Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Element (software) Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Qu Dongyu Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Colleen Joy Shogan Talk:Sittingbourne Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Thomas Alured Faunce

Resolved

 – He seems to have left Wikipedia, for better or worse. -- Atama^chat 23:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thomas Alured Faunce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fauncet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject has probably written his own bio, Thomas Alured Faunce (based on editor's username and the tone of the bio - you have to read it), and is inserting references to himself in other articles left and right. I don't know that the bio is notable enough to keep. Since I'm already involved in another conflict with him at Talk:Meditation#Meditation in Hinduism, it would be better if an uninvolved editor (and one more knowledgable about COI) looked into this. User is Fauncet (talk · contribs). Priyanath ^talk 21:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this is true considering that almost every reference given in the article is self-published. On the other hand, the subject does seem pretty notable, so it's unlikely that the article would be deleted, but in the future he shouldn't be allowed to edit his own page. Of course there's no problem with him using the talk page to make suggestions or provide information to be added. -- Atama^chat 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I left a notice at his talk page. -- Atama^chat 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Thomas Alured Faunce reads like a resume and seems a bit fluffy. I wish there were some regular editor who has the time to rewrite it. Checking Whatlinkshere to this article causes some concern that Faunce could be founding an empire here on Wikpedia. For example, the new article on Intellectual monopoly privilege is mostly by Fauncet, and he seems to be one of the two contributors to that new field. I am wondering if Faunce, as an associate professor, has already done such important work that he needs to be cited in Innovation, Intellectual property and Whistleblower. There might be a concern that he has a COI in attempting to add mentions of his own work to other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I get the impression that he came onto Wikipedia without a lot of foreknowledge and started making what he thought were appropriate contributions. I think if he still has interest in Wikipedia he might be fine with a little guidance, he has taken the time to explain what he was doing while in my experience an editor who is intentionally trying to push something on Wikipedia is much more defiant. I tried to think what I would have done in his situation, where he thought Wikipedia had an article on him that was blank, and tried to improve it, and I would probably have done the same thing. -- Atama^chat 23:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Cloudruns. I suspect has connections with Wolfram Research the producers of Mathematica

Resolved

 – No clear COI can be established. -- Atama^chat 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathematica is an high-end maths program produced by Wolfram Research. The Mathematica article has always been very promotional - a point that has been made by several different people at different times in the talk page. One of the regular editors JonMcLoone (talk · contribs) admits on the Talk:Mathematica he is employed by Wolfram Research, and as you will note, several have complained out his Mathematica links. But Jon does provide information to the Mathematica page which only an employee would know.

However, my concern here is about Cloudruns (talk · contribs), who I believe is trying to promote Mathematica too much, at the expensive of other similar software. Cloudruns (talk · contribs) edits many different pages on maths software, usually adding material to give the impression nothing can touch Mathematica. Some examples of dubious edits are:

• On a comparison of computer algebra systems, he wrote of Mathematica Ubiquitous system also includes extensive numeric capabilities, statistics, image processing, number theory, boolean computation and is a development environment. [1] It's far from clear the program is ubiquitous
• Cloudruns adds Mathematica to the page on a list of interactive geometry software [2] User Toscha (talk · contribs) later removed edit, correctly pointed out Mathematica is not interactive geometry software. Nobody would buy Mathematica for that purpose.
• Although I would not dispute he was right to remove some hype words from an article on Sage (a competitor to Mathematica), he does tend to add hype whenever he can if it benefits Mathematica, and remove hype when he can if it might be detrimental to Mathematica.
• When I wrote Sage, which aims to be a free alternative to Mathematica, can be used as an interface to Mathematica Cloudruns changed it to Sage mathematics software can be used as an interface to Mathematica.

I have no hard evidence to support my believe he probably works for Wolfram Research, but when asked both in Talk:Mathematica, and User_talk:Cloudruns if this is true, he declines to answer. Drkirkby (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comment on this? I'm not sure what is supposed to happen, as this is the first time I have reported anyone for a conflict of interest. Drkirkby (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a comment on Mathematica's talk page. I actually agreed with him on that particular issue about the "hype" about Sage, but that doesn't mean I agree with all of his edits. I reminded him that WP:COI strongly encourages editors to disclose a conflict of interest if they wish to edit an article whose subject they are affiliated with. On the other hand, Drkirkby, the question has been raised as to whether or not you are affiliated with Sage, and if so I give you the same encouragement for disclosure. -- Atama^chat 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree there was some hype words. I did not write them myself. I agree he was right to remove them. It's just when you look at many of his edits, they seem very biased in one direction.

I do work as a developer on the Sage project (unpaid) - my main interest is improving the port to Solaris. I'll post a bit more info on the Mathematica talk page. Drkirkby (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anything else happen when User_talk:Cloudruns still refuses to answer if he has a WP:COI, despite your request? He still edits the Mathematica page in a pro-Wolfram way? Before his last round of edits, which promote the product even more, someone else has said in talk page that FWIW, I'm not particularly vested in any edits to this article, but am a regular Mathematica user. From that informed distance, this page comes across (to me at least) as strikingly Mathematica-biased: the text reads like ad copy... I'm not the only to feel that article is biased, and there are others who made the point in the archived talk pages. One person commented on this, but never edited the article as he disclosed he was a former employee. User_talk:Cloudruns just increases that bias. Drkirkby (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think anything else happens now. The difficulty is that I don't think you can really show a conflict of interest here. It might be shown that he has a pro-Mathematica bias, but the POV noticeboard might be a better place to try to get that resolved. Honestly, his refusal to answer is suspicious but he's not at all required to answer. WP:COI is a guideline, and doesn't supersede an editor's right to privacy, and you'll notice in reading the guideline that the language is quite careful, talking about what is "recommended" and "suggested". I think it might be worth bringing up in later discussions that he has refused to disclose his affiliation or lack thereof, but don't hound him about it or that could be considered harrassment and could backfire. If somehow it is revealed that he does have those affiliations and refused to disclose them earlier that will reflect poorly on him, but in the meantime what if he says no? If he's lying, you can't prove it. So I'd let this go of this particular angle and if he acts tedentious either report to the POV board or go through regular dispute resolution. -- Atama^chat 22:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Atama (talk · contribs). Although we both agree the refusal of Cloudruns (talk · contribs) to answer whether he has a conflict of interest is suspicious, I will not ask him any more about it. But I will as you suggest mention in any further discussions that Cloudruns (talk · contribs) has refused to disclose whether or not he has an affiliation with Wolfram Research. I will copy this over to the Mathematica talk page so there is a record of it there. Thank you once again. Drkirkby (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Danny Mekić

Resolved

 – Whether or not this was a COI, the article is deleted now. -- Atama^chat 08:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

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

I suspect that Twinmate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who created this article may be the subject. Hard to prove or disprove but the article is fairly promotional. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that the article is currently in an AfD. -- Atama^chat 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Spokeo

• Spokeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is essentially written and maintained by the company it describes. The company is just another people search engine; only notable for spamming people, and the only sources are some outdated references from tech blogs. I tried editing it, but the CEO of the company changed it back again - after sending me an email offering me a free "premium account" with his site...akaDruid (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy delete. Rees11 (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And untagged, because I see it has already survived an AfD, although I can't imagine how. The article as it stands is nothing but advertising. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It survived the delete because of the "multiple non-trivial published works" rule which is essentially broken for web2.0 type websites; any and every new site that does a press release gets some chatter on the millions of tech blogs; which count as 'reliable sources' for this purpose.

Also in the Afd, I argued that the article is CofI, OR and misleading, to which the response was 'edit, don't delete'; except I can't edit it because the site owners change it back. Ho hum. I wouldn't care so much, except that the site is so slimy; they are spamming people's contacts, and worse, trying to mine people's personal data and then sell it (to recruiters and such like), which is so unethical it makes me shiver. akaDruid (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been stubbified because the AfD concluded that the article subject was notable, but the article content was influenced greatly by employees of Spokeo. Reading the history of the article shows numerous edits by the company. Fortunately they seem to be open and honest about who they are when they edit, but unfortunately they don't see any problem with changing the content directly. In the future we should be very careful to not let them do this again, the article was very inaccurate and misleading as written, attempting to present the company as something it wasn't; primarily as a social network service site when it is really a social network aggregation site, and removing negative sourced information. -- Atama^chat 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Springer Science+Business Media products - multiple articles

• Neolithic66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has created spammy articles on a number of products of Springer Science+Business Media (SpringerImages, Springer Exemplar, ‎AuthorMapper, and edited others‎ (Springer Science+Business Media) or inserted Springer product names into other articles (CiteULike); and seems to have no interest in any other topic. Orange Mike | Talk 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Many Springer products are notable, and these may be also, but they have just been released. I'm prepared to try to contact the company, because I think they've also used other usernames for some of their articles on journals. I will help them as needed, but they can't do it this way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanx, DGG. I can always depend on you to do the right thing in this kind of situation; but please be prepared to use your biggest cluebat. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible IGDA spam

Resolved

 – The 2 articles created by the account were deleted, the Combination Lock promotional material was removed, and the editor has not edited since. -- Atama^chat 18:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User

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

Articles related to the user

• Roger E. Pedersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Game Design Foundations, Second Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Combination Lock (game show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adventure game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user above seems to be closely affiliated with Roger E. Pedersen and has been inserting wikilinks to the Combination Lock (game show) and Adventure game articles above and has been creating Game Design Foundations, Second Edition which has repeatedly been tagged as spam and removed. See http://www.mobygames.com/user/sheet/userSheetId,25684. It is possible that this user may be representing the IGDA in some sort of a spamming operation. MuZemike 05:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the book article is gone and it looks like the biography is on its way out. If they get recreated, they can be deleted and salted. I actually checked his edits to Adventure game and let them stand; they were appropriate as they helped in specifying the page numbers and edition of the book used as a reference. I fixed the "Video Game" portion of Combination Lock which was very spammy, written as a promotional piece. -- Atama^chat 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan King caught POV-pushing his own article

Resolved

 – After a checkuser, a bunch of pro-King editors banned as socks. -- Atama^chat 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Add Jonathan King, the sometime pop-music figure/TV personality, to the list of people caught trying to own their own articles. In this case the subject had been extensively anon-posting, trying to massage the presention of his underage sex convictions, and to reinflate the article's previous (self?-)assessment of his former importance.

Kudos to Little grape (talk · contribs) for detective work.

See: Talk:Jonathan_King#Rule_879:_'The_subject_of_an_article_shouldn't_edit_it_himself' & recent history

-- Jheald (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. Most of my edits have been anti-King. Who is Little Grape? Similar to Purples (history)? And Privatemusings? And Expat? I won't be posting about King any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.188.113 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But do you have any reasonable explanation for posting from the very same hotel King's staying at in Tivoli? Or are you still claiming you're in Seattle? Little grape (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Little grape: even though the guy is generally reviled, WP:OUTING puts a limit on how far it's acceptable to pursue users' real-life identities, and using IPs to track and identify someone's ongoing location - down to the level of the hotel where they're staying - looks to me to overstep that limit. If a pattern of promotional edits has been spotted, it's sufficient now that the article get increased editorial focus to maintain NPOV. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit that I agree with the anonymous poster; I looked at the edits they were making and they didn't seem all that complimentary of King. They were fairly balanced, I would expect if that really was King that he'd be more aggressive about removing negative information and inserting positive information, but that wasn't the case. -- Atama^chat 17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow... As it turns out, according to Checkuser about a half-dozen editors of King's article who have been defending him and/or changing the article to remove negative content are confirmed to be sockpuppets, likely of King himself. That's disturbing. -- Atama^chat 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was quite cleverly done - but then he's a Cambridge English grad. At least we can now settle down to starting over, and writing a balanced article. My own view is that he was an extraordinary (in all senses) character in the 60's and 70's, occupying a unique niche in British pop history who then went on to develop and star in an outstandingly good TV series in the early 80's. But he didn't do anything notable for the next ten years - until his convictions. And he hasn't done anything notable since, either. Endless plugging of his latest home-movie, and puffery of non-notable stuff he's done since being released simply detracts from his considerable achievements (even if these *don't* include running Decca Records). Let's have a shot at writing something even he can be proud of? And in my view it's fine for him to come clean and assist in that process - as long as he commits to not editing the main article. (assuming your permission Atama, can I copy this and your comment above to the King talk page?) Little grape (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, but I appreciate you asking... Sure, go ahead. -- Atama^chat 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Bkpub and Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Resolved

