Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 44

Martin Harrison (poet)

 * - pretty blatant autobiography by User:Martinralphharrison and unsourced BLP; enough of an assertion of notability that I don't feel comfortable just speedying it, but full of NPOV violations and promotional content. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  13:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * BLPPRODDED. – ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note PROD has been removed by User:Whpq. Netalarm talk 12:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Israel Shamir - there is a COI of Roland Rance, or RolandR.
Roland Rance inserted into the article about Israel Shamir his POV saying "Trotskyist Roland Rance, a British anti-Zionist Jew, has written that "his CV ... reads like a work of fantasy -... I don't believe a word of it." Rance mentions a number of other anti-Zionists who have also expressed doubts about Shamir's story and concludes that "Shamir is apparently a right-wing Russian journalist, who pretends to be an Israeli Jewish leftist." Rance claims that Shamir uses many aliases, including Schmerlin, Vassili Krasevsky and Jöran Jermas[5] For years Rance defends this POV, which is unproven as well: No search shows that these names were used by Shamir or by anybody else, as a matter of fact. Rance turned this article and Wikipedia into a field of his personal vendetta against Shamir. Though this item is marked as "Its neutrality is disputed", "Its factual accuracy is disputed" and "It may need to be wikified" since June 2008, many attempts by different editors to correct faults were all blocked by Rance. Yesterday he reverted my update of bibliography in the item for spurious reason. I call upon the board to ban Rance from editing at all or at least ban him from interfering with this item for his COI. Kingfisher12 (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been notified by the above editor of this proposal to ban me from editing this article. As I pointed out on her/his talk page, I did not insert the text in question. It was in fact inserted by Jayjg on 25 March 2005, long before I ever edited Wikipedia. It would be bizarre in the extreme to sanction me in any way for an edit carried out before I was even on Wikipedia, by an editor with whom I am rarely in agreement. RolandR (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As an outside editor and non-admin, let me say A) I'm more than a bit worried about someone editing an article about a BLP where they are cited as a negative source about that BLP. There is no real policy I know of here other than maybe COI, but I'd suggest this is an unwise state of affairs.  B) I'm finding it difficult to confirm that some of the statements and quotes are real. Some of this is a paywall problem, others are that I'm not sure sources are reliable in this context. We've got a case where one person is claimed to be working under different names, in different places at the same time by different sources. There isn't enough evidence, in my mind, to show that these are all the same person. It looks like a real mess and could likely use an outsider who has access to the paywall articles doing a rewrite... Hobit (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Virtual institutions
I've tagged this for copyright, though it may be seen as conflict of interest as well. Much of the article is copied from a thesis and subsequent book, apparently by the original author, who appears to be editing using several accounts. Any thoughts would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted as a G12 copyright infringement by Vianello. Not much can be done, unless the editor continues to create such articles. Can you provide the username too? Netalarm talk 12:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor's talk page, which includes some discussion on the matter: . JNW (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Classic Hits (Citadel radio network)
User:Dave Michaels has repeatedly made several destructive edits to this page changing it from describing the network to describing a non-notable Web site associated with the network, complete with untrue facts (such that it is private, which it isn't). Dave Michaels happens to be the midday host at the network. The name of the page was "Greatest Mojo" (the name of the site) but I fixed that hoping that would solve the problem and he would stop, but he didn't. I am trying to avoid an edit war, but User:Dave Michaels apparently has only made edits to this page and appears to be stalking it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Cuccinelli
During July 2010, a number of SPAs User:Cageyd, User:Pridge21, User:Pheasr, User:Fairva22, and User:Rgjcaulobac have been converting this article into a collection of quotations from Cuccinelli's press releases and his website. I wonder whether these people are working for Cuccinelli's office. I have removed the quotes and tried to restore the article to its pre-SPA state. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is longer than that, and appears to involve people of all political persuasions writing non-neutrally about this controversial political figure. However, the non-neutral writing does appear to be driving article improvement, and editors with new accounts and without accounts are making productive uncontroversial edits such as this copyedit.  Therefore I have chosen to enable pending changes (set for the length of this person's current expected term of office) so that edits can be reviewed and incorporated rather than employ semi-protection that would prevent edits altogether.  Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree with your solution. Again, it is impossible to write on topics like this without people viewing any edit as carrying political POV.  The goal should be a timely article that reflects the large amount of secondary news sources covering Ken Cuccinelli, but not just cut and pasting his press releases and website. Racepacket (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User Nlyte.Software, site nlyte.com


User is quite open about his goal at Wikipedia. When I asked him here if his edit summaries complaining of "search not returning results" meant that his concern was about searching for "DCIM" using search engines such as Google, he responded here, "yes, that is absolutely right." His pattern of edits, combined with the messages on his talk page, my talk page, and at Talk:Data center infrastructure management, make it obvious he is here to promote the site nlyte.com, not to improve the encyclopedia.

The talk pages have the detail, but to sum up the situation:

I referred the user to Search engine optimization as offering good advice to "editors seeking to promote the popularity of their site", and also suggested he review the conflict of interest warning on his talk page, but these suggestions seem to have had no effect. I request administrator review of this situation. --CliffC (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Together with one-edit user Daveallanc, user is the primary author of Data center infrastructure management, which originally had a "notable vendors" list that included his own company. I removed the vendor list based on WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
 * Here and here, user removed a legitimate redirect to a long-standing instance of DCIM in favor of a redirect to Data center infrastructure management, and edited the string "DCIM" out of the original target article.
 * I explained on his talk page why that was not a good idea and set up a DCIM disambiguation page with three items. User has since changed the dab page to redirect straight to Data center infrastructure management.
 * User created several variants on the article name while attempting to improve search engine results. I moved the article to its present (and I believe MOS-conformant) name and tagged the others for deletion as having no inbound links and no longer necessary.  User has since recreated most or all of the variants as redirects to Data center infrastructure management, and also created links to that article from other terms, including his company names Nlyte and Nlyte Software.
 * User posted his views at my talk page here asking me to "let him" restore the vendor list and the redirects favoring Data center infrastructure management. I did not answer immediately and 35 minutes later he made the changes he wanted, and also removed a COI tag from the article itself.  I had mentioned in passing that 'notable' implied having a Wikipedia article; the new "Notable vendor" list again includes "nlyte Software" but this time none of the names are wikilinked.
 * I have done some editing to attempt a more encyclopedic tone, and am watching. I imagine that comparing text from the article with the mentioned Gartner report would show a bit of overlap, and possibly even a copyvio. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Harjapbhangal

 * - The user has created and maintained an autobiography (Harjap Singh Bhangal) with contact links to their business. The user has also created articles on television programmes either featuring themselves or from the broadcaster they work for. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I put proposed deletion tags on the television programme articles, since they had no sources at all. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the tag from COI to a more specific autobiography tag. The article itself is self promotional, so I'll clean it up a bit. If anyone wants to help out, go ahead :D. Netalarm talk 03:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloomberg LP
A Bloomberg employee (seemingly involved in some kind of PR department) has done the right thing and outed himself as an editor of the Bloomberg LP article. I am flagging this as one to watch, and have notified the editor of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Thanks, -Alandada (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * His edits are not problematic in nature, but it's worth keeping an eye on - watchlisted article. I'm not sure if he got the COI message, so I'll leave him a talkback to the one Aladada left on the article talk page. I don't feel there will be any major problems with this editor, since he's not using Wikipedia for promotional purposes and he's been upfront about his conflict of interest. Thanks for the report though! We'll keep an eye on it. Netalarm talk 19:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The JaneDear Girls
, an IP confirmed as belonging to Warner Music Group, keeps whitewashing The JaneDear Girls by removing a negative review from the article, although the review is from a reputable website and is (so far) the only review I can find of the group's single. I understand that the IP wants the duo to be portrayed positively. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a COI warning, I was surprised they hadn't already received one as almost all their edits are related to WMG and some (like this) have been particularly problematic. Smartse (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

COI US campaign pages
There are more and more pages for politicians that are autobiographies or are posted by campaign offices or volunteers with COIs. Plenty get beaten into shape but others get overlooked. The latest ones I've noticed are:



... neither are very spammy, but both seem completely unbalanced towards the positive. At any rate they need more attention. Hairhorn (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged Debbie Silberstein with references needed and COI. Tagged Eric Burlison with COI. Jcflack (potential conflict of interest) has removed the COI tag on Eric Burlison, stating that there is no conflict of interest. The page history indicates that a user of the same name as the subject has made substantial edits to the article. I'll keep an eye on these two articles in particular. Netalarm talk 03:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Update Debbie Silberstein has been deleted under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). Netalarm talk 03:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Gabriel Cousens




Single purpose account OX in the Box is blanking some pretty well sourced content at the article on homeopath Gabriel Cousens. Could use some more eyes. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound Hammer has reverted him again. I've left a detailed note to the editor regarding his actions and with directions to discuss issues on the article's talk page, not through edit summaries. Netalarm talk 03:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Update An SPI case has been created, which may be found here. A relevant ANI thread has also been created, which may be found here Netalarm talk 16:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Archived ANI is now at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Panda Security
Single purpose account There seems to be an ongoing effort by employees of this company removing all unfavorable information and placing links to press releases and other commercial sources. This particular user cited seems to have made several edits for the purpose of doing above and performs typical COI edits. Other accounts have been repeatedly warned, this may be a sockpuppet and not a real account. 80.82.209.127 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * looks like a sock. User continued to remove the content despite COI warnings. False edit summaries are also being used to cover up the removal of information. You've already left a COI warning for the user, so let's see if they get the message. I've watchlisted the page. Netalarm talk 04:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

MannaRelief
The Creative Producer of MannaRelief has recreated the article, although I have strongly advised him not to. I will add that the tone of the recreated article is significantly more neutral than the original (deleted) article, and he has been up front about his connection - he did tag the article himself as a COI issue. I am posting this here to draw your attention to it. Stephen! Coming... 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I can remove myself as an editor. Any help given is very much appreciated. --jaredhimself (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources are all primary sources, and the third party sources are about the nutrition and hunger in general - they do not prove the notability of the organization. The article is currently being AfDed, which may be found here. Jaredhimself, you'll want to stop creating that article yourself. If you really want to create that article, consider using the Article wizard to create it at articles for creation. Another editor will review the article before it is moved to the mainspace. However, make sure you have notable third party sources that prove the notability of MannaRelief and to write the draft in a neutral tone. Netalarm talk 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have completely removed myself from having any form of participation on this article. I'll leave it to the public to contribute if they desire. jaredhimself  talk 16:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is very gracious of you to voluntarily distance yourself from the article, and to refrain from recreating it in the future, but remember that your participation on the talk page of any article related to MannaRelief is not only allowed, but encouraged. If you ever have any concerns about what is in any articles related to the subject, please don't feel that you don't have a voice, your opinion should certainly be taken into consideration. --  At am a  頭 22:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

MacGuffin


Single purpose account Smiddly for two years appears to have only edited with regard to Jack Said, a little-seen (231 IMDb votes, few online reviews) and poorly-reviewed (e.g.) film, and its predecessor Jack Says thus the apparent promotion. Is continually trying to add a wikilink to Jack Said from MacGuffin contrary to the consensus there, thus the possible COI and now close to 3RR. It does not add value to the reader and the reference to support it is an apparently non-notable movie review blog. User has been alerted to problems on talk page by myself and last year by KillerChihuahua, but sees this as a "vendetta." Not sure how to proceed if user reverts again. Thanks, Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a detailed note to the user about the list of examples (examples, not a complete list). I've noticed that the user has also linked to the non-notable review site from other articles, which I've removed as the review site is non-notable. Judging from his contribution history, it's fairly obvious he's here for promotional purposes. Netalarm talk 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. At the moment there have been no further reverts, although the user's replies and two-year devotion to only editing with regard to this subject make one fear this is only temporary. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

St Kilda Football Club
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston" Sainterman (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC) or
 * - Afterwriting put this: -Thank you. It looks probable, however, that he has already started a new account with the user name of Sainterman for editing St Kilda Football Club-related articles - such as List of St Kilda Football Club coaches. Apart from this account being brand new and only editing some of the same articles, BrianBeahr's user name on an official St Kilda FC supporter site was BrianSainterman ( from which he was also eventually blocked for disruptive behaviour ). Over to you! Afterwriting (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * - Excuse me - St Kilda Football Club supporter sites are not relevent to wikipedia. Are you openly stating you are attempting to stalk someone called Brian who appears to edit St Kilda football Club Pages without establihing someones identity? I have never been blocked from a St Kilda football Club website in my life - the Saints Central website was recently shut down by the club and elements of it added to the St Kilda football club offifical website. I have made no disruptive edits and have only added factual non-biased information. You are openly claiming that you think I am a person you are stalking on wikipaedia and have assumed authority to do the stalking. There was nothing wrong with any of the edits. You cant block me from wikipedia because you think i am someone who put posts on the Saints Central website stalker vermin. You dont have permission to be a stalker vermin person who stalks pelple who you think add things to St Kilda Football Club websites that arent wikipedia. Sainterman (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reporting user has also created the same report at ANI and LTA. As this user has been blocked as a sock, I'm marking this as resolved. Netalarm talk 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Review humbly requested

 * David Spero
 * Josh and the Empty Pockets
 * Solomon curve

These three articles have been tagged for COI review as the creator of the articles may have some degree of connection to the subjects of each. I am working with him on some copyright questions via OTRS and quite like him. He is a new contributor who I'm afraid is feeling thoroughly bitten, though he's handling it graciously. His sincerity is pretty obvious in the fact that he disclosed the conflict with (and tagged) the last article himself. Please, might I trouble somebody uninvolved to take a look at these articles and, if they seem properly neutral and properly sourced, remove the tags? (Or, if not, specifically point out areas of problem? I'll help fix them myself, if need be.) I do not believe there is promotion intended here. I think we're dealing with a new, good faith contributor who has like many begun by contributing in areas with which he is familiar. I think I can say there's not much chance of COI issues in the future, and I'd be grateful for any assistance in putting this behind him as quickly as possible. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to jump in and say I do agree with Moonriddengirl on this as we have been working on the situation together in respects to the potential copyright issues. The COI issues came about after looking a bit deeper into the images and associated articles. As I have pointed out in a few places the article(s) in question are not your typical non-notable subjects being placed by an SPA and/or a COI editor so the question was never one of exposing the editor and having their article(s) removed, it was just a concern based on possible copyright issues, which in turn led to confusion over "who" the editor was/is in relation to at least three article they had created. I tagged them all with COI warnings, but forgot the main notice on one article and the editor place it there her/himself. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing all 3 I'm satisfied they're neutral and properly sourced. I've read the user talkpage discussions and, find I quite like him too. The David Spero and Solomon curve articles were free of COI–POV problems; my changes were generally minor style adjustments. The Spero article had one item I felt namedropped, although a need to mention lots of artists etc. naturally occurs with any bio of a music personality active over three decades. It's difficult to bridge adequate vs superfluous, and two disinterested editors might reach different conclusions on the same material. The Empty Pockets article required more work. But again, there was no evidence of bias or deliberate promotion. It was clear on the surface peacock or fannish detail was down to incorporating coverage as it became available combined with source's language occasionally showing through. I trimmed or reworked the prose (incidentally, my IP changed between edits). As they said, this was their first article. New editors having a less practiced grasp on things like article tone and how to work with sources enthusiastic in style is pretty much expected. I agree with Moonriddengirl's view this is simply a new, good faith contributor who like many began by contributing in areas with which he is familiar. 92.30.106.114 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare
Cassandra Clare - I believe user rkramden may be a publicist or other representative for the subject of the page: their edits have involved:
 * removing relevant negative information,
 * minimizing sourced unflattering information,
 * adding unnecessarily long awards section.

I've also noticed that certain cited sources (via archive.org) have strangely disappeared from the web since this editor started making changes. I have saved copies of these pages, in case mirroring is allowed. The subject of the page has a history of deleting online information about herself previous to per publication and sending cease & desist letters, making the provability of negative aspects of the page's subject very difficult to prove by wiki standards.

The entire thing amounts to a clean up job. What can be done about this? Infoaddict1 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's certainly partisan editing going on, but this SPA is responsible for a great deal of it. Aside from creating the attack page The Draco Trilogy (which I've just speedy-nominated), this account has added and readded a significant amount of dubious material to the article cited here. This is clearly a long-running off-wiki conflict brought here, and I wouldn't be surprised if the two combatants here know each other's off-wiki identities. I'm going to do some necessary sanitizing of the main BLP,and I hope somebody follows me with oversight or RevDel. As well as deciding whether "Infoaddict1's" editing privileges should be restricted or revoked. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Trust me, there wasn't meant to be any attack here. I stumbled upon the CC pages ages ago and tried to fill in a lot of relevant material, both positive and negative, because the page was IMO lacking in information on an author who is now of some note. Additionally this author happened to have a controversial event in her past, which wasn't adequately addressed on the wiki page.


 * I have not a clue who rkramden is in real life, only that they have reverted many of my edits to seemingly white-wash the page to remove any of the negative elements, which has sparked me to keep an eye on the page. I've mentioned the difficulty of sourcing this page previously on the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard looking for help, and received none. I don't appreciate the weird assumption that i know the other editor personally, and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call us combatants. Infoaddict1 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence of a COI here. Please remember that editing with a particular point of view is not at all the same as having a conflict of interest, otherwise we wouldn't have both a WP:NPOV policy and WP:COI guideline. Conflicts of interest arise when a person's real-life connections to an article subject are a reason to give greater scrutiny to their edits. Joe Blow removing everything negative from a politician's article isn't a COI, but the politician's aide doing the same thing is definitely a COI.


