Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 17

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Lucas (porn star)  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Lucas (porn star)


I was not aware of this noticeboard until just now. I'm bringing this over from the BLP noticeboard, and I've edited my comment a bit to focus on the COI issue. The other editor's comment was just added today. The page is currently under full protection due to the continual re-adding of several contested passages which are violations of BLP, one not mentioned here which involves another individual. In this case, I don't think there is any doubt of the subject's notability. The issue is his desire to control the content of his page, via his own edits, and now, apparently, through recruiting others to edit his entry. Here is my edited BLP noticeboard post and a comment placed there by another editor: -Jmh123 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page, I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas), an entry that in my opinion was clearly intended to sell a DVD, that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See also Lucas Entertainment (now merged with and redirected to his biography). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comments? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can offer my observations. When I first came across this article, I immediately noticed some conspicuous omissions vis-à-vis what I'd read about this actor Andrei Treivas (Michael Lucas): e.g., Lucas's work as a male prostitute in Europe and in NYC, Lucas's work under Jean-Daniel Cadinot, the fact that Lucas founded his production company with money he earned from working as a prostitute, and the fact that Lucas located his company in NYC (instead of the more traditional Los Angeles) because of the lack of competition in NYC.  Over time these facts were added and some balance was achieved.  Along came 216.57.17.234 (hereinafter referred to as "216") who proceeded to, at times, systematically, and at times, haphazardly, delete any mention of these facts or anything else s/he didn't like, most times without any edit summary and almost never with any dialogue on the talk page.  The only time 216 wrote on the talk page was in response to a challenge to an awards box; s/he wrote that the challenging editor should go to Johnny Hazzard's page or Chi Chi Larue's page and edit their awards boxes, in effect saying, "this is my page, leave it alone and go edit somebody else's page." I cannot be sure that 216 and Lucas are one and the same, but it's a well-known fact that Lucas is a shameless self-promoter.  216 has added and re-added material that promoted the products of Lucas's production company, sometimes using the same phrasing as that used in the company's website.  In a 4 April edit on a related page, that of Lucas's "La Dolce Vita" film, 216 added the entire plot section lifted directly from the production company website.  And in one peculiar addition on 24 April, 216 added "lungfish" to the list of animals living with Lucas in NYC.  Go try and find anything on the internet about lungfish and Lucas -- you won't.  Based on her/his history, I don't think it will be sufficient to place the page under partial protection or to even block 216 from editing.  216's confederates will simply come along and edit as they please, as seen in the activity of Theshape4 while the page was under partial.  I don't know the exact jargon to express this, but I would suggest two things:  have the activities of 216, Lucasent, and Theshape4 investigated for the issues you've raised; and, have the page placed under the form of protection whereby additions can only be made by an authority from Wikipedia.  Thank you for your good work.  71.127.230.77 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This fight has broken out again, and there is edit warring, name calling, and the like going on. If anyone wants to check for sockpuppetry, unregistered user User:Lucasent and User:216.57.17.234 are both engaging.  The other IPs on the anti-Lucas side are nearly all the same individual.  While he is being accused of changing IPs deliberately, it may simply be in the nature of his system.  At any rate, he doesn't pretend to be more than one person.  The situation is too heated for me today; I have other things that I must do.  If anyone wants to step in, please do.  -Jmh123 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: 216 returned 20 July, edit-warred over the article in question (although never reaching the 3RR limit) until Durova protected it 14 August, the 5th time this page has been protected. Anyone else see a trend here? -- llywrch 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | James Sherley  –  Inactive since early July 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

James Sherley
I'm having a little trouble with a couple of accounts that appear to have probably been created by MIT professors or students. The only edits these accounts make are to the James Sherley article, and these accounts usually turn half the article into a defense of MIT's not granting Sherley tenure. While MIT's position merits mentioning, it shouldn't dominate the article, and be careful of the links the accounts add also, as they do not always back up the statements being made in the article by the attack accounts. Chicken Wing 09:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Technical analysis  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Technical analysis


Rgfolsom, who acknowledges his COI (he runs writes for a technical analysis business), keeps removing a POV tag from an article where there is a dispute over the NPOV status of the article. (Among other problems, the article has a criticism section.) I don't object to Rgfolsom editing articles where he has an "expertise", but I do object to the POV-pushing of this pseudoscience and undue weight given to the minority view that there is any validity to technical analysis. THF 22:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

And there seems to be some unusual tagteaming going on with. THF 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (belatedly struckthrough with apology to Sposer 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))


