Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.203.12.73 (talk) at 18:13, 6 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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: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:Bunq
    Talk:Captions (app)
    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:Etraveli Group
    Talk:Fitch Ratings
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Andrew Hoffman
    Talk:Insight Meditation Society
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Norma Kamali
    Talk:Khalili Foundation
    Talk:David Lalloo
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss
    Talk:Alexa Meade
    Talk:Metro AG
    Talk:Alberto Musalem
    Talk:NAPA Auto Parts
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:V Pappas
    Talk:Matthew Parish
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:PetSmart Charities
    Talk:Sharp HealthCare
    Talk:Louise Showe
    Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa
    Talk:Lorraine Twohill
    Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science
    Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


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

    Looking for me?

    I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about how many other "Sean Martin"s there are out there. Google "sean martin" and you find a bunch of other Seans who aren't me. Including three with entries here on Wikipedia and an athletic director at Fairfield University where, ironically, my father used to be a dean (Yeah, he was Dean Martin.).

    However, if anyone thinks to google for "sean d martin", then the first hits find me. My profile, comments I've posted various places online and even this page! So to make things easier should anyone come looking specifically for me (I like to think SOMEone out there from "the old days" might.) I'm the one you might know from:

    If you knew me from any of those places, post a note here or drop me an email at "SeanMartin dot online at gmail dot com" (correctly typed in the normal email format, of course). It'd be good to hear from you.


    Me on Wiki

    My Contributions

    Wiki on me

    links to SDM:User
    links to SDM:Talk

    has repeatedly vandalized Stephanie Adams using Sneaky vandalism (bad edits, reverting legitimate edits, etc.) and Modifying users' comments (Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning). This user also has a bizarre vendetta offline against Stephanie Adams, as seen when you google his name with hers. Being that she is suing his friend, he obviously has personal intentions in vandalizing the article and should no longer be allowed to edit it. -Sacha 69.203.12.73

    ==

    ==Panther (computer game) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]== * Wgungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User repeatedly removed any mention of Battlezone, a video game probably inspired by Panther (although the article does not assert this); he has even removed See also links. Edit summary of removal of See also link: "RV due to speculation comes from the claimed relationship of Bzone being a copy of Panther, which is speculative at best"; no such claim was made in the article. Likewise, has repeatedly removed or muted mention of Panther from the Battlezone page. User page suggests close links to Atari. Has said on Talk:Battlezone that he sides with Atari POV that "Factually, there is no direct link between Panther and Battelzone." (sic) // ProhibitOnions (T) 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure that this should go here or on the general board. I received an email to my Wikipedia account stating

    thank you for your help on The Pharcyde's page on Wikipedia. We are really looking for some that knows Wikipedia editing well to make more overdue Wikipedia enteries for our record labels' artists. of course, we are not talking about any illicit 'marketing' messaging, only justifiable quality entries. If you have some feelings or suggestions on this please email me (name and email from Delicious Vinyl)

