Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 17

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Michael Lucas (porn star) – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Michael Lucas (porn star) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
216.57.17.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lucasent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Theshape4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

It appears that Lucas uses an anon IP (216.57.17.234) and, until "outed," (see the Talk page) the username User:Lucasent (Lucas Entertaiment), to edit his own Wikipedia page. He usually stays within the boundaries, but has apparently recently recruited some of his fans to make sure external links to his blog, myspace, and Lucas Entertainment are included, as well as a passage about an "unauthorized" biography. Another editor has made a good case on the Talk page [1], I think, for not including these links and mention of the biography. Reversions have been going back and forth on this for days. Each contested edit could go either way, as to whether it should legitimately be included or not, but I'm bringing this up now because Lucas may be recruiting others to make sure the entry is written the way he wants it to be written. It is my personal opinion based on a long controversy over an entry on one of his new "stars" (now deleted via 2nd AfD and no longer working for Lucas), an entry that in my opinion was clearly intended to sell a DVD, that Lucas has been around Wikipedia a long time, knows how to work the system, and knows the benefits of Wikipedia for self-promotion and promotion of his company. See also Lucas Entertainment (now merged with and redirected to his biography). Any perspective, advice, recommendations, comments? Thanks. -Jmh123 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can offer my observations. When I first came across this article, I immediately noticed some conspicuous omissions vis-à-vis what I'd read about this actor Andrei Treivas (Michael Lucas): e.g., Lucas's work as a male prostitute in Europe and in NYC, Lucas's work under Jean-Daniel Cadinot, the fact that Lucas founded his production company with money he earned from working as a prostitute, and the fact that Lucas located his company in NYC (instead of the more traditional Los Angeles) because of the lack of competition in NYC. Over time these facts were added and some balance was achieved. Along came 216.57.17.234 (hereinafter referred to as "216") who proceeded to, at times, systematically, and at times, haphazardly, delete any mention of these facts or anything else s/he didn't like, most times without any edit summary and almost never with any dialogue on the talk page. The only time 216 wrote on the talk page was in response to a challenge to an awards box; s/he wrote that the challenging editor should go to Johnny Hazzard's page or Chi Chi Larue's page and edit their awards boxes, in effect saying, "this is my page, leave it alone and go edit somebody else's page." I cannot be sure that 216 and Lucas are one and the same, but it's a well-known fact that Lucas is a shameless self-promoter. 216 has added and re-added material that promoted the products of Lucas's production company, sometimes using the same phrasing as that used in the company's website. In a 4 April edit on a related page, that of Lucas's "La Dolce Vita" film, 216 added the entire plot section lifted directly from the production company website. And in one peculiar addition on 24 April, 216 added "lungfish" to the list of animals living with Lucas in NYC. Go try and find anything on the internet about lungfish and Lucas -- you won't. Based on her/his history, I don't think it will be sufficient to place the page under partial protection or to even block 216 from editing. 216's confederates will simply come along and edit as they please, as seen in the activity of Theshape4 while the page was under partial. I don't know the exact jargon to express this, but I would suggest two things: have the activities of 216, Lucasent, and Theshape4 investigated for the issues you've raised; and, have the page placed under the form of protection whereby additions can only be made by an authority from Wikipedia. Thank you for your good work. 71.127.230.77 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

James Sherley – Inactive since early July 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

James Sherley

James Sherley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Technical analysis – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Technical analysis

Technical analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

~~And there seems to be some unusual tagteaming going on with Sposer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). THF 02:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)~~ (belatedly struckthrough with apology to Sposer 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

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

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

:::I have no connection with rgfolsom. If we were playing tag team, he probably would have told me about this page the 2+ weeks ago, when it was posted. Instead, I found it on my own today. Note that I have removed some of his edits in the technical analysis article. Sposer 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Games Workshop – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Games Workshop

81.109.165.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this IP is owned by Games Workshop PLC[2] and has been used to edit articles relating to Games Workshop products. Most of their edits are old – I only came across this IP in the last couple of days - and This isn’t a very serious case but some COI edits have been made, by adding what looks like promotional spam to pages. [3] [4]

Most of their edits are just clean-ups [5][6]. Others are unsourced and possible spam [7]

These are the articles that this user has edited with a possible COI:

I'm not sure what action to take, generally this IP has made constructive edits elsewhere and is mostly cleaning-up articles where they have a COI, but a games workshop IP editting Games Workshop articles has the potential for real COI issues--Cailil ^talk 23:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor doesn't have many contributions, and none of them seems to provide a COI/spam problem. I would say it's not a problem. We don't necessarily discourage editors from making minor changes about subjects that concern them; we mostly suggest they avoid major changes or spam-like insertions. As there are one or two edits that might be a problem, I've simply templated the IP; hopefully this should resolve the problem. The Evil Spartan 14:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Another addition on 14th August. Appears to be an author adding to his own article. It looks like this address is a proxy for multiple addresses in the company. There's not much to do unless we start getting WP:PEACOCK issues; I suggest closing in a few days if no one else adds anything. The Evil Spartan 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Buy.com – Inactive since July 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Buy.com

(Moved from WP:AIV)

209.67.181.254 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Robert Prechter – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Robert Prechter

Robert Prechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elliott wave principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Rgfolsom works for Prechter, and is edit-warring to sanitize the and POV-push on Prechter-related articles[8] [9] contrary to talk-page consensus after losing multiple WP:3O rulings and RFCs. Editor has announced that he will violate WP:3RR to sanitize Robert Prechter article on specious grounds of WP:BLP. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination). THF 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