 – User has stopped editing, and articles are PRODed. Unless user continues COI editing, then matter is cleared. Cheers, I'^mperator 17:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bkpub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All Together Now (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crunch (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bkpub has entered articles and links relating to books published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers. WP:UAA did not consider this a promotional user-name. I gave the user a welcome note including a pointer to WP:BFAQ and a COI warning, and he has not edited since. I will check out the books and PROD if necessary, though the articles are not excessively promotional and at least the first will probably pass as notable - it seems Obama referred to it in a speech. Posted here in case anyone thinks more action necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeez sometimes I despair of WP:UAA - how is that not a promotional user name? – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, seeing as I'm going to have to post it here as well, the policy guidelines clearly states that users who "add promotional material or demonstrate a conflict of interest can be reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard or to administrator intervention against vandalism, where further action may be taken." :/ UAA is usually for more extreme cases, such as personal attacks, more obvious promotional usernames (ex. BUYBOOKSAT___), and all that lovely stuff at WP:IU. For cases such as this, you would take it to COIN. Besides, I checked the first article-it seems pretty good. As long as he's not promoting material as set by G11, I think that the worst he should get is a warning and CHU. Cheers, I'^mperator 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree about the username. Bkpub gives a hint to the COI (fortunately) but it's not explicit. A casual editor wouldn't even think twice about that username. While COI certainly exists if they created articles on notable subjects without adding promotional material, they have been warned about COI, and haven't edited since, I think that there's nothing further to do. Does anyone disagree? -- Atama^chat 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor has PRODded Crunch (book). I have now checked out All Together Now (book) and PRODded that, too, because on checking the Obama speech cited as a reference, I find that while he used the phrase "You're on your own now" there is no confirmation of the article's claim that he was referring to a theory coined in this book - he does not refer to the book or to its author. If the articles are deleted, I will tidy up the various links. User has not edited since warning, I agree no further action required unless they come back. JohnCD (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Kevinbrogers and The True Victory

Resolved

 – The article seems headed for a snowball deletion. The user disclosed his COI and isn't even fighting the deletion now. -- Atama^chat 16:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• The True Victory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevinbrogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor created the page for The True Victory (also up for AfD), an unreleased, unproduced film he plans to direct. Doesn't see his contributions as conflict of interest or self-promotion, continues to add his film to 2010s in film‎ after being notified of COI. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have come around somewhat, he is asking for advice on sourcing and on what to do about the article after deletion, and seems resigned to the fact that deletion is going to happen. He is also very open about his COI, so I'm not sure what other measures have to be taken in his case. -- Atama^chat 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Neo Torres

Came across this book cover of a book by Neo Torres in Coyame UFO incident, an article very heavily edited by Noetorres (talk · contribs). Looks like pretty blatant self promotion and the article references Torres and another self-published book almost exclusively. NJGW (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that page should go up for AfD probably; references are very weak. I tried finding online coverage of the incident and I found a single article talking about it. And guess what? It was an article in a Wichita Falls newspaper that was an interview with Noe Torres! Blatant self promotion? I'd say so. -- Atama^chat 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also found that Noe created the Milton Torres 1957 UFO Encounter article. I doubt very much the name similarity is a coincidence. -- Atama^chat 16:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With whole paragraphs of personal claims presented as factual and sourced to "personal interview" -- greattttt. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Every contribution this editor has made has been in articles that feature one of his books prominently as a reference (which he helpfully added) or linked to an article of the same. Unfortunately the whole concept of no original research is foreign to him (which is somewhat understandable considering that his original research has been published). -- Atama^chat 19:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ITMLONDON = Insanity Talent Management

Resolved

 – Article deleted, user blocked. -- Atama^chat 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

From the link in the article to www.itmlondon.com, this user is evidently Insanity Talent Management trying to use Wikipedia to promote their client. Username possibly not directly promotional, but I suggest should be blocked as an advertiser. JohnCD (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it for G11 speedy as in my view, from both tone and content, it's a PR piece. Also reported username to UAA, but not holding my breath. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that itmlondon is their website, I blocked it as a blatant spamusername. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Baxter International

Note this edit, and this warning by an account with this user page. This is an account that is dedicated to only contributing to one page, the company's wikipage. I don't think further action is needed, but I do think COIN needs to know about this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That has to be the most restrained editor with a COI that I have ever seen. If you look at that Baxter International page, 2/3 of the article is just "controversies". That is a lot of undue weight toward a negative bias. And yet all that the editor did was remove an obviously redundant entry in the lead. If there was a COI barnstar I'd give it to them. -- Atama^chat 08:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a lot of negative weight to a bias, it's what I could find in reliable sources. News sources are going to be biased to controversies, I did my best to find non-controversy sources but each time I looked, more controversies came up. The edit the Baxter account made was to inappropriately remove a mention of those controversies from the lead. I've also included their early entry into "green and greed", work on the swine flu vaccine, and a recent acquisition. A restrained COI editor is still a COI editor, who shouldn't be editing their own page, and certainly shouldn't be removing solely negative information from the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can understand that. Hopefully in the future the article can be expanded to have more about the company itself, though the article seems to be progressing very well. For now, however, it is totally redundant to include information about controversies in the lead when about half of the article is about those controversies anyway. I actually agree with the edit that TGLcomms made, it is an improvement on the article to remove that redundancy. Do you honestly think that removing that info from the lead actually takes any negative information away from the article? The fact that they left the rest in should be an indicator that they aren't trying to whitewash at all. However, I am in complete agreement with you that TGLcomms shouldn't be the one who made that edit. Even if it is a proper edit to make in general, WP:COI is sensitive about an editor with a clear conflict of interest removing negative material unless it is blatant vandalism, and that obviously wasn't. Your warning to that editor and the report here do seem appropriate. They should rather be making suggestions on the talk page of the article instead of direct edits (and I do see that they are making such suggestions, and have been for awhile). -- Atama^chat 20:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Georgianwebteam

Georgianwebteam (talk · contribs) made this edit today to Georgian College. User's first edit was back on February 18. Willking1979 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Terrymacro

• Terrymacro (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outing.3F, where it has been suggested that this situation might be more profitably addressed here. JN466 20:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The user has two separate probably conflicts of interest: one regarding Prem Rawat and the other involving Astrological age. However the former is the more contentious issue. The editor in question was a senior national official in the Rawat movement, and more recently served as a director of a major facility owned by the movement. His current biography, which he's linkt to repeatedly, says that his "major passion in life is utlising the techniques of self-knowledge as revealed by Maharaji."[3] He insists that he does not have a conflict of interest when writing about the topic because the particular entity of which he was an officer no longer exists, and therefore he has no financial stake. This appears to be incorrect in a couple of respects. First, apparently the entity is still in existence, only its name has been legally changed from Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital.[4] Second, conflict of interest is not limited to ongoing financial involvement. He was among the early followers of Prem Rawat, he has been a member of the movement for at least 34 years, and he was a senior official in two separate organizations, most recently in the 1990s. The user has edited in issues directly related to his involvement, including commenting about the validity of a legal affidavit involving the organizations of which he'd been an officer and his colleagues.[5][6] At the time he made those remarks he had given no indication that he was even a member of the movement, much less a former senior official. This is exactly the kind of undisclosed conflict of interest that this guideline is intended to avoid. The editor asserts that he is only interested in neutral editing, but I have not seen any edits by him that do not support a "pro-Rawat" POV. I have requested that he disclose his COI, and that he follow this guideline on Prem Rawat-related articles. Does anyone feel that the user does not have a conflict of interest?   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

First the easier one: linking to self-published materials on Astrological age may have been inappropriate, if there was no wider talk page consensus to add the material, and/or the sources are not in line with WP:RS. If any of the editor's publications comply with WP:RS, he should be encouraged to put them on the talk page, disclose his being the author and await talk page consensus for adding them. If he did that, then there is no problem.

