.e. between cleanup efforts by disinterested editors) the article may *not* be fine. So I think that, until we have some actual behavioral evidence that Jespah is content to leave well enough alone here, the tag should stay. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest is a very specific issue, and it very often gets confused with our policy on neutrality, WP:POV. A conflict of interest exists where there is a direct connection between the editor and the subject matter the editor is writing about that may influence neutrality. Not everyone with a conflict of interest has problems with neutrality, and not everyone who edits with a POV has a COI. In this case it looks to be well-established that there is no COI, and therefore the COI tag is inaccurate. On the other hand, there may very well be problems with a biased tone or biased wording in the article. I suggest looking here for an appropriate replacement template. On a side note, there is an entirely different noticeboard for POV disputes, to emphasize how important the distinction is between POV and COI issues. -- Atama頭 17:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I posted the note below, in response to User:OlEnglish, on the article's discussion page.
Yes, User:O1English, I concede that the article as it currently stands is of high enough quality to not need any further 'enhancements' from me and agree to distance myself from editing articles on this subject for at least a short period of time. Sincerely, Jespah (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jespah (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Jespah, it's very collegial of you to voluntarily withdraw from an article where your edits have drawn controversy. I'd like to emphasize that I don't see any consensus to ban you from the article, so please don't feel compelled to avoid the article if you have constructive input, especially on the article's talk page if you still wish to avoid controversy. I hope that you find a place in the millions of other articles on the project. If nobody objects, I think we can mark this issue resolved? -- Atama頭 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Atama Thank you! By resolved, I understand you to mean we can now remove the COI tag?

I have more background information for the article and would welcome help. Jespah (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll probably remove the tag myself, but I'm giving it a day or so to wait for an objection from anyone else before I do so. I'll also participate in any discussion on the article's talk page if necessary. -- Atama頭 22:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Editor Daniel, on article discussion page told me to go ahead and include the new historical information I have... however, I have said I will stay away from editing for a while, so confused as to what is expected of me here at this point. Would be helpful for you to talk on article discussion page. Thanks!

Jespah (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to seem curmudgeonly, Jespah, but I have trouble reconciling your agreement above that the article "does not need further enhancements" while at the same time planning to add further enhancements as soon as your self-imposed moratorium expires. I remain concerned that your new edits will be just like your prior edits and that other editors will have to continue to police the article. There is certainly no reason to ban you from the article but really, it's pretty much fine as it is and maybe you could just - leave it alone for a while? No plans, no additional information? JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... Some of Jespah's comments, after looking at Talk:John Prendergast, got me thinking (I've been involved with COI issues for a long time and get hunches easily). Keep in mind, WP:OUTING does not apply to information voluntarily provided by a person on Wikipedia. We know that the editor in question uses the handle "Jespah" and is named "Nell". One Google search reveals their identity. Knowing with 99% certainty who Jespah is, I tried to find a direct link between the two (perhaps Jespah is an employee, friend, relative, or colleague) but see no such indication. Jespah is a very big fan, but COI doesn't apply there (I love Star Wars but that doesn't mean I have a COI at Star Wars articles). So I'm further convinced that the COI tag isn't quite warranted, but I also understand to a great degree why POV conflicts would arise.
So, Nell, my suggestion is that you should try to abide by the advice found here. I see from your blogs and other comments that you know quite a bit about Mr. Pendergast and have a huge interest in him, and I think that could be valuable, but I strongly suggest that any information you'd like to provide be added to the talk page of the article for other editors to work with. -- Atama頭 23:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My intent is to improve the article, and I believe that with some editing, the background information I have will make the article more substantive and therefore, raise the bar. I am happy to include that information here. I am committed to not including something which might appear to be promotional in another editor's eyes but need some guidance. With so many editors talking here, and some differing opinions, it is a bit difficult to know what to do or if any one editor has more authority than another. I have noticed that one editor is an administrator: User:O1English. Is he/she the only one. Does an administrator have the final say? Thanks.Jespah (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Administrators have extra "powers" or "tools" that most editors don't, and they are supposed to lead by example, but in a technical sense they actually don't have more authority than any other editor. This is especially true in content disputes (when editors are trying to decide what to include in an article). I'm actually an administrator (since 2009) but I don't have the "final say". -- Atama頭 23:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation. How do I decide what to do when one editor says go ahead post the new information; another says the article is fine as is, leave it alone. The information gives more background information on the subject. What is really needed here, from my pov, is someone to help provide guidance to improve the article. A more substantive article was asked for; I now have more substantive information...Jespah (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Post the info to the talk page, as I suggested. That way people see it, and can decide what is worthy of inclusion and what isn't. And you can participate in that discussion too, I haven't seen a single person who had a problem with you having any involvement with the article, the objections I see are in the way you've edited the article space itself. And in that way, you satisfy both suggestions; you're still leaving the article itself alone, but you're posting the new information anyway (just not directly in the article). -- Atama頭 00:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you. Did not see your previous post on this page.

More detailed history now posted on article talk page.

Atama Can we please remove the tag now? (Jespah (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No. This is the clearest case of COI I have seen at Wikipedia because it involves an editor who concentrates on almost nothing but articles related to a single individual (see top edits). Frequently and persistently arguing that the COI tag should be removed simply demonstrates that the COI exists. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
All that proves is that he's a single-purpose account, not necessarily connected with the subject. -- Ϫ 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The issues seem to have been taken up, productively for the moment at least, at the article's Talk page and the COI tag has been removed. Things may regress at a later date but for the immediate moment I think this matter is now in hand. JohnInDC (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

unethical behavior of a linguistic

Hi, I would like to report an unethical behavior of a user who systemically over a period of 2 days edited articles to include a controversial linguistic theory of linguist Ghil'ad_Zuckermann. This user, User:USA_Linguistics, persumablly Mr. Zuckermann himself, made, for example, the following edits:

which clearly show the problem. These were the only kind of edits done by him. Moreover, the edited articles are full of references to Zuckermann's articles. What should be done about this? Shepit (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think that USA_Linguistics is Zuckermann himself? Based on the person's biography, he seems to be an exceptionally busy person. Also, why would a person who holds 4 different citizenships but not a single one in the US call himself "USA_Linguistics"? Professor Zuckermann lives in Australia I presume (as he is currently a staff member of the University of Adelaide). Your suggestion that they are the same person is extremely improbable.
I don't see anything even remotely suggesting a COI here. This is what I see... A person who is clearly interested in if not employed in the field of linguistics (hence choosing their name) is either a fan of or even student of Professor Zuckermann, and is either trying to promote the professor, or update linguistic articles to be more informed about the professor's work, or both. Is this person a single-purpose account? Probably, at least up to this point, but there's nothing wrong with restricting yourself to a subject you're interested and knowledgeable about. Is the information about Professor Zuckermann being inserted inappropriately? That's a content question and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the articles themselves, in a proper discussion. But looking at the edits themselves, I see that they seem to be well-written, properly sourced, and even have proper edit summaries. Your claims of "unethical behavior" are certainly unwarranted from what I can tell.
Now, to go WP:BOOMERANG on you... Why is it that you created an account only to post this report? Do you have another account that you want to protect to avoid scrutiny? Honestly, the only thing that has me feeling suspicious is your report itself. -- Atama頭 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
And good grief... One last thing. USA_Linguistics only edited for a period of around 8 hours, and then stopped, BACK IN 2009. I've been successfully trolled. Ugh, now I'm ashamed. -- Atama頭 16:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Hollioake

Resolved
 – Editor indef blocked for non-COI reasons. -- Atama頭 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a very strong feeling that this user has a connection with the subject (possibly the person who runs his website?). In addition to buffing up the Hollioake article, the user has also repeatedly added a defamatory blog to, and generally undermined, the Du'aine Ladejo article. There is currently litigation between these two parties. Where do we go from here? SFB 11:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wogadonis is now indefinitely blocked. Regardless of any COI, the BLP violations are unacceptable. -- Atama頭 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Open Web Analytics

Article tagged for notability, and the majority of article's edits are by the developer. Xxxdownload (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion here. -- Atama頭 23:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fountainview Academy

User continues to make edits and undo other editors on Fountainview Academy page despite receiving warnings from multiple editors over conflict of interest due to his admission that he is a graduate of said school. In a similar (but much less serious) situation, he continues to edit and revert on Southern Adventist University despite the fact that he has admitted he goes to a sister school and his high school is a feeder school to that college. BelloWello (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the results of this investigation, this might be a moot point. But if that investigation comes out negative, something needs to be done about this editor. This is one of those cases where a topic ban might be warranted, at least, considering their consecutive blocks for violating 3RR at the Fountainview article. -- Atama頭 03:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think this user needs to be notified more on exactly why his COI is a problem, as he is still asking questions about it.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but BelloWello has spoken several lies on here (at least in my view). First, I do not attend a "sister" school of Southern Adventist University at least in the strict sense. Second, the academy I attended is not a feeder school to the college. There are a few "feeder schools" that I can think of for SAU such as Colledgedale, Georgia Cumberland, etc. but my school is not one of them. Finally I would argue that I have not engaged in any controversial edits other than removing tags such as Historic Adventist and other labels designed to make an institution appear more extreme than it may actually be. BelloWello has a history of doing this, over on the Southern Adventist University page. Feel free to check out the talk page and see what the other editors have to say. I am trying to provide a NPOV angle on these articles. Finally, I have other editors who can vouch that I'm trying to do the best I can. Fountainviewkid 04:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
That article is not the main problem, it's Fountainview Academy, according to BelloWello.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
You are undoing other editor's edits on articles that you are somewhat associated with. COI is strongly discouraged under any circumstance. [23]. BelloWello (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BelloWello, while it is strongly discouraged, if he can edit from a completely NPOV, then there is no problem with his editing. Please explain to him how he's not doing that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said previously, the problem is he is reverting editors who do not have a conflict of interest in such a manner to make this article (as well as others such as SAU) more promotional in wording and content, even when these claims/edits are not backed by reliable, secondary, reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A conflict of interest on its own isn't a problem, which is something I've struggled to get people to understand sometimes. But Fountainviewkid has been blocked twice, consecutively, for edit-warring on an article where there's a COI, just in the past week. Just on a side note, the sockpuppet investigation concluded as negative (the Checkuser didn't even bother to check if Fountainviewkid was a sock due to a lack of behavioral evidence). I'll follow Fountainviewkid's suggestion and check out the talk page of the article. -- Atama頭 16:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with the tone of his additions, but, otherwise, this isn't a major problem, unless Fountainviewkid does it repeatedly.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't reverting editors on articles you have a COI on a problem? BelloWello (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
When you're doing it because another editor is adding bias and an WP:AGENDA?Fountainviewkid 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is really getting out of hand. You've called admins corrupt and "nazi," you constantly make unfounded accusations of bad faith and agenda editing. For the last time, please STOP the personal attacks. BelloWello (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This is the answer to BelloWello's question, "Isn't reverting editors on articles you have a COI on a problem?"
Wikipedia isn't too hung up on who does something. We care about what is done.
If you've got someone with a connection to the subject—say, a student at a school—and they do a terrific job of improving an article about that subject, being as fair as humanly possible about it, then the English Wikipedia has only one thing to say about it—and that one thing is: "Thanks!"
If the results are noticeably unfair—say, the student is mad at the school, so drags up a lot of minor scandal and "accidentally forgets" to list all the good things, or the student is trying to burnish his résumé by making the school look better than it is, so details every trivial positive thing and "accidentally deletes" anything negative—then we care about what's going on. Then, we care because the person is hurting our product and abusing Wikipedia for his own ends, not simply because the person has a connection to the subject.
The reason we caution people about editing subjects that they're connected to is this: Sometimes, humans don't know how much their connection prevents them from seeing the subject fairly. You can imagine, I'm sure, someone who has just had a particularly horrible experience with a company thinking that the company really is, overall, just as awful as his one, tiny, isolated experience showed. In such a situation, they might believe that they're being fair, but actually be very unfair. To be successful editors, people with connections to a subject must work extra-hard to overcome any possible (even subconscious) biases they have. If they are successful at this—if they produce a fair, unbiased article—then we're all happy. If they're not successful at this, then we have to consider ways of fixing the bias and presenting a balanced view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I think what we have here is literally a garden-variety content dispute. BelloWelllo appears to be absolutely determined to add the unsourced claim that the academy is "conservative", and to remove non-controversial information, e.g., that there's a garden on campus for the students to grow carrots, that they are involved in fairly typical community service activities, etc.
I think that this could be largely resolved if both editors would actually supply sources for the claims they're making. BelloWello, as you're the person who brought the dispute here, and as the claim you're making about conservatism is far more contentious than Fountainviewkid's claims, I suggest that you start—either by promptly and credibly sourcing that assertion about conservatism, or promptly removing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sentosa

Maglame (talk · contribs)