These diffs show that THF especially sides with the critics' material, and uses a conjectural interpretation of a source.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

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

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger

Tubal reversal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:CHTRCwebmaster/Sandbox
tubal-reversal.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Accounts

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

HughesNet – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

HughesNet

HughesNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP address 67.142.131.41 has made edits that read like they were written by an Public Relations department. Many of them are weasel-worded. Here's a link to the changes. [17] I have WHOISed the IP and it resolves to HughesNet. [18] Because HughesNet is an ISP, there is a possibility that they are not guilty of these charges, however the additions are phrased exactly how the HughesNet Public Relations people would probably phrase them, making it likely that they have been behind these edits. Life, Liberty, Property 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I see these edits as amounting to the addition of unsourced positive material about the merits of the company. The wording very much resembles the style of a press release rather than an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Whitley – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Whitley

Gaelyn Whitley Keith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) author of The Father of Hollywood: The True Story, great-granddaughter of Hobart Johnstone (HJ) Whitley
Margaret Virginia Whitley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) wife of HJ Whitley (questionable notability)
Hobart Johnstone Whitley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Whitley Heights, Los Angeles, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) location named after HJ Whitley
The Father of Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
keitrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.161.168.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ip making similar edits
24.10.12.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ip making similar edits

Username, promotional tone and focus on citing thefatherofhollywood.com suggest a possible COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Gordon, didn't you !vote Keep at the AfD for "Father of Hollywood" ? DGG 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted Keep for Hobart Whitley, as he looks notable. The COI over editing it is a different matter. Gordonofcartoon 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty likely coi. Editor is likely Gaelyn Whitley Keith given the edits and username. Note that the book publication date according to Amazon is 21 March 2007, which predates almost all of the edits on the subject. --Ronz 00:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of these articles look AFD-able. Do a POV-ectomy on whatever remains. Looks like a single purpose COI account, but not active enough to be particularly worrisome. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User Topiarydan – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

User:Topiarydan

Topiarydan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editor claims he's "Topiary Communications President, Dan Schramm." [19]

Decision support system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) editor added spam to corp website
Knowledge management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Online self service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by editor, linking to corp wiki article
Online self-service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by editor, linking to corp wiki article
Risk Management Information Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by the editor including spam to corp product website, riskmanagerpro.com
RMIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by editor
Self service software vendors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created and heavily edited by the editor after being given a coi warning, including spam to corp website
Self-service software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article created by editor that contained spam to corp website
Topiary Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article about the corp, created and heavily edited by the editor

Editor was given coi warning on 04:20, 28 May 2007 [20] for edits to date.

Editor was given uw-spam2 warning [21] for edits on 29 July 2007, for spamming Topiary Communications's website, personalpro.com.

Editor has repeatedly justified his edits by pointing out similar behavior from others. --Ronz 18:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a soft-ish block warning because I'm not sure this editor understands site standards. Follow up if problems continue. Durova^Charge! 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topiary Communications. Deiz talk 13:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Alasdair Taylor – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Alasdair Taylor

Alasdair Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avril.rennie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Scottish artist of borderline notability, but the subject of a campaign by Alasdair Gray and others to raise his profile. Gray's blog post on the topic [22] has a comment from an Avril Rennie that "He has been a good friend of mine for almost 40 years now". I've tried to deal with this with a light touch, but I'm not getting much useful response to my advice about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon 23:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a sincere editor and a possibly notable artist, so I've handled this gently. Follow up if problems continue. Durova^Charge! 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think ~~a cluebat~~ mentorship is needed about basic policies, particularly the need for citation. Gordonofcartoon 03:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested WP:ADOPT. Suggest a soft touch here: this is someone who's trying to honor a deceased friend. If there were no notability I'd recommend a polite delete. This may turn into a decent article. The editor's tone is a bit emotional, and being so close to the subject makes it hard to write about, but it's not a formal COI. More like a poor choice for an editor's first article. Durova^Charge! 05:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be enough material for notability: the two texts from the retrospective brochure, and Alasdair Gray's statement (he's eminent enough that I think his blog post can be taken as a data point). But however soft the touch, the OR is going to have to go at some point. Gordonofcartoon 09:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a plea not to be too hasty in removing stuff from the article. I've recently succeeded in acquiring some books with a view to improving the West Kilbride article (which still needs a lot of work), and I'm sure I could use these to supply refs on North Bank Cottage and Portencross. But it's likely to be a while before I can get round to doing this. WP:ADOPT is a good idea.

--NSH001 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously views vary, but a lot of people go by the hardline advice at WP:V: Jimmy Wales' comment that unsourced information should not be left for long, if at all. It can always be re-added when sources are available.

But by far the better method is to follow WP:V and not to get into this situation in the first place; i.e. if editors don't add material until they have the source. Then there is none of this potential for antagonism when the unsourced material is challenged. Gordonofcartoon 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm backing out of this (I've reached a point where it's hard to be objective about the material itself). However, a little background research makes me less certain about lenience being appropriate. This is not the first article where Avril.rennie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has written about a friend and then complained about the application of Wikipedia standards.

Sandra Brown (campaigner) - see [23] ("I do not agree with you that the article reads like an advertisement. I know Sandra Brown personally, and I count her as a friend. But I have written the article in a very balanced manner, without overstatement or inaccuracy of any kind")

Other unsourced articles with potential COI were Margaret Kidd (now dealt with, but originally "a piece about the pioneering (woman) lawyer Dame Margaret Kidd whom I had the privilege to know" [24]) and Phillip Clancey (see [25] where she's conducting OR on a blog "I am a relative by marriage of the late Dr Phillip Clancey ... I wish to write a piece on Wikipedia about Phillip, and should value any contributions from yourself or others").