 * I do not acknowledge a COI, and I do not run a technical analysis business. A similar COI accusation was made against me in an arbitration case that was decided in this past March -- the committee ruled unanimously in my favor. The suggestion by THF of sock or meat puppetry shows an incivility and lack of good faith that speaks for itself. --Rgfolsom 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The committee ruled unanimously that you had a conflict of interest, but the other editor you were in a dispute with had acted worse than you. The committee did not write you a permanent blank check, much less absolve you of a COI.  I have no idea what your relationship is with Sposer, but it's curious that the two of you edit the same articles at the same times.  There is tagteaming going on that is preventing any single editor from fixing problems with the article; that can be for innocent reasons. THF 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (strikethrough 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

If we were playing tag team, he probably would have told me about this page the 2+ weeks ago, when it was posted. Instead, I found it on my own today. Note that I have removed some of his edits in the technical analysis article. Sposer 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further to your accusation, my expertise is technical analysis, and specifically Elliott Wave (in fact a interpretation that Rgfolsom's employer would disagree with). I found these pages on my own. I have also made a couple of minor factual corrections/additions to the NYSE page (my employer), although I have decided to stop that going forward. I have also been involved on the talk page for the George Soros article, and made a change to the Sicko article, which got reverted (and was more in line with your thoughts there). I have been tracking this page, and despite your accusation here, even defended your edits on Sicko as not being COI. You will tend to find technical analysts interested in editing pages on that subject, just as you will find economists on those pages, etc. I suspect many of the policy-oriented pages you edit have Brookings Institution types shadowing as well. There is no tag-team or collusion.Sposer 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Games Workshop  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Games Workshop
- this IP is owned by Games Workshop PLC and has been used to edit articles relating to Games Workshop products. Most of their edits are old – I only came across this IP in the last couple of days - and This isn’t a very serious case but some COI edits have been made, by adding what looks like promotional spam to pages. 

Most of their edits are just clean-ups. Others are unsourced and possible spam

These are the articles that this user has edited with a possible COI: I'm not sure what action to take, generally this IP has made constructive edits elsewhere and is mostly cleaning-up articles where they have a COI, but a games workshop IP editting Games Workshop articles has the potential for real COI issues-- Cailil  talk 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Warhammer 40,000 spin-offs
 * INFERNO!
 * White Dwarf (magazine)
 * Games Workshop
 * Warhammer: Mark of Chaos
 * Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning
 * The editor doesn't have many contributions, and none of them seems to provide a COI/spam problem. I would say it's not a problem. We don't necessarily discourage editors from making minor changes about subjects that concern them; we mostly suggest they avoid major changes or spam-like insertions. As there are one or two edits that might be a problem, I've simply templated the IP; hopefully this should resolve the problem. The Evil Spartan 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another addition on 14th August. Appears to be an author adding to his own article. It looks like this address is a proxy for multiple addresses in the company. There's not much to do unless we start getting WP:PEACOCK issues; I suggest closing in a few days if no one else adds anything. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Buy.com  –  Inactive since July 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Buy.com
(Moved from WP:AIV)

This user is apparently someone at buy.com who has, according to the original complaint, been editing the article to remove a great deal of (admittedly unsourced) negative information based on "personal experience". S/he justifies himself on the talk page. Daniel Case 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

COI ✅ through RDNS. MER-C 02:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Provide diffs please. If the editor has been making good edits, but not following WP:COI, there is a case for WP:IAR.  The editor should be gently informed of our rules, and asked to notify us of future problems via the talk page or this noticeboard.  - Jehochman  Talk 02:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Robert Prechter  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Robert Prechter
User Rgfolsom works for Prechter, and is edit-warring to sanitize the and POV-push on Prechter-related articles contrary to talk-page consensus after losing multiple WP:3O rulings and RFCs. Editor has announced that he will violate WP:3RR to sanitize Robert Prechter article on specious grounds of WP:BLP. See also Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). THF 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * THF is venue shopping his accusations -- administrators can please look here to see what an admin said on the BLP noticeboard, especially about THF's removal of the reputable source in the first diff listed above. The BLP noticeboard diff also includes another diff that will shed light on my "losing" other rulings and RFCs. Please let me know if I can answer any questions, I welcome help from any administrator.--Rgfolsom 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's so much that THF is venue shopping, as that he is being told that this is the appropriate venue. I am perfectly willing to concede that Rgfolsom may well feel that he is defending The Truth from vandals; but that doesn't diminish the fact that there is a major COI here on all three articles (Ted left out Socionomics, currently the subject of an AfD2 discussion that Folsom is active on), and that Folsom is often the sole advocate of the edits he makes. If there weren't a COI involved, we'd still have a bad case of a WP:OWN problem. -- Orange Mike 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the third noticeboard that two or three editors are using to edit war by other means (after failing on the other two noticeboards).