Hi I discovered User:Maglame making considerable contributions of non-notable content on Sentosa resort items since last year. Though he has repeatedly had comments made on hist talk page about the notability of his content, see the history of the talk page, he appears to be disregarding the suggestions as obviously wrong and has removed tags related to advertising such as [24], without any change to the article itself. He does appear to make some useful edits to areas related to cartoons, but I get the strong impression that he is working for something related to Sentosa. Can someone who is more able and experiences with handling COI stuff please handle this? Sadads (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maglame isn't the only person who believes the article is not advertising; see [25]. Editors are generally permitted to remove tags that they think were wrongly placed or do not apply.
I looked through Maglame's work on Sentosa, and I do not see any problems. For all I can tell from the editing, this person might be a fan, or might be thinking about going to the resort on his next vacation.
Here's what you need to understand: Wikipedia doesn't actually care if people working for Sentosa improve the article about their employer. Wikipedia cares if someone harms an article for his or her own purposes—whether that purpose be to make money, or to get back at a company he's mad at, or any other personal purpose. Adding one or two sentences of description to the list of attractions, or starting stubs on possibly notable attractions, or linking to other articles, isn't harming Wikipedia: it's helping. I agree that the help is not always executed perfectly (those stubs need sources, and the typos need to be corrected), but this editor is making an apparently a good-faith effort to improve (or at least to expand) Wikipedia's coverage of a notable Asian resort.
Your response to that effort was to bomb the editor's page with deletion notices and to report abuse of a conflict of interest, without any evidence showing either a real connection to the subject or actual harm to Wikipedia. My suggestion to you is that you put yourself on a private, voluntary, silent interaction ban with this new user: please completely ignore the editor. There's three and half million other articles out there that this editor has never touched, and many of them would benefit from the attention of an editor like yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

I have asked Chuser about a possible WP:COI. Andy Dingley advises that this constitutes a personal attack. If he's right, a retraction and apology is in order and I've promised to do that and would like to do it promptly. I would appreciate advice. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a completely appropriate question to ask. Andy's response to you was somewhat heavy-handed. I agree with what Arcangel said. Looking at Chuser's contribution history shows a strong interest in the Ch interpreter and Harry Cheng, to the extent that it seems to be a single-purpose account. And they did pick "Chuser", as in "Ch user" as their user name. COI is something that does get considered at AfD, and WP:COI states that a person who has a COI should declare such if they are participating in a deletion discussion.
The other thing to keep in mind is that if a person refuses to answer a question about a COI, they can do so. Pestering them about it can be considered harassment. In your case, you placed a question on their talk page once, which wasn't answered, then asked again in an AfD where you suspect a COI may be relevant. I don't consider that harassment, and again if they refuse to answer, that's that. You also should take care to avoid outing them, but you certainly haven't done that either. I think that as long as you don't push this issue further you're fine.
If Andy Dingley or anyone else gives you grief for posing the question, you can feel free to reference this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: "...if a person refuses to answer a question about a COI, they can do so..", is there a specific policy for COI questions, or are you referring to the general rule that nobody is required to answer any question? Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It's just a general rule about harassment. Hounding anyone to answer personal questions could be considered an attempt to "out" them. But it doesn't even have to be related to a COI. Demanding that an editor reveal their gender or age, or educational background, or anything else of that nature isn't allowed either. -- Atama頭 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I would still disagree (as previously noted at AfD) that COI has any substantial significance for WP:N. WP:N is demonstrated solely by external sources. COI accounts are still permitted to express opinions. Neither of these overlap. Articles don't become notable because uninvolved editors especially like them, and we certainly shouldn't start to discount demonstrated notability (from our external sources) just because an evident COI-problematic account also likes them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100%. If the subject can be shown to be notable, then it doesn't matter who presented the argument. This isn't a court of law where we'll dismiss evidence due to some technicality. However, if it's known that an editor has a COI that could bias their opinion, a closing administrator may give their opinion less weight. If it is revealed that a COI was hidden and later revealed, then the editor's opinion may be disregarded completely (depending on the circumstances). Regardless of all of that, though, is it appropriate to ask someone if they have a COI when there's just cause to think they might? Sure, if it's done respectfully. It's certainly not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is a waste of time because even the nominator now agrees the topic is notable, COI or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The nominator was Msnicki - I don't see that expressed by that editor. TEDickey (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
If, by "nominator", Tijfo098 means me (I'm not, technically, but it seems likely he may think I am) then his statement is untrue. I do not agree that notability is satisfied. WP:CORPDEPTH requires multiple independent reliable sources offering significant coverage the product. I don't think they're there and I've explained why.

Further, I object to Tijfo098's unhelpful description of me as shrill and his accusation that I've engaged in personal attacks. If I sound shrill at all, it is because I've been the target, not the maker of such attacks.

I also object (as Tedickey did when he reverted them) to Tijfo098's unjustified removal of the COI and notability tags from the article under discussion and to the premature claim in his edit summary that "consensus at AfD seems clear".

Tijfo098 is welcome to join the debate, but this doesn't appear to be the most helpful way to do it. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the COI tag, bearing in mind your edits regarding WP:SNOW, but note that the AfD is not closed, so perhaps the Notability tag is still pertinent TEDickey (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Kid richmond

Just a notice of a COI case. Editor created the article possibly as a form of promotion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I speedily deleted the article, it was written like a PR piece. I also closed the AfD as speedy delete. The COI is pretty obvious too, but unless the editor becomes active again, I hesitate to block per WP:REALNAME or other username reasons. -- Atama頭 17:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Debashismaiti

Creation of CSD/G11 articles Debashis Maiti and Debashis Maiti - An Upcoming Talent in Bengali Poetry. User page and User Talk page both heavily self-promotional, and includes large amounts of non-English text, which makes discussion of the situation difficult at best. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The non-English text was poetry that was being promoted. I've deleted the user page as an advertisement, cleared out the same material from the talk page, and left a formal warning about self-promotion. If this continues the account can be blocked as a promotional-only account. -- Atama頭 17:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

B.G. Mahesh

The biography of the person has been edited by a few times by a user with the same username (possibly the same person). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your COI note on the editor's talk page was relevant and probably the only action needed at this time, unless that editor becomes disruptive. Thank you for the posting. -- Atama頭 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackstar (game)

Developer has requested promotion of their material at a this forum. VQuakr (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've placed an A7 tag on Spacetime, and the other articles could be prodded or sent to AFD.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Showing awards that their apps have won is a pretty credible claim of importance. Not quite notability, mind you, but Spacetime Studios clearly passes A7. I will say that Pocket Legends is a pretty popular app, but at the moment the in-depth coverage of the game and Spacetime Studios itself is primarily in blogs. Joystiq gives it quite a bit of coverage, but I don't know that Joystiq can be considered a reliable source; it's a major blog but still a blog. It may have editorial oversight too. If Joystiq is considered a credible RS, then the articles may even pass WP:N. If not, then it will probably take some time either for them to fade into obscurity, or if they remain successful to get some mainstream coverage. I think both articles are worth an AfD at least. -- Atama頭 04:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sharyn McCrumb

The above editors appear to be rewriting the article either on the orders of, or at the request of, the subject of the article, based on comments made here and here - which to me is a clear violation of the COI guidelines. I haven't looked at the current changes, but earlier today I had to remove a lot of copyvios and puffery from the author's website. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alpharetta High School

This IP has been trying to add information to this article and seems to be insisting that the info be put in. The key words are "our school's debate team" in the IP's comments.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Playboy Club

Two editors involved with this series, one as an actor and the other as a casting agent. I requested and received short-term protection for the article. I placed messages on each editor's talk page explaining conflict of interest and also verifiability. The administrator who protected the page suggested that I leave a notice here as well. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Elie Nakouzi

(note: I don't really know how COIs are dealt with, so I'm just leaving this note here so other are aware of and can handle it. Please leave a note on my talk page if there are any further questions for me). User:MattBLJ seems to have a conflict of interest in editing Elie Nakouzi. In a deleted revision of File:Elie nakouzi headshot red pen.jpg, the editor wrote "This image appears on the Elie Nakouzi personal website (http://www.enakouzi.com/). I am creating a Wikipedia page on behalf of Mr. Nakouzi and have his permission to use any images of him already used on his personal webpages." –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards

The user is clearly associated with all three articles, created two of them, and heavily edited the third. The user's other edits consist of adding information about the organizations to other articles. Regardless of whether these organizations are sufficiently notable to remain and regardless of whether the edits to other articles would otherwise be acceptable, this is a single purpose account with an agenda. All of the edits to the other articles should be reverted, and the three articles listed above should be heavily scrutinized. Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the editor per WP:ORGNAME and WP:SPAM. A notice at WP:UAA probably would have gotten this blocked sooner, but I'm not sure if you noticed that "Wif-la" matches "Women in Film - Los Angeles" or Wikipedia's promotional username policy. -- Atama頭 18:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. I did notice the username issue but thought that was of less importance than the three articles listed above and the addition of links to other articles. I'm going to take it upon myself to now remove the links from the other articles - to the extent I can - based on the conflict and the block. I trust that's acceptable. As for the articles, I'm not sure if they should be nominated for deletion. But whether or no, or if they survive such a nomination, they need to be cleaned up because they are messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree, and if you want to take it upon yourself to clean them up I commend you for it. It's not really up to me to approve removing the links, but I think it would be appropriate. -- Atama頭 19:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I received an email from Wif-la. They want to request a name change, and have looked over the COI guidelines and advertising policies, and didn't realize that they were in violation. I'm going to go ahead and unblock, but I'll keep a watch on the user talk page and if you run into problems just leave a note on my talk page. -- Atama頭 23:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already backed out many of the changes wif-la made to other articles, but I haven't gotten around to all of them. The only ones I didn't back out are where another editor inserted information into the article about receipt of the award, and wif-la merely added to it.
Once wif-la is back under another username, I plan to make some suggestions to her as to how to proceed. First, I think she should back out the rest of the changes to the other articles. Second, I think she needs to work on the articles about the awards to clearly establish notability. To do this, though, she'll have to proceed through the Talk pages and declare her conflict. If she has enough third-party information to satisfy notability, then she'll have an easier time adding the information to actress articles through their Talk pages. Of course, she doesn't have to agree with my suggestions (as I write them, they sound fairly controlling :-) ), but we can take it one step at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

iba dhaka university

Institute of Business Administration is a business school under University of Dhaka. Recently the school made big headlines in Bangladesh, as a professor was charged with terrorism charges for founding the organization Hizb ut Tahrir and was reported to have played a major role in BDR mutiny.International news agencies like BBC carried news on the professor and the organization and although it was banned by the government, the professor discharged zihadi leaflets among students in almost all universities in Bangladesh.BBC also reported it was having a major influence on the student community of Bangladesh.

As University of Bristol and DePauw university had major controversies and these controversies were not only added to their main wikipage but also had a separate wikipage just on the controversy.So to maintain neutral point of view of the article which has many unreferenced sentences and opinions i added this page .However one wiki user maintains COI and repeatedly deletes the section i have added .

Therefore i would like expert editors to have a look on this and maintain decorum including ensuring NPOV. Dualumni (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed it .... this is the conflict of interest noticeboard ... not a general soapbox for content disputes. Unless you are claiming this user has a conflict of interest in editing the article, this is not the right venue for the above complaint. --Ragib (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Right now, the article in question is fully protected, so no Conflict of Interest editing is occurring.
I'm not aware of any evidence to indicate that User:Esha795 has a conflict of interest.
There is an active discussion about the disputed content, on the article's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this board has two purposes, as seen above under the heading, This noticeboard may be used to: Dualumni seems to be asking for assistance for the second purpose; for an editor to request help with an article where they feel they have a COI or have been considered by others to have a COI. This request seems completely appropriate. -- Atama頭 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Amway Australia

User has for years been clear violator of NPOV and accused by many others of this, and posting promotional edits including links to their own sites, posting only commercially promotional positive edits, deleting negative edits. When in reality the real image of these companies is less than positive, and neutral media sources report a much more neutral/negative image. User claims to "not work for any direct selling company or any affilated organisations", but repeatedly posts references promoting his own non RS sites, which he has admitted are his own (pro-Amway/MLM sites), and he and his sites also admit to being a paid member of Amway, as do other sources, and is admitted on WP throughout discussions.

Due to the nature of MLM, being a affiliate/member of an MLM organisation and "not working for the company" are mutually exclusive. It is a members job to promote the business. Even if not officially holding a PR employee title of the company, every member in the organisation is involved in PR/self promotion, and is very difficult to keep NPOV and avoid COI. Whilst not the only member to contribute in this manner, other less WP experienced members are more obvious with their POV, but tend not to spend as much time crafting the POV as this member. Im sick of articles sounding like promotions, and editors reverting valid neutral edits from relaiable sources, only to get in to edit wars so others can keep their POV.