    Delicious Vinyl is behind such classics as Tone Lōc's Wild Thing and Young MC's Bust A Move, if anyone else is a fan of late 80s hiphop. Any thoughts? - BanyanTree 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't do anything right now. No article, no conflict of interest problems. As for notability, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. MER-C 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dennis King, who edits Wikipedia as Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made over 50 edits to this article in the past three days. He was the author of a hostile biography of LaRouche back in the 1980s, and his edits are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI#Citing_oneself. --Tsunami Butler 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash negative facts about LaRouche. Please be cautious in reading any claim of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a more appropriate place for this would be the arbcom enforcement board, as this could be in violation of the two arbcom rulings. Please file your request there, complete with diffs and links to the two arbcom decisions. MER-C 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read those ArbCom decisions, and the issue of self-citing never comes up. I have no basis for bringing this complaint to that forum. Self-citing is a COI policy issue. If you need diffs, a brief glance at this should get you started. --Tsunami Butler 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I too have read those two ArbComm decisions, and am completely puzzled by Mgunn's comment that the matter has already been resolved. WP:COI as a policy post-dates the ArbComm decisions (prior to the current policy, it was limited to vanity pages, I believe, and that's not the issue here). And in any case Dennis King was neither a party to nor mentioned in the ArbComm cases; these decisions thus provide no guidance or his edits nor a basis for enforcement.
    This is a current WP:COI issue, and deserves further scutiny. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP user 68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Likely I did the whois on both IPs. Neither resolved to the university itself, but rather the surrounding urban area, Arlington and Vienna to be precise. It's consistent with a student/employee editing from home. MER-C 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a {{primarysources}} to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but they are still doing that sort of thing to other articles. I've left them messages to see the Conflict of Interest policy but they haven't responded so far. --AW 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    How about WP:SPAM? And you're not alone, too, which is a good thing. Just looking at the history, User:Apache- might have violated 3RR as well. MER-C 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    01:19, 5 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apache- (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Revert warring, spamming) MER-C 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Apache-'s block has ended and his first act is to re-add the external links to Trainer (games). Marasmusine 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apache has shown utter disregard for the WP:EL and WP:COI guidelines, has gone right ahead and repeated the action that he was blocked for and has no interest in building the encylopedia or working with others. Not, imo, the kind of editor we need to have around, especially as he appears to be a WP:SPA. Deizio talk 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to place a {{spam4im}} on his talk page right now. If he adds those links again, I will place such template. MER-C 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

     Likely Geolocation puts the IP in Lehi, Utah. Guess where our little scheme is based? MER-C 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He/she/it seems to have stopped for the day, but may return. If COI is likely, what next? Have the article semi-protected? Have the user blocked? Zora 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's most likely vandalism anyway, so {{subst:test1a}}, etc, may be appropriate. MER-C 09:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Parmenides Publishing

    Re: Jennneal1313 (talk · contribs): This is not specific to one article, but I'd like a second opinion on this user's contributions; it's a subtle case. In some instances these are reasonable additions, but the user has several times changed an existing source from the edition originally cited (usually out of print) to the Parmenides Publishing edition; see this edit for an example. Individually, I'm not sure these are a problem, but collectively, they would seem to indicate a conflict of interest. Other opinions very welcome; thanks. Chick Bowen 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd call it spam, as it doesn't really add to the article. Good catch. Reverted. MER-C 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user e-mailed me about correcting information about books from her press. I told her that the links were what raised a flag, and that ISBN numbers and up-to-date publication info would not be a problem--I certainly see no problem with this. So I think this is resolved. Chick Bowen 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've run across these publishers before and have no qualms about deleting or RVing all of their posts. However, I do check the books, and twice with publisher spams found books that were well-connected to the article, so I left them. One I even added a sentence to the article to tie it in with the book better. Generally they are not well-regarded books being added, so it's easy to delet them all. Another time they were books for one of the university publishing houses, so I wound up checking all of them more closely, but none were particularly well tied in to the articles. The annoying thing about spam, conflicts of interest and the like, is it's not always so straight-forward. If they're updating out of date editions to current editions this may conflict with the article citations, so it might be better to parenthetically list the newer addition rather than deleting the old. KP Botany 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I told her to include both. This is primarily a scholarly reprint publisher, so it does seem useful to have an up-to-date ISBN for books we're already citing but in out-of-print editions. Chick Bowen 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a win-win in spite of the conflict of interest: she gets paid to do the tedious work we don't have to. KP Botany 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was my fault for not checking all of the etiquette & how to's before updating the pages. I didn't realize I was replacing older editions. Now I only add our newer editions, and just with ISBN 13s, not the external links. If its a book of ours that isn't included on a specific author's page, I'm only adding the book with the ISBN 13 as well, no external links. I've changed my user page to reflect that I work for the publisher. I am a philosophy student and have read all of the books that I'm adding, so I try to ensure the books are actually relevant. Thanks to Chick Bowen for his suggestions about reconciling any conflict of interest and his help steering me in the right direction. If I do anything else verboten, please let me know. I want to do this correctly. --Jennneal1313 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Agreed: edit patterns look very suspicious. UserRandom is also prominent in having created a large number of redirects and links to Gordon Lish). There are also a few other users - Nominickel, Judge&Jury and The Hystorian - who have done little but pop up to add Lish material. The article needs serious attention to make it encyclopedic, including wikifying to remove redirect loops and duplicated hyperlinks. 86.140.183.135 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After analyzing the edit patterns further, I am now convinced that Lishian is Gordon Lish's granddaughter. Here's the evidence:
    • On 15 November 2006, a person at IP address 69.138.176.86 edited the Gordon Lish article and entered this edit summary: "i'm his grandaughter, nina"
    • 69.138.176.86 began editing Wikipedia on 28 October 2006 and from the very first edit behaved exactly like Lishian, concentrating almost exclusively on either the Gordon Lish article or articles that mention Gordon Lish.
    • Edits from 69.138.176.86 essentially stopped after the Lishian user account was created on 23 December 2006. There have been only two edits from 69.138.176.86 since 18 December (probably because Lishian simply forgot to log in on those two occasions).
    • The last edit from 69.138.176.86, on 7 January 2007, was a request for AutoWikiBrowser registration. The username submitted in this request was Lishian.
    What this all adds up to: 69.138.176.86 (Lish's granddaughter Nina) and Lishian are the same person. Pat Berry 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies, where another editor has called attention to Gordon Lish. Pat Berry 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    snarkart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("Gillian") has only edited pages related to David Elliot, and has been updating other pages to include links to said article. In this user's defense, all of the contributions seem to be appropriate and fairly NPOV, but I am pretty convinced that this user has a substantisl conflict of interest, in that they work for or are closely affiliated with Mr. Elliot.