That he managed a facility for a faith group ten years ago is a less clear-cut case. WP:NPA says that affiliations should not be held up to invalidate another editor's views, regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not. Based on this principle, his faith being a minority faith should not weigh in our decision. Judging otherwise lays us open to charges of religious discrimination and stifling free speech ("the encyclopedia anyone can edit ... except members of religious minorities!"). So we have a situation where someone, ten years ago, held a (volunteer?) position in a particular faith group, and now wishes to contribute to WP articles on that faith group. I am not sure that is an automatic COI. JN466 08:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here is a recent LA Times article commenting on the free speech issues involved. JN466 08:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A COI is bad enough, but COI+POV=FUBAR. It seems like he's being dishonest, if he's editing to paint the subject in a positive light, had very strong ties at one time, and yet even now asserts his belief in the teachings while claiming that he can be neutral. That Scientology thing just goes to show that "religious tolerance" shouldn't be an issue; that ship has sailed. If this encyclopedia is going to be neutral it can't cave into every organization (religious or not) that wants an article to be more positive. Besides, that's a straw man argument, who in this issue is bringing that up? -- Atama^chat 08:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a fairly obvious principle that an editor's religious beliefs, sexual orientation etc. should not per se be held against him. So saying that he "even now asserts his belief in the teachings" is about as relevant as saying that an editor "even now says he is gay". If there are specific problems with his editing in this topic area, that is another thing, but those have been merely asserted, rather than demonstrated. JN466 08:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with stating that you believe in something, as long as you aren't evangelizing. It's his direct involvement as a major player in the movement that presents the COI. If he was no longer a part of that movement any longer, that might ease the COI but his statements that he is still "passionate" about it help reinforce the issue. You're trying to change this issue into something it's not, nobody is attacking anyone for their beliefs. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to Durova's comments below. I assure you it is quite normal for people who espouse a religion – any religion – to feel passionate about it. JN466 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Prem Rawat doesn't espouse any religion, so Terry's religious beliefs are *still* not the issue here. Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with, are the issue here I think. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama said it was Terry's feeling "passionate" about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem. I merely pointed out that passionate feelings are commonplace in the religious domain – people feel passionate about Jesus, Allah, sufis, gurus, scriptures, saints, whatever the case may be. Also, let's remember that the direct managerial involvement, such as people have alleged here, was 10 to 25 years ago. We might agree that "Joe Cardinal" in the Vatican has a COI; but does he still have a COI if he comes to Wikipedia ten years after he last held an official position, just because he still feels passionate about Jesus? I'd tend to say, No. JN466 19:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This argument still isn't about religious beliefs, so I can't agree with your reasoning in pursuing this line of defense. On the one hand, you are trying to link Terry's "belief in Rawat's teaching" with religion, and in the next sentence you dismiss the argument as a simple case of a manager 10-25 years ago. Which discussion do you want to have? Also, as you already know, Terry was running Rawat's 800 hectare conference center (Amaroo) in the 90's, that wasn't 25 years ago. And I have to wonder how do either of these arguments help explain Terry's "Hiding his affiliation and editing a group of articles about someone he's had long relationship with, and pretending not to know about things he was actually involved with" as I asked above? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Atama said it was Terry's feeling 'passionate' about his belief in Rawat's teaching that was the problem." That's just false. I said it was his connection to the organization that was the COI, and I cited the fact that he has drawn attention to the fact that he is still "passionate" about the teachings of the organization to be indicators that the COI isn't just something in the distant past. Please don't try to escalate things here by falsely misrepresenting other editors' comments and trying to derail discussion. Nobody cares about the specifics of Terrymacro's beliefs; heck, I don't even have enough familiarity with "Prem Rawat" to even have an opinion about it. -- Atama^chat 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If a guy had a secular management job in the Vatican ten years ago, and says he believes passionately in Jesus' redemption of mankind, and the power of prayer, then that constitutes a POV, but doesn't in my view constitute a declarable COI for every article on Catholicism. I see the present case as a fairly close analogy. JN466 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If that person had posted links to his biography that said he was a devoted and passionate Catholic, I'd feel the same way. But again, it's not his Catholicism that would be a concern, it would be his connections to the Vatican. The only reason why I feel that Terrymacro's beliefs have anything at all to do with the issue is because I feel it weakens the case that his involvement was in the past and has nothing to do with any bias today. On the other hand, while I do feel that the COI is a concern, I disagree that it's strong enough that he should be banned from working on the articles in question, but just that the COI should be noted and taken into consideration when NPOV is questioned regarding his edits. If he was still director to this day, or was directly involved in another organization with similar affiliations I'd feel more strongly about it. -- Atama^chat 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, does the potential for there having been a close working relationship established in the context of the initial COI, even one established some years ago, with one or more individuals who are currently under Wikipedia sanction, change your perspective of how the COI should be treated ? I'm not sure how, in the light of reticence on the part of those involved, evidence of this can easily be demonstrated, I'm just asking in principle about how such a potential relationship might affect any decision.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, you too had close personal involvement in some of the same matters that Terrymacro was involved in, on the opposite side. JN466 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To answer Nik, I don't believe in guilt-by-association. If there was meatpuppetry involved, where it could be demonstrated that Terrymacro was doing things on behalf of people who were, say, topic-banned, or even getting advice on how to edit, that would be bad. But no, even if Terrymacro had a close relationship with those people years ago that wouldn't be any stronger. That's often one of the problems with establishing a conflict of interest, you either need an admission or a real "gotcha" to establish that there is one. -- Atama^chat 17:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What you have stated there, Atama, is as close to my view as makes no difference. JN466 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, given the findings against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, I request that you not involve yourself further in this dispute. As for Terrymacro, I think either an indefinite block or a topic ban may be required if the editor does not agree to steer clear of areas where they cannot edit neutrally. Have they been notified of this thread? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the Scientology arbcom case has to do with this discussion. As you brought it up, the findings "against me" in that case noted that 17) Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has made many constructive edits in the Scientology topic though this has been offset by edit-warring apparently to advance an agenda. The edit warring concerned the Rick Ross BLP, where I was too eager to retain a mass of sourced material that was unflattering to Mr Ross, a fact I acknowledged in the arbcom case and apologised for. I've been asked to stay away from articles about Mr Ross, which is fine by me, and am free to contribute to the Scientology topic area as before, unlike most other editors who took part in that arbitration – as you know, there were several dozen topic bans.
• However, if you want to bring up arbcom findings, I would have thought the Rawat cases are far more relevant. I have been a named party in both Rawat arbitrations, and am one of the few editors regularly active in that topic area to have been neither admonished or topic-banned in either arbitration, nor blocked under an arbitration remedy. You may contrast that to Will Beback (talk · contribs) and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs), who are the editors asserting that Terrymacro (talk · contribs) has a COI. Both Will and Nik were admonished in the recent case; Will Beback (talk · contribs) has recently been blocked for edit-warring in the Rawat articles (albeit under exceptionally tough revert rules), and Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) has in the past received a one-month topic ban for edit-warring in the Rawat topic area. Perhaps you were not aware of this, but I think this information is rather more relevant.
• Looking at the substantive issues, the editor we are talking about may have operated a conference centre related to the movement.
  • Compare that, say, to the retired manager of a prominent Anglican conference facility who wishes to contribute to articles on the Anglican Church. Does he have a COI, because he ran an Anglican conference centre?
  • How about the retired manager of a Catholic boarding school. Does he have to declare a COI before his first edit to a Catholicism-related article? (I note not even the talk page of Catholic sex abuse cases has posts accusing editors of COI because they are Catholic.)
  • How about a lesbian who formerly ran a prominent lesbian and gay community centre in Los Angeles and wishes to contribute to LGBT articles. Does she have to declare a COI before her first edit to the LGBT topic area? While all straight people wishing to contribute to LGBT articles obviously don't have a COI, because they represent the majority?
• If you'd say that none of these editors has to declare a COI before editing Wikipedia, then what exactly is different about a former functionary in Rawat's movement? Where do you draw the line – Mormons are okay, but Jehovah's Witnesses aren't? What's the criterion? Whether Jehochman likes the group? The size of the faith group? The visibility of the position the person held? Or would you say that all ex-functionaries of mainstream movements do have a COI? Have there been precedents? Because whether you like it or not, we are very close to religious discrimination when we treat editors differently depending on their religious affiliation, seeing things as a COI for adherents of a minority group, yet treating them as editors' private affair when the faith group is more mainstream. WP:NPA tells us to treat mainstream and non-mainstream affiliations the same. As the blogger quoted in the above LA Times article asked, "Why let Christians edit articles on Christianity?"
• The criterion here should be evidence which demonstrates that this editor has edited non-neutrally, promotionally, clearly putting outside interests above the interest of the project. Yet you are prepared to dish out an indefinite block or topic ban simply based on religious affiliation and the assertion of non-neutral editing by editors who themselves have been reprimanded for their conduct in the relevant arbcom cases (not to mention that one of them has had off-site disputes with this faith group).
• To answer your question, Terrymacro was notified of this thread by Will. Regards, JN466 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • To comment in general terms upon the most pertinent issue Jayen raises, yes I support handling COI issues that pertain to religions the same basis for all religions. Jayen seems to imply that new religions are being singled out. Mere adherence to a religion does not constitute conflict of interest. For example, the Joan of Arc vandal was banned for socking, disruption, misuse of sources, etc. but not for conflict of interest--since there was no evidence that he had any official connection to the organizational structure of the faith whose POV he was pushing. Durova²⁷³ 21:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Adding a quick thought here, though. Occasionally the argument does come up in discussion that strong belief in something itself constitutes a conflict of interest. I regard that as a misreading of the distinction between POV and COI, and in my observation that occasional mistake has crossed a broad number of subjects; it doesn't seem to divide down the line that Jayen draws. Although if that did indeed happen, such a thing would be problematic. Durova²⁷³ 21:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I think you're making a nice distinction that it would be well worth keeping in mind. I argued the way I did here because I just cannot imagine indef blocks and topic bans being suggested, absent any examination of editing behaviour, because someone ran an Anglican conference centre ten years ago. JN466 22:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In 2006 the site did ban an evangelical Christian who was trying to build a ministry through Wikipedia, and in 2007 the WikiScanner detected edits coming from the Vatican. The latter made news at that time, although I'm not aware of an continued problem in that regard. If evidence arose to that effect I'd pursue it. Yet within a discussion of conflict of interest, religion is only one minor specific case. Suppose a former executive of the mining industry were discovered to have been deprecating mention of adverse environmental and health effects of mining? Conflict of interest is the guideline over which Wikipedians have the least control: often, editors allow themselves to suppose that a nuance in the guideline wording or a local discussion can settle the matter. Really it's a real world concept. Durova²⁷³ 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• There is a world of difference between a run-of-the-mill follower of an huge and old religion and a high official in a small new religious movement. It is an incorrect analogy to say that Christians don't have a COI when editing articles concerning their church. "Joe Parishioner" may not have such a conflict, but "Cardinal Joe" would. Likewise, a low-level employee in a company may not have a conflict, but a senior executive almost certainly would. Further, Terrymacro hasn't confined himself to issues where his conflicts are minimal - he interjected himself in a discussion over the reliability of an affidavit concerning the exact organization that he helped lead and which involved people he knew very well. Did he reveal any of those connections? No, he presented himself as an uninvolved and impartial editor. That kind of deception is just what this guideline is meant to prevent. An even more general principle is that advocacy is not allowed. The editor has written in his current biography that his greatest passion is his devotion to the teachings of Prem Rawat. That's a wonderful thing for him, but that is not a suitable frame of mind for someone to make neutral edits to that topic in an encyclopedia.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points that may have been overlooked:

• Terry Macro recently proposed a new, neutral lede for the PR article which contained criticism of Rawat. [[7]] This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.
• With all due respect to Will Beback, I don't think he is the best person to comment on another editor's frame of mind. I have worked on two Rawat articles so far. It has been difficult in both cases due to what I consider to be Will's anti-Rawat POV pushing. The most recent violations of edit restrictions were the result of an edit to the lede by Will. See discussion of edit here [[8]]. --Zanthorp (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Zanthorp, according to whom is Terrymacro's proposal neutral? To my view it is not neutral at all. If you would like to address my POV, then I suggest starting a new thread.   Will Beback  talk  02:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Address your POV in a new thread? That's certainly an option. Generally I think its better to try to work in a cooperative, rather than an adversarial way. Maybe I'm being naive. --Zanthorp (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This brief comment is to acknowledge that I am fully aware of the COI against me, and I have read all the above arguments for and against. I will be responding to the above ASAP. Terry Macro (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen also neglects to mention that there are more than 2 editors that feel TerryMacro has a confict of interest here. I have also commented about it on Terry's talkpage. I also find it more than a little too convenient that TerryMacro removed all the links from his talk page that linked him to Prem Rawat *3* minutes before editing on the Prem Rawat articles[9][10]. That may not prove a COI, but it sure as heck doesn't smack of a lot of honesty either... In my country, our politicians have a saying, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck"...quack quack. :-) His blatant, and honestly, hard to believe, interpretation of the COI page here (which I corrected here) as well as his attitude after multiple editors have discussed the situation with him here would seem to indicate that he is not willing to do anything about this himself as he sees no COI. Regarding Zanthorp's claim that Terry created a neutral lede, 2 of eight editors thought so if you read the talk page here, coincidentally I'm sure, they were TerryMacro and Zanthorp.-- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not 8 editors, only 5, and the main issues discussed were chronology and Nik's point about the accuracy of sources. Please get your facts straight. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad math, there were at *least* 8 active editors on the talk page around the time this came up, 2 (you and Terry) liked it. Even if you were correct (which again, you aren't), 2 out of 5 does not make for evidence of your statement that "This does suggest that he is able to edit neutrally.". Please try not to muddy the waters further with claims that it's now about chronology. That's not what we are discussing here and please get your facts straight. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good math. 5 editors were involved in that particular discussion, and the main issues discussed were chronology and accuracy of sources. Those are the facts. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I say "Bad math" again, does that make me right? As I said in my previous edit summary, anyone who cares to, can go to the talk page and look at the history and count all the active editors around the time that "neutral" lede (the one before Terry edited out the worst parts) was written and see that other editors (oh, I dunno...say *8*!) were active on the page at that time. Absence of an opinion in that particular section cannot not be construed here as an agreement that his lede was neutral, they may simply have agreed with the ones that did respond, and since it was clear that this lede was not very good, chose not to beat a dead horse. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik Wright2 mentions below how TPRF was the ultimate owner of the conference facility of which Terrymacro was director. One of the principle changes that Terrymacro proposed to the "neutral lede" was to expand the material devoted to TPRF, adding that it was established as "a vehicle for humanitarian work and to spread his message." This organization is very obscure compared to the DLM or EV, yet he was seeking to expand the space devoted to it. His proposed text does not, in itself, show that he can edit neutrally on this topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The TPRF addition to the lede you are referring to was merely a condensed version of a passage from 1983-2000 section of the article. Your objection noted. Leave it in or leave it out; it isn't a major issue, and somewhat off topic here anyway. The point being overlooked is that his suggested edit included unaltered criticism of Rawat. --Zanthorp (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the original lede proposed by Terry, I see lots of promotional material including a plug for TPRF. Where is this "unaltered criticism" that you refer to? The last sentence, which has been in the lede for over a year, and wasn't even part of the paragraph we were working on? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the last sentence of Terry's proposal was unaltered criticism of Rawat. You have restated my point. But, you comment, "lots of promotional material" is totally misleading. I think this discussion may be reaching the point of incivility. Lets not continue it. --Zanthorp (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagee, and stand by my statement that the original "neutral lede" of Terry's contains lots of promotional material (did you even bother to re-read it?!). Is it the idea of someone disagreeing with you that you find incivil? Or something else? Either way, I suspect that if you were to stop inflating your arguments so that they seem to be convincing, it's likely I would stop responding to your misrepresentations, and we wouldn't have to continue it. I guess it's up to you. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Facts Relevant to the Case in Question (Divine Light Mission and Associated pages)

Concern with broader problems of COI policy is obfuscating the issues as they relate to Terrymacro as an editor of Wikipedia . The key facts are:

• 1. The focus of the question of COI is the article Divine Light Mission, and from that article Prem Rawat and other related articles in which Divine Light Mission is an integral part.

• 2. Divine Light Mission is not a single entity but the name given to a number of nationally discrete entities. In the US, the organisation (now renamed Elan Vital) is a non profit Corporation, recognised by the IRS as operating as a Church; however there are ample sources reporting representatives of Elan Vital/DLM stating that:it is not a religion.