 * These diffs show that THF especially sides with the critics' material, and uses a conjectural interpretation of a source.


 * As I explained on the BLP notice board, the diffs also show that I have tried to offer compromises edits that another editor received in good faith, but THF rejected the effort with insulting and uncivil language. Bad faith is manifest in these violations, and I have appealed for an administrator's intervention. Regarding the suggestion of a COI, administrators may wish to know that there was an arbitration case about these issues decided earlier this year: here's the text of the decision--Rgfolsom 15:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A March 2007 arbitration decision did not give you imprimatur to repeatedly delete a July 2007 verified reference to Prechter's investment results or to violate WP:NPOVD by removing an NPOV tag without talk-page consensus. THF 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference is not "verified," and there is obvious reason to believe that you yourself do not have access to the reference, as I show here. Administrators can please check talk page and diffs above to learn all they need to know. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger

 * User:CHTRCwebmaster/Sandbox
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Dr. Gary Berger

? '' See also :Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam

mostly clean however additional monitoring will most likely be needed. --Hu12 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | HughesNet  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

HughesNet

 * - IP address 67.142.131.41 has made edits that read like they were written by an Public Relations department. Many of them are weasel-worded.  Here's a link to the changes.   I have WHOISed the IP and it resolves to HughesNet.   Because HughesNet is an ISP, there is a possibility that they are not guilty of these charges, however the additions are phrased exactly how the HughesNet Public Relations people would probably phrase them, making it likely that they have been behind these edits. Life, Liberty, Property 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see these edits as amounting to the addition of unsourced positive material about the merits of the company. The wording very much resembles the style of a press release rather than an encyclopedia.  DGG (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Whitley  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Whitley

 * author of The Father of Hollywood: The True Story, great-granddaughter of Hobart Johnstone (HJ) Whitley
 * wife of HJ Whitley (questionable notability)
 * location named after HJ Whitley
 * ip making similar edits
 * ip making similar edits
 * ip making similar edits
 * ip making similar edits
 * ip making similar edits

Username, promotional tone and focus on citing thefatherofhollywood.com suggest a possible COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gordon, didn't you !vote Keep at  the AfD for "Father of Hollywood"  ? DGG 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I voted Keep for Hobart Whitley, as he looks notable. The COI over editing it is a different matter. Gordonofcartoon 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a pretty likely coi. Editor is likely Gaelyn Whitley Keith given the edits and username.  Note that the book publication date according to Amazon is 21 March 2007, which predates almost all of the edits on the subject. --Ronz 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of these articles look AFD-able. Do a POV-ectomy on whatever remains.  Looks like a single purpose COI account, but not active enough to be particularly worrisome.  Durova Charge! 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | User Topiarydan  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:Topiarydan

 * editor claims he's "Topiary Communications President, Dan Schramm."


 * editor added spam to corp website
 * article created by editor, linking to corp wiki article
 * article created by editor, linking to corp wiki article
 * article created by the editor including spam to corp product website, riskmanagerpro.com
 * article created by editor
 * article created and heavily edited by the editor after being given a coi warning, including spam to corp website
 * article created by editor that contained spam to corp website
 * article about the corp, created and heavily edited by the editor
 * article about the corp, created and heavily edited by the editor


 * Editor was given coi warning on 04:20, 28 May 2007 for edits to date.
 * Editor was given uw-spam2 warning for edits on 29 July 2007, for spamming Topiary Communications's website, personalpro.com.
 * Editor has repeatedly justified his edits by pointing out similar behavior from others. --Ronz 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a soft-ish block warning because I'm not sure this editor understands site standards. Follow up if problems continue.  Durova Charge! 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Topiary Communications.  Dei z  talk 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Alasdair Taylor  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Alasdair Taylor