    The comments left on my talk page support this theory, as does the edit summary of File:Mossflower.jpg (which has now been deleted, see its entry in The Deletion Log).

    I am unsure of what action is warranted, blocking seemes severe, but someone with more experiance than myself should look into this. --Matthew 05:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The early history of Aliweb, beginning in May 2004, shows a variety of editors slowly building a small and increasingly encyclopedic article about one of the earliest web browsers, ALIWEB, an item of historical interest. This began to change when anonymous and apparently associated IPs began moving in:

    A closer look at the IPs:

    → The above whois/rdns/traceroute findings added by Athænara ✉ at 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Contribs

    →Detailed Contribs subsection moved 10:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC) to Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1#COIN as per noticeboard guidelines for brevity.

    The burden of this little gang of editors (who may be only two or three, or even one) is too great for the article to carry. They need to be stopped, so that good editors may (and quickly, too, judging from what they have been able to contribute between increasingly determined obstructions) bring the article back into that encyclopedic zone we all seek here. Athænara ✉ 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On 14 June 06 User:Aliweb declared 'I am the lead programmer working on Aliweb' [1]. Warnings about conflict of interest seem to have no effect. EdJohnston 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is true. One possible resolution, for the sake of the obvious historical significance of the first web browser ALIWEB (Archie-Like Indexing for the WEB):

    • Remove all commercial COI-pushing-sock additions to the text.
    • Add one short section specifying the absence of any connection to a website called aliweb.com. Include and reference the original ALIWEB developer's clear repudiation of that site.
    • Refactor the talk page (Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages), archiving the interference from the socks and nearly everything which relates to it, returning the emphasis on the current talk page to material pertinent to the historic ALIWEB browser itself.
    • Move the article to [[ALIWEB]], the name of its subject.
    • Get normal encyclopedic editing back up to speed—it could be a very good small article.