 * Some clues that a COI exist would be when a person's username claims some connection to the subject, or matches an advertising agency or a real-life person's name who is a PR rep or something along those lines (that happens all the time). In this case, "Rkramden" seems like a match for Ralph Kramden, one of the main characters of the popular show The Honeymooners, and the editor is probably a fan. Other clues would be a claim of authority (that they are a friend/relative/employee/agent of the person) or any other statement on a talk page, edit summary, or their user page. A COI often goes hand-in-hand with being a single-purpose account but this editor shows an interest in a variety of subjects going back to 2006 that they are interested in; initially it was Harry Potter characters, then various novels and movies, and most recently Ms. Clare. If you have believe that the editor is trying to whitewash the article, you may want to either take up the matter with the POV noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard.


 * One final thing, when reporting an editor to a noticeboard, it's at least a courtesy that you notify that person on their talk page. I also don't see any attempt to discuss matters with this editor before bringing this matter to a noticeboard. I strongly encourage you to do so, that should always be the first step in any editing conflict you have on Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭  21:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, next time I'll be more prepared if this kind of thing comes up again. I'm relatively new, and never meant to get stuck on this one article. I've also updated a ton of scholarly published work that should satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Infoaddict1 (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome, and everyone was new once. You're doing better than I did when I first started. It's funny, I've devoted a lot of attention to articles whose subjects I'd never be interested in normally, but I just tried to fix something and got caught up in some kind of problem or debate and the next thing you know I've made dozens of edits over the course of a week. Wikipedia can be odd like that. --  At am a  頭 23:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Korea Tourism Organization
- WP:COI with Korea Tourism Organization, Tourism in South Korea. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll report the user to WP:UAA. Smartse (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you already have, I don't think their edits are problematic, in this case I think they actually made the article more neutral. Is there anything else we can do? Smartse (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that they were doing no harm, but policy strictly prohibits usernames like that. The most sensible solution would to advise them to edit under a different name if they wish to continue editing. Other than that, there isn't much else that should be done. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

help
please advise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.2.44 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * {{Alison Brie} - i am the publicist to actress alison brie. her wiki page uses photos that we do not prefer--any other shots from her imdb are much better or i can happily submit.
 * Just a note, this editor has been given assistance at their talk page and elsewhere, so this should be resolved. On a personal note, I'm always happy to see editors who self-disclose their COI and ask for assistance in complying with our guidelines. --  At am a  頭 17:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Interstate Van Lines
removed content from. See this diff. Tckma (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * has joined the game, this time using edit summaries like "added services" when removing the same content. This edit in the same thing InterstateWorldwide has been doing, so I've started a sockpuppet investigation, which may be found here Netalarm talk 17:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As pointed out in the sockpuppet investigation, InterstateWorldWide was given a "soft" block due to their original username being a username violation. A soft block in this case not only allows them to create a new account, but encourages them to do so, and shows no prejudice against their editing behavior.


 * However, I do still have concerns. Although they've complied with the request to create a new account in agreement with username policy, they're still removing information with either no explanation or a false explanation, and have shown no effort to communicate. Both are red flags regardless of a conflict of interest. However, that behavior isn't uncommon among truly new editors, and I recommend giving this person a little bit of slack until we can be sure of their motives. I'll give them a welcome template explaining about COI and invite them to participate in this dicussion here as well. --  At am a  頭 19:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oopsies, sorry, I missed that. +Watchlisted to see if there is any future activity. Netalarm talk 03:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Letchworth
User:LetchworthGCMayor has been editing the section of Letchworth about the Town Council, and despite being pointed at WP:COI continues to do so. The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well maybe one day we'll see another Letchworth Corset Riot :). East of Borschov 06:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you've stated that the user may not edit the articles in question, but policy states that user should avoid and/or exercise great caution when editing articles that they may have a conflict of interest on. I've given the user a standard COI notice, with the added note that they are encouraged to discuss any issues on the article's talk page. Hopefully the user will see what we mean. Netalarm talk

WNOX
I have been told by private message on another web site that User:CEOMao is an employee of the station or its owner, or at least has been assigned by that station's management to make sure the WNOX and WOKI articles have the proper information. Nevertheless, this could be false. I keep getting reversed by this person, although I have tried to see the other person's point of view on certain edits. Some of the person's edits just didn't look right to me, but over time, I thought we had reached compromise. This person's last two edits to WNOX removed information that I felt I had put there properly. I was not reverted on WOKI, though I made a careless error that CEOMao corrected. When I complained politely on User Talk:CEOMao my comment was removed. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the edits are not problematic in nature, as they seem pretty neutral. However, I've added a standard COI notice to the user to provide them will more information. Just a note, a user is allowed to removing warnings from his own talk page, as this indicates that he has received the message. I've also watchlisted the articles to watch for potential problems. Netalarm talk 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the policy on talk pages. I just interpreted that as being uncooperative. We seem to have reached a compromise now and I have received further private messages on the other site, from another user who is trying to persuade us to end our dispute and has made suggestions for article improvement. I haven't heard back on whether the person liked my last edits. But this person's efforts may put an end to our problem. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not been assigned by anyone to make sure any articles have proper information, nor am I employed at this time with either company. I would like to think that in the future there might be a better resolution or maybe some communication between participants to clear up any misunderstandings regarding edits and rumors pertaining to the identity of participants. The majority of edits I made were to clarify an evolving situation regarding WNOX and the actual status, all of which followed, to the best of my understanding the Wikipedia guidelines. I apologize for editing the information regarding the bankruptcy but in my opinion it contained far too much extraneous information.CEOMao (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was going by what I had been told privately on another web site. Another person on that web site gave me similar advice about the article and I think I've followed it to the satisfaction of both parties. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The contribution history pretty much says it all - inappropriate user name that is almost certainly the person editing their own wikipedia page. Any admins want to look into it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor is claiming to be Cindy in her very . The editor is also promoting Cindy's official web site, not a fan site, so it's certainly plausible. I'll leave her a message explaining about our conflict of interest guidelines and explain why there are concerns about her edits, and invite her to participate in this discussion. --  At am a  頭 22:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I don't understand is the insertion of the official website...that is already in the infobox. Curious.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a simple mistake from someone who doesn't have a lot of experience editing Wikipedia. You and I would know to look in the infobox to find the official web site, but she doesn't. It's the same with the IMDB link, it's already in the External Links section, which an experienced Wikipedian would know to look for, but someone unfamiliar might not see it and assume it's missing. Also, they might just be wanting to give prominence to those links by putting them in the body of the article. I don't find those edits to be particularly disruptive, after all both links were already there (and are still there), just misguided. --  At am a  頭 22:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Username, Advertisement Help!
Agreed with Themfromspace - no action needed. 7 03:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This user looks like this person is advertising a movie. (I posted on this, and was told to post here.) Can someone help, please? Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any blatant promotion here. What is there at the moment appears to be a working draft and doesn't go out of it's way to promote its subject. When/if he posts the article it can be taken to articles for deletion if it appears to be promotional or nonnotable. Also if the draft becomes blatantly promotional it can be taken to miscellany for deletion.  Them  From  Space  02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! Endofskull (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don Brown (author)
Appear to be promotional accounts for the article Don Brown (author), marketing the author's books. User has continued to edit after advice of the COI policy. VQuakr (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if the two editors mentioned above are the same person or not. I do note that Steve Sammons is the Executive Vice President of Zondervan Publishers, which publishes Don Brown's books. Clearly there's intentional promotion going on. SammyBland was blocked for 48 hours for repeatedly removing maintenance templates after warnings, but his most were productive (fixed a typo and changed the author's web site to the proper address) so maybe they'll behave for now. The Don Brown article itself has been reduced to a stub based on what little is verifiable. On a side note, I'm not sure the subject meets our notability requirements. --  At am a  頭  16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Tillmans and Paley
User:Gallery history (contributions), Wolfgang Tillmans, and Maureen Paley have been remarkably intertwined for some time, but Gallery history has recently admitted as much. Gallery history has not, as far as I remember, shown any desire to discuss matters. That's a pity, because I think that COI is not necessarily an impediment when the subject isn't controversial and the editor is scrupulous, open-minded, realistic and communicative. (After all, the COI editor probably has access to reliable secondary sources, if he or she can be persuaded to cite them.) In principle I think I can handle all this myself, but I'm tired and perhaps irritated. One or two other disinterested editors, please. -- Hoary (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick copyedit at Paley and removed some of the most glaring promotional material. I think the only truly worrying thing about this situation is the "request" by the articles' subjects which may make editing difficult and Gallery history's refusal to communicate. He/she has been warned about COI but if he/she is under "orders" may prove to be difficult to get through to. Another editor has posted a message at the Visarts Project talk page, so more editors may keep an eye on things. But I agree, someone who hasn't edited these articles may want to look them over or issue a stronger warning.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work, Freshacconci. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As Freshacconci has pointed out, 87.224.31.70 appears to be Gallery history. -- Hoary (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Add Eastendarchive to the list.  Ty  23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe there's enough evidence here to open a sockpuppet investigation, I'll do so now. --  At am a  頭 23:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The investigation has been posted here. --  At am a  頭 01:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

CENDI
made potential COI edits to. Tckma (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly problematic with the one edit they made, and while the username does imply a connection to the subject, I can't see how it violates our username policy (mostly because I don't understand what "Secre-KRH" stands for, secretary-something?). For now I'll leave a COI welcome template. It's possible that this is a drive-by, one-time update of the article by someone who works for the company, and as long as nobody objects to the changes there's probably no harm. --  At am a  頭 17:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Xenia Tchoumitcheva
I've been involved with Xenia Tchoumitcheva for a bit, and don't feel comfortable handing out blocks or dealing with this further. Someone obviously tied to the subject has been editing. Some has been good by updating sourced information and corrections, but other edits have been adding marketing fluff. Anyone care to take over what I started? -Andrew c [talk] 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked over the article, and the talk page is pretty tame aside from some controversy over the subject's birthday. I assume that your problem is specifically with Cioccolatina? I've looked over that person's additions to the article, and they do seem to be promotional in nature; I suspect a PR person. I do see some hope for this person, because they seem to have toned their editing down a bit (their most recent set of edits have very little fluff) and looks like an attempt to communicate. --  At am a  頭  18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Si.mobil
made COI edits to. I've reverted the edits. --Eleassar my talk 20:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, he's indicated that he's the PR specialist here. I believe the COI warnings you've left will let the user know of our conflict of interest policy so he can be more careful when editing. The article itself seems all positive, but it was like that before he edited. Information about owning an island in Second Life :p ? Cleanup and expansion needed...  Netalarm talk 23:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What cleanup?! If you can find additional sources, feel free to expand the article. The current version has not been updated since 2008, that's what was available at the time. --Eleassar my talk 07:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I know, and it doesn't look that good. I mean, the article has a reference to owning a Second Life island and only contains information that's positive for the company. I'll look into cleaning up/expanding. Netalarm talk 17:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

David Campbell (composer) writing and editing his own article?
I've noticed a biography of a living person that I believe was created and added to by the subject or someone associated with him, and I am wondering if it violates Wikipedia COI rules. The article, for David_Campbell_(composer) (which at one time was deleted, but subsequently reappeared), was recently heavily edited by a user with the name Kanebell Assistant, which caught my attention because Campbell's wife's name is Raven Kane. I looked at what was done to the article, and it has been puffed up enormously (for instance, listing much more detail about his works than you typically see for this kind of article) and uses non-neutral language like "As an arranger and conductor, David Campbell has become the go-to guy for innovative orchestral collaborations with pop and rock artists." On top of that, it is poorly referenced. If you look at Kanebell Assistant's contributions, it is clear that his or her edits on Wikipedia all involve David Campbell. (Kanebell Assistant, in fact, turns out to have written the article originally.) Also, I have found that there is a Kanebell Enterprises that is owned by David Campbell: http://www.manta.com/c/mm5dvl1/kanebell-enterprises Candy (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you approached the editor in question and voiced your concerns?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A biography article written by the subject himself (or a close relative) is not encouraged, but there is nothing that says they cant make this type of contribution either as long as the subject is notable (see: WP:N) and it doesnt violate WP:BOLP. That said, if ya find content that reads more like self-promotion, peacock comments, vanity, etc, just remove it. Jrod2 (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, unsourced or inadequately sourced material.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * According to AB, writing articles about oneself is "strongly discouraged," and editing them is recommended only in clear-cut cases. This is a situation in which someone apparently wrote an article about himself (or someone close to him did), and the edits are continued revisions. That seemed to me to be in violation of AB. I haven't contacted the editor because I didn't see any point. The editor has written only that article and his (or her) edits have been only to material about David Campbell. I am sure the editor is acting in good faith and believes his edits have been valid, and I am not experienced enough in dealing with this sort of thing to speak with any kind of authority about the edits. Which is what made me post here--to get input from more experienced editors. I realize I can edit self-promoting comments and vanity fluff--I would have done that, but I wanted to leave the article as it was so it could be evaluated. It is also, as I mentioned, poorly referenced. Many statements do not have references, and the references that are there often lead nowhere. I will look for those and try to call them out; I don't have the time to research them all and provide proper links. Maybe Kanebell's Assistant will do that if they're pointed out. Candy (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest working with them first, rather than leading with the hammer.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Candy I dont understand what you are trying to accomplish here. If you feel the wording on that guideline should be changed from "strongly discouraged" to something like *emphatically prohibited*, then go to that guideline's talk page and raise your concerns. If ya wanna change WP policy on WP:BLP, ya could start a discussion at Village pump (policy), which is one of our resources to have policies discussed. Again, theres nothing that says one can NOT write about oneself if the caveats i mentioned above are observed. Jrod2 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrod2, sorry, this was clear to me, but I guess I didn't make it clear enough: I was explaining why I questioned the article and the changes to it in the first place (because it seemed likely, to me, that the subject of the article had written it himself, and done most of the editing, and I thought that was strongly discouraged per AB). I have no desire to change WP policy; I was attempting to follow it. I appreciate your and Wehwalt's thoughts on the matter, and I was planning on following Wehwalt's advice (that is, working with the person who is doing the writing and editing on the article, mainly by pointing out the lack of sources/bad links). I have nothing further I am trying to "accomplish" here. Candy (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is good. Let us face it, it is better to work with him (and I doubt it is the guy himself, personally, more likely someone affiliated with him) then get into fights.  If he's in PR, he may have access to clippings and such and be able to build a nice article, and the POV may fade as he realizes people are watching.  I try to be laid back about these things, as there is no doubt at all this sort of thing goes on quite a bit, but most people are aware of our guidelines, and if they seek to evade them, it is easy enough to lie under our radar and do the work quietly with a user name like User:God King of Nowheresville.  You are to be commended for your work though and please do not let this discourage you from bringing anything back to AN/I that you think is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aight, so now you knew it all along :) If you were unhappy with the *quality* of the links as you now say ,then why you brought it up to this COI noticeboard?? Jrod2 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrod2, I don't know what your problem is. I stated clearly why I brought it up here: I thought there might be a conflict of interest. (In fact, I was advised to post it here by someone else.) As it's now been explained to me that it's not, that's fine, but the article is still not well sourced (which I don't "now say"--I mentioned it in my original post) and I think that ought to be improved. Do you have an objection to that? Candy (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop it right there, Yo....Theres no question in my mind that you have been trying to do good work on WP and that you care 'bout the quality of the content that interests ya. That said, *problem* is its clear to me that in this instance you've been suggesting in a few places the Campbell article be removed 'cause u assume that an associate or the subject himself was writing/editing on it  and even after we told ya, you argued that it says on WP:AB that it is "strongly discouraged".... That's it. Im not here to investigate u though, Im only pointing out the obvious, and your actions could have been perceived by some as WP:Canvassing (Im not saying you are)... It's OK to ask questions and to seek advice, but keep it *real* Yo, or peeps wont be inclined to help ya again. Jrod2 (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you follow my posts on the subject (which you obviously have), I posted and asked Cirt about it, because I know and trust his work as an editor, and Cirt suggested I might want to ask about it on WP:BLPN. So I did: I posted there, and someone there sent me here. I made a good-faith effort to follow through. And in response I've gotten snarky comments from you ("yeah right" and "pleez thats enuff, your actions/words said something else") and snide insinuations. I think any reasonable person could look at the links you posted to my questions to Cirt and BLPN and realize I was simply trying to check out something that seemed off to me, not canvassing. Ya unnerstand? Peace out. Candy (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont mock me now. Looks like you need to have always an answer (for example: after I gave you advice you said "this was clear to me, but I guess I didn't make it clear enough") but sometimes words mean nothing Candy, actions do. So we are expecting ya are gonna work it out (as you said you will) with the main editor now that ya got all your questions answered because if you never do this, sorry but you will look like u were only canvassing to have all his contributions removed. Realize that if Johnuniq told ya to bring your concerns to this COI noticeboard is because he thought you believed there was a COI issue. . Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 06:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an english version of this? "keep it real?" --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup...next time remember:GIYBF :) Jrod2 (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol? Is their an emoticon on abbreviation for rolling eyes? Sadads (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Im afraid not...but in case ya missed it. Now lets stop the sarcasm n' "keep it real". Jrod2 (talk)

Zeta Omega Eta
- A formally neutral article with some independent sourcing about a group at Trinity College, it has been expanded by, the self-admitted founder of a group of the same name at Arkansas-Monticello. She admits to being the source of the UAM material and has provided no independent sourcing whatsoever about the UAM group or any merger between it and the Trinity group. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Push To Test
appears to be editing on behalf of the PushToTest company. Tckma (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a clear violation of WP:ORGNAME. I'll do a softblock only to encourage a name change. --  At am a  頭 20:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They're now blocked. --  At am a  頭 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

See this UAA report. Self promotional username and she appears to be spamlinking her website. WhiplashInferno (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How is that name self-promotional? It's not the name of the actual site - it's simply [Name]]+profession. As for the rest, simply revert and warn. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that the name would show her promoting herself as an artist. WhiplashInferno (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:REALNAME we allow a real name to be used but recommend against it for privacy concerns. Adding your profession is a personal choice. I see your point, but generally a promotional username includes a "company, group or product" and even that is up to discretion. A username for someone named "ILOVEWHOPPERS" could be promoting Burger King or might just truly love those delicious, mouth-watering hamburgers made any way you want them.TM You have to divine intent through their actions; is ILOVEWHOPPERS fixing typos at food articles or putting links to Burger King ads on various articles? That's how I look at usernames that may or may not be promotional. In this case, where this editor is spamming, you just treat them like any old spammer (tell them to stop, and if they don't stop, they get blocked). --  At am a  頭 21:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a word with the user in question. WhiplashInferno (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The article has been edited numerous times by IP ranges registered to Sony Music to remove unfavourable information relating to the very well-referenced Sony BMG CD copy protection scandal. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Harris Levey
The article seems to be created by the artist's son, noted as such through the users own admission and naming convention. I have some concerns regarding notability of the artist. The biggest claim to fame is creating Air Wave as supporting character in Green Lantern, a character that is barely notable itself. The user is almost the sole editor for the page, which is quite under sourced. There is clear lack of any notable works or notable accolades to merit a the article as it stands. - Sharp962 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Elias James Corey article
There have been strange edits to this the Elias James Corey article in the past couple days that are all over the place. The subject is a noted chemists, and three of his students committed suicide.

