Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GothicChessInventor (talk | contribs) at 16:53, 24 January 2009 (→User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Asia Society
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Carbfix
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Connections Academy
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Fundbox
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:Gregmark Records
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Irish Cave Rescue Organisation
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Scott Kurashige
    Talk:List of sequence alignment software
    Talk:LPL Financial
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Pod Point
    Talk:Runner's World
    Talk:The Student Room
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Augusta Read Thomas

    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.

    User_talk:74.170.17.64

    I noticed an odd change in an article about Calea zacatechichi in way that completely changed the meaning of the section using only one word (not) to misinform the reader. Curious as to when and how the article got changed I checked its history, found his edit, I went through his history of edits and he is blatantly advertising or being misleading toward products he sells. In fact a bot removed links to his personal website which I suspect sells these products. If someone could investigate this and take the appropriate action I'd appreciate it. Opensourcefuture (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for disruptive editing. He has been adding original research and probably-incorrect information to plant articles, with no sources, for almost a year. In my opinion, all his edits should be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind I hadn't seen that he had been blocked after making additional changed to articles. Opensourcefuture (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Government Office for Science

    Resolved
     – Fritzpoll has unblocked Munch922 and allowed him to resume normal editing. Those who still have concerns may put Government Office for Science on their watch list. EdJohnston (talk)


    Government Office for Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently reviewed Government Office for Science as part of the new page patrol, and tagged it as conflict of interest because I suspected that the user was an employee of the government department. He was wondering why I tagged the article, and I asked him if he is an employee of the department, because if he was, that would be COI. He did not answer this question, but he says that there is nothing wrong with him editing it. I am not sure how to reply to him now. I am including the conversation below.

    Hi Christopher Kraus, Thank you for your advice on the neutrality of the Government Office for Science entry. I have removed some of the phrases that could be construed as opinion rather than fact and which could lead to a conflict of interest. I would be very grateful if you could have another look and for any further advuce that you could offer to ensure that the article complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Government office for Science (talk • contribs) 11:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

    Hi, My main reason for the COI tag is because from your username it sounded like you were an employee or something. If you are, It would probably be against Wikipedia's COI rules to be a major contributor to your own article.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    Hi, I've checked out the COI rules and I don't think that I am going against them. In light of what I read I have made a few more changes. I would really appreciate it if you could have another look over and either advise me on areas that concern you or take down the flags. Thanks Government office for Science (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks--Christopher Kraus (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure this resolves the COI situation. There are some oddities about this. Why the content fork at User:Government office for Science? And I notice that the first draft of that page [1] is ripped direct from some non-public Go-Science publication (suggesting some kind of insider connection) which formed the basis of the first draft of Government office for Science. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Government office for Science (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely as a role account. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see this as a COI exception - non-contentious edits where he asked for another editor to tell him of any areas of concern in an article which appears to be related to the British Government. As for a governmental agency using its own PR for "first draft" - I consider that, if anything. to be a sign of good faith in trying to make a real article. Collect (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated the header of this report. It seems that Munch922 is the new account name, but he was unblocked only to change username, according to User_talk:Munch922. Next step is not clear. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User is now fully cleared to edit, has been warned about COI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Blue Monday (date)