    All this is aside from the possibility of continued interference from the socks, none of which have edited since 03 January 2007. I have not, myself, previously edited this article, but I can do this for it. Athænara ✉ 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the last good encyclopedic version of the article. The lengthy "closer look at the IPs" section is now located at Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1 (link provided above in that section's place) in a verbatim copy of the entire initial post. The remainder of the post is abbreviated here for eventual noticeboard archiving. Athænara ✉ 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    Lengthy "A closer look at the IPs" contribs restored here because User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) returned:

    • Article: Five edits in less than five minutes, beginning 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) here
    • Talk page: Nine posts in less than an hour, beginning 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) here

    [A] self-identified aliweb.com employee, determined to subvert an encyclopedia article about the historic search engine for promotion of a commercial website ... Athænara ✉ 09:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Friday (talk · contribs)

    I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

    Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [2].[reply]
    You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [3].[reply]

    The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [4].

    The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct place to report and discuss concerns about administrators' administrative actions is at WP:AN/I. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to move this entire thread there. Note that this is a continuation of a previous, ongoing pattern of incivil and disruptive behaviour by Light current, the previous discussion of which is still on AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility_block_for_review.
    At the same time, a review of StuRat's ongoing incivility would be welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC
    If you're talking about the use of the term "deletionist", that has already been reviewed at the RFC, and the consensus seems to be that it is, indeed, appropriate to refer to "those who support nonconsensus Ref Desk deletions" as "Ref Desk deletionists". Also, I must say that if your response to a complaint is to attack the messenger in an attempt to discourage any further complaints, this is also highly inappropriate behavior for an Admin. StuRat 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for moving the thread over. Do be careful when you copy and paste next time, though; you seem to have missed some of the other comments in the thread that would be relevant and of interested to persons reviewing your report. Don't worry; I've filled in the missing details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As would a review of User:Hipocrite's gross incivility and repeated attacks, which has been encouraged by countless administrators. -THB 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In fact the text is identical to that online here and here. So if it's not put here by Statik Selektah himself, it's a copyvio; if it is, it's COI. 86.145.94.9 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed a warning in user's talk page and removed copyvio from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridgestone and Firestone

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

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

    (Firestone was purchased by Bridgestone in 1988)

    199.48.25.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.10 Bridgestone Akron, Ohio

    199.48.24.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.11 Bridgestone Akron, Ohio

    [5][6][7] Reverted by WP:VP2: [8] [9][10][11][12]

    207.45.131.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.131.10 Bridgestone Tire, Antioch, Tennessee [13]

    207.45.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.131.11 Bridgestone Tire, Antioch, Tennessee [14][15]

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

    194.39.141.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=194.39.141.10 [16] Bridgestone, Belgium

    217.155.151.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=217.155.151.245 [17] Jardine International - Clients - Bridgestone See: http:\\www.jardine-international.com/experience/bridgestone.htm

    207.45.130.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=207.45.130.11 [18] Bridgestone Nashville Tennessee

    What can be done?

    Thanks Travb (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think Firestone has been dealt with as it was merged with the resulting redirect protected and the new page hasn't been edited by the IPs in question. As for the other one... MER-C 07:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Serampore College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article on a perfectly respectible and long established (nearly 200 years) College is being "attacked" by User The Hermes who has it in his had that this is some sort of fake College and diploma mill - neither of which is true. He has ignored several editors telling him where the degree issuing authority comes from and keeps adding derogatory remarks to the page. I am now getting too close and feel someone else needs to monitor this - and if necessary protect it for a while to let matters cool down. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a bit of a mixed case. The article itself describes the source of accreditation, but provides no link. Is one available? (I agree that it is up to The Hermes to disprove the validity of the information mentioned - a legislative act - but a link would be ideal here.)
      • More importantly, on the talk page, User:The Hermes provided links to examples of people citing degrees from "Serampore Univeristy." You have failed to address some of his points - does the college use that name? If not, is there another institution that does - possibly a diploma mill? (If so, the article should so state.) If the college does use that title in any of its diplomas, that should be mentioned. Please do so; these are valid questions.
      • In any case, this is content dispute, not a conflict of interest case (at least, nothing you've mentioned covers conflict of interest, as described at WP:COI.) Please (re)read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes about how to handle content disputes; it includes a lot of different options if informal discussions fail to solve the matter. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Tyson_Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Most of the curent text in the article comes from corporate press releases. The tone is very boosterish and enthusiastic. Until I pointed it out, there was a first person sentence copied from a press release. All critical material is quickly deleted. There have been two main contributers/editors who seem to part of Tyson foods.

    As far as documenting the source of the information this evidence is pretty damning. The phrase " the world’s largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork" from paragraph one is found almost 300 times on the corporate website; check google: search for phrase on tyson.com. In paragraph two, the phrase "The company produces a wide variety of protein-based and prepared food products" is also a staple of Tyson press releases and occurs on their website a like number of times: search for phrase on tyson.com. The phrase "value-added chicken, beef and pork" is a tyson corporate coinage that occurs nowhere on the net except for in tyson press releases or a few articles based on them.

    The charity section comes pretty much ver batim from a Dec. 4, 2006 press release from the company, availble on the corporate website at [19] (captioned as a "news release" using the current vogue of corporately produced fake news).

    The Sustainability section simply links to a tyson produced report rebutting the widespread allogations of enironmental abuses.

    And the "controversy" section has been polluted by scare quotes and other interventions of Ederdn, the probable Tyson employee. The final insult is the last paragraph which lauds Tysons treatment of animals; the source of these sentences are the tyson press release of october 5, 2006, available at their website at [20] // BradB 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    199.66.3.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A check of the IP 199.66.3.5 confirms that it is in fact from inside of tyson foods corp; a traceroute goes through tyson-foods-inc-1105186.cust-rtr.swbell.net.

    Ederdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has made subsequent changes many of which are suspiciously of the same type and is also probably from inside Tyson. //BradB 02:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    in the "Tyson Renewable Energy and the Environment" section, the linked footnote is from the tyson corporate intranet (not accessible from outside)! that pretty much proves that the poster, Tedfordc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a Tyson employee. BradB 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Microsoft

    Yahoo News reports: Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit "Microsoft Corp. landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site." I guess y'all know about it already. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • I definitely think this is notable, but the question arises: where would it be placed in an article. It definitely shouldn't be placed in a trivia section (see WP:TRIVIA) because it offers no real encyclopedic value to the article. Maybe this would best be covered in an article for the Wikipedia Signpost. It seems notable enough to be included in an article there. → JARED (t)  18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Signposted. MER-C 08:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Warned the user for violation of WP:BLP, cleaned several BLP articles by removing unsourced or poorly sourced negative material, tagged other articles for cleanup and requesting sources, and advised user to comply with WP:COI and WP:AUTO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, good work. -Will Beback · † · 12:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact she's already trying to organise the boycott via her blog [22]. 86.139.253.137 09:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think she realizes that it's not in her power to delete articles from Wikipedia. It seems like this situation is dealt with, unless she turns up again. (Why are people so astounded by the COI principle? It's not like Wikipedia invented the term.) LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user continues with editing her own article and making long diatribes against WP while doing so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not within my power to delete articles from Wikipedia. But it is within my power to encourage others to request that their articles be deleted once moved elsewhere.

    None of you are taking my general point at all. In my professional judgement, you collectively are being overzealous about how you enforce rules involving your connection with who you write about in a way that is not appropriately applied to the science fiction field. ISFDB outsourced this to Wikipedia. That's how you got the bare bones of the science fiction author bios here already. I write a lot of author bios and I publish a lot of articles about science fiction.

    None of you who have been worrying about what I've been up to seem to have much familiarity with the subject area or the issues involved in objectivity in a situation where we do all know each other. Perhaps you should consult with those primarily engaged with organizing and creating the science fiction related bios.Pleasantville 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has not been built on the expertise of the few, but on the collaborative efforts of the many. If you want to explore other wikis that use a different approach, in which subject experts have specific privileges, you may want to consider contributing to Citizendium rather than to this project. Coming here and as a new editor, and disregarding each all and comments made to you by other editors with sarcasm and incivility, will not earn you any points 'round these frontiers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is within my power to encourage others to request that their articles be deleted once moved elsewhere.
    They can request it, but it won't happen. All posters have accepted by clicking Save page that they accept the GFDL license - so they have given up any control over whatever they've posted. Tearlach 01:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TimidGuy has had a lot of input in Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He is a WP:SPA [[23]], a faculty member of a college run by the TM Organization [[24]], who authored the origonal version of the TM article [[25]], which clearly reads like an ad [[26]]. He has challenged nearly every single addition of critical material to the article. Now he is challenging material that is critical of his university. I don't think his affiliation with the TM organization rules him out to work on the TM article per se, however, the fact that he is faculty and seeking to remove well-sourced critical infromation about his own college I believe crosses the line. Sethie 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on this testimony and what I can see, you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. You're right in that he should be allowed to edit because he obviously has some good things to say, but it seems that he's taken it too far. I hope that others see it this way, too. → JARED (t)  20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard James Burgess (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

    I think there is somewhat of a battle ongoing between Indiana and Illinois fans about who (if anyone) is to blame for Gordons decision to back out of his Illinois commitment and heading to Indiana instead. Just look at the article's version history. I suggest a semi-protection for IPs. --Bender235 23:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You can always request semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Not clear that this is a well-defined conflict of interest, since there must be tens of thousands of fans on each side of this possible debate. EdJohnston 00:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-war, not related to COI guidelines and therefore doesn't belong here. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Neutrality Project might be more appropriate. — Athænara ✉ 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychiatric service dog (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    PSDS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems determined to make their version of the Psychiatric service dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article rule supreme, regardless of quality, and does not seem to even want to think about trying to cooperate with myself or other editors. This morning/yesterday a large edit-war was fought over what goes in the list of tasks "psych" dogs may be trained to do, which already had a history of debate. I tried to fix the problem by rewriting the list in general paragraph form, but they just re-pasted their content back in. I am concerned, because the editor signs their Talk posts as the "founder" of such and such, and seems to take everything as a personal attack against their work. They have been going on about representing federal law and other things "accurately," but I feel there is no difference in accuracy between the various revisions. I am hoping my attempts at contacting them and adding references into the article will help, but if not, I simply don't know what to do next. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    File a 3RR report if the edit warring continues. MER-C 08:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Has the user been advised of WP:COI and WP:OWN? I've been looking for a user-warning template, but the only COI-related one addresses non-notable COI articles only. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 11:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can easily write your own. You don't have to use a template. MER-C 13:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, but in the interest of uniformity of policy/guideline, I was interested to know of there was enough demand for a user warning template. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ArtKoen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently reverted edits by myself and others that remove a specific commercial links which violates the WP:EL guidelines, and is the only one that has issue with the link being removed. I have taken other steps, including WP:3O, WP:RFM and finally WP:RFAR. The link in question [27] is full of affiliate links, and the "articles" in question are available at their own sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.194.95.196 (talk • contribs)

    Don't think there's a conflict of interest here, try WP:ANI instead as the arbcom recommended. MER-C 07:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003 film) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    MattTyler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly reverted edits by myself and User:CyberGhostface on these two articles. His reason for reverting is because he does not like where the main character of the movie ("Leatherface") is positioned in the cast list in the article. He says that Wikipedia has a set of rules in which the spot of the character listed in the article, should be exactly the same as in the movie credits. Here is the exact quote from his talk page:

    "Sorry, but you shoudl realyl read Wiki rules for movie credits -- they MUST be the same as they are in the end credits of the chaotic movies."