• 3. In Australia the Divine Light Mission (now also renamed Elan Vital) was created as a membership Association with corporate status, it does not claim religious status.

• 4.The editor Terrymacro has held the position of Director (i.e a publicly and legally accountable person) of a Corporation owned by the Australian Elan Vital/DLM. Terrymacro has made various contributions on the talk pages of the DLM and Prem Rawat articles about the history of the DLM, even claiming that it was a defunct organisation.

• 5. The Corporation of which Terrymacro was a director, operates a Conference Centre, which has been developed at the cost of several tens of millions of dollars, on land, stated by that Corporation’s ultimate owner, to be vested with The Prem Rawat Foundation. TPRF has provided support funding for, and has personnel links with the publisher of a controversial source which Terrymacro has recommended as a reference for articles about Prem Rawat.

• Conclusion: there is no obvious issue of religious freedom or entitlement in this case. The matter hangs on the public and legal position held by an individual who edits Wikipedia. Whether the relevance of that position is rendered void by the passage of time is a question to be answered. Additionally, as Terrymacro, in attempts to influence article content, has made some dubious claims about the organisation in question, it might be thought appropriate to at least request clarification from him over any continued association with connected Corporations, their officers and others active in the promotion of those Corporations or of Prem Rawat. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether Rawatism is a religion or not. As you know, it is generally classified as a religious movement in reliable sources: [11], etc. There are multiple reliable sources backing up Terrymacro's assertion that the DLM is "defunct": [12][13] I'd be prepared to concede that Terrymacro would have a COI with regard to the conference centre he once managed, but am not convinced that it should go further than that. JN466 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not seriously suggesting that arguing 'sources' is a basis for sorting out a COI ? The fact that 'some' individuals have classified Rawatism a religion, doesn't make it a religion. In this case, is Terrymacro saying his connection to the Ivory's Rock Conference Centre is a religious affiliation, or that Prem Rawat is a religious leader ? The issue is simply one of Corporate record - the Colorado SoS Business listings [14] and the Australian SEC [15]listings provide definitive documentation that the US and Australian Divine Light Missions are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1976, in both cases under the name Elan Vital. It doesn't matter how many incompetant or lazy Sociologists of Religion that you quote to the contrary - those Sociologists are wrong and the Colorado SoS and Australian SEC, are right. Quite honestly Jayen I think you've tried to hijack this issue for some other agenda, and what you are prepared to concede is irrelevant. The question is whether Wikipedia is going to allow itself to be used by sectional interests or whether COIs are going to be properly challenged.--Nik Wright2 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nik, as you know, there is exceptionally broad agreement in reliable secondary sources that Rawat led a religious movement. Anything else, even if a DLM spokesman said it, is a fringe view (actually, what the spokesman said was that it was a "church" rather than a "religion"). Your original analysis of two primary sources – one the DLM's articles of incorporation in the United States from 1971, and the other an Australian name change document – concluding that the DLM in the US and Australia "are still functioning as they were created in 1971 and 1978" is contradicted by the entire literature on the topic, which see the "DLM" and "Elan Vital" stages of the movement as distinct, not least because Elan Vital only had a fraction of the staff that the old DLM had, closed all the ashrams where followers lived communally in the DLM days, dispensed with the explicitly Indian religious trappings that marked the DLM stage, etc. Will explained the problems with primary source analysis to you here. JN466 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that the DLM and EV are the same legally entity (at least in the US and Australia), and regardless of the fact that many sources treat them as separate entities, there are also numerous sources that treat them as part of the larger Rawat movement, which has contained many subentities and businesses. The editor has held seniotr positions in two of those entities, was an early follower in what was a fairly small religious movement, and has been a follower for at least 34 out of the 38 years that the "new" movement has had a presence outside of India, and still professes that it is his great passion. Those factors combine to paint a picture of someone who is deeply involved and committed, both officially and personally. Since Jayen also opined on the affidavit matter, I'd like to hear how he thinks that it's OK for someone intimately involved in the background of the dispute to comment on it without making any disclosure.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay to be committed to a religious path and contribute to WP, isn't it?

Having said that, I agree with you, after rereading the affidavit, that Terrymacro may have been intimately involved with its background. The affidavit related to a lawsuit which the conference centre was a party to. I have already conceded that Terrymacro would likely have a COI for any matters related to that specific centre.

Terrymacro's responses at the RS/N thread are here: [16][17] He didn't actually say much beyond reiterating WP policy, and asking editors to look at the affidavit in light of that policy. It should also be noted that at the time, he had made less than 350 edits to WP. Wikipedia always encourages new editors to be "bold"; I think we do not do enough to warn new editors that their "bold" actions may be brought up as evidence against them years later.

As for the significance of the affidavit, I believe the situation can be summarised as follows: an ex-follower had written a very negative article about Rawat in an Australian weekend magazine, which included a number of exceptional claims. He was sued and by his own account lost several court battles related to the article, some of which the Australian conference centre was a party to. [18] He subsequently stated in the affidavit that his article had been designed to defame Rawat, that he had been encouraged to make it as negative as possible (by a group of people that includes active WP editors), and that he had taken liberties with the truth in it.

To my mind that history cast doubt on the article's status as a reliable source for a BLP. If an author expressly recants, and loses court cases, it is not a good sign, and certainly disqualifies such an article as a source for exceptional BLP claims. Repeating its allegations would expose Wikipedia to the same legal risks that the author suffered. That is all the significance I accord that affidavit; being an affidavit not referred to in secondary sources (as far as I know), it is not itself a reliable source for statements about third parties and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia articles. JN466 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Jayen, it's important that you get your facts straight. The author of that article was not sued because of any of the content of the article. The legal action was completely unrelated to the article he wrote. Furthermore, the publisher of the article was never sued by Prem Rawat or his organizations, nor was the author or any of the sources for the article sued, myself included. The publisher of the article never retracted one word of that article and it stands as a published piece today in a reliable source. Moreover, the link that you provided has already been deemed long ago to not be a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia because it is a discussion forum. Your comments above are far afield of the subject of Terry's COI. The whole point of any COI is disclosure by a party (or lack thereof in Terry's case) by a person of their conflict of interest on a given subject matter. It's really quite a simple ethical concept. Sylviecyn (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and the acknowledgement that Terrymcro has a COI regarding he conference center where he was a director, and that he violated that COI when he commented in regard to the affidavit. (I don't think the affidavit and the magazine article are otherwise relevant to this discussion, beyond the fact that Terrymacro has had a close, and undisclosed assoication with the author.) Why does he not have a COI in regard to the owner of the conference facility, TPRF? Why does he not have a COI in regard to the organization for which he was National Finance Director, the #2 official? As far as the issue of religion goes, do you acknowledge that there is a difference between a Christian today, one who holds no position of authority in his church, and either an early disciple, like Saint Peter, or a senior official, like a top ranking cardinal?   Will Beback  talk  00:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pleasure. I have commented elsewhere in this thread today, taking my cue from your "Joe Cardinal" example, that the closest analogy I can think of would be someone who held a job in the Vatican ten years ago, and remains a passionate Christian today. Note that quite apart from people who held a church position ten years ago, we have even active vicars in Wikipedia working on articles about bishops, archbishops, church history etc., without accusations of COI arising ipso facto. Yes, they too would have a declarable COI if they write or comment about their own church where they are the vicar, but not if they write about the archbishop of Canterbury or the Queen, even though they're organisationally linked to them. JN466 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If I saw an entry on this noticeboard about a church official writing about their church then I'd be concerned. In this instance, Terrymacro has worked on the article about the organization in which he was the second ranked official in Australia, the Divine Light Mission. As for the other analogy, wouldn't you consider Saint Peter, were he alive, to have a conflict if writing about Jesus Christ? He was a senior follower, there almost from the beginning. That type of situation is covered in WP:COI#Close relationships.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, how do we know that we have vicars editing actively? Is it because they disclosed it? that's part of what this is about, making a reasonable disclosure, as called for by the guidelines, so that a user's contributions and input can be judged in light of their COI.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry is Terry, not St. Peter; Nik is Nik, not Judas. Let's note that with these proceedings, reasonable disclosures have been made. I hope and trust they are as complete as they should be. Perhaps we can leave it at that and move on? JN466 12:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that reasonable disclosures have been made. A new editor, seeing a posting or edit, should be able to find out that Terrymacro is not an uninvolved or impartial observer. This page will be archived before long and then it would take concerted sleuthig to find. At the moment, there is no disclosure on Terry's page or on the talk pages he's been contributing to that indicate his depth of involvement or POV. If he'd simply add a line like, "I've been practicing Knowledge for over 30 years and served the movement in various capacities", or something similar, that would go a long ways towards resolving this. The guideline links to this disclosure as an example.   Will Beback  talk  20:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Allegation of Probable COI by User:Terrymacro Part A

Will Beback alleges two probable COI, one pertaining to the Astrological Ages, the other involving Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. Though most attention is directed at my involvement in the latter two topics I am first addressing the alleged COI involving the Astrological Ages otherwise it may be used to support by insinuation the alleged COI on the Prem Rawat and Divine Light Mission topics. I have a long term passion for the astrological ages, and I am very knowledgeable in the topic. I initially became a Wiki editor for the purposes of assisting in editing of this topic as part of the Wikipedia astrology project. Before I learnt the rules of Wiki extensively, I was made aware that the main aim was producing material with a NPOV. I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI, as initially there are far too many rules to take them all in and I never discovered the WP:COI section as a new editor. Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge when I was a new Wiki editor, the material I produced was a NPOV and any semi alert editor on these topics would have readily seen my strong association with the topic.

For the whole of the period March 2008 to May 2009 my user page clearly indicated my association with the subject. Nearly all of my significant edits occurred in 2008 up until August when any other editor wishing to contest my edits could easily see my historical associations with the subject. However I worked in a non-combative and collegial fashion as, at the time, I believed this to be the spirit of Wikipedia editing. I had advised Wikiproject astrology on 20 March 2009 about what I was doing in the topics, and my user page clearly showed my association with the subject matter. There was no excessive self-citation. Any content included that involved me was notable. No peer in Wikipedia astrology group has objected to the content and I entered the following information on the Wikiproject astrology page: “My research speciality is the astrological ages and I am widely published on the subject. I also interface with acheoastronomers on the subject.”

In retrospect I probably should have made some appropriate statements on the Talk page but I was unaware of this at the time being a new editor. During and after the period of my most intensive editing, a wide range of editors have also edited the page without edit wars and it was not until Will Beback followed me to this topic that the editorial disagreement intensity has significantly increased. This followed an edit I made on the Prem Rawat topic that was obviously not to Will Beback’s liking.

It is also worth noting as a side issue that Will Beback also followed me to another topic, the Age of Aquarius, and deleted on July 1 2009 a section detailing my published views on the Age of Aquarius. Matching various astrologers in the same section with Age of Aquarius in Google results in an average number of hits to me compared to the other astrologers included in this section. That topic no longer provides the former comprehensive divergent viewpoints on the Age of Aquarius and is missing the inclusion of one notable astrologer in the field. Wikipedia will be less due to this.

The only consequence of my editing of the astrological ages (and Age of Aquarius) is that the articles are far superior. Though I was unaware of the details of WP:COI in early 2008, in retrospect I did not contravene the following "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged.”

In conclusion, I don’t believe that the allegation of probable COI made against me in relation to the Astrological Ages topic is anything other than the side result of long term editorial disagreements on the Prem Rawat, Divine Light Mission and related topics. It seems that these editorial wars are common in many Wikipedia topics but I did not experience this at the Astrological ages and Age of Aquarius topics until very recently. I think my record at the Astrological Ages (and Age of Aquarius) topics demonstrate that in circumstances where I could have easily abused the situation and produced biased and weighted articles involving self-promotion, that instead I produced balanced, NPOV and far more explanatory material compared to what existed previously. Terry Macro (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Post script: I have been extensively referring to Wiki for a long term project I am engaged in. I have noticed that many topics are edited by people with a high calibre of knowledge in the topic. I have not done any research to ascertain if these same editors bring a POV, but as an educated guess, I am sure that this is often the case. I have brought a POV to the Astrological Ages and Age of Aquarius and other related sites. My extensive and long term study of the subject matters means that I have a high calibre of knowledge on these subjects. Though I have a POV I know how to present any material associated with my POV in a NPOV way as I am very knowledgeable on all aspects of these topics and have a mature understanding of the situation. In my experience, Wiki depends to a great extent on editors like me that have a high level of knowledge on the subject matter. The fact that I have probably been stalked, hounded and outed by a Will Beback does not inspire me to waste my time in ensuring that the Astrological ages, Age of Aquarius and related topics maintain their high level of integrity and continue to improve. Already the Age of Aquarius topic is reverting to the gibberish which I saved it from over a year ago.
  