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Xirrus – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Xirrus

Xirrus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chomperhead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jlmerrill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Eloheim 06:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Michael Lounsbury – Inactive since early August 2007 – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Michael Lounsbury Michael Lounsbury (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - the original author of the page is the subject (as he has admitted on my talk page). In order to try to get a broader view, he says that he's had several colleagues add to the page. However, this still presents a COI problems, and it's unclear if the new usernames are actually just sockpuppets or not (it seems at least plausible that they're sockpuppets, and that he's simply striving to keep the page from deletion). In any case, the page appears to be fairly neutral, so I promised to remove the autobiography tag, but I would like to ask for some verification. The Evil Spartan 17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User Brookie – Resolved. – 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

User Brookie

Brookie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

Greetings! If any of the articles on my relatives - some quite distant - are thought NN, then they can of course go through due process as they are at present - that's the system! Tag deletion has happened on a bad day - and as well as being rather dumb,probably shouldn't have - slapped wrist and lesson learned! Was not aware of any ban on relatives contributing to articles and as long as what is produced is balanced then I personally can't see any major prob's with that - useful articles might not be created if interested parties can't contribute on areas of interest. As for comments re style and other content - this is of course open to anyone to edit. I don't propose to contribute to any afds on these articles and will let the system take its course as it should. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 10:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Deiz's assessment of notabilities. John Clark, Joshua and Hannah are in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which is my personal yardstick for notability. One style/content point that applies, though, is the guideline Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources - long obits etc should be summarised. Some of the sources seem insufficiently specified: books such as "John Clark Marshman (a trustworthy Friend of India)" (2nd Edition), Sunil Kumar Chatterjee (2001) track to a now-defunct niche website. Gordonofcartoon 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

TheLadders.com – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

TheLadders.com

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

This new user's presence on Wikipedia seems to be exclusively dedicated toward stalking [26] articles I edit [27]. I have posted a personal information warning to this new user's talk page because he is attempting to identify Wikipedia editors on websites stored off of Wikipedia. [28] This new user is linked to this dispute [29], in which an online vigilante group has been threatening other Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors have a right to anonymity. Situations like this should warrant a temporary block. See this edit summary [30], and the example posted above by the new user. Abe Froman 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I urge User:Brownkit to refactor his above attempt to expose the identity of another Wikipedian. The article he has reported to us, TheLadders.com, DOES read like an advertisement. If the advertisement problem is found to be serious, nothing prevents User:Brownkit or anyone else from nominating the article for deletion. He could also ask editors here to look at the article and give their opinion. I myself wouldn't nominate it for deletion as it stands though it might be shortened. I took out some excess external links from the article (see Talk:TheLadders.com).

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Dante Santiago Autobiography? – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Dante Santiago Autobiography? Dantesantiago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - claims to be the subject of the article, Dante Santiago (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views). I have warned him that it would be best that he no longer work on this article due to conflict of interest issues and the WP:AUTO guideline. He has continued to be the primary contributor to this article as the history shows. Additionally, this article cites no references and bears a "sounds like advertising" tag. Could an administrator join me in encouraging User:Dantesantiago to cease editing his own article? Ursasapien (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

David Rocker – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

David Rocker

User:63.118.207.251

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/63.118.207.251

David Rocker

David Rocker founded and recently retired from Rocker Partners LP, which is now know as Copper River. 63.118.207.251 IP from Copper River office in NJ blanked large sections of reliably sourced material without explanation. Piperdown 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one change. Watchlist and revert as needed. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Electronic Arts – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Electronic Arts Electronic Arts (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - See this blog entry on GameSpot, which cited this report on Shacknews as its source. Someone used Wikipedia Scanner and traced some suspicious edits to EA HQ, which definitely reeks of a conflict of interest. Jesse Viviano 00:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Madden Nation – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Madden Nation Madden Nation (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - 159.153.4.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has performed a major rewrite of Madden Nation. This IP is traceable to EA. Jesse Viviano 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Writing Motivation – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Writing Motivation

Writing Motivation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reading Motivation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Reading Motivation Questionnaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dduttaroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User's main source is user's own research / website. 67.53.243.21 04:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

HedgeStreet – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

HedgeStreet

HedgeStreet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hedgelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hedgestreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jen2081 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rweissman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12.119.240.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
216.139.143.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
68.148.183.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Hedgestreet. the Conflict of interest in this case is a major concernHu12 05:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Entergy – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Entergy

198.8.3.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This IP which is owned by Entergy has removed unflattering content and added PR sounding content. Actively editing at this moment, just removed more info about future nuclear operations.BirgitteSB 18:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Global Panel Foundation – resolved by AfD – 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Global Panel Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
Marc S. Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The latter is a résumé for an individual who presides to the other two institutions; long but slow warn-and-revert war between inside editors and COI patrollers. Lately an inside editor has resorted to verbal aggressiveness, hence this report. --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Praguesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started all three articles; a week later promoted all of them to FA status (example)!