Scottish artist of borderline notability, but the subject of a campaign by Alasdair Gray and others to raise his profile. Gray's blog post on the topic has a comment from an Avril Rennie that "He has been a good friend of mine for almost 40 years now". I've tried to deal with this with a light touch, but I'm not getting much useful response to my advice about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks like a sincere editor and a possibly notable artist, so I've handled this gently. Follow up if problems continue.  Durova Charge! 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think a cluebat mentorship is needed about basic policies, particularly the need for citation. Gordonofcartoon 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've suggested WP:ADOPT. Suggest a soft touch here: this is someone who's trying to honor a deceased friend.  If there were no notability I'd recommend a polite delete.  This may turn into a decent article.  The editor's tone is a bit emotional, and being so close to the subject makes it hard to write about, but it's not a formal COI.  More like a poor choice for an editor's first article.  Durova Charge! 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be enough material for notability: the two texts from the retrospective brochure, and Alasdair Gray's statement (he's eminent enough that I think his blog post can be taken as a data point). But however soft the touch, the OR is going to have to go at some point. Gordonofcartoon 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a plea not to be too hasty in removing stuff from the article. I've recently succeeded in acquiring some books with a view to improving the West Kilbride article (which still needs a lot of work), and I'm sure I could use these to supply refs on North Bank Cottage and Portencross. But it's likely to be a while before I can get round to doing this. WP:ADOPT is a good idea.
 * --NSH001 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously views vary, but a lot of people go by the hardline advice at WP:V: Jimmy Wales' comment that unsourced information should not be left for long, if at all. It can always be re-added when sources are available.
 * But by far the better method is to follow WP:V and not to get into this situation in the first place; i.e. if editors don't add material until they have the source. Then there is none of this potential for antagonism when the unsourced material is challenged. Gordonofcartoon 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm backing out of this (I've reached a point where it's hard to be objective about the material itself). However, a little background research makes me less certain about lenience being appropriate. This is not the first article where has written about a friend and then complained about the application of Wikipedia standards. Other unsourced articles with potential COI were Margaret Kidd (now dealt with, but originally "a piece about the pioneering (woman) lawyer Dame Margaret Kidd whom I had the privilege to know" ) and Phillip Clancey (see where she's conducting OR on a blog "I am a relative by marriage of the late Dr Phillip Clancey  ... I wish to write a piece on Wikipedia about Phillip, and should value any contributions from yourself or others").
 * Sandra Brown (campaigner) - see ("I do not agree with you that the article reads like an advertisement. I know Sandra Brown personally, and I count her as a friend. But I have written the article in a very balanced manner, without overstatement or inaccuracy of any kind")

One mistaken creation of an unsourced article with COI is excusable, but this is a pattern. Gordonofcartoon 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Xirrus  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Xirrus


I have watched over the last week as various editors have tried to respond to this company's vanity postings. They were deleted once with a db-spam and now the TE's JLmerrill and Chomperhead have started trying to reinstate them. I was so upset by such persistent violation of the rules given above every page edit box not to promote your own company that I created this SPA to join the effort to defeat this. Chomperhead is either a colleague or employer of Jlmerrill and both are employees/owners of Xirrus. Can I prove it beyond doubt, no. Is it likely, well first Jlmerrill avoided the issue chomperhead denied it then admitted that merril was an employee. I looked up merril on linkedin.com where he is listed as marketing/technologist. When I edited his user page to reflect his employment it was blanked and deleted. Chomperhead has already edited merrill's edits on nawlinks page before he claims on the xirrus talk page to have done research and "outed" me.

I request that jlmerril and chomperhead be blocked and that Xirrus be deleted and protected so they can't reinstate it again under yet more names. I will be responding to the call to police corporate vanity pages by editing others with db-spam, I have to start somewhere. If you wish to block me as an SPA as well as these two then so be it.

Eloheim 06:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put Xirrus up for AFD. It certainly doesn't look notable. Gordonofcartoon 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Michael Lounsbury  –  Inactive since early August 2007  – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Michael Lounsbury

 * - the original author of the page is the subject (as he has admitted on my talk page). In order to try to get a broader view, he says that he's had several colleagues add to the page. However, this still presents a COI problems, and it's unclear if the new usernames are actually just sockpuppets or not (it seems at least plausible that they're sockpuppets, and that he's simply striving to keep the page from deletion). In any case, the page appears to be fairly neutral, so I promised to remove the autobiography tag, but I would like to ask for some verification. The Evil Spartan 17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | User Brookie  –  Resolved. – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User Brookie
User has created a number of articles about family members, and one about his/her apparent late father's architecture practice. Articles include:


 * Arthur Marshman - See also Articles for deletion/Arthur Marshman
 * Marshman Warren Taylor - co-listed with the above
 * Joshua Marshman
 * John Clark Marshman
 * Hannah Marshman