It is unlikely that Wikipedia will get another editor with my calibre of knowledge on the subject matter in the Astrological Ages area. Why would someone like me put up with the gross immaturity clearly demonstrated by Will Beback? Just because Will Beback cannot get his own editorial view on the PR, DLM and related sites using legitimate Wiki methods, he abuses his impressive and high knowledge of Wiki rules and guidelines, and hiding behind these he engages in intimidating, bullying and harassing behaviour to further his own prejudicial ends. If Wiki is to be taken over by legalistic editors of Will Beback’s style at the expense of editors that have extensive knowledge of the subject matter, then Wiki can only suffer as a result.

Will Beback’s behavior towards me discredits Wikipedia. He did not come to the astrology topics I focus upon to aid or assist me, but to plainly attack me. However I am sure that over a period of time Wikipedia will evolve approaches to deal with such abuse as I am sure it cannot afford to have keen, inspired editors that can produce high quality NPOV on mainstream or arcane subjects harassed and hounded out of Wikipedia. I have been informed that I can lodge various complaints but I am neither a legalistic editor, nor do I have the time. I have taken great pleasure in voluntarily helping Wikipedia produce high quality articles in my area of expertise, and I do not blame Wikipedia for Will Beback’s abominable behaviour.
Terry Macro (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• One extra point re the COI leveled against me in relation to the Astrological ages topic. The following is an excerpt from the weekly ezine of the International Society of Astrological Researchers, one of the largest astrological organisations in the world, with its headquarters in the USA. Apart from being emailed to all of its members, it is also accessible by all the members of the UK based Astrologers Association.

ASTROLOGICAL AGES AT WIKIPEDIA from Terry MacKinnell, US (note: The US was a mistake by ISAR) As a member of the Astrology WikiProject team I have been editing the Astrological Ages topic at Wikipedia. …. The Astrological Ages topic was in a bad state. My main task has been removing from the main body of the topic fringe, extremist and oddball ideas and opinions about the ages. To smooth this transition I have created a sub-section called ‘New, Alternative & Fringe Theories' and moved much of the existing content to this sub-section. I have rewritten 80% of the Introduction and Overview but have left the rest much the same except for cleaning up.

I have followed a simple approach to the editing. The bulk of the content is focused upon those ideas of the astrological ages that have consensus in the astrological community (i.e. the ages proceed in retrograde fashion compared to the normal order of the zodiac). Considerable attention is given to majority opinion about aspects of the ages where there is dissension but there is a fairly defined majority opinion on the subject (i.e. most astrologers think that Jesus Christ marks the beginning of the Pisces age). Minority opinions are mentioned lightly as these are generally points of view that are established but only by a minority of researchers (i.e. each astrological age coexists with its opposite sign so that the Aquarian age is actually the Aquarian-Leo age). Nearly everything else gets relegated to the new fringe ideas sections which are basically new or innovative ideas not yet established (i.e. Walter Cruttenden's hypothesis that precession of the equinoxes is not caused by the wobbling earth but by the solar system existing within a binary pair of stars where our own Sun is one of the stars - this has not been added to the topic yet).

The main criteria for adding material to a topic at Wikipedia is that it is backed up with references to published books, articles etc. The inclusion of opinion without reference to a publication in the public domain can be challenged and it will be deleted - this is Wiki policy. There is still a lot of material at the Astrological Ages topic that falls into the area of opinion or speculation without references and will be deleted in the future. There is still a lot of work required at this topic. Apart from requiring more references for the early ages from the Ages of Leo onwards, the topic needs a history section and a sub-period section. If anyone has time to look at this topic at Wikipedia and discovers errors, omissions or you want to make a comment about how to improve the site you can email me …

Ref: ISAR International ezine Volume 485 April 13, 2008

The purpose of including the above extract is to show that whether or not I have transgressed Wiki’s COI guidelines in this instance, I have widely publicized what I was doing both within and without Wikipedia. I did get some input from some astrologers recommending some further inclusions indicating they were knowledgeable of this specialist area. No one complained that I had produced a distorted view of the Astrological ages. I believe firmly that I have produced NPOV for this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrymacro (talk • contribs) 06:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to your blogs and creating an entire section devoted to your ideas was excessive, but the other, smaller mentions you added were less problematic. I think if you just avoid citing yourself in the future then that'll be fine. The notable views of MackInnell are likeliest to be those that are cited in secondary sources. You can post those sources on talk pages with a request that other editors add relevant material. That's a good approach in any COI situation, including Prem Rawat.   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Terry says above that "I was not cognizant at the time of the details of COI,...Though I probably would have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge". But just two days ago Terry said that "In my understanding a COI can only exist when someone is presently on the payroll of an article subject, or presently carries functions in this organisation(s)."[19]. I doubt you were ever on the "Age of Aquarius" payroll, so why would you "have modified my editing approach if I had my current knowledge"?. After editing since March 2008, you still don't seem to understand the COI page. It makes sense that if you don't understand it, you may not realize you are in a COI. I hope this process can shed some light on this situation. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your postscript, Terrymacro, if you edit alongside Will Beback a little longer, you will find that the motives and behaviour you have attributed to him above are not what he is about. I say that as someone who often fails to agree with Will. ;) Assume good faith, and you will not be far off the mark. JN466 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Allegation of Probable COI by User:Terrymacro Part B

In summarizing Will Beback’s argument for my alleged probable COI it appears that according to WB I run foul of three specific areas.
1. I was a former senior official in the PR movement and more recently served as a director of a major facility owned by the movement
2. I have a long time association with the movement
3. I commented upon the validity of a legal affidavit affidavit involving the organizations of which I had been an officer and his colleague

Point 1. – Firstly, does a former official of an entity have a COI when issues related to that entity arise in Wiki? My understanding is that a current official would probably invoke COI, but a former official, and from nine years ago? There was nothing in WP:COI that I could find to support this. Where does Wiki draw the line? Secondly the claim I was a ‘high official’ of the ‘movement’ is WB’s claim. My role in the 90s at a commercial conference centre associated with the movement was finance manager due to my commercial experience. The conference centre was managed independently of Elan Vital (EV) and I played no role in EV whatsoever other than my involvement with the day to day operation of the commercial conference centre. It could certainly be construed I was a ‘high official’ of the conference centre, but I was not a high official of EV in the 90s, and in the movement at large I was at best a ‘functionary’. Furthermore I find it hard to believe that my former role in an out of the way outpost of the movement in the 1970s could evoke a COI thirty years later.

Point 2. – Does a long term association with a movement invoke COI? Does a short term association with outside interests associated with the subject invoke a COI? WP:NPA says that affiliations should not be held up to invalidate another editor's views.

Point 3. - I possibly did contravene COI by commenting on an affidavit involving my former employee. This affidavit is dated 2007, six years after my involvement, and all I did was reiterate WP policy, and asked editors to look at the affidavit in light of that policy. I will leave this point to Wiki officialdom but when I did make the input on the Talk page I was relatively new to Wiki. With my present knowledge in retrospect I probably should have not have made a comment on the affidavit or I should have stated a COI in relation to the document.

In conclusion, my initial major understanding is that underlying much of the Wiki guidelines is the necessity to produce articles with a NPOV. I think I have adequately demonstrated my ability to produce a NPOV at the Astrological ages and Age of Aquarius topics as examples. My last proposal for a NPOV lede to the PR topic included as the last sentence: “Rawat has been criticized for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses[9][17] and for leading an opulent lifestyle.[10][“ I have been accused of only making positive edits for the subject, but I have made so few edits on the PR page, and I don’t believe I have made any edits on the DLM page, that no one could reliably state anything about my pattern of editing on these topics. Terry Macro (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The independence of the Amaroo/IRCC facility from Elan Vital is questionable. This website seems to blur that distinction further.[20] (Note that the site's content is copyrighted "Elan Vital", but the domain is registered to IRCC.[21]) As for Australia being an "out-of-the-way outpost", due to the IRCC facility that continent has become a center of movement conventions. Regarding this project, at least three, and perhaps four, of the editors on the Prem Rawat topic over the last year have been followers from Australia, at least two of whom were close associates in the movement. Two of those editors have been topic banned in part due to their combativeness. So geographic isolation does not improve editorial neutrality. Terrymacro's work on astrology, which has involved adding a long reference to his own work which he described as "innovative", is not a good example of NPOV editing. Again, there is more than enough evidence that Terry has had substantial, longterm involvement with the topic, and that it is a topic he feels very strongly about, to show that a COI exists. The guideline itself shows how to deal with such a COI and how to avoid problems. Does anyone see a reason why Terrymacro shouldn't follow that guideline and its common-sense suggestions like disclosing ones COI?   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we shouldn't ask the various ex-premies to have such COI statements on their user pages as well then, just to level the playing field. Some of them are former functionaries too, with similar personal involvement.

Long-term, I have my doubts that the topic area will ever be peaceful, as long as both premies and ex-premies go at it. I recall that the arbcom's Scientology decision topic-banned the most POV-driven people on both sides of the dispute. That topic area has become a lot more civilised since. JN466 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that everyone who has held a position of authority in the movment, regardless of their current views pro or con, should disclose their involvement. I am concerned that new users are appearing who may be making further efforts to conceal their COI, including denying any involvement in the movement whatsoever. This topic has seen too much of that kind of behavior already.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal that Will makes seems eminently sensible. Could this requirement be included on article talk pages ? I have made a COI statement on my talk page and addressed some points raised by Jayen on the page. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also made a COI and disclosure statement on my talk page. Please note that I don't have any intention of making regular contributions to the Rawat talk pages (I don't edit the main article spaces) but I think that it's reasonable to expect editors to make disclosures about their past and/or current employment with organizations that support Prem Rawat. Sylviecyn (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made a COI or disclosure statement as I'd never heard of Prem Rawat until last year or had any interest in religous movements. However, in the spirit of openness I have expanded my user page to provide some background to my involvement in this topic. --Savlonn (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It does not really matter if Will says that "everyone who has held a position of authority in the movement, regardless of their current views pro or con, should disclose their involvement" as this is not Wiki policy - and i seriously doubt that Wiki would even consider going down that path as it will create a nightmare for Wiki. Rules are like laws, every new law increases the number of criminals, every new rule increases the number of rule-breakers and possible conflicts. I am sure Wiki has no plans of going down the path of conflict escalation. Will's proposal, as usual, is biased in favour of Will's position. Because Will and some other editors represent, one way or another, formally or informally, the interest of outside groups, associations or whatever opposed to the subject, you can bypass the need for any disclosure because opposition group(s) to the subject are in general informal and probably don't have officials of any kind, which does not make its adherents and sympathisers any less passionate than supporters of the subject. Wiki will never be able to prevent people coming to Wiki with a POV and this does not appear to be Wiki policy unless its a clear violation of COI with someone employed by the subject as part of the subjects PR department or significant capacity etc etc. The only problem with a POV is if it undermines Wiki's requirement for a NPOV. The necessary end result needs to be a NPOV for the success of Wiki. From what I understand, contentious disagreements between opposing blocs or opposing points of view about the subject matter are very common in Wiki. If any new rules are made, it would have to address this polarisation, but I am sure Wiki is not interested in increasing the number of rules. What I think is necessary is promoting the spirit of Wiki. The goal of producing high quality NPOV articles that reflect positively upon Wiki in the wider community must be the primary goal - not the production of biased or weighted articles representing the interest of outside interests, whatever shape or form these outside interests may take, or whether these outside interests align with or oppose the subject. It is the Wiki spirit or ethos to produce NPOV articles that is the most important point. I believe I have captured this spirit of Wiki in my editing of the astrology topics referred to in the COI, and I have every intention of the same in the PR, DLM and associated topics. I am looking forward to the results of the COI, which I will accept either way, as I support the Wiki spirit, ethos and process. Terry Macro (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Talpert2

• Terri Alpert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - created by User:Talpert2 notability is not in question but the whole tone of the article is promotional and lacking in encyclopaedic tone...could someone advise how to proceed? Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was just coming over here to report this article and see you beat me to it, George. "Strong advocate", "mentor", etc. is probably the wrong tone. This autobiography, one sentence in Hidden Lake (Connecticut), and the article about her company, Zeo, are the only articles she's edited. But I declined the G11 speedy deletion because there's enough to work with here that we shouldn't have to dump the article and start over. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Peeball

Resolved

 – User blocked. Articles may require de-COIing. – ukexpat (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See also Herculous (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peeball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the account of a UK brand consultancy (Sweetapple) and used to further the publicity aims of its owners, Elaine and Matthew Sweetapple. The name itself is the name of a product that they're flogging. Some of the ventures include:

• Sweetapple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The consultancy itself.
• Rockford's Rock Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - co-written by Matthew Sweetapple. Has added references to this in unrelated articles such as Passenger Pigeon and Great Auk
• Lauren Luke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Made a few edits here, but it's unclear whether she's a client or they're just interested.

