Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TheSoul Publishing Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Gustavo Ferraro

• Gustavo Ferraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DaltonCastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have come across the entry for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has blatantly disregarded all the removed information and reasoning behind it. This editor has taken their crusade against anyone they perceives has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and created entries that are set up solely to include a section filled with quotes and theories by editors of publications to attack. The list includes Carlos Zannini, Miguel Ángel Pires, Carlos Molinari, Enrique Omar Suárez, César Guido Forcieri, Juan Pablo Schiavi and Federico Elaskar. And those are just the new ones the editor created. This editor allegedly used LinkedIn to create the background before the accusations against Gustavo Ferraro but that source doesn't exist. I will request speedy deletion of this entry but wanted to note the obvious non-neutral and conflicted agenda of the editor that should be examined. Wikipedia is not meant to be a venting blog for theorists.--SimpleStitch (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This gets complicated. The article needs someone who's up to speed on the Argentine debt restructuring to straighten it out. It's going to take more sources to resolve where this person fits into that crisis. Mentioning this on the debt restructuring talk page. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I have addressed this issue on the Talk page for Gustavo Ferraro but will make a quick note here. I have a long history of working on pages related to political corruption. I have many interests on Wikipedia but this is certainly one of them. I apologize if SimpleStitch feels offended, but I can assure anyone taking note of this that my work is based solely on personal interest and research. I do my best to use many sources and cover many viewpoints, although that can be difficult with controversial characters who have a great deal of negative press.DaltonCastle (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

John Nagle the problem with this entry is it has no source for the background of the individual claimed. The editor used a dishonest practice to avoid an orphan tag, which was removed. The copy presented is opinions and theories of editors of the publications. This is not Occupy Wall Street and Wikipedia is not meant for individuals to slight anyone. It's not an opposing view or fringe theories, the point is Wiki has no views, it's facts.--SimpleStitch (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion one way or the other on this. My point was merely that dealing with this problem requires knowledge about the Argentine debt crisis. So I put a note on the talk page for Argentine debt restructuring to ask for help. John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Integris and the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen

It appears that articles related to the company Integris Health are the subject of highly promotional editing by the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen.

Articles affected:

• INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center
• INTEGRIS Cancer Institute of Oklahoma
• INTEGRIS Health Edmond
• INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center
• INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center
• INTEGRIS Orthopedics
• INTEGRIS Health
• Draft:INTEGRIS
• USBWA National Freshman of the Year (award sponsored by Integris)
• Ackerman McQueen
• List of hospitals in Oklahoma
• User:Marlowpuck/sandbox

External link:

• integrisok.com: 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 - inserted into many articles

Editors:

• Ackermanmcqueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ajoseph213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Toddstogner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhitleyOConnor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marlowpuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lowpuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These editors are all essentially single-purpose accounts creating the Integris articles, adding promotional content to them and the related articles, and/or adding external links to integrisok.com across multiple articles. The user Ackermanmcqueen has an obvious username connection to the agency. Ajoseph213 said, "I'm the Digital Marketing Specialist for INTEGRIS Health". WhitleyOConnor started the article Ackerman McQueen. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

USBWA National Freshman of the Year and Ackerman McQueen turn out to be relatively decent articles at present. The first one doesn't even mention Integris, and there are lots of news references to players winning that award, so that's probably OK. The Ackerman McQueen article is just a stub, it says they're the ad agency behind the NRA, and has a good reference to a non-flattering Washington Post article about it. So we're left with the hospital articles. John Nagle (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The hospital articles have too much advertising-like prose. I've been taking out lines like "Each of these facilities uses state-of-the-art technology in its battle against illness and is led by highly skilled, experienced and caring individuals who are committed to staying at the forefront of medical technology to give patients from across Oklahoma the best care available." That's ad copy, unsuitable for Wikipedia. See WP:PEACOCK. John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are only four hospitals, but there were seven articles, some of which were about subunits of the hospitals. We're now down to five articles, and if the merge for the cancer center is approved, we'll be down to four. John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed some more peacocking and brochure-like language from the hospital articles. They could use more information from reliable sources, and less from in-house sources. These are reasonably large hospitals; they should be covered well in Wikipedia. As paid editing goes, this wasn't too bad.John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and fixing/improving the articles. Deli nk (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RealPlayer

• RealPlayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• CorporateM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a conflict of interest and would like to advertise the discussion I started "poorly sourced contentious material" primarily regarding the second half of the "Controversy" section, which relies heavily on blog posts and forums, as well as the section on RealAlternative, which seems to rely on equally poor sources like personal blogs and download.com.