John and Joshua have decent claims to notability, although the articles are very wordy (a huge excerpted obituary as well as full account of tombstone inscription for John), and links and references are pretty niche. However, I saw little in Hannah Marshman's article - she was a female missionary in India (uncited claim she was the first), she opened a school and was well-known in the community etc. There is also an extremely lengthy excerpt from an obituary which seems to dwarf the article somewhat. Brookie is an admin and likely well aware of the guidelines, perhaps we'll get a better idea of Brookie's thoughts during the current AfD. Given the nature of the articles it is perhaps self-evident that there could be a WP:OWN issue here, the AfD nominator has certainly expressed concerns that Brookie summarily deletes fact tags without comment or addition of references.  Dei z  talk 12:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings! If any of the articles on my relatives - some quite distant - are thought NN, then they can of course go through due process as they are at present - that's the system! Tag deletion has happened on a bad day - and as well as being rather dumb,probably shouldn't have - slapped wrist and lesson learned! Was not aware of any ban on relatives contributing to articles and as long as what is produced is balanced then I personally can't see any major prob's with that - useful articles might not be created if interested parties can't contribute on areas of interest. As for comments re style and other content - this is of course open to anyone to edit. I don't propose to contribute to any afds on these articles and will let the system take its course as it should.  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 10:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Deiz's assessment of notabilities. John Clark, Joshua and Hannah are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is my personal yardstick for notability. One style/content point that applies, though, is the guideline Don't include copies of primary sources - long obits etc should be summarised. Some of the sources seem insufficiently specified: books such as "John Clark Marshman (a trustworthy Friend of India)" (2nd Edition), Sunil Kumar Chatterjee (2001) track to a now-defunct niche website. Gordonofcartoon 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | TheLadders.com  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

TheLadders.com

 * User:Abe.Froman works for TheLadders.com and is making edits of introducing external links to his site in middle of the article and removing an advertisement tag Take a look at http://boycottupoc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7&Itemid=36 for proof and the last table on the page which is a screenshot of his myspace page which lists theladders.com as his place of employment. Brownkit 12:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This new user's presence on Wikipedia seems to be exclusively dedicated toward stalking articles I edit .  I have posted a personal information warning to this new user's talk page because he is attempting to identify Wikipedia editors on websites stored off of Wikipedia.   This new user is linked to this dispute, in which an online vigilante group has been threatening other Wikipedia editors.  Wikipedia editors have a right to anonymity.  Situations like this should warrant a temporary block.  See this edit summary , and the example posted above by the new user.  Abe Froman 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I urge User:Brownkit to refactor his above attempt to expose the identity of another Wikipedian. The article he has reported to us, TheLadders.com, DOES read like an advertisement. If the advertisement problem is found to be serious, nothing prevents User:Brownkit or anyone else from nominating the article for deletion. He could also ask editors here to look at the article and give their opinion. I myself wouldn't nominate it for deletion as it stands though it might be shortened. I took out some excess external links from the article (see Talk:TheLadders.com).


 * Some people would not qualify this as a bona fide COI issue, though I suggest the issue be left up for a few more days to get more comments. User:Abe.Froman may consider if he wants to seek remedies for Brownkit's comments about his identity through admin channels. EdJohnston 05:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Dante Santiago Autobiography? – Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Dante Santiago Autobiography?

 * - claims to be the subject of the article, . I have warned him that it would be best that he no longer work on this article due to conflict of interest issues and the WP:AUTO guideline.  He has continued to be the primary contributor to this article as the history shows.  Additionally, this article cites no references and bears a "sounds like advertising" tag.  Could an administrator join me in encouraging User:Dantesantiago to cease editing his own article?  Ursasapien (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David Rocker  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David Rocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.118.207.251
 * User:63.118.207.251
 * David Rocker

David Rocker founded and recently retired from Rocker Partners LP, which is now know as Copper River. 63.118.207.251 IP from Copper River office in NJ blanked large sections of reliably sourced material without explanation. Piperdown 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Only one change. Watchlist and revert as needed. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Electronic Arts  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Electronic Arts

 * - See this blog entry on GameSpot, which cited this report on Shacknews as its source. Someone used Wikipedia Scanner and traced some suspicious edits to EA HQ, which definitely reeks of a conflict of interest. Jesse Viviano 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Madden Nation  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Madden Nation

 * - has performed a major rewrite of Madden Nation. This IP is traceable to EA. Jesse Viviano 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Writing Motivation  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Writing Motivation

 * - User's main source is user's own research / website. 67.53.243.21 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - User's main source is user's own research / website. 67.53.243.21 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - User's main source is user's own research / website. 67.53.243.21 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - User's main source is user's own research / website. 67.53.243.21 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Reading Motivation Questionnaire. The rest smell like original research, but I'm not really sure what to do with them. MER-C 09:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that they read like mainly self-serving entries. Perhaps sweeping edits can be made to remove original research and reach consensus?  I'm too new to feel confident in running amok with these, yet, but felt I'd weigh in with my opinion.  Trainstock 00:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | HedgeStreet  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