The following users are all insiders of the organizations and have tried to restore cleaned-up or unsourced deleted content on all three articles - interestingly, as one user leaves, a new one takes his place:

Nbenker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (seems like his secretary: "moved Prof. Dr. Marc S. Ellenbogen to Marc S. Ellenbogen: Mr. Ellenbogen does't want to use his title in Wiki.")
Badenbaden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Profellenbogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BanikPico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (his idea of verifiability: "verified and accurate"); seemed in good faith at first (see) but right after tried to cram all content back in (see)
Verticaldemocracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - latest active user, verbally aggressive in his defense of the articles
Zrahl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [added 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)]
Salsicha picante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [added 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)]
Garters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [added 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)]
64.204.217.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.56.164.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.56.133.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
203.234.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IP lookup results:

64.204.217.21 - Possible - same geographical area (New York), but too populated.
89.56.164.199 and 89.56.133.222 - wrong side of the country. Unlikely.
203.234.169.3 - Unrelated - South Korea.

Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on the Ellenbogen-related articles with evident conflict of interest varying from apparent to obvious. It doesn't matter where they are on the planet: look at the contribs. — Athaenara ? 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One month after maf's initial report here, this crew of COI SPAs is still multiplying accounts and proceeding with near-impunity. — Athaenara ? 03:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Still a problem I am afraid. I have suggested redirecting the Ellenbogen page to the Prague Society for International Cooperation, which is his only claim to notability anyway. Even that group comes perilously close to failingWP:ORG, but would be a hard AfD because it has managed to insinuate itself into the shadow of notable people. Even those claims are probably dubious, For example, a google search on Baroness Cox and the Prague Society turns up mention of a single symposium and lots of Wikimirrors. [31] Anyway, something needs to be done. Eusebeus 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried editing these for a while until I gave up, & I commend those who perservered. I never did figure out the relationship between the two organizations. I think Ellenbogen has enough refs to show notability at AfD. I am not sure of the organizations, Societies that claim to do their work behind scenes are hard to document & I have a deep skepticism about claims to their importance made by anyone related to them. DGG (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

82.142.134.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) removed the (richly deserved) {{weasel}}, {{peacock}} & {{advert}} tags. Though posted here since May, the issues with these Coi spas have not gone away. — Athaenara ? 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

81.192.186.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did the same. — Athaenara ? 07:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this to AfD. Please keep this case open until that resolves. Let's see if the SPA's show up over there. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

National Sexuality Resource Center – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

National Sexuality Resource Center

National Sexuality Resource Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Journal of Sexuality Research and Social Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sexual literacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) deleted
- Sexperts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 63.195.62.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Location: San Francisco, California
- 69.181.42.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Location: San Francisco, California
- Missionboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 130.212.193.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Reg: San Francisco State University

nsrc.sfsu.edu Linksearch current
americansexuality.org Linksearch current
caliber.ucpress.net Linksearch current
americansexuality.blogspot.com Linksearch current
SexualityResearch.net Linksearch current

Long term obvious WP:COI, through the use of citation spamming and exclusive Promotion of National Sexuality Resource Center. Sexperts (talk · contribs) is a self admitted employee of the National Sexuality Resource Center^[32] as evidenced on his/her userpage. The accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on promoting National Sexuality Resource Center and their two online publications, American Sexuality magazine, and Sexuality Research and Social Policy: Journal of the NSRC, through links, citations and articles.--Hu12 18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor appears to have actual knowledge of the field so I've left a caution about the spam blacklist instead of a block warning. I hope this yields a broader and less promotional strategy. If problems continue, recommend (in order):

Add the above sites to spam blacklist.
Pursue block/ban as single purpose WP:COI, WP:SPAM account. Durova^Charge! 20:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have some of the pages Sexperts has edited on my watchlist, and feel that the enforcement of perceived COI violations looks more like hostility to expertise to me than enforcement of conflict of interest rules. I am troubled by this, and so decided to comment. (I do not know Sexperts and have no relationship with his/her organization.) --Pleasantville 13:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If a person is genuinely interested in sharing expertise then surely he or she will share references to colleagues' work as well? Durova^Charge! 15:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User Biblebelievers – Inactive since mid-August 2007 – 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

User:Biblebelievers

Biblebelievers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
60.229.25.42? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probable sock, though perhaps a GF inadvertent logout)
Bible believer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bible Believers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Gothic chess – resolved – 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has admitted on numerous occasions to being Ed Trice, the inventor of Gothic Chess and the owner of a business promoting the game. He has tried to get several editors banned from editing the article on Talk:Gothic chess and elsewhere - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive286#User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule and User:GothicEnthusiast/2007-08-03 Gothic chess. He has edited the article itself on numerous occasions in connection with disputes on the talk page, and has alleged that InfoCheck (talk · contribs) and BenWillard (talk · contribs) are attempting to attack the game (see [33] which he gave to a number of other editors as well). When I told him he had a COI he responded with this. Hut 8.5 10:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) has also repeatedly tried to take control of Talk:Gothic chess, removing other editors' comments ([34], [35], [36], [37]), even after multiple warnings that this is not the done thing. Oli Filth 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A long, detailed response from GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs)

“

He has tried to get several editors banned from editing the article on Talk:Gothic chess and elsewhere

”

True. Only in the instances outlined, where the user in question had actually breached the 3 Revert Rule. This user was not put on any warning, although clearly in violation of the aforementioned item. Evidence of "Wikipedia Politics", if you "know someone", they will defend you, even if you are in the wrong, as OliFilth was.

“

...removing other editors' comments...

”

True. One instance was accidental (striking the return key) and the other was due to my conducting a poll. I asked something to the effect of

"If you have a photograph of XYZ, please place it here, otherwise discuss other items of interest elsewhere in the Talk page."