I didn't think it would be appropriate to remove poorly-sourced criticisms myself, so I have used the Talk page and asked that a disinterested editor take a quick look. If someone has a few minutes to make whatever edits seem appropriate, I'd appreciate it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's better to add cites than to remove criticisms. I added an additional cite to the Washington Post in the Controversies section. Added "cite needed" on one remark. The download link to FileHippo was removed, but the link to CBS's Download.com, as a more reliable source, was left. See Talk:RealPlayer. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to put in some time on this? It looks like CorporateM (talk · contribs) is going to take a lot of attention. John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New Covenant Ministries International and Sigeng

• New Covenant Ministries International
• MuzickMaker (talk · contribs)
• Sigeng (talk · contribs)

Please see my talk page for my declaration of relationship with New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI)

I am concerned about a possible COI by the editor Sineng. I have had a very protracted discussion with Sigeng about numerous violations of content policy. (See the NCMI talk page and Sigeng's talk page)

I am concerned with a systemic pattern of editing that Sigeng has demonstrated in choosing quotes and placing interpretations in the article that are misleading and have "unqualified" inflammatory terminology. By “unqualified” I mean that when quotes like these are given in isolation, without context and without qualifying them (that is, without being clear what they refer to and how they are applied) they are misleading and in many cases pejorative. I chose a grouping of quotes below that illustrate this, because they together demonstrate a pattern of choosing quotes with terms and wording that stigmatize and subject those so labeled to pillory, scandal and defamation. They are provocative. They stir up indignation and contempt. They incite antagonism.

My concern is that Sigeng has taken the position of majority editor of the NCMI page because he has a personal agenda. Sigeng is a smart person who knows that using these quotes the way he is will disparage the group the article is about. As his own words indicate he is doing this on the NCMI page and other pages because he believes that it is his “public service duty” to “warn users” about groups that he personally believes are “dangerous groups” or that he believes “hurt people”. I have addressed him regarding what appeared to be a bias, a COI and a non-NPOV almost right from the beginning of my being an editor. A few days ago I stumbled onto the following post (below) from Sigeng in which he expresses the reason why he has involved himself in editing the NCMI page and others. I believe that his objectives, as he has stated them, are in violation of WP:COI, particularly, "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have included some examples of edits below that illustrate this bias. There are many more that are more subtle than these.

I can show that every one of these quotes and numbers of other edits to this article made by Sigeng are either completely incorrect, not applicable to NCMI, or a misappropriation or wrong interpretation of source material. I have also expressed a major concern regarding the use of minority opinion to weight the article. I can address that as well. One problem I am finding is that there are so many items of inaccurate or derogatory information that hard to address them all. Sigeng's statement of personal interests in editing are as follows:

• I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12 -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I had not worked on the NCMI article two months (except a minor fix or two) prior to making that statement. The SPLC designated hate group I had in mind when writing that statement was the Chalcedon Foundation and some related articles. NCMI is not a hate group, SPLC designated or otherwise. -Sigeng (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article that Sigeng has mainly worked on up to that April 23rd 2014 post is the NCMI page. Almost half of the edits up until that time were on the NCMI page, all the rest were divided among a number of other articles. I have been addressing Sigeng on his talk page and the NCMI talk page about this apparent WP:BIAS, WP:COI and WP:NPOV since the middle of August. I am leaving the decision regarding this with administration.

• Special:Diff/578376866 "NCMI discourages churches from making decisions through democratic processes,[19] since they do not believe this is biblical."

• Special:Diff/578376866 "the NCMI team effectively exerts hierarchical control over local churches leaders tend to make unilateral decisions”

• Special:Diff/594288781 "Allan Anderson quote - NCMI churches are "highly patriarchal in leadership;"

• Special:Diff/580973983 “"leadership structure of distinct hierarchies"

• Special:Diff/594288781 “"dominated by white South Africans, who lead many local churches and church plants around the world, preside over NCMI conferences, and predominate the membership of the apostolic team". Speaking of South African Pentecostalism in general and explicitly mentioning NCMI, Anderson contrasts the rise of expensive megachurches and "jet-set" apostolic networks in white, middle-class South Africa to the poverty of majority black Pentecostals .