First, HU2000 (claiming to be Elias James Corey), kept on removing the content about suicide, and was eventually blocked for a day.

Later, Trvthchem's first edit adds a ton of content all seemingly related to the suicides. It is heavily elevating Corey and obviously taking a position on the suicides. There may be some usable content from this edit, but it is so long and unencyclopedic, I reverted it. --CutOffTies (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnalderdice
Editing the John Alderdice, Baron Alderdice article. I asked him if he's the subject of the article, but he has stopped editing and has not apparently had a chance to reply to my question. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently edits like those he made are ok, according to WP:AUTO. I disagree so I've started a discussion to see if we should change the wording. Smartse (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

User has created an article named Jo Whittemore. She is supposedly an author and the article has a picture and external links. The username is what makes this a COI case. WhiplashInferno (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Add article The Silverskin Legacy to articles editing in conflict of interest. I had to remove material copy/pasted directly from the publisher site. Yworo (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both articles have been PRODded. Smartse (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Thf1992 and Nonsubscription
, who created the Nonsubscription page, is trying to blank it now, claiming that his employer wants it removed. This shows a WP:COI not only in its creation, but now also in his attempts at deleting it. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been deleted, I can't see the history, but if they were the only significant editor of the article, they can request deletion per WP:CSD. I'm guessing that whatever it was wasn't notable anyway so I'm not sure if there is anything left to do here. Smartse (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sodexo
- It appears that the Sodexo corporation has created a user account to edit the Sodexo about their company, a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:ORGNAME 5oh4 (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sodexo link, links to entry, not Sodexo. They haven't edited in over two weeks so I somewhat doubt they'll return, they were only adding an EL anyway. I'll report the username to WP:UAA though as it's still recent enough for them to be blocked as a role account. Smartse (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how I managed to link to "entry" instead of Sodexo. That has to be a glitch, as I've never visited entry ever before. I agree that the chief problem is the WP:ORGNAME and reporting to WP:UAA is the proper action. Looks like User:Sodexo has been blocked as of today. Thanks for your help. 5oh4 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you see usernames like this again, it's normally best just to report them straight to UAA, rather than here. You typed Sodexo when I think you meant to type entry - it's an easy mistake to make. Smartse (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockid
I would like to report this wikipedian for abusing her power as an administrator. Looking at her edits, there seems to be a weird campaign of accussations towards ip users and other wikipedians. I don't know why? but i think this is getting out of hand and something has to be done about it to stop the conflict because it is affecting everybody. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.66.10 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the appropriate place for admin complaints. WP:ANI would be more appropriate, but you will have to provide links to the edits you are complaining about, or nothing will get done.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Yamariel and Internet Church
I've unintentionally gotten into an edit war with this user over the article Internet Church. This article has been subjected to a paid editing bid on elance.com (see here) where an elance user "yamariel5" was paid by the client "generatione" for "creating a valid article that teaches or informs about a new development and trend in the religious arena and adding to the online Wikipedia encyclopedia.". The generatione user's other projects on elance associate him with the "Generation Empowered" church. I feel that the reference to this church and it's pastor Marquis Garrett in this article is overly promotional but Yamariel, the creator of this article, has reverted my removal of this name-drop as vandalism. I need some other eyes on this situation; should the reference be included in this article although the contributor was likely paid to include it?  Them From  Space  22:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey themfromspace I told you before most of these links are from a previous Wikipedia article which I merged with the current. You continue to remove good sources just because you believe I have some kind of conflict of interest... Stop trying to destroy the page and start building it!  If you have other sources feel free to add them up.Yeshiyah (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the references to the Generation Empowered church were in the old article (Cyberchurch), they were recently added.  Them From  Space  22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To save others time here's an old version of cyberchurch. TFS is correct in that the reference is not present.
 * I think that it's pretty clear that if Yeshiyah is here to promote a particular church that they shouldn't be adding references like that. Whilst paid editing isn't explicitly prohibited (rightly or wrongly) using wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion is. The article is in a pretty shoddy shape, it would be great if it could be improved, but adding references like that doesn't help. Smartse (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Yamariel has several conflicts of interest, not only on this article, but his autobiographical one. --Diego Grez (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms history-merged both articles (Cyberchurch and Internet Church). Diego Grez (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeming as User:Yamariel has been blocked as a sock, Yeshiyah Amariel was deleted at AfD and Internet church has been pretty well cleaned up I'm marking this as resolved. Smartse (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayako Shirasaki - cleanup and neutral point of view needed to get rid of COI warning

 * Article of Ayako Shirasaki - Hello, I'm the manager of jazz pianist Ayako Shirasaki and a beginner on Wikipedia contribution. I started an article about her and got flagged with a COI warning. It is already reviewed and cleared for 2 or 3 peacocks. To get rid of the COI warning on top someone needs to check for neutral point of view. Citations are there already. Thank you for helping to get the article finished! --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your openness. The COI tag needs to stay for the moment, mainly because most of the article is unreferenced. If you can find third party sources (newspapers, magazines and the like) to reference the life and career section then I'd be happy to remove the COI tag. This might help, but it looks like it might have been written by you, there are a few mentions on google news but they are behind paywalls, maybe you have copies? Smartse (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank your for letting me know what is needed I try to provide as good as I can, I don't speak japanese and her early musical career began when the internet was in the very early stages. I hope it is ok if I simply give website addresses? Sakura Music School= http://sakuramusicschool.com --- with a performance at the 1st International Jazz Solo Piano Festival 2009 in Germany= http://jazzsolopianofestival.com/en/?cat=7 --- Marian McPartlands "An NPR Jazz Christmas with Marian McPartland and Friends, Vol. 3".= http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfpxqqrldfe~T1 --- Ayako’s solo piano album "Home Alone" was released in April 2006= http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=WNCJ-2163 --- Before giving birth to her two children=no reference for that, sorry --- Her second major CD "Musically Yours" was released in June, 2005= http://diskunion.net/jp/ct/detail/XAT-1245393133 --- In August 2003, her major debut CD "Existence" (Lewis Nash on drums, Marco Panascia on bass) was released in Japan= http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fm20031221mp.html --- The rest has no reference I fear, hopefully that is good enough. I took a look at the link for the google news that you gave above. They don't reference to the items in Life and career.... --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Found this: http://diskunion.net/classic/ct/detail/SJ0305-16 for the Duo Live --- that is one more :) --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We need sources which directly discuss her for there to be an article on her, websites that mention performances aren't enough. Looking more closely, I'm not sure if she meets our requirements for inclusion for musicians at the moment. If I'm wrong, could you point out which criteria she meets. If I'm correct then I will nominate the article for deletion. Smartse (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * She meets the following criteria: A - "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1] * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Please take a look here http://jazzsolopianofestival.com/en/?cat=7 and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rB-W9U_dLc /// B. Next criteria she meets is Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Please take a look at What's new Records http://www.wn-records.com/ it is a more important indie label in Japan, where Jazz CD's are still important and bought. She released 3 CD's on that Label - 2 of them are still on the Labels home page: http://www.wn-records.com/shinpu2148.html and http://www.wn-records.com/shinpu2163.html /// C. Next criteria she meets is Has won or placed in a major music competition. Finalist in the Mary Lou Williams Women In Jazz Piano Competition 2005 and 2006; Washington, D.C., USA [4] - Finalist in the Great American Jazz Piano Competition 2004, 2005 and 2006; Jacksonville, Fl., USA [5] references are from her article on Wikipedia with links to reliable websites. /// D. Next criteria she meets is Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album - Song "Sleigh Ride" on 2006 - Marian McPartlands "An NPR Jazz Christmas with Marian McPartland and Friends, Vol. 3".= http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfpxqqrldfe~T1 Please take a look at Marian McPartlands Wikipedia Article /// E. Next criteria that she meets is Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. in 2003 her first CD has been in rotation on WBGO, THE major radio jazz station in the U.S.A. Can't give a reference though. ATM we have a radio campaign going on with a radio add date of Sept 7, 2010. KSDS from San Diego one of the Top 10 Jazz Stations in the U.S.A. already played two songs from her new album before the radio add date: Please take a look at the second photo here http://thenewjazzthing.com/ /// F. Finally she meets this criteria: Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. She has been featured in Marian McPartlands 1 hour long Radio show "Piano Jazz" which is NPR and syndicated to a whole bunch of other stations http://www.npr.org/programs/pianojazz/previousguests/fall2006/shirasaki.html /// Thank you so much for your help, it is really appreciated. Yours, Jan --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I almost forgot she was in the Feb. 2010 issue of Jazztimes: http://janmatthies.com/blog/en/?p=184 --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Smartse for editing Ayako's article, please also watch the discussion page there. Are we far away from removing the COI flag? --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied at Talk:Ayako Shirasaki but another opinion wouldn't go amiss. Smartse (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry Brünjes and wife - Jacqueline Storey - articles being edited by former's secretary
The above articles (and others close to the subject) are being edited by, who here claims to be her namesake's secretary. I suspect it may be Harry Brunjes himself, due to the user editing Folkington Manor - which is owned by Brunjes... but there's no proof of that. Just thought others should know as the Harry Brünjes article is in danger of becoming a vanity page. The subject is clearly influential in business, but that's not the same as notable in an encyclopaedia. Malick78 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added the some template links, I also spotted who's edits need checking over (they haven't edited since Nov 09) and the Premier Medical Group has also been edited by these editors. Smartse (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Singing Scott Brothers needs checking over too. Smartse (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked for sources for both Harry Brünjes and Jacqueline Storey and couldn't find anything like what is required to meet WP:BASIC so have nominated them for deletion at AfD here and here. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:LisaFromSourceWatch
, a self-described staff member of the Center for Media and Democracy, made the following edit to the same article. The edit includes disputing claims made by a critic of the organization. No prior discussion was made at the article's Talk page, and no formal references were given (although an informal reference to one of the organization's websites was provided to counter one of the claims of the critic). Drrll (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed some of the information added and also added one reference. I'm inclined to remove the criticism section as it's essentially a slagging match between two groups and I'm not sure we can consider either to be RSs. I've had a look for sources to see if we can improve the article but haven't found any which really directly discuss the organisation, rather than what they've published. I'd advise LisaFromSourceWatch to follow WP:BESTCOI, and edit the talk page in the future, rather than the article. I'll be watching the page so should spot any comments made. Smartse (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * LisaFromSourceWatch has made a comment on the talk page, and I have since removed the whole criticism section due to poor sourcing. I don't think there's anything left to do so will mark this resolved. Smartse (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

and Darkboi
Darkboi appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable rapper, who apparently edits as Darkboildb. Darkboildb's user page is a copy of the article. He appears to be here only for self-promotion, having no edits outside his userpage and Darkboi. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Inviting review of Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center and others
I'm working on some copyright concerns with images uploaded by this user but could not help noticing an obvious COI. These articles are interrelated, and based on the attribution for File:Safe image.jpg, it seems that the individual may be Jordan Schaul or a relative. That image was first uploaded at File:Fellow schaul.jpg, where it was claimed that the photographer was "S.Schaul" and that it was uploaded under permission from "J.Schaul." It was tagged for lack of permission on August 15th and deleted in due course when the contributor failed to follow the processes of which s/he was notified. The contributor reuploaded under a different name under claim that he or she is himself the copyright owner. Either this is one of the Schauls, or this is blatant copyright fraud. (Maybe the latter, unless the Schauls are also Doug Lindstrand's publicist, which he claims to be here, though even there the possibility that he is Schaul is more strongly implied.)
 * at AfD here
 * (same person as Sandra Dee Robinson)
 * (PRODd)
 * at AfD here
 * (same person as Sandra Dee Robinson)
 * (PRODd)
 * (same person as Sandra Dee Robinson)
 * (PRODd)

Most of these articles have been tagged with COI and are much in need of review to see if they comply with sourcing and neutrality concerns. I don't want to mix the copyright issue with the COI issue in case I need to remain an uninvolved admin for the former. Might somebody be willing to take this on? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've noted that a couple have been nominated for deletion and added Sandra Ferguson which is a copy of Sandra Dee Robinson. I'll try to work on the article if I have time this week, but any help, would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ben Hayslip
has been making extensive edits to Ben Hayslip since May 2010. The IP's edits are extremely promotional in nature: This and this suggest that the editor may be someone very closely related, or Hayslip himself. Some of the other edits, such as this, are slightly promotional. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about this one. The COI might be true, this editor seems to know a lot about this person, especially his baseball career. But at the same time, I can't make sense of which is actually removing mention of a couple of awards that Hayslip won. Why would someone who was interested in promoting someone want to remove mention of awards from the page? Also, I'm not seeing the edits as overly promotional, there aren't any peacock terms or other fluff, the info this editor has added has so far been relevant to the biography (though unsourced). The article is worth keeping an eye on (it's a BLP after all) but I don't see a huge problem with this editor, and it's more difficult to deal with an IP than a registered account. A message left for this IP about conflicts of interest might be lost if they change their address (it looks like 173.25.160.73 might have been the same person). --  At am a  頭  17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Finitude2222 and unaccredited institutions

 * - this s.p.a. is editing two linked articles about an unaccredited "university" in New Orleans, and its Canadian affiliate. I spotted it early because these articles have had a lot of s.p.a. involvement, and I suspect this is a new sockpuppet of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Stevemanagement. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  17:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * They appear to have learnt about the law of unintended consequences: . Looking at the articles though, they don't exactly seem notable, so maybe they should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been spending some time looking at the contributions of the new editor and the previous two socks that were blocked. What I found really telling was edit by Finitude2222 and  edit by Stevemanagement. They are almost identical, in particular the way they pared down the "Accreditation and DIU" section is identical. Also, look at  edit from Finitude2222 and  edit from Louis900000 (Stevemanagement's sockpuppet), also nearly identical. This combined with Finitude2222 claiming to represent the schools is quacking very loudly to me, so I'm going to go ahead and mark this editor as a sock.


 * On the other hand, I agree with Smartse, I don't know that these schools merit inclusion anyway. I don't really see the coverage that would meet WP:CORP or our general notability guideline. The only reason I see for keeping the articles around would be to warn the public about these schools, but that really isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it not canonical that colleges and universities, like high schools, are deemed inherently notable? Seems to me that even if their credentials are bogus, this principal still applies. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, oddly enough, I don't think so, though logically you'd think they would be. See Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, where it doesn't mention colleges and universities. In this case, I think it's arguable that these schools are even real colleges. --  At am a  頭 00:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of at least two minds on this question (I think the count is now up to three or four minds...). First off, let me say that it sometimes has been said in deletion discussions that "unaccredited institutions aren't notable," and I strenuously oppose that position. At the same time, I have misgivings about creating and maintaining articles about institutions for which there is little or no third-party content to use as the basis for an article. That lack of coverage is a chronic problem with unaccredited institutions, and it is one reason for the large number of red links at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, but it's also a problem sometimes with institutions that are documented to be accredited (example). However, if there are people walking around out here in the real world whose professional credentials (whether on a resume or a plaque on their office walls) include degrees from a particular institution, I think that a reader ought to be able to come to Wikipedia to learn about that institution -- and if we have any information on which to base a stub article, they ought to be able to read that article. A while back when I had occasion to plow through a pile of resumes from job applicants, I was astonished to see that one applicant had listed a Ph.D from a diploma mill whose name I recognized as a result of having edited the school's article at Wikipedia. IMO, the existence of real people who claim degrees (especially advanced degrees) from an institution makes that institution notable in a very real way, even if that notability is not yet documented in a Wikipedia essay. Finally, my experience editing articles about unaccredited institutions has demonstrated to me that they are often significantly more interesting than normal universities (for an example, see Columbia State University and Ronald Pellar) -- and that once an article is created, it is likely to attract new content contributions from people who add the sourced information that they happened upon just before looking up the institution's name in Wikipedia.


 * Having said all that, it looks to me like these two institutions don't appear to have enough sourcing for development of decent stub articles. At a minimum, however, they clearly qualify for reliably-sourced entries in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. If separate articles are maintained, it would be a good idea to enroll them in "pending changes" so that future additions by self-interested WP:SPAs (which are a chronic problem at essentially all articles about unaccredited institutions) will be monitored and appropriately addressed. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Amotz Shemi

 * - The accounts User:Silenseed and User:Gilifocht, both apparently the same person, an employee of Amotz Shemi's company Silenseed Ltd. who signs their messages "Gili", have been used as s.p.a.s to stop the prodding of this article about Shemi and his company. A quick google reveals that a Gili Focht is a QA Manager for Silenseed. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  14:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Warned regarding conflict of interest edits. This article has been nominated for deletion, and the entry may be found here. The article has already been cleaned up, so I don't think there will be any further issues.  Netalarm talk 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Bill Thomas (writer)

 * - This s.p.a. has carefully crafted a campaign ad for this writer now running for Congress. It's unencyclopedic and promotional, full of pull quotes from reviews of his books, and generally reads like it was taken straight from his press kit. It has no footnotes, and until recently was "sourced" to things like amazon.com reviews of his books. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The same s.p.a. keeps trying to re-instert the amazon blurbs and so forth, but refuses to do anything to actually improve the article. I've temporarily protected it while attempting to engage the s.p.a. on the subject. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We (or at least I) can't do anything to fix the article when it is still fully protected, can it be unprotected? Smartse (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was unprotected yesterday by HJ Mitchell. I'd like to point out that unlike some COI promotional editors, this one is communicative, see where the editor is appealing to another editor in regards to the creation of the article, and here where they made an appeal to tags left on the article. So far, these communications have been appeals/notices, not actual conversations, so I'm not certain if this is any real indicator of a willingness to discuss issues with the article or if this is just more promotion to get the word out about this candidate. It's not at all uncommon for candidates at all levels of government to use Wikipedia as another part of their advocacy; many campaigns see it as free advertising and the worst thing that will happen to them is that the article is deleted and the single-purpose accounts they use are blocked. No loss to them. I suggest giving this editor a chance but based on past experience with similar situations I don't have a lot of hope. --  At am a  頭  16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He, or she, has never gotten in touch with me despite repeated requests. Has registered no email address. Communication seems to be limited to, "Hey, work on my article" I did a little bit in order to put his political campaign in context. Fred Talk 15:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Longtime editor Chestertouristcom

 * - As clearly stated on their userpage, this editor runs a website called chestertourist.com. Their first edit in December 2006 was to add a spamlink to their website to an existing article. On the flip side, they have contributed a vast array of useful images and some sound edits to the project over the years. If this was a noobie, I'd block the username right away; but an old account like this leaves me of two minds. Do we ask them to change their username of long standing and tone down the self-advertisement for their site on their userpage, or...? I seek the input of other editors. Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ask to change user name and tone down the userpage spam. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ukexpat, that the userpage spam needs to be removed. I don't recommend any sort of block, even a softblock, because of all the contributions this editor has made over the years. A username change may not be necessary, I know that we routinely "grandfather" in usernames and there are a number of well-established editors who would have had their names changed if they had created their accounts today. The way I'd approach this matter is to inform the editor that we don't allow promotional usernames, but that if they were to carefully remove all mention of the web site from Wikipedia (including their user page) then nobody would make the association between their name and the site and that might be a way to avoid having to change their name. Also let them know that when referring to themselves, that they be sure not to call themselves "Chestertourist.com" as that again highlights the fact that their name is a URL. --  At am a  頭 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested posting of Dutch and Spanish localized versions of "Xerox DocuShare" Wikipedia entry
My name is Suzanne Hawley, I am a Public Relations Manager at Xerox. I work from 13.13.137.1. I am concerned to learn that Dutch and Spanish versions of the "Xerox DocuShare" entry (English version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_DocuShare) have been removed several times in the last couple weeks. We believe these pages are simply localized versions of the English page, which was updated in March 2010 and has not been flagged since, or been identified as violating guidelines. We carefully followed the guidelines then to make it adhere to a non-biased position. The page is comparable to descriptions of other products in this space. I am not able to view the deleted Spanish/Dutch pages to point you to them (the Dutch page was at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_DocuShare). However I'd welcome a full review of the English page, and guidance about what changes need to be made in order to post the Dutch and Spanish versions. (Alternatively, my European colleagues can re-post the pages next week and request that before they are removed again, they have the opportunity to speak with the editor to identify the issues with the page, so that we can work together to meet the guidelines.) Appreciate your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzhawley (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Suzanne for being up-front about your affiliation with Xerox and choosing to bring the matter here. I'd be happy to look over the article here at the English Wikipedia and make changes/suggestions. Unfortunately, every Wikipedia of a different language has different rules, and any decisions made here won't affect what happens at the other Wikipedias. Your only recourse will be to make appeals at those Wikipedias to find out how to change the articles to merit inclusion. I think that you'll have to wait for your European colleagues as you've suggested. --  At am a  頭 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. We will follow up with the other Wikipedias as you recommend. And please feel free to review the English article and make suggestions (or changes) if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzhawley (talk • contribs) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Actually, I did look over the article on this Wikipedia and it looks fine, well-written and referenced and neutral in tone. --  At am a  頭 21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Valor Christian Death and Christian Death
is posting supposed legal documents inside the article. Thre are apparently legal problems between former members of the band, and this editor is presenting one side of the story. No legal threats at this point, but they have a definite conflict that needs to be prevented quickly. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Feminists Fighting Pornography CoI alleged
I was CoI-tagged, the tag was withdrawn, and then the tag was restored by the same editor. In short, I donated $25 or less to Feminists Fighting Pornography in the 1980s, spoke with the group several times, and saw it tabling in public places. The group became inactive, probably in the 1990s. I have no current contacts or contact information for anyone connected with the group. In reply, the complaining editor wrote, "it was more of an indicator than a big issue, your comments are appreciated and in good faith I will remove the template." That editor has restored the tag but has not stated any particulars despite having logged into WP since my last request. A search of this noticeboard's archives shows no inquiry by anyone concerning the group. I plan to notify the editor of this concern. Is there a conflict of interest?

Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have notified the editor. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing has changed the COI remains as in a user that has contributed to the article, (wrote it themselves mostly) has a close connection to the group and is a WP:SPA to the article, the tag has imo still a valid reason to be there and is presently beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no close connection. As far as I know, the group hasn't existed in more than a decade.


 * Anyone can edit. I haven't discouraged anyone.


 * See my contributions list. SPA doesn't apply. I've performed over 1,100 edits and created 11 or 12 articles.


 * Given the facts, what valid reason is there?


 * The tag is not beneficial. Specific critiques that an editor, such as myself, can address, have been invited on the talk page. Those critiques have not lately been forthcoming. All older ones were resolved. Keeping critiques secret from me keeps them secret from most editors. Merely tagging and tagging incorrectly do not inform editors about particular needs.


 * Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll start by saying that the group's lack of current activity doesn't necessarily indicate that a COI claim is invalid. A person's affiliation with an article subject can still be a concern even if that affiliation was in the past. To give an example, the son of a famous person who died 20 years ago might still work to whitewash his father's article.


 * It's a good thing that you're open about your connection, that goes a long way toward gaining trust among other editors.


 * I'm looking over your recent contributions and the claim that you're an SPA for that article is clearly very far off the mark. Looking at your past 500 contributions to Wikipedia, I count 35 edits to that article and its talk page; that comprises exactly 7% of your contributions. Now, I do see that feminism and other gender issues dominate your contributions, but that just means you have an interest in the area, no harm in that.


 * I've looked over the discussion here and your statements elsewhere and my opinion is that the COI claim is a valid one, but weak. I don't see any reason to believe that your involvement with the group was more than you've said. Clearly, you'd had some personal involvement with the group, enough that other editors might view your contributions to the subject with some wariness, but I don't think it should be a major concern. Only if there were some serious conduct issues accompanying your edits (most especially an attempt to skew the POV) would I worry.


 * So now let's get to the reason for this discussion... The COI tag. If you look at what the tag itself states, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." The language seen at the page for a similar tag, Template:POV, has some advice that should also apply to the COI tag. "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Most especially, the advice that applies here is, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article."


 * Absent a discussion on the talk page of the article outlining problems with the COI, the tag itself is useless. It's a cleanup tag and implores people to fix problems. As Nick suggested, if there is nothing to fix, the tag should be removed. --  At am a  頭 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The article needs something, its bloated and primarily cited and created by this one involved user, this user moved three lines from another article and created this///leaving it as if an honest reflection of this groups actual position in history is false and misleading, if any editors are willing to work on the article and improve it please do. There is a clear COI with this user. The AFD from April is revealing the issues that have continued. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the true notability of this group without a COI, this is what we had at the Women Against Pornography article, all expansion of the content is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports.

Feminists Fighting Pornography, led by Page Mellish, was another New York City-based group. They are best known for their 1989 arrest for openly displaying pornography as part of an anti-pornography information table in Grand Central Station. The New York Civil Liberties Union (the state affiliate of the ACLU) successfully contested the arrest and established their legal right to display such material. Feminists Against Pornography was a different group, active in Washington, D.C. during the late 1970s and early 1980s

All expansion of the content since Feb 2010 is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are the kinds of concerns that the COI tag is supposed to draw attention to. :) Thanks for that information. I'll take another look over the article myself. If there aren't any third-part sources, that's particularly troubling. --  At am a  頭 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a comment on the article's talk page, and in particular I'm concerned about the group's notability. --  At am a  頭 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to get a fresh look at the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replied, including on sourcing; thank you.


 * The old passage on the group was in an article primarily about a competitor. WP wouldn't profile London only in the article about New York, nor keep it to just part of one paragraph when as many independent third-party sources exist as I found and cited for this group.


 * The article expanded from less than a paragraph after I went to libraries and used publicly available hardcopy, microforms, and databases to provide essential information. I did the work and that's why I wrote about the group.


 * Thanks again. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Corrected indentation of this paragraph: Nick Levinson (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cyberhymnist; publisher Cyber Hymnal; sites cyberhymnal.org, hymntime.com

 * - Most recently, adding trademark symbols to articles that mention "Cyber Hymnal" ("the #1 Hymn Site Online") as a source. Since March 2009 seems to have edited mostly (or only, have not looked at every edit) articles that mention Cyber Hymnal.  CliffC (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Two bursts of edits, March 2009 and recently. I'm going to give him a username block, unlike say the editor mentioned above who has had a company name for some years and made a lot of constructive edits, this editor is an SPA. I will point out that the TM symbol should not be used, see Manual of Style (trademarks). Dougweller (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Schlitterbahn

 * - User has been editing the article related to Schlitterbahn.  I asked them if they were an employee or somehow connected with the company and they responded with yes.  While their additions have been non-controversial and they have been honest and straight forward about who they are, I still think someone should take a look at this. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! &lrm; 15:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at the article and the talk page... The article does currently have tags identifying problems with the article and there is discussion on the article's talk page regarding the issues. The editor seems perfectly willing to comply with COI guidelines and as mentioned they have restricted themselves to non-controversial edits so I see no concerns. --  At am a  頭 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Gil Dekel
has been spamming http://www.poeticmind.co.uk/, a website registered to a Gil Dekel and run by Gil and Natalie Dekel. He continues to add the links without responding to the COI and spam notices. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. But this was not my intention at all! My intention is contributing reliable information which wikipedia seems to lack in parts, at the moment. I leaned from you that if new content is suggested, it is best that it is brought to discussion in first instance, so its quality can be verified. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

East India Company
- over the past few months, ananymous IPs have repeatedly inserted advertising text for a company of the same name which was formed in 2005. The last three such insertions took place over the last four days. The sycophantic tone and use of peacock terms are clearly against Conflict_of_interest. The article ought at least to be protected against anonymous edits. HLGallon (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to protect it. It looks like good faith, though misguided, and this should be handled at article talk.  They even added a cite, in cite template format!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't dispute your decision, but in my opinion, the actions of the editors (or possibly only one editor) from a narrow range of IP addresses based in New Delhi who have persisted (over twenty times now) in adding this section do not indicate good faith. The grovelling tone is nauseating enough, but it is very clearly intended for promotion or self-promotion of an otherwise non-notable business at the expense of the clarity of the article. HLGallon (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kindly go to company house UK and check the records, as we want to provide the true thing in Wikipedia about the Incorporation in year 2005 As we really dont know how to contact you or edit that is why we do mistake here, you kind help required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.83.81 (talk • contribs)

I've removed the block of text here and blocked the range of IPs originating the material temporarily. The spam itself is not particularly eggregious, but the IPs were literally only communicating by replicating the article content and placing it on project pages and user talk pages. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the user's most recent addition of his material to East India Company (formerly a featured article) as pure unashamed promotion of himself and his retail store. As you point out, he's also spewed the same spammy text to my talk page and to that of other editors.  He needs to communicate otherwise.  His store gets a one-paragraph mention at East_India_Company and that seems more than sufficient, if it needs to be mentioned at all, and I don't see that it's at all notable except perhaps based on an article about him buying the name. --CliffC (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to be cruel but I think we're running into a real competence problem. If the IP users are unable to properly communicate I don't know how there's any way to work with them. --  At am a  頭 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fresh promotion of the store and spammed links today here, 'new' user warned via template. --CliffC (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And now twice more, one an IP and one a newly-registered user that I advised via a personalized message. They are very keen to get their store links into this article. --CliffC (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks more like a spamming problem that should be reported to WP:RSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hurt Building

 * - and IP  appear to represent the owners of the Hurt Building. They have not responded on talk pages to this point and appear to be trying to make the article into a leasing promo. Between the IP and the user, they are at 3RR.   Acroterion  (talk)  19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted, but this user probably won't be back anytime soon - been 6 days. Netalarm talk 03:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably so, and other editors have taken notice as well.  Acroterion  (talk)  04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej

 * Two (in my opinion disruptive) editors involved from article’s creation keep placing COI and Orphan tags, as well as one editor who was very involved at AfD 2 and wasn’t happy with the result. These editors claim to have COI consensus on the talk page, but I believe involved editors in obvious conflict with an AfD community decision should not be considered consensus (I am aware I am involved too, but I am not the one being disruptive, I know the article subject as an acquaintance but not too close). See the talk page. COI says “…must be careful not to out other editors. WP policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.” Another editor warned of this WP:civil breach. AfD 1 had decided “delete”. Article was userfied and improved, taken to WP:FEED as instructed. AfD 2 resulted in a “keep”. Whether we like a certain article or not, we simply must not be selective about WP policy. Equally importantly, article is fully sourced and neutrally worded. I am not opposed to anyone removing peacock claims or puff, if any. Would you please remove the tags? Thank you in advance.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears the COI tag was placed due to words you used in the first AfD ("I am being short-changed", etc) which some have read to mean you as the subject rather than you as the article creator/defender. I personally read that the other way (you as the creator). However, you have also admitted to knowing the subject, if only peripherally, which is going to raise COI concerns. Note though that the COI tag is not a "reason to delete" tag as you mentioned on the talk page. It is just a tag that the article may warrant a little extra attention to make sure all the edits stay neutral. The article will not be re-submitted for deletion due to COI concerns, or because of the tag.
 * The best way to handle that situation, since you do have some connection to the subject, would be to propose edits on the talk page of the article and see what the consensus is on their inclusion. Doing this will dispel any appearance of impropriety or COI, and should serve as a heavy demonstration of your good faith in wanting only to improve the article. While editing the article when you know the subject is not outright prohibited, it is strongly discouraged. It is just human nature that when you are close to a subject, it is harder to be 100% neutral when writing about it.
 * The "orphan" tag, likewise, is not a "reason to delete" type of tag. It just means that very few other Wikipedia articles have links into this one. That tag is more of an invitation to other editors to create such links, and not a complaint about the state of the article. Right now only 2 articles link into this one: Once a few other articles are linked in, that tag can be removed. Hope this helps! Arakunem Talk 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you all editors who looked at article and contributed. That alone makes it worth coming here.
 * Thanks Arakunem for replying. Well, the COI tag was initially placed because I sourced subject’s employment and editors I mentioned couldn’t find it online. When I directed them to a basic Google search, they changed the tune to what you mentioned ("I am being short-changed", etc.). To me that screams bad faith, and I think tags are placed just to spite me.
 * I also thought that the fact article is fully sourced and neutrally worded means it should not have a COI tag, nothing is disputed?
 * It would seem like you presently agree with leaving the tag on, in effect making the opposing party of edit war seem justified (which is ok, I came here for uninvolved opinion). If I were to propose edits on the talk page, who would consider them? Most likely the very same editors who watch the page and I feel are being disruptive…
 * Even as such, I am willing to abide by this (only editing after proposal on talk page) if COI tag was removed. What are your thoughts?Turqoise127 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The COI tag is a cleanup tag. It's actually a two-part tag, partially to let people know that the article has been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and partially to request that the article be reviewed and to have problems resolved. It should be accompanied by a discussion on the talk page where particular issues are mentioned to be fixed. I see that both parts apply in this case; as someone with a personal connection to the article subject you clearly have a COI, and there is a rather extensive discussion on the talk page of the article. Until that discussion is resolved, I see no reason to remove the COI tag.