HedgeStreet
? '' See also : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Entergy  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Entergy

 * - This IP which is owned by Entergy has removed unflattering content and added PR sounding content. Actively editing at this moment, just removed more info about future nuclear operations. Birgitte  SB  18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They appear to have stopped after I issued a warning. I've created a new template,, which is a more strongly worded version of  useful in cases like this where a conflict is clearly presumable. Raymond Arritt 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | National Sexuality Resource Center  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

National Sexuality Resource Center

 * deleted
 * Location: San Francisco, California
 * Location: San Francisco, California
 * Reg: San Francisco State University
 * Location: San Francisco, California
 * Location: San Francisco, California
 * Reg: San Francisco State University
 * Reg: San Francisco State University

Linksearch current Linksearch current Linksearch current Linksearch current Linksearch current

? '' See also : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun

Long term obvious WP:COI, through the use of citation spamming and exclusive Promotion of National Sexuality Resource Center. is a self admitted employee of the National Sexuality Resource Center as evidenced on his/her userpage. The accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on promoting National Sexuality Resource Center and their two online publications, American Sexuality magazine, and Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of the NSRC, through links, citations and articles.--Hu12 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The editor appears to have actual knowledge of the field so I've left a caution about the spam blacklist instead of a block warning.  I hope this yields a broader and less promotional strategy.  If problems continue, recommend (in order):
 * Add the above sites to spam blacklist.
 * Pursue block/ban as single purpose WP:COI, WP:SPAM account. Durova Charge! 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some of the pages Sexperts has edited on my watchlist, and feel that the enforcement of perceived COI violations looks more like hostility to expertise to me than enforcement of conflict of interest rules. I am troubled by this, and so decided to comment. (I do not know Sexperts and have no relationship with his/her organization.) --Pleasantville 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If a person is genuinely interested in sharing expertise then surely he or she will share references to colleagues' work as well? Durova Charge! 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | User Biblebelievers  –  Inactive since mid-August 2007  – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

User:Biblebelievers

 * (probable sock, though perhaps a GF inadvertent logout)
 * (probable sock, though perhaps a GF inadvertent logout)

Supporter of the anti-Semitic group is trying to sanitize the articles, and making anti-Semitic edits; has disregarded COI warning left 18 August. THF 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Children in a Burning House – Deleted – 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Children in a Burning House

 * – This editor, who appears to be the author Douglas Soesbe, is a single-purpose account whose work has been restricted to creating a bio article on himself and several short spam articles promoting his books – one of which is the article filed in this header. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've left him a uw-coi warning. Feel free to prod or AFD the remaining articles.  - Jehochman  Talk 01:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Bunx – Deleted – 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Bunx

 * - Record label with apparently only one signing, created by username who has also added his one signed artist, Charlie McCartney. It's a two-for-the-price-of-one special COI today folks :) --Blowdart 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Vinko Mandl – Deleted – 03:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Vinko Mandl

 * - Appears to be a conflict of interest. Keeps removing the tags placed on the page despite warnings on the user's talk page & on the article's talk page. -- (signed with four tildes by some user, not me, but they did not close a comment and so when I fixed that it turned their comment into my name)
 * Comment - I've been watching this and have put this article up on AfD.  Into The Fray   T / C  03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Campus Destinations, Inc. – Deleted – 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Campus Destinations, Inc.

 * - article's only editor is a no longer active user ABan84 whose only contributions were this article.  The CEO of the company is listed as "Arup Banerjee"
 * No references other than the company's own website, claimed startup date was last year. WP:AFD it.  Durova Charge! 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Non-notable, no real info here. Articles_for_deletion/Campus_Destinations%2C_Inc. --carlb 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Study Island – Deleted – 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Study Island

 * - This article is repeatedly edited by one or two people, who keep removing any changes other people make to it. The only thing they add are more and more advertising-like content. When I left an advert template warning on the page, it was deleted a few minutes later by the same person.

"According to a 2005 teacher survey of Study Island users, 98% said the software increased student test scores by 12.2%; 95.9% say their students enjoy using Study Island; and 97.2% plan on renewing Study Island next school year."

"Today, Study Island has more than 4 million users and ranks as the 48th fastest growing private company in Inc500."

"The people 'on the Island' have a passion for education, a strong work ethic, and a commitment to always act with integrity and honesty. Over the years Study Island has developed a reputation among its customers for having a long-term commitment to providing them with great value and treating them with respect."