• Special:Diff/580978115 “Raoul Tuul, former NCMI pastor, calls NCMI "fiercely patriarchal". He writes that "subservience of women is practiced" and that "members are driven to exhaustion to prove their godliness and 'leadership potential'". He expresses his opinion that NCMI churches do not welcome disagreement nor "questioning of the system".”

• Special:Diff/621721251 “A former NCMI pastor wrote a brief account of his experiences for Cult Information and Family Support (CIFS), an Australian support network. The anonymous pastor wrote,(Ref: "Sunglasses and salesmen – an ex-pastor's story of sophistry and the soft cult". Stories - CIFS. Cult Information and Family Support Inc. Retrieved 21 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)) "I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to NCMI's 'vision and values' and have not one [...] friend left to speak of.... The leaders are generally all uneducated, and know of little else except the manuals and 'NCMI speak'." CIFS notes in their disclaimer that "an account from one person must be read as that" and they encourage "readers to research widely before forming an opinion."

Note on Special:Diff/621721251 & 621721251 Please see the NCMI Talk page item for discussion on WP:SOURCES, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS WP:RS "Question for administrator Regarding CIFS quote violation of multiple Wiki content guidelines."

Please also see the "Question for administrator regarding the overall tenor of the New Covenant Ministries International Wiki Article" on the NCMI Talk page. I wrote both of those administrator requests before I stumbled onto the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12 quote.

MuzickMaker (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than a COI problem. MuzickMaker is affiliated with the organization, but he's the complaining party. I'd suggest mediation. John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious to me that MuzickMaker has a blatant conflict of interest, and should not be actively editing the article. Without reading the (huge) essays written by him on the article's talk page, but merely reading the article itself, I would judge that it is in no way an encyclopedic discussion of the subject... it instead mainly uses self-published sources to go into intricate detail about what the organization says about itself, with very little external analysis. The inclusion by Sigeng of 'anonymized' criticism after it was removed by MusickMaker also shows a gross misunderstanding of content policies by both parties.... you cannot include unsourced 'anonymous' criticism of a subject in an article. Ever. Period. It is a gross violation of both NPOV and verifiability.

Honestly, my impression of the whole thing is that WP:TNT applies, and that regardless of what is decided about Sigeng, that MusickMaker should be prohibited by the community from making any direct edits to the article, but instead restricted to making edit requests due to his self-declared conflict of interest. I also suggest, quite strongly, that he read WP:What adminship is not, and stop hounding our poor admins to act as 'content arbitrators'. Revent^talk 09:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW that quotation came from a person who did give his full name and later retracted it from the website that published it, the only reason it was included at first, and its publisher appears credible. I had very nearly agreed to remove it but decided to wait for the opinion of someone outside NCMI. In retrospect, I should have acted faster rather than wait. I will remove it. -Sigeng (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I already killed it on the grounds that I stated, but thanks for letting me know the background. I wasn't saying that the group that published it didn't appear 'reputable', but that it wasn't reliable or verifiable since a reader would be unable to determine the actual source of the statements... I was assuming (apparently a mistake) that the name originally included was based on 'other information'. Revent^talk 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Revent. It is helpful.

First of all, I am a new Editor as of the middle of August 2014. I am still learning the best or right ways to bring attention to issues with an article. If the best thing was to escalate the problems on the NCMI page to someone other than Administrators, then I am very open to instruction on this.

Revent, I think you must have missed the amount of editing I have done in all of Wikipedia. I have only made one single edit, and that was to the NCMI page, and that was back in August. When Sigeng pointed out the COI policy to me, which does not forbid me from editing, it advises against it, I immediately brought all of my further suggestions to either Sigeng's talk page or the NCMI talk page, according to the suggestion of the COI policy.

Coincidentally, that one edit I did, was to remove only the exact quote that you just removed, which I did for the same reasons you did, and it was reverted back into the page by Sigeng. I had a long discussion with Sigeng about that quote explaining why the quote should be removed. Did you read that, Revent?

I agree completely that the NCMI article has all of the problems listed at the beginning of the NCMI article:

• "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (October 2014)"
• "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (October 2014)"
• "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints."

I have addressed some of these problems with Sigeng, but have not been able to go beyond the most obvious ones, to deal with the rest because just dealing with the most controversial content has resulted in protracted long discussions regarding single edits.

I mentioned on the NCMI talk page that:

• "I am at the place now where it is clear that there are so many errors and problems with the NCMI article that I think it either needs a complete revamp or it should be removed from Wikipedia. In the state it is in it does not come close to representing the high quality or accuracy that Wikipedia strives for, nor does it meet the high standard of the content guidelines and principles and it is largely inaccurate regarding NCMI."

Along with my potential COI because of my relationship with NCMI I have made very clear on my user page what my absolute first and foremost commitment is beyond any personal interest and beyong my COI. My talk page stated:

• My knowledge of NCMI is current and I have accurate knowledge of NCMI that will be of help to editors who wish to see the NCMI page become a high quality article meeting all of encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia including the content policies and guidelines.

• I am 100% committed to submit the policies and administration of the Wikiepedia.

• My motive and personal interest in being involved as an editor of the NCMI Wiki page is NOT to promote NCMI in any way or to seek any personal agenda but solely to to improve the encyclopedic quality of the NCMI Wiki page and work toward the content of the NCMI Wiki page conforming to the Wiki content policies and guidelines, including the WP:NPOV, WP:VER and the WP:REL policies.

• Again, I invite the scrutiny of the Wiki editors and administration to insure that I am operating in good faith to fulfill the goals and policies of Wikipedia.

I have expressed my willingness to work with editors fix all the problems on this page.

MuzickMaker (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@MuzickMaker: My statement was not intended as an 'attack' towards you, and I am aware that you have only edited the page once. I just was trying to make it quite clear that, in my opinion at least, you do not have a 'potential' COI, but as a person associated with the organization (without going into the details of their structure) that you have an 'actual' COI, despite any conscious intent on your part to avoid the effects of it. While your desire to be neutral in regards to Wikipedia are appreciated, and I think you are being honest, that doesn't change the point that you do have pre-existing opinions, and your evaluation of the information provided by sources is going to be affected by what you 'know'. I would maintain that you should continue to hold yourself at 'arms-length' regarding actual edits, and that the 'solution' here is for you both to seek additional input through content dispute resolution procedures, as mentioned on the article's talk page, rather than trying to treat this as a 'user issue'. It is effectively impossible for two people to achieve a 'consensus' about what is appropriate when they hold vastly different opinions.

At the same time, I think you are correct about the issues with the existing article... you might notice that I was the one you added those tags. Unfortunately, I don't have access to those particular sources, but I think the solution to fixing the article is again input from a wider range of editors, who will hopefully be able to dig up more 'broad-based' information about the subject. Revent^talk 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Revent: I didn't take your statement as an attack. I really do appreciate your levelheadedness in approaching this issue at hand and your understanding of the guidelines. I just wanted to make sure that you saw that I had already disengaged myself and have been doing my very best to do what the COI policy requires. I do have a couple questions that you may know the answers to regarding procedures and how to go about improving this page, but since it has nothing to do with this COI discussion I will ask it on your talk page. But one I will ask here. This COI notice is about Sigeng's alleged COI that is alleged to have affected his editings. Note: what he said, "I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Should he just continue editing until his alleged COI is worked out? Or should he refrain? Since this COI discussion was posted Signig continues editing and has added one more link to writer like Tull who is writing about her personal experiences (The Diana Jeffery book) I read the book, it is an auto-biography. And he is engaging me yet again on another go around on minority view sources. Should MuzickMaker (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As several editors have now told you, you (MuzickMaker) need to go to dispute resolution, probably starting with mediation, to resolve this issue. Long rants here are not helping and are disruptive. Editing something else for a while may be helpful to gain experience with Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Revent:@Nagle: As you have suggested I will follow through on the content disagreements on the dispute resolution channels.

Before I leave this notice board, the one item in question, which is the reason I opened this COI post on the COI noticeboard, which no one has even commented on, is Sigeng's potential COI based on this post by Sigeng saying why s/he is editing pages like the NCMI page. Please respond to the quote below or make a recommendation as to who should respond to this:

• I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

All of the information to substantiate this is in my first post at the beginning of these thread. Did you read that? MuzickMaker (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've all read that. You've posted it several times. It doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Sigeng is not associated with the organization that is the subject of the article. You are. This is a routine content dispute. You have a neutral point of view issue. These come up all the time. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Handling neutrality disputes. The subsection on "Religion" there may be helpful. Content dispute resolution focuses on the content of the article. Again, I suggest mediation, where a mediator can guide all the parties line by line through the problems in the article. Both parties have to agree to mediation, after which things are informal. Here, at WP:COIN, it's usually about removing blatant PR, or applying sanctions to an editor. In other words, you need help from the "friendly resolving of differences" group, and you're in the "apply big hammer" department. This doesn't seem to be a problem that needs the big hammer. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nagle:I will seek to follow your advice regarding the way this is to be handled. It is very good advice, and I appreciate it very much. I know that I have a COI. I have done my very best to declare that and to seek the interests of Wikipedia above my own. I wish I could say differently, but I am not convinced that Sigeng is not working toward his stated interests in editing this page. However, what I am convinced of is that I need to react to him far less, to treat him with much more kindness and honor, and wherever possible, to assume good faith. I don't want to be the one swinging a "big hammer" at Sigeng or anyone, for that matter. Nagle, thank you for removing the hammer from my trembling hands and turning my attention where it should have been.MuzickMaker (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland

• Somaliland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I recently edited this article by removing the Coat of Arms image as it already appears in its infobox and replaced it by a high resolution image of the Hargeisa War Memorial - that I had just uploaded from Flickr. I was surprised to note that this image hadn't yet been included in this article given the fact that it is a well known resistance landmark associated with this breakaway state.

• It seems this didn't go well with AcidSnow and s/he reverted my edit within 5 minutes without giving any explanation whatsoever. I restored my addition and asked for a reason and also took the liberty to inform them that Wikipedia is not censored

• The user undid my addition for the 2nd time informing me that "Wikipedia also does not accept sockpuppetry". I boldly restored my addition for the second time as no cogent reason had been cited by the aggrieved user.

• AcidSnow reverted my addition for the third time alluding to an erstwhile consensus that appears to have been achieved and also initiated a discussion at the article's talkpage. I believe the consensus the user was referring to was concerning the discussion at Talk:Hargeisa#Image_dispute - which has been going on since February this year and the discussion hasn't yet been officially closed. I decided not to engage in any further edit wars and instead submitted my request here.

This disruptive act(s) of this user has led me to believe that s/he is not at all pleased with the addition of the image and has thus decided to enforce censorship. I'd like to ask why? Is it because they do not want an NPOV on the article? The image is well known landmark and has appeared in a number of international news reports. It is associated with its capital city and the state itself. I therefore believe this user has a potential COI with this article as they do not want that monument to appear and they haven't bothered to explain why. Please help me to ensure WIkipedia is not censored at the whims of this user.

Thank you for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your whole message here was entirely a character assassination. You even made a personal attack against me by called me "the aggrieved user". This is far from what I am since all I did was inform you that your previous actions are not accepted. You choose to sock and tried to get me and Midday banned; which entirely backfired on you and got you blocked for 2 weeks. Your also accuse me of censorship which I have yet to do on here, let alone on anything on Wikipedia. I will respond to the rest of nonsense tomorrow since I am currently busy with other matters. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to reading your detailed response tomorrow. Please care to explain in detail as to how and where I assassinated your character. Yes, you did inform me but did'nt say WHY.. [why is it not accepted? - do elaborate on this point]. Yes, I did use a second multiple account and initiated an SPI against you both; but i never used that account in the article's talkpage or to by-pass an edit on the article. I only used it for discussion on its talkpage and the SPI.. At the time, I wasn't aware of the multiple account policy. I did learn my lesson. That act of mine was out of frustration as the discussion had been going on since February. Might I suggest that you instead consider explaining your revert actions. I saw it as an undeniable act of censorship.. Why then did you undo my edits without giving a cogent rationale in the edit summary? All the best in whatever it is that you're doing. Ali Fazal (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. It is, however, edited, and edited by consensus. As far as I can tell, your only source for a claim that this editor has a conflict of interest is that they disagree with your addition, and did not back down to your trying to edit war the image into an article, rather than seeking to gain consensus. It is quite possible for someone to disagree with you and not have any conflict of interest. May I suggest that you read over Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and recognize that repeatedly reinserting the material is not actually being bold, but merely stubborn. The user you accuse of having done a disruptive act was being at most no more disruptive to yourself; reverting questionable additions (and this addition was questionable; at the very least, the text you were putting in looked POVy, and the source page you point to -- actually, apparently, a back cover, says nothing about innocent civilians or indiscriminate bombardment) is part of the process, not a disruption to it. If you want to discuss the content and whether it belongs on the article, please take it to the article's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thank you. I believe the onus is on the editor that removed the content without giving an explanation. The reason I believe a COI exists is because of the user's action. The monument's article does contain further sources. I shall update it soon. Ali Fazal (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the board to come to because you're not happy with having your edits reverted. This is a board to come to when you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest problem. You have none. Please take discussion of content to the Talk page of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@NatGertler: I did respond on the talkpage after AcidSnow initiated the vague discussion and apparent consensus that I have yet to read. Thank you once again for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Hawke