    Left the users a more detailed message than the templates. One is blocked for 3RR so we'll see how it goes when that expires... ArakunemTalk 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the promotional edits were coming from IPs and brand-new accounts, so I have semi-protected the article for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He does need to be set straight about "buying favors from Wiki". However, is it quite right to have Cupsogue Pictures tagged for notability? It is in the IMDb. They've distributed two movies so far, have produced five, and seem to have a production schedule for three others. [2]. On the other hand, references don't seem to be Grahampitt's strength, and some of the external links to Cupsogue are outside WP:SPAM and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Anybody can get any film they put together added to IMDB. That's no proof of notability. Considering this person's edits here, he probably is the one who got them added to IMDB as well. We need multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources attesting to the fact that this isn't just some guys shooting their own films. And based upon the COI activity all of those articles the publicist created should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDb...ouch. I assumed that because it is so commonly used, it's considered a solid Wiki reference. But I see from the IMDb FAQ this isn't necessarily so [3] and [4]. I read the IMDb Wiki discussion [5] and am now thoroughly puzzled how to treat IMDb external links. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never heard of them before I saw them linked from the ambigram article, but I've never heard of most of the things on Wikipedia. They look like a relatively small independent film company, but notable enough for Wikipedia. Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins were in one of their movies. Don't remove a reasonable article because somebody who works for the company doesn't understand Wikipedia very well. I would leave them. RoyLeban (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no evidence that those two actors were in one of their movies... the COI account listed the now head of this independent company as a producer of a film those two actors were in, but he did that, not the person who created that article. That film has multiple producers listed here (before the COI edit) and on the IMDB page, but IMDB does not list him as a producer (or didn't when I checked, people can edit those page themselves, as pointed out above). The film in question was by a different company entirely. Bottom line here is that we need RELIABLE sources, and we know that the ONLY sources for any of this has been the publicist and claims made on their own website. DreamGuy (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The future of the Cupsogue Pictures article is being considered at AfD. The CEO of Cupsogue Pictures is Gene Fallaize. He used to have a free-standing article but this is now a redirect to Cupsogue Pictures. Grahampitt also created Daniel Anscombe and Jamie Rae. The former article has been PRODded, and the latter might be considered for that also. Is there anything more to do? EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I thought I'd put my point across here as there appears to be more than one person that understands that although I may not know a lot about Wikipedia, that our company is still eligible for a page on Wikipedia. I'll be honest and say that all of my edits are in regards to my work, but I don't use Wikipedia outside of work, and had never even heard of it, but it is a small part of my job to ensure everything written is as correct as possible. Regarding the IMDb, I would take up this discussion with them directly, as contrary to your belief, not 'Anybody' can get a title on IMDb. I encourage you to submit one if you believe this, which will be rejected, as every title is checked and verified against industry records. Regarding Our CEO Gene Fallaize, he has, and always has been on the IMDb listing and credits for 'Outlaw' with Sean Bean and Bob Hoskins. All of his films are produced in association with 'Cupsogue Pictures'. In regards to the notability of the company, one of you above is correct that we have a full slate listed on IMDb, that were all announced at the trades last year. DVD's of our two most recent pictures will be released on Amazon.com in the coming weeks, our latest in-production starring Tobin Bell and Robert Carradine will be released worldwide in October, and we have secured lots of well-known screen talent for our other upcoming pictures. I know that it will be difficult for you to understand the film industry being outsiders (especially 'DreamGuy'), but it works different to any other industry with news that is kept inside the industry, so to try and share and prove this with you can be difficult. For example, Cupsogue Pictures is one of the most notable production companies in the western filmmaking industry due to it's unique mission statement, but trying to prove discussions within industry walls to you can be difficult, time consuming, and to be blunt, a bit of a waste of time trying to, all for an article that anyone can edit, and only occasionally gets contested by wikipedia editors - usually one that has a certain gripe against a user. I hold my hands up and say I'm not a wiki-genius, but I have no reason to edit other articles as I don't use wikipedia personally. I feel is is unfair to delete a users pages just because they don't use wikipedia all the time. Over the years we have had to verify our existence to multiple companies and organisations, including the IMDb, but the most controversial and uneasy to deal with so far has unfortunately been wikipedia, which we consider to be of least importance. Nothing against you or wikipedia, but this is rather too much hassle for an editable page on a website. As I've said previously, if you delete the Cupsogue Pictures page, then that is fine, but it will surely be restarted by someone else in the coming months, probably by fans of our released and upcoming pictures. Thank you for your time, and I hope you treat all users equally in the future, to prevent Wikipedia only being open to those within your regular 'accepted' editors group. Best Regards, Graham Pitt Grahampitt (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen

    There is a group of editors with an on-going COI problem on a set of related pages (Lynn Conway, The Man Who Would Be Queen, and others as listed below). This problem is long-standing, wide-ranging, and embarrassing to WP. Wikipedia has even been metioned in The New York Times with regard to this on-going conflict. I urge any admin reading this to consider helping solve it once and for all.

    All three involved editors (one of whom is me) acknowledge real-life relationships with some aspect of the content of these pages, and all have been challenged regarding COI several times by people with opposing perspectives. I believe that all three editors (including me) should be limited in their editing of the pages, which are listed below.

    The three editors are:

    • user:Dicklyon Dicklyon acknowledges that he is a personal friend and a former employee of Lynn Conway. He has been blocked three times for edit warring on this and on other pages. He is under a topic ban for still other topics (see here). He entered into a mediated agreement with user:James Cantor not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles (see here), but he recently declared unilaterally that he was withdrawing from that agreement (see here) because it suited him in his dispute with yet another editor on the same topic (user:Hfarmer, see here). This suggests, at least to me, that there is little point to entering into voluntary agreements with him again.
    • user:Jokestress Jokestress acknowledges that she is Andrea James, a self-described transsexual activist whose widely reported activities include submitting formal real-world complaints about the people described on the WP pages she edits and writing to their employers urging that they be fired. Her involvement in the controversies described on the WP pages has even made it into The New York Times. All of these real-world activities are contained on her personal website, www.tsroadmap.com. She is currently left to her own devices in deciding whether and how to edit the articles that document her own actions in the real world. user:Dicklyon has previously opined that neither user:Jokestress nor user:James Cantor should be editing the pages.
    • user:James Cantor James Cantor acknowledges that he is a professional colleague of Ray Blanchard, a researcher whose work is widely cited (including being contested) on the set of WP pages. I entered into a mediated agreement with user:Dicklyon not to edit the controversy sections of the problematic articles; however, with Dicklyon’s withdrawal from that agreement, a new solution is needed to avoid a return to the prior state of edit warring. Previous WP accounts used by user:James Cantor are listed on his user page; they are user:WriteMakesRight and user:MarionTheLibrarian, which he used before acknowledging his real-world identity.