There's something fishy here... — ThreeDee912 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One month semiprotection and a POVectomy. Still needs citation tags.  Recommend polite warnings for the IP and account who've been active there.  They seem to be very new and unfamiliar with site standards.  Follow up if problems continue.  Durova Charge! 04:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The user that originally created the page seems to have returned and removed the NPOV and lock notices, although the article is still semi-locked. I added a simple advert notice to the user's talk page. — ThreeDee912 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The username making the edits is Lucy.casimir. I looked up "Lucy Casimir" on Google, and found she is possibly a marketing coordinator for various companies, one of them named "Affinity4", which is some kind of "charity reseller" (?). — ThreeDee912 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://marketing.meetup.com/46/members/3343759/
 * http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache%3Aij2QUjOhp2sJ%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.studyisland.com%2Fsalessheets%2FLab%2520Contest%2520Winner%2520(TX).doc%20Lucy%20casimir


 * I speedy deleted the article per "CSD G11 Blatant advertisement masquerading as an article. See WikiSpam." If you disagree with that Durova, please let me know and I will restore. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Jeff Bays – 2 articles deleted – 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Jeff Bays
User:Rugz, formerly User:Borgus, has indicated in the context of an image copyright discussion that he is the owner of "Borgus Productions", i.e. presumably Jeff Bays (aka "Borgus"), an audio producer and media personality. Rugz/Borgus is the principal author of the Jeff Bays bio article and of Not From Space, an article about a work produced by him and his company. The article consists largely of text copied from the company's publicity releases. I'd appreciate it if somebody could lend a hand checking for neutrality and notability. Fut.Perf. ¤ 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles now at AfD. -- Jreferee   T / C  06:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | eComXpo – Resolved – 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

eComXpo


COI Accusation - Request for Relief - When I first contacted the COI Noticeboard and requested relief from the COI accusation made by User:Cerejota against me, were things discussed, but no decision could be made due an official Request for mediation that was made by Ceretoja. The request was rejected yesterday, because one editor that was added by Cerejota to be part of the mediation did not sign the agreement for a mediation of the issues with the article eComXpo. It is now back to when I made my original request for relief of the COI accusations that were made against me by Cerejota in combination with the article to the conference and trade show eComXpo. I explained in detail my involvement with eComXpo here to demonstrate that COI does not apply to me, because I am not employed by them not have any other vendor/client relationship that would be relevant for having a "conflict of interest" if I am editing the article. For a complete summary of the events that lead to the accusation in correct chronological order, see this page at my user space. I request that the COI accusations made against me will be rejected that I will be able to work on the article again (and remove the COI template from it) without hearing this argument against me and any edit I make in the article in the future. Thanks. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that, if your only involvement was as a panelist at a Con, and if you were not paid any cash honorarium, then that is not a conflict of interest to edit to article. But don't listen to me, as I am not a sysop. Bearian 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. Yep, that was my involvement with the company. I mentioned all details at the talk page and also referred to the recording of the panel itself. The previous discussion here at the noticeboard (before the request for mediation) said the pretty much the same, but no decision by the board could be made, because the other editor pulled the COI accusation into the mediation request. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Compromise possible? Is there a chance we can get agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise? I have read through the AfDs and the DRV, and have seen the controversy about the sources. I can live with the sources that are still in the article.  In exchange for the compromise, we would (if accepted)


 * Drop all the COI allegations;
 * The tags would be removed from the article;
 * The people who want to put back previously-removed sources would stop trying;
 * The people trying to take away further sources, or re-nominate for AfD, would agree to stop;
 * Anyone planning to open new dispute resolution cases, in all forums, would agree to stop.