The user reversed all changes to the EidosMethode page, which was originally created by a company contractor who repeatedly blocked any efforts by independent editors to edit the page. John Hawke deleted both innocuous changes as well as any and all criticism of the company's products. (cur | prev) 16:58, 5 October 2014‎ Jeff Hawke (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,327 bytes) (+5,190)‎ . . (Restored original version) (undo | thank) [1]

In a post, he suggested he is friends with people at the company. "I can tell you that the company exists and a lot of good people is working there: that’s the reason why I think it’s a nonsense to have their page reduced to a list of negative comments." [2]

Another user, Spike Wilbury, also noticed that it seemed odd that the account was dormant for seven years and only reactivated to reverse the changes after the EidosMedia contractor was barred from further editing the page. [3]

I invited the Jeff Hawke to make substantive changes to improve the page or participate in the talk page, but he insisted on simply reverting to the version created by the company employee that was flagged as advertising. He has refused to participate in the talk section of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Muckrkr (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)muckrkr

Muckrkr, to be clear, DSeeB was blocked for edit warring, not for having a COI. COI editing on its own is not reason to block someone, but it is usually an aggravating factor when they have other behavior problems, such as edit warring. You should also be aware that posting about these issues on noticeboards is going to bring your own account under scrutiny as well. You have edited only this topic since you registered. May I ask what your particular interest is in EidosMedia? Please review Wikipedia:Single-purpose account carefully as you proceed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I’m surprised to be listed in this noticeboard: in my opinion, I explained clearly my action to User:Spike Wilbury and my view to user:Muckrkr on their respective talk pages. I have also asked user:Muckrkr “Why do you think EidosMedia deserves to be represented on Wikipedia only with negative points?” referring to the original edit I reverted. I think now it’s important for user:Muckrkr to clarify his position and the reason for his resentment (on a side note, the page is now a complete mess, with wrong reference numbers in the revised text).

Spammy behavior by two likely related editors

• Thammondthuzio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TaylorWiki18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thammondthuzio has been creating a slew of stub articles about lesser-known athletes, based largely on some questionable sources. (See Special:Contributions/Thammondthuzio for a complete list of the articles in question, as well as User talk:Thammondthuzio for a record of the discussions about this problem.) The underlying problem is that almost all of these athletes have profiles on the website thuzio.com (clearly associated with this editor), a service providing "unique experiences" with former and current athletes (play a round of golf with your favorite retired basketball player, have your favorite ex-water skier phone you for a 10-minute conversation, etc.) which leads to the impression that these Wikipedia articles are being created specifically for the purpose of giving these clients more "heft." I have specifically asked about this issue, but have received no response.

As of 10/6/2014, TaylorWiki18 has begun in the same pattern: stub articles about minor athletes, most of whom are Thuzio clients. (Perhaps the fact that not all of the article creations are clients is intended to legitimize their edits, or perhaps the articles about non-clients just reflect clients they haven't yet signed.)

The articles themselves are not exceptionally promotional, but they are terribly sourced for the most part and the pattern is disturbing.

I had originally posted this note at WP:ANI, but was told that this is probably a more appropriate venue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)