No sooner had I placed this in the talk section, OliFilth comments on something orthogonal to the purpose of my comment, so I removed it, and placed it in the talk section elsewhere, but only for the sake of making a cluttered page more readable. The talk page has over 38,000 characters in it. It was getting too large to read every one of the 20+ subsections to find out where new text was appearing. I thought by making a specific request that it would be easier to get someone who had this information to post it in the depot where it was being requested.

I feel that OliFilth deliberately posted something there that was not aligned with my request merely hoping to be able to point the finger at me and say: "Look what GothicChessInventor did." If this is the case, OliFilth cannot be said to be acting in good faith. I ask him to please explain here why he did post to the section I clearly labeled as "please place a photo here" when he had no photo.

I would also like to submit this for your review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GothicChessInventor#Talk_page_comments

In it, OliFilth claims he will continue to remove my "div" boxes, like this one, and he has done so on numerous occasions. So, OliFilth has edited my talk page comments, more than once. I took the "high road" and did not report him for his little pet peeve. Furthermore, in the aforementioned section, you can clearly see his remark

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Gothic chess, you will be blocked from editing. Oli Filth 23:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

He did this knowing full well there was no cause. I was not "vandalizing" anything, I was just managing a specific subset of the Talk page allocated for one particular task, a task that was well defined, that OliFilth felt obligated to undermine.

Also, I would like to point out a disturbing trend. Whenever OilFilth, and others, posted items for which I was to respond, I did so. Yet when I do the same thing, my concerns go unanswered, and, instead, they post more (marginally ridiculous) items for me to respond to.

I found out that this is in violation of "Misuse of Process". That is, he, and others, are just trying to "keep me busy" responding to their items, without responding to my own. I quote:

Misuse of process

Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are obviously encyclopedic, nomination of stubs for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, nomination of users who obviously do not fulfill the minimum requirements at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, "correction" of things that are already in conformance with the Wikipedia:Manual of style, and giving repeated final vandalism warnings to innocent users. When we say that something is "obvious" or "baseless", we mean that anyone acting in good faith would agree with that characteristic. Beware that sometimes something may seem obvious to you but be quite non-obvious to others, and characterising someone as a troll who simply disagrees with you can cause disputes which can be very damaging to Wikipedia.

OliFilth was the original person to "Misuse the process." He posted inappropriate labels. I responded to them in the discussion area, fully defeating his reasons with pure, easily demonstrable logic. So, what did Oli do? He changed the label, and "tried again." He demonstrated bias to having his way, on numerous occasions. In fact, he fits the mold of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TROLL#Creative_trolling

Again, he made no form of rebuttle to my remarks, and elected to engage in further inflammation of the situation, rather than assume good faith.

In essense, I see no single indication of OliFilth ever having admitted to a fault of his own, though clearly I have documented instances of such, and, further, he continues to label me hoping that the mere appearance of inpropriety with accumulate some sort of "net effect" where some tired administrator will just "write the whole thing off" to be done with it.

I would like to remind everyone, this article was created by someone on another continent, who speaks a different language than myself, and it existed for over a year before I knew anything about it. I only got involved when people from around the world were calling my phone number, telling me the Gothic Chess page was being vandalized. After a few calls at 3 AM/ 4 AM and all other hours of the day, I am sure you would want to purge the cause of it as well.

In closing, I feel that if people would leave me alone, stop calling me, and stop editing the article ad nauseum, I would have no reason to alleviate their concerns by removing what is clearly unncessary. There was an entire history of peacefulness that existed for years before two editors became involved: OliFilth and InfoCheck.

Doctors are trained to cure the patient, not merely treat the symptoms.

Don't be fooled by Oli's "diagnosis": He is asking you to cure the problem by killing the patient.

Not good advice. GothicChessInventor 22:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

NOTE; Purples edited my text above, changing my formatting. STOP doing this. I have reverted your changes the way I had written them originally. GothicChessInventor 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry - can't really just let that slide, the edit Ed refers to above is my removing of his blue box (div), not any editing of his text - the comments that follow were made previously, and still stand; - Purples 12:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a short note to say that i've mentioned on the Gothic Chess talk page that I feel there is a clear conflict of interest here.

On a side note, really long posts like the one above probably don't help on a page like this - i think to be concise is useful here..... - Purples 07:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding one more voice that GothicChessInventor is using the Wikipedia article as advertising and anything he thinks is negative to the ad is immediately attacked and/or removed without dialogue on the talk page. He has made numerous changes to the article itself which is a clear violation of the a Conflict of interest. Since he insists on editing the page directly even though there is clear COI, I feel he should be banned from editing it. In addition since he clearly is attempting to overflow the talk for Gothic Chess he should be warned. neoliminal 00:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. A look over the various Talk pages gives me great concern about the behavior of the game's author. I believe this case deserves a full COI investigation.

When a new issue gets posted to this noticeboard, there are some regular editors who often look into the case and leave comments. If those people are still considering getting involved, there are four points you might want to look at.

It does seem to be a case of an editor with strong real-life connection to the topic who acts like he owns the article, per WP:OWN.
There have been some technically blockable violations of WP:TALK at Talk:Gothic Chess. It's possible that the game's creator is now aware of the problem.
The game's inventor is still bossing people around, and until recently was putting special div boxes to highlight all of his own comments. (Recently annother editor removed them all).
It may be worth getting a consensus here from uninvolved editors whether they perceive that a real violation of WP:COI is taking place. Discussion threads that get started here carry some weight when cited in other forums, and occasionally they have consequences.
The desired result (in my view) is to get the article into a neutral state, which would imply that the game's inventor will have to get with the program, one way or another. I have some thoughts on how to do that that I might share after others have had a chance to give their opinions. We'd need to start with an agreed-upon list of article problems to be fixed.

EdJohnston 03:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

a short update - Ed / GothicChessInventor has been avoiding making edits to the article, and is complying with the guidelines. My feeling is that he has understood that he is not permitted to edit the article directly, and is now a useful (if a little strong voiced) contributor to the talk page.... thought i'd let this noticeboard know! cheers, Purples 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jean Godden – resolved – 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Please see my post on the BLP noticeboard just now. It appears according to this that Godden's campaign manager is attempting to out users and causing a huge disruption. I wandered onto her opponent's page when I noticed an IP user vandalize it yesterday. Please help on that page; I am bowing out. I simply added two sources and cleaned up one article, and suddenly I myself am accused of being some sort of political operative by User:Landsfarthereast, Godden's campaign manager. • Lawrence Cohen 06:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

His livejournal account: (charming name) http://psshutthefuckup.livejournal.com/profile

The AIM name listed: Landsfarthereast, the same name he posts under on Wikipedia. I asked a friend and apparently the IP address for that name is linked to a defunct Bellingham IP address. Carlo used to go to school in Bellingham and has that location listed on his livejournal.

Carlo Davis listed as Godden campaign manager: [38]

Please address this ASAP, I'm tired of the revert war that's torn the page apart for days.

Mikesmash 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed some POV pushing and advised Landsfarthereast about our COI guideline. Mikesmash, some of the stuff you added was inappropriate POV pushing. [39] I recommend that both of you take a break from editing this article. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP address which earlier vandalized the site is back and is pushing POV on both articles. He had previously been blocked from the Szwaja site and was accused of sock puppetry. Request a block since this seems to be a single purpose account. Mikesmash 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am not a sock puppet nor a vandalizer. Mikesmash is unprepared to accept reasonable editing. My block was for less than an hour, after the admin who blocked me realised that Mikesmash basically lied when asking for my block. I have edited a number of articles, am not a single purpose account, and think that an admin needs to take a serious look at Mikesmash's behaviour. He is actually a campaign staffer for the oponent of Jean Godden, per his own admission. I foolishly tried to hold him accountable for poor citing, then copyright violations. he cleared the copyright block through a friend and then said that I was vandalizing by putting the notice back up until an admin had looked at it 201.240.31.236 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block for User:Landsfarthereast, the evidence is undeniable that he is the Godden campaign manager and he continues to try to fight with me on the Talk Pages of both articles. He got multiple and then a FINAL warning for such behavior.[40] I am through fighting with him. Mikesmash 18:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not a campaign staffer of the Szwaja campaign. I am not and have not "admitted" it. I did a little bit of volunteer work, but am not part of the campaign team in any way.. And yes, this editor did vandalize the page several times, trying to blank out the entire thing for no apparent reason and was blocked from editting it because of it. I did nothing through a "friend", as I don't know any of the editors and admins that battled with him in that revert war. Mikesmash 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to assume best faith by Mikesmash and have to believe he missed the copyright template notice that much content had been copy and pasted from another website verbatim and that there were no instances of page blanking. This editor assumed that since the standard copyright template states that it must remain up until administrator intervention that indeed it must remain up until administrator intervention. Some edits were made to the base article (removing all the links to the copywrited material) and rewording some of the language, but in place were no new cites at all and the warning notice was removed. I replaced it several times after recent change patrol bots thought it was vandalism. The campaign volunteer editor asked that I be blocked and I was blocked for less than an hour until the blocking admin saw what had happened. I am in no way affiliated with either campaign and have largely tried to either insert sourced materials, added cites, and removed POV statements.201.240.31.236 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reopen this case if Landsfarthereast does any further COI editing. For now, the situation seems calm. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Columbia University's School of Continuing Education – resolved – 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

The article is far too long and full of advertising. For further explanation, see my comment on the talk page. Please examine this article and weed out the advertising, or if necessary, list it for deletion. Shalom ^Hello 21:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedied as copyvio. It's mostly a cut-and-paste from the university website. Sad to see this from a division of my alma mater. Durova^Charge! 21:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Children in a Burning House – Deleted – 08:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Children in a Burning House

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ron Paul again – resolved – 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Ron Paul supporters have been editing his article extensively, and have just reduced the WP:SUMMARY section Ron Paul#Political positions to exclude mention of his legislation which conflicts with some of his speeches, and have added statements that he wants to expand the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and votes against most federal spending, which are not supported by sources to say the least. I am at 3RR and ask that someone else take a look at it, please. ←Ben^B4 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are implying that I am a Ron Paul supporter, again. You have accused me of this in the past and I have already explained that I am not a supporter and would never vote for him. There doesn't need to be 7 paragraphs of summary. That's a pretty non-political position. This has all been hashed over in the past many times and there has always been a bit of a running consensus to keep the summary an actual summary and not a duplicate of the sub-article. Turtlescrubber 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of anything. User:Gloriamarie, an admitted supporter, added it, and you just reverted back to it. The seven paragraph summary is shorter than some of the other sections in the article and shows his positions on legislation which directly conflict with his stump speeches. I do not understand why you want to allow the POV of his speeches without balancing it with the position he has taken in the legislation he has introduced. That is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, a foundation policy. Why do you insist on reverting to that violation? ←Ben^B4 07:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One link folks: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. There isn't a bona fide COI allegation here. I suggest closing this case to avoid clogging this board with content disputes. By the way, I like the article and suggest that you try to get it featured. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a summary ;) Turtlescrubber 01:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Levan_Urushadze – resolved – 15:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Levan_Urushadze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kalmosani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
212.72.149.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
(Levzur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

The creator and significant contributor of that article has admitted that he is a close friend of Levan Urushadze the subject of the article and that he is using Dr. Urushadze's computer.[41] I am almost certain that if a checkuser were run, all the above ip addresses and users would match. Note also that this article was speedy deleted on August 15 as it was considered vandalism back then. Also, the above users contribute to biography articles of other scientific staff and a conflict of interest should also be investigated with those articles. Pocopocopocopoco 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has been warned, so unless he ignores us, that should be sufficient. As for the article, it seems to assert notability. If you think it's not notable, you can try Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bunx – Deleted – 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.
Bunx `(`history`\|`Watchlist this article`\|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?] Bunx (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) - Record label with apparently only one signing, created by username Bunx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has also added his one signed artist, Charlie McCartney. It's a two-for-the-price-of-one special COI today folks :) --Blowdart 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Vinko Mandl – Deleted – 03:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Vinko Mandl

Vinko Mandl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Appears to be a conflict of interest. Keeps removing the tags placed on the page despite warnings on the user's talk page & on the article's talk page. -- (signed with four tildes by some user, not me, but they did not close a comment and so when I fixed that it turned their comment into my name)

Comment - I've been watching this and have put this article up on AfD. Into The Fray ^T/C 03:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Campus Destinations, Inc. – Deleted – 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Campus Destinations, Inc.

Campus Destinations, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article's only editor is a no longer active user ABan84 whose only contributions were this article. The CEO of the company is listed as "Arup Banerjee"

No references other than the company's own website, claimed startup date was last year. WP:AFD it. Durova^Charge! 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Non-notable, no real info here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Campus_Destinations,_Inc. --carlb 13:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Study Island – Deleted – 03:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Study Island

Study Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is repeatedly edited by one or two people, who keep removing any changes other people make to it. The only thing they add are more and more advertising-like content. When I left an advert template warning on the page, it was deleted a few minutes later by the same person.

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

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

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

There's something fishy here... — ThreeDee912 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The username making the edits is Lucy.casimir. I looked up "Lucy Casimir" on Google, and found she is possibly a marketing coordinator for various companies, one of them named "Affinity4", which is some kind of "charity reseller" (?). — ThreeDee912 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

http://marketing.meetup.com/46/members/3343759/

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache%3Aij2QUjOhp2sJ%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.studyisland.com%2Fsalessheets%2FLab%2520Contest%2520Winner%2520(TX).doc%20Lucy%20casimir

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeff Bays – 2 articles deleted – 04:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Jeff Bays

Jeff Bays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not From Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rugz (talk · contribs)
Borgus (talk · contribs)

User:Rugz, formerly User:Borgus, has indicated in the context of an image copyright discussion that he is the owner of "Borgus Productions" ([42]), i.e. presumably Jeff Bays (aka "Borgus"), an audio producer and media personality. Rugz/Borgus is the principal author of the Jeff Bays bio article and of Not From Space, an article about a work produced by him and his company. The article consists largely of text copied from the company's publicity releases ([43]). I'd appreciate it if somebody could lend a hand checking for neutrality and notability. Fut.Perf. ¤ 18:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles now at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 06:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

eComXpo – Resolved – 02:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

eComXpo

EComXpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cumbrowski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

COI Accusation - Request for Relief - When I first contacted the COI Noticeboard and requested relief from the COI accusation made by User:Cerejota against me, were things discussed, but no decision could be made due an official Request for mediation that was made by Ceretoja. The request was rejected yesterday, because one editor that was added by Cerejota to be part of the mediation did not sign the agreement for a mediation of the issues with the article eComXpo. It is now back to when I made my original request for relief of the COI accusations that were made against me by Cerejota in combination with the article to the conference and trade show eComXpo. I explained in detail my involvement with eComXpo here to demonstrate that COI does not apply to me, because I am not employed by them not have any other vendor/client relationship that would be relevant for having a "conflict of interest" if I am editing the article. For a complete summary of the events that lead to the accusation in correct chronological order, see this page at my user space. I request that the COI accusations made against me will be rejected that I will be able to work on the article again (and remove the COI template from it) without hearing this argument against me and any edit I make in the article in the future. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment It seems to me that, if your only involvement was as a panelist at a Con, and if you were not paid any cash honorarium, then that is not a conflict of interest to edit to article. But don't listen to me, as I am not a sysop. Bearian 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Yep, that was my involvement with the company. I mentioned all details at the talk page and also referred to the recording of the panel itself. The previous discussion here at the noticeboard (before the request for mediation) said the pretty much the same, but no decision by the board could be made, because the other editor pulled the COI accusation into the mediation request. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

There is content that does not fall under the COI allegation that should be re-added to the article to improve on its quality (probably re-edited and not as in its previous form). There is plenty of material on the talk page regarding that. None of it was implemented into the article, because I said that I won't edit the article as long as the COI allegation against me exists and is being used to discount my edits. If COI applies to me in case of this article is nothing "to negotiate" or "bargin with". Either I have a conflict or I don't, based on the definitions made in WP:COI. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Quote: "agreement to accept the current version of the Ecomxpo article as a compromise" This would not be a compromise, but a ratification of Cerejotas actions. Any argument from anybody that says otherwise would be wiped off the table. It would acknowledge the means used by Cerejota as right and the way to do it. It would make the efforts by me and other editors to reach consensus look like a waste of time. I don't think that this would send a positive signal to other editors. Again, this is not the time and place for this kind of debate. The COIN can and should only make a decission about whether or not COI applies to the editor (me) regarding eComXpo or not. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment The current article is as close to the standard as it's going to get. roy, I say this all due respect to the experience and great passion you show in your editing, but you do not need relief, and you don't get a pass for relentlessly trying to beat a fellow editor to death over a minor article. You do not have that luxury, ever, no matter what you think the editor did/said/intended. It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs, but that's not going to happen if you keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like. Your COI is not about dollars or being a name in a brochure; it's about crossing the line from champion to...this. COI is your choice, not someone else's accusation. Flowanda | Talk 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to discount anything, but a) cerejota claims that my edits fall under COI and uses that as a reason to discount them and b) flagged the whole article as created under "COI" and reverts anybodies edit that removes the template. I do need relief from the COI accusations made against me regarding this article in order to do edits like any other editor. A normal discussion does not seem to be possible as long as the accusations are being repeated by cerejota over and over again. I don't discount edits from anybody, but I object behavior as demonstrated by cerejota and is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with the COI allegation. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

On a side note. What do you mean with "It's this rigorous editing that Affiliate marketing so desperately needs". The current article is close to becoming a good article. A lot of editors contributed to it over the past 15 months. A "rigorous edit" would do more harm than good and would only introduce somebodies POV and undo hours of work by a number of editors, not only mine.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew that I remember you User_talk:Cumbrowski#Cleaning_up_Affiliate_marketing. You made some edits to the article too, thanks. I wonder what made you believe that I, quote "keep trying to claim exceptions and discounting edits you don't like". If you would look at the events up close, you will hopefully see that this is not the case at all. I try the complete opposite of that. I am trying to avoid that somebody else gets away with ignoring everybody and everything else to get what he wants and to discount other peoples edits e.g. mine by making false allegations against them. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Quinacrine – Resolved – 03:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

User:MayberryQS made several edits to the Quinacrine article to remove references to possible health risks of the drug, and added unsourced attacks on those who have brought up the subject of health risks. I restored the original version and left a, hopefully, mild warning about NPOV and WP:COI on MayberryQS's Talk page. It's possible that MayberryQS is April Mayberry from quinacrine.com, which is a site which advocates the use of the drug. Anything more that should be done? Is my admonition too harsh, not harsh enough, how would others have handled this? Corvus cornix 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your response. MayberryQS's changes to the article were highly POV and caused important negative information about quinacrine sterilization to disappear from the article. One sentence dropped was the FDA's comment that quinacrine sterilization was an "unsafe use of this drug product." I hope that your Talk message will get the editor's attention. EdJohnston 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a connection, but Cindery (talk · contribs), the top contributor to the Quinacrine article per Stats is a banned puppet master. Please follow this up if needed. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Closing this as resolved. User:MayberryQS has not edited since receiving the COI notice, and User:Davidruben has cleaned up the POV problems in the article. EdJohnston 02:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hudson Hotel – Resolved – 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Based on this message, it seems to me as if this user works for the Morgan Hotel Group and is spiffing up the articles on their properties. Seems unable to grasp the whole "tagging images" thing. Calton | Talk 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at the editor's talk page. Looks like a well-intentioned individual who doesn't understand how Wikipedia handles images. If there are other concerns (such as PRese in prose revisions) please follow up. Durova^Charge! 04:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No new problems since 2 September. Editors have deleted the images with bad copyrights and removed the advertising language. EdJohnston 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Argo (oceanography) – Resolved – 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Argo (oceanography) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hjfreeland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Newbie editor Hjfreeland identifies himself as the head of the Argo research project and has significantly expanded the Argo page. This is not bad, per se, but someone with a gentle hand should probably welcome him and provide some pointers on style, image licensing, etc. 169.229.142.212 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since he was thoughtful enough to reveal his involvement and say "if this is OK," I have left him a very friendly message, along with the usual welcome template with its helpful links. The Argo article seemed factual, rather than promotional, but it needs references. I am ready to consider this closed, but if anybody wants to continue the discussion, please invite the user to participate. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above editors. The current form of the article looks OK. Jehochman fixed up a minor problem with the language. Marking this as Resolved. EdJohnston 03:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Concordia College and University – 2 users blocked indefinitely – 04:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Concordia College and University

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

Indefinite block. Durova^Charge! 22:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Iorgos (talk · contribs) appears to be a duplicate of AlanSteele (talk · contribs), contribs consist of three edits, posting the same nonsense version of Concordia College and University. Sockpuppet? --carlb 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Carlb. I believe that Iorgos is a second SPA maintained by AlanSteele. --Orlady 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed. Durova^Charge! 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lee Frederick Holmes – Deleted – 03:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Lee Frederick Holmes

Lee Frederick Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Misfitisland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The Lee Frederick Holmes article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 16:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Solo One Graffiti Artist – Deleted – 08:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

Solo One

Solo One Graffiti Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solo one graffiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solo One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

The article(s) are at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.

Games Workshop

promotional additions for Dr. Gary Berger

HughesNet

Whitley

Xirrus

User Brookie

Dante Santiago Autobiography?

Bunx (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Solo One

Bunx `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]