Ventures flogged on their user page but not, so far, done up as articles include:

• DogMob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• GiveSure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -

Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Page re-created at User:Creationist32. Should I be filing a WP:SPI report for completeness' sake? --Calton | Talk 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to suspect that would be a sock of one or more of the banned users. -- Atama^chat 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:NitroMan3941

Resolved

 – This is not a COI issue Smartse (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Meet the Deedles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The Meet the Deedles article was hit with what appeared to be a rash of vandalism a while ago. I was unable to revert it due to my lack of familiarity with the film, but I felt it was clearly both inaccurate and unencyclopedic. I checked back later to find that User:NitroMan3941 had cleaned up the article well, but left much of what I considered to be clear vandalism. Accidentally conflating him with the original vandal, and noting some other suspect edits he had made, I called him out in a heavy-handed way, which I have attempted to apologize for after realizing he was not the original vandal. Since then, and despite mediation by User:Fleetflame, he has been volatile and offensive to myself and other editors. I have attempted to engage the user in discussion, but he seems too offended to deal with me. Finally, I did a heavy revert on the article, citing sources, which he completely replaced today with his original text, removed my sources, and backed up his edit with two low-quality sources (one is a humor site and the other is a comment on an entertainment website, both seem to be based not on fact but on the original vandalism present in this very article.) He has blanked his user talk page. I do not feel. User:Jeff_G. seems to have become disgusted and nominated the article for deletion, but I feel, prior to Nitroman's reverting my edits, the article was sufficiently sourced and accurate. Dabizi (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As always Dabizi is being not being 100% accurate. I was working with Fleetflame but he seemingly lost interest. Also, he's being somewhat nosey, as it shouldn't make much difference to him if i delete old content on my talk page, considering he had no ongoing topic with me. NitroMan3941 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a conflict of interest? This seems to be a content dispute rather than a COI issue. Users can delete content on their talk page if they like too. Smartse (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I call conflict of interest because, after my initial heavy-handedness, User:NitroMan3941 has taken a personal adversarial role against me and my edits. This is documented on the Deedles talk page, on my user talk page, and on his talk page. I understand that there is no problem with blanking one's talk page; I made mention so our interactions there would not be overlooked. I've attempted to make edits and engage NitroMan in discussion to better the article together, but have found it to be fruitless. For instance, I asked him to cite sources, and he initially refused, later explaining, "I didn't want to deal with you on the sources because i think you're just looking for something to complain about because you're bored." On my User Talk page, he has bragged "I didn't even read most of what you sent me." and "I'm only rude when I see fit." Lastly, when I explained why my sources would be valid (TV Guide and Variety) and his would not, I was told to "Stop repeating myself for the sake of impressing other users." I have not been allowed to make an accepted point, let alone a valid edit, because of NitroMan's well-documented animosity to me. On the other hand, since my initial mistake, I have attempted to be civil and straightforward with him this whole process. Dabizi (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest applies to articles, not interaction with other editors. If NitroMan3941 were, say, the director of "Meet the Deedles" or a member of a PR firm trying to promote the picture company responsible for it, those would be conflicts of interest because it would be difficult for him to remain objective and to keep a neutral point of view in editing the article even if he tried. What you have is a personal conflict with another editor, and only in your interactions with him rather than a content dispute over what goes into an article. I suggest reporting him to theWikiquette alerts noticeboard. Just an FYI, it does appear to me that NitroMan3941 has repeatedly reverted the Meet the Deedles page back to one that includes vandalism, unnecessary plot detail, POV/opinion and removed references (even the references section!) and I've restored back to the "fixed" version and will be watching the page. If he continues with the disruptive editing, I'll get personally involved. Oh, another note, a user can blank his talk page if he wishes, it's not uncommon to do so although some might consider it rude and would prefer that a person archive old content instead of deleting it. It doesn't really matter because the history of that talk page is still available for anyone to view. -- Atama^chat 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, you won't have the chance to get involved, Atama. Maybe now Dabizi will rest and not follow me around observing my edits like he's threatend to. I don't consider myself a vandal, i just tried to improve the page just like the many other pages i've contributed to. A banned user called Freedom Fighter did vandalize it though. In regards to rudeness and so fourth, thats because a few users, including one who hasn't even been here as long me sent me generic welcome templates eather than telling me what their problem was, so i did get rude. As for Dabizi, i told him i didn't read most of what he wrote because most of it was taken from a template aswell, and i only read his own original text. and yes, it doesn't really matter because the history of my talk page is still available for anyone to view if they don't have anything better to do.NitroMan3941 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the mistake, thank you for the clarification on all counts Atama. I remain frustrated with NitroMan, but Unless you recommended otherwise, I do not currently plan to escalate the issue to Wikiquette Alerts. Dabizi (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alerts for what? I'm allowed to defend myself if another editor is persecuting me and analyzing everything i do such as blanking my talk page. NitroMan3941 (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it, Dabizi, I'd let it go. I'm not an administrator, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I personally wouldn't bring up a complaint in a two-sided dispute unless (A) I felt the other person had really gone over the line at some point, or (B) I was absolutely confident that my own conduct was irreproachable. I've seen many times when one editor complains about another and both of them get blocked/sanctioned, so you have to wonder if it's worth it. I'm not making a judgement on either of you, just to let you know. -- Atama^chat 17:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Maulya (moved from UAA)

• Maulya (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) - username itself is fine but it is used for promotion and the "We" indicates that this is purely for spam purposes. -WarthogDemon 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the username is not the problem, this isn't a UAA issue. Moved to COIN. rspεεr (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you be specific about the particular COI here? I can tell that the editor created a page called "Maulya", which was deleted, but I don't see any other edits they have done to articles that haven't been deleted. -- Atama^chat 22:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cityzen451

• Cityzen451 (talk · contribs)
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dyslexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Premature and pointless Request for Arbitration that needs nipping in the bud. User Cityzen451 wants inclusion of a book - A Memory Therapy ... by James Rowan - and is disputing the removal. Googling, or internal search of the Amazon.com preview for "Cityzen451", strongly suggests a COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have read the comments from this editor and under the circumstances, and given that the issue is not of having the links removed, but of having may entire contributions for various articles i contributed to last year deleted in reaction to my having contributed to these articles in which they are editors.

And the editor is attempting to state COI based in the fact that I left a review of the book?

A conflict of interst does not disbar a contribution only that caution and close consultation is required. I would like to reposted the links removing the link to Amazon and using the reference to the ISBN number. I would also suggest that simply inviting me to discuss the issue with encouragement and without an overuse of shorthand would be far more constructive and less of a waste of people's time and effort.

Nor does noteablity when it is dependant on the contect of the contribution, such as wider reading and perspective, in the case of the book I proposed it was a specifically good example of an implementation working from the phological interpretation of Dyslexia, and was a good source for further reading in that area.

I also mentioned that there should be a further reading section in the article and that its purpose is to give a wider perspective of interpretation, moreover the variety of unverified therapies due to parents seeking them out due to the lack of progress in this area, makes it a very pertinant issue that should be covered in the article.

Respectfully I would like to work with the editors, and it would be far easier if they were more encouraging and welcoming

Cityzen451 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be willing to answer a few simple questions to clarify this situation? Are you the author of this book? What (if any) association do you have with the website Cityzen451.co.uk? - MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about the book but going off on one and deleting entries inappropriately out of apparent maliciousness.

No I am not the author of the book, and that is not the issue of this arbitration. My issue is you have deleted any contribution I have made to Wikipedia and deleted a host of links (few of them mine) in the mouse gesture article, which in the context of computing were very necessary to opensources listing and software clasess and plug-ins, not even related to my contribution, which is vandalism because you clearly know nothing about computing, hence the necessity of consulting others. I have checked your talk page and you are constanly contacted for doing this very thing, it is disruptive

I originally added to the Mouse gesture article and yes I am associated with it, and my submission was monitored. Further to your complaints I removed mention of the software, however you have return and deleted all my contribution, for example to the sections on pop up notifications, which was a crucial part of the article. Can you explain why you did this? You cant just go on a witch hunt and remove everything without any consideration, spoiling other peoples contributions. Not just my contribution, since a lot of editors of that section spent time preparing links to classes and software, which you have deleted. Software is on the whole commercial, and so the issue falls to notability, in the case of mouse gesture interaction it is niche, the issue of notability is small, the devil is in the detail, context. That why they are guidelines!

I will also note that the book references in the ADHD article have links to google, so your going into all my contributions and deleting them was more probably guided by malice, because you failed to ensure that the rest of the article fitted your interpretation of the guidlines. Or is this comment misguided in anyway.

Cityzen451 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link directory, which I believe I've already mentioned on your talk page. If you believe other links are inappropriate, please remove them or raise them for discussion on the articles talk page, but the inclusion of one link is not reason to include another - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watermark charm interaction Cityzen451 self-disclosed as the owner of Cityzen451.co.uk. And this is not about a review of the book, but the same web address appearing in the author biosquib. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Err that is a bit of a leap! And there were better ways to address it. And that is the crux of the problem here. I support the book and have previously linked to the book in my own websites, and as an outsider one of my domains was used to host information about the book on a site, that is not a conflict of interest, just interest, as contributing to a WIKI is the same. I am dyslexic and have tried the therapy and for me it worked, that simple. You cannot disbar a book because it is simply on-demand, a reference to a book is simply a reference to an article, and notability is with respect to the context with which it is referred to. I think you are referring to the fact that I added pictures to the Amazon site which anyone is entitled to do. Yes I am particular to the book but conflict of interest is not a rule it is a guideline. My beef is the way conclusions have been jumped to and all work has been removed and the antagonism. Not just me but MrOllie has removed the work and contributions of others in a clumbsy attempt to resolve the matter in a way he saw fit. First of it was attempts to disuade me from raising an arbitration, now it is personal attacks on side issues to try and assasinate my character.

The issue is not about the book, my actions were to add a further reading section to the Dyslexia article, I added some references to seed the contribution (that being the idea of a wiki), which it needs, my view is the article is biased to Scientific notability, which is not neutral, a wider perspective is required and provided they are in context and indicated as unverified that is acceptable and requirewd. I dont like the Davis book however it is significantly notable due to popularity. I added the book to the ADHD section for the same reasons, with a view to returning to do the same.

Cityzen451 (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

May I enquire about the way this arbitration has been structured the title has been changed to Cityzen451! implying i am the problem, is this impartial? The objection to the arbitration is but before the description! And my comments have been edited so that the reason for the arbitration is obscured. The reason is editors ran off on a witch hunt and deleted all my contributions, not just references to software but the actual content also and deleted contributions by other authors because they did not consult others first

Cityzen451 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be confused. This is a conflict of interest section opened by User:Gordonofcartoon. Your arbitration request is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. - MrOllie (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have:) thank you for pointing that out so graciously;) do you not think that it would have been fairer and in the spirit of "conflict of interest"... to have informed me? ;) Moreover why is this even an issue anymore? the link I proposed has been removed and that is the end of it, or is this to block contribution to those articles?