 * Who is willing to consider this? EdJohnston 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am. As I stated in the article talk page, I have no problem with the current version. I disagree there is no COI, however the talk page warns users about this, so I can live with that. However, someone please coach roy on the ins-and-out of forum fishing... Thanks! --Cerejota 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is content that does not fall under the COI allegation that should be re-added to the article to improve on its quality (probably re-edited and not as in its previous form). There is plenty of material on the talk page regarding that. None of it was implemented into the article, because I said that I won't edit the article as long as the COI allegation against me exists and is being used to discount my edits. If COI applies to me in case of this article is nothing "to negotiate" or "bargin with". Either I have a conflict or I don't, based on the definitions made in WP:COI. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Quote: "agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise" This would not be a compromise, but a ratification of Cerejotas actions. Any argument from anybody that says otherwise would be wiped off the table. It would acknowledge the means used by Cerejota as right and the way to do it. It would make the efforts by me and other editors to reach consensus look like a waste of time. I don't think that this would send a positive signal to other editors. Again, this is not the time and place for this kind of debate. The COIN can and should only make a decission about whether or not COI applies to the editor (me) regarding eComXpo or not. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The current article is as close to the standard as it's going to get. roy, I say this all due respect to the experience and great passion you show in your editing, but you do not need relief, and you don't get a pass for relentlessly trying to beat a fellow editor to death over a minor article. You do not have that luxury, ever, no matter what you think the editor did/said/intended. It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs, but that's not going to happen if you keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like. Your COI is not about dollars or being a name in a brochure; it's about crossing the line from champion to...this. COI is your choice, not someone else's accusation. Flowanda | Talk 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to discount anything, but a) cerejota claims that my edits fall under COI and uses that as a reason to discount them and b) flagged the whole article as created under "COI" and reverts anybodies edit that removes the template. I do need relief from the COI accusations made against me regarding this article in order to do edits like any other editor. A normal discussion does not seem to be possible as long as the accusations are being repeated by cerejota over and over again. I don't discount edits from anybody, but I object behavior as demonstrated by cerejota and is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with the COI allegation. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note. What do you mean with "It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs". The current article is close to becoming a good article. A lot of editors contributed to it over the past 15 months. A "rigorous edit" would do more harm than good and would only introduce somebodies POV and undo hours of work by a number of editors, not only mine.--roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew that I remember you User_talk:Cumbrowski. You made some edits to the article too, thanks. I wonder what made you believe that I, quote "keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like". If you would look at the events up close, you will hopefully see that this is not the case at all. I try the complete opposite of that. I am trying to avoid that somebody else gets away with ignoring everybody and everything else to get what he wants and to discount other peoples edits e.g. mine by making false allegations against them. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 09:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Info User:Burntsauce removed the COI template from the article temporarely until the allegations are confirmed or rejected by the noticeboard. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 07:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether or not this is POV pushing, it doesn't look like COI. Roy isn't on the payroll of this thing, and isn't one of the owners, and isn't dating anyone on the board of directors, as far as I know.  Wikipedia has also sort of overzealous editors pushing POV here and there.  That's not COI.  It's something else.  Let's give this board a break and take this discussion back to the article talk page, and then use Dispute resolution if that fails.  People shouldn't use COI allegations to gain position in an editing dispute. - Jehochman  Talk 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Concordia College and University – 2 users blocked indefinitely – 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Concordia College and University
appears to be a single-purpose account created to remove factual information from the article on, a notorious diploma mill. These edits have been reverted repeatedly by multiple editors here (where the page is semi-protected due to repeated vandalism) and on AboutUs' page on "concordia-college.net" (page was fully-protected after a revert war; repeated removal of the info on that wiki was done by an anon-IP, no idea if it's the same user). This "Concordia" has also been booted from afraid.org Free DNS servers under multiple domains: "concordia.edu.ms", "concordia.intec.edu", "www.concordia.edu.ms", "www.concordia.intec.edu", "www.wiki.pedia.nu" which redirected either to concordia-college.net or to a freewebs.com page intended to mimic the Wikipedia article in vandalised form. --carlb 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indefinite block. Durova Charge! 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

appears to be a duplicate of, contribs consist of three edits, posting the same nonsense version of Concordia College and University. Sockpuppet? --carlb 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carlb. I believe that Iorgos is a second SPA maintained by AlanSteele. --Orlady 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeffed. Durova Charge! 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Lee Frederick Holmes – Deleted – 03:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Lee Frederick Holmes


It appears that this user is the subject of this article, Lee Holmes. He is the only one who has edited the article and has also uploaded pictures of the subject as public domain. My other concern is that this user has been editing movie articles (see The Salton Sea, for example) and adding himself to the cast lists and also adding trivia facts (see Drive Me Crazy). This person is listed in the IMDB, but notability might also be an issue. Malson 22:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Lee Frederick Holmes article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Solo One Graffiti Artist – Deleted – 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Solo One

 * The Irish Times (August 7, 2000) Anti-GM message is writ large by artists. by Elaine Keogh mentions "In the middle of it all is a mutant, the work of Solo One, a.k.a. Boyd Hill from Kilburn, London." Which might lead to other material on Wikipedia. --  Jreferee   T / C  15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article(s) are at AfD. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times (August 7, 2000) Anti-GM message is writ large by artists. by Elaine Keogh mentions "In the middle of it all is a mutant, the work of Solo One, a.k.a. Boyd Hill from Kilburn, London." Which might lead to other material on Wikipedia. --  Jreferee   T / C  15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article(s) are at AfD. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article(s) are at AfD. -- Jreferee   T / C  16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }