Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 53

Knole House


A simple google shows of a connection here. plus various articles http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/activityandadventure/walkingholidays/7848860/Knole-Park-Kent-Walk-of-the-week.html I placed the template on the page for someone having a possible connection to the subject but another user has taken issue with that. The edits by the above user seem ok so far but it seems perfectly fair to simply note that they may be connected. RafikiSykes (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As the "other user" ....

There is reference to a Jonathan Sargant, a National Trust Community Learning Officer, mentioned in connection with Knole House, a NT property within external reference material.

There is evidence of (uncontroversial) edits to the wiki article by a Knole Jonathan. This user has a history showing editing a small number of other unrelated articles. There are traces of this user on another forum.

There is  currently  no 'proven' connection that they are one and the same person. But I do accept that the possibility that might be the case.

However, I dont count employment by the owners (given the NT status here) as warranting singling out in this way. It would mean, for example, that any BBC employee would have to be so tagged in making any entry related to the BBC. --Keith 19:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if everything is fine... what exactly is the problem? Phearson (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel the tag should be left in the article as the user appears to be connected but user manstaruk says it should be removed. I don't see the issue of putting the template that says the user may have a connection to the subject of the article on the articles talk page.RafikiSykes (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As you agree that there are no problems in the article, and since there is no proven connection, then it should be removed. The purpose of these banners is to be helpful (for example, by pointing out an expert or a person with seriously problematic editing history), not to carelessly shame well-behaved and potentially unrelated people.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Upon going over his edits before removing the tag theres one I missed earlier. He's adding unreferenced text such as "is one of englands largest houses" given the addition of such wording without references backing it up I feel the tag is relevant.RafikiSykes (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not much on the garden side but a helpful IP editor has mentioed on the talk page another unsourced claim added by the user about only remaining Bosquet in england seems not to be the case as another house Easton Lodge in Essex has the same and several sources confirm that. So no I won't be removing the tag.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify (and I checked the article out before) the tag in question is not the usual article space COI tag. That tag is a cleanup tag alerting readers to problems in the article text from an editor with a COI that need to be addressed, and should usually be accompanied by an explanation on the article's talk page. If the text is fine or there are no specific complaints then the tag should be removed. In this case, the tag is a different one, it's the "connected contributor" template and it's placed on the talk page of the article to alert talk page participants that an active editor at the article has a COI. There are nearly 2,000 articles tagged in such a way. Unlike the COI tag, this looks like something that actually is supposed to "mark" an article long-term, and it's included discreetly on the talk page rather than being in the article itself. On the other hand, per your own admission the COI is not established, merely suspected, so for that reason I don't think the template belongs. --  At am a  頭 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily


I'm known as "Cabal" and I am the administrator of rainbowdash.net. I am declaring a COI because of my staff assists "Sethisto" of Equestria Daily with coding for his website. I'm here to contribute information that will improve the quality of the Equestria Daily article. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and I will abide by them. My edits will be restricted to that page only. If you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page, or e-mail me at (Redacted) Cabal-of-rdn (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that you made a similar declaration on your user page, and based on your talk page you are using an alternate account and don't want to link it with your main account. That seems perfectly fine to me, per policy undisclosed alternate accounts are allowed if the disclosure would hurt your privacy, which I think could be the case here. You've also said that you will edit different articles with the two accounts, which is another requirement for a legitimate alternate account. As long as you don't use Cabal-of-rdn to "edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections" then you're in the clear. While it's not required I also recommend that you email ArbCom to let them know about the alternate account, just in case.


 * Anyway, I commend you for disclosing the COI and there should be no problems if you abide by the usual policies and guidelines with this account just as everyone else does. --  At am a  頭 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Mini dental implant


Aforementioned article recently subjected to commercialization by a company representative for 3M. Mr. Dailey, who lists his first name as "Rod" on his talk page, can be found by google search to be a 3M company rep for the past 10 years -- he has thus outed himself. While claiming that he has "not authored the article, but merely edited it," Mr. Dailey has succeeded in twisting the article into a product page for his company's product, the 3M ESPE mini dental implant. (Moreover, the article was created by "miniimplants" -- but I cannot verify the identity of that user.) What immediately drew my attention was the obtuse and awkward manner in which the article was written, including such paragraphs as this:

While there is no restriction on who may edit an article, Mr. Dailey is suspected of working towards the commercialization of this article nearing a Wikipedia advertisement for his company's product. As head of the WikiProject dentistry, I sought to prevent the continuation of such behavior, but we quickly spiraled into personal attacks over the matter. I do not think Mr. Dailey can provide an unbiased approach to the topic and request that he be formally asked to cease his work on this article, which constitutes a conflict of interest, as I see his involvement as less of a desire to be of genuine help and more as a clear aim to promote his company's product.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 20:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, he has signed a comment as Rod Dailey. I was a little worried about outing but there's obviously no outing here.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Babylon (program): Violation of consensus and conflict of interest


This user has a conflict of interest. He constantly changes the article the form that he loves, inserting exaggeratedly positive and advertising material about the software product and removing the negative ones. In the mean time, Talk:Babylon (program) is filled to brim with people who require the article to be re-written from a neutral point of view.

When the user is warned not to do this, he simply disappears for a while, only to return three or four month later and do the same things. If this user had a good explanation for his edits, he would not have done such a thing. (He would have explained it.) This user is already warned but simply refuses to get the point.


 * Diffs:
 * This and this diff are of an edit warring in 10 May 2011. He has:
 * Removed all maintenance tags from the article with this edit summary: "tags unneeded" and "delete tags added by someone with an obvious grudge intent on wrecking articles rather than improving them"! Well, I do not know how he can possibly count bare links as someone having grudge, or how he can count Unreferenced section as unnecessary!
 * Merged "Company information" section with the lead section, which is against WP:MOS. Lead section must no have novel info.


 * This diff shows the six edits that he did in 10 May 2011 which include:
 * Moving the auxiliary information about the company from "Company information" section at the bottom of the article to the top, and rewriting them in an advertising manner.
 * Using euphemism in "Malware-like behavior" section to reduce its effect in a non-neutral manner: He replaces the accurate adverbs of time with the inaccurate ones, which is not allowed in WP:MOS. Also, he renamed the "Malware-like behavior" title into the vague "Controversies".


 * This diff is his eight edits that he has done on 15 September 2011. He has:
 * Again, has shifted focus of the matter from Babylon to its creator in the History section, thus converting the "History" section so that it is now "History of the producer" instead of history of the product.
 * Again, has add novel information to lead section that is not about the subject of the article. (Something about "Babylon-Enterprise", which is obviously a separate product.)
 * Commited the same violation of WP:MOS about use of accurate time adverb that he did back in May, in the same section ("Malware-like behavior").
 * Again, he attempted to reduce the negative weight of "Malware-like behavior" section by calling the behavior "potentially intrusive" instead of "intrusive".
 * Added a single spam link to See Also section; though this is not much of an issue.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As we speak he has started an edit war by un-reverting my revert and has supplied the following edit summary: "copyediting and adding new sources is what Wikipedia is about - blanket reverting edits is what vandalism is about". Well correct me if I am wrong but:
 * 1) He has not added source for existing material.
 * 2) He has not copyedited. (Or at least what he calls copy-editing is in violation of WP:MOS).
 * 3) He has reinstated in edit, knowing that it is highly likely to be contested. This is a violation of WP:BRD and is an instance of refusal to get the point and/or edit warring.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the report and formatting it so neatly. That's very helpful.  Do you have any proof that there's a close connection between Gilabrand and the subject of the article?  If not, this issue is better suited for WP:POVN.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean besides the fact that his edits are heavily focused on Babylon Ltd. instead of Babylon computer program, as well as the focus on making Babylon more lovely? Well, at least not at the moment but I can show other diffs in the same line. As for moving the discussion, if you think the case is clear-cut enough, I think we shouldn't do it, per Snowball clause. I will be more careful on the choice of noticeboard in the future. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So far nothing listed above gives a hint as to a COI. Like OlYeller suggests, this looks to be more of a POV problem than a COI. One thing that's important to note is that Gilabrand has been involved in WP:ARBPIA issues, to the extent that he was indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for his behavior at Israeli-Palestinian articles. That block was provisionally suspended as of August 25 this year (less than a month ago). He has been blocked and banned at various times for various reasons at such articles. So his behavior at the Babylon article is less of an indication of a COI, and more of an indication that he's continuing with the same troubles as before. (Note that Babylon, Ltd is an Israeli company.) From what I can tell, his actions aren't in violation of any specific editing restriction he is under, but the motion that led to his unblock did state, "Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly." That means that he's skating on thin ice with any future misbehavior. --  At am a  頭 17:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, let me get this straight. Do you think there is no case against him whatsoever or do you think I should take this matter to WP:POVN. If the latter is your answer, don't you think you can do whatever an admin attending POVN would do about him? Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * POVN isn't an administrator noticeboard, and while admins participate at all noticeboards, that noticeboard exists so that "editors can post questions about whether article content is compliant with the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy, and editors interested in neutrality issues will give their opinion". If you require administrator action, and given the person you're reporting, you very well might, my suggestion is to try WP:ANI. One advantage of doing that is that you might catch the attention of an administrator who is familiar with WP:ARBPIA (I'm not familiar with it and try to avoid arbitration enforcement like the plague, the very few times I've tried to help in those areas I practically got my hand bit off). If this was a clear violation of existing arbitration restrictions I'd suggest going to WP:AE but I don't see that it is. I don't like directing people to "drama central" but unfortunately, in this case ANI may be your best bet. And yes, I think as far as COI is concerned there's no case against him whatsoever, but that may be like saying that a burglar is innocent of jaywalking; if someone decides that this is a violation of his conditional unblock then he'll probably be blocked for a long time, if not indefinitely, and might even face a site ban. Establishing a COI here might get him a stern warning at the most. --  At am a  頭 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit, I looked over the most recent edits and I actually think they're overall an improvement. There's generally nothing wrong with adding information about a company to an article about the product of the company, if the company has no article. In fact, often if a company is only notable for a single product, we create an article about the product and put the company's info in the article, and often put more than we would if the company had its own article. That's because readers may be curious about the maker of the software but have no other place on Wikipedia to read about it. We have to be careful not to add undue weight, but otherwise that's actually a good thing to do.


 * Older edits may have been problematic, but they took place months ago. A MOS violation should be dealt with, sure, no denying that. His most recent edits removed a bit of uncited info and added citations for new info. Despite the editor's problematic past, I'm starting to think this is just a standard editing dispute and nothing more. --  At am a  頭 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are fair enough. We should give him a bit of rope. However, there unacceptable edits in there. I will undo those unacceptable edits in there that definitely violate WP:MOS. I think you have no objection if I go ahead and undo those edits, do you? Fleet Command (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable to me, especially if you can cite the MOS section(s) you're going by in the edit summaries. --  At am a  頭 19:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The thing here might indeed be edit-warring per-se, and i would propose both editors to try and solve this on the talk page. The edits on behalf of Gilabrand are likely WP:GF edits and there is no indication of any attempt on FleetCommand's behalf for any communication on the talk page prior to going for noticeboard complaint (which is a quiet extreme measure). FleetCommand has also been too critical of other editors' work on this page, thus needs to be careful not to fall into article ownership. Hope you can work it out without going into Solomon's trial.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You said "there is no indication of any attempt on FleetCommand's behalf for any communication on the talk page". I even supplied my diff of communication! Fleet Command (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ChrisTheHunk


User has edited a number of articles, adding information about the College Hunks business, and their corporate officers. This appears to be the only use for the account. Could this be investigated, please? --Ebyabe (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Ebyabe (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Besides his questionable edits on College Hunks Hauling Junk, "Chris" has been systematically inserting links to the company's website and mentions of its ownership in various inappropriate articles. He's been repeatedly warned about his editing behavior (both on his talk page and at talk:College Hunks Hauling Junk) with little change in behavior, including repeatedly removed multiple problem tags on the main article in question. Zeng8r (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

User (ChrisTheHunk) has WP:OWN problems, the language he uses is friendly but his actions are pretty clear (to me at least). --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply from ChrisTheHunk
I do understand the seriousness of this accusation, but I would like to state that Zeng8rhas acted well outside of the realm of good faith intent in this matter, and has denied to add any value, only to claim that my contributions, the company the article is about and myself personally are somehow acting maliciously and outside of the intent of wikipedia.

His actions and comments are with no intent other than to discredit the company College Hunks Hauling Junk and to discredit my contributions to both the article and to the wikipedia archives en large. Granted I have not made wide spread contributions to the overall wiki landscape to date, but I have done and documented on the discussion and user talk pages my affiliations, my stated reasons for including content not previously included and my willingness and desire to work with experienced wiki contributors to ensure the content shared on the page is in accordance with the standards that protect wikipedia's credibility as a source of encyclopedic knowledge.

We can all pick up a copy of an encyclopedia at the local library and find many entries about topics we know nothing about and have never encountered in our lives. Just because you are not directly familiar with each people, place, topic, thing and event covered in the volume, does not mean it does not merit encyclopedic coverage and inclusion. The company in this case has myriads of verifiable, reliable third party sources that prove the case for it's Notability and inclusion on wikipedia.

His first action was to place an unnecessary and inflammatory amount of tags onto the page even while the content itself demonstrated little to none of the qualitative characteristics indicated in the tag. While it may be incorrect to consider a tag to be an attempt at vandalism, when used in large volume, the intent goes above and beyond the content of any individual tag, and in this case the intent is clearly to defame the organization that the article is about, the contributions I personally have made and my judgement as an individual. He has gone so far as to use condescending terms to describe me as well as to make generic assumptions about what may or may not be my relationship to the organization the article refers to. Both of which, to the best of my limited knowledge, are direct violations of Wikipedia standards.

Here was my reply to his comments on User talk:Zeng8r

''I have not ignored any advice. I have been working tirelessly to improve the article. I have been conferring with McGeddon about how to improve the article and have improved both the tone, content and cited sources in the article. I am not acting any way other than in good faith, however I am not at the same time content to leave tags that misrepresent the content when no case is being stated as to why any particular content is being raised into question. I also don't see the need for the condescending tone of the remarks. I have repeatedly asked for assistance in approving the article. As a matter of fact I am a field coach for the company and I happen to think the history and development of it is worthy of encyclopedic documentation, as did clearly the original creators and contributors to the article.

''I have also asked for content to be pointed to that I could focus on improving and recruiting independent third party sources to contribute to. I may be a wikipedia newbie, but I am not unintelligent and I have in no way acted outside of good faith. I have not added content in an effort to be promotional, only in an effort to document the important aspects of the articles topic, which happens to be College Hunks Hauling Junk. I plan to contribute to many other areas of Wikipedia as well, I start here since the content had become dated and did not properly reflect the company about which the article is written.''

''Please consider the significant efforts I have made to request assistance and feedback as well as my disclosure as soon as I realized that was the appropriate method to take. I would much rather work with you than against you and I do not wish to use wikipedia promotionally, I only wish to ensure the credibility of the information posted about a company that is most certainly notable in the eyes of INC Magazine, Fortune Magazine, Entrepreneur Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC and so on.''

''I look forward to your thoughtful reply." ChrisTheHunk (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Addendum to previous response
As a follow-up to his most recent comment, references to the College Hunks Hauling Junk page were made only where expressly pertinent to the topic of the page including Tampa, University of Miami Business, Franchising, Shark Tank and Millionaire Matchmaker. All of which are reliable third party independent sources that would be more than willing to verify the content as appropriate themselves if consulted on the matter. (not to mention there are already a litany of verifiable sources on the College Hunks Hauling Junk article that speak directly to the validity of these placements) I have been extremely careful to be objective and ADD VALUE to the Wikipedia project following my admitted ignorance and mistake when I initially posted content about them being 1-800-GOT-JUNK? competition which I do understand now was 100% outside of the intent of Wikipedia as an encyclopedic medium. ChrisTheHunk (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Class Assignment Articles
I have recently come across an article that was written as a class assignment as can be seen here. I've gone through a few of the articles listed and the text is often written using one or two primary sources with little to no references used in-line. The subjects don't have a close connection to the authors but it feels like there may be a conflict of interest between the students whose grades may depend on an article not only staying on WP but having as few improvement templates as possible.

For this particular case, the problems I see are mostly here and here, where the assignment requires that an article be created, nominated for “Did You Know” status, and then presented to a class.

In short, is this something we should be worried about? Have their been WT:COI discussion on articles created for a school course and/or courses dedicated to making WP articles? I see that this may be part of a Wikimedia sanctioned project that I'm just unaware of. While this may be a better discussion for WP:COI rather than WP:COIN, this particular case may need to be addressed or I just need to learn about this project and calm down. :-)  Ol Yeller Talktome 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a sensitive matter to handle; if you see obvious class assignments the best procedure to follow is to
 * Identify the instructor if you can
 * Make sure the instructor is familiar with the various projectes designed to help them and their students have a positive experience in using Wikipedia editing for class assignments (Ambassadors and School and university projects
 * Politely, but unambiguously, make the instructor aware that, while they are free to use Wikipedia writing as part of their course, that the Wikipedia community will not alter its expectations one iota, and that the articles edited and/or created will be treated no different than any other article, and may be deleted, edited, modified, etc. as appropriate. Generally, when I have run into these situations, it is the students who have the misunderstanding; the professor generally is doing things well.  But its good to contact the instructor right away just to make sure things go as smoothly as possible.
 * That's how I would handle it. -- Jayron  32  17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left one note at an ambassador's talk page. I've also gone through all of the article's created by one of the courses and found that all but one were a copyright violation of multiple sources.  I've also looked through the edit histories of a large portion of the large number of ambassadors in the program and see that they all have about 100 edits on English WP.
 * I feel like I need to discuss this issue with more people and that COIN probably may not be the place to do it. I'll talk this to the projects you mentioned.  Thanks for the help.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Miss Teenage California


User Laceydog is the admitted owner of this pageant, and has been editing the article almost exclusively. i have tried to clean up the article, particularly provide DABlinks to distinguish it from other, similar pageants, which have been consistently removed by the owner, in an obvious effort to reduce traffic to those articles. I have my doubts about the subjects notability, but when the owner argued for notability at its afd, he did not disclose his identity. I am tired of trying to improve the article against his poor edits, and hope that someone can explain our policies to him better than i have done.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely one of the uglier AfD's I've ever seen. Looking through it, it looks like there's several arguments that basically fall under WP:IAR, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:GOOGLEHITS, or WP:VALINFO (and probably more).
 * The AfD's talk page seems to have some more self-outing.
 * I haven't looked at everything but have already noticed that Laceydog has removed AfD comments in the past that supported deletion then when confronted says, "my apologies. So new to this." This already doesn't look promising.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like an IP removed text twice before the previous example. It appears that the IP has even signed a comment as Laceydog regarding the deletion of a !vote and states, "Apologies. So new to wikipedia.com Learning as I'm going here." That's wreaks of sockpuppetry to me.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 04:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Striking a portion of this comment. I didn't see until afterwards that user has been very open about their connection so it's not sockpuppetry.  However, with removing three AfD !votes and the close connection, there's certainly a COI.  I still suggest the same action but don't feel that there's any socking going on.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 04:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The IPs and  both claim to be "Frank K. Lameira President Miss Teenage California Scholarship Pageant Danfranc Productions" and have signed as  who also claims to be the President of the pageant.  Laceydog also states, "My advice? Make it easier for the layman to understand wikipedia without having to take a course in wikipedia 101" and "I personally felt it was condescending to Miss Teenage California Pageant to have someone place this at the top of the page".  While Laceydog states, "It certainly was not my intention to delete anything I felt was pertinent to the discussion", in the same post they state that they felt that the !vote was condescending.  A second AfD recently ended with no consensus and I feel that the admin TParis did not properly assess the AfD upon its closure.  This situation has been very poorly handled.  I suggest a block of Laceydog and the IPs until they understand the relevant policies and guidelines.  I also feel that the AfD should be presented again and related Wikiprojects should be invited to participate in the discussion so that WP:AADD type arguments don't equal or overpower arguments that cite pertinent WP policies and guidelines.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 04:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if the article could be deleted under WP:CSD since the version deleted in 2007 after the first AFD is, in my opinion significantly similar to the current version and the reason for deletion (lack of WP:N) has not been addressed. I will tag it as such to get another admin's second opinion. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. It's pretty clear that it is significantly similar to the version before. The latest AfD was closed as "no consensus", but consider that out of the 3 keep !votes, one was Laceydog, another was an editor I respect but who basically argued that there's a "likelyhood" of there being sources without actually mentioning them, and the third was a brand new editor who literally voted without any argument at all, it doesn't strike me that the results of the second AfD in any way invalidate the first AfD. --  At am a  頭 21:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Much of this discussion probably belongs on WP:DRV, however after this was brought to my attention I reviewed my decision and I stand by the no consensus. With regards to the old AFD, consensus can change.  I don't think this is a G4 candidate because I think there has been significant enough change to warrent a new AFD.  The list was the most similiar part of the article but I'd expect to find it in any version of the article.--v/r - TP 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I double-checked G4 to make sure that there wasn't anything in policy to prevent this deletion, and I don't see that there is. I don't object to your closure of the AfD. I might not have called it "no consensus" but neither was it a clear delete either. But I don't see that G4 is invalidated by our policy, so I don't see that the article can't be speedily deleted following a second AfD. I guess I'll agree with you slightly... DRV should have been used, yes, but before the article was recreated. If my G4 was inappropriate then we need to change the wording at CSD to make it clear that a new AfD that doesn't result in delete makes G4 invalid. --  At am a  頭 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My comments we in reply to SmartSE, et al. SmartSE informed me on my talk page of the G4 tag and I chose not to remove it because I agree with your interpretation of G4.  I just think there are enough changes in the article to warrent a new AFD.  Like I said, I honestly dont care, but the DRV process would've given me a chance to address the AFD.  I'll assume good intentions here, but if I were to take a less AGF approach to this it would feel subversive that an article would be tagged G4 the day after an AFD was closed as no consensus.  Kind of WP:ADMINSHOP.  Like I said though, I think ya'all have good encyclopedia-building intentions and I'm not going to argue this any further and certainly not on the merits of the article.--v/r - TP 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having second thoughts myself. I think I'm going to start up a discussion on WT:CSD. I might be weird but I think that G4 shouldn't allow what I did, so I'll discuss possibly adding language to make G4 be invalidated by subsequent non-delete AfDs. --  At am a  頭 23:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea when i brought this COI to folks attention, what was going on with this editor(s). I was trying to improve a borderline nonnotable article, for which i dont think i was able to show notability. thanks for the detective work. I'll follow any other discussions created from this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After further thought and discussion at WT:CSD, I've restored the article and talk page. I also didn't realize that the article was recreated 3 years ago. Speedy deletion for being a recreation after AfD just seems silly in light of that. My inquiries about G4 have started debate on the policy talk page that is continuing, and brought up a general question about CSD and AfD (basically, whether or not an article that has survived any AfD in the past can ever be speedily deleted for anything other than a copyvio). --  At am a  頭 17:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Marc Dos Santos


The Marc Dos Santos article has recently been extensively edited (including uncited facts in a BLP) by. This user seems hell-bent on owning the article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, indeed. Query whether the subject even meets notability requirements (though the article has been in place for a couple of years now).  JohnInDC (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I left a message on their talk page asking if their username is their real name. That will at least establish a clear COI if not block the user.  Past that, an admin would have to address ownership issues.  I seem that the account is reverting parts of the article to the way they want it (several times).  They may have violated WP:3RR at this point but it's hard to tell.
 * The IP that's editing is sort of interesting as well. It's seems unlikely that they're the same person but I haven't been through the edits with a fine-tooth-comb.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The user hasn't been responding to Talk page requests and continues to edit the article. He's also repeatedly adding copyrighted photos at Commons, which may be an even bigger problem -  JohnInDC (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fair to assume that this user is actually the subject of the article as well - they're behaving like it, and the subject's fame is not so great that he seems likely to have spawned an obsessive admirer - so I added the COI template to the article page. JohnInDC (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the user's edits invariably detract from the quality of the article (red link Wikilinks, poorly formatted headers, etc), his persistence in this area constitutes disruptive editing and probably merits administrator intervention. I have warned them of this eventuality.  If the pattern continues, I'll probably bring this matter to WP:ANI.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious at this point that you're both correct in that admin intervention is needed. I'm sure we have one floating around COIN somewhere.  We can take it to ANI soon if the usual COIN admins are busy.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the article can properly be reverted to the state in which it existed prior to the (presumably) COI edits. It may need a tiny bit of cleanup after that, but in its prior state the article was more appropriately sized, and referenced.  Anyhow let's give it one more shot, and if after that the COI editor(s) (there's an active IP too) try to reinstate the problematic edits, we can seek a block and no one will challenge it as too much, or premature.  JohnInDC (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Austex/Donald G. Martin (Austin, Texas)


I have created an autobiographical article but am keeping it in subspace to get input and to help insure that it is neutral in tone, etc. Please review and your comments are most welcome.  Austex •  Talk  16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Lees (neurologist)
I believe User:Andrewlees could use some guidance and constructive help, particularly with his image. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Working on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:diegolo.wtnr
This user had several COI edits at the now-deleted WTNR Radio. He cannot be blocked because his username doesn't start with his organization, but if an admin can look at his deleted edits, then look at his username, it's obviously a COI user who is self-promoting. City O f Silver  19:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're essentially correct on all counts. The editor is clearly identifying themselves as a single person so there's no violation of WP:ORGNAME in the username. But all of the editor's contributions have now been deleted, aside from one promotional edit you reverted yourself back in May, and another edit in June that Diegolo self-reverted. Given that there has been no activity since June, I don't know what action, if any, is needed. I left a COI welcome message on the editor's user talk page if it helps, but this is an editor who made a total of 5 edits (including the self-revert) and hasn't been active for 3 months so I'm guessing they've left Wikipedia anyway. --  At am a  頭 20:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Atama. If and when this editor returns and makes further conflict of interest edits, we can reconsider the case, but at present there is no reason for any action. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:SamiraJ
He is Agressive Romanian user (He is reincarnation banned User Iaaasi, as he said via e-mail. Iaaasi has a new internet provider), who had chauvinist mentality. He don't interested the wiki rules, like the 3 revert rule. He also deleted well referenced statements. See Banat of Temeswar ‎, and the Gesta Hungarorum articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.203 (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that this is not a case for this noticeboard. It would be better suited for WP:ANI and/or WP:SPI.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 12:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 84.2.100.203 is the sock of banned user Stubes99 (SamiraJ (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Again, this isn't a matter for this noticeboard. Please take this discussion to WP:ANI.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 12:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul S. Farmer
Hi. Would somebody uninvolved here be able to neutrally and fairly review Paul S. Farmer to see if the article appears to be appropriately balanced and sourced, and, if not, give guidance to the article's subject as to what problems remain? (Or help fix it.) This article was created by the subject himself — not the first person to inadvertently fall afoul of the COI guidelines — and he has worked with the community in an effort to address its concerns. The article was nominated for deletion at the end of May and kept (Articles for deletion/Paul S. Farmer), and he has put substantial time into sourcing and neutralizing it. You can read the history of our discussions at the article's talk page. I have attempted to help him comply with policies, as has User:Opbeith.

Naturally, he would like the OR and (newly restored) COI templates removed from the top of the article. If problems persist, he could use some genuine guidance rather than, say, this kind of thing. Of course, we prefer that people not write their own autobiographies on Wikipedia, but when they do and try to fix any issues that exist, I think we should work with them. Tags are not meant to be punishment for people who did not arrive fully possessed of knowledge of our rules, and if we can help him fix this article so that the tags are not needed, we should. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse Moonriddengirl's measured and thoughtful referral. Opbeith (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very much belated but I have the article on my watchlist and I'll take a look at it and make any cleanup or suggestions I feel necessary, thanks. --  At am a  頭 19:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Aekoroglu


This user is CIO of Near East University -- see http://www.linkedin.com/in/aekoroglu. Edits are promotional (including the creation of new articles on subcomponents of the university). No response to the COI notice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Promotional? I think you're biased. Instead of helping to new users you only criticize. Let me tell what promotion is;"%20 Reduction in Dormitory Prices" Thats a promotion, yes Im CIO in the university but it doesnt matter we're academics. Wikipedia needs correct and latest informations right? We would like to give officially, but your attitute is not helping at all.--Aekoroglu (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are the CIO of the university, is that a conflict of interest? Yes. Is that conflict of interest a problem? Possibly, it depends on the nature of your edits. Please note that it doesn't matter if you are academics or acting through a profit motive, if there's any promotion occurring Wikipedia will treat it the same way. Besides the usual concerns about promotion or not presenting a neutral point of view (neither of which I've identified as problems quite yet), there may be an issue with the proper formatting of articles. Aekoroglu, you're new to Wikipedia so nobody should hold mistakes against you, but for example don't seem to conform with our Manual of Style. Are you willing to work with other editors to see that proper policies and guidelines are followed? If you want the articles to be accurate, that's great, that's what everyone else wants too. --  At am a  頭  19:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Last Mountain


I considered whether to post this here or in WP:NORN, I'm not entirely sure what this qualifies as. But what I perceive to be the problem is that the lengthy addition by Eric to The Last Mountain article is at least partly if not mostly irrelevant to the article's subject — the article is about a documentary that covers some issues, and it seems that a lot of the criticism (definitely undue weight on that, it's longer than the rest of the article) is about the issues themselves and not so much the movie. (I didn't read the whole thing tbh.)

The editor identified themselves as the writer at Green For All; I think that considering who they are and what they're saying, this section of the COI guideline is relevant: "Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations or political campaigns that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." --Jean Calleo (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been through it - it's a straight forward COATRACK - please check the revised version. Yes, this might be a problem with this editor. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further Green For All needs some work as well - in it's current state, it's an advert. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Kimberly Hunt


User Kusinews has asked that a COI template, that I added back in March 2011, be removed from the Kimberly Hunt article. The COI template was added because I viewed the primary editor(s) as having some sort of close connection or affiliation with the article subject, if not the article subject herself. It appears that only San Diego IP addresses, which were prior to Kusinews' registration, and User:Kusinews have been the main contributors. No other user has made any significant contributions to the article, particularly a registered user (see here). Kusinews may even be a single purpose account. The Kusi user account was registered in 2007, the same time the article subject had employment at KUSI News. Other edits by the user include changes to the Billy Ray Smith, Jr. article, Hunt's husband. However, this only conjecture and if I'm wrong then I apologize and will see that the COI template be removed. I don't believe that there has been any intentional violations of policy. My intent with adding the COI template was to ultimately gain the attention of an knowledgeable, independent reviewer with no known connection to the subject to check for fairness and undue weight. Thanks.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 13:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I did not state it explicitly. Is there any disagreement with the COI template being on the article or should it be justifiably removed?  Barkeep  Chat/''' 18:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked very deeply but if there isn't explicit evidence that they have a close connection with the subject or some incredibly obvious signs beyond supporting or POV pushing, there isn't a COI. That doesn't mean that the article isn't advertorial or pushing some sort of agenda but that's more of a content or WP:POVN issue.
 * Is there any proof that there's a close connection?  Ol Yeller Talktome 18:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than flat out asking the user, I don't if there is any direct proof outside of the connection between the user name and the article subject. The article no longer has any glaring POV issues as I attempted to clean that up in previous edits. My concern was that most of the actual content was added by one person with a possible close connection to the subject.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't know that there needs to be any other proof. In any event, KUSI News is the name of an organization (the Facebook account for the station has that as the title for example) and the username runs afoul of WP:ORGNAME. I usually keep my finger off the "block" button if an editor has been editing Wikipedia for years with a decent number of edits (90 in this case) without anyone complaining about it. But I think if the editor wants to give the impression that they represent Kimberly's former employer, we have justification for treating them as if they are representing that organization and their interests. If the editor does not want to give that impression, they should most definitely request a name change at WP:CHUS. --  At am a  頭 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council


This editor is adding negative material about ALEC and she has a conflict of interest. – Lionel (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a close connection alluded in their edits. Do you find that the person has a COI via your own investigation?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If my search is finding the correct person, I'd say it's more of a POV issue than COI. She appears to be a blogger/journalist with a clear, intentional, and stated point of view.  I'm not sure but it could probably be handled at either noticeboard assuming there's a problem with her edits (I only checked for a close connection).  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not COI; it may be NPOV, or the editor may be adding solidly sourced negative information. (Full disclosure: I personally consider this organization's activities to verge on the treasonous, and to be incredibly destructive to the United States, the nation to which I hold allegiance, as well as to the rest of the human race.) -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor has a close association with an organization for which she is writing about. – Lionel (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? She obviously has feelings about the subject but I have strong feelings (of hate) for cheese; that doesn't mean we're associated even if I go edit Cheese and add referenced synthesis about how terrible it is. This is where I think WP:COI is up for interpretation in that the close connection isn't traditional (an employee, contracted PR firm, autobio, family member, etc.) but the editor has created some sort of connection (usually emotional/moral).  I personally think this case is covered fully by WP:POV but I wouldn't call someone wrong for considering this a COI.
 * I can't really suggest an action other than to wait for an admin. Have you tried discussing the issue with the user?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 22:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Her connection goes far beyond feelings. Her association is professional. I can't really say more without risking OUTING. An admin needs to undertake a full and complete investigation. The issue with this editor is indeed the essence of COI. – Lionel (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately if the only way you can show a COI is by outing someone, then you can't show the COI, and it's not an appropriate discussion for this noticeboard. No admin is going to "undertake a full and complete investigation" of a COI if it requires that private details be revealed about a person. When making a claim, you need to show how this person's actions and/or disclosures on Wikipedia prove a COI. If you can't then you can't claim that a person has a COI. --  At am a  頭 03:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Warren Bird


The user claims to be contracted by Warren Bird to create the article. I've just nominated it for a WP:G11 but I'm stepping out so I won't be able to monitor the situation for a while.  Ol Yeller Talktome 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article was deleted. The user has no edits other than the claim I linked above.  I'll monitor and report back if there's a change.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Voss water
reviewing the history of the article voss water it to me seems as if - certain (self-admittedly) employees of the voss water company control the information of the article, removing any negative criticism or even embarassing fact about their product. - these people have written very long "rebuttals" to the claims on the discussion page, but to me it just looks like a lot of blaablaablaa in order to allow them to blanket revert the whole page to suit their own agenda. Clearly no one cares enough to reply to all these lengthy postings. But it should be obvious what is going on here and perhaps protecting the page is in order.

what do you think?

--Gillis (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like the issue has been addressed and is being solved if it hasn't been already. I'm looking through the edits of the users who were trying to whitewash the page and I find the edits of  to be worth checking.  They've whitewashed four times (their only edits to Voss).  They've also done a lot of work on Brad Ludden.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

User:John Hill


This otherwise-productive editor is inserting references into articles like this which reference his own book self-published through Amazon.com's vanity press arm, BookSurge. In the case of Li (unit), Hill wikilinked to his own userpage with a pipe |, creating the false impression that this was a link to a Wikipedia article about himself. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: Mr. Hill did insert reference to his own book in multiple articles,     but it was me who added the piped link thereafter. I thought the link would be helpful to readers because Mr. Hill is not a well-known historian, so readers may have trouble figuring out who he is otherwise. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. First of all, I certainly did not add that "pipe" - it was added by someone calling themselves User: Have mörser, will travel on 28 September 2011 - which you can easily check. I would never have made such a blatant self-promotion. Secondly, the reference to my book is really a reference to two works written by Homer H. Dubs, one in 1938 and one in 1945, which I discuss in the introduction to my book and are both properly referenced with details in the bibliography. I made the link to my book as Homer Dub's volumes have been long out of print and difficult to find and thought it would be easier for readers to check there. I apologise if this is overstepping the mark. In any case - it should not be a problem for much longer as I have been asked by a well-established and respected publisher of academic works to reprint my book with them and I am presently getting it ready for republication. I hope this answers your concerns. If not, please do not hesitate to contact me again. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John is correct, is the edit that added the piped link to John's user page. --  At am a  頭  23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to add in my above note that I also referred to notes by another famous sinologist, A. F. P. Hulsewé‚ basing himself on a "thoroughly documented article on the weights and measures of the Ch'in and Han periods by Wan Kuo-ting," in T’oung pao Archives, Vol. XLIX, Livre 3, 1961: 206-207, where he says that the Han chi, equalled 0.231 metres (or 9.095 inches). This means that the Han li works out to be exactly 415.8 metres (as there were 1800 Han chi in a Han li). Hulsewé in his notes rounds this off to 416 m.
 * I would also like to point out that I have been set up and then subjected to an unwarranted personal attack by Have mörser, will travel on the Editing Talk:Li(unit) page at [] You can see my reply there. Can someone please do something to stop this sort of unfair attack? Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to have been suckered, John, and I do apologize. References should have been to the Dubs and Wan material, not to your own, to avoid even the appearance of self-advertisement; but that still doesn't excuse what mörser is pulling here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And what exactly is that? I have never claimed that Mr. Hill linked to his own page here, only that he added his book as reference to several articles. You seem to have come up with the former claim yourself. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Have mörser, will travel was extremely pointy in that action (adding the pipelink to J Hill's talkpage), and should be clear not to do similar in future. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Adding one's book to an article, which John Hill did  is not self promotion, but I'm doing something bad by clarifying who he is by adding a link to his page and attributing his opinion? Please keep in mind that John Hill added his book at li to contradict Joseph Needham. Apparently Mr. Hill considers my objection that a personal attack. Too bad Needham is dead, so he can't reply himself to that. On the Fusang page Mr. Hill added his book to support the (nowadays very marginalized) theory that Fusang is somewhere in America. If the theories of the likes of Henriette Mertz are not allowed to be attacked on Wikipedia, then something is wrong with the rules here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your actions here are inserting the object of your own objection into an article, then direct that blame on another person. If you have problems to User John Hill's credibility and actions, about the links you pasted here, you should point it out directly, not attempting to insert something into an article which he himself did not placed COI materials in, and then complaining he did that.  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  13:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent my actions and those of Mr. Hill as well. Mr. Hill himself added his book to several articles. Please follow the diffs yourself:    . I merely provided a link to his page and to BookSurge, his publisher, and I have made some corrections, because I think some of Mr. Hill's edits contravene WP:NPOV in addition to WP:COI, as I will explain in subsections below. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see that it's prohibited specifically, but it seems that linking to a user page from within article text is a very bad idea. Wikilinks in text should direct the reader to other articles, not to the Wikipedia namespace. See WP:CNR where it says such things are "bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around". --  At am a  頭 17:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very well, I won't link to his user page in articles. But that does not appear to be the main issue here if I read WP:COI correctly. Is it more promotional for me to link to his user page than for him to add his print-on-demand book in several articles? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about promotion, (speaking for myself only here) I was just concerned with the technical aspects of linking to his user page from the article space, nothing else. As to Hill adding his book to pages, see "citing oneself" in our COI guideline. It states that he's allowed to add his own book as a citation, within reason, but only if it's relevant and doesn't violate content guidelines. Ultimately the appropriateness of such references is up to the community, in other words, you and me, and everyone else here. So the question is, do you think that this is "excessive self-citation" on his part, or that it "places undue emphasis on his work"? --  At am a  頭 18:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An ocean of mud that COI guideline is. I wonder what is the point of writing something as useless as that. I'm not sure what else you expect from me because I did not initiate this report, but see my opinion on the circumstances in which he cited himself in the sections below. Regards, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is twofold; to help editors avoid controversy in their participation when doing so may be a conflict of interest, and to give guidance as to how best to handle editors who have a conflict of interest. We don't expressly forbid COI editors from participating entirely, and usually only take action against an editor when their edits are disruptive in some way. As to being an "ocean of mud", it is somewhat, and by necessity, because it's a complex subject. One of the reasons for this board is to help interpret the guideline.


 * My question to you wasn't really a challenge, by the way, it was an attempt to determine if perhaps John Hill really has been unduly self-promotional since you seem to be familiar with his actions. It's a high wire act sometimes when someone identified as an expert is self-citing; on the one hand we can greatly benefit from their assistance and don't want to drive them away from the project, but on the other hand we don't want to give them a free pass on using Wikipedia as "free advertising" of one sort or another. Therefore it doesn't make sense to have a black-and-white rule on the subject. As to your complaints of violating NPOV or making personal attacks, those need to be evaluated further to see if they warrant action, the complaint about Fusang for example isn't clear to someone (like me) who is unfamiliar with the subject. And I'm not seeing where the personal attacks are, I'm not saying there weren't any, but if you can provide diffs that would be helpful. --  At am a  頭 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me on the personal attack part. Mr. Hill claimed referring to  that I was engaging in personal attacks against him because I was contrasting his qualifications with those of Needham. I was doing that because Mr. Hill chose to contradict Needham in the article by citing his BookSurge-published book.  I see that Wikipedia's WP:PERSONAL policy takes a literal stance to that, the common sense of which I very much dispute . If whoever writes these policies can't get something as simple as that right, it's not very surprising to me that the one on COI is worse. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did misunderstand, however a false accusation of a personal attack is considered a personal attack in itself, WP:NPA includes "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". So in essence, you would be accusing him of a personal attack in that sense. I'm not sure if falsely accusing someone of a false accusation is itself a personal attack, my head is threatening to explode when I try to wrap my brain around that. :p But wikilawyer jargon aside, I looked at the talk page where the accusation was made and don't see any merit in it. I also think that even if they were unfounded, Hill didn't bring up his concerns maliciously, so I don't see any need for even a warning. That's another reason why self-citing is so murky, it's easy for a person to take such criticisms personally, and it's natural to do so.


 * I will say this, for John, if he's still reading this page. If you insert mention of your own works into an article, you are opening yourself up to criticism. We have something called Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences, which is mainly intended to refer to autobiographies but can also apply any time you add information about yourself or your work into any part of article space. A modified version of that Law would be that if you don't want comment on your works, don't include them. Now, we are expected to be respectful of people, so nobody should be dismissing your work as garbage (that's just rude if nothing else). However, the criticism of your work that was made on that talk page doesn't rise anywhere near to that level, and it was the same sort of objective comparison of sources that you'd expect to see on any article discussion page. Again, if you don't want negative criticism of any kind, don't volunteer your work. --  At am a  頭 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "So in essence, you would be accusing him of a personal attack in that sense." I saw the amusing circular logic in that policy (which is close to the Urban Dictionary ), but chose not to comment on that aspect, because it is the least of the problems in that page. Suffice to say that I'm much more concerned about article contents than any "personal attack" against me that somehow follows from my rebuttal of Mr. Hill's arguments. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Fusang
Let me explain why think Mr. Hill's edits at Fusang were contravening WP:NPOV. He bolstered the claim that Fusang was in America with a reference to his BookSurge-published book:. I see two plausible hypotheses here: (A) Mr. Hill was blissfully unaware of the academic criticism summarized in a book of Needham, even though Mr. Hill seems aware of that very book of Neeham, because Mr. Hill chose to criticize it for another aspect in a different article. Mr. Hill would not be first upstart historian to make such a mistake in dealing with Fusang; see Henriette Mertz. The other hypothesis (B) is that Mr. Hill was aware of the academic views, but he chose not to present them in Wikipedia. Regardless of which of these hypotheses holds, Mr. Hill's edits to the article were not an improvement in the direction of NPOV. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness to Mr. Hill, the version he found at Fusang was pretty bad, having been written mostly by User:Per Honor et Gloria,  relying mostly on the much criticized writings of the folklorist Charles Godfrey Leland who popularized the theory of Joseph de Guignes. Despite displaying a bazillion of wiki-laurels on his user page, User:Per Honor et Gloria appears to have been sanctioned for promoting other poorly supported history-related theories, but that is a matter for another discussion. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Li and other measurement pages
This is more difficult for me to evaluate, as Mr. Hill is being evasive on the matter preferring to accuse of personal attacks instead. Above Mr. Hill writes that "the reference to my book is really a reference to two works written by Homer H. Dubs, one in 1938 and one in 1945, which I discuss in the introduction to my book and are both properly referenced with details in the bibliography". Unfortunately, most of the references Mr. Hill added to Wikipedia are to the introduction portion of his book, a part that Mr. Hill implies he wrote himself. So, it is misleading for him to claim that the opinions referred are really those of Dubs. In the unlikely scenario that Dubs' opinions are actually referred, proper attribution should be made. Furthermore at Li (unit) Mr. Hill wrote "more recent and reliable determinations", and it's difficult to see how the 1938-1945 writings of Dubs are more recent than the 1971 book of Needham. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I apologise for this matter taking up so much time and energy - I think it has now gone far past what it should and would like to put a stop to it.

First of all, I apologise for overstepping WP guidelines by referring to my own book. My only excuse is that at the time I was not so aware of Wikipedia's suggested code of behaviour in such matters and my intention was to refer readers to the findings of other authorities (and always properly referenced and often quoted) in my book. I undertake to go back over the articles referred to and insert the original references for the findings that I was trying to bring to others' attention.

Secondly, in my own defence, I feel I should mention that the original criticisms of my self-referencing were not so much that I had referred to my own work, but that I had self-published my work rather than have it published by a well-known publisher. I don't wish to "blow my own horn" but feel that, as I am under attack, I should add that it has been widely cited and acclaimed. Also, (after I had placed a rough draft of the book on the Silk Road Seattle website hosted by the University of Washington where it was and is freely available for comment and criticism), I was asked by a leading U.S. university if they could publish the work. After many negotiations I decided to self-publish as the university wanted to print it in two volumes which would have made it very expensive and difficult for many students to obtain. Now, again I have been asked by a leading academic institution if they could republish it and I am now in the process of revising and updating it for republication. So, what I am saying here is that the criticism that it has been self-published is not warranted, though, to be fair, the editors involved were probably not aware of the situation.

Thirdly, I strongly object to having my references "piped" to my WP page (especially as I was never informed that this was being done until I began to receive unfounded comments that I had done this myself). But, thank you Orange Mike  for your apology which I gratefully accept and I also take your criticism on board. I further object to finding comments headed with a silly, very aggresive-sounding header: "Why is John Hill more authoritative than Joseph Needham?" including the rather nasty comment: "Otherwise it's just a credibility contest between authors' credentials, and Hill loses badly here." I must point out again that I was never giving myself as the authority (or doing anything so stupid as to insinuate that I was a better authority than Joseph Needham - one of my heroes) - I was just referring to my book where there is a discussion of what other scholars have discovered.

Finally, to the more important matter which led to this whole discussion, the length of the Chinese li in Han times. Dub's work on the length of the li in Han times seems to me definitive as it is based on the archaeological discovery in 1924 of an official standardised set of weights and measures which have been corroborated again and again in a number of various ways by other experts, including the discovery of other Han dynasty foot rules discovered by Aurel Stein. However, I won't go into all that here - but will, when I can spare the time, add a section to the article on Li (unit) about these interesting discoveries (all properly referenced).

I hope now, we can bring this sorry tale to an end. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote "I should add that it has been widely cited and acclaimed." Please provide some evidence. I honestly looked for it myself before ever posting to the talk page of Li (unit), but I was unable to find much. I was not able to find any book reviews of your book. I found three books in Google Books that mention it however. One says they've received too late to use it . The other two cite it for translations of passages from unspecified Chinese texts and Hou Hanshu respectively . None of those recommends your book for its research on Chinese metrology. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As for "I was just referring to my book where there is a discussion of what other scholars have discovered", the discussion in question is penned by you. I merely asked on the talk page of Li for you provide the details from there, as merely citing your book for "However, more recent and reliable determinations show that during the Early and Later Han dynasties the value of the Chinese li was 0.4158 km (0.25837 miles)." makes it impossible to judge it by anything else other than your book's credentials.  This has also been discussed above with User:Atama. You also imply that that the "reliable determinations" you speak of are more recent than those Needham was aware of c. 1971, which doesn't seem to be the case actually. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Final reply
I see Have mörser, will travel insists on dragging this discussion on further and on his or her terms. Unfortunately, (s)he has forced me into this position of defending myself and my reputation. So I will try to answer his or her latest "points." First, my book has been cited in well over a dozen academic books and articles, many written by leading scholars. (I don't bother keeping track of such things as I am retired and therefore usually have no need to keep such records or climb any academic ladders - I do it out of interest and love of the subject.) If (s)he can't find more citations than (s)he indicates above it is more a reflection of his or her lack of research skills than anything else. I suggest (s)he check through reputable citation indexes if (s)he wants to find more - I assure you - they do exist. As to reviews, (s)he can start by checking out the 6 completely unsolicited 5 star reviews at the entry for my book on Amazon.com - again some of them have been written by internationally-renowned scholars.

As to his or her second paragraph, if (s)he would look at the article Li (unit) carefully it would become clear that Needham was only making assumptions and calculations based on these assumptions about the length of the li in Han times (and sometimes contradictory ones at that), based on the earlier work of others. Here is the quote from the article:


 * "In his volume on civil engineering in China, Joseph Needham makes some calculations under the assumption that during the "Qin and early Han Dynasty" the li was 0.4972 km (0.309 mi),[2] but for others he assumes—citing a History of Chinese Metrology by Wu Chengluo (1957)—that the Qin and Western Han used the 0.309 mile, while the Eastern Han used a 0.258 mile li.[3]"

Now, I don't like to criticise other scholars unless there is a compelling reason to, but seeing as I am backed into a corner here perhaps I will be excused for quoting from A.F.P. Hulsewé's note, "Han Measures" in T’oung pao Archives, Vol. XLIX, Livre 3, 1961: 206-207 - which I refer to in my book - on the unreliability of one of Needham's main sources. (I will leave the Chinese characters out as I don't think they are essential here):-


 * "These figures [in which Hulsewé gives the value for the Han li as "approx. 416 m."] are therefore practically identical with those calculated by Professor H. H. Dubs on pp. 279-280 of vol. I of the History of the Former Han Dynasty, the author does not mention this publication [a previously mentioned "thoroughly documented article on the weights and measures of the Ch'in and Han periods by Wan Kuo-ting" - reference details given], although it antedates his by twenty years, having been published in 1938.
 * It is to be noted that in his article (especially on pp. 146-149) Mr. Wan severely criticizes Wu Ch'eng-lo for the statements made in his Chung-kuo tu-liang heng shih, both in the original edition of 1937 (in the   Chung-kuo wen-hua shih ts'ung-shu) and in the revised edition of 1957, i.a. for different lengths of the foot he assumes for Ch'in and Early Han on the one hand and for the Wang Mang period and Later Han on the other, Mr. Wan shows that Wu Ch'eng-lo, also in this case, has merely taken over the computations of Chu Tsai-yü contained in the latter's Lü-lü ching-i, (preface dated 1609). Mr. M. Loewe was therefore fully justified when on pp. 65-66 of his article "The measurement of grain during the Han period" in T'oung Pao XLIX (1961), he decided to disregard Wu Ch'eng-lo's unverifiable statements."

Hopefully, this will bring to an end this unseemly exchange as it is clear that Needham's assumptions are based on unreliable early sources whereas Professors Dubs, Hulsewé and Loewe have relied on the clear evidence of actual weights and measures dating directly to the time period in question (see my previous note above). Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finally providing an informative answer. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but you could have provided this materially relevant information on the article's talk page in response to my inquiry there, and you would have saved both of us a lot of typing. (I was aware of the increasing obsolescence of Wu Chenglo's book, but ignorant of the particulars on li in this period. As for the quote from the Wikipedia article, it was me who clarified what Needham was doing. .) Best regards, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin Lewis


Could someone take a look at the history of this article and its prominence as a primary topic? The discussion page and talk archive shows that there was never consensus for a move to a primary, and there appears to have been a possible COI and close coordination between several editors to make this a primary topic rather than point to a disambiguation page like Martin Lewis (disambiguation).

Here is a brief history of the article showing the top three contributors:

Edits       User 	         first edit 	        last edit 62 (13/49) 	Davidpatrick 	2006-08-21 15:40 	2011-03-29 15:14 23 (14/9) 	23skidoo 	2006-08-21 13:35 	2010-04-11 20:09 20 (18/2) 	GoingBatty 	2010-02-21 01:53 	2011-09-22 02:43

is the primary contributor. I don't think much else needs to be said about this. According to editors in the talk archive, he has added dozens of links to to the preferred topic in what appears to be an attempt to make it a primary. In the past, now inactive admin  helped Davidpatrick maintain this biographical subject as a primary topic by move warring the topic from a disambiguation page to a primary, and using his admin tools to protect his chosen version of the article. Around the time that 23skidoo "left" Wikipedia in 2010 and became less active,  replaced him and is now editing the topic. Unfortunately, this issue was never quite settled and there is still a question as to whether this was ever a primary topic in the first place, and if it should be moved back to a disambiguation page. I'm placing this request on the COI board for obvious reasons. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd just move it to a Disamb page (which is the sensible reaction) and then see who comes out of the woodwork (I thought this was about the financial journalist to start with...) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, however, I predict that will cause a lot of problems if I move it. I don't think I should get involved at all because I was involved in a minor dispute with 23skidoo last year.  But, I have had serious concerns about this article for quite some time and I hope somebody else reviews the talk page discussion and the move/protect logs to see that we have a problem on our hands that needs to be resolved. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it but I don't have the technical skills. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK - I've done the first bit but I can't move the Disamb page to Martin Lewis - anyone able to help? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You should open a request at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me look at it, I might take care of it for you. --  At am a  頭 20:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, come to think of it I don't believe that a move is the best course of action anyway. It's better to just change Martin Lewis to redirect to the disambiguation page rather than the biography it currently redirects to. The redirect page isn't protected so anyone can make that change if they want. --  At am a  頭 20:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried that and couldn't do it - something to do with redirects. I don't generally do this sort of stuff so was a bit lost on what to do next. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No I've got it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi everyone. Next time you're discussing my edits, could you please drop me a note to let me know?  Please note that most of my edits were in one 40-minute period to attempt to fix the references in this article.  None of my edits were done in "close coordination between several editors", and none of my edits were to move (or promote movement of) this article in either direction.  I also wouldn't characterize any of my edits as having "replaced" any other editor.  If you have any concerns about my edits, please let me know.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

23skidoo response
Here are my responses to some of the pertinent major points:
 * I am an "inactive" admin only insofar I found myself often spending 6-8 hours at a sitting on the project and frankly I was too busy making a living from my research and writing work to spend all my time on it (this still applies). The fact I have not edited as 23skidoo very often in the last while does not mean I have not edited. Lots of registered users edit on a casual basis without bothering to log in.
 * Reading some of the comments above I get the impression that I might be accused of being a sockpuppet of either Martin Lewis himself or other users. That's OK - I've had such incorrect charges put towards me in the past. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody. Why do I jump in on these disputes when they occur? One word: watchlist. And it just so happens that the Martin Lewis article tends to show up when I check in from time to time; I haven't done much in the last few weeks which why were weren't having this discussion several weeks ago. Also, it’s not unusual for users to “adopt articles” on their own accord and follow them regularly. In the past I’ve done the same with articles related to Bill Haley, the Ian Fleming James Bond canon, Simon Templar, Modesty Blaise, many articles relating to Saskatoon, and many other topics (not to mention articles I created myself - including the Martin Lewis article) until, as I explained above, I chose to step back a bit.
 * Just for the record, I have approximately 37,500 edits registered since January 2003 (this doesn’t include IP edits). I'm not an amateur or a "one topic" editor. Just wanted to make that clear as someone looking at that chart above might think I've only been around for 5 years and it seems to be implied by some that I am only a single-topic editor. At some point someone accused me of using Admin tools to lock in my changes. Unless someone is sockpuppeting ‘’me’’, I don’t recall doing anything of that nature today. If I was prone to abuse the tools, I’d have locked the pages.
 * Regarding the issue at hand (the disambiguation), examining the verifiable, major, and reliable sources cited in the Martin Lewis article, it confirms that he is prominent and notable in multiple spheres internationally, and has had notability since at least the 1970s. (For the record, my interest in the man started when I was learned he promoted Bill Haley's Comets in 2005, and I learned he was also involved in the early comedy career of Billy Connolly, the Monty Python-related Secret Policeman’s Balls concerts, the Beatles - all topics of interest to me.) I’ve checked many of the sources myself and they’re not penny ante. Before making the edit in question, I spent time consulting the prominence guidelines set out at WP: PRIMARYTOPIC. I made no changes until I consulted that. Bottom line, one of Wikipedia’s most important principles is verifiability – the sources cited in the article speak for themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

colinda

 * that is note the truth i don't know where ya'll get your information from but it is just a cajun song an that is my name an i want it removed if ya'll print something with somebody's name find out the real truth IT IS JUST A CAJUN SONG PERFORMED BY VIN BRUCE FROM BAYOU LAFOURCHE AN IT IS MY NAME AN IF U WANT TO USE MY NAME I WANT MONEY PROFIT FROM IT OR I WILL CONTACT MY ATTORNEY DARTESS SO IF YOU WANT TO WRITE SOMETHING ABOUT THE NAME WRITE THE TRUTH............

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 68.226.153.93 (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)CALINDA IS NOTE THE TRUTH NEITHER MAN YA'LL JUST LET PEOPLE PUT STUFF ON HERE THAT IS ALL LIE'S PRINT THE TRUTH


 * No idea what to think of this. This IP has made no other edits, I can find no turmoil at Vin Bruce, or any article about or containing "Colinda" or "Calinda" on WP.  Regardless, I'm going to report the legal threat.   Ol Yeller  Talktome 21:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan Pepe


Hi. The article appears to be about someone who is notable (CSD had been declined), but looks like it has been written by the person. Tags for COI have been removed (I've retagged this morning. Could someone have a look at this article for their thoughts on the matter?  Thanks Stephen! Coming... 11:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The Art Fund


Theartfund is an SPA that has made a number of good faith and constructive edits to The Art Fund, but they should be notified of Wikipedia's COI policy, and may need to change their user name. BabelStone (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The account has been blocked by WP:UAA. I'll keep the article on my watchlist and report back if I see any issues.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 21:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should mention that the last 10 edits on the page were by The Art Fund. I didn't go over them to assess the damage.  I think it's also worth noting that the editor AfD'd the article a year ago stating, "Out of date page".  I'm guessing they wanted some cleanup done.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 22:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeffreylee21

 * Jeffreylee21
 * Jeffreylee21

User's only contributions are continually advertising his website to the UAP article. Over a dozen reverts by several editors and he still hasn't gotten the message. Chimino (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, he's added it 8 times to the article and twice to his talk page (it was cleared once by him when he blanked all of the warnings off his talk page).  Ol Yeller Talktome 14:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note, he appears to be back under IP 122.54.71.17 adding the same link to the same page.--Chimino (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reported him at WP:AIV. I expect the IP to be blocked very soon.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 12:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the quick response.--Chimino (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Mandelbaum


User self-identifies as Professor Mandelbaum's assistant, showing clear ownership issues on the article, making peacocky edits and apparently copying copyrighted material from another site. Edit warring with several other editors in wanting to keep the article the way the subject of the material wants it to look. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was the one who first removed the material as a copyvio. Ms. (Mr?) Kornell reached out to me on my talk page and asked me to email her. I've posted a note on her talk page informing her of conflict of interest policies and asking her to keep the conversation on-wiki. I was curious if there was a WP Campus Ambassador at JHU who could help out, but it doesn't seem like there is. GabrielF (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken Sibanda


The article has been created and edited by Mziboy. He emails from a Proteusfilm website, the same Proteusfilm that was founded by Ken Sibanda. While I don't have a major problem with the article in question, he is very abusive with regards to a page called The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel) Heywoodg   talk  17:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I formatted the report a bit.
 * Do you have anything on Wiki that shows a connection between Ken Sibanda and the user user:Mziboy? If I was forced to bet, I believe it's him from a look at a few edits but it's easier for an admin to take action if the editor has actually outed themselves.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the formatting! On Wikipedia? No, he denies it. However, he sent me a message through Wikipedia, and in my inbox it was from " (Redacted) ." So I guess the Mziboy account is registered with that email address. Hope that helps! Cheers  Heywoodg   talk  18:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like Mziboy exclusively edits the listed articles and a currently open AfD of the novel. I also see some signs of socking but even if they're not, they've !voted in the AfD twice.  The editor is obviously very emotional about the articles and their deletion.  On his talk page, he overtly calls Hegwoodg a racist and likens him to the Nazi party and white supremacist groups in section titles.  Also, there's a strong possibility that this is not Sibanda but someone who is a big fan as they say "his" and "him" often.  This may be avoidance but it may not.  COI or not, this issue needs admin intervention.  I haven't seen any of the usual COIN admins actively recently so I've requested some help at ANI.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I redacted the email address as it's most likely unintentional attempted WP:OUTING. I know "attempted" implies intent but I'm trying to follow the policy with my reaction.   Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was unintentional! Thanks for your help with this. Personally, I don't think he needs to be banned, but perhaps reminded about what wikipedia is and isn't. In my opinion I don't think he is getting it. Cheers Heywoodg   talk  18:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ya, he's far from a ban but a think a short block may be needed to show him that, at the very least, the personal attacks aren't OK.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to make this any clearer, this issue needs administrator attention.  Ol Yeller Talktome 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Calvinlarsen
SPA account editing two bio articles: Roger Jenkins (banker) and Sanela Diana Jenkins starting in 2009. Casual web search shows that a person with the same name as the editor claims to have been employed at Ms. Jenkins' firm since 2009. Is this thing working? (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probable sockpuppets listed below based on edit history, time and geographic location. -- Is this thing working? (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Bizzare Records


Earlier report on the same article and user:

The content in dispute in the above report, which was about the label's non-payment of artists, is long gone from the article. Today User:Stevopearce (account name matching the name of the owner of the record label) removed/broke all references from the article, and generally mangled the text: diff and diff. I'm going to revert, but wanted to let someone else take a look at the situation. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Elliott Seitz


Autobiography of non notable artist, she keeps removing maintenance templates. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Twinkle seems to be down at the moment (at least for me) but this is a situation where I strongly suggest issuing warnings. On one hand, they may not understand what the templates are for or that they shouldn't be removed until addressed.  On the other hand, if they know they shouldn't be removed and do it anyway, blocking before 4 warnings are issued can be tricky.  I issued a level one warning and added the page to my watchlist.  I'll report back here if things get out of hand.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Lees (neurologist)


This article/user has been reported before. Several external links have recently been added to the body by the user in question. Article needs attention.  Ol Yeller Talktome 13:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Glazer/removing information


There is a conflict of interest in the article about myself, Jeremy Glazer, regarding my Personal Life. I am not a boyfriend of actor Chad Allen. I have repeatedly removed the information off of the page, but a gossip article at AfterElton.com seems to replace it afterwards. Can it please be removed permanently? Jerglazer (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeremy. I think I'd be really frustrated if I was in your shoes.  Thanks for noting your conflict of interest; it's much appreciated.  I'll get on top of this and make sure we get the issue handled as soon as possible.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reported the issue at BLPN and requested help.  Ol Yeller Talktome 18:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The information Glazer wishes to delete is corroborated by other news sources. I added one from The Los Angeles Daily News to the Glazer and Allen articles. Binksternet (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is a tense issue (as in time). jglazer, it might be helpful if you clarified the state of the relationship.  It's by no means necessary and I feel weird even asking that but if the relationship was ended, we can attempt to find supporting references.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User;Jerglazer might also benefit from contacting WP:OTRS where he could perhaps confirm his identity and present details in private in regard to this request. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Hartmann
I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. This may be a WP:REALNAME problem and not a WP:COI as the subject of the article is no longer living but there's a lot of unsourced information being added to the article that I can't find a source for online. Everything about this issue yells COI to me but the subject isn't living. I'd guess it's a relative but I can find no sources that mention him even being married let alone anything about his relatives.  Ol Yeller Talktome 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Elliott Seitz‎


WP:DUCK WP:COI. Currently in an AfD. Has removed maintenance templates twice now (I've warned them twice as well). I'll report back after the AfD if the result is anything other than Delete.  Ol Yeller Talktome 20:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeannie Kanakos


Username indicates COI. Continued removal of sourced content and replacing with unsourced promotional text. 99.168.81.210 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my review shows that 99.168.81.210's assessment is accurate.  Ol Yeller Talktome 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you--I think you mistakenly templated me for this, though. 99.168.81.210 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I did. Very sorry.  Ol Yeller Talktome 00:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/PenguinDigital


A user called PenguinDigital is blatantly adding links to Penguin Books' website at Nick Hornby and other authors they publish. Tdslk (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reported to WP:UAA FWIW. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sally Mortemore


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Mortemores (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I reformatted a little for correct template usage.
 * Mortemores, I assume you're here to let us know that you have a COI with the article you have a created. I just wanted to say thank you.  It's very helpful for everyone involved.
 * As for the article, I haven't read any of it yet but I see that it's currently in an WP:AfD. I'll take a look at the AfD and report back if the the close connection is actually creating a conflict of interest.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Anne Bremner


Above users are editing the article to remove content about the subject's DUI incident and an ongoing case where another party's lawyer wrote to her to warn her that her statements may constitute defamation. Anon is a fixed IP address belonging to her employer. Have requested them to use the talk page to discuss their concerns, but without response.

In general I'd also appreciate a third pair of eyes on the article to check that my own edits comply with WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT. Did I mention that the subject of the article, who shares a name with the two accounts editing it, is also a lawyer? Try not to get yourself sued for libel =) cab (call) 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My initial impression of the DUI section is that there is wa-a-ay too much detail for a misdemeanor crime which resulted in a sentence of two days. The section should not be removed but it should be pared back to just the main themes, rather than blow-by-blow details. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I made a first attempt at that (diff). Other opinions appreciated at Talk:Anne Bremner. cab (call) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Binksternet after looking at the first draft of the content. As far as the COI goes, it looks like you're handling the issue well so it probably doesn't need admin intervention at this point.  WP:BLPN and maybe WP:POVN might be able to provide some more help as far as content goes.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Alonso


Brand new user has suddenly added pages of content to Roberto Alonso. Now it is in great need of clean up and source-checking and WP:NPOV. I've cleaned up some pretty blatant copyright-violating images (which is how I found this). I imagine the new author is either the subject himself or someone closely aligned with the subject. Wknight94 talk 15:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot of content added. It definitely looks like a copy/paste job with all the bracketed reference numbers (i.e. [2], [3]).  They also blanked out all the categories and basically everything below where they started editing.  Based on content alone, I probably would have reverted the information.  I'll take a closer look but as for the COI, an admin would have to decide if they're willing to play the WP:DUCK card or not unless Guarimbero has outed themselves somewhere.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it all. There's a ridiculous amount of opinion in the article based on references to the subject's beliefs.  It covers everything from the essay like story of his leaving Cuba to America's perception of South American politics.  I'm going to attempt to initiate a conversation with the user but at this point, I'd be willing to bet on a close connection.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on their talk page. We'll see what happens.  Also, I think it's worth noting that the user has uploaded several images at commons here) that are slowly being deleted for copyright violations.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This problem might be much larger than anticipated. The account is being used by, "an American foundation that promotes freedom in Latin American and the United States" who have, "a list of subjects in line regarding Venezuelan and Latin American topics and leaders".
 * They've left me a gigantic message on my talk page that I have yet to read but from a quick skim, I suspect there's a lot of WP:SOAPBOXING going on. I believe they're violating WP:USERNAME by having the account represent a group of people working at an organization.  I probably won't be able to handle this situation on my own.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Márquez


This is a BLP about a well-known reputed racketeer. An editor claiming on his talk page (credibly) to be his son has been editing the article, adding original research. The stuff he's adding is indisputably OR, is not sourced, and some of it, which I've removed, has been self-serving. I don't want to discourage this editor from contributing, especially to guide us to sources, make it more accurate and remove inaccuracies, but on the other hand he doesn't seem willing to abide by site policies. I don't want to remove text that shows the outcome of legal cases, yet, as I said, it's not verifiable. So I'm torn as to what to do. Assistance from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This editor is continuing to edit the article on his father, changing things so that they are not in conformity with the underlying sources, despite having been asked to confine his contributions to the talk page. He also removed his own name from the article (he is his father's attorney). ScottyBerg (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Levitt, MD


Looks like Jacob Levitt, MD is making an article about himself. Not sure whether as an academic he gets his own article or not. Should this be speedy deleted as a non-significant bio? Cheers.  Del ♉ sion  23  (talk)  13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tagged for deletion as unambiguous advertising. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of hoping it's not him because of the message he left on the article's talk page about how great he is (he even signed it). I guess we should probably wait to act until we see how your G11 goes.  If it survives, we can asses notability and try to remove the weaseling.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apart from it being unambiguous advertising I'm uncertain as to this person's notability. Right now it is a clear G11. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous (Street Meat)


This editor openly admits to being "the film's director, producer, writer and editor -- etc." of the short film and the subject of the biography, and is using Wikipedia to publicize her movie and herself. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not getting any better. She thinks we're picking on her when all she's trying to do is publicize herself. --Orangemike (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Think we're getting close to needing a block? I haven't reviewed the situation yet but if you think we need a block, I'll start looking for an admin.  It seems like we haven't had one by COIN in about a week.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Orange, are you an admin? If you are, I have somehow missed that fact for a long time.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, I am. --Orangemike (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless a reference can be found for the "honorable mention" I would have thought the article was a strong candidate for afd?Theroadislong (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been too involved in trying to salvage it to have a clear opinion any more. I'd have to see the reasoning in an AfD created by somebody else. Autobio, like other forms of COI, is not inherently a reason for deletion. --Orangemike (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on the writer, Migdia Chinea Varela looks like a keep. The one on the film Anonymous (Street Meat) does not meet WP:FILMNOT. We have high standards for notability of films and a series of small festival appearances would not cut it. (Reviews in mainstream media, not just a campus paper, would make a difference). The article on the writer herself survived an AfD in 2006: Articles for deletion/Migdia Chinea Varela. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"This editor openly admits to being "the film's director, producer, writer and editor -- etc." of the short film and the subject of the biography, and is using Wikipedia to publicize her movie and herself. Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)" "This is not getting any better. She thinks we're picking on her when all she's trying to do is publicize herself. --Orangemike (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Think we're getting close to needing a block? I haven't reviewed the situation yet but if you think we need a block, I'll start looking for an admin. It seems like we haven't had one by COIN in about a week. OlYellerTalktome 15:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)"

Please, read comments above and the followng warning: "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." Italic text'Italic text

Isn't what's going on here a little like public flogging, given the personal "she thinks" etc., tenor of the comments? I thank you all for contributing to the discussion, but I would prefer a more private forum in which to air personal attacks and rather one-sided remarks. I will have an interview coming out in the Huffington Post, I believe, soon. Thanx for your contribution. Kind regards, Mig (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mig, if I'm understanding correctly, you feel that the discussion about your actions is too public and too harsh. Furthermore, I assume that you feel that you are being outed which is a very serious accusation.  I'm uninvolved with the situation but I'm not seeing anything that isn't truth.  You have been outed but you outed yourself.  You told others exactly who you are which means there has been no outing.  As for the discussion, I personally don't think it's too harsh; I've seen much worse.  It appears to me that they're summarizing your actions and occasionally adding their opinion such as, "is using Wikipedia to publicize her movie and herself", "This is not getting any better", and "She thinks we're picking on her when all she's trying to do is publicize herself".  These are certainly opinions and the opinions of a very well established editor.  I don't know how much OrangeMike has been dealing with you but I can't think of a kinder way to state his opinions.  Can you? As for the public nature of this discussion, that's how Wikipedia works.  The transparency of the project is one of the things that makes it so fantastic.  If you wanted to remain anonymous, you could have done that but chose not to.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

it's editorializing
"She thinks" has no place in here -- it's the quality of the piece and its content that everyone should focus on. Only I know what I "think." And as to my publisizing myself. The 24 festivals into which "anonymous (street meat)" was selected happened before the Wikipedia page. I thought the subject matter was worthy of note because it is timely and has to do with important issues facing our country -- like the housing crisis. There are other people involved in the project, as you may see.

"anonymous (street meat)" was made under the auspices of UCLA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles -- and its School of Theater, Film, Television and Digital Media Department http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_School_of_Theater,_Film_and_Television.

That "campus newspaper" to which people here refer, the Daily Bruin, is a university newspaper in what consitutes a top university (top ten) -- it is a highly selective university. Its newspaper, The Daily Bruin is highly respected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Bruin --it's widely read in and outside of the university campus, a campus which has over 45,000 students -- so it's like a midsize town.

Compare that to the 2007 Wikipedia page (recently removed) of "Saturday Night Special" the one example to which I tried to call attention a year ago with no results until very recently. There were laudatory comments on that page like "a film that will stay with you for days..." "masterfully directed." The content seemed to be mostly publicity. There were no references and no citations that went anywhere. There was no historic nor social nor new-worthy relevance to this film. When I pointed out the problems with that page and the double-standard, as "anonymous (street meat)" was being dismantled bit by bit, my motives were questioned and I was told that there are milions of Wikipedia pages -- implying that that one film page with innapropriate comments was not worthy of review.

I'm not going to continue this line of argument any more because it's apparent to me that some people don't get it. I have a sense of right and wrong and use logic in an argument, not personal attacks, nor baseless accusations. But I'm befuddled when my logic is met with personal reaction. I'll repeat -- no one shouild put words into my actions because no one knows what I think, but I; I have received no personal benefit from any of this, but headaches in this venue. Wikipedia should question the motives of the people who are resorting to bullying, which goes against common courtesy.

I use my name because I have nothing to hide in my life -- although I would like to keep certain personal issues private as they may affect my ability to get employment. Accordingly, I don't deserve personal attacks because that is not the mode of logic I use to present my case.

I was interviewed by the Huffington Post on "anonymous (street meat)" as it pertains to bank abuse -- a timely and important topic. The article will be published when the regular WP columnist who is writing it publishes it. When the article is published, it will be linked. Thank you and have a great day --Mig (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Mig (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

PS
I'm a third year MFA student at UCLA Grad School of Theater, Film, Television and Digital Media, 2012. My specializations are screenwriting, directing and digital media. Thank you -- Mig (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mig, please use a ":" before your text; we use that to create a sort of thread of indented messages from each person. First message has no ":", second has "::", third has ":::", etc.  Also, if you feel that your messages deserve their own heading, please use three "=" to make a subjection in the correct section and not in other reports.  I'll read your response when I have 30 minutes to do so.  If it's about content and not about your COI, it doesn't belong here.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I apologize for the confusion -- wrong location. I have some computer problems. It's frustrating because I'm alone trying to resolve a multitute of things. I don't understand the protocol sometimes. Mig (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Mig (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Mig. It's OK.  The "usual" practices on WP on top of all the policies and guidelines is an icnredible amount of knowledge to take in at one time.  The big thing to remember here is that we're not on a timeline.  If every article you've worked on were somehow deleted, we could get it all back again with a few mouse clicks.  If you're confused about anything, please feel ask.  There are a whole lot of people who want to help the encyclopedia by helping you.  I'm not saying you feel this way exactly but I remember when I first started on WP, everything felt really huge and confusing.  I felt bullied and like I was being treated in a very cold manner.  It took some time to see why people act the way they do here but I assure you, there are a lot of people who want to help.


 * As far as flogging, outing, or bullying, I don't see that there has been any. I understand that you might feel attacked but unless I'm missing something, no one has done anything to violate what I consider some very well thought out and fair policies/guidelines.


 * As for the reliability or importance of the references used in the Street Meat article, that's a discussion for another place. This noticeboard is just about conflicts of interest.  Some other editors feel that your proximity to the subjects that you edit may be clouding your vision.  As you're new and very understandably already cloudy on our extensive policies and guidelines, this can make things difficult for everyone.


 * If you want to talk more about things outside of a conflict of interest, feel free to do so on the talk page of the article or my talk page. I'd be happy to help.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Royal United Hospital


This article has been edited several times over the last few months to remove anything negative about the organisation and replacing it with uncited positive reports. This morning I was phoned at work by the Head of Communications and External Relations for the hospital (later followed up by an email to my work address, rather than my personal email which is attached to my wikipedia account) demanding that I stop editing the article. I have said that I am happy to work with her to improve the formatting etc but emphasising my right (and that of anyone else) to add verifiable information to the article. Input form neutral editors would be helpful.&mdash; Rod talk 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite a claim. I'm certainly not saying I don't believe you (I'm inclined to given their edit history) but do you have any hard evidence?  I'm not sure how an email can be verified on-Wiki which seems like the easiest way unless you record all your phone calls.  Also, did they make any legal threats when telling you to stop?
 * My point is that the situation seems to be escalating quickly and hard evidence will make the situation much easier to handle, as you're probably aware. I think the WP:DUCK test applies for noting a COI between the now-blocked account, the IPs, and WP.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't record my phone calls, however the numbers called by each of us would be logged. I do have a copy of the email, but don't want to identify the individual concerned. The text of the email said:
 * "further to our telephone conversation this morning regarding your postings on the RUH page of Wikipedia, I am writing to formally ask you to stop making any further changes to the page. I hope you will give due consideration to my request and desist."
 * All I want is neutral individuals to look at the edits to the article and attempt to arrive at something which is balanced. I am not personally going to edit the article at present - while asserting my right to do so at some point.&mdash; Rod talk 15:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've already identified this person by giving us his/her title and the name of the person holding the title is public information. In any case he/she has no more right to order you to stop editing the article then I do. Perhaps you should email him/her back and invite him/her to come here and explain why he/sh think she has the authority to tell someone not under his/her charge not to edit a page on a wiki that he/she does not control. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's certainly reasonable. I hope I don't seem like I'm doubting you.  Should they persist, I would consider their actions harassment which would be a larger problem than just a COI and I would want action to be taken to prevent that harassment.  What I should probably focus is what you're asking for.  I'll take a look at the article but and invite others to as well.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Rod's claims are extremely serious, and frankly I don't see any policy that deals with pressure or harassment that takes place outside of Wikipedia. I agree that this article should get wide scrutiny. Do you think a post in AN/I is warranted? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IPs are very likely to be the people who work at the hospital in senior ranks. This usually means that they remove content from the article to prevent people looking it up and thinking that there are negative views about it. There must be some misunderstanding, looking at the article history one of the IPs are giving quite a negative view claiming that the hospital only has 500+ beds. Now there have been efforts to improve it, I don't think there should be a problem apart from the fact the article is disputed. Jaguar (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jaguar: I certainly wouldn't consider the IP's edits negative of the hospital in the slightest. Are we looking at the same IPs? Both IPs have made an almost identical edit that talks about the hospital's "pioneering ways" and how the hospital has "worked tirelessly".  Their change of the bed count never says anything about "only".  To me, it indicates that they personally know the exact number of beds without an online source, furthering a WP:DUCK assumption of a close connection.  Your interpretation of the situation is very confusing.
 * @Scotty: I believe this situation would be handled by Harassment which is to say that it can be grounds a block but I'm not convinced that they understand that they're harassing at this point. I personally believe that the hospital is most likely unaware of our policies and guidelines concerning WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR and were trying to protect their best interests.  While I can understand an argument that their ignorance should temporary protect them from a block, the COI is clear.  I think we need to make it absolutely clear that discussing the article off-wiki is strongly discouraged, continued off-wiki contact will be considered harassment (assuming Rodw doesn't want to be contacted anymore), adding puffery to the article is against WP policy, and that if they continue their behavior, they may be blocked or banned from editing Wikipedia.  Personally, I think that after we make that clear to them, the incident should be taken the AN/ANI after they harass or make problematic edits again.  This is all secondary to a legal threat which at this point, I don't believe they have made.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the email asking her to use my personal email (rather than work) if she wishes to pursue this further and informing her of various wikipedia policies re COI, NPOV etc. I have also suggested that any discussion occurs on the article talk page so that it is more open and transparent. I do not consider it a legal threat at this time and have no wish to pursue it further if there are no further incidents. I do appreciate the help of other editors, which are already occurring, in trying to achieve a balanced article. I'm not sure any blocking would be productive as User:Royalunitedhospital has already been blocked under the usernames policy. The IP addresses are registered to the NHS's N3 network which is used by thousands of staff and are dynamic and therefore unlikely to affect the specific user. At this stage I think the only benefit of an ANI report would be to get more eyeballs on the article.&mdash; Rod talk 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair to me. I guess it's not really harassment if you don't feel harassed and I'm sure your email constitutes the warning I was referring to.  Let us know if you hear any more from the hospital.  Also, your edit summary made me laugh.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have been clearer. I was amusing that the NHS staff at the hospital are simply trying to add bias in the article (the more beds the better, having nearly 1000 beds in the hospital would make it look like California) but either way it's a handful of senior staff trying to get a reputation. Trying to cover good bits by bad bits is definitely against a lot of Wikipedia policies, and for them to actually trying to stop any 'negative' (or the truth) points in the article is wrong. It's verbal condemnation. The IPs have no power on Wikipedia, so really they're trying to be intimidating! Jaguar (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is now being watched by many editors, so I'm sure the situation won't repeat itself. I wish all COI/N postings were quite so successful at eliciting a response (hint) but that's another story. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad it all worked out. Every time I look at the that other entry, I read the first line and think to myself, "oh no, here we go" and then push it off until I have plenty of time to read through the situation then subsequently forget until I repeat the process. I'll check it out today.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 14:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate that. At this point it's mainly a civility issue. At one point he made a legal threat, but he withdrew it, and his talk page posts have been disruptive. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not entirely, the COI editor is changing stuff in the article. 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was today asked to meet with my head of department at work as our human resources department is "investigating" an email about this incident, asking my employer to stop me editing the article concerned. I don't know if that constitutes a "legal threat". My head of department asked me if I was willing to make a commitment not to edit the article. I said "no". I intend to draft a document clearly setting out the issues and actions of those involved, and am considering contacting my union representative as my employing organisation has now become involved. Any advice on further actions to take would be appreciated.&mdash; Rod talk 14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very disturbing. I wonder if AN/I may be a better place to request guidance. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd take it to WP:AN immediately.
 * Personally, I think this is a level of harassment that constitutes a ban. At the very least, Rod could then go to his Union rep and department head saying, "Look, these people are violating Wikipedia policy to a degree that they've been banned from editing completely."  Ol Yeller  Talktome 15:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it even any of your employer's concern? Unless they're bothered about editing done by you as part of your duties or on work time or work computers, I guess... and if there's a possibility of sanctions against you, I'd definitely be talking to your union. SamBC(talk) 15:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To be frank, if it's a choice between editing Wikipedia and employment, the choice is clear and it's not Wikipedia. What this indicates is that there needs to be a strong policy dealing with harassment of this kind, which can be invoked to indicate that such harassment will be counterproductive and will backfire. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Following the advice here I have started a thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.&mdash; Rod talk 16:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

March of Dimes


The article is a promotional example farm, and a couple users have contributed to issues at the article. The talk page history shows some weird activity. I've attempted dialogue with both recent major editors. I definitely made progress at User talk:ToddPreston but I've just now spoken with User talk:BlairVanderbeek. Simply keeping this page on your watchlist may be all I'm looking for here. (Or edits to help clean up the article may be nice!) The talk page archive shows people identifying themselves as part of the organization. I'm thinking there is a high likelihood of a present COI. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Update) The user left a nice reply at their talk page User_talk:BlairVanderbeek. Jesanj (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's so nice when things work out that well.  It's like it needs some happy theme music.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dah dah dum dee dee dum dedah.... Ok, I'll keep my day job!-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol.  Ol Yeller Talktome 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels biography


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 63.3.2.130 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC) John Toland in his book Adolf Hitler wrote that Goebbels and his wife did not committ suicide but were shot by an Ss guard in the garden at the top of the emergecy steps...the same ones Hitler and Eva were carried up. He said he did not want his friends to carry them.
 * Hi! I'm sort of confused. If there's an error in the article, it's best to bring up the issue on the talk page of the article (click here).  This noticeboard is for notifying editors of a possible conflict of interest where an editor has a close connection to the subject of an article and seems to be editing in a way that isn't helping Wikipedia.  Is that happening?  I don't see anything in the edit history regarding this issue.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Tortrei Technique and User:Hartfree-Bright


User:Hartfree-Bright has created an article that appears to be about her work, discusses her work and cites herself. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been nominated for deletion and OlYeller has placed a multiple issues tag that includes the potential COI issue. I think that should take care of this for now. Thanks, Smokefoot for bringing this the noticeboard for consideration.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 18:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Voter Participation Center


The user seems to be doing everything to comply with COI-edit policies; therefore it would be great if someone could check out their 2nd request, Removal of duplicative information.  Chzz  ► 18:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a look at it and made the edit more-or-less as requested. Kevin (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala


The Geolocate data makes it seem as though there is a conflict with the IP editing Marshall Strabala. In addition, the IP continued editing the Strabala article and has not denied a COI even after I posted a warning to User_talk:108.75.223.67. User:Mykjoseph as only made one non-Strabala-related edit since May. He has claimed to have represented Starbala as a publicist in the past and has been warned of a COI, though he claims to no longer represent Strabala. Mykjoseph has recently resumed editing the article. In addition he has resumed making legal threats and personal attacks. & (the ES) &  Novaseminary (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel those diffs constitute a legal threat. If there isn't an admin around here at the moment (COIN has been slow lately), I'd take it to WP:ANI.
 * What is he so worked up about? It looks like ownership issues but I haven't been through the whole thing.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 23:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP's edits look debatable. They're not explicitly whitewashing but they do seem to be doing a little waxing (make some text look a little shinier).  It looks like Mykjoesph is generally neutral but edits like this are pushing the line.  I think it's obvious there's a bias but the article as it stands looks to be in decent shape.  I'm not sure if that's because of a collaboration or solely because of your edits.
 * I'm adding to the list as well.  That account shows some certain bias and may (quack) be related.
 * Besides the legal threat, I think the article could use some more watchers.  Ol Yeller Talktome 23:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added another to the list. I wouldn't be surprised if more exist.  It looks like there's a history of confrontations involved.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 23:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the IP and Mykjosph are the same person, but both may have a conflict. The IP edits that seem most egregious to me are: the one removing a significant qualifier to this person's credits and this one removing the specific allegations, quoted from RSs. And there is definitely a history of confrontation from Mykjoseph (and possible socks). The Strabala article had been practically a resume before I noticed other POV editing by Mykjoseph and took a look. Every significant change I have made, and many of the minor ones, have been met with significant resistance, regardless of how clear cut the guideline or policy supporting it. What is funny is some of the language that had been in the lede (about his having designed 3 of the tallest 10 buidlings) was also on his Flickr profile and is mentioned in the press coverage of the lawsuits agaisnt him. And he used to link to the WP article from his Flickr profile, too (not anymore). Anyway, Mykjoseph may have COI edited as discussed here related to this AfD (since the article was deleted anyway, I dropped it). Besides trying to prevent the deletion, he uploaded an image and edited an article about the founder. It seems to be a pattern. Novaseminary (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mykjoseph has been blocked indefinitely per the Incidents noticeboard. I would still appreciate as many eds as might be interested in keeping an eye on Marshall Strabala and the IP noted above. Happy editing! Novaseminary (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page has a lengthy message on it today left by the IP. They admit to a close connection but I don't really have the desire to read through the whole thing.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 16:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's way too much quacking coming from that Talk page...has anyone thought to open a WP:SPI on any of the referenced editors? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at all the talk page participants but the IP and the now-blocked editor seem to be different people. The other "myk" accounts I linked that haven't been blocked are very stale and probably wouldn't get any SPI attention anyway.  I'll look at other participants and see if they look like socks.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only other non-stale editors that have edited the talk page are either long-time editors or admins except for user:DavidSycamore. Their only edit is one to a comment made by Mykjoseph.  The edit seems as though they're changing the legal threat to WP only to a legal threat towards WP and Novaseminary.  I'll contact the blocking admin and ask them to review.  The account has only made 4 edits so I'm not sure how useful a block will be though.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 17:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP has request help from an admin for himself and on Myk's behalf. I'll report back if I think it's needed.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thers is an aweful lot of similarity between what the IP has written and what Mykjoseph has written in the past. Are eds ever blocked for meatpuppeting? What about protecting the article for a week or two from IP edits? And what about a WP:3RR block for the IP? Novaseminary (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the DavidSycamore edits were pretty clearly other instances of meatpuppeting (or outright socking) if you read the ed's post to user talk pages. Novaseminary (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I alerted an admin and then the IP did. Has there been any action taken or sign of an admin present?  Ol Yeller  Talktome 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * JamesBWatson left a message. I left a follow up to the IP's response.  I think he might be starting to understand what's going on.  Hopefully he does.  If not, I suspect he'll go to ANI to report you which will wholly backfire.  Ol Yeller  Talktome 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bird dogging this OlYeller. In the next day or so, I am hoping to cleanup some of what the IP and Mykjospeh did, including some things that could leave a misimpression in readers' minds. I'll post a talk page posting explaining everything in a new section there. We'll see how that goes. I'll link to it here. Novaseminary (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks OlYeller for your last post to Talk page. I have responded on the Talk page (yes I am sure much to verbose) and both apologized and offered to work with Novaseminary in the next few days to comment on his proposed "cleanup some of what the IP and Mykjospeh did", at least for my edits as after all I am IP.  Next I am pretty sure I didn't do a WP:3RR today (and definately not WRT the admin help issue) but perhaps I might have done it by mistake yesterday didn't know about the rule then like most novices I imagine. In closing I guess in an odd way as (I understand things) I sort of got what I wanted from my admin request e.g. more watchers. 108.75.223.67 (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Jon Strabala PACER USER

Thanks, IP/Jon Strabala (if I may call you IP) for agreeing to work constructively. As promised, I made some changes to the article with this edit as explained here. Novaseminary (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like things are improving. I'll report back if there's a problem that needs the attention of more editors than currently involved.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Vox Day/Xday
User: Xday is editing the article on Theodore Beale, a blogger who uses the pseudonym Vox Day. This seems like a fairly obvious example of a conflict of interest to me. He has been warned in the past on his talk page about this kind of behavior, but apparently has chosen not to heed the warning, as evidenced by his most recent edits to the page, all of which were on October 16, 2011. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the editor hasn't edited in a few days but looking at their edit history, they come back to edit the page every once in a while. The advert tag is still on the article so it may need more attention.  Additionally, he marks almost every edit as minor.  I'd be willing to assume Xday is the subject of the article meaning his problematic/promotional edits constitute a COI.  I'm going to mark the page as an autobiography and put it on my watchlist.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * He's just edited again, without discussing it on the Talk page. 76.218.68.67 (talk)

Enderle67556
Appears to have COI with The River of the Lord: A Path Through Suffering - In particular in talk and AFD discussion has knowledge of PR interviews that have not happened yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was speedily deleted per A7 but the author says they will repost it once the TV show airs and the interviews are published. The COI doesn't seem concretely established but I can see an argument to apply WP:DUCK if it comes to that.  I'll put the the article and user's talk page on my watchlist and report back if there's a problem down the road.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Spigning


User may have some connection with either the software manufacturers or the celebrities in the article, can't be certain but it looks like more than WP:SPAM. User's identity is not revealed, so no WP:OUTING issues here, more issues of WP:COI. Tedrogers86 (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is at AfD but would appreciate it being given a look-over. --Tedrogers86 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Black Entertainment TV


The article mentioned is for a tv channel Original Black Entertainment TV also known as obe tv for short. So should 2 username be posting with the words obetv in there username, This could be a COI issue if there are associated with the channel however at the very least I think there is a username issue here. Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2011
 * Is anyone going to answer this?(Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I somehow skipped over this one. I'll look into it right now.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 22:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article, as it stands, looks free of blatant bias and advertising. I removed one sentence that seemed potentially libelous to me (was unsourced).  Both accounts have been banned as spam accounts.  I'll keep the article on my watchlist to see if the user(s) reappear (and cause problems).  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 14:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law


This user and a previous one,, clearly work for the subject organization and have repeatedly filled the page with overly long, very promotional material, usually copied from http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/about?id=0003 and other organization web pages. I've tried to explain to Lccrulwiki why this won't fly, without any communication back. The latest attempt makes an effort to include references, but most of them are to the organization's own publications. I'm out of reverts on this one, so I turn it over to you folks. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Lccrulwiki for their username. Your advice on their userpage is good. Hopefully they will make a new account and follow your advice. SmartSE (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a claim of notability. I'm also seeing copyvio text.  Additionally,  works for the company and has made several edits to the page.  I'm going to look through the history and see if there's any version with a claim of notability, sans-copyvio, that we can revert to.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly notable and I'm an idiot . The article is free of copyright violations and any possible COI issues. I'll keep an eye on the article and report back if there's ever an issue.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A very large amount of content was added to the article today. A large portion of that text was a copyright violation and I have removed it.  What's left is a sourced portion of text that is a summary of what can be found on the subject's website under their About Us section.  It's completely summarized and not a close paraphrase.  If you have some time, the text that's left probably needs to be gone over and checked for WP:POV issues.  I skimmed and it all seemed great but I didn't do a close reading.
 * The account that added the text is and this is their only contribution to WP.  I wouldn't go as far as to assume a close connection but I certainly wouldn't be surprised.  I've pointed them to WP:DCM in case there is a connection.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Amniocentesis, Down syndrome, and Prenatal diagnosis


All edits by the editor are related to the company, Sequenom. The tone of the edits appears promotional.Novangelis (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)+
 * The user claims to be Peter Kolchinsky who works for RA Capital Management which owns a 10% of Sequenom (see proof here). I think this constitutes a close connection and the WP:3RR violation that's going on at the only page I've checked rounds out the conflict of interest.  They have also requested assistance here and were told to use the talk page and discuss with other editors.  Since then, they've stopped editing completely so it's unclear if they have read the response left there and backed off or got frustrated and left.  If there's an admin around, the 3RR violation seems obvious but I'm not sure that they've read any of the warnings/advice being given to them. Ol Yeller21  Talktome 20:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also sense some socking going on with (not of Ne1ofmany) in the edit war but that's fairly speculative.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome 20:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ongoing product placement . User has been made aware of the concept of .Novangelis (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And .Novangelis (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rvancopp

 * Articles
 * Articles



Rvancopp claims to be a product manager formerly for Demag, later for Crane America.

Recently, has been removing edits by Rvancopp because of this coi. Rvancopp subsequently restored the material, but I've removed almost all of it, finding it overly promotional to the point of violating WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Its good to have another set of more experienced eyes on this issue. --Restocking (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look over the edits and agree that they are not at all acceptable. I'm tempted to block him immediately as a advertising only account, but I'll assume good faith for the moment as nobody had warned him before. If he continues to edit in a way that is clearly trying to promote Demag, please let me know. SmartSE (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your decision not to ban him. I am working to neutralize many of the articles involved. --Restocking (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he is making edits again to include his company in articles, | reverting edits by Ronz. Perhaps something should be done. --Restocking (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From the user's talk page alone, it looks at though Rvancopp has had considerable notice and time to understand the issue. He even received a personalized and great message from EdJogg about the issues with his (Rvancopp's) editing patterns.  Instead, his goals still appear to conflict with Wikipedia's and he also displays no improve knowledge of notability (see here).  As the close connection has already been established above, a conflict of interest seems obvious at this point.  I'm also not thrilled about him calling Restocking's edits a personal attack either (see Rvancopp contribs).  I think a short block may be the only thing that gets his attention at this point.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome 14:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Rvancopp I have specific expertise in the field and I would like to contribute in a positive way to the pages I am trying. I have had some help along the way, but it most cases things are simply deleted without actually helping or adjust nor contributing to the topic. The topics I would like to help with are simply topics I am familiar with. If you go read pages on topics like a Big Mac for example you can’t leave out who makes this. The problem is none of the editors know the industry or the contribution made by companies that need to be noted. It is no different than a Big Mac you simply can’t leave out McDonald. For example I noted a specific history reference and used the ISDBN number, but this is simply deleted. I have the reference for the reason. If you look at the user Restocking his history for as long has he has been on are simply to delete my contributions.Rvancopp (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding.
 * Yes the articles need a great deal of work. However, the best way to contribute is to find and use independent, reliable sources. Simply adding and highlighting Demag's contributions to articles only causes more problems. --Ronz (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's hit the brakes. I don't mean to attack one point but Big Mac notes that McDonalds makes it like the Ford Mustang mentions that Ford makes it.  The name was given to it by the company that makes and invented it.  The company you seem to have been promoting didn't invent the subjects of the articles that you have been edit warring on (Overhead crane, Crane, Hoist, AC Motor).  One might think you were intentionally trying to deceive others if they didn't assume good faith.  If I do assume good faith, I would have to assume that you're having trouble understanding the difference.  If that's the case, your connection with Demag may be clouding your perception.
 * I'm confident that you have expertise in this field but your contributions haven't seemed encyclopedic and I haven't seen that you've attempted to work with other editors who have attempted to work with you. It seems that trying to push an agenda no matter what others think.  If that's wrong, please explain.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  20:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Rvancopp, I understand where you are coming from, but to the rest of us it looks as if your primary aim here is to promote Demag who you work for . Regarding the Big Mac example, only McDonald's make them so of course the are mentioned, but AFAICT that isn't the case with cranes/hoists etc. so the sitaution is clearly different. Looking at the edit to Hoist (device) you mentioned you appear to be misrepresenting the source which says that they were the first crane building company in Germany, not that that they were "one of the first companies in the world to mass-produce hoists" as you wrote. If you wish to contribute positively, then please make sure that edits you make in the future mention companies other than Demag - if you then mention Demag occasionally then it is less likely to ring alarm bells, as you will be seen to be here primarily to improve Wikipedia. Our COI guideline makes this clear in that "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" so if you are editing articles completely unrelated to Demag then you shouldn't have a problem. As I mentioned above, your edits so far have seemed to be entirely promotional and so you could be blocked as an advertising only account, but I would prefer to see you use your expertise to the benefit of the project rather than have to block you. If you need any advice, I'll be happy to help if you leave a note on my talk page. SmartSE (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all understand I do not work for Demag. My race, religion, gender and where a person learned about a subject like a University should not be questioned. The conflict of interest statement has been used to justify going after all edits I have done in one shot. I am trying to make time as soon as possible and I want to do it in the positive you you mentioned.Rvancopp (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't work for Demag any more. Please focus on the concerns brought up in this discussion and on your conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who you used to work for. SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident Rvancopp is primarily focused on marketing Demag, and not on developing an unbiased database. Please see the following links:
 * Youtube page for user Rvancopp: http://www.youtube.com/user/rvancopp
 * Linkedin page for person Rvancopp claimed to be: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ruedi-van-coppenolle/1a/65/3b3
 * Demag Facebook page with posts from user as recently as September 28: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Demag-Cranes-Components-Corp-Overhead-Bridge-Cranes-Wire-Rope-hoists/142373355828275
 * Also, a simple Google search of the username is almost exclusively marketing: http://www.google.com/search?q=rvancopp

I've spent enough time on this and will focus elsewhere unless COI remains an issue. Thanks for the help.--Restocking (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Meredith Kercher


Administrator SlimVirgin, who has taken upon themselves to rewrite MoMK and related articles, has accused me of having a COI based on comments about the subject that I have allegedly made on off-wiki message boards. This accusation first arose when I reverted one of this person's content edits which I did not believe was NPOV or properly sourced. The administrator then dredged up off-wiki quotes to claim I have a COI. This admininistor subsequently took to reverting all my edits, under implicit threat of block. They then announced that I, because of my alleged COI, would no longer be allowed to edit on this topic but I was free to voice my opinions on the talk pages. If I did not comply they said they would request a topic ban through the community or ArbCom and I would lose even my talk page privilege. I believe this person has tried to out me and have me banned for COI, because I have questioned some of their content edits. I have no personal connection to the subjects of these articles nor any financial interest. I respect consensus, and my edits to this point have been focused on correcting errors of fact, rather than promoting a POV of any kind. I appreciate your input and no one will be outed by me for their participation in this discussion. Brmull (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You say "under implicit threat of a block". Is there a diff or thread that you could supply to substantiate this? Also, for clarity when you state "they", you mean just SlimVirgin, yes? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  22:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Brmull is an occasionally antagonistic editor who sometimes tries to force his POV in the article, at times without consensus. That makes him little different than many of the editors currently on the page.  I don't see anything in the Conflict of Interest policy that would explicitly block him from editing the article.  And while I don't like that he may be posting hateful messages on a site at least partially dedicating to hating Amanda Knox, as long as he doesn't advocate inserting that information on the article, I don't see it as a huge deal.  I am more concerned with why we even know he's making these posting.  Why are people following his off-wiki actions, why are people researching him, why are people dredging up info on editors?  That seems more problematic than any posts Brmull may or may not have made.LedRush (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (without prejudice to Brmull's case) We often look into the background of possible COI editors...that's quite normal. I haven't seen whatever he has been posting and do not follow along on either pro or anti-Knox sites. SlimV may have found his comments while researching for the article rather than specifically searching for him. ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  22:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a complicated case and I haven't looked over all your edits, but regarding COI - you can't have a COI in this case, as I can't see anyway in which you could stand to benefit from the page being a certain way. Even if you did somehow stand to gain, no one can block or ban you just because of that. SV should have known better in this regard, but they're certainly not the first person to make a similar mistake. As this is a content dispute, it would probably be best not to have it here and instead to stay on the MoMK talk page. If anyone else is interested the only place I could find any relevant discussion was at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did so in the past particularly in regard to one disagreement, and I apologize for that. It wasn't the right tactic to use. I'm antagonist to SV because I think she's cross a line. As for Berean's request, SV's threat is implicit because they are an admin and this article has a history of admins blocking people for dubious reasons. Brmull (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although right now I am in an argument with SV over slight ownership issues on the article I think she has a point, if it were not expressed well. I have zero interest in the idiotic campaigning and commentary going on outside of Wikipedia in relation to this topic (and have no idea where it is or where to find it) - but I know others are. If the comments relating to your views are accurate I would say it is fair to consider you to have strong views on this subject :) If that is the case it is not so much a COI issue as a concern in being able to meet neutrality requirements. I've always found you relatively handy on the talk page, and a lot more willing to discuss than some of the opinionated editors who have, thankfully, moved on to the next piece of drama... however I suspect SV was trying to make the point that it might be best to raise the points on the talk page for discussion unless they are really very definitely uncontroversial. Threatening arbcom/blocks to enforce was a bit of a step to far, perhaps. As I said, we may have a little bit of an ownership issue happening at the moment, and it could simply be a result of that. I wouldn't take it to heart - and in fairness to SV she *has* listened to all of your points and incorporated many!! --Errant (chat!) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may not be aware of the content that Brmull has posted off-Wikipedia, but the community is currently allowing another user (who I won't "out") to edit the pages who is directly related to a US attorney who has offered to represent the Knox family. I can't see how that can be permitted and yet Brmull is a conflict of interest?! (Connolly15 (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC))


 * It would be best if all the activists and involved editors would agree to stop editing those articles. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Brmull is a regular poster on the anti-Knox websites. His comments have gone beyond an interest in the case, and have devolved into personal attacks on Knox, on at least two of the reliable sources (both women journalists), and even on the wife of another journalist who, so far as I know, has nothing to do with the case (i.e. the wife has nothing to do with it).

He has also announced that we can't rely on Nina Burleigh as a source, a journalist who has written a book about the case, because she's a feminist, a comment I found offensive. Ruling out sources because they're feminists would exclude a huge percentage of female sources.

It seems self-evident that he should not edit articles on Wikipedia that are about living people he has spent considerable time insulting. If we were hosting a biography about Brmull, he would rightly complain if we allowed people who were attacking him on various websites to influence content about him here too.

I therefore asked him to volunteer not to edit articles about or related to these living people, but to confine himself to making suggestions on talk, which I promised to take seriously and act on promptly. I asked him to impose this on himself to avoid escalation. I thought he had agreed, so I'm surprised to see this complaint here. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes; that comment did give me significant pause the other day :S Certainly that she is a feminist is worth bearing in mind when using the material (as with all potential "biases") but the suggestion she was radical in it, or that the book be banned from the article was nonsensical! :P I mean; I've never been a fan of certain aspects of feminism, but I have read Burleigh and she is extremely smart, switched on and expressive about women's issues in a highly refreshing way. If anything her book is the best one about the trial so far. I'd say it was an example of that strong opinion coming through again. --Errant (chat!) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Burleigh book is an excellent source, though personally I've been using Dempsey more (also excellent) because it's more straighforward. Burleigh offers more analysis, and will be good for the "media response" section, which needs rewriting. A large percentage of (most?) educated women writers are likely to be feminists of one kind or another, whether they announce themselves as such or not. I can't see it as a bias, just as people aren't being biased by not being racist. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I would encourage you to speak with the particular user who has created one of the above pages, clearly demonstrates a COI and uses particular sources he or she would never use to advocate the opposite opinion that he or she holds. The COI in that case is far more clear than this one even though, granted, the author has been careful not to clearly express a bias, all of his or her edits have demonstrated a strong bias in the way they are worded and require considerable amendment by other users to be NPOV.  Frankly, I find myself having to express and push POVs that I would not otherwise hold just so that the articles have some semblance of balance and credibility!  That or all users should be permitted to edit.  (Connolly15 (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I don't know who you mean. If it would involve outing, and you want to email me with details, please do. I can't take admin action because I'm an involved editor at those pages, but I can certainly make a request. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Email sent. :) (Connolly15 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks, got it. I will drop an email. But I wonder whether it would be worth creating a page notice for the top of all these articles -- carefully worded -- asking that involved editors, or people who have crossed into activism on either side, refrain from editing the articles directly. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what SV is talking about. He/she seems to know more about my off-wiki activities than I do. The suggestions that those who are passionate about a subject one way or another should not edit is inconsistent with wikipedia philosophy as I've always understood it. One editor on the MoMK talk page alleged that SV is a "Super Administrator" sent by Jimbo Wales with authority to override consensus and do things like put a notice atop articles syaing that people who are "involved" or "crossed the line" should not edit, apparently under threat of being bannned. If this is true Jimbo Wales and SV should come out with it and let editors know that these articles are now operating under the Wiki version of martial law. Otherwise good people like myself who do not believe SV has the authority to limit anyone's ability to edit based on their alleged beliefs are likely to get hurt. Brmull (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find repugnant what I'm seeing above where Connolly15 has apparently emailed SV with off-wiki COI information about an editor with whom s/he's in a content dispute. SV has promised to "forward" this info to the appropriate authority, whoever that may be. I guess SV has access to authorities that the rest of us don't? What the heck's going on here? Connolly15, I have the highest respect for the work I've seen from you, but you are in an unholy alliance here, and God help whoever you and SV are conspiring against--because they like myself are probably operating under the assumption that normal Wikipedia policies and procedures apply. Brmull (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I'm at that article as an involved editor, not an admin. And normal WP rules do apply to that article. The problem is that they have not been applied. It is better that people engaged in off-wiki activism against living persons do not edit their biographies. This applies to everyone, not only to you. This is why I suggested creating a page notice about COI that people would see when they edit, but I won't do anything like that without the consensus of uninvolved editors. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 05:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "against^$or on behalf of$ living persons", surely? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 10:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to say I'm not looking to conspire - the email is necessary due to Wikipedia's policy of not naming names here. My personal opinion is that no one should be prevented from editing unless they are being abusive/vandalising.  I was just making the point that there are other users who have also expressed COIs off-Wiki who are editing the articles as well - if the policy is to censure one, then it should be applied equally.  I am not very familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia.  Is it possible to lock down articles for editing (except for minor edits)?  Perhaps that is the way forward so that consensus can be determined on Talk Pages before edits are made that others do not feel are neutral and fair.  (Connolly15 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC))


 * I have to say that I agree with Brmull on this issue. It has been known for a while that there are individuals with strong opinions for and against innocence in this case. As for him commenting his personal opinions on a pro-guilt blog, that is not a WP:RS. If you were to exclude anyone who has expressed their personal opinions on a blog you wouldn't have anyone left to edit. In terms of "activism" how do you define that? As for Connolly15 "outing" editors I think that is kind of a joke since I use my real name in editing! Connolly15 has been bringing this up for a while e.g. on the talk page of off2riorob but apart from writing on my personal blog which again is not WP:RS I am not a public figure in the case and have never commented publicly in the media. People should be allowed to express their opinion on the internet and still continue to edit here. I have read the WP:Conflict_of_interest page and I am not gaining personally or financially from this case. Connolly15 points out that I am related to someone who has spoken to the media about the case, but I am not here to promote the interests of that person. Assuming that is quite a big assumption! Connolly15 seems to be quite concerned about the Giuliano_Mignini page and my edits there only about 1/5 of which is related to the current topic. Of everyone involved he seems to be the most single topic motivated. Dougbremner (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will spare the noticeboard, but if someone is interested in seeing why the above accusations are unfounded you may read it here. As I have already said, I agree with (now both) Brmull and Dougbremner - "My personal opinion is that no one should be prevented from editing unless they are being abusive/vandalising."  Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

I fully admit that I've read about 10% of this conversation but it looks like this may not be a case for this noticeboard. Does anyone involved have a close connection to the subject of the article? If not, this is probably better suited for WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN. As a note, editing with a close connection is allowed. Stating a strong off-wiki opinion about a subject then editing the article about that subject is OK too. The problems arise (and responding actions) when one's aims conflict with Wikipedia's. If you guys feel like you're making headway, please feel free to continue. If I've misunderstood this situation based on me gathering too little information, please feel free to smack me upside the head.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  13:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in. I think it is resolved as far as I am concerned and I think the articles are going well and appreciate the contributions of SlimVirgin and all the rest. I responded to Connolly15 on my talk page. Dougbremner (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Doug, I was going to email you, but as you're commenting here yourself, I'd rather say it here. I think you may have a COI in relation to this, partly because of your own blog and other off-wiki involvement, and partly because of a close member of your family. Your creation of the article about Mignini was arguably not appropriate for that reason. Personally, I appreciate your work, detailed knowledge, and excellent writing. But when it comes to living persons, we're extra sensitive on Wikipedia, both because that's how most Wikipedians want it, and by order of the Wikimedia Foundation.


 * The problem at these articles (so far as I can tell from looking through archives) has been that anti-Knox people arrived to slant it against her; regular Wikipedians failed for a variety of reasons to correct that; and so supporters of Knox understandably arrived to slant it back. It's a common scenario, and when it involves people's reputations it's obviously not a good thing.


 * I'm not saying editors can't have a POV about it; we all have one, myself included. But at some point (often ill-defined), off-wiki comments reach the point where the commentator seems to be a dedicated activist for a cause, and that's when it becomes a COI for Wikipedia -- when it's the interests of the cause that are uppermost in the editor's mind, rather than the interests of Wikipedia. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A POV on its own does not usually constitute a conflict of interest. It is when someone has a concrete connection to a subject, or to what they've written, and stand to directly gain in some way from their editing, that is when a COI applies. Doug's blog and off-wiki involvement wouldn't constitute a COI unless Doug actually starts citing or otherwise referencing his blog, in which case he would be benefiting from the additional exposure of his blog. As to the family connection, has Doug actually made edits about or otherwise directly connected to that person? That could be a COI, in most cases editing about someone you are closely related to is considered a relevant concern. But if the complaint is that his relative has offered to counsel the Knox family and therefore anything related to Knox is a COI, that's pretty weak. I'd like some clarification and I apologize if I've missed where this has already been done. --  At am a  頭 21:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see that connection as pretty strong. If you were in real-life conflict with someone, and a high-profile lawyer offered to help your opponent (pro bono, I believe), would you want a close member of the lawyer's family to create a BLP about you on Wikipedia? I think most people would feel that was inappropriate, if it were done to them. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not exactly what is going on here. My family member is not working as lawyer for Knox, other than being quoted as giving "advise" to her family, the legal case is in a different country with different (Italian) lawyers, like Carol Della Vedova, and I "started" a page following a discussion about creation that had been going on for a while, and contributed a minority of the content. The family member is not mentioned on any of these pages, I don't edit anything related to that person. Dougbremner (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your family member is cited by reliable sources as being one of Knox's most vocal backers, offering her counsel pro bono, and being a spokesperson for Friends of Amanda. Knox's supporters have rightly pointed to the bizarre arguments put forward by the prosecutor. And now you've created an article about him. You can surely see the issue.


 * I admire the people who stepped forward to help Amanda Knox without benefit to themselves, so please don't interpret my comments here as a lack of respect. And your editing is great. It's just that it makes it hard to oppose the involvement of anti-Knox activists who are posting personal attacks against her off-wiki (and against some of the reliable sources). It boils down to what vision a person has of Wikipedia -- an encyclopedia written by experienced, uninvolved Wikipedians, who may have POVs but who always put the project first? Or one written by dedicated opponents and supporters of various points of view, who otherwise have little or no interest in the project, its rules and reputation? I favour the former, because when it becomes the latter, then it's just another discussion board.


 * Having said that, I know the project dropped the ball with the Kercher/Knox article, which is why supporters felt they had to intervene. That happened (in part), because increasing numbers of experienced editors are leaving, or don't want to involve themselves in difficult articles, and that in turn is happening (in part) because of attacks on us when we do involve ourselves, together with a perceived lack of support from the Foundation (though in reality it's not clear what they could do). So it's a difficult dynamic.


 * I've leave it there as food for thought. I don't want to give the impression that I'm focusing only on the editor and not the edits, and not being appreciative of people's work.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I have voluntarily backed off from editing the content of these articles, and in the future will post on the talk pages only, because although I don't believe I have a WP:COI, I think it is best for the pages to keep out editors where there is a question of WP:COI. I have carefully read the exchanges with brmull, and I think it is more an issue of WP:Bullying on the part of brmull. Dougbremner (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for agreeing to that. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Break
The Arbitration Committee recently addressed the issues of edits about living persons, and conflict of interest. In case it's helpful, here are some principles from that case that might be helpful (note: the BLP policy applies to all edits about living persons on WP, whether in a biography or elsewhere):

There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy. The policy has been adopted and since its inception repeatedly expanded and strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through that policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
 * 4.1.3 Application of the BLP policy

According to Conflict of interest guideline, "a Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.... Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." While editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, the guideline reflects best practice for editors having conflicting interests, intended to maximize the chance that all edits will reflect the required neutral point of view. Editors whose contributions are persistently or seriously non-neutral may, after appropriate warnings and guidance, be subject to editing restrictions or other appropriate sanctions; this applies whether the lack of neutrality results from a conflict of interest or not.
 * 4.1.5 Conflicts of interest

Conflicts or outside interests that may affect an editor's neutrality may be either positive or negative toward the subject of an article. Historically, Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guideline has been invoked (and in some instances, has been overzealously or counterproductively invoked) most often against positive conflicts of interest, such as where an article is edited by its subject or someone closely associated with the subject. However, it can be at least as damaging where an article is edited primarily by persons who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, or who are involved in disputes with the subject originating outside Wikipedia. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.
 * 4.1.6 Types of conflict of interest or bias

SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In 4.1.5 above, Arbcom very helpfully drew a distinction between having a strong POV and having a COI. "Editors whose contributions are persistently or seriously non-neutral may, after appropriate warnings and guidance, be subject to editing restrictions or other appropriate sanctions; this applies whether the lack of neutrality results from a conflict of interest or not." They're definitely not one and the same. In my opinion, actually, a POV is much worse than a COI, because it's possible for a person to have a COI and yet edit in a neutral fashion, because their close connection may not necessarily include strong feelings. For example, a relative of mine has a Wikipedia article (not a close relative, a cousin, but probably close enough for concern). I've never met her and have no opinion of her either way. I've never edited her article and have no desire to, but I probably could do so in a neutral fashion. On the other hand, there are some subjects that I have no actual connection to, yet I have strong feelings both positive and negative, and would probably have difficulties editing their articles neutrally.


 * There's a reason why WP:COI is a separate guideline from the WP:NPOV policy. We also have a POV noticeboard separate from this COI noticeboard. The two intersect in many ways but often aren't the same. So if I suggest that someone doesn't have a COI, I'm not trying to diminish any concerns about their contributions, on the contrary I'll often point out that there are more serious concerns than a COI allegation. I don't know if there are any in this case, but I do know that if there are, this probably isn't the place to discuss it. --  At am a  頭 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

brending


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) — Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_48#brending John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) — Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Dear Editors, http://www.scribd.com/doc/66912387/brending I love the fact that Wiki is a linked resource to facebook pages. How can I create a page on Wikipedia for the word brending? I know the original word ment something else but that is no longer in use. I would like some help from you guys because every time I try establish my ownership, copyright, and trade mark of the word on Wikipedia I get slapped like a dog and and kicked in the dirt. I am very busy brending every day and would like someone help out here, please. Thank you in advance. I also plan on picking up where Steve Jobs left off. AI will not advance until the end users fuctions as part of the responsible editing of the semantic web in accordance with W3C standards. If you try to give someone the wrong blood type in a transfusion they will die, AI has been dead for a long time and it needs a boost. Please advise. I have included some links to brending below. Brending on Veengle 2 hours ago 10-29-2011 Used this video to help promote MKS with great results first. Social Media Consultant

http://www.veengle.com/s/Brending.html I think when a company uses the name to collect all the data on line and makes an HTML file with my key word then I would think this is the content that will allow me to claim my word and meaning. Please advise. The Noticeboard Archive sited above advised to have my word accepted. Has this need been accomplished? John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company 05:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) — Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Other links found on MSN (bing) not (google) in a key word search using "brending" only. If you google brending www.linkedin.com/in/jdzarlino http://www.behance.net/brending http://www.facebook.com/brending Brending Klout - Google+ Oct 18, 2011 · Brending Klout - (323) 90-BREND https://plus.google.com/113827012487990791487 Branding+Friending = Brending (brending) Loving Husband, Father, Grand Pa, Kiwanian, Founder WMS PTO, Football + Baseball Coach, CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company http://digg.com/brending http://www.scribd.com/doc/66912387/brending — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) — Jdzarlino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Brending is a neologism as admitted here and we should therefore not have an article on it. Brending would need to be discussed in depth by a number of reliable source before being included - see the general notability guideline for more details. I have removed your email address and telephone number. SmartSE (talk) 11:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * invented march 9th 2011 + not in common usage = no article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

MXit


An employee of the company which is the subject of the article admits to having created an account specifically to edit the article about their company. Dismas |(talk) 08:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an obvious username violation and from the diff you linked, it's two fold (editing from a joint account and and a promotional username. I'll look into it but from the message, actions seem to be in good faith so a chat might help. I'll report back.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  14:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like OrangeMike has already blocked the account indefinitely. As this has been an issue in the past with this company (see user ), we could probably use a few people putting it on their watchlist and keeping an eye on it.  As for now, the issue seems to be taken care of.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Roger Boas


I took the time to edit an  article on Friday, with appropriate  factual, unbiased information and accredited journal entries and documents.

I believe this is a one sided vendetta against me.

Please let me know what I have to do to get my edits rolled back to Friday.

Thank you.

Jena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerboas (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * From the first edit you made to the article, I see that you changed a referenced section from talking about Roger having "pled guilty on October 22, 1988, to seven counts of statutory rape involving teenage girls, with twelve more counts dismissed in exchange for his guilty plea" to it talking only about your community involvement. I hardly see how that's appropriate or unbiased.  After the sourced information was placed back in the article, you removed it again with no explanation our source to counter the sourced information.  If you wish to continue to edit the article, please review WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED.  It looks like you have had some good information to add but simply removing the portion about his guilty plea isn't acceptable.
 * This would be a good discussion to have on the talk page of the article. If you have any questions, you can ask them here, the talk page of the article, your talk page, or my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  21:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

San Francisco Soccer Football League


A new user recreated a page deleted by PROD method: San Francisco Soccer Football League (SFSFL). This article needs a lot of work but appears to meet the notability requirement at WP:FOOTYN and so should be kept. However, the new user's name is User:SFSFL - established 1902. The SFSFL was established in 1902, so this appears to be a username violation. The user has been warned about needing to get a new name but has never responded on any talk page. The user has also been issued a 3RR warning as he or she continues to return peacock wording to the article.

It's likely that IP 134.186.64.151 is currently being used by the same editor. Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I'd like to note that WP:FOOTYN is an essay and does nothing to establish notability although a league that old is probably notable in some way. Also, do you have proof that the IP is the same person?  WP:OUTING doesn't specifically mention IP addresses but we may want to be careful about claiming a link unless the user has specifically made that claim.
 * I've just marked the page for G11 speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising. Notability will be difficult to establish even if it's recreated.  I have also added  to the list as they have a copy of the article in their userspace.  Let's see what happens with the G11 and move on from there.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  22:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch on the second username. I have no proof regarding the IP, they just have a recent interest in the same articles, ones that were very recently created and so would have been very hard to find by an uninvolved user. Binksternet (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Both accounts have been blocked and their userpages deleted per G11. SmartSE (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Nansemond-Suffolk Academy and User:Nsawebmaster
i just want to ask here if i'm handling this situation properly so far, or if maybe there's something else i should be doing or something i shouldn't be doing. here's the story so far:


 * 1) User:Nsawebmaster made a series of edits to Nansemond-Suffolk Academy, starting here. i initially didn't notice this first edit because of the two following it, but i noticed the username, so i checked the contribs of the user, saw that it looked like a WP:SPA (linking to policies for benefit of the user in question, who's quite new here).  i welcomed the new user at User talk:Nsawebmaster, and then added this message to the talk page.
 * 2) i noticed the edit linked to above and reverted it here with an edit summary explaining that it looked like unsourced WP:COI material to me. i then added this message to Nsawebmaster's talk page.
 * 3) Nsawebmaster then reverted me without an edit summary, so i left this on the user talk page and reverted Nsawebmaster.
 * 4) Nsawebmaster subsequently left this message on my talk page, to which i replied, and replied again.
 * 5) then i started this section on the article's talk page.

i'm looking for advice more than action, and maybe another pair of eyes on the situation if it develops in bad ways. i will notify Nswawebmaster of this thread directly after saving it. i apologize if this is the wrong place to ask.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked indef (restoring after unexplained revert). Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:UA-aplus
single purpose account, editing University of Arizona article APLUS - Arizona Pathways to Life Success for University Students Gaijin42 (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's shouting "copy/paste job" at me. I think it may have just been written by the same person.  I haven't checked it for anything else besides that.  I have to step out for a few so I'll check it later unless someone else does.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  18:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I felt it was a copy too, but i couldn't find anything in my Google searches. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked indef (restoring after unexplained revert). Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:P1magency
PR/Management agency, account clearly named after agency, creating articles on their clients. Simone Otis Susana HongGaijin42 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Reported to WP:UAA.--ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:CIMxSoft
Editing CIMx Software


 * Ah, perhaps I am posting this to the wrong noticeboard. I will start going to the usernames for user attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It depends, sometimes. If the article looks like it has issues, I'd report it here as well.  UAA tends to address the username problem only while COIN tends to focus more on the article.  In a lot of cases, the user will return with a new username that doesn't violation WP:USERNAME meaning the the problem hasn't been solved (only a symptom of it).  When you post it here, (hopefully) we get plenty of other users to assess the article and address or tag and issues it has.


 * If the article is obviously some combination of A7, G11, and G12, marking it as such and only reporting the user at UAA is probably OK as long as you keep the article on your watch page, keep track of it, and report back here if the problem persists.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

audio cubes


Hello, I represent Audio Cubes Inc which is an Internet business at www.audiocubes.com. Company established in 2001 and is now a leading Internet site like Dynamism in making Japan electronics available worldwide. While our products and services with product releases usually being cited by major electronics blog sites such as Engadget, Wired Magazine etc, and we have a physical store now AC Gears in New York City (does not currently have a Wikipedia page), although the store itself is also being cited by major publications such as The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, we do not have a Wikipedia page on AudioCubes. There is, however, an entry on Wikipedia on AudioCubes, under the company Percussa from Belgium. We feel that there should be an entry made on AudioCubes which is the company, not the product, as AudioCubes is a registered trademark in the US. And without representation on Wikipedia the term AudioCubes will confuse consumers. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4005:c4ghhh.1.1 (please search Audio Cubes at USPTO) As we are not familiar with how Wikipedia works we want to know how our competitor such as Dynamism which offers similar services may have a Wikipedia page, while AudioCubes, while the legal register trademark holder of the term Audio Cubes, as well as being cited by major news and press agencies cannot. Please let me know how we can go about adding a page or rectify the situation. Thank you very much for your help. Kohnman (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This should be resolvable, although you will need patience, and you will need to explain more about the situation. The article Audiocubes was created in May 2011—are you saying that article should mention another company? In general, there would need to be a good reason for two articles to exist—is an article about the product and an article about the company warranted? The product article has to satisfy WP:GNG, and a company article would have to satisfy WP:CORP. It sounds as if you are well aware of WP:COI, but given your good communication about the situation, COI should not prevent a resolution. Is there something about Audiocubes that is unduly promoting a company—a promotion that you believe should be shared or replaced with a second company? Or is this a case of two competing companies having similar products? If the latter, the situation should probably be resolved by rewriting the current article to reflect the real world, as reported in reliable secondary sources. Articles here generally should be about a product, with only a brief mention of the companies that produce the product (except for companies with significant notability, which may warrant a separate article). This page (COI Noticeboard) is only suitable for a brief explanation, so please reply with a "big picture" view. By the way, you have an old subpage, namely User:Kohnman/AC Gears. If you believe a separate article on the company is warranted and supported by WP:CORP, you could create another subpage to hold a draft of an article: User:Kohnman/Audio cubes (but we should sort out the name: "audio cubes" or "audiocubes" or "AudioCubes", or something else). Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't the simple answer (however we decide to spell it) Audiocubes (Company) for the second article? That there are two products/companies with the same name isn't actually a concern of ours - only that each article is sourced and in line with policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be with a lowercase 'c' as in "Audiocubes (company)". I have not investigated the situation but my guess is that there is one "thing" that the public know as an audiocube, but more than one company is or was involved in its distribution. I have no idea which entities satisfy notability to warrant an article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you guys and Johnuniq for the extensive explanation. I guess the main question is when does a company with its service become enough to be inclusive of "notability." Please take a look at the Wired article:

http://www.wired.com/search?query=audiocubes&cx=010858178366868418930%3Afk33zkiunj8&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/test_burning_question_japan/ http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1862419_1862417_1862407,00.html

AudioCubes is syndicated and is usually quoted by mainstream media as a main outlet for Japanese only electronics to make it to states side, which is when the company itself becomes synonymous with the service that it offers (rendering things that consumers usually only read about on the Internet into reality). AudioCubes has evolved, however, from just a online website to open a retail store called AC Gears (which is in my profile), and currently the store is releasing items such as the MakerBot Thing-O-Matic, as the first retail channel in the US (and the world) to have such items made available to consumers beyond the Internet, as well as Adafruit's DIY products which has always only been available online, but now is available in reality. The syndication of AudioCubes and AC Gears of making items that usually only exist in cyberspace now into retail space for consumers and syndicated by press we feel should pass the notability test, but we do not want to have issue with COI, so we want to know under what circumstance (without conflict with COI) can they be entered, especially when right now the term AudioCubes is misrepresented, or rather, under-represented. Your professional input is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohnman (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The notability guidelines for companies are at WP:CORP. None of the links that you have provided are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Please read WP:RS for further guidance. – ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are the additional references on print, Internet, and on TV. Would these suffice as compared to Dynamism, which offers similar products but AudioCubes has a physical store which also receives secondary reports as reference points whenever items are released in Japan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamism_(company) (for Dynamism, there's only 1 reference)

Here are additional references: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E1DD163BF937A15752C0A96E9C8B63&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fSubjects%2fT%2fToys http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/13/technology/circuits/13site.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1320265205-OTxGlmx3Qj/6/zqIqraX6A http://www.pcworld.com/article/120343-2/great_gear_sites.html http://ny.racked.com/archives/2008/01/30/now_open_ac_gears_brings_cool.php http://www.switched.com/2009/03/10/shop-hop-ac-gears-new-yorks-import-gadget-emporium/ http://www.inc.com/inc5000/profile/audio-cubes http://lxtv.com/1stlookny/video/7814 http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/the-scene/shopping/Great-Gadgets-at-AC-Gears/79224802 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150325603804932&set=a.10150325603559932.364116.298845089931&type=1&theater Sorry for the lists but above are references from secondary sources reporting on the services and also the opening of the physical store of AC Gears which has appeared on TV and consequently on TV (see above). Looking at Dynamism's references I feel the second references are more extensive including TV and print notability (not a complete list). At which point would it be suffice? Thanks for the clarification. Kohnman (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC) To reiterate what the situation is, while AudioCubes has received quite a substantial report from independent sources, and being used as point of reference for product releases of items available from Japan as well as in the US via retail, we have an COI issue of non-representation on Wikipedia, when at the same time, our name is being used on Wikipedia to direct consumers to services that may otherwise confuse them. We would like to establish an entry to prevent consumer confusion by at least add an additional entry aside from AudioCubes (product), and we feel there have been references on our service, after looking at companies that also offer similar service - such as Dynamism (company). Please advise? Kohnman (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a trade directory; there is no "right" to have an article in Wikipedia about a non-notable topic. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, can we at least know the difference between the rules that accepted Dynamism into Wikipedia as opposed to AudioCubes (although we have not tried to add an entry due to not wanting to violate Wikipedia's COI rules), given the fact that there are more secondary references on AudioCubes than Dynamism? Also, the question here is at which point can we be added, since that notability is already posted above? Kohnman (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That other articles exist is not a valid reason to expect, far less demand, that an article be created. It could be that we need to delete that other article; but in any case, it's irrelevant to the subject under discussion. I do wish to commend, however, your full disclosure of your obvious conflict of interest; many PR people are not so honest. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Orangemike says above, article X's absence or presence can't be used to justify article Y's own. Each article has to pass or fail WP:Notability on its own merits, and while, yes, we do have noncompliant articles (due mainly to there not being a lot of admins) they're usually addressed when pointed out, whether through speedy, proposal, or debate. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion. I would like to know if someone has viewed the references I posted above. I am not utilizing the presence of X to justify Y, though, however, I am inquiring on the rules in which X was accepted to understand the process in which Y could potentially be accepted. Since "notability" is, as you would agree, a subjective issue. AudioCubes was founded in 2001 and is now one of the major sources for Japanese made electronics that are not available outside of Japan to be purchased both online and off-line via its retail store in New York City. When items are released on AudioCubes, it gets picked up by media from time to time not just as a release, but as a point of purchase, as they are not available for purchase elsewhere. It is the only company sanctioned by Audio-Technica Japan and Elecom Japan for items that are currently released in Japan to be released outside of Japan. Would it be fair to include such information on Wikipedia and have the public decide? We know for a fact that Dynamism does not have such status with these Japanese electronic companies. Again, the references are above and could someone at least take a look and let me know if that are not "notable," if so, what is notable (this is the process in which we want to understand). Lastly, I am in no way trying to promote the deletion of Dynamism as there are very few Internet e-Tailers that make Japanese electronics available outside of Japan, due to the nature of Japanese business behaviors and trade barriers (see above Wired article). If you search on google, "Japanese Electronics" the first 2 links refer to Dynamism and AudioCubes, which to be fair, are the 2 main, if not dedicated sources for consumers who are not in Japan to have access to Japanese electronics (when they are not released in the US or elsewhere).Kohnman (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have just tagged Dynamism (company) for speedy deletion per A7. – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)