 * The orphan tag is a technical one, it means that few (if any) articles link to that article. That is certainly true, if you click on "what links here" you will only see 2 actual articles linking to it. Don't take that tag to mean there's anything wrong with the article itself, the whole purpose of the tag is to let editors know that they should consider linking to the article in other articles related to it. To give an example, Kunej graduated from the University of Zagreb, perhaps he could be mentioned in the "Legacy" section where it can link to his article. But really, that's all that the tag means.


 * I think one reason for this extensive conflict is that you're taking things far too personally, Turqoise127. You're assuming that the tags were placed simply to spite you. I know that you've had a long-running dispute with Drmies and there is some bad faith between you two which is understandable (if regrettable), but I see that you've taken to personalizing all disagreements with you on the talk page of the article and that's going to cause problems. I strongly suggest discussing ways to improve the article on the talk page rather than feuding with people. My personal advice is this; people have placed a COI tag on the article, so challenge them. Ask them what in particular is wrong with the article. Ask them what changes are needed to allow them to remove it. Know that the tag cannot be there simply because you are active in editing the article; the tag is not a mark to warn people that a person with a COI is editing the article. Find out what they want fixed, then work with them.


 * All good faith editors have one goal: to improve Wikipedia articles. You want that article to be in good shape and so do the other editors, so you're on the same side. You might have different opinions on what exactly constitutes an improvement, but that's how collaborations work. They can make suggestions, you can make suggestions, and you come up with a compromise. The article doesn't seem to be in any danger of deletion any time soon, so it's not necessary for you to be defensive about criticism that people might have, and the more you work with other people to clean up the article, the better shape it will be in and the less likely that people will criticize it. --  At am a  頭 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Atama, I will take your advice to heart. I do not mean to be difficult. I am maybe being unclear. What I tried to convey was that I addressed the concerns of other editors on the talk page and it fell on deaf ears. I came here in order for uninvolved editors to weigh in on this and/or indicate any other issues that need addressing; if not then to move the tag. I believe COI arguments on talk page have no basis. Like I said, the one claim about “how did I know where subject works” was shown to be invalid once I provided search results showing where subject worked. The other claim, my words during AfD 1, I explained.
 * If the tag cannot be there simply because I am editing the article, and that is what opposing parties claim, than it should be taken off?
 * Thanks for your time all who comment.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I commented on the talk page of the article in regards to the COI tag, and I have the article on my watchlist to be able to respond promptly to further discussion. On a second review of the talk page, the problems being discussed are almost purely behavioral issues and not about the content, which is what the COI tag is supposed to address. I've made a request to clarify the concerns so that everyone can work to resolve them. --  At am a  頭 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Chi-X Europe, User:SCL2010


This user has a self confessed COI and, despite advice on the article talk page and on their user page, appears not to understand that Wikipedia is not here to provide a place to promote their client. – ukexpat (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur, though it looks like you and Ahunt have it under control. If SCL still doesn't get it after Ahunt's re-write, perhaps proceeding 1 paragraph at a time on the talk page, with his suggested text and a deeper dive into why it may or may not be appropriate, will help him to understand how to phrase his text. Arakunem Talk 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Honest2009 and the Toronto city council election
- This user has been active since September 2009. His history indicates that virtually all of his edits are related to Josh Matlow, a school trustee who is currently running for Toronto City Council. In the past year Honest2009 has edited the following articles (and no others): Dramedy Tonight (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Josh Matlow (19 times)
 * Toronto city council election, 2010 (18 times, mostly to the section on Ward 22 in which Matlow is running)
 * Toronto District School Board (1 time)
 * Michael Walker (politician) (1 time, Walker is the incumbent in the aforementioned Ward 22, this edit occurred prior to Walker announcing that he is not running for re-election(.

user:carolmooredc writing a book and using wp to make her pov
- Response from Carol Moore: Reason for DarkStar1st's complaint now: I believe it is that this week Darkstart1st was very favorable towards WP:disruptive editing advice on his talk page from an individual that two of us warned him was probably a sock puppet. See User_talk:Darkstar1st and Talk:Libertarianism. I then filed a Sock Puppet complaint archived here and the individual (his two anonymous Ips and his new Registered name) were immediately banned as socks of User:Karmaisking. Note that Darkstar1st immediately received on his talk page advice on how to attack me for WP:COI from another suspicious editor, with specific links to my edits. This was removed at this diff by another editor who considered this to be just a sock of User:Karmaisking.
 * - carolmooredc has been the most prevalent editor on this page for years. carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article.  this is confusing to readers and is slanted toward her pov which is the subject of a book being promoted at www.carolmoore.net.  carolmooredc also admitted to have known Murray Rothbard, the person who coined the term anarcho-capitalism.   The majority of her edits in wp are focused on libertarianism, specifically, topics concerning anarcho-capitalism.
 * :archived talk page Living in NYC before associated with Libertarians I was very pro-Israel. But hanging out with Murray 1979-82, I became very critical. However, when someone took "anti-Zionist" off his page, I did a quick search and couldn't find a self-identification as one. But his writings could be interpreted as that. Being an anarchist he had more the anarchist position there should not be such a state. Carol Moore 22:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc Question authority! :-) Carol Moore 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Taken from Murray Rothbard talk page, Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * editing a different article, for a different book: Waco Siege because I wrote a 1995 book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE published by Gun Owners Foundation on the topic.   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Carolmooredc&oldid=84876028%20first%20started   Darkstar1st (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc has been the most prevalent editor on this page for years.
 * He’d have to prove it, but a look at last couple thousand edits of article shows I’ve edited less than one or more other editors, including possibly himself.
 * Quote Darkstar1st:carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article.
 * I have been more active in the last 8 months on the talk page dealing with an onslaught of WP:Soapbox from Darkstar1st, various AnonIPs (now banned by protection), newly registered editors, a couple of sock puppets, and (to a lesser extent) a couple of legitimate editors. All have been pushing an exclusionist POV to mention only minimal state libertarianism in the article and ignore multiple WP:RS on existence of other types. (The Libertarianism template Darkstar1st included shows just how much diversity there is.) This recently concluded RfC rejects such a POV. Multiple editors have insisted both in the article, on talk page and in the RfC that anarcho capitalism and left libertarianism be in the lead.
 * Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc's focus seems to be inserting the term anarcho-capitalist into the lede of the article. this is confusing to readers and is slanted toward her pov which is the subject of a book being promoted at www.carolmoore.net.
 * I have not written a book on libertarianism and have had the brief outline of a book on spirituality and politics on my web page for last ten years. Frankly, editing wikipedia interferes with my writing much outside of it at all.
 * Quote Darkstar1st: carolmooredc also admitted to have known Murray Rothbard, the person who coined the term anarcho-capitalism. The majority of her edits in wp are focused on libertarianism, specifically, topics concerning anarcho-capitalism.
 * As it happens I don’t consider myself an anarcho-capitalist and, while I had fun with Murray in the early 1980s, Rothbard denounced me as a hippy and “luftmenschen” from 1987 until he died, but I don’t hold that against him in wanting to show a fair portrait of his influence on the modern movement.
 * Quote DarkStar1st:I'm not a radio person but http://youtube.com/carolmoore is chockful of my DC protest videos and starting to do music videos of my songs. Plus have another more anonymous YT site with (I take the fifth amendment) video put together cleverly to illustrate nuke war issues. Far more popular than my own site. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no diff for this quote, but as I vaguely remember it is some (archived) chatty fluff with another editor on my personal talk page - not something from my main user page. I also don’t see any link to any policy saying such things are illegal, though now that I see how people will use them against you I shall desist.
 * Quote DarkStar1st: Taken from Murray Rothbard talk page, Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here I’m admitting a possible conflict of interest, which is what WP:COI suggest. I’m saying that I can’t quote myself on saying this was an angry period in Rothbard’s life. Actually I think the author of the article ended up concluding that Rothbard was angry, as do other sources, but evidently I didn't bother to suggest any that others should add. Maybe I should correct that error.
 * Quote DarkStar1st: He quotes from my 14:14, October 31, 2006 very first edit to my talk page when I was barely even aware of the many wikipedia policies on talk pages, conflict of interest, etc. He quotes my writing I'd edited Waco Siege because I wrote a 1995 book THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE published by Gun Owners Foundation on the topic.
 * I see my only edit to that article at that point was to add my own book to external links and correct someone else's link about a report I'd written. Yup, I was ignorant of WP:COI 4 years ago when I started editing! FYI I do think expert editing is needed on this article and have sorely neglected doing much. I certainly would mention any possible WP:COI if I proceeded with the major changes needed - or if I edited it all again! I intend to use only original sources to be sure that I got my refs right, and one of these days I'll get my 15 boxes of files in order so I can proceed.

User_talk:Darkstar1st's talk page show numerous complaints against him. A few of us have been discussing on talk pages doing a User RfC or another ANI; the last libertarian-related ANI against him recommended mediation first, but our request for mediation has not been fruitful. After the latest incidents with the sock puppet, you can bet an RfC has been on our minds. Someone else then launched a (in my opinion premature and incomplete) WP:ANI, specifically on his "Outing" me on his talk page, which also might have motivated this complaint. I see this complaint as just another disruptive editing move by DarkStar1st. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC) - Comment by DarkStar1st
 * actually you were the one who recommended i file a coi report against you, after i tried to bring this up on the libertarian talk page Darkstar1st (talk) 06:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I said a) you hadn't followed correct process. Please see what that process is at WP:COI and b) the way you were doing it was harassment and you should just file a report if you really thought it was that big a deal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

- Comment by The Four Deuces

Darkstar1st has not referred to any specific violations that have been committed as described in WP:COI nor has he described any edits to articles. Lots of editors have had some involvement with the subjects they describe and many editors have published books and articles. From my experience, Carolemooredc has always observed neutrality and used reliable sources in editing articles. TFD (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * here is a pov edit she later claimed to have not made, then said she could not remember making, notice the reasons she gave for removing sourced material from sources already in use in that paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187 Darkstar1st (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * she later tried to actually read the source given after her edit, but could not find it, even though the link worked and listed the paragraph and line. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Carolemooredc removed two of your edits:
 * "...by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles..."
 * "...who are commitmented to expansion of the welfare state, which is incompatible with anti-statist."
 * The first is original research. The second is backed by a source but contains POV not included in the source which says, "...have tended to support the expansion of welfare state benefits via community sponsored services...." (p. 181) In any case neither belong in the lead and the second is incoherent - "commitmented" is not a word and "anti-statist" is an adjective that requires a noun.  So she removed text that included original research and misrepresentation of the source and was poorly written.
 * TFD (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * not OR, rather you didnt read the source Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 517, paragraph 3, sentence 2: it's very structural framework renders it incapable of protecting the substantive libertarian principles it purports to cherish  Darkstar1st (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2. are you saying a commitment (i think we all know what word i meant) to expanding the state is anti-statist?   Darkstar1st (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You left out the preceding phrase, argue its critics which means it cannot be presented as a fact. Also it does not say "by definition".  Incidentally the sentence was not written by Edward Stringham, but by David Osterfeld and is an exert from a book published by the Cobden Press which was a libertarian publishing company and therefore not a reliable source for the article anyway.
 * Your source does not say "commitment to the welfare state". Libertarians opposed the welfare state because they believed that welfare services should be provided by the community.  Many churches and voluntary organizations provide welfare services and that does not make them statist.  In any case do not present your opinions as facts.
 * TFD (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * not my facts, but from the sourced article on left-libertarian which has been there quite some time. commitment to expansion of the welfare state.  Darkstar1st (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When you add incoherent, ungrammatical and misspelt text that is unsourced or misrepresents the source then expect to be reverted. If you have difficulty in comprehending sources or in writing correct English, then ask for assistance on the talk page.  WP articles are not reliable sources for other WP articles.  TFD (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i noticed you have not challenged the source you claim to be misrepresented on the left-libertarian page. maybe someone there could better explain it's validity to you.  on grammar, my edits appear to use a broader swath of the language than yours, perhaps why some of the words are unfamiliar to you.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

- Comment by Yworo

This is simply not a COI issue. I'd recommend that Darkstar1st consider the distinct possibility of WP:BOOMARANG. I've been peripherally involved in a number of "actions" brought by Darkstar1st, on AN/I, SPI, etc. They seem primarily intended to subdue an adversary. Darkstar1st seems a bit overinvolved in getting articles related to Libertarianism the way he wants them. His editing frequently appears to be disruptive, and his talk page behavior frequently seems to be soapboxing. I'm starting to think that the real solution here may be a temporary topic ban for Darkstar1st. Yworo (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * would you give us your specific refute to the evidence presented above? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone needs to, because you are (once again) making a mountain out of a molehill. Yworo (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, that is the purpose of this section, please address the accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The accusation is unfounded and you don't really seem to understand what the conflict of interest policy is intended to prevent. This is not a case of an editor editing their own article or promoting their website or book. If such a book actually existed and was actually being promoted, you'd have an argument, but as it stands you are just harassing another editor. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: FYI I did edit the article Carol Moore which someone else had created a year before that was just filled with silly assertions, cutting it down to bare facts and references, some more WP:RS (bunch of quotes in major newspapers) than others (my published writings), since it was when I was still a new editor. Once I became aware of the WP:COI issue, I refrained. Article now deleted. Someone offered to put it up again and I told him to wait a while, but he didn't bring the matter up and I haven't either since frankly I don't really care if there is one right now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * so if you are writing a book, but not finished, then it is ok to edit the article?  Is her user name or music videos promoting her website?  Darkstar1st (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to the first, no to the second. Even if she had a published book, only promoting the book via external links or unnecessary references to it would constitute a conflict of interest. Our policies explicitly allow an author to use their own work as a reference so long as it qualifies as a reliable source, though it's discouraged. Mention is not always promotion. Yworo (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what if the user name was seanhannitynyc and he posted youtube videos about political protest, and he was the primary editor on the article conservatism, but insisted on adding religious right as the dominate form of conservatism? having a user name the same as an url is troubling, posting self made protest videos on wp is inappropriate, editing the article which is the subject of the site and videos is unacceptable.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Using your reasoning, anybody who actually has a life and edits Wikipedia articles about things they are interested in has a conflict of interest. That's simply not the intent of the policy. Yworo (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * no, what i meant was using a trademark, like carolmoore, is again policy, especially if you use it promoting that trandmark. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's an issue, it would be a username policy issue, not a COI issue. However, I see no evidence that it's a "trademark" - which has a specific meaning. Just looks like an individual who chooses to use their own name, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere on the Internet, rather than be anonymous. While I wouldn't choose to do that myself, it's certainly not inherently against policy. Wikipedia allows even extremely well-known people to use their own name as their username, provided it's verified through OTRS. Yworo (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * since it is a registered the domain name, it actually is a trademark and can be used in to defend the brand. does an "individual" make music videos, post them on wp, and sell products on a site with the same url as user name?  since the site sell products, and has been advertised on wp, this is clearly coi.   Darkstar1st (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I haven't trademarked "Carol Moore" and doubt I can. Also I doubt that registering a domain name is an automatic trademark, and Darkstar would have to prove that. Obviously it would be fraudulent for someone to claim they represented any carolmoore domains I own without my authorization, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. Even if I did trademark any carolmoore domains I own, it would be irrelevant to this discussion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, a domain is not an automatic trademark. Trademarks cost money. The gov doesn't give away trademarks. Carol is allowed to link to her domain from her user page. So long as she doesn't link to it from articles, there is no conflict of interest. Yworo (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, she may not link her promotional advocacy page.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page#Common_uses_of_userspace section: Excessive unrelated content


 * Promotional and advocacy material and links
 * Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).
 * Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia Darkstar1st (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Yworo (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://carolmoore.net/books.html is a shopping cart with promotional and advocacy material, not a personal site   Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are completely misreading the user page restrictions. She could not put the contents of her website onto her user page, but she can link to her userpage just so long as she doesn't do it in a promotional way. Her site is not overtly commercial, no more so than most personal sites, which may have a few Amazon links or whatnot. There are no "Buy-it-now" links on the home page, the purpose of the site is clearly primarily informative, and it's a .net domain, not a .com domain.
 * Carol, if you don't have a link to your site on your user page, I encourage you to add one. Don't let Darkstar's misreading of user page guidelines deter you. Yworo (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * actually, there is a buy it now on the homepage: Buy my book, or the edition of this Clarence Darrow book to which I wrote a new preface introduction.  clearly promotional, clearly commercial, clearly avocational material, clearly linked to her user page.  Darkstar1st (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed link to my page in Feb 2009 after some one opined it might be seen as self-promotional. Note that badgering people about things done before they knew better and since corrected, is WP:Harassment. Doing a search I see there are a few links to my web pages, a couple of which I doubtless did before I knew any better. (Once you know, you don't do it any more!) A couple of which others put in the articles. I'll remove the ones that obviously don't belong. I guess I'll put a tag next to any that are copies of WP:RS documents that can't be found elsewhere. That's what's called cooperative editing :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * your edits of articles slanted toward personal relationships you had with the person who coined the term you are editing is the main issue here. excuse yourself from articles that directly correspond to your carolmoore.net site, which has a shopping cart, and buy me now links on the homepage.  Darkstar1st (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rothbard related comment responded to in my response. Have you read other editors' comments? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing the person who coined a term, then editing an article toward that term's meaning = coi, which you not only edit the article, but actually edit that page more than most editors.  Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, Darkstar1st. Just having known a person is certainly not a conflict of interest. Unless you are editing their biographical article without proper sourcing. I knew Buckminster Fuller, but that's not going to stop me from editing articles related to him, even if this admission is pointed out by some Wikilawyering editor. A person's view of a subject comes from multiple sources. Your take on it would prevent editors with a Ph.D. from writing on a subject at all if their professors were in any way defining in the field, which of course they would be. So you'd exclude those with the most expertise on a topic from contributing to it. Bah. As I said, this is a meritless action taken in an attempt to subdue an opponent. I'm about ready to open an RFC/U on it. Combined with all your other meritless AN/I and SPI cases, it would establish and interesting pattern. I suggest you desist. Yworo (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * i suggest you read the opinion of those participating in the mediation on the libertarianism article which clearly disagrees with carols repeated insertions of anarchy in the lede. this is clearly pov pushing, and clearly related to a shopping cart site being promoted on wp.  Darkstar1st (talk) 09:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is where those with expertise on COI issues respond to COI issues brought up. As you've received no support from any of the experts here, you may assume that your complaint is unsupported and unsupportable. I'll stop wasting my time here, but feel free to continue to attempt to get attention from another COIN-watcher. Yworo (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

- Comment by Atama

I don't know if you'd call me someone with "expertise" on COI issues, I'm not sure if anyone is, but I've been helping out at this board somewhat regularly for more than a year now, and I've been involved in many COI discussions. I'm also an administrator if anyone cares (it doesn't really matter here unless someone has done something worthy of being blocked).