    Now that sounds made up to me, but if such rules exist, I would have no problem agreeing with this user. —mikedk9109SIGN 17:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn't look like COI, just a content dispute. You could get a wider consensus by asking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. Tearlach 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Cline

    All these articles appear to promote his company's services, publications, and president:

    I'm not sure I've found all the articles with such issues. --Ronz 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional edits promoting his company (as above, there are probably more):
    →(Interjection)  Explanation-Not a Company Chart-First Attempt to Tablized Some Info as Image. Was not satisfied with appearance and replaced with WikiTable--Mike Cline 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    →(Reply to interjection)  The table substituted for the image is equally blatant in attempting to use the encyclopedia anyone can edit for advertising masquerading as an article. — Æ. ✉ 23:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    — Athænara ✉ 19:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the company that promotes this product/concept has a VP named "Mike Cline."[28] The company promotion is a problem but also the articles themselves aren't that useful either. "Orchestrator (strategy)" never even defines its term. The Prometheus Process may be worth an article, but these component concepts certainly don't. Even there we need 3rd party sources to establish the notability. -Will Beback · † · 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it a coincidence that the link has gone 404? Thank goodness for google cache. MER-C 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, I sincerely do not want this to get out of hand and I will accomodate whatever suggestions you all have to correct any and all the above referenced articles. A bit of background. I began to expand the article information in Wikipedia, from the article Warden's Five Rings started by someone unknown in 2004 based on a suggestion from someone unassociated with the company I work for. The above topics and links are the result. While doing this I believed I was working within Wikipedia Guidelines but apparently I was not. I also very cautiously reviewed the style, content and discussions of other articles in Wikipedia to weigh my contributions against others to ensure they were consistent with that which was acceptable in Wikipedia. Apparently I did not succeed and this brings me to the confusion I have. The allegation if you will, is that because my company is involved with Strategy, my knowledge of Strategy related issues is inappropriate for Wikipedia--whether or not that knowledge is neutraly written, encyclopedic and verifiable with published sources. Thus, I understand the desire to avoid "advertising masquerading as an article" as noted above in Wikipedia. Despite the fact that none of the above articles and links "promoted" my company in anyway (they dealt with verifiable knowledge) I am subject to the COI guidelines and will correct matters. Where I am confused however, can be seen from just two of the many articles in Wikipedia where this so-called promotion is rather obvious, but apparently not unacceptable.
    Consider the Brand article. There are eleven "Big Name Brand Consultancies", but no references provided. A quick click on Interbrand brings you to an article promoting Interbrand and its big name clients. The only reference are Interbrand produced, to include the Interbrand corporate website. A review of the history gives little insight as to who produced the article. I suspect many of the other consultancies linked articles are supported only by their corporate websites links.
    Consider the Balanced Scorecard article. Its sources are the very gentlemen at Harvard that have a continuing vested interest in the subject at Harvard and through their publicists. Additionally there are numerous direct links to consultancies that teach the subject and sell their services. Since there is really no way to tell who contributed the information in this article, but if had been one of Kaplan's graduate students, would that be a COI?
    These are just two examples that guided my contributions, although none of my contributions included any commercial links. I do not challenge any of the content in these articles. As far as I know they are accurate, neutrally presented and encyclopedic. But I trust you see my confusion. I contributed verifiable knowlegde on subjects used by many other companies and organizations other than the one I am associated with, but because of that association, the contributions are considered unacceptable in Wikipedia. And as yet, no one has seen fit to correct any of my informational mistakes I may have made. It appears it is all about the Editor not the Article. I can accept that and as I said above, will do whatever I need to do to accomodate the desires of the Wikipedia community. Lead me in the right direction and I will work it out over the next week.--Mike Cline 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First time I experienced an Edit Conflict, that was fun learn something new every day in Wikipedia.--Mike Cline 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Will Beback, you use the phase "we need 3rd party sources to establish the notability" in a previous comment. I want to understand that Wikipedia concept more fully. I have searched for a guideline, but been unable to find one. However, I have seen the concept mentioned several times. To pose my question more succintly, where is "notability" established for the following article: Twelve leverage points? In this article, redirected from Leverage points (which also might apply to many topics in physics, geology, mechanics, etc.) the only references are papers written by the person the article cites. There is no 3rd Party reference. Additionally, an examination of the references reveals extraordinary bias and agendas by the author and those agendas are not even filtered out by the contributor. One of the references is nothing more than a blog article by the same author that repeats the previous reference almost verbatim, except this time on a website with explicit advertising. This is an article that has been on Wikipedia since 2003 so it must have passed the "3rd Party Notability" test. What is it about this article that makes it "Notable"?--Mike Cline 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to this kind of "So-and-so got away with it, so why are you coming after me?" reasoning, see this September 2006 observation of the problem of "corporate vanity/vandalism" and the importance of remaining true to the encyclopedic mission. — Athænara ✉ 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Athaenara. I read Brads post! I regret you feel that way and because I would not claim that "so-and-so got away with it" for any article I've cited. I believe most of what I've cited is encyclopedic, at least in terms of Wikipedia. I am merely attempting to learn how to interpret and follow Wikipedia guidelines. The best way I now how to do that is compare what has been accepted to what I am being told about guidelines--trying to to achieve some logic so that any contribution I make, regardless of subject matter, meets Wikipedia guidelines.--Mike Cline 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an open question on "Notability" related to my question above. Below are a few 3rd Party references to John Warden, his concepts and the Prometheus Process in particular. Do these provide "Notability" for any of the questionable articles cited in this COI discussion? If they do not, why?