Shouldn't WP ban affiliates of MLM groups, mostly SPA, to continue editing these articles? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Financeguy222 generally. This situation needs more looking into by higher-ups.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears that Insider201283 hasn't been notified of this discussion. From a good faith point of view, I think it would be a good idea to do that.
I disagree with the suggestion to ban "affiliates of MLM groups". By and large, these affiliates are just folks and will have a perspective on the organisation that might not be otherwise available. Our usual WP:COI appear to be adequate. Is Insider201283 a distributor of Amway products? --Thepm (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
COI notification added to talk page.
Of course, very true, they can offer some interesting perspective (as can the Church of Scientology) in theory, but in practice here only seem to be heavily biased. What about the "promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality"? Many of the MLM related articles end up sounding like advertisements and propaganda brochures, write about every success and sales most often from non verifiable/RS, yet do everything they can to delete the negatives and legal problems, when in reality these groups are controversial to some degree. The articles struggle to keep any sign of neutrality, and get filled with all kinds of positive spin and weasel words.
What other suggestions do you have so we can prevent them from sounding like promotional puff pieces, except to limit editing from involved members? More obvious disclosures still would not fix the neutrality problems.

Anyone who is paid to represent Amway and promote it falls under COI does it not? IMO this case falls under campaigning, self-promotion,financial and several other examples of COI.

Without "outing" the specific identity of Insider, he is well known in the MLM community (identities which he has admitted to on WP) as being a distributor (what they call an IBO) and promoter of Amway.
Financeguy222 (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Financeguy, I fixed the indent of your comment above (hope you don't mind) and have notified Insider201283 of this discussion. When I asked above whether Insider201283 is an Amway distributor, I was asking whether it was openly acknowledged by Insider201283 or whether it was merely assumed.
it is important that the articles have a neutral point of view. If there are reliable sources with negative information, this should be included and we should not allow someone to remove them without good cause. It might be helpful at this point if you provided some specific examples of deletion of negative information and/or promotion of inappropriate information. --Thepm (talk) 03:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Good grief, does this one never let up? First of all, as it clearly states on my user page, I do not work for Amway and never have. I suggest people refer to this discussion in a mediation case I was involved in when this issue was raised some years back. More than a decade ago I actively built in Amway distributorship, I have not done so for many years and that business was transferred to my former wife. Like many other people I continue to maintain a membership primarily for the purpose of getting Amway products at wholesale price. I may or may not decide to build an Amway business in the future. Some years back when living in Paris and with not much to do I discovered the ridiculous amounts of, frankly BS, on the internet about the company and business model and began engaging critics and that eventually resulted in me starting some independent sites about the company. I continue to do operate them to this day and apart from googleads receive no renumeration to do so. On those sites I post and comment both positively and negatively about company and distributor operations. In other words, I blog about a company and research it and collate information on it. I have a collected a large number of books, research papers and newspaper articles on the company and have I think become somewhat of an expert on it's operations and culture. Like a number of independent people who have done similar, rather that just read rants on the internet and the occasional misinformed journalist who has done the same, that has indeed led to me having a positive view of the company. Alas I've learned that in the eyes of the dedicated anti-MLM critic, anyone with a positive viewpoint can immediately be dismissed as biased. Indeed, when editing articles by other companies in the industry - ie direct competitors to Amway - I've been accused, when including information that might be considered "positive" of having a COI there as well!
FinanceGuy222's claims about my edits here are patently false. I have contributed significantly to articles in the direct selling area including both negative and positive aspects. By contrast FG222 actively deletes well sourced information that does not fit his POV. For example he will cite court cases where Amway has been involved, and delete information where Amway won the case or it was dismissed. He has just done that again today as part of wholesale deletions on the Amway Australia article. He for example insists on rewording information on a tax case involving Amway in it's most "negative" manner, and deletes the fact that Amway won the case completely on appeal. I am unaware of a single time where he has edited any of these articles without a very clearly and strongly negative point of view. In the article on Network 21 (for which I wrote the "controversy" section, including introducing new material!) he insists on using a small town US newspaper article as a source for the subject of a UK court case and refuses to allow the court judgement itself as a source, which shows the newspaper articles description of the case to be incorrect. Hypocritically he has now used that same court judgement as a source for the judges opinion on third parties not involved in the court case - a clear misuse of a primary source. In the current Amway Australia article, FG222 insists on including highly POV wording from a question in NSW parliament about Amway, but deletes the fact that the response by the Minister was what might be interpreted as "positive" - ie there were no problems. Personally I think that particular matter is so minor, based on a primary source, and given the response, un-notable, that it doesn't even deserve a place in the article. It's simply untenable to include it and ignore the response! FG222 has demonstrated a clear inability to edit these articles in NPOV way, indeed he doesn't even make an attempt to and generally refuses to discuss his concerns on talk pages. I encourage third parties to look at the Amway Australia article and FG222's wholesale deletions of my attempts to improve the article with what he claims are non RS sources. These sources include the Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, books by independent academics, corporate annual reports (for sales figures) and such. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, FinanceGuy222 has now reverted my edits 4 times, in violation of WP:3RR and I have reported him. --Insider201283 (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
To say I make it the "most negative" is completely false, I dont appreciate those claims, especially from someone who has been accused of COI/POV many times by many editors.
I find your attempt to flip around the NPOV argument amusing, if anyone wants to edit/mediate those articles, or discuss my edits they can do so or discuss on those pages, not clog up here.
What I do not appreciate are your blatant falsehoods.
For example, in the Amway tax case, I clearly stated they had a "partial win" (after Tax Office said they were in violation), exactly the wording of the source. no POV.
In the parliamentary source, there is no POV, I simply stated the business practices were "questioned" at a very high level of state, worth mentioning as the company is controversial.
Im constantly having to fix wording of editors who try to put positive spins on it, when it is neutral or negative in reality. I try to keep it to the source wording as much as possible. It is Insider who attempts to remove these and give them extreme POV, and accusing me is an attempt to divert attention away from his own acts.
This is not about me, lets stick to the matter at hand, of COI, and that as a result the articles don't read encyclopaedic like at all, but of promotional puff pieces, that are not a fair representation of the companies.
Financeguy222 (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
This is about you as well, see the top of the page - "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited". As for the tax case, yes, you clearly stated the had a "partial win", but you deleted the fact that on appeal they had a complete win. With regard the parliamentary source, you took a highly POV "question" from a primary source (which should be avoided) that gave a POV of problems and then neglected (and deleted) the response to the question in the same source, which indicated there was no controversy or problem. Yesterday, as a start on improving the article, I added a series of factual information on the history of Amway Australi, no POV at all, and all based on reliable and verifiable sources - including sources you had used - and you deleted the lot claiming the sources were not RS! I would suggest you have a cognitive COI here. Ask yourself honestly, are you able to edit this and related articles in an NPOV way? Ask yourself why you included the parliamentary question, but not the Ministers response, which from is far more important. Why have you removed the fact that Amway won the tax case completely on appeal? Why, in related articles, have you insisted on including allegations from court cases, but fought tooth and nail to have the fact the cases were dismissed not included? Why did you claim a court judgement was not a reliable source about that court case, then use the same court judgement as a source for the judges opinion on parties not even involved in the case? None of that is the actions of an editor trying to be "neutral". It's quite clear that anything you read that is not negative you consider "promotional". That's not what "neutral POV" means. FG222, can you honestly state you have a neutral, or close to neutral POV on Amway and network marketing? You've challenged me - could you give some of your background and interests as to why you're editing these articles? What's your interest in them? Why are you so determined to remove factual, sourced information that puts the companies in a "positive" light? --Insider201283 (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
As already stated, youre detracting from the discussion at hand here, as to your claims about me with handling court cases etc, I have no recollection of any of what you are saying to be true, and if you have issue I advise you to bring it up on the relevant talk page.
I have absolutely no involvement with MLM groups or competitors, so I am able to provide NPOV. My mission is to provide unbiased articles here on all topics and I despise propaganda POV and COI. MLM articles in particular tend to attract zealot MLM affiliates dogmatic in their assertions, then attempting to shoot down others (No one else has ever accused me of major WP violations except you, whereas you have been many times, ask yourself why is that? Possibly for very good reason).
Why do you insist on promoting your own sites and unverifiable sources in the refs, and spinning (way beyond what this article deserves in way of encyclopaedic information) some RS/some nonRS ref articles into wording beyond what the source states into some kind of perfect dream company notion, when in reality these companies are dogged by court cases and pyramid scheme claims etc (which arn't even mentioned in the article, so I can't be that POV can I)? To accuse others of POV/COI is laughable when so many others feel you are.
Now lets get some other people's opinions Financeguy222 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not use any of my sites as sources nor are any of the sources I use unverifiable. The reality is Amway is not "dogged by court cases" nor by pyramid scheme claims except by the likes of yourself - and every single time they've been found not to be a pyramid. Relative to it's size, Amway is involved in very few court cases. Yet the myths persist. Perhaps because MLM articles tend to attract zealot MLM critics who are dogmatic in their assertions and then attempt to shoot down others? I've noticed today you've been deleting numerous factual claims from related articles. Granted they were usually poorly sourced, but a proper contribution to Wikipedia would be to find a proper source and correct it rather than simply delete stuff. What possible motivation could you have for deleting the entirely uncontroversial facts (albeit outdated) that Amway owned Peter Island? Or that Chloe Maxwell operates an Amway business[26]? Or that Libby Trickett is an Amway spokesperson[27]? --Insider201283 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, from my point of view, this looks less like a COI matter and more like a good old fashioned edit-war between two editors with sincerely held but opposing points of view. My suggestion is that you identify specific edits that you don't agree on and seek a formal third opinion. --Thepm (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

He can't identify any specific edits that are problematic. This appears to be harassment by Financeguy222 couched in terms of a COI dispute. I looked at the article after seeing it mentioned on the 3RR board and found Financeguy222 page blanking and POV pushing. His contribution history shows an unhealthy obsession with Amway. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, FinanceGuy222 is currently under a 24hr ban for edit warring [28]. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall any recent specific edits in error, but the Insider does have a clear conflict of interest in regard Amway — not because of present financial interest in Amway, but to flog his blog. He had made "whitewashing" edits in the article Amway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I vehemently object to this comment. Both regarding a supposed COI "to flog my blog" (Really? how does that work?) or "whitewashing". As already I pointed out, I've added controversial issues not previously covered. If you have a problem with any of the edits on this article or any other article I made, then point them out rather than making unjustified personal attacks. It's unfortunate that people with a particular POV feel they have to resort to personal attacks and COI claims rather than pointing out any actual problems. That kind of rubbish has what led me to take almost a year off editing here. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm coming to this discussion late (in large part because I just returned yesterday from a 6 month hiatus). This subject is certainly not new to me, my first involvement in a discussion about Insider201283 was two years ago, see here.

To begin with... No, MLM affiliates and members are not banned from articles related to their businesses. We don't have a blanket ban on anyone because of COI concerns. There have been a number of efforts to enforce rules on Wikipedia when an editor receives some kind of financial compensation (directly or indirectly) from the edits they make, see WP:Paid editing for the failed attempts. The best authority we have on the subject is simply an essay which merely offers advice on how to deal with the subject. We treat all cases on an individual basis, look at what disruption (if any) the editor has caused, and come up with a way to prevent further disruption.

Since no actual disruption has been presented, my best conclusion is that Financeguy222 has tried to use a COI claim to stifle an opposition to his POV, which should not be permitted. Considering that he was recently blocked for edit warring I think this is a safe conclusion. As to allegations that Insider201283 is trying to promote their blog, that would certainly be troublesome, but I don't see evidence of that. If Insider201283 was promoting their blog, that would be a problem. I can't even find a link to that blog anywhere. -- Atama頭 17:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I will take more care with my edits, the last thing I want to be associated with is a POV.
The issues I have in general are filling the articles with junk content that does not really add much to the article as a quality encyclopaedic article, but only serve to promote Amway. For example all the fluff information about their internal computer systems, which celebrities are paid to endorse the company etc. Certainly on the "celebrities" own page entries, the mention of endorsements seems only for the purpose of promoting Amway. Other celebrities such as Jacky Chan (who endorses possibly hundreds of products, has not a single one mentioned on his article). Does not seem worth noting. What are other's opinions on this?
Another issue, the way the page is broken up into sections or now lack of. Insider's POV is that the Controversy section be removed, IMO to sanitize the image. I think the majority perception is that these Multi Level Marketing companies / money making schemes are steeped in controversy, apart from general perception this is justified in an encyclopaedic means by all the court cases and legal battles. The main Amway article has such a section, listing all the pyramid scheme court cases, lawsuits and other issues. Would it not be fair to have a section collecting such incidents due to the nature of the business and related incidents? Some are already mentioned in the article (which are both positive and negative outcomes for Amway) and were previously in a Controversy section in months past). Whilst we should be careful not to harm the image of anyone, the problem I have is such careful whitewashing/weasel words used to clean up the image to an unrealistic positive POV that ends up sounding like a promotional puff piece, and distort or play down any negative aspects, not a realistic view, nor a fair encyclopaedic entry.
In particular, Insider edited in his own site Amwaywiki filled with his own POV 3+ times into the article after I had removed it and pointed out he was doing so, then he lied about doing so.
Viriditas claims I have an "unhealthy obsession with Amway". Which when put in perspective if you look at Insider in comparison to myself that statement looks ridiculous. Insider has made thousands of edits on the subject, and little else, and is reported to have started 23 or more pro-Amway websites, and contributed his POV to just about every other Amway related website and article on the net. If my interest is unhealthy, Insider's is terminal.
It has also been reported recently that Insider is the founder of several websites focused on professional Online Media Management/Reputation Management services for companies. This is a great cause for concern in regards to his COI and any article he edits.Financeguy222 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

This is simply more false and offensive claims from Financeguy222, whom I have reason to believe is the one who has "outed" me (ie linking my wikipedia identity/real identity - a serious WP offence, any admins reading, feel free to contact me to discuss) with similar false claims on what I believe is his blog. His pointing it out here is indeed "outing" in itself, clear WP:Harassment. On other matters, FG222 does not seem to understand that a convenience link direct to a PDF file of a court judgement on another wiki (of which I have very little editorial input) is not a link to "my own site". Given this has occurred only twice out of the "thousands" of edits he claims I do (and one of those wasn't even me who put it in, though I did inadvertently re-add it as part of a larger cut and paste of material FG222 had blanket deleted, and I later changed that link to a better source without any input from other editors) not exactly a major problem is it? As for removing the "controversy" section, what I am suggesting, and discussing in talk, is incorporating the controversies in to the main body of the article (for the Amway article as well), as is recommended in WP:Structure, part of policy WP:NPOV. Not exactly "removed". Financeguy222 has made clear his POV here, with the statement that "the majority perception is that the MLM ... schemes" etc are "steeped in controversy". This is in fact false. The vast, vast majority of RS coverage of Amway is not "steeped in controversy" at all. Alas some editors refuse to let the sources lead them and know what they know, evidence be damned. It is not up to us, for example, to decide what is "fluff" or not. Amway's ecommerce websites and systems have received extensive 3rd party coverage in quality sources. Given they're a leader in the ecommerce world, coverage of their systems would seem more than appropriate. Financeguy222 would like that information to not be reported, but is adamant that a *question* posed in a state parliament and part of the transcript, with *no* media coverage at all, be highlighted and published in an incredibly misleading and highly biased and POV manner [29].--Insider201283 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll await response from others in regards to the article content/direction/fluff by someone not accused by others of POV/COI multiple times. I intentionally stated it was "perception" then backed it up by mentioning the court cases etc. The fact of the controversies can be seen in many RS sources, looking at Amway alone, which lists about 5 pages worth of Controversy. To claim these companies are not controversial clearly indicates your POV, thankyou for supporting my argument.
Youre attempting to out me, and link me to other websites. Considering I don't own any websites on the matter, it is a little curious. Your ID has previously been outed here, and you have admitted to owning those Amway sites previously. You can't out something that is already out.
Having said that, I still attempt to be careful and respect the wp:harrassment/outing. I was careful not to mention names, state exact websites, or the exact details, nor linked to the references proving the ownership/possible conflict. But I think if an editor had/has a website dedicated to reputation management services, this could be a serious cause for concern for their ability to have NPOV and very likely to have a serious COI, which is inline with accusations levelled at Insider several times here and elsewhere by others.
You're accusing me of making false statements? You just admitted to posting your own site several times (which you have also done in the past), then try to play down that you have much to do with your own site, yet flog it here multiple times. With as many pro Amway sites as you do, and apparently earning somewhat of your living from Amway, how can you seriously keep a NPOV? As you stated above you have not been active for "many years" in Amway, but on another source dated 15 months ago stated you had "3 Amway businesses". These contradictions in your story still do not draw attention away from the "reputation management" issue, that is a very serious issue I outlined above, with a potential for massive COI. I have intentionally not named more details here, but I think admins should give very careful consideration to the matter, and I am prepared to offer more information if need be.Financeguy222 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Financeguy222 is continuing with these false allegations. This is clear WP:Harrassment. Reporting to oversight. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to engage in speculation regarding User:Insider201283 identity and relationship with Amway. However, as a person who regularly engages in public relations work on Wikipedia on behalf of Amway he is required to make an appropriate disclosure and conform to our conflict of interest guidelines. His current declaration of interest is inadequate and does not conform to professional public relations practice, see Public Relations Society of America Member Code of Ethics 2000. He is welcome to edit within our guidelines. This was my response to his oversight request, but has not been discussed at length with the oversight committee. A more definitive resolution could develop after discussion if User:Insider201283 continues to pursue the matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem may be more point of view editing than conflict of interest. Insider201283 seems to have a strong interest in maintaining a positive point of view in our articles about multi-level marketing. To that end he familiarized himself with our guidelines respecting reliable sources and has marshaled sources with serve his purposes. He is often right when he removes negative information from sources which do not satisfy our guidelines. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Fred, I am extremely upset at this response. I requested the help of oversight to deal with the false allegations of FG222 and instead you are repeating them as if they are true! What "declaration of interest" is it you are expecting me to write? Do I have to disclose I (like millions of others) use googleads on some websites and make money from that? That I'm an Amazon affiliate and have made $16 off them? That I have a membership card with my local supermarket and get rebates, just like Amway? Every company I ever worked for? I'm sorry but this response is deeply offensive and appears to be simply repeating FG222's false allegations. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You have made several claims about involvement, some which contradict what you stated above implying you have not been involved for years
I am not making any accusations, perhaps some were made in the past, but everything Im saying now is verifiable, including your involvement in some sites some would deem suspect to your COI position. I am not making claims about exact associations. To continue to state I am harassing you and outing you (when you have outed yourself already), then attempting to out me or link me with some website, and making all these other claims is harassment, and being reported to oversight ::Financeguy222 (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Insider201283 is right now whitewashing and removing negative sources from Multi-level marketing [30][31][32][33][34] (the last one being subtle POV pushing via replacing negative sources with positive ones). I see that in Talk:Network_TwentyOne he's aggressively fighting any negative sources. I'm not surprised at all to find that he appears to have a COI. Maybe it's time for a topic ban on MLM articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief, I removed a self-published website that has previously discussed and removed, and an opinion piece columnist (both of which are recommended NOT to be used under WP:RS) and replaced them with solid RS sources, as well as rewrote and added new material, including new criticism material not previously mentioned. Funny how you don't mention that! --Insider201283 (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


I agree with the suggestion for a topic ban for this editor. I am seeing considerable evidence of POV pushing and contentious editing on their part. Background research on the editor indicates that a COI may exist. I don't want to out the editor's identity here, as per WP policy, but if it's necessary, this case can be taken to WP admin privately and an assessment can be made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
FYI, RIR is not an uninvolved editor. He(?) and I are in dispute with each other over on theUSANA article, where, in my opinion he appears to be trying to block/remove as much "positive" information from the article as he can and I'm assisting another editor in getting the article to a higher standard. Note of course that if all of these COI allegations were correct, it means I'm actively "writing for the enemy" as USANA is a direct competitor of Amway. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I researched more. He has been POV pushing and wikilawyering the MLM article since 2008. Previous whitewash attempt in March[35], February[36], March [37][38] (wikilawyering a valid source in RS/N until it was rejected here), August 2009[39], July 2009[40][41], June 2009[42][43]. His last constructive edits were in February-March 2009[44][45][46], back when the article said nothing negative about MLM. Oh, wait, that was because Insider20183 was removing all negative sources and info with no attempt to integrate it[47][48](yeah, those two are rants, but he makes no attempt to integrate the info)[49][50] and adding positive info[51]. Most egregiously these removals back in 2008[52][53][54]. Those were also his first edits to the article. All the constructive edits are addition of positive info and removal of spam. I have found no additions of negative info in this article. And in the talk page, this is representative of how he wikilawyers negative sources out of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Removing unsourced false claims? Guilty as charge! Getting rid of sources like this - guilty as charged! Good grief. Seriously, doesn't the fact that this kind of stuff is almost entirely sourced to non-RS material, and not reflected in RS material, give you just pause to think perhaps it's not entirely accurate? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've looked over Enric's allegations and I'll go over them one at a time. It's a lot of stuff dumped at once so I'll go through the first paragraph first.
  • This diff shows the removal of a self-published source, compliant with our guidelines at WP:SPS.
  • This diff also removes that source.
  • This diff is nit-picking; I would personally say that any criticism is by definition "alleged" (because a criticism is a kind of allegation) so adding the word wasn't necessary, but it's hardly "whitewashing".
  • This diff is something I have mixed feelings about. I'd consider a column in USA Today to be a reliable source if used properly, calling it a non-reliable source isn't totally accurate. But Insider was correct to remove it, because it actually contradicts the information that it is supposed to support. The article stated, "Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling", but the source said, "In a multi-level situation, I make money off my sales and also the sales of those I bring in to the organization", which indicates that MLM does include actual direct selling.
  • This diff could have used an edit summary for explanation, but I only see references being moved around, not completely removed, so calling this a whitewash is absurd.
  • A claim that Insider has aggressively fought negative sources in Talk:Network TwentyOne is a subjective determination. What I mostly see is a conflict specifically with Financeguy222. I don't see such a problem interacting with other editors on that talk page. I'm not saying it's Financeguy222's fault, but sometimes editors don't get along for whatever reason.
I'll look at the second paragraph later. Indeed there's a lot to cover. So far what I mostly see is that Insider is following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies properly (in those diffs) but his edits are spun to have a sinister motive because of the belief of a COI. I might find something more damaging in the other paragraph after I analyze it. -- Atama頭 17:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
He still has an Amway membership and says he might build it up again someday; he makes money off Google Ads on his myriad pro-Amway/pro-MLM websites. These are to me clear evidence of COI. He clearly and openly discloses on his user page that he has a pro-Amway/pro-MLM POV, as he is expected to do given his COI (Amway's history of political shenanigans in the U.S. are clearly of no interest to him, which is reasonable enough). I repeat, he clearly discloses all this. What more do the complainants want him to do? (Full disclosure: it took me over a decade to forgive a friend who invited me to an "informational meeting" that turned out to be an Amway recruiting pitch, complete with advice on how to commit tax fraud by making false claims about purchases purportedly for "business purposes".) --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been involved in MLM in the past (in my case, it was Excel Communications) and that left me with a very low opinion of the whole concept. So if anyone wants to know where I could have a bias, it might fall along those lines. Regardless of my personal feelings, we don't ban people because they have a COI. We ban people because their actions are disruptive. I'm trying to find examples of this disruption. As Orange Mike pointed out, Insider has disclosed his affliations, which is a courtesy we'd like to see from anyone who might have a COI regarding the subject they are editing. As I said, I'm still looking things over though. -- Atama頭 18:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I'm not a fan of either Excel (not enough margins in communications to support an MLM model, so asking for trouble) or tricking people into meetings or promoting tax fraud (clearly unethical)! None of them are however inherent in the model - though the model has some features that may attract people who are less than ethical (primarily the low startup costs - both from a corporate perspective and a rep perspective). I had a reference talking about that issue that I was thinking of using for the MLM article. Can't find it now :( --Insider201283 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not saying it's Financeguy222's fault, but sometimes editors don't get along for whatever reason." Atama, It's not about getting along, I just really don't like seeing promotional POV. For him to accuse me of outing and false allegations to the point of harassment, when he already outed himself here, then to whinge and report me, only to then try and out me is completely hypocritical. Insider has been accused by many many people over the years of the exact same thing. Elsewhere (where he has outed himself) he has made different claims about his role as an Amway distributor, which contradict what he stated above and in his disclosure. Having websites dedicated to a potential reputation management service does not automatically mean COI, but if several independent people suspect someone has COI/promotional POV due to the editing content, at minimum the person should give pause to think perhaps what they write could be more neutral. As per his disclosure he has a biased positive POV, which harms his neutrality on the topic when it comes to reporting such things as controversies, all the legal problems etc. This is the main issue of his edits that keeps being dragged up time and time again by multiple editors. Financeguy222 (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's thing isn't it, as pointed out by Viriditas - you "can't identify any specific edits that are problematic". By contrast, Financeguy222 is a guy who wants this primary source (not reported anywhere - but read it yourself) summarised in the article as "Amway Australia's distribution practices were questioned in Australian parliament for being dishonest, unethical and inappropriate". This is the guy who repeatedly deleted edits to the article, based on published books by academics and media like The Australian, The Australian Financial Review, and Sydney Morning Herald as "unverifiable self-published sources", resulting in him receiving a 24hr ban[55]. Who exactly has a NPOV problem here?.

More lies. Apart from admitting in your talk that you have a positive POV. THE SPS was your own site, which you denied putting in, yet in fact flogged it and tried to promote it in the article after it was removed multiple times, then you lied about doing so after I notified you you were doing so, even after you have being told off in the past for doing exactly this. The 24hr ban was for reverting your POV/COI promotional editing (attempting to promote your own site, puff up the article etc), after you whinged about it I received a temp ban, and I have not touched the article since to see if you improve, or slowly add in your POV, and diffuse negative refs as you have done so in the past. The POV issues has been outlined above some in precise detail, by myself and others, and over the years. Your disclosure about your true involvement in Amway is also unsatisfactory and contradicts other online sources you have outed yourself on. Such lies do not do you any favours if attempting to appear honest and neutral. Financeguy222 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, as pointed out by Viriditas - you "can't identify any specific edits that are problematic". All that needs to be said, your POV is clear. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Viriditas is understably ignorant to the topic, and did not have time to go through your thousands of hours worth of contributions towards Amway/MLM to see your obsession with it.
You are constantly wikilawyering, I have already provided specific examples:
1.Being warned for promoting your own site, then proceeding to post it multiple times after I reverted it out. Then lying about it.
2.Spinning as much of the controversies as possible, even removing the "Controversies" headline in AA article, even though these money making schemes and companies are inherently controversial, and articles do not reflect reality, but a PR sounding commercial POV.
3.Adding all the fluff content which is out of proportion to an encyclopaedic entry, such as what computer systems they are using,excessive slant to promote content related to growth, sales etc which at least could be better worded to not sound like a fluff piece/ad. Apart from sounding clunky it sounds like reading a promotional pamphlet, not an encyclopedia, when in reality Amway is dogged by pyramid scheme accusations and court cases.
4.Same again with mentioning who is contracted to endsorse AA, which you colorfully phrase as "engagement of brand ambassadors" obvious Amway propaganda.
5.In a general sense, a large proportion of entries youve ever made on the subject, spinning it to a positive POV/slant, adding subtle, sometimes not so subtle positive adjectives where they previously did not exist, or giving longer entries to positive refs, and playing down/removing negative ones.
Since it is many people accusing you of such disruptive behaviour, it is obviously a real degree of POV you are pushing that is offending so many editors.
Financeguy222 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I've fixed the indenting on FG222's reply (hope you don't mind). FG, can you provide specific edits that illustrate your five points? --Thepm (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are some references. The edits by Insider201283 / Icerat used a lot of self published and questionable sources, promotional in nature, which is not always a bad thing if used well, but the MLM company articles often end up sounding promotional, and how "amazing" they are without editorial realism, and struggle to be balanced or what reflects an encyclopaedic entry.
Reverting back in his own site issue:
Revision as of 13:06, 21 April 2011
"posting promotional edits including links to their own sites,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=427019259&oldid=425160778
Revision as of 17:08, 21 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=427021346&oldid=425192656
Revision as of 20:17, 21 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=425266055&oldid=425220457
warning of linking to own site
03:28, 22 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amway_Australia&diff=426528637&oldid=425276331
Revision as of 04:50, 22 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=427021346&oldid=425284374


"Why do you insist on promoting your own sites?"
Insider: "I do not use any of my sites as sources "
Revision as of 08:11, 22 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=427019259&oldid=425302418
Not the first time this site has attempted to be promoted and called out as promotional.


Crafting "bad news"/controversy.
There are thousands of edits dedicated to MLM/Amway made by Insider, enough to cause many people to accuse of POV. In more recent times:
Deletion of "Controversy" section
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=425019664
Makes the article more difficult to read and obfuscates the whole article, even though the controversies are sometimes in AA's favour, big tax precedent decisions etc, it appears to be a way to sanintize their image, especially in conjunction with all the "achievements" edits. Why take away formatting and lump it all into one big block of text?
As shown in these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=425192656&oldid=425153831
All the positive listing of unspectacular achievements, anniversary celebrations, detailed description of their internal computer system, their use of social networking services such as twitter? These are not very notable events, and dilute the articles informative value. I do not see the point of an article describing all of these, especially when coming from promotional SPS, but even if not. Except to fluff and promote, why are these worth noting?
Revision as of 17:08, 21 April 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amway_Australia&diff=next&oldid=425192656
The mention of who the brand's endorsers are, again, more fluff, not to mention the phrasing "engagement of brand ambassadors" is Amway propaganda as opposed to paid endorsement contracts. Apart from serving to promote Amway, why would you mention who is paid to endsorse a brand? This is not normal for other brands.
These are recurring themes over most of "Icerat"'s edits, and the COI problems as outlined above.
Financeguy222 (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
FG222, you may want to review WP:IDONTLIKEIT --Icerat (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
FG222 is continuing to refuse to follow wikipedia policy, reverting attempts to remove a POV imposing structure, contrary to WP:STRUCTURE. A third perspective would be appreciated. The specific issue is listed on NPOV noticeboard Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Amway_Australia here. (ps I have recently changed username) --Icerat (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Controversy sections are the result of poor Wikipedia article editing. As Icerat pointed out, they are discouraged because they lead to a POV imbalance. What's better is to integrate controversies in the body of the article, which is more difficult to do than lazily tossing them into a controversy section. I know this well from extensive personal experience, but the end result is a much better quality article. When you say it makes the article more difficult to read, that's actually not the view of the community at large, as evidenced by what is written in our NPOV guideline.
There may be merit to your claim of Icerat trying to promote his own website(s), but exactly what websites would that be? You have diffs but I can't tell what websites you're talking about. Maybe Icerat can disclose for us what the websites are, or Financeguy222 perhaps you can state what they are. It's not really clear. If this really is occurring, there may be a legitimate complaint about promotion, especially where a COI is involved.
As to your complaint about fluff in this edit, I can see where you're coming from. That history section seems to go a bit too much in-depth describing the affiliate's progress, and should be trimmed down. As for the use of SPS, that's a valid claim, though we don't completely disallow SPS we certainly don't rely on them for anything controversial. But the section is a bit much, for example the sentence "On April 18, 2011 Amway Australia celebrated 40 years in business" is 100% unnecessary (it already says that the company started in 1971 in the lead). The proper response to something like this is to trim out what isn't needed, challenge anything that is supported by a weak source, and fix it. You don't wipe it all out and say, "still up to your old COI NPOV tricks I see". That's being disruptive and shows a complete unwillingness to collaborate, in fact it's borderline WP:OWN. And you're really shooting yourself in the foot with such tactics, as I said I see some legitimate complaints from you but they're lost in the noise about COI. -- Atama頭 17:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
While I do see aspects of Icerat's history that raise concerns about a possible COI, I had a look at the diff edits and felt this particular isolated example (i.e., whether or not to have a controversy section) is really more of an editorial dispute. Controversy sections ideally should (not must) be avoided, but I've seen quite a few cases where it serves as an acceptable solution, at least temporarily until such time that an appropriate way can be found to weave it into the main text. But the 2 controversy examples in this case really aren't substantial enough in themselves to warrant a separate Controversy section and it would be fairly simple to move the 'controversial' text into the main text (as to where it would be best located, I haven't an opinion). What's surprising to me is that Amway Australia has its own article, since the content could easily be folded into the main Amway article -- which happens to contain a massive controversy section. The main article mentions controversial detais pertaining to Amway in Canada, India, the UK, Belgium, and Poland, etc., so it seems quite odd that Amway Australia would be given a free pass and not have anything in its article that addresses controversy with the company in general (having a controversy section with a link "see Amway: Controversy" might be an option). At first sniff, it smells as though the article spinoff may have involved a little PR whitewashing. FinanceGuy's COI concerns may not be entirely unfounded, given the narrow focus of the Icerat's contributions and the partisna position stated on his/her userpage[56] and I can see how that such suspicion would have been cause for hightened sensitivity during the dispute (I haven't checked the history for past disputes between these users). IMO, Icerat walks a fine line and has quite a tendency for WP:TE/WP:DE, which I have observed through firsthand interactions on other articles. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a comment on the "brand ambassador" issue: This is definitely not Amway-specific propaganda. Lots of companies use this. We have two or three dozen articles that directly link to the redirect Brand ambassador. Choosing that language only shows that the editor is keeping up with the marketing industry's euphemism treadmill. It is not an unfair promotion of Amway to use the newer industry-standard terminology instead of the older terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Rhode Island Red is not an uninvolved editor, as we are in dispute in another article, ironically it's a competiter to Amway, yet RIR is making similar COI noises there and where, IMO, he' crosses the line in to WP:TE/WP:DE - but that's not a dispute for this discussion. In any case, it appears some editors believe that having a difference of opinion on the legitimacy of an entire $119 billion global industry constitues a COI. C'est la vie. Re WhatamIdoing's point, yes I was just using standard terminology used by both Amway and other companies, frankly it's not that important if people want "ambassador" instead of "brand ambassador". Re the Amway Australia article's separate existence it was involved in an AfD before I become involved in it and the conclusion was that it was independently notable. The two minor "controversy" issues mentioned are pretty much the only RS "controversy" anyone has been able to come up with for the company in Australia. Believe it or not an article doesn't have to address controversy/criticism if little of it exists! Alas they often end up having it anyway as some people have a particular POV they won't let go of, so something has to be included for the sake of reaching a consensus. In any case, WP:STRUCTURE suggests avoiding such dedicated sections and that's what I was trying to follow in the edit FG222 kept reverting. In my view the very labelling of these two topics as "controversial" is POV editing. A question was asked in parliament years ago, a response was given that there was no problems, it received no media coverage whatsoever. Controversy? Where? FG222 objected to (by repeatedly deleting) the Minister's response about their being no problems being included in the article. The other issue was a minor tax dispute on business deductions, Amway won on most points, then won the additional points on appeal. There was some minor secondary source coverage because like many tax rulings it affects other companies. "Controversy"? No, not really, and best I can find it's certainly never been referred to that way in secondary sources. FG222 objected (by repeatedly deleting) the fact being included that Amway had won all points on appeal. The first "controversy" barely deserves even mention, the second at least has some coverage, but neither should be POV-labelled. It's exactly what WP:STRUCTURE points out to avoid. Re Atama's question regarding "promoting my own blogs", I think that FG222's problem is(was) with a PDF file of an Amway Asia Pacific annual report that was linked to. His problem being the file is on the amwaywiki.com server. That open wiki happens to be a site I host (though only occasionally edit). The annual report was used (and the copy on Amway Wiki directly linked to) by another editor, not me, well before I got involved[57]. When I re-installed a large swathe of text FG222 had deleted that source was also reinstated. Note that the source is the annual report which is RS, not Amway Wiki, which is not RS. FG222 doesn't see the difference. In any case last week after FG222's complaints here I went through all the sources used and this source (again, added by another editor, not me) is the closest I could find to him claiming I'm "promoting my own blogs" so I found a copy of the PDF on archive.org and changed the link to that version. --Icerat (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are two issues at stake here. One is the COI issue and the other is the specific editorial conflict pertaining to Amway Australia. I just had a chance to review the article in depth and check the references and I found potential problems with most of the citations (offline sources, questionable sources, outdated content of questionable notability etc.). In fact, almost all of the references could be reasonably challenged. I see very little content in the article that establishes the notability of this subject as a stand alone article. Spinning off Amway Australia so as to distance that affiliate from the controversies associated (and described in detail) with the parent company seems misleading and whitewashy to me (I'll go back and review the discussion that led to the spinoff). That being said, while FinanceGuy's reversions may not have been the best course of action in dealing with the issue, his frustration is understandable, and subsequently posting on this noticeboard was the proper step to take to address it. As for the COI issue, I think that there is enough evidence to raise legitimate concerns but it might be difficult to pursue the issue further here without risking outing the individual in question. The issue might have to go to a user conduct RfC or to WP admins offline for further (discrete) investigation. I suggest that further comments about the editorial issue be taken back to the article's talk page. Hopefully, some of the editors who are now newly aware of the issues will weigh in there and help to resolve the matter amicably, because so far it has received little attention from editors other than Icerat and FinanceGuy. Failing that, an RfC about the article content might be the next step. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Discrete offline investigations?! Good grief, people are already paranoid about admins and cabals and whatnot, do you want to give people something real to fret about? As I'd said, the content of the article is definitely questionable, and now it seems to be that it's odd for the Australia branch to have its own article. An AfD to request a merge or delete might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The comment wasn't meant to stoke paranoia. It's just a statement of reality -- sometimes it's difficult to get to the bottom of COI issues without outting the editor, so if there is evidence of a COI tied to the user's real identity, it's best to let WP admin handle it (with due discretion applied). My warning was both to prevent the editor from being outted and to prevent anyone else from getting in trouble for outting. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, cry me a river. As it happens I privately provided links to the blog with the BS on it to an admin right back at the beginning of this piece. How about instead of COI! COI! COI! you and FG222 actually work on problem edits? Right now on a related Amway article your defending a clear piece of COI based on a primary source website that doesn't even exist any more and when it did didn't even mention the topic of the article. Meanwhile, on an article about a competitor to Amway (USANA) you're also claiming I have a COI while challenging as OR even the most minor of edits to the article (by another editor, not me) backed by an RS website source because interpreting a table on a company website requires knowing what the company does. I could be a paid employee of both Amway and USANA and be sitting in their head offices and my editing is a world closer to NPOV than that of editors like yourself and FinanceGuy222, who for whatever reason clearly have some enormous bias against multilevel marketing companies, and no matter what RS sources say, damned if you're going to let that get in the way of Wikipedia reflect your opinions. I'm half tempted to challenge both of you as having COI, as there's a hell of a lot more evidence of it in your edits than mine. Which competitor do you or have you ever worked for? Do you work for or have you ever worked for any company with a connection to the retail industry? Do you work for or have you ever worked for any companies providing services to any companies in the retail industry? Do you work for or have you worked for any organization that is involved in promoting, say getting a college education instead of starting a business? etc etc etc. Stop attacking the editor and start dealing with the edits. This kind of obstructionist harassment, wikilawyering and tenditious editing, when really it's nothing more than a case of I don't like it is precisely why I gave up on wikipedia for a year and why many others give up permanently. Frankly it's pathetic. --Icerat (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Since you don't seem to be too keen on avoiding conflict, perhaps a longer vacation would be in order. Seriously, taking a break is often a good idea. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There was a afd in March apparently [58], that was before I got involved. The article at the time it was decided to keep looked like this. Shortly afterward Financeguy222 started editing the article (ie widespread deleting) and it was soon like this. Please, read it. You'll note his neglect to mention the tax case was won completely on appeal, and completely failing to mention the response from the minister regarding the parliamentary question - leaving a heavily POV statement that gives the exact opposite impression of what was actually in the source. Frankly I think that kind of repeated blatant POV editing (even after being called for it) deserves being banned from the article, but hey, it's me being accused of COI and POV editing here isn't it! :-/ In any case this earlier version has some problems too, with at least one non-RS source, but also has several other RS sources currently not used. FG222 deleted pretty much all of it, even claiming A Current Affair, a well known and major current affairs show on Australian TV was " a paid press release tv program"!!! But we clearly have independent notability, with several news articles, news TV coverage, IT magazine coverage all independent of the company and independent of the US parent company. One of those sources points out for example that it's the largest direct selling company in Australia. That's notable. One of the issues with going for a single monolithic Amway article is that, while there's many commonalities obviously, the various companies around the world have different business models (sometimes significantly) and even brands (Xplore Capital, Emma Page in Australia for example). A monolithic article with true BALANCE would have the main article heavily focused on Amway China which makes up more than half the companies revenues and yet is currently barely mentioned. It's WP policy to try and get away from the US-centric focus there is now and decent articles on non-US companies is in my opinion an important part of developing that. What else are your concerns with the article Atama? The "40th birthday" stuff was undoubtedly weak and is already gone. The ecommerce development stuff got significant independent coverage, and mentioning sales for what, 3 years, isn't exactly extensive coverage for a 40yr old company. Note that some draft guidelines from the Companies project suggest both that subsidiaries have separate articles, where warranted, and that info (for public companies) like long-term stock histories be included. Year to year revenues (if available) would also be a valuable addition to company articles. Anyway I'm going to look at some of the earlier RS-backed material deleted by FG222 and see about reincluding it. Oh, as for the men in black theories ... Well, a day or so after FG222 was given a 24hr ban for edit warring this article, an australian anti-amway blogger with a remarkably similar style and nickname to FG222 "outed" me on his blog (including my wikipedia nickname and real name and phone number) and posted a whole bunch of falsehoods about me. Despite clear statements from me, under my real name, that these things are false, Rhode Island Red has clearly decided to believe it. --Icerat (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The main purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with COI issues, which is why I said the following yesterday "I suggest that further comments about the editorial issue be taken back to the article's talk page." You're going into a lot of detail on editorial issues and it doesn't seem constructive to do it here. The goal here is to resolve the conflict and you seem to be perpetuating it both on this noticeboard and, now, on the Amway page with respect to an edit I just made and which you tried, inappropriately, to revert.[59] I'm starting to see a pattern of WP:DE/WP:TE. FinanceGuy hasn't made any new edits in the past few days and seems to be avoiding conflict and letting other editors weigh in on the issue; that's wise. It wouldn't be a bad idea if you did the same. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
COI is entirely about editorial issues. The fact you think it isn't shows a lack of understanding of the purpose of the COI guideline. Any other use of this noticeboard is clear harassment. I could be the President of all the various company articles I've contributed to and if I follow V, NPOV, and RS then I'm perfectly welcome to edit. --Icerat (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You seemed to miss my point. The first goal here should be to resolve the conflict you are having with the other editor. I suggest, yet again, that you post these editorial details on the article Talk page and then link to it here; it's better than having forked or duplicative discussions. I don't think arguing the COI issue the way you have been is going to resolve it. I also don't see any evidence that you are being harassed. Surely, you aren't referring to this discussion? The editor who you were having the conflict with took an appropriate course of action by posting their concerns here. That's what the page is for. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
(a)FG222 (or someone remarkably alike whom he communicated with) also "outed" me on an external site and provided enough information in this discussion to make that site easily discoverable. This is clear harassment (b) FG222 is the one who has failed to provide evidence of editorial problems yet (c) you, an involved editor in disagreement with me on another article (a "COI" which you failed to mention when you joined this discussion), came into this dispute with these mysterious off-wiki COI claims - clearly to make me "feel threatened or intimidated", ie harassment (d) this bogus COI claim keeps coming up virtually every time I edit wikipedia - and if taken further (even went to arbcom with an admin once) it always gets dismissed - eventually. It's nothing more than a blatant attempt by editors with a certain POV (including, frankly yourself) to try and prevent an editor with a different perspective contributing to wikipedia. That's harassment. What's more, these claims are *always* full of outright lies. FG222 has made many of them here and I have to deal with this BS getting posted here because frankly there's not enough NPOV experienced editors around to deal with these kind of topics. They simply don't have the time. I see it again and again on MLM related articles, where people coming in with a "positive" perspective on the industry are virtually always intimidated into stopping contributing to WP through these type of intimidatory tactics of claiming a COI by editors who clearly are not editing in an NPOV manner. There's a reason why virtually all the edits I made a year+ ago on these "controversial" articles - and where I was accused of having a COI - still remain despite me taking a years break. There's a reason why virtually all the edits I made 2years+ ago on these "controversial" articles - and where I was accused of having a COI - still remain. Why? Because I follow WP policy and make a good faith effort to do NPOV edits. I delete the stuff with no sources, both positive and negative. I add stuff with sources, both positive and negative. Then I take a break and come back and have to deal with this tactic of intimidation, often involving outright lying, again and again. Yes this may be part and parcel of dealing with wikipedia - but it shouldn't be. And frankly RIR, you are part of the problem. I should be contributing to making WP a better place, not dealing with crap like this. --Icerat (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see very little in Icerat's edits that appear to be clear POV editing. It's obvious that he's a 'supporter' of MLM as a concept and Amway in particular, but I don't see that as a de facto COI. For me it's similar to a devout catholic editing the article on Pope Paul VI. Their edits are not automatically POV and the fact is that their interest in the subject is likely to make the article richer. We can't simply defenestrate every editor that has an interest in a topic.

Editors do not edit in isolation. If a particular edit, in good faith, takes a slightly more positive or negative view of a subject than is warranted, that's likely to be corrected before too long. Problems arise when there is systematic, excessive promotion or denigration of a subject over a period of time. I don't see that in Icerat's edits.

What I do see are two editors that are unable to assume good faith of each other and I think the discussion here is exacerbating that. I recommend that this discussion should be closed on the basis that it's not going anywhere. Both editors should resume discussion about content and resolve any issues that arise through the normal dispute resolution processes. Thepm (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Icerat mentioned I am "even claiming A Current Affair, a well known and major current affairs show on Australian TV was " a paid press release tv program"". We can move this to talk if need be, but it's laughable.
To claim ACA is a credible source of information to be used in an encyclopaedic manner is a complete joke. It's known chequebook journalism and promotional pieces are in no way balanced, respected nor credible, and are a complete joke. More like paid opinions. Aligning yourself with such trash tv and such biased views is a good representation of your own beliefs and your own edits here and on other sites.
"COI claim keeps coming up virtually every time I edit wikipedia", It's no surprise, and multiple accusations of COI should give you a hint that your edits are giving many others the impression that you are continually disruptive and imbalanced in the eyes of many people.
You outed yourself here some time ago, but then harass me and claim I outed you, yet hypocritically in the same sentence continue to try and out me.
After you outed yourself here I googled your many pseudonyms and found many different pages confirming your identity, including your own pages, and information on a site owned by you in the reputation management industry. Then there is the site you (icerat / Insider) outed yourself to owning, which you claim you "occasionally edit", another false claim since several thousand edits you made on there personally averages out to multiple edits a day, and is in no way occasional. To state you occasionally edit it is a blatant falsehood and attempt to downplay your attempts to promote it here after being called out for it multiple times.
Financeguy222 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again. FG222 is again violating WP:OUTING here with his allegations. Thepm - not surprisingly, I agree with you!--Icerat (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
After trying to work towards a resolution of this conflict and then witnessing Icerat's disruptive editing and edit warring first hand,[60][61][62] I think a user conduct RfC (with the goal of having this user barred from editing any article related to Amway) is warranted. The user's conduct, editing, and background is strongly suggestive of a COI and it is extremely counterproductive. This conduct must stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
<yawn> User Rhode Island Red has a clear pattern of using and/or rejecting sources to push a particular POV. He regular disrupts editing on companies in the direct selling/MLM industry with edit warring tactics and tenditious editing, often using blatantly hypocritical stances in giving his reasons to support or oppose a source. For example, he argues on Amway that a list of company directors on a no longer available website for a no longer existing company is a sufficient source for an involvement with a company, but on USANA a list of sponsors on an official website, or a list of certified products on an official website is not considered sufficient. Rarely, if ever, does he make any attempt to initiate bringing in third opinions through use of various Wikipedia Noticeboards, instead reverting others good faith edits or debating with little attempt to reach consensus on talk pages. This destructive, rather than constructive, style of editing is apparent on a wide range of MLM-related articles. When someone, such as myself, has challenged his editing he has launched a vendetta, attacking me in this forum and submitting ridiculous claims of edit warring and now this silly RfC attempt. He clearly has some sort of vendetta against the MLM industry and is using wikipedia to advanced that interest. As such he clearly violates WP:COI - Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. If anything needs "investigating", it's the type of blatant POV pushing indulged in by editors such as Rhode Island Red and Financeguy222 --Icerat (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow. That was way over the top, totally uncalled for, and extremely uncivil. I have tried very hard to at least be diplomatic in discussing the possibility that you have a COI. I haven't made this personal at all. I just happen to be of the opinion that the matter won't get resolved here and so probably should be addressed through a user RfC. Rather than trying to de-escalate this situation, you seem to be doing everything in your power to make it worse. When you get malicious and make comments that are at least borderline personal attacks, you cross the line again. That and the evidence of a possible COI, the disruptive editing, user history, etc. indicates to me that there's a problem here that needs more attention. I don't expect you to openly agree with my assessment; I'm content to let the system take care of the issue, and if that means an RfC is necessary, so be it. Just because I hold that opinion doesn't mean you have to heckle me from the sidelines and invent asinine counteraccusations. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh right, so you making and supporting, both here and elsewhere on WP, various personal comments about me, including false accusations of offwiki activities, is just fine, but my commenting entirely on your editing behaviour is over the top and uncalled for personal attacks. uhuh. For others interests, Rhode Island Red has earlier submitted a 3RR report against me for replacing a tag after he, 4 times within 24 hours note, removed an article tag related to an ongoing discussion on a noticeboard and in talk. This sustained harassment has to stop. --Icerat (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of COI, I see from his user page that Rhode Island Red claims to be a scientist and in academia. I also note his contributions to wikipedia are heavily weighted towards articles related to nutrition/pharmacy. Many of those edits are removal of what might be termed "positive" information from articles on non-pharmaceutical nutritional products and/or nutritional companies, many of which, like Amway, USANA and Monavie are in the direct selling field. He may very well have a far far more direct COI in this area than I do. His edits certainly raise concern of POV issues. For example here he added the fact a case by Amway against producers of a critical film was dismissed while actively removing the sourced fact they were convicted and fined on appeal. In his 3RR claim against me, he complained about me removing (rather neutral and unimportant) unsourced information because it was based on a dead link [63] to the now non-existent website of a defunct company, instead saying I should have looked for a replacement link, whereas here he removed information from the Amway article about their ranking by Deloitte as a 'Global Power of Retailing' because of a dead link, while at the same time going on to highlight controversy in the lede with a rather POV worded statement. A moments search found the Deloitte source again and I've now replaced the deleted information. In an OR/Noticeboard discussion on this same article, regarding the "dead link" information he objected to me removing, he defended the use of a now completely non-existent source document, which was a simple web page of company directors, while here on the USANA article he disputes the use of exactly the same kind of primary source material for information on a companies sponsorships. On that same Amway issue he supports the inclusion of information based on research into the affiliations of people associated with Amway, whereas here on the USANA article he challenges the inclusion of sourced information that a person cited in the article as critical of USANA and MLMS is the founder and operator of multiple competitors in the nutrition industry. Not to mention his weak and baseless accusations of COI against me on this thread and elsewhere, based on rumor, falsehoods, and innuendo, while simultaneously holding the position that the indisputed founder and CEO of a variety of nutritional companies has no COI when critising USANA, a competitor in the industry ( Is this Synth). This is a clear pattern I'm experiencing of Rhode Island Red explicitly (mis)interpreting Wikipedia's guidelines on a case by case basis to fit his POV. Given his userpage admission of being an academic and scientist with interests in medicine and pharmacology, I'm forced to wonder if either Rhode Island Red or any of his immediate colleagues receive funding or are otherwise connected with companies that may be in competition with nutritional companies such as Amway, USANA etc, such as pharmacy or medical companies. Having said that, I used to work in research at a major medical school (not in nutrition) and at that time I too had a very critical POV of virtually the entire nutritional industry. That POV has since been modified by actually studying and researching in the field of nutrition, but from that prior experience I can perfectly understand why Rhode Island Red may have the POV he has, even if he has no monetary COI. Indeed I still have that personal POV for the majority of the industry. Either way Rhode Island Red is clearly struggling to uphold WP:NPOV on these articles, and in his dealings with me, and I suggest perhaps he needs to consider whether he should be editing these articles at all. --Icerat (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that you use this time while you are under 24-hour block (for edit warring)[64] to reconsider your approach to WP. You are taxing and diverting resources, and it will be better for everyone if you excercise some patience and much needed diplomacy. Every time a minor issue issue comes up you issue forth a tome filled with complaints and barbs about other editors -- it is clearly having a disruptive and counterproductive effect. And I don't see how pointing a finger at me with a bunch of vague accusations is going to help the perception that you may have a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm taxing and diverting resources? You're edit warring over tags, then making trivial (though technically correct) 3RR complaints, making bogus COI claims, deleting sourced material because you don't like it, and generally refusing to deal with matters in Talk. So far you've expressed very little interest in developing consensus in these articles. Look at the "Welcome to Life" section of the Amway article, where you have again removed sourced material about a case being won on appeal [65], instead only leaving the initial case which was dismissed. Yet you continue to not even discuss your concerns in talk[66]. --Icerat (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't notice the change regarding the court case because of Icerat's misleading edit summary, which said "update link and info on Forbes" and mentioned nothing about edits to the section that was under contention (and incidentally led to said user's block for 3RR violation).[67] Solution is simple; user should not cloak contentious edits (i.e. reverts) with misleading edit summaries. Editors should also be aware that this noticeboard is not a forum for general complaints. If the comment doesn't pertain to COI, then it likely doesn't belong here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary was not what you claim. It was "fix POV editing and replace removed, sourced information. Next time ask someone who can read Polish"[68]. Here is where you removed the sourced information in the first place, with a claim in the edit summary that was false, I'll be generous and assume perhaps you misunderstood the polish. That doesn't excuse completely changing the section from "Amway won" to "Amway loss". Here is where you removed sourced information about Deloitte ranking. I re-added it and updated the link [69] and also updated the Forbes ranking information and link [70], you deleted them [71]. You then went on to do an extensive rewrite of the "Politics and Culture" section, using as sources several self-acknowledged "left-wing" sources, including one marked clearly as "opinion", with little or no attempt at WP:BALANCE, even going so far as to ignore official responses from Amway, linked to by the publishers in the same sources, pointing out errors. This a clear pattern of failure to observe WP:NPOV and especially WP:UNDUE. This pattern of editing on a variety of health/nutrition related articles, and particularly of companies in that industry, and your background as stated on your user page leads me to wonder if you have an undisclosed COI, as noted above, hence it's relevance to this discussion. So I ask again, directly this time - do you or any of your immediate colleagues receive funding or are or have been otherwise connected with companies that may be in competition with nutritional companies such as Amway, USANA etc, such as pharmacy or medical companies? --Icerat (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Editor above should show some humility and not assume the authority to interrogate other WP participants. This editor will be more than happy to answer any COI questions should they ever be posed by anyone whose authority on the issue matters. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
So what you're saying is you don't want to just easily settle the matter so we can move on, you want me to submit a formal report on this noticeboard? Didn't you just complain about "taxing and diverting resources"?--Icerat (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Icerat should recognize that there is no "matter" to "settle". This thread is a discussion of whether or not Icerat has a COI. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think all of you should see Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_3#Many_sources_are_not_WP:RS as there is some relevant information in that piece that relates the COI matter at hand. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#FitzPatrick_.26_Reynolds.2C_False_Profits will provide even more insight.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

More enlightening details suggesting COI. Thanks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You mean more enlightening details suggesting I'm trying to create articles that follow Wikipedia policies, and getting obstructed in that process by various editors with hard anti-MLMs POVs and attempt to use self-published POV sources to push that view, in violation of Wikipedias policies, and in a matter which is an "incompatibility (with) the aim of Wikipedia" and "trying to promote (their) own interests " - ie a COI. --Icerat (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Come on Icerat, in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article you expressly stated "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." which turned out NOT to be true as I showed in Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Careful_with_some_of_these_soucres.
The efforts to try and claim any of Kiyosaki's books were in any way reliable (and given how much egg Trump just got his face with regard to supporting the totally goofy Obama wasn't a native American nonsense trying to use him to support Kiyosaki and his cat business partner nonsense is going to work less now then back when it was suggested) was just insane. As I asked years ago why are articles out of the peer review area like Cruz, Woker, Sandbek using Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and even Vandruff rather than any of the MLM supporters? Peer reviewed paper in the fields of anthropology, law (Juta) and psychology use Taylor, Fitzpatrick, and Vandruff and yet nothing to date on the pro-MLM side of similar quality has been presented. In fact Scene of the Cybercrime, 2nd Edition (2008) by no less than Elsevier puts MLM in the came class as pyramid, chain letter and Ponzi scemes (pg 102) and refers the reader to http://skepdic.com/pyramid.html for more information.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The only effort I tried to make that Kiyosaki's book was in any way reliable was with regards to his opinion. The Business School book is not an RS for facts, I did not try to use it for anything, it was merely in a list I was attempting to compile of sources. Ends up it was self-published, which I accepted. This is the same discussion where you rejected sources like a book published by Wiley and written by Professor Xardel, a top business professor (indeed former head) from one of the world's top business universities, ESSEC. More than happy for people to read those discussions to see the kind of zealotry I'm having to deal with. --Icerat (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't reject it; I stated and I quote "Xardel's book is through Blackwell Pub who is now a part of Wiley. Now Wiley InterScience is "The leading resource for quality research" but this is not under that imprint. This is a maybe. We need to know the quality of the different divisions." Also I pointed out in the link above (and user:Arthur Rubin agreed) Kiyosaki had so many credibility issues (per John T. Reed) that his opinion wasn't worth much and with Trump demonstrating what has to be the worst political judgement since Gary Hart told the press corp to "Follow me around" Kiyosaki's opinion is worth a lot less now.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Bruce, this is a year old debate on a talk page, not even regarding actual edits, and has no place in this discussion. You don't like MLM, I get it. I don't like most MLM operations either. We're mostly in agreement. --Icerat (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The point is what is currently going on only seems to be an extention of what happened back then ie a pattern that does suggest the contention of possible COI. Heck, Insider201283 even at one time flat out said "I have no problems being accused of violating WP:COI - I am." and three years later he still seemed to have issues. This just seems to be the latest in a series of issues going back some six years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That was actually based on my misunderstanding of the WP:COI guidelines, I was a newbie. Now I understand I have a POV, which I admit to, but not a COI. But you're right, this is an extension of what happened back then, this is a pattern. I try to edit following wikipedia guidelines and by doing so this changes some Wikipedia articles from attack pieces often based on POV self-published sources into balanced articles which give a true reflection of what RS sources say about a company. I then get constantly attacked and harassed by a small number of editors who have a very clear history of antagonism towards multi-level marketing companies. You for example have made it very clear you have a POV that companies like Amway are pyramid schemes. You have demonstrated again and again your inability to edit these articles following WP:NPOV Rhode Island Red has just added a few sentences to the Amway article about a voluntary product recall they did (on 3 of several hundred products) after a peanut supplier company had a salmonella scare in 2009. Hundreds of companies and thousands of products were effected. Clearly WP:NOTNEWS, claiming it needs to be there to "balance" a fact that Amway/Nutrilite scientists received a significant nutritional science research award. He has taken snippets from another source, I suspect from google books, from a book that he clearly hasn't read. Again a violation of RS, but the snippet fits a certain POV he's trying to push. If he had read the book he'd know that what he is trying to quote is misleading and not what the author intended. How is that not POV editing? He has an extensive pattern of editing articles related to MLM companies in a "negative" POV way. FinanceGuy222 tried to had his own anti-Amway/N21 attack blog to the Network 21 article. In another case he attacked a source as not RS when I tried to use it, then later used it himself to add something "negative". All three of you have tried to use self-published POV sources, while simultaneously attacking clearly RS sources. Yes, there is indeed a pattern. A pattern that caused me to take a year-long wikibreak from your exhausting edit-warring and harassment tactics. This is precisely the type of problem the Wikimedia Foundation needs to address as they consider why "old" editors leave in droves and new editors give up after a handful of attempts. --Icerat (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've done enough background research now to justify the concerns about COI in this case. It might be overlooked if Icerats editing were NPOV, but that doesn't seem to be the experience of most of the editors who have interacted with him on the limited range of articles to which he contributes. There are too many examples of edit warring,[72] introduction of poor sources and misleading synthesized text,[73][74], and multiple long tomes (filled with griping, wikilawyering, and POV pushing) on the noticeboards and Talk pages (and Icerat never seems to be satisfied with the input he receives from the WP community[75][76]). Even this discussion has degenerated because Icerat is now just firing shots blindly into the crowd. I don't see that the COI/POV pushing issue can ever be resolved at this level. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. Rhode Island Red is currently insisting that a voluntary and temporary recall of three of Amway's products during the 2009 Salmonella outbreak scare, due to concerns over an ingredient supplier, is worthy of inclusion in the article[77]. He also insists in deleting the relevant information that this recall involved nearly 4000 products from hundreds of companies, which significantly changes the perspective for the reader[78]. This is clear POV pushing of something that is WP:NOTNEWS. These editors are apparently in denial over the effect their extreme POV is having on their editing. Their continued ranting on this page in fruitless attempts to get me banned is merely reflective of this--Icerat (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

A simple search of icerat and amway via google produces a lot of material some of which would raise red flags regarding COI if they are all by the same person.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Eye Industries

User admitted on their userpage that they have a COI and represent Eye Industries. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 03:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User name blocked as a WP:CORPNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero energy design

The article in question was written solely by this user, who identifies himself on the talk page as being the creator of the phrase and also the article. The article has several problems (most notably a non-neutral tone throughout). 76.117.247.55 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for G11 speedy deletion. It's pure article spam as far as I am concerned. – ukexpat (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted and salted. – ukexpat (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And right back also under different capitalization.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Energy_Design -- Avanu (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
That's been deleted as well. Looking at other edits made, I see dubious patterns. Could someone else check my observations and (I've been out of the administration end of WpA for some time) suggest what to do? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

The username is suspicious. camr nag 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed this editor's OR comments on the reliability of the NYT piece. I also removed external sources, per WP policy. I'll remove some of the excessive, imho, references listed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Super Lawyers

This article was created and almost exclusively edited by Blase40. It is pretty much the only contributions Blase40 has made to WP since first registering. Yet, according to Blase40's user page, his stated interests have nothing to do legal articles. Thus, his single interest in this article seems odd. The only explicit connection I see on his user page is he says he's from Minnesota, which is also the home state of the company that owns Super Lawyers. I'm not accusing him of a conflict, but I think it should be investigated and have no idea how that is done. Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI aside, the article is a massive spamfest and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed. I had tagged it with a multiple issues tag but stopped short of requesting a speedy deletion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The article has been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
On the general issue: We don't usually "investigate" possible COIs, and when we do, it's done by looking at Special:Contributions, and seeing whether the person's edits appear to form a pattern of abusing Wikipedia for (probable) personal gain (which may not necessarily involve money). There's no magic pixie dust that allows a special investigation for abusing Wikipedia to promote yourself; anyone can do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

David Eppstein

I've gone through the history of the article of David Eppstein and at least half of it has been written by user:David Eppstein himself! There is a serious issue here. user:David Eppstein should stop intervening in Wikipedia articles to impose his way and opinions too, I can give several examples but I start by signaling his unethical behavior to get at least a warning, if not something else (I would also expect a notability tag in the article and eventually a deletion proposal). To mention one of his many edits to his own Wikipedia article there is: 21:19, 21 August 2006 David Eppstein (talk | contribs) (1,333 bytes) (Fill out a little more detail using the page for Paul_Dourish as a model). In multiple occasions he has added categories, reversed other people's contributions, added his Erdos number, references, links, etc. counting for at least half of what has been written about him in his Wikipedia article (realistically I think it is 60 or 70 percent of the article). See Revision as of 17:37, 19 June 2006 and you will see how user:David Eppstein has orchestrated his Wikipedia article himself. The version as of 17:37, 19 June 2006 is much more appropriate for what I would think should be a Wikipedia article of an ordinary professor lucky to have a Wikipedia article for himself. If you want me to post more details please let me know. I think it is against the spirit of Wikipedia and of an ethical conduct. Strangely enough, the user user:Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been defending Eppstein behavior by reversing every attempt to raise the notability issue by attacking the people discussing the subject. It is true that I got into Eppstein article following a reversal and minor disagreement (only a second reversal in an article), but don't let his editor friends to deviate from the issue. Eppstein had claimed that an article I was citing was not notable enough, so when I look who was telling this I find all this mess that you may agree is more than unethical despite how I got into it. Now I am convinced that Eppstein imposes his personal opinions and ways in Wikipedia but one thing at a time so let's start with his unethical intervention in his own article. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor (operating under two IPs, 90.46.37.131 and 90.46.178.235) is violating AGF and NPA policies on many pages, using at least two IPs. The mathematics and computer science projects were alterted about this editor's retaliation, when David reverted his addition of a new paper to an article on cellular automata.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Kieffer is acting in bad faith, once I applied my change based in a published paper in a recognized journal in the Celular automata article that was reverted, I didn't take any further action. One of the most common mistakes that people make when receiving criticism from others is they take it as a personal affront or as a demeaning personal attack. This is not the case, and I haven't changed my IP on purpose, I have always identified myself not pretending to be many people but the same, my IP is dynamic and it is not my fault, I'm a well intended new comer to Wikipedia and I find all this unfortunate behavior of some people. I haven't touched any other math or c.s. article as Kieffer seems to suggest. I am sticking to facts, check the article history of David Eppstein. I am only saying that user:David Eppstein has written most of his own Wikipedia article protected by people like Kieffer that immediately reacts in this way against everybody that comes with some criticism against Eppstein page. I find outrageous, against the Wikipedia policy and all ethical behavior the way in which Eppstein and Kieffer are reacting. They will certainly come here with friends and accuse me of whatever they want, but people should stick to the fact I am pointing out, that is that Eppstein has intervened too much in his own article and that a notability tag, at least, was completely justified (they reverted it and then protected the page), if not much more warning tags should be placed. Please also read the Notability section of David Eppstein's article to follow the discussion. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Greg, please review Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space and its prohibition on personal attacks on talk pages of articles and on editor's talk pages.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A possibly somewhat related discussion is the following: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#David_Eppstein_and_Cellular_automaton:_Second_opinion. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, but more briefly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science#David_Eppstein_and_Cellular_automaton:_Second_opinion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) I don't see a conflict of interest issue here. While David Eppstein does have a COI, it is a declared one. And, looking at the article history, he has barely edited the article itself in recent history. He does comment a lot on the talk page, which could be an issue but I wouldn't call it a major one. The article itself looks fairly neutral to me. Issues about notability are best raised on the article talk page or by taking the article to AfD. --rgpk (comment) 23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The filled COI has nothing to do with the discussion that user Kieffer is pointing out (you can read them if you want), it has to do with the simple fact that David Eppstein has mostly designed and written his own Wikipedia article as an autobiography. Nothing else. Kieffer wants to mix things up presumably to deviate attention. I think his attitude together with Eppstein's should get a strong warning. This COI is acknowledged by Eppstein himself as the main responsible of his long and cared Wikipedia article to push his notability inside and outside Wikipedia. The COI main purpose is to let people about this fact disregarding whether the complain prospers or not. At least people will start wondering whether he is really a Notable Wikipedian as he has been categorized in his own Wikipedia article, which meant he should have been acted with the highest standards and not with double standards. Others to judge if this is a major or not COI and the action to take. 90.46.37.131 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The complaining editor has been blocked for one week.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This report is due to a misunderstanding of procedures used at Wikipedia, or a misunderstanding of WP:COI. The user who made the report (90.46.x.x) added a claim to cellular automaton which was reverted by David Eppstein; 90.46.x.x then questioned the notability of the article David Eppstein. After the notability was explained, 90.46.x.x prepared this report. Reading Talk:David Eppstein shows that there is a history of people using the article talk page to poke the user, so I have prepared the following notes to show there is no COI problem.

The user account User:David Eppstein was created in August 2006 and became an administrator in June 2007 (logs). Of course the user has a COI with regard to the article, and that is why the user has carefully followed WP:COI apart from his second edit to Wikipedia, in August 2006. All history of the article is here, and the first 50 edits by the user are here.

Edits by User:David Eppstein to article David Eppstein:

  • 2006: One edit that added neutral facts; category tweaks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
  • 2007: Category tweaks, wikilink, title correction, add doctoral advisor; revert one minor attack: 6, 7, 8, 9
  • 2008: Revert two minor attacks; correct misguided change of birth place and trivia concerning name and avocation; update broken URL: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
  • 2009: Revert vandalism; add Category:Palo Alto High School alumni: 15, 16, 17
  • 2010: No edits.
  • 2011: Revert misguided editor who was adding "Jewish" labels to various articles: 18

The above shows there is no COI issue. Would an uninvolved administrator please review the situation and provide some mentorship for 90.46.x.x. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't have a lot to say or add here, but (1) isn't there a requirement that editors be notified of discussions about them? Because I received no such notification, and only found out about this incidentally because of some wikiproject talk pages on my watchlist. And (2) to rgpk re my activity on Talk:David Eppstein being something that "could be an issue": isn't that exactly what WP:COIC explicitly recommends? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying it could be an issue not that it is an issue. Extensive use of the talk page to suggest changes and content additions, while allowed by policy, are one way in which a COI editor can shape an article. Other than that possibility, I don't see any COI issues. --rgpk (comment) 11:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
      • To the original IP who posted this report, please note at the top of this page, where it states quite clearly, Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you. -- Atama頭 17:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • rgpk: Extensive use of a talk page could be an issue, but that observation is not helpful in a case like this (when WP:COIN is being misused), and particularly not when David Eppstein has made only 39 of the 169 total edits to the article talk page (averaging 0.7 comments per month since September 2006). Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (od) I have offered mentor/adoption for this IP user in hopes of helping him gain a better understanding of WP, its policies and develop him as a contributor. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Political positions of Newt Gingrich

I am the Online Communications Director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. Last week I made a request for assistance regarding the incomplete, unbalanced final sentence of the "Entitlement reform" section of the Political positions of Newt Gingrich article, here: [79]. I proposed an alternative on the article's talk page[80], though I have received no replies. Later I saw a better treatment of the same circumstances in the Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012 article, here: [81]. This weekend, I asked this section's author on his or her talk page about working on the "Entitlement reform" section but the user has not returned. Also, Gingrich since made an appearance on Face the Nation where he made clear that he was speaking to a general principle that large scale change should not be imposed without the consent of the American people.[1] I would like to ask here for someone willing to take the time to read through these sections and the explanation offered on CBS and help make "Entitlement reform" include a fuller context, including Gingrich's later explanation. Thank you, and I'd like to help any way I can. --Joedesantis (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joededesantis, see this edit I made. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi NYyankees51, thank you. That edit certainly helps that section. However, I was most concerned with the sentence at the end of the Entitlement Reform section of Political Positions of Newt Gingrich, here: [82]. Any chance I could ask you to provide some balance there? The use of the word "however" seems as if it is a form of editorializing plus it needs to include Gingrich's explanation of the remark. Thank you for your attention to this matter. --Joedesantis (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bob Schieffer; Newt Gingrich (22 May 2011). "Face the Nation May 22, 2011 Transcript" (PDF). CBSNews.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Polo Ralph Lauren

Resolved
 – Tiggerjay (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The page has been marked as "written like an advertisment" since 2006. I did a little digging through the edits and it appears one of the first users to add suspect PR-like information was from the above IP address. This user has made a total of nine edits to the page, as well as some edits to the normal Ralph Lauren page. It turns out that there is good reason to suspect a conflict of interest here, because this IP address (according to IP-lookup.net) has ralphlauren.com as its host. I have never reported something like this before so I leave what to do up to the discretion of people who are more experienced than I, but if this page has been criticized for advertisement-like information, then perhaps there are more users to worry about on this page. Compared to other corporate pages, even Abercrombie and Fitch, this page also has no section for controversies or criticism, and has virtually no history. Aristophocles (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP address you reported hasn't edited the page in over 3 years so I don't believe there is a specific issue that is currently ongoing. Even a warning to that IP address would not likely be of any value since they are not currently editing the page. A quick review of the history since the beginning of the month shows no COI type edits, only spam and some original research which is not COI in style. But thanks for bringing it up! Tiggerjay (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What we're going to do is... to encourage you to clean up the article as best you can. That's the only practical solution to possible, years-ago promotional work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ginx TV

Resolved: Tiggerjay (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The user appears to be promoting Ginx TV and is participating in a deletion discussion on the article's talk page, where they also admit to originally writing the article. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There may be a conflict of interest here Jasmeet_181. But the article has been written in a way me or you would write it so I think the article itself should stay as its in a similar style to other channels articles. I myself started the page in question but used the draft I found after doing a search on wikipedia because I am of the opinion its of a similar style to other tv channels articles. Could do with an infobox though. Maybe a solution here is to stop the company rep from editing the artilce. But it should stay on wikipedia as its actually a good start to the article and the company is notable. And this is the opinion of a neutral editor as I have no involvement with ginx tv whatsoever.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC))
I would agree that the article should probably stay, as some third party references have now been added to help establish importance. I think that Sarahginx has breached policy by participating in a deletion discussion without declaring an interest and making edits without requesting them on the talk page (including removing a speedy deletion template) after being made aware of that they may have a conflict of interest and of how they should proceed. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I was in the process of gathering up some links to use as sources, however as you have added most of the links I found to the article already you have saved me the trouble. Happy Days LOL The article is a significant channel though so I really hope it stays and to be honest its now a lot better since you have edited it. To be honest I really wanted to create this article it is my first attempt and I went about it all wrong. We are all human and make mistakes. In future I think I will stick to editing existing articles or create the article in draft form first so I know I have got it spot on. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC))
There does appear to be some COI but nothing too out of hand, and having good faith in this new editor, Im not sure it require anything more than some coaching. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tiggerjay. I'd just like to point out, there's no official policy that I'm aware of that says you have to declare a COI when participating at AfD. Our guidelines suggest that you do declare one if you have one, simply because if you don't, and others find out, it will work strongly against you. But there's no action needed past a warning for such behavior. -- Atama頭 20:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
One thing I didn't see right away was that the COI edit did remove the AfD. That 'IS' a problem. the AfD/CSD template clearly states that the article creator shouldn't remove the tag, which happened in this case. But in the interest of good faith I assume it was simply an honest mistake. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Technically though she was not the article creator. I started the article and have nothing to do with the people the article is about. However sarah did write most of the information on a draft that I used to create the article. I felt the draft was of reasonable quality is all and that ginx tv should have a article. To clarify though I was the one who started the main page so thought that I was the only one who should not remove templates. Either way is marked as resolved now but I just want to leave some final comments. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC))
Regardless, an AfD tag should only be removed in 3 situations... If the AfD is inappropriate for whatever reason (say, a banned editor added it, or the AfD discussion was never created, etc.), or the person who added the tag changed their mind before discussion began and removes their own tag, or the AfD has been closed (in which case the closing admin should be the one to remove it). It doesn't matter if the person who removed it was the article creator, as long as there's an active AfD the tag has to stay and can't be removed. (Usually removal of the tag just warrants a warning, and action against the remover is only taken if the editor persists in removing it.) -- Atama頭 02:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. Truth be told I had never seen one of those tags before on wikipedia as far as I remember in all the time I have been a member so this information is good to know for any future tags I may come across (Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC))
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_49

Leave a Reply