Carol Moore has been very open about who she is, more so than what we normally expect of an editor. She has tied her username to her real life name and made it known that she has particular interests, enough that it isn't difficult to determine where she might have a conflict of interest. There are many areas in which she would, in particular her biographical article (which is now deleted), or any actions that might be seen as promoting her books, or any articles about people or organizations with whom she is personally connected. Those are pretty straight-forward COI issues, the kind you see often.

The assertion here is that because Carol is working on a book related to anarcho-capitalism, and is acquainted with the person who coined the term, that her insertion of the term would constitute a conflict of interest. How could you possibly draw that conclusion? Do you think that she's hoping that the inclusion of the term in an article will somehow get people to buy her books? How would that even work? Is she doing it as a "favor" to Murray Rothbard? Frankly, I think this is an absurd allegation, it just goes against common sense. When Carol starts using her books as references, or linking to her website in the external links sections of articles, or starts trying to whitewash articles of her friends, then we might have a problem and we'd have to ask her to desist or possibly face a ban or other sanctions. For now, however, there's nothing actionable. If Carol is guilty of violating NPOV or going against consensus at the disputed article or any other forms of disruption, those should be addressed, but not here. --  At am a  頭 18:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well put. Yworo (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yworo, welcome back, from your previous post i was concerned i had offended you. Atama, my concern is placing the minority term anarcho-capitalist, into the lede of libertarianism, is an attempt to shift the focus of the article toward a pov promoted on carolmoore.net, which is a shopping cart site.  Darkstar1st (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then maybe I'm not understanding something. How does a reader seeing "anarcho-capitalism" in the lead of the article suddenly decide to go to Carol's web site to buy her books when neither Carol's name, books, or web site are mentioned in the article? How would someone be led into doing that from Carol's actions? --  At am a  頭 05:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * good point. the user page says, "I am a ... libertarian and decentralist activist", would you consider a npov editing an article for which the editor is an activist?  Since the url that shares the same name as the user name, and it has been admitted it is the users for-profit' site, the user appears to be editing the article to gain visibility for the user's pov.  Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very possible that her edits are a violation of WP:NPOV. But NPOV and COI aren't the same. A person can have a conflict of interest while still managing to edit neutrally, while another person can insert their own POV into an article without having a COI. It's the same reason why we don't tell a fan of Star Wars that they have a COI when editing the Return of the Jedi article; a person's interests and beliefs don't create a conflict of interest. I think that most editors work on articles that share their personal interests (that's the incentive for working on the article in the first place), so it would be silly if we discriminated based on that. We actually have a separate noticeboard for NPOV violations; WP:POVN. --  At am a  頭 00:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the point that if she does have such a strong personal involvement or interest in this topic, that she should defer to other editors during a conflict over content? She has never once deferred to an editor who opposes her POV. She is clearly an attention-seeking zealot and in this instance she should be banned from the topic not just because of COI but because of the combination of her COI and her intransigent and disruptive editing style and her hostility to other neutral editors. - EveryoneLookAtMe,I&#39;mCarolMooreDC! (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From your name and your userpage, it is clear that you created this account to disparage Carol Moore. I think some admin attention is warranted here, and your user page is a clear G10. Arakunem Talk 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lebanese American University
This article has been edited recently by User:LebaneseAmerican. The edits are unreferenced and some are promotional. No response to my coi template on the user's talkpage. I don't think this qualifies as a username violation.

P. D. Cook Talk to me! 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a username violation in this context, but it's a blatant COI violation, as they have admitted now on your talkpage. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although I'm not sure what they mean by "my client." Anyways, what is the best course of action here? Some of the edits were just reorganization and somewhat constructive, but other are certainly not neutral. For instance s/he added a paragraph claiming that the faculty were "chosen on the basis of high merit and research accomplishment", but cited no reference. Although looking at the version prior this user's edits, there were already POV issues. I suppose I can go through it and fix these things if I get some time. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will go back and do some clean up today on this. Let me know what you think of my changes. Thank you for your patience. This is new to me, obviously. LebaneseAmerican (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist
Some people may have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism, The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: These all seem to be from his book, and on his website (http://www.leningradartist.com), & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. He is an SPA on this topic. Also posting to the Visual arts project. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Colleague Johnbod, In each my article (for example Sergei Osipov, Mikhail Kaneev, Evgenia Antipova, Alexander Samokhvalov, and others) in addition to text links to sources, a section "Bibliography" with the list of publications that contain information about the artist. How have you and colleageu JNW managed the entire list of printed sources detected only my humble book? Further, if you're familiar with my book, it is easy to verify that the images are uploaded to the Commons are taken not only from book. In both cases, I have a legitimate right, and you as an experienced user can easily and quickly if you want to make sure (and do not exaggerate absurd fantasies of alleged copyright infringement in course of 10 days). Because my work in Wikipedia is absolutely transparent and legitimate and stakeholders on the facts and documents, but not on unsubstantiated speculation and prejudice. Thanks, Leningradartist (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm indeed. It looks to me like a massive copyvio because he can't hold the copyright to the paintings. I've posted at the commons village pump about it. I can't really see the COI issue though - are you suggesting that by adding teh images, they hope to increase sales of their book? Smartse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, and possibly the paintings too. But it would be COI even with no financial incentive. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding COI issue - In addition to what appears to be massive copyright violations, He added his autobiography: Sergei Ivanov (art historian) which according to him - had been deleted from the Russian Wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * COI: adds acres of links to websites about the artists he writes about, and to outlets that carry his books, but as far as I can tell, has yet to provide a reliable source supporting his notability. I sent the link he gave to the deletion discussion at Russian Wikipedia through Google translation, and though much is lost, it appears his biography was deleted there with rationale similar to that which I've mentioned at the English version (auto)biography. JNW (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the people at commons, he has suitable authority to release the images under creative commons licences, personally that seems pretty bizarre but I guess we have to take their word for it. I agree that he doesn't appear to be notable, so have nominated the biography for deletion here. I'm not sure what to do about all the articles on artists he has created, they only seem to have references written by Leningradartist themself, and its pretty difficult to find any other sources about them online. Smartse (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a tough spot--if he's not notable, how will that impact all the articles in which he is essentially the primary source? He may be the authority on the subject, and the artists may be notable, but 'may' doesn't suffice; (rhetorical question alert) are there no sources other than him? JNW (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, there don't seem to be any online sources for any of the articles I've checked. I'm not familiar with WP:ARTIST but I'm unsure whether these artists are suitable for inclusion under part 4: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."
 * I've also noticed that they may possibly be a role account, it could be problems with English, but while their userpage says they are Sergei Ivanov, they have written in the third person on their talk page and in the AfD as if they are representing him. Smartse (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Worky
- Article creator, and username strongly suggests an association with the subject of the article. --Korruski (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whle I was discovering that the article was basically a copyright violation from a couple of sources, someone else has deleted the article and blocked the account. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - The article is back, along with a 'new' user who by his/her own admission is an 'interested party' --Korruski (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr. Susan Hardwicke - paid spammer

 * - "social media" professional (i.e., paid spammer) who is editing articles about her political clients and their opponents. Most recently she has been polishing the article on Joseph DioGuardi to his benefit. Her userpage is also a shameless self-advertisement, written as if it were an article of the sort.  Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I blanked her user page as it was clearly a violation of WP:UP. I let her know why I blanked her page and gave her some advice (she can include personal info but not a whole resume) and warned her that if she recreated the information or tried to promote herself again that her page could be deleted (per G11 criteria). The DioGuardi article bears watching, and I have it on my watchlist for now. As to everything else... Unfortunately as I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the community has been unable to come to a consensus one way or the other regarding how to handle paid editors. There is nothing stopping someone from coming to Wikipedia and being paid to create or edit articles, only our usual policies against poor behavior and content guidelines. The COI is blatantly obvious in this case, and this editor's actions very much warrant scrutiny, but aside from that we should deal with each issue as they come. Any blatant spam should be reverted and eventually we may have to weigh this editor's positive contributions against the disruption they cause. I'm sure that we do have a number of paid editors who are actually a net positive; for the most part they are talented writers and can potentially be a great asset if they comply with WP:NPOV, no matter what their motives are. --  At am a  頭 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Autogynephilia, IP users User:70.57.222.103 and User:128.255.252.253
''I've removed this entire section as this is a violation of our WP:OUTING policy. Do not reinsert this information again. --  At am a  頭 18:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)''
 * Thanks, I was about to send this to Oversight. Might I suggest a revdel is in order here, given the subject matter and the degree of outing? Arakunem Talk 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've also revdeleted the IP's response, because there was a discussion of Hfarmer's identity there as well (although Hfarmer is less careful about privacy I'd rather just wipe it all from this board). --  At am a  頭 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Ashleydennison on articles related to the US Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans office
The few (albeit non-deleted) edits I see from the user seem neutral and non-promotional. West Return Floodwall needs some copyediting to conform to the MOS and inline citations, but seems factual from the sources. I'll leave the user some non-template-bomb tips and keep an eye on things, but I'm not yet seeing any red flags, unless there are more egregious deleted contributions that I can't see. The line is often tenuous between COI and Subject Matter Expert, but these lean more to the latter to me. (Also commenting on the WRF article regarding an issue specific to that page). Arakunem Talk 19:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * -The user continues to create pages that pretty much amount to press releases on New Orleans Army Corps of Engineer projects, after  was blocked for a WP:CORPNAME vio, this user showed up, who just so happens to be the same name as the PR contact for the New Orleans office. The user has been warned about COI and continues to remove maintenance templates on articles where there is a clear conflict of interest. They have made no reply in response to the COI notice left on their userpage. Terrillja  talk  18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (Arakunem - Thank you, I see your notes. Is this issue resolved? I just want to understand what I'm doing wrong and how I can fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleydennison (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Things like "Construction will generate an increase in traffic and noise in the area; however, the Corps is making efforts to minimize these unavoidable impacts." is clearly not neutral. There is a big difference between a SME and a PR person. Either way, I'll be looking to see if they are even notable outside of what the corps deems important.-- Terrillja talk  19:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing for "The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the project and has committed to providing a 100-year level of risk reduction by hurricane season 2011 as authorized by Congress." I understand trying to make your employer seem committed, but it clearly isn't neutral.-- Terrillja talk  19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only deleted edit was to the now-deleted article Scoutmob. The edit removed notability and refimprove templates, but that's it. The article was deleted as blatant promotion, but Ashleydennison didn't create the article, and it's probably worth noting that the article doesn't seem to have anything to do with the US Army Corps of Engineers (the article was about an online coupon service company). --  At am a  頭 19:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Terrillja, there are a couple of such phrases which will need to be pruned of that sort of tone (WP:SOFIXIT?), though I was referring to the overall. To Ashley, essentially you need to avoid using terms such as those Terrillja highlighted above. Presenting the facts without tempering them with things like "this unavoidable impact" are required per our policy on Neutral point of view (q.v.), but just presenting the raw facts without slant. Additionally please see WP:CITE which outlines the preferred style for adding citations directly to statements in the article, so the reader doesn't have to search through the references at the bottom to verify those statements. Arakunem Talk 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I have eliminated the most egregious violations, the main reason why I'm here is because the user needs to realize that they cannot just push out press releases as articles and ignore other users. To Ashley Dennison, my suggestion would be to write articles in your userspace and then ask another user to read through them and give you feedback. WP:MADEDRAFT has more info on that, I know that I can go through articles at times, other editors who have commented above may also be able to provide feedback. To ask us for feedback, just post on our respective talkpages (in my signature, by clicking the "talk" text). For more information on writing articles, check out WP:YFA, it has the basics of wikipedia.-- Terrillja talk  20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scott McAdams
User:Heather Handyside made an edit which looked suspiciously like a campaign ad to Scott McAdams, so I googled the name. It turns out Heather Handyside is the name of the new campaign director for McAdam's campaign for US Senate. I noted this on the talk page and just now she replied I am curious why you deleted my revisions to the Scott McAdams' Wiki. The information provided in that post links almost every sentence to credible sources. Given that Scott is relatively new to the political world, being able to offer information about his background that is documented is very important. Furthermore, there are no inclusions of his policies or promotion of his campaign in the entry I submitted -- especially when you contrast it with his opponent's wiki. Can we please allow my revisions to become available on the Wiki?Heather Handyside (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thoughts?--TM 20:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's a very likely coi. It looks like you caught the situation early, and hopefully she'll be more cautious in how she follows WP:COI in the future. --Ronz (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, COI is pretty clear here. I've replied at Talk:Scott McAdams with some non-template explanations of the problem areas. Arakunem Talk 15:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned it up, most of it was a copy + paste from his own website so I removed that and checked the rest. It seems neutral so I've removed the tag. Smartse (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Serious issues with pages belonging to my people
I realize that I had broken some copyright laws due to misunderstanding but I work on fixing the information everyday but an admin uses his powers to put the whole previous page back again by including a warning which I understand he can also use against me later. It is to be Noted that the pages contain information about my people who are still largely living in poverty and largely kept illiterate. Therefore, it is easy for long-term existing administrators or coordinators to win the conflict which I am afraid could be government sponsored. The previous pages about my people and their culture that I edited contained 90% incorrect and false information. The authentication of information that I have provided can also be checked through the links to other pager contributed by other people. And positive contributions to my edits can also be seen in the Baluchi Languages section. Please help me in this issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be a WP:COI issue. --Ronz (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with Ronz. I think this is merely an issue of a new editor trying to find help and posting in many places to try to find it, which can't be faulted. I hope that you can find the help that you need, I see that Ronz has been helpful and others have given advice on your talk page. --  At am a  頭 19:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There might be a username problem here. Balochmedia is part of the name of several organisations/websites. Some image copyvio still outstanding also. But that's not a coi issue, although the username could be. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That didn't escape me, I didn't want to get into that here to pile onto the problems of a new editor having difficulties, but the name may be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. --  At am a  頭 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MONGO
This editor has long been exercising domination of Wikipedia's September 11 attacks article, to an extent and in a manner which bears characteristics of article ownership. MONGO has made the third largest number of edits of any editor on this heavily edited and highly controversial article.(ref) MONGO tends to take action without discussion and building of consensus for controversial edits on the talk page, always pushing the POV in a clear and narrow direction, frequently accompanied with snide comments.(ref)  I assert that MONGO has a conflict of interest on this topic, as MONGO previously claimed an employment position with the United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS); an agency of the Federal government which owes its existence to the 9/11 event.(ref)  It seems wholly inappropriate to me that any past or present employee of the US Federal government should be exercising this kind of dominance on this article; especially someone with close ties to the USDHS. Wildbear (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absurd. Even if MONGO's actions were not in keeping with Wikipedia policies, this is not an indication of a "conflict of interest".  On the other hand, even in Wildbear's real-life reputation were tied up in support of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I wouldn't treat his/her edits as being a COI violation, just an NPOV violation.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious difference between relaying the precepts of an official position of employment (or former position) and those attributable to a "real-life reputation". I have attempted only a few edits on September 11 attacks but immediately became aware of unreasonably hostile treatment by MONGO inter alia. Yes, at the least it is an NPOV violation. But it would undoubtedly be COI in the event that MONGO had at any time a vested interest in USDS. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By Wildbears definition of COI, a person working at McDonalds wouldn't be able to edit any McDonalds related articles. This is in itself obsurd. This is just an attempt to get a rival at the article banned from editing there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is silly. MONGO's edits are in-line with mainstream reliable sources.  The locus of this dispute are editors who are upset that their fringe theories aren't being given undue weight.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose if MONGO had admitted to being currently an employee of USDHS and was acting to purge information critical of USDHS, that might be a COI, but I don't see that here. I see accusations that MONGO is violating NPOV and the connection to USDHS is being used as an attempt to paint him with a COI tag to throw extra suspicions on the edits. --  At am a  頭 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a response to A Quest For Knowledge's assertion that "MONGO's edits are in-line with mainstream reliable sources". MONGO's edits do not conflict with mainstream reliable sources.  The problem I see with MONGO's edits, and the September 11 attacks article as a whole, is that it has engaged in extensive cherry picking from reliable sources to push a particular narrow point of view, to the near-total exclusion of the numerous reliably-sourced issues associated with that point of view.  The reader of the article may come away thinking that all is fine with the official storyline, when that is nowhere close to being the case; there is plenty of reliably sourced information which makes this clear.  I see no need to completely exclude anyone from editing an article where they may have a conflict of interest.  My concern is that persons with a possible COI should not dominate an article.  Since the US Federal government has been the source for most of the 9/11 story, and holds it as the justification for many of its actions taken in recent years, efforts by said government to further control the story outside of its own domain should be called into question.  Wikipedia editing by government employees may fall under this area of concern; particularly if it appears to be dominating an article.  Hence my bringing up my concern with MONGO's editing patterns. Wildbear (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite a stretch to say that someone working for a government agency such as DHS would have an inherent conflict of interest at September 11 attacks. Deli nk (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wildbear is a frequent POV pusher on the Sept. 11th article, and apparently has decided to latch on to anything that will allow him and his fellow POV pushers to get their way. MONGO is a long serving and fair editor, and this attempt as mud slinging is simply infantile. If anything, Wildbear should be brought under a topic ban for this incessant nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go as far as a topic ban for wildbear, but it is obvious that he/she is not getting any support on the COI accusation.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If this were an isolated incident, yes. However Wildbear has shown systematic resistance to all forms of NPOV and has pushed his own POV for years. He's toed the line for god knows how long and it's time he learned that it is not okay to use this notice board as a way to get back at editors he doesn't agree with. Wildbear should not be allowed to use thuggery to get his way. --Tarage (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that MONGO has a COI in this situation. However I am slightly troubled by reading above about his self-outing (or argument to authority, whatever it was) back in 2006, then remembering this 2008 block (which was lifted after 36 hours) for this 9/11-related incivility, alongside recent edits like this. I question how effective or collegial that combative approach will be in this nuanced area, and I question the benefit to the project in maintaining this uncivil approach over a period of years. As far as the remit of this board goes though, I'd say we're in the clear. --John (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Wildbear and I find it absurd that, of all people, Tarage would accuse him of thuggery and POV pushing. It is high time to bring a neutral stance to the articles dealing with 9/11. As it is, they promote the Official Conspiracy Theory as the only possible explanation of the events of 9/11. All other alternative explanations are ridiculed and summarily removed from public view as they are promptly sent to the archives without prior consultation from other editors. It is not uncommon for MONGO to threaten editors and to use foul language akin to what is commonly referred to as police brutality. The net result is that many editors quit Wikipedia in disgust when they realize that thugs can behave in such a manner in complete impunity, and that supposedly impartial administrators come to their rescue on every occasion. Oclupak (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this constitutes a conflict of interest, but I do think that the snide comments are over the top. This might be more of an etiquette issue. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was offline this week but would like to rebuttal... User:Oclupak does nothing but POV puch conspiracy theories regarding 9/11...he is certainly subject to the discretionary sanctions and a topic ban from 9/11 related articles. User:Wildbear has provided little but repeated instances of POV pushing conspiracy theory rhetoric in 9/11 related articles, especially talkpages...he too should have discretionary sanctions applied to him and a topic ban...User:Bjenks..same story...has provided repeated instances of conspiracy theory discussion to 9/11 talkpages and should be subject to a topic ban. User:John long POV pushed for increased conspiracy theory lingo in 9/11 articles and if he were still doing so, would be subject to a topic ban...his above mentioned links forgot the whole story...my excessive block was one of the reasons User:Tango was desysopped by arbcom. I'll collect the diffs and see what I can do about eliminating the conspiracy theorists that are undermining the encyclopedic integrity of our 9/11 articles...once this is completed, I'll submit such evidence to arbcom and provide those mentioned above along with others a link so they can defend their edits and talkpage contributions.--MONGO 00:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought the above discussion was closed at 08:14, on 9 September 2010. But now I see MONGO intervening at 00:41, on 12 September 2010. Does he enjoy special privileges or can anyone still add comments to the discussion? Oclupak (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's not "officially" closed so anyone can reopen it if they want, though it's at least rude to simply insert new comments into a space marked as archive. I'd say any further comments are redundant, it's pretty unanimous that the COI claim is unsupported. MONGO's statement was unnecessary and somewhat off-topic, it doesn't even address the COI claim. --  At am a  頭 20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bizz Radio Basingstoke
The articles Bizz Radio Basingstoke and Basingstoke have been edits a number of times by people obviously related to the former. Until now I've just gone along with this and made sure the articles are WP:NPOV. However, User:BizzRadio registered today (11 Sep) and is changing sourced content. I wouldn't usually come here with an issue like this, but this business is based in my local area and I have had contact with them outside Wikipedia. As an administrator I would not like to be accused of blocking this account due to my outside interests (even though it's a role account). I'd be happy to continue editing the article but think it would be wrong to use my admin tools in this COI. I've left a note at WP:UAA regarding the username. Any assistance on this would be great. Cheers, matt (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted both pages. The user has been blocked for username violation. I'll template a COI warning/notice the next time he shows up, since I'm not sure if he's got one (or reads them). Regarding the article, I'm not sure it warrants inclusion, since I've been unable to find significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Sure, there are mentions here and there from a newspaper or two, but those are covering the launch. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage on this station. Anyone find anything? Netalarm talk 20:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Mosman Rugby Club
User:Jeffrey Hewitt added a book ''Two Blues: 100 Years of Mosman Rugby. Jeff Hewitt 1996'' to the citations of this article recently. Today a IP user added a promotional section in the article on this book. To me quite obviously the same person. I have posted at his user space... not sure how to proceed if it continues. SauliH (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am done reverting this article. I need someone else to take a lead here. I have already reverted thrice, and do not want to be blocked as a result of continuing. Could someone step up to the plate here please, and provide some direction. Thankyou.SauliH (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted this article to provide assistance when needed. I've also notified the IP of sourcing content, but I don't believe the IP will read it. Netalarm talk 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. SauliH (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He has added it yet again. Maybe someone else reverting the edit will trigger him to reconsider? I am not sure what to do when someone persists in this manner. SauliH (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Korruski has left a conflict of interest message again, which is the fourth one he's received. In this situation, we want to communicate with the user in an attempt to get him to understand the conflict of interest guidelines/policy. We've attempted to do that, and the user most likely had read the message (it's pretty hard to miss the you've got new messages bar). I'd say we wait and see if the user understands the message this time, and if he doesn't, we can add a hidden comment to the article so he'll read it before adding content.  Netalarm talk 21:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