My other issue is placing my comments at the top of this section, heavily edited with my signature, would yould like to explain that. If it is a quote it should be made very clear, and if it is edited it should be made very clearly where.

--Cityzen451 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You put those comments there. See this diff. - MrOllie (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would I even bother to comment, this is childishness, I did not write those comments and why would someone comment on my talk page anymously? Clearly I didnt write them, if I didnt even know about this complaint... Pointless antagonism Cityzen451 (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is kinda absurd for a variety of reasons:

1. Reverting against consensus to include books of dubious merit on the main page is inappropriate. This should have been discussed on the talk page, and Cityzen451 doesn't seem to have any talk page contributions [22]
2. Adding the books with links to the amazon page is inapproprite in any case - WP:ELNO point 15 is pretty clear on this
3. None of the books appear to be by scholarly publishers, providing basic, background, encyclopedic content on the topics. Some look to be how to manuals rather than scholarly volumes.
4. Starting an arbitration case is pretty clearly premature. There are only two posts indicating dispute resolution has been followed, both to one person's talk page.

I don't know if this is a COIN problem, but certainly there has been a lot of unnecessary noise for what should have been a relatively easy problem to resolve. Cityzen, the books are inappropriate, you shouldn't be adding them; this is creating unnecessary drama and trouble for yourself, several other contributors, and is wasting a lot of time. There's no maliciousness here, I suggest letting it drop now that you are aware of what the issues were. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You are either confused (I think likely) or someone has gained the password to your account (I think unlikely) but there is no question that comment was placed on this page by the account you are using. - MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel this is counterproductive... as is clear the the links have been removed... period... I am not the one banging on about this... simply going to the extent of constructing all a Conflict of interest over yes the misguided addition of a book reference... What the issue is an editor removing all my contributions and trying to play the system. Does anyone actually read what has been written, or does everyone here read without their expectations? and my view is now, if you are to make personal remarks, and attempt to patronise and fob off contributors with legitimate greavance and belittle people churlishly, then I have nothing more to say. Cityzen451 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm chiming in as an uninvolved third-party, I've never had any interaction with Cityzen451 and I don't believe I've interacted with any of the other editors here, nor have I had anything to do with the RfA that was mentioned.

First, I think bringing up the RfA isn't necessary nor productive. The RfA is being handled in the proper channels, if it's a frivolous request then it will be closed as such, and nothing that is discussed here should have anything to do with it. This board is about conflicts of interest, and whatever inappropriate requests were made somewhere else have nothing to do with that, so I'd discourage everyone from bringing it up from now on.

Secondly, Cityzen451, we do have a policy of assuming good faith and it is very much frowned-upon to accuse other editors of malicious intent when they make edits you disagree with. Statements like the following: "which is vandalism because you clearly know nothing about computing", "your going into all my contributions and deleting them was more probably guided by malice"... Those kinds of comments are not going to be well-received, even if you feel that they are in the wrong.

Thirdly, Cityzen451, please don't take offense at being listed on the COI noticeboard. You have to admit that there is a good reason to suspect a conflict of interest, with the nature of your edits and your chosen username. Just being listed here isn't an accusation, it's more of a question. Again, as an uninvolved third party, it doesn't look like any COI is proven here, just some inappropriate links to books.

Finally, there seem to be good reasons to not include those links, and Cityzen451 has accepted this (if ungraciously), and so I don't think there should really be a dispute any longer. Does anyone feel that there is anything else that needs to be discussed regarding a conflict of interest? -- Atama^chat 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan edit/User:LoganPublishing

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

Brand new user LoganPublishing has tried to edit warring to include references to a particular website in this article. Possible COI noticed from this page, where a user named "Logan-5" is shown to be a moderator at the contested site. User's first edit was a personal attack on another editor over this dispute. User appears to have continued this edit war from his previous IP addresses - 124.8.111.84, 124.8.72.177, and 124.8.72.192. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He admits who he is on his talk page, but claims there's "nothing to come clean about" and blames everyone who opposes his edits as either being affiliated with a rival site or having some grudge against his. I don't think this will end well for him. -- Atama^chat 17:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

VT iDirect

• User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect (edit | [[Talk:User:Photoguy11579/VT_iDirect|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying for some time now to post an article about a satellite communications company in herndon, va - VT iDirect. This page has gone through several different versions. It started with something that sounded very corporate-like and was obviously getting deleted. I've gone through multiple revisions to make the article neutral and added more sources. Before I repost the article, I wanted to get feedback here so I don't have to go through another round of deletions. Many thanks. User:photoguy11579

I just wanted to present some background (I had to do some poking around to figure it out myself. The article has been deleted 4 times, alternatively due to its promotional nature and/or because it was a copyright violation of company literature. The article was at AfD once where it was deleted, but only because of the aforementioned reasons and not because the subject itself didn't merit inclusion. On the contrary, it was mentioned more than once that the article should meet notability requirements for a company, but the article was deleted on speedy deletion terms. It should be possible to recreate the article if done properly. This editor (photoguy11579) does seem to have a COI with the company in question, and was advised to ask for advice here. -- Atama^chat 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It still looks spammy to me, needs some footnotes per WP:CITE and removal of most if not all of the external links from the body of the article. – ukexpat (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've removed most of the links, made it neutral and cited sources. How does it look now? I'd like to post it again, but don't want to have it deleted again or run into other issues. Thanks in advance for your feedback. User:Photoguy11579 —Preceding undated comment added 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC).

California Department of Public Health

• CDPHOPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• California Department of Public Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CDPHOPA has so far only edited the article on the California Department of Public Health. CDPHOPA is an acronym for California Department of Public Health, Office of Public Affairs (google search will confirm the use of these acronyms in official publications). So far the level of self-promotion has been relatively low, although new information is being added in brochure style. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked for possible copyvio? Durova²⁷³ 02:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The copyright is owned by the State of California. I work for the California Department of Public Health and I do have permission to reprint the material found on the website. CDPHOPA (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not accept wholesale republication of copyrighted material by permission. Also, it is not within our site mission to republish public relations material. You wouldn't go to a public library and paste that type of material into the pages of Britannica. Please treat our encyclopedia and its central mission with the same respect. Durova²⁷³ 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Webdunia.com

I declined the speedy deletion and handed it off to WP:INDIA. The conversation there was:

The linked article was tagged as G11, but I'd rather you guys decide what to do with this one. Probably WP:COI, and no other contributions by the page creator, but it looks interesting anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not notable and definite COI. 80% of all content additions are from Indore, where the company and website are registered (per WHOIS/the article's Infobox). AreJay (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I'm getting a lot of hits at the news archives, too many to go to AfD with. There are WP:COI and tone problems. Any thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

article: Big Fish Games

• Big Fish Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some recent edits used the WP:OSE logic to remove a maintenance tag, and made some borderline changes to the page, as seen in the diff. Not a big deal, but it's a page that doesn't tend to have many eyeballs, and I have a "negative" COI with the company, so I'm not really wanting to get involved. tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The reasoning for removing the tag was poor, however the changes themselves seem to have improved the article and did remove some promotional materials which justifies the removal of the advert tag. The article does need work and still has a tag for citations so I don't see a real problem with it. -- Atama^chat 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama. That's all I needed- a third-party opinion. Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User Semprof

• Semprof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.33.9.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Link: jon-ruthven.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.jon-ruthven.org

This user and IP edit almost exclusively to promote the published works of a particular seminary professor. The simplest explanation is that this is a conflict of interest. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment The IP hasn't edited since 2006...Cheers, I'^mperator 12:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

• Jakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been accused by me and others of having a COI. See my talk and his. Recently someone has tried to place a COI tag on the page and Avi an involved admin has reverted and protected the page claiming BLP NPOV and NPA policies. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note. This incident involves what I see as an unfortunate, and potentially dangerous, conflation of POV and COI in order to marginalize an editor. To start implying that people with POV's are automatically subject to COI is, in my opinion, both incorrect and against our policies, and I recommend that this not be taken up here on the COI board where it does not belong. WP:ANI#Request review of administrative action is background to the most recent incident. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • And where should we discuss COI? You disagree and others agree which is why I have brought the matter here. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • COI's get discussed here. Jake has no more COI than you, Blackworm, Tremello22, and Michael Glass do, and it is disturbing to see what I perceive to be a shift to casting aspersions on the messenger being that attacking the message has failed. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Just because you disagree does not make it so. It's in the wider communities hands now. Let us see how others weigh in on this. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I perceive you as having a similar POV as Jake regarding circumcision. If I'm confusing COI with POV why have I not accused you of a COI? I'm not attacking anyone. My concern for the project is genuine. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm a completely uninvolved editor who hasn't had any previous contact with any of the editors involved here (that I can recall, at least recently) and haven't edited in the disputed article. I've read the discussions given on the user talk pages linked above and I think I can understand what the dispute is. Let me first point out that WP:COI is not the same as WP:NPOV; a conflict of interest is noted in Wikipedia because it makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone with a certain point of view has a conflict of interest. It's the same as saying that all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. Having said that, WP:COI is somewhat wishy-washy (by design I suppose) and it even states "there are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists". But it does cite examples to give an idea of what might constitute a COI.

I don't believe a COI exists here. The examples given in the guideline include having a "close relationship" with the article subject (or being involved in a legal dispute with the subject), being paid to edit to promote an organization, self-promotion, editing your own autobiography, or campaigning on behalf of an organization that is trying to advocate a POV regarding the article subject. The "autobiography" and "close relationship" criteria just don't apply to this article because it's neither about a person nor an organization or product, but a medical procedure. I don't see any evidence or even allegations that Jakew is being paid for his edits, that he is trying to promote himself, or that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). He wrote some papers discussing circumcision, but while those papers might reveal a potential POV they don't in any way show a real conflict of interest.

I'll give some examples of where POV doesn't mean a COI. If a person was a dedicated neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean he shouldn't edit on a race relations page, though any POV edits he made could and probably should be reverted. If a person had a userbox on his user page stating that he believes that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to edit articles regarding planetary physics. It's only when a person has a proven connection to a person or organization that is directly related to the article subject that a COI can be established. I really don't see it in Jakew's case.

I know that some editors have wanted to apply a looser interpretation to the COI guideline than what I've given, but I'd like to caution against that. Establishing a COI can be difficult, and generally requires either an admission on the part of the accused editor or some solid evidence. Simply showing that a person has a bias, or that a person has made edits that promote a particular POV are not proving a COI at all. Keep in mind that there is a POV noticeboard that deals directly with POV problems in articles, and if you feel that Jakew or others have added material in violation of WP:NPOV that your report might be better suited there. I'm not an admin, these are only my opinions, so take them or leave them as you wish. -- Atama^chat 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost

• DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scjessey (talk · contribs)
• Judas278 (talk · contribs)

DreamHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a long-running dispute over the nature of the information presented. As part of that dispute, one of the other editors and I have been accused of having a conflict of interest. We're both customers of DH, and Scjessey (talk · contribs), the other editor, is a sysop on their wiki. Does this present a COI? Likewise, does declaring yourself as a disgruntled ex-customer present one? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a totally unfounded accusation. I've followed a bit of the DreamHost dispute, in reading arguments from both sides, both in the recent AfD and on the talk page of the article, though I've stayed out of that dispute. I see that there has been some long-term animosity going on between editors and it's really unfortunate. But WP:COI gives a pretty good idea of what constitutes a conflict of interest in Wikipedia and I can't see even a hint of that here. All that being an ex-customer, or current customer, might mean is that you might have a POV regarding the company from your experiences, but that POV doesn't equate to a COI. Neither does being an editor of a wiki devoted to DreamHost (as long as the wiki isn't run by DreamHost and the sysop isn't a DreamHost employee). Let's set aside for a moment what it is that the COI guideline says and just use a little common sense here. If any of the editors were determined to have a COI based on that criteria, then that would mean that someone who runs a Naruto fan wiki can't edit a Naruto article, or someone who owns or once owned a cell phone from Verizon can't freely edit the Verizon article. With no offense to any editors involved, that's possibly the weakest claim of a COI that I've seen on this board and if that claim was accepted it would set a dangerous precedent as to who could and couldn't freely edit certain articles on Wikipedia. Not to mention that people who have had direct experience with a company or product are often going to be the people most interested in editing the article, or most able to make informed edits in the article, and as long as they follow WP:NPOV no harm is done. On the contrary, telling such people that they can't contribute to the articles would cause many articles to go dormant. -- Atama^chat 21:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also add that I read the bit about accusing Scjessey of a COI because of "compensation". As long as he isn't specifically paid to promote DreamHost there shouldn't be any COI, just being compensated for referrals isn't that unusual. I fail to see the logic; so supposedly Scjessey intends to keep the Wikipedia page free of criticism, to make it easier to get his friends to join the service, so he can get some cash, that's the suspicion? That's really pushing it. I have to say, too, with no criticism against any specific editor involved in that dispute but you couldn't pay me to get involved on that article's talk page. It would be like getting involved in an argument between two bitter divorcees. Feel free to quote me over there but I don't want to visit! -- Atama^chat 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that. "Disgruntled" is the term used by pro-company editors. Ex-customer is the term used by ex-customers.