    Any positive information I neglected to point out about Dicklyon and Jokestress and any negative information I neglected to point out about myself, I’m sure will quickly be added here by other editors.

    My proposed solution for ending these long-standing wars once and for all is for all three of us to enter into the agreement that was used successfully by user:Dicklyon and user:James Cantor until Dicklyon’s withdrawal, and to let the pages be edited only by the remaining editors. I recommend, however, that the agreement be binding this time, so as not to be ended when one of the editors becomes so moved.

    The text of the agreement I propose is the same as the one previously used, except for the removal of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy which has since merged into Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory.

    No direct editing of controversy in:

    No direct editing of:

    — James Cantor (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When I proposed re-instating that truce, you turned your back on the idea here; so now it's "double or nothing", to silence two of us while your minions keep attacking our friends? I don't think so.
    The NYT mention long predates your or my involvement, so why bring that up?
    I welcome the scrutiny of a COI investigation. How about a link to some of the previous ones, like yours here when you were hiding as MarionTheLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?
    You also failed to mention the hateful new article you created yesterday in this space, Feminine essence theory of transsexuality, totally to prop up your colleague Blanchard in his bashing of the trans women (one of whom is indeed a long-time friend and colleague of mine -- I confess it as I always have). Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here to suggest that everyone involved in this had COI that made it impossible for them to fairly work on this topic, and i see that JC has anticipated me. This topic is so closely involved with individual sexual identity and concept of one's personality that it is really unreasonable to expect objectivity. I don;t want to go into who has been the least objective in the prior editing, or the multiple details of why the editing here has been consistently unsatisfactory. I think a topic ban as suggested makes a great deal of sense, and I think the community can do it without needing arb com. There has to be a solution for this, and i can see no lesser one as suitable. There is no need to investigate or state who the various editors are, and why exactly that should cause COI-- though it is more or less common knowledge-- the COI is obvious from the edits. At this point, I'd extend the topic ban to not just editing, but talk pages, based on the degree of virulence that has been expressed on such pages. The cooperative manner of editing of Wikipedia does not work for people this much involved in the topics. I account this no blame to them--it is simply an unreasonable expectation for humans. DGG (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would welcome a topic ban if it extended to User:WhatamIdoing, User:ProudAGP, and User:Hfarmer, who are all acting as if they are Cantor's army; I have no idea who WhatamIdoing is or why her editing is so biased and so aligned with Cantor. ProudAGP wears the "AGP" (autogynephelia) handle proclaiming her bias; and Hfarmer is an outspoken trans woman who seems to be mostly an attention seeker and doesn't understand verifiability; she's the reason I had to abandon the previous truce with Cantor. As for Jokestress, she has an open COI and has pretty much avoided do any editting that would be questionable; I agree that she should not be editting these pages, and she does not, so I'm not sure what Cantor is trying to say other than that she's one of his enemies. As to my own edits, I'd like to have someone point out what edits are seen as improper or motivated by COI before discussing remedies. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's much more restrictive than what I had in mind, but if it is enforcible, then I can participate in an agreement like that.
    — James Cantor (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm being drawn into a conflict between User:Dicklyon and User:James Cantor and their past agreements on editing (which did not involve me). I agree with DickLyon's view that James Cantor is trying to exploit that conflict to restrict my editing as well. Glancing over my last 1000 article edits ([6][7]), I see no conflict of interest. My few edits to the articles named above have been largely housekeeping: to add citations, tag them, or remove vandalism. I have been taking great pains to write on topics about which I am a subject-matter expert in a strictly NPOV manner, per policy. James Cantor (and his earlier personae) and now-banned editors have complained in the past about my edits (Examples: [8][9]). No wrongdoing was found and no action was taken in any of those cases. As far as enjoining editors from participating in talk page discussions, I believe that should only happen if there’s a policy violation. I believe extensive talk page discussions are a fact of life on Wikipedia’s controversial articles and are a healthy part of the process. I have seen discussions about a single word go on for months (such as how to use "plumber" on Talk:Joe the Plumber as an example). Editors participating in those discussions, however lengthy, are not violating policy. If users are violating policy, then that’s a different story. I just haven’t seen that on these talk pages. Jokestress (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The basic definition of "conflict of interest" here is when one puts self-interest over WP's interests. If you cannot let a page be worked on only by editors who lack any perceivable COI, then you have a COI. I entered into willingly and I stuck to unerringly my agreement with Dicklyon, I've stayed within that agreement even now that I don't have to, and I am asking that I become restricted still more. How about you two put some edits where your mouths are? If you can't stomach what you think these pages will look like without your "help," then you have no business editing them. Where are your Wikipedian values now?
    — James Cantor (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    On Jan. 9 you created Feminine essence theory of transsexuality; yet you dare to lecture us this way? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is my personal opinion of this.
    Jokestress at the end of the day has the best interest and improvement of Wikipedia at heart. All of her edits deep down are motivated by what she thinks will make Wikipedia a better resource. She is a true blue wikipedian and 95% of the time our disagreements were based around WP Policies and what could and could not be included. When we had a RfC or consulted a notice board and whatnot. If uninvolved editors disagreed she would abide by their consensus. She did cross a personal line once but I have written enough about that already. The problem with her is what she thinks will improve wikipedia is informed by a long running real life dispute with the people who's BLP's she is editing, and over the topics she is editing. That she is so entrenched at one extreme on this issue that a neutral edit looks biased to her. i.e. simply quoting or paraphrasing some figure in a RS or taking two RS's which use very slightly different wording and gathering that information under a common heading. When she does dispute things though she does generally stick with WP policy and procedure. We have never really had an editwar that I recall which is remarkable because of how adversarial we can become.
    James_Cantor could have been called a single purpose account when he first came as Marion. However since then he has become atruly responsible wikipedian. As evidenced by his free admission of his own COI in this case. A COI which Jokestress's has effected his editing. Like jokestress when he has a problem with something he relies on WP policy and procedure to fix it if it is decided it needs fixing. He has edited many articles that relate to his area of expertise, juding by comments left on his talk page. Articles unrelated to this matter. We should take no action that would totally turn off a bonified "expert" from wikipedia. Wikipedia is too good at chasing away such people.
    Myself. Here is my interest in this matter. I am a transsexual woman in Chicago, I grew up here. I have incidental and very intermittent contact with people involved in this matter to one degree or the other. I may encounter , by happenstance, and chat with one or two people a year who are involved. For example back 8-9 years ago I finally decided to seek out a gender specialist who would not charge me $$$ just to talk to him. My general therapist pointed me in the general direction of Bailey, who I did meet a few times. Furthermore through the years going to various TS/TG social functions I have met people who were involved in this. I know the lay of the land back in the period of the writing of the queen and subsequently. I think that this allows me to see through the BS POV pushed by both sides who at times tend to paint whoever their favorites in a positive light. While I know there are no Angels here in Chicago. Let me make this perfectly clear all my dealings will all of the people I have encountered over th years who have been involved with this have been cordial and I could say that they are at least friendly acquaintances. I like all of them as real people they are not simply as either side has been caricatured online. However I do believe my edits are neutral for that reason. I will let others decide if this is a COI. I can say of myself what I have said of JC and AJ because I was on one side or the other in those RfC's. I too have wikipedia's best interest at heart.
    Dicklyon, can and has been uncivil in interactions that deal with this matter as standard procedure. His standard procedure is conflict and edit war, and insult, and confrontation. As compared to the rest of the people involved here... well not to offend anyone but he is likely the most traditionally masculine of us all, that could be part of the chasm I see between the conduct of myself, AJ, and JC, and Dicks. However that is not an excuse for how he has behaved which is well documented. In these matters he does not act with the interest of wikipedia at heart, and actively ignores and disparages policy and procedure.
    So I endorse DGG's suggestion. Though I wonder how long Dick Lyon would actually abide by it. In fact I would suggest based not just on this but how he has behaved in other areas Dicklyon be the only one barred from talk pages and such as well as editing. He seems incapeable of simply having a debate without needing to hurl insults.
    I would submit to such a agreement if it is determined that I actually have COI basically for being a somewhat socially active transwoman from Chicagoland. I have confidence that AJ and JC would abide by it. --Hfarmer (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I can admit to being sometimes rude, especially to you, Hfarmer, but what are these well-documented behaviors you refer to? My one revert of your big BLP-violating addition to Lynn Conway is what you mean? Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I should modify what I said above. Some people with even great involvement in an issue can be objective, at least up to a point. It must be harder to be objective if one thinks one's psychological foundation the only one possible, and all others to be in either error or downright bad faith. But anyone with involvement is liable to have their objectivity challenged, and it is very difficult to maintain that argument that one alone is fair-minded, and everyone else prejudiced. I thus congratulate those who, though convinced of their ability to deal with this properly, are willing to step aside. In a matter where everyone is convinced that they and only they are right, how can outsiders judge? DGG (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, and that's why it has been so hard to get any unbiased editors to join in. I was attracted to the mess less than a year ago when User:MarionTheLibrarian (now User:James Cantor showed up and started attacking the biography of my friend Lynn Conway. I tried to help, but being her friend and taking her side makes me biased. I do my best to respect policy, and fight BLP violation, but I can't deny my bias, and I can't get help fending off the attackers. So, life's tough, but we try. As to the substance of the sexologists' and trans women's theories about the basis of transsexuality, I take no position; I just hate to Cantor and friends using wikipedia they way they do to try to advance their agenda. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou DGG I will take that as a compliment, either you read what I said about AJ and JC and agree, or you count me as a greatly invovled person willing to step aside if other involved persons will. Either way that is one of the only nice things I have ever heard that could be in reference to me in all my time on WP. :__)
    Dick it's not an attack to put something into someones BLP which they publish on their own website. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hfarmer: I share your skepticism regarding whether Dicklyon will be able to control himself. His behavior here and his history of blocks and bans on other topics suggests not (at least, to me), which is why I believe that this policy will work only if it is compulsory and enforced.
    • I thank DGG for his congratulations.
    • Jokestress has yet to make any statement that she would participate willingly in any agreement of the sorts being discussed here. It is my opinion that Wikipedia and these pages are best served when someone with as deep a COI as hers (some would argue, 'as deep as any of ours') is not permitted to edit these pages. It is also my opinion that any collection of neutral WP editors—including ArbCom—would agree, declare 'enough is enough', and compel Jokestress (and the rest of us) into a restriction like the ones we’re talking about. (For all I know, if implemented by an outside group, Dicklyon’s difficult block/ban history may even earn him more a wide ranging restriction than the one proposed here.) At the moment, Jokestress has an opportunity to volunteer to participate and to demonstrate that she takes WP principles seriously, rather than as mere rhetoric useful when painting herself in a positive light for an audience of other editors. It’s time for her to reveal her true colors.
    • Dicklyon’s request that everyone he doesn’t like must also participate in the ban mistakes the issue: This is the Conflict-of-Interest page, on which we remove people with a COI that the WP community believes could interfere with their edits. It is not a Conflict-With-Dick page on which we remove everyone whose edits are not to his liking. That he cannot break out of his thinking about “sides,” or cabals, or conspiracies long enough to actually follow the rules is part of the problem.
    • I am quite proud of Hfarmer’s volunteering the nature of interactions she has had with people described on these pages and volunteering to participate in the ban for the betterment of WP. Although I personally do not believe that those interactions are big enough to merit a ban, that judgment is best left to otherwise uninvolved editors. The rest of us will be said to be opining out of whatever seems to be in the best interest of our “side.”

    The question here is very simple: Jokestress and Dicklyon: Which is more important to you, the principles of WP or your personal involvement on these pages?
    — James Cantor (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    James, you need more practice on your false dichotomies. Have you stopped beating your partner yet? As for my history of blocks, I invite close inspection of those. I have never had any trouble controlling myself, but I have inadvertantly tripped over WP:3RR a few times; twice with a guy subseqeuntly permanently banned for his behavior, and once with you; it was a mistake, but not a big deal sign of uncontrollable hormones or something. What's most important to me is that wikipedia find a way to deal with problems like you, so that we can get back to making an encyclopedia. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    arb

    So what is to become of all of this? should we refer all of the matters to the Arb Com for settling once and for all? I would say yes. Let us exercise the nuclear option if voluntary means of dispute resolution cannot get results. We have tried every other process WP has for settling disputes. --Hfarmer (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started and participated in various dispute resolution procedures in the past, including content RfC, user conduct RfC, COI notices, mediation, etc., and basically haven't found that any of these get taken very seriously or lead to effective action; sometimes mediation is useful, though the only thing it did for me and James was an uneasy truce, treating the edit warring symptom instead of the underlying disease. But we have to at least try some, to demonstrate to ArbCom that all avenues have been attempted before they'll accept a case. So let's get to work. I'll happily participate in any dispute resolution next step that someone wants to propose. I'll put all my cards on the table; I just seek two things: 1. for James Cantor not to edit articles in which he has a conflict of interest, which is basically all he has done as a wikipedia editor, since his sole purpose seems to be to clean up the image of the academic sexologists; 2. for other editors taking his side not to add BLP-violating junk about people involved in real-world controversies; there's no reason for such controversies in the real world to become wars on wikipedia, if we just stick to fair representation of sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hfarmer: I’m not sure exactly sure which suggestion is which when you refer to (1) going to ArbCom, (2) voluntary means, (3) going nuclear. The idea in my head (but I’m quite open to suggestion) is to send to ArbCom my synopsis and suggestion, much like I did in opening this COI/N notice, but to add the other suggestions that have been made thus far:
    • All three COI-folks get enforcibly banned from the main pages (my initial suggestion)
    • All three COI-folks get banned from the talk pages as well as the main pages (DGG’s suggestion)
    • All three COI-folks get banned from the main pages, but only Dicklyon gets banned from the talk pages (Hfarmer’s suggestion)
    • Do nothing and keep the status quo (I don't mean to put words in Jokestress' mouth, but this one is a necessary implication of what she said)
    • James Cantor and anyone who agrees with him have to be reigned in, whereas Dicklyon and Jokestress may be left to their own devices (Dicklyon’s suggestion)
    Given that, ArbCom can do whatever they want, including ignoring all these suggestions and instead restricting individual editors on a case-by-case basis.
    DGG: Below are the various noticeboards on which the family of problems have been discussed. Does this seem sufficient in your opinion for going to ArbCom, or do they typically need more evidence of more prior attempts to find solutions?
    — James Cantor (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    James, good start! Come of your links, like the COI on your old identity MarionTheLibrarian are broken, and others will be eventually, so probably you need to look for a more permanent way to link them. Also maybe include some of the germane RS/N discussions? Dicklyon (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "3 going nuclear." LOL. The Arb Com is the nuclear option....Because when you take a dispute or complaint there it is almost certain some of the fallout will hit you. As you pointed out they could impose all kinds of sanctions on us all, ban us all and expunge this whole subject from wikipedia in perpetuity. :-\ Who would want that?
    To the list I would ask Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Homosexual transsexual in re "Term Vs. Phenomena". The conflcit between me and jokestress weather that article is just about a term used only at one clinic in Canada, or is it about a phenomena that has been reported in many different context (cultural, historical, psychological, and even legal).--Hfarmer (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to offer to join a voluntary moratorium on editing these pages, if and only if jokestress is part of the agreement.ProudAGP (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a producer living in Hollywood, but I can't help but imagine that it's the people who are willing to self-sacrifice who would be assigned to wear the white hats. Exactly who should be restrcited from what seems more and more (to me) to be best left to ArbCom.
    • If Dicklyon posts additional links here, I will add them to the list above. (From my understanding of ArbCom rules, the purpose of the above list is to demonstrate that we have already tried the regular means of resolving the problem, not to be the final set of all evidence.)
    • Unless someone feels that Jokestress (or anyone else) needs more time to respond to this conversation here at COI/N, I will proceed with the ArbCom filing. (DGG: I would also be very open to any comment from you regarding whether I am moving too quickly on this.) I will include as parties everyone I sent this COI/N notice to (except for user:Skoojal, who has been indefinitely blocked). Please let me know if you believe there is someone else I overlooked who should also be a made a party.

    — James Cantor (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    However Jokestress has contributed to other pages since this discussion has been going on. However from her perspective this does not really involve her it is purely a conflict that is between you and DickLyon. Brought about by the breakdown of your agreement with him. All because I and others wanted to add something to do with the nature of her involvement in the Bailey scandal. Somehow putting information in her BLP that was on her own website, using practically the same wording as on her website, was to him percieved as an attack.
    I will inform her that there is talk of this going to the Arb Com. --Hfarmer (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize that that is what Jokestress said, and I have every confidence that she will use that argument with ArbCom. However, the side effect of that attitude is, of course, that the disputes and disruptions over the trans pages will continue, which is not in WP's best interests.
    • I have updated the list of links. Everyone will have the chance to add to them as we go on.
    • I have learned that there is a 500-word limit on the initial submission to ArbCom, not leaving me enough space to include all the suggested restrictions. I did have room, however, to indicate that this latest discussion at COI/N has additional suggestions. The full description and discussion of why each is or is not the appropriate move will be, I'll guess, the bulk of the ArbCom discussion.