DriveSavers
A series of single purpose accounts User:Mfisherkirshner, User:Mattd86, User:Fortunateone, seem to act as one and only seem to be interested in adding promotional material to the DriverSavers article. After I edited the article heavily last night to remove poorly referenced and poorly written promotional material and warned Mattd86, Fortunateone shows up and makes his first edit since March to undo the changes without explanation. I strongly suspect this article was created and is maintained by paid editors. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can add User:Chrisrbm to the list SPA editing this article. 70.119.247.185 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed all of the editors and found that only has added what may be considered promotional content to the article. The other users have actually either removed the promotional content or cleaned up the grammar. After a few mistakes (warning wrong users), I've given Fortunateone a standard conflict of interest warning. The page has been added to my watchlist, so I'll jump in if there are more promotional edits.  Netalarm talk 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Shufra
Hi. At Simplified English there has been a few weeks of back-and-forth over various mentions (e.g. and e.g.) of the company Shufra. There is explanation/discussion at Talk:Simplified English but the reverting editors have stopped participating.

Myself and (he claims expertise in the topic, I have none, see details at the talkpage) do not believe the content is suitable, and suspect it is selfpromotion by employee(s). There are a large variety of IP addresses reverting us, that geolocate internationally. E.g., , , , , , and (all since early August).

There are also 4 items concerning Shufra at WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2009, Aug 17 (#170, 172, 177, 188), which might be related (?).

Please advise or assist. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: One more today at, I've pointed them to the discussion threads. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In that un-cited state it certainly comes across as promotional. Unless they can cite that "Most companies require the services of" that company, then it doesn't belong, even with a Fact tag. The claim that Shufra's web site is more detailed than other sources is logical if that's their core business, but that puts them too close to the topic to be a reliable source. For full fairness, I've had a look at Rick's edits as well, since he admits a closeness to the subject. To me, his edits fall squarely within those I would expect of a Subject Matter Expert, and are nicely neutral and non-promotional. Furthermore he wants to discuss his edits, which the IP(s) don't appear to do. That "get over it" line is particularly unsuited to a collaborative editing environment. Arakunem Talk 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. It appears that the Shufra editor is bound and determined to keep that paragraph in the Wikipedia article, and I do not wish to get into an editing war with him.  I can see a justification for some material about checker tools and the STE standard, but not blatant promotion of the products and services mentioned.  There are a great many technical writers who do not have access to a checker and still manage to write reasonably good STE, so there is no requirement of any kind to use such products.  Moreover, there are aspects to STE that cannot be adequately supported by a checker, for example proper word sense usage.  I would like to see that entire paragraph removed, but the Shufra editor will continue to restore it.  What is the next step in resolving this editing dispute?  RickWojcik 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)
 * I removed that content once again from the article. Since the IP user is completely unwilling to discuss these changes anywhere, if they continue to re-add it (against consensus, likely WP:COI, and WP:EL), then they don't leave us many options. Perhaps an admin here could throw a brief semi-prot on it to get the IP's attention (it would likely be declined at RFPP due to low edit volume), otherwise all that's left is through 4 and report to AIV. I'd hate to see it come to that, but the IP doesn't leave many options by not communicating. Arakunem Talk  16:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm an admin, and you're right that RFPP would reject a request without a second thought. I can protect it, but I don't know that it's a good idea; the IP hasn't edited in a long time and might not notice a brief (24 hour) page protection. Honestly, I think a block is more attention-grabbing anyway, and will lack the collateral damage that page protection will give (more constructive IPs and new editors would be prevented from editing the article). If the IP keeps up the attempts to promote the company without communicating, I'll block without waiting for 4 warnings because the IP is obviously not interested in actually improving the article at that point. Also note that the IP violated 3RR at one point, though that edit war is now stale and a block for that wouldn't be preventative. (Also nobody warned about 3RR.) --  At am a  頭 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the new spam from a new IP I decided to protect the article for a week. Hopefully that's enough time that the spammers will get the hint. --  At am a  頭 20:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OAs Initiatives and others
Hi. After talking with User:Moonriddengirl about a couple of editors, we wanted to bring this here: and  appear to be associated with the United Nations Environment Programme (Thirdaccount by their own admission on their talkpage, Iop23 by association creating pages relating to the same office). They started creating articles for "Ozone day presentations" (section describing it) that have been copyright violations of material published on the UNEP website.

All the copyright violations have been marked, and the pages created more recently are free from plagarism at least as far as I can tell.

Aside from the copyright concerns, I'm concerned about is if this is using Wikipedia for promotion and wanted to get some other opinions. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To back this up, yup, we wanted to bring it here. I've tried to talk to User:Thirdaccount about the copyright matters and have found him tricky to communicate with. Another contributor might have better luck addressing the COI concerns, since he's likely irritated with me for requiring permission for his content and blanking it when not supplied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The edits aren't necessarily promotional, but I can't see how the UN programmes are notable enough for their own articles. We should maybe try to encourage them to edit the articles about the ozone layer and CFCs though as they may have access to sources which we haven't already included. I can't see articles with titles like OzonAction: CFCs effect on Stratoshperic Ozone lasting very long, so if they wish to improve the encyclopedia they should concentrate on what we already have. Smartse (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

User:BJS.Farrauto
At article, Brad Sherman, use of United States House of Representatives IP addresses. More recently, use of account combined with another related IP address, to engage in disruption at the page, inserting WP:NOR: Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * , an older one,
 * 1) = at article, Brad Sherman,
 * 2) = at article, Brad Sherman,
 * See also, Congressional staff actions prompt Wikipedia investigation.
 * Note: Also filed sock investigation report, at Sockpuppet investigations/BJS.Farrauto. -- Cirt (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * COI does jump out at me here. The username implies that one of the staff is making these edits, and although OUTING prohibits any attempt to validate that, it's not really needed as the edits themselves are POV and cherry-picked. (Likewise, I don't think your SPI will lead to anything, as checkusers are not going to publicly link this account to IPs.) The big question comes if the editor or IP repeatedly ignore warnings and get into block-worthy territory... Arakunem Talk 19:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is obvious, I filed the SPI, without need for CU involvement. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article and left the user some detailed info on the problems. Watching both pages. Arakunem Talk 19:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryan Hoyle‎
- At this article, repeatedly posted copyrighted material from the webpage http://www.ryanhoyle.com/bio.html, as well as some promotional material. The username itself clearly indicates that he may be the subject of the article. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 19:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article (which was a redirect and is again) has now been protected. Watching the target article just in case. Arakunem Talk 20:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

COI in AfDs? should editors arguing 'Delete' avoid editing the article?
See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. (Please comment there, not here, to keep the discussion centralised). Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Mortiis
Username clearly violates WP policies (for which I have placed the relevant warning and information on their user talk page, unless someone would rather place an outright ban) and edits to the article may be problematic from a COI/NPOV perspective. __meco (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OfficialMortiis has been blocked for username violation, and most of the edits that user has made to the page have been reverted. Just in case this user comes back under a different name, I've watchlisted the article so we can discuss conflict of interest editing with the editor if necessary. Regarding the article, I've made a few changes (and manually reverted some things) to make it less promotional. Netalarm talk 22:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle Onassis


This is a 2-day-old account whose only contributions appear to be boosting a book by an author of the same name. Haus Talk 21:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TheRealFennShysa and I have removed the apparent promotional content added by this user and TheRealFennShysa has given the user a standard spam warning. The conflict of interest warning left by Haus should help the editor understand that Wikipedia should not be used for promotional purposes, but if necessary, we can always provide another explanation to the editor. Netalarm talk 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bob Day
- There has been involvement by the subject, but the major problem is aggressive tendentious editing by who has a political agenda. It is nearly impossible to make any edit to the article which tones down negative bias or brings the article toward neutral point of view. Fred Talk 15:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Fred, repeatedly, to discuss on the talk page the particular issues he has so we can thrash them out in consensus discussion. So far Fred has failed to do that and instead decides to go on an incorrect conflict of interest crusade. Timeshift (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first page of the article's history (back to 5 Sept), I see a fairly clear content dispute between Fred and Timeshift, but nothing that suggests a COI on either editor's part. I agree with Timeshift's removal of the long SMH quote, as that came from the opinion page, therefore is non-neutral by definition. The other major point of contention seems to be involving projections of the recent election results which should probably not be included at all (WP:NOTNEWS) until the results are official, and then that section should be edited accordingly, leaving out any projections which would be irrelevant at that point. If there is additional evidence that would suggest a COI, please provide diffs. Arakunem Talk 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I want the long SMH quote to remain. It is a good brief summary of Day's views. And if it was broken down bit by bit, nobody could argue Day isn't in favour of it, and Day would not argue it himself. And interim election results are common amongst all Australian election candidates who have their page, if you don't want this to occur I highly suggest you raise it at Wikiproject Australian Politics talk, I have no doubt consensus would override it. But this is all content disputing, of which I've asked Fred to discuss at length on the article's talk page but has failed to do so repeatedly. Indeed, there is no COI, and I have no idea why this was raised here. Having a political opinion/view on the talk pages does not mean someone has a conflict of interest. Many people would vouch for my 4 years of balanced edits on both ends of the political spectrum. I'm often known to argue for things because they are correct despite whether it's good or bad and what side it comes from. I've asked you time and time again to dicuss on the talk page and form consensus rather than your insistence on unilateral edits without any consensus to change from the status quo. Timeshift (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Arakunem on almost all points. Conflict of interest relates to "relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." I can vouch (having seen non-public evidence) for the fact that he has no relationship with, involvement with or dependence upon any political party, organisation or svengali of any kind, beyond having attacked at least one of them on his user page. This is a much more straightforward content dispute between two users, one of whom is an OTRS agent acting to try and remove content the subject perceives to be negative (which may or may not be true), the other is a resident of the same state as the subject who is aware of local media coverage and profile of the subject (which may or may not be sensational in nature), and many disputes follow on that basis - I've been in a few myself as an OTRS agent. Orderinchaos 19:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue in the latter part of your post is that the OTRS agent is not willing to engage in talkpage discussion to form consensus. All they are interested in is unilateral removal of text. This is unacceptable. I'm sure we could have reached a perfectly good page by now if they had been willing to enter consensus, but i've repeatedly asked them to enter in to it and they repeatedly ignore the requests. Timeshift (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The conflict of interest, if that is what the problem should properly be called, does not consist of Timeshift9 being associated personally positively or negatively with Bob Day, Family First, or any other person or organization. I have no way of knowing, and it doesn't matter anyway. What I'm going on is his aggressive editing which appears to be based on advocacy of political views. Holding strong political views and expressing them in an aggressive way in Wikipedia editing is the problem. I would call it conflict of interest, but the focus needs to be on the disruptive nature of the behavior, not on matters of precise definition. The fact is, Timeshift9 strongly defends, essentially, every word of "his" article. And, if nothing I do is acceptable to him, how could a less experienced editor experience anything but running into a brick wall. Discussion, which he repeatedly calls for, seems to have no impact. He merely cites his agenda: "right wing politician must be opposed", well, yes, I agree, but this is not a political campaign, and bringing the energy associated with one to Wikipedia editing is inappropriate. Fred Talk 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're objecting to what you perceive as a violation of WP:NPOV, which is independent from WP:COI. Numerous editors have difficulty maintaining a neutral point of view when editing particular topics (or even all topics), without having any sort of conflict of interest. The opposite is true, there are editors who have a conflict of interest yet manage to maintain neutrality in their edits (I really admire those people). We have a separate noticeboard for editors trying to push a POV, WP:POVN. It's a very common mistake to make here unfortunately. --  At am a  頭 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