Scjessey is a sysop of DreamHost's own company documentation wiki, not of a fan site.

More than this independent editor: recently concluded he edited as though he Owned the DreamHost article.

He benefits financially from the company's success. He promotes their referral codes on his own web sites and DreamHost's discussion forum. Presumably he recommends DreamHost to his web development clients.

He is creator of an off-wiki web site intended to influence or discourage participation, including at Wikipedia, by “outing” personal information and user names of those who disagreed with him.

He recently apologized for recruiting meat puppets in 2006.

In 2007, rlparker, another DreamHost wiki "sysop", defended Scjessey against COI claims, and went on to get hired by the company.

He is known as one of their biggest fans.

He has publicly lobbied the company for a job with them One, Two, Three.

Distinguishing his edits from an editor paid to edit would be difficult, in my opinion. If this isn't an example of COI, I can't imagine what is, other than editing your own (auto)biography. Judas278 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While some of these facts are true, many are false and most are presented in a ludicrously one-sided or deliberately misleading manner. I am not sure "he is known as one of their biggest fans" will hold up to much scrutiny, for example. For the convenience of interested parties, I have created this document (which I have linked-to from my user page) to explain my position. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas278, you are doing nothing to advance the position that WP:COI applies here. What you're presenting amounts to saying "Scjessey is a bad person". Even being "one of their biggest fans" doesn't show a COI. Please re-read what is in the guideline. This isn't WP:AN and bringing up a laundry list of misdeeds doesn't have anything to do with a conflict of interest. I'm not at all defending anything that Scjessey has done, or the way he has edited the DreamHost article, all that I am saying is that the specific accusation of a conflict of interest does not seem to apply here. If his edits show that he is trying to own the article, or has a pro-DreamHost POV, those are certainly bad but again don't show a conflict of interest. Either Scjessey would have to disclose that he has a conflict of interest by being associated with the company itself, or you'd have to "catch" him in some kind of close association and nobody has done this. A COI could derive from a person being paid to promote the company (not simply to be paid for signing people up like every other DreamHost customer), or by him being an employee or having any other solid self-interest in the company, but not because he likes the company. In other words, if pushing a POV would directly benefit him there is a COI. No direct benefit, financial or otherwise, can be shown. -- Atama^chat 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He was one of only a few customers granted sysop status of the company's own wiki. This is a close association. Concrete example: One day an owner of the company says "the wikipedia article for dreamhost refers to our panel pretty negatively". Right away, Scjessey tries to delete the sourced info with the dubious edit summary "removed inaccurate info". Judas278 (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The information was incorrect. I removed it, and later replaced it with properly-sourced, more accurate information. You insinuate that I was performing some function on behalf of DreamHost, but you can offer no proof that this was the case - just a guess. All I was doing was improving the quality and accuracy of the article, which is entirely appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article history shows another editor prevented your complete deletion, and subsequent versions were substantially similar to what you attempted to delete. The circumstantial evidence shows you attempted to do exactly what the company owner asked. Judas278 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Back at Talk:DreamHost, another uninvolved administrator appears to disagree with your interpretation on this specific edit. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The example given here is two years old, correct? Scjessey has admitted his previous COI, and more editors than ever are currently watching and working on this page. A COI tag isn't a scarlet letter, and since I've been watching the page, Scjessey seems to be working for consensus. I don't see what the current complaint is, other than he made a mistake two years ago. This seems like an SPA determined not to let a productive editor live down an old mistake. Dayewalker (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He wants a job with the company. Being their wiki sysop and defending the company here at wikipedia is part of a demonstrated path to a job. That's a direct benefit he hopes to gain by pushing the POV. Judas278 (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd better watch it Judas278, that's close to libel. I'd suggest redacting that ASAP. Look, here's the thing, I'm just a regular editor, my only "qualifications" in this matter is that I have no attachment to that company, the article, or to any of the editors here, and I think I have a decent grasp on WP:COI. Disagree with me or not, but I gave my opinion. Maybe someone else who's uninvolved will chime in. In any case these attacks don't belong here (or probably anywhere else on Wikipedia but definitely not here). -- Atama^chat 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but it seems safe to say he has no problem with what's said. Sorry it looks like attacks, but POV pushing happened, and plausible reasons appear. The fact he refuses in advance to boldly state how much he earns from DreamHost indicates it could be conflicting amounts. Judas278 (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

How much I earn is none of your business, and it makes no difference to how I edit. As a former DreamHost customer, you will also have been enrolled in the same referral scheme (and perhaps still are, since becoming an ex-customer does not cancel your rewards account). It would be no more appropriate to demand an exposure of your earnings than it would be to demand an exposure of mine. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Judas278, he said he didn't have a problem with people knowing that he'd like to work at DreamHost. He didn't "admit" that he's scheming to improve the DreamHost article in some desire to impress DreamHost enough to hire him. Frankly, that's the worst case of a failure to assume good faith that I've seen for some time and it's shameful. I have no interest in any of this mudslinging, but it seems to me that your insistence on a COI is motivated by your personal grudge against him and has no place here. I don't think any uninvolved editor could see your agenda as anything more than that. -- Atama^chat 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking to Sarek's original question: If anyone involved will realize a real-world benefit from how the article appears, then they have a potential COI. Note that a real world benefit can also involve having the article reflect poorly on the company as well as having appear free from all criticism. Being a self-declared "disgruntled customer" can place one in the former category, but more likely than COI is the difficulty in maintaining a neutral tone if you are admittedly disgruntled. Being the Sysop of the company Wiki, to me, starts to tread the line of "close relationship to the subject", as there is a demonstrable business connection, paid or not. If the wiki is independent of the company, but dedicated to it, then its a grey area... I'd want to review the wiki for how neutrally they present things. (I've seen this wiki referred to both as the company's wiki, and an independent one, so I'm talking in somewhat general terms here).

I tend to see freely acknowledging such connections, as he has done in this case, to be evidence of a desire to contribute in good faith however. On the flip-side, trying to drill into one's motives too deeply treads the line on WP:OUTING, and leads to personal attacks which have no place here.

The proverbial acid test would be to ask yourself (using the general "you") honestly: Do you "want" the article to appear a certain way for any reason other than to provide a neutrally written, factual, verifiable article? Whether another reason is to "get" the company for whatever past reasons, or to make the article balance out with what the company's official line is... any other reason means your interests are split between Wikipedia and another entity. Arakunem^Talk 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

View by an uninvolved administrator

I think Scjessey needs to be careful not to attempt to overwhelm other editors at DreamHost, and not to become a means for the company to perform any sort of whitewashing. With due care, they should be allowed to continue editing the article. I have seen no recent diffs evidencing persistent violations of WP:NPOV. (But feel free to point them out to me if they might exist). Scjessey has revealed their identity and connections for all to scrutinize. That is a strong sign of good faith. Next, I will look at the Judas account to see how they stack up. Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Judas278 is a single purpose account that tendentiously advocates an anti-DreamHost POV. They have repeatedly crossed the line into personal attacks and have helped create a battlezone environment at the DreamHost article. I believe they should be blocked indefinitely to prevent further disruption, at least until such time as they agree to change their editing habits. This assessment in no way exonerates the editors Judas278 has been in conflict with. It is quite possible that there have been faults on both sides. Jehochman ^Talk 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While reviewing Judas, you might want to review my question about a possible previous account and his response that he was "await[ing] direction or questions from Arbitrators or impartial authorities."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, Judas 278 does appear to be related to Guantanamo247 (talk · contribs). This does look strongly like a single purpose account for harassing and wikihounding Scjessey. Again, these findings do not exonerate Scjessey from any of their faults. Jehochman ^Talk 17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment above. I can assure you that there is no motivation for me to "whitewash" anything, and there is nobody pulling my metaphorical strings. With respect to ownership concerns, I think you will find that I am a very prolific editor on any of the articles on my watchlist, and the small number of regular editors at DreamHost increases my "presence percentage", if you get my drift. With all that said, I would be happy to scale back my involvement once conflicts and disputes have been resolved. Wikipedia is a huge playground, and I have no wish to monopolize the monkey bars when all sorts of other attractions are available! By the way, just to clarify my "sysop" status on DreamHost's wiki - it is almost entirely associated with vandalism problems (spam pages being deleted, etc.). You can see from my recent contributions that my role is very minimal, and I receive no compensation for it (other than the glorious satisfaction of blocking a spammer from time to time). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit Program

Resolved

 – Blocked as Spam-only by OrangeMike. Arakunem^Talk 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Research and Experimental Development Tax Credit Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP address 209.167.106.14 continually posts links for commercial interest, for example, currently he/she has created a section entitled "CTAP is your main source for your free SR&ED consultation: www.CTAP.ca" Clearly COI. TeamLance (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. But it was just an anonymous IP spamming for one day. Monitor it and see if they continue, and if they do report to WP:AIV. There's hardly any activity on that article as it is. -- Atama^chat 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that account's history, it spammed other articles with ads as well. It has since been blocked as a Spam-Only account. If it re-incarnates and resumes its activity, the result will be the same I expect. Arakunem^Talk 14:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What is COI policy for Further reading and similar items?

see Talk:Karluk (ship)#Balkan book

In brief: a series of pages were edited inserting references to two books (same author and publisher) as References or Further reading. On brief examination the content seems pertinent. An editor reverted these without discussion as spam. Both editors are IP. What is policy? Comments on procedure also welcome.Dankarl (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The relevant COI section would be the Self Promotion section, which states to avoid "Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links)." (emphasis added). Furthermore, the MOS guideline on Further Reading sections in general states that this section is for "A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article" (emphasis added again).

So the question for the editors on the respective talk pages is: Is this book, as it is inculded, considered relevant and indeed recommended to help the reader's understanding of the topic? Since you brought this to COI/N, and from reading the page you linked, there is suspicion that the IP that added the links may be either the author, or someone affiliated with him. It was also pointed out quite correctly that the IP could be someone very interested in shipwrecks and who got a great deal of added value from the book, and wants to share it with others.

COI guidelines would not necessarily preclude the author, (if the IP is indeed him, which is far from certain) from linking his book as a Further Reading, especially considering he did not use it as a source for the article, which would tighten the standard for notability of the author (see WP:COS). If the book is considered to be relevant and recommended by the community (editors on the talk page in this case), then I feel its inclusion would be ok.

Footnote on the Spam tagging: perfectly understandable in this case. Speaking as a Recent Changes patroller, when an editor adds the same link to several articles in succession, it immediately arouses Spammy suspicions. The right thing to do before reverting is to evaluate the link's relation to the article, even on a basic level, but for a patroller with zero experience in the topic, a revert is not unexpected. As happened here, you folks watching the article took note of this, and discussion ensued, just as desired! Arakunem^Talk 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If the mentions of Balkan's books weren't be added through a spam campaign, the mention in the Karluk (ship) might be tolerable. I used the Amazon 'search within book' to see how much Evan Balkan had to say about the Karluk disaster. The book has has about fifteen pages on the topic, and the material looks to be well-written and perceptive. I suggest that the mention of this book be moved from the article to the talk page, and let it stay there until someone has the time to add some facts from the book to the article. Then the book could be legitimately added as a reference. Since the IP, 71.179.182.26, has been mass-adding mentions of Balkan's books to articles, often directly adding them to reference sections inappropriately, I'd have no problem reverting all those changes. Editors who see potential value in the books might consider leaving a note on the talk pages of the respective articles, to allow them to be used in future article improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)