    — James Cantor (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you filed the case already? Can you link us to it? Or if not could we see what you wrote exactly? Regarding AJ I just thought it polite to give her notice that this was being discussed is all. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've composed a draft off-line, but I haven't finished proofing it. Assuming no dramatic developments, I expect to be able to post it tonight. I'll link everyone to it as soon as I do. (In fact, I believe that that's a requirement.)
    Hfarmer: I have met few people as genuinely polite as you.
    — James Cantor (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    James, you probably recall that I've objected in the past, several times, to the way you frame and summarize the issues in these controversies. If you're serious about a productive ArbCom case, may I recommend that we jointly invite a less biased person to propose the case? I'd be willing to invite User:DGG, for example, who has been somewhat involved but has not taken sides; maybe he'll decline or offer someone else who can help. Or maybe starting with mediation would be better. Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We have not exhausted all options for dispute resolution. I suggest you start with Mediation if you believe that is necessary (informal, then formal), and any Mediation should include User:WhatamIdoing, whom I consider a key editor in this dispute. Your request for Arbitration will likely be rejected unless you attempt formal mediation first. I have mentioned in the past that you seem to treat Wikipedia as something you can "win." Your adversarial tone above and attempts to goad me into a response with insults have no place on Wikipedia, as I have told you many times in the past. Jokestress (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have scanned the prior requests for arbitration and do not see any obvious pattern regarding which cases ArbCom accepts and which cases include formal mediation among their prior attempts at resolution. The only pattern apparent to me was for evidence of sincere prior efforts at resolution. Of course, if ArbCom rejects the case because formal mediation is not included among the numerous posts on ANI, COIN, RSN, etc., then mediation can still be used. No one other than Jokestress has said (thus far) that we are going to ArbCom prematurely, and, in my opinion, Jokestress' suggestion will only delay the inevitable.
    — James Cantor (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration is the option of last resort. If you are not willing to resolve this via informal and/or formal Mediation first, I will note that in any ensuing Arbitration. I again request that we include User:WhatamIdoing in the dispute resolution process and recommend we start with Mediation to determine the involved parties willing to participate and scope of the dispute. Jokestress (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am indeed sure you will note it. Whether you are sticking to the rules or stalling is, of course, for ArbCom to decide. Even Dicklyon provided corrections to the list of links for the ArbCom request rather than say that it should not be submitted. So, unless anyone has any other suggestions, I will proceed.
    — James Cantor (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologize for my absence to this point. I'd actually started a response after User:DGG's initial comments, had to leave before I was finished, and then got caught up in a notability push with WP:WikiProject Medicine and some task force development there, and completely forgot about this. Here are my thoughts:
    • I have no conflict of interest here. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only regular editor at these articles that doesn't have any possible conflict of interest: I know none of the people -- actually, as far as I know, I don't even know anyone who knows any of the people involved. I'm as boringly straight and cis-gendered as apparently possible, and I really don't care about whether Blanchard's ideas are True™ or not. (I am actually skeptical of any current idea being the ultimate explanation.)
    • I do have a personal POV:
      • I believe that the primary reason that this group of articles matters to the larger world (that is, to any non-tg/non-sexologist person and therefore why it meets the general notability guideline) is the scandalous attack on J. Michael Bailey for having published the "wrong" ideas in a popular-science type of book. The notability for his book comes from the tension between political activism and academic freedom. A remarkable number of our reliable sources are concerned in the real world about the chilling effects on free speech that some egregiously inappropriate "political comments", such as posting the names and photographs of researchers' children with nasty comments about them, can have, and I personally share their views. (As Andrea James (User:Jokestress) did just that to Bailey's children, there's never going to be any love between us.)
      • I furthermore believe that when Wikipedia presents articles on a scientific idea that is widely accepted by the relevant experts in the field -- and this one is accepted by nearly all the relevant experts in the field -- that due weight requires us to present the expert view as the dominant opinion, even if all the non-experts hate it. So we present Human evolution (primarily) according to reliable scientific sources instead of according to what a person with a PhD in theology says, and we should present Autogynephilia (primarily) according to the reliable scientific sources instead of according to what trans activists say. This doubtless explains why the activist "side" complains that I consistently support the "scientific" side.
    • I understand DGG's impulse to suggest an article-and-talk-page ban several users, but I don't recommend it in any case except possibly Dicklyon and User:DarlieB. I think that talk page access is still appropriate. Specifically, I'd like to say that I think both James Cantor and Jokestress can, and do, contribute constructively through article talk pages, and I oppose any effort to prohibit their involvement that way. Both of them have conflicts of interest, and push for their POV on the talk page, but they don't abuse their COIs. (I ignore Dicklyon's complaints about James Cantor's very earliest edits: every editor was a newbie once upon a time.) About the two possible cases for a permaban:
      • Dick has been somewhat helpful in the past, but his ability to contribute constructively seems (IMO) to have deteriorated dramatically in the last month or two, and most of his interactions now come across as personal attacks (e.g., "What a jerk!"). Every action seems to have been personalized, and he doesn't seem to defaultly interpret any edit by the "wrong" editors as innocent changes. I think he's lost the ability to assume good faith (as a result, no doubt, of what he receives as strong provocation). Six months or a year to cool off might not be a bad idea.
      • However, I consider User:DarlieB to be a better example of an editor who seems unable to separate personal issues from Wikipedia editing. DarlieB (who self-identifies as a transwoman) disputes anything sourced to a feature article in The New York Times or the peer-reviewed journal article at PMID 18431641, apparently on the grounds that anything that doesn't support the right POV clearly 'didn't do enough investigation'. I believe that every edit made by this user has been reverted in the end, but the editor's approach is just astonishing. See, for example, the repeated wholesale deletion of all sourced information about everything our multiple sources say about the impact on academic freedom with the edit summary, "This factless opinion by an amateur investigator has nothing to do with the book." If I were going to permaban any user, it would be this one: I don't think that DarlieB is capable of understanding the POV problem. (By the way, that unjustifiable and repeatedly disputed deletion still stands in the article: I didn't want to revert DarlieB's deletion for the second or third time in a row, and no one else has bothered with it despite my requests on the talk page. I suspect that it's a casualty of this lengthy conversation, and, in at least one case, probably a desire to never do anything to help the "wrong" side.)
    • I might add Homosexual transsexual to the list of endlessly disputed articles, and Feminine essence theory of transsexuality (a new and well-sourced article, instantly listed at AfD by Dicklyon) will probably need to be on that list.
    But fundamentally, the problem with topic banning all the people with COIs is that no one is willing to step into the gap. If we had three or four more COI-free editors, I might feel different about general topic bans. At the moment, the "ban 'em all" proposal is basically "let's have nobody edit these articles, and perhaps some day a different set of editors will have fewer conflicts." That's not really what's best for Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    although this has moved elsewhere by now, let me clarify my earlier suggestion: I was not proposing to ban in the usual sense, of imply any special faults to any specific people. My intention was to find a solution that would get away from that, much more in the sense of a step to prevent the recurrence of conflict by removing some of the propensity for it, not for punishing--just as we block both parties in an edit war. And I continue to think the fairest way for this is for those editors who have done their editing in the field correctly despite whatever degree of COI, of whatever degree of involvement that may have developed even without initial COI, to accept that this is the most effective way of going forward--that nobody should consider themselves either blamed or vindicated. DGG (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DJJONE5NY on Family Foundation School