    --Mike Cline 04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm thinking of deletion too. Our missing /news.htm page proves that this is corporate vanity beyond doubt. Not speedy (as with the case of most corporate vanity), but rather a mass AFD. MER-C 05:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent one to afd to determine community reaction, deletion discussion here. MER-C 11:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I will too move my comments over too the AFD board, but will alert you that I have already begun the process of revert any contributions I've made on any subject related to Strategy. My deletions are clearly identified in the edit summary and I've given my rationale for each WP:COI on the discussion page.--Mike Cline 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • MarphyBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User removed <<fact>> flag even after dispute did not turn in his favor. The line "This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character" is not factual as there is another character in the series that was created solely on rumour. The character called Blaze. He is based off a background image in the background of the 2nd Mortal Kombat game whom some thought was a playable character, but it never was, nor was it meant to be originally. It developed into a playable character much later.--Iamstillhiro1112 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lattice Semiconductor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    James Anderson (computer scientist) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    • James Anderson (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - From time to time, I have made edits to the James Anderson (computer scientist) article. Editing the article has been very contentious at times because of the outstanding claims that Dr. Anderson has made.

      The article recently came to the attention of Ben Moore, one of the authors of an article about Dr. Anderson. Mr. Moore is understandably sensitive about the whole issue because he has been roundly criticized for his reporting on Dr. Anderson's work. However, for this reason, I don't think he should be editing the article. He has repeatedly inserted weasel words to soften the description of this criticism. He has edited from the IPs 132.185.240.120, 132.185.144.120, 132.185.240.121, and 132.185.144.122. He has also edited as User:Benthebiscuit‎.

      For the record, I didn't write the statement that so offends Mr. Moore ("[They were] criticized for irresponsible journalism"), but I think it's a fair summary of the criticism. I'm not quite sure how to move forward here. I'm also tiring of editing the article and thinking I might just drop the whole thing. Any assistance would be appreciated (or any hints on an appropriate Wikipedia forum where I should direct my pleas). Lunch 01:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=106101059"