South Lakes Wild Animal Park

 * and

The above user has removed sourced information from South Lakes Wild Animal Park several times (3) here which mentions David Gill as the owner. I attempted to get the editor to discuss it in both the edit summary and on his talk page, but to no avail.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 18:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that factual changes have not been allowed on the site. I am the owner of the park and rightly conflict of interest could occur, but I am merely trying to put the truth accross and remove either incorrect reporting or statements that cannot be verified and I am fully aware are not true. surely wikipedia should be concerned about the Truth and fact as opposed to just reporting newspaper articles that have no way of verifying their stories. I dont know who writes the pages in the first instance but it is unfair for one side of a situation to be placed for the world to see and not be able to delete these allegations and replace with fact. i accept i didnt know the rules so please dont persecute me for that failing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsgill (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * From an outside perspective, I'm uncertain as to the reasoning behind including the information about the owner in this article; that kind of material does fall under WP:BLP from what I understand, and should be treated pretty cautiously. I may be reading things wrong, however... Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor has also edited Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve another conflict of interest it would appear. Zoo Pro  23:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We understand your concern about what content is in article concerning you, but per our verifiability policy, if something has been mentioned by a reliable source then it can be included in an article; we are not necessarily so concerned about the truth. Because several sources mention that you previously owned CWSR it can be mentioned in that article, the mention in the SLWAP article is clearly deliberately portray you in a negative light and per our policy on living people this should be removed from there. I'm now watching the articles so will do my best to ensure they meet our policies and guidelines.
 * I've removed the section from South Lakes Wild Animal Park because like Tony Fox, I'm not sure it belongs in the article. I've also removed unsourced content that Davidsgill added to Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve, he clearly has a COI and as such should not be making changes like this. In the future he should comment the talk page of either article instead of editing himself, per our advice on editing with a COI. Smartse (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have re-cited and re-written what seems to be the most contentious section of Cairns Wildlife Safari Reserve from an outside (and hopefully neutral) point of view (I live in the United States, have never been to Australia, and am only now learning about Australian Zoos through working on WikiProject Zoo). I have eliminated dead links and restricted myself to the facts that I can currently verify and to the tone of the articles that I am reading. I will try to take a look at the South Lake article as well. Donlammers (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both articles look better now. Nice job! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Richard Agudelo
User continuously adds improperly sourced promotional material and external links to article, presumably about himself. He's been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring, but doesn't appear to 'get it', and requests unblock and reversion to promotional version. I've nominated the article for deletion, but don't see that this contributor has any motive other than a continuation of the same. JNW (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Article seems on its way to deletion (I put in a !vote myself for deletion), and if it's deleted this is probably resolved. If the article is recreated by the subject for promotional purposes, then G4 deletion would apply. --  At am a  頭 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tom Ganley


This article reads something like a campaign ad, especially the "On the Issues" section. If someone more neutral and with more time than me could look at the article and fix it up a bit, that would be greatly appreciated. (Perhaps not COI, but simple bias? Either way, still a problem.) Ab e g92 contribs 23:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:POVN is the noticeboard for dealing with editors who have a problem keeping a neutral POV. WP:BLPN is the noticeboard for help with BLP violations. The only thing I can tell about this editor is that his real name is apparently Andy K, see . He does tend to do "prankster" type edits, where he'll commit an act of vandalism or say something offensive, but then revert himself and say he was kidding. Don't know what else to say. --  At am a  頭 23:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

user: wknight94



 * Recent apparent socks:
 * I expect there are more. The list conveniently provided by 184 serves to illustrate how much stuff Wknight94 has had to deal with, concerning Volkblum and his endless sock drawer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect there are more. The list conveniently provided by 184 serves to illustrate how much stuff Wknight94 has had to deal with, concerning Volkblum and his endless sock drawer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect there are more. The list conveniently provided by 184 serves to illustrate how much stuff Wknight94 has had to deal with, concerning Volkblum and his endless sock drawer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect there are more. The list conveniently provided by 184 serves to illustrate how much stuff Wknight94 has had to deal with, concerning Volkblum and his endless sock drawer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User Wknight94 has, over an extended period of time, been reverting most every edit made to articles on New Rochelle, New York and those included in the greater New Rochelle, New York category. These actions are unwarranted and unsubstantiated (not to mention counterproductive). The user is willingly exerting control over these articles making it impossible for others to contribute freely to wikipedia, as well as making it impossible for these articles to be expanded or improved. This user is an administrator which makes such inappropriate behavior difficult to understand.

The user independently monitors New Rochelle linked or related articles here which encompasses an even larger group / range of articles ( over 100 ). The articles have no chance for expansion or improvement. Thank You Previous unsigned comment added by User:184.49.199.234 at 00:32, 17 September 2010


 * I'm unsure as to what the possible conflict of interest is. Could you explain which one of these examples you think Wknight94 is doing? Smartse (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This would -- if valid -- be a complaint about violation of WP:OWN, not conflict of interest.  COI in this instance would be if an editor were a town official or member of the town Chamber of Commerce, or the like. Is there ay reason to think it? It may clarify things to   see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive188, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive529. Wk has as an admin been extremely effective about defending from extensive sockpuppetry on this & related subjects.   DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet_investigations/Jvolkblum/Archive for background. Wknight94 has not edited the New Rochelle, New York article since March 9. I invite the IP submitting this report to say more about their past editing history on these articles. (This IP has only two Wikipedia edits). EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jvolkblum socks' history includes making edits aimed at the glorification of New Rochelle (much like this IP user's other edit) and also accusing their accusers -- suggesting that the editors (including Wknight94 and me) who have reverted their edits, opened sockpuppetry cases, etc., are pursuing some sort of illegitimate agenda. I don't recall any previous accusations of this nature showing up on this particular noticeboard, but otherwise the pattern is familiar. --Orlady (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's called WP:BAN enforcement, plain and simple. Jvolkblum has been adding New Rochelle-obsessed garbage to Wikipedia from hundreds of accounts and open proxies for years now.  Copyright violations, misrepresentation of sources, spam  hell, he can't even populate a category properly.  I've removed dozens of articles from that category where there was little or no connection to New Rochelle.  My only interest is protecting Wikipedia from Jvolkblum.  The best chance for the articles he wants improved is if he goes away.  Wknight94 talk 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if Volkblum has whiskers like hay. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So to summarize, the original complaint seems frivolous (and possibly an example of WP:SHOT) and Bugs loves show tunes. --  At am a  頭 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, the original complaint was frivolous at best. But it was not so much a case of WP:SHOT as a case of a banned user getting his kicks by taunting Wikipedia. And the show tune that Bugs quoted, Forty-five Minutes from Broadway, which is about New Rochelle, happens to be a song for which many of Jvolkblum's legions of sockpuppets have shown a particular fondness. --Orlady (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes. I'm sorry I brought it up. Although, unlike with many of Volk's extensive efforts, that song (or the play it comes from) actually is about New Rochelle. In ca.1905 it was kind of rural. By the 1960s, it was suburbia, and the Petrys were living there. That pretty much summarizes what I know about New Rochelle. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Quiet Riot


is claiming to be an officiall representative of the band, and is demanding no "corrections" or "vandalism" of the article be done. I have reveted, and explained WP:OWN and WP:COI to them. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the editor is now using the Pinkmermaid account, per this and Pinkmermaid's recent edits at Talk:Quiet Riot which seem to mirror the comments made by Official Quiet Riot earlier, though it seems weird as others have pointed out that Pinkmermaid has been around for years and hasn't shown interest in any Quiet Riot subjects before, and Official Quiet Riot never stated that they were changing their name or account. Either way, Official Quiet Riot has been indefinitely blocked, which is good because the username was a violation of WP:ORGNAME. Pinkmermaid is now the person to deal with, and they are engaging in talk page discussion which is a good thing (much better than just reverting everyone who edits the article). --  At am a  頭 21:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways advertisement
Since January of 2008, this s.p.a. has done literally nothing in Wikipedia except try to get these two subjects into Wikipedia; when they are deleted, she whines about it and struggles to get them reinstated. That's about all I can say without violating WP:OUTING (as I read it); but I suggest that Google is your friend. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User has also called my actions 'unprofessional'; possibly breaching WP:CIVILITY. Yousou (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me of the discussion, Orangemike. I appreciate it. Melaniegravdal


 * Per the best practices for users with a COI, creating articles about a company you're affiliated to is a big no no. I've had a look to see if there are any reliable sources that could be used to make these articles and as far as I can tell there aren't any suitable sources to demonstrate that they meet our notability guideline for companies. I did find this snippet that mentions they are owned by Mantegazza but other than that everything was essentially an advert for the holidays. I suggest that Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways are salted (if they haven't already been) to prevent their recreation. If Melaniegravdal is able to show find sources that discuss the companies, it would be best to create an article on Mantegazza in their userspace ( at User:Melaniegravdal/draft for example) which would deal with Globus Family of Brands and Avalon Waterways in separate sections. Melaniegravdal could then post here once that is done so that we can look over it. If we feel that it the company is notable enough and that the article is written from a neutral point of view then we can move it into the mainspace. (I indented the two comments above as the layout was a little confusing before). Smartse (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information Smartse The Globus Family of Brands article followed the notability guideline for companies. Below are the referenced sources (all reliable, third-party editorial newspapers or magazines ... none, advertising) used to showcase the notable content used.  (Avalon Goes Panoramic – TravelAge West: http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/river-cruise/Info/Avalon-Goes-Panoramic/; The Most Modern Ships on the Water – TravelAge West (November 2008): http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/river-cruise/Info/The-Most-Modern-Ships-on-the-Water/; Around the World in 80 Years  - TravelAge West (April 2008) http://www.travelagewest.com/travel/tours/Info/Around-the-World-in-80-Years/; Globus launches student program – TravelAge West (April 2010) http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid213158.aspx?terms=*globus*; "Take them on a tour, or give them the tools to tour alone" – Travel Weekly (October 2009) http://www.travelweekly.com/article_ektid204404.aspx?terms=*globus*; Globus: 15.7 million Americans to take faith-based trips abroad – Travel Weekly (November 2007) http://www.travelweekly.com/article3_ektid100268.aspx?terms=*globus*; Globus Hits 80 – Vacation Agent (September 2008) http://www.travelpulse.com/Resources/Article.aspx?n=790; Around the World in 80 Years – Travel Agent (August 2008) http://www.travelagentcentral.com/tours-tour-operators/globus-travel


 * For the Avalon Waterways page, I used the below resources (all reliable, third-party editorial newspapers or magazines ... not advertisements): NEW KID ON THE RIVER - Vacation Agent http://www.vacationagentmagazine.com/Article.aspx?n=805; AVALON IN PANORAMA - Vacation Agent http://www.vacationagentmagazine.com/Article.aspx?n=2057; AVALON BREAKS NEW GROUND WITH SUITE SHIP - USA Today http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2010/05/river-line-avalon-waterways-to-break-new-ground-with-suite-ship/94246/1; World's Best Awards - Travel+Leisure http://www.travelandleisure.com/worldsbest/2010/air-cruise-more/river-cruise/27; Gold List - Conde Nast Traveler http://www.concierge.com/tools/travelawards/goldlist/2009/category/cruiselines; Best Value in River Cruising - Arthur Frommer's Budget Travel magazine (a Newsweek publication) http://current.newsweek.com/budgettravel/2009/04/best_value_river_cruises.html

I would hope that you do not SALT salt these pages - that would be extremely questionable activity. This company has been in existence for more than 80 years, has more than 5,000 employees worldwide, operates thousands of tours and river cruises in 65 countries around the world. How is this not more notable than "Prince Poppycock?"

Melaniegravdal (talk)
 * I've looked over those references to determine their reliability. Travel Age West doesn't seem to fit the bill, seen here it looks like a trade magazine for travel agents. Inclusion in such a source doesn't seem to confer notability, it's for all intents and purposes a press release. The same goes for Travel Weekly, and the other publications you post. Is there any significant coverage in mainstream sources for your organization? --  At am a  頭 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Atama Please see the above consumer publication references (they are national publications and in several cases, reference nationwide surveys): Travel+Leisure, Conde Nast Traveler, USA Today and Budget Travel references for Avalon Waterways.  And, I have further source material from other consumer sources (should you stand by your suggestion that trade publications are not reputable) including the New York Times, Miami Herald, Wall Street Journal and USA Today for the Globus family of brands - If you believe they will actually be considered for a reposting of that page, I would be happy to provide them.  Thank you.  Melaniegravdal] ([[User talk:Melaniegravdal|talk)
 * Well, on second review, this article at USA Today is actually the kind of coverage we look for when trying to establish notability. The Newsweek article is a short blurb and isn't really what we'd consider significant coverage. The Concierge.com mention is much along the same lines. I'm curious to see what depth of coverage is provided by the other sources you've mentioned, including the NYT and WSJ (both of those publications in particular tend to carry a lot of weight). --  At am a  頭 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [{Atama]] Thank you for recognizing reputable sources. I would like to 1) look at the Avalon Waterways article and the Globus family of brands article as two separate pieces/issues and 2) Would be happy to take some time to pull further references/sources (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) for you.  I will work on this and provide follow-up.  Melaniegravdal (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC).


 * Atama Given your comments and questions surrounding the reputation of trade magazines for article sourcing, I have created a strong list of what Wikipedia will certainly consider notable resources for both the Globus family of brands AND Avalon Waterways articles. I have separated references per article.  I hope that these extensive lists will showcase the validity of BOTH articles I submitted and put to rest any disputes.  Further, I would appreciate the reinstatement of these articles and would be happy to work to make them even more neutral (and would welcome other Wiki editor/user input) and add the below strong references.


 * Globus family of brands article - a NEW list of resources for consideration:
 * USA Today: "Family Vacations in Italy"
 * USA Today: "Group Tours of Scotland"
 * New York Times: "Where the Pros Are Heading"
 * New York Times: "All the Roads May Lead Here but They Aren't Bringing Big Spendors"
 * New York Times: "Getaways that are Guilt-Free"
 * Boston Globe: "Why Go It Alone? There's a Group for You"
 * USA Today: "Inspirational Religious Tours"
 * Smart Money: "The Rising Cost of a Mid-Life Crisis"
 * Newsweek's Budget Travel: "40 Best Vacations"


 * Avalon Waterways article - a NEW list of resources for consideration (IN ADDITION TO THE ALREADY NOTABLE SOURCES PROVIDED SUCH AS USA TODAY, TRAVEL+LEISURE, ETC.):
 * NBC "Today Show" (National Edition): World's Best Awards: Avalon Waterways Listed as No. 2 River Cruise Company in the World
 * MSNBC: "10 Over-the-Top Cruise Ships"
 * Miami Herald: "The River Boom"
 * USA Today: "New Options for Cruising Europe's Rivers"
 * Newsweek's Budget Travel:"The Best Value in River Cruising Keeps Getting Better"
 * Sherman's Travel: "Avalon Waterways to Launch New Suite Ship"
 * Travel+Leisure: "Six Cool New River Cruises"
 * Travel+Leisure Print Edition (April 2010): "The New Crew: A Fleet of Innovative Ships is Hitting the High Seas"


 * --Melaniegravdal (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it worth mentioning that, while the discussion above has all been about establishing notability, the reason for deletion in both cases was "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". If notability is established then certainly it will be OK to write new articles, but it will still be essential to avoid writing them in promotional terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually been giving some thought to recreating Avalon Waterways myself, using some of the references given by Melanie above. I'm not convinced about the "Globus family of brands" article at this point. --  At am a  頭 20:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be wonderful to recreate/edit the Avalon Waterways article accordingly. Thank you for even considering it, Atama.  And, I think the Globus family of brands article would be difficult to recreate without a balance of both the trade references provided as well as the consumer publications.  If it helps - the 80th anniversary story referenced from TravelAge West - was written by a freelance writer.  The other trade article of note - Vacation Agent - is written by a writer (David Cogswell) that's been in the travel industry for two or three decades (someone I think we would all consider a credible expert) and has worked for several consumer and trade publications.  You can see, in that piece in particular, that information was not pulled from a press release.    Regardless of the result, I've been really grateful for the constructive insight you have brought to the table.  --Melaniegravdal (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm starting on a draft for Avalon Waterways in my user subspace, and I've copied every single reference provided for both Globus and Avalon Waterways for my own reference. I may not use them all but I'll consider them. I'm not a great article writer, I consider myself "adequate", see Hottrix for an example of an article I started from scratch and provided the bulk of content myself. I also took All You from to . I think that if I can get enough encylopedic stuff from these sources that I can at least create a decent stub. --  At am a  頭  18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your work and the update. I'm so appreciative.--Melaniegravdal (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)