    DJJONE5NY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also 24.164.167.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I am posting this notice on the prior advice of User:Scarian [10]. This editor has perpetuated edits that focus almost exclusively on Congressional testimony which is critical of the Family Foundation School and push a negative POV. He has done so by pulling quotes from said testimony that, in the opinion of neutral editors:

    • give undue emphasis to the testimony, likely violate WP:BLP, and are tantamount to gossip [11];
    • are "not well balanced" [12]

    This editor:

    • possesses intimate knowledge of the school's staff makeup [13];
    • claims to have attended the school and school functions [14]
    • claims to have suffered abuse at the school, allegedly at the hands of staff [15];
    • claims himself to be both the author and presenter of the Congressional testimony [16][17] which if true, means he is a prominent member of CAFETY and criticizes the school as a matter of policy [18];
    • has recently engaged in personal attacks against editor User:Wikiwag [19]

    This together, demonstrates that this editor has a serious CoI problem on this article, and I request that appropriate action be taken to correct the situation. Respectfully submitted: - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 14:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There appears to be a pot calling a kettle black here...CoreEpic (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)CoreEpic[reply]

    Then I heartily invite you to provide similar evidence that supports the claim. Good luck. :-) - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 21:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I'll be addressing the personal attack separately. - Wikiwag (blahblah...) 22:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adamkey

    Adamkey made a resport at BLPN regarding the Joel Osteen article. On review at BLPN, Gwen Gale noted that Adamkey's 04:21, 11 January 2009 edit raised WP:Soapbox, WP:COI, WP:UNDO and WP:BLP issues. Adamkey made a similar post in the Lakewood Church article.[20]. It does appear that Adamkey is trying to use the Wikipedia article to promote evangelist and author Adam Key's book, which is critical about Osteen. Adamkey's user page also states "I'm Adam Key, the former law student at Pat Robertson's Regent University now suing after I was expelled for being critical of Robertson." Since there seems to be reason to keep an eye on this, I am posting here. -- Suntag ☼ 15:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthonyjamesstudio

    Tolerably obvious COI here, but it does appear that James is notable. Is any action required beyond watching for cleanup tag removal and the like?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amy Fisher

    Article Amy Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AKA the "Long Island Lolita" is being edited by User Amy Fisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by removing her "mugshot" and replacing same with a "glamour photo" of herself,thereby attempting to provide a more positive representation of herself. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree there are COI issues, but I wonder if both images (glamor shot added by Fisher and mug shot) both could be included, as long as someone besides Fisher adds the glamor shot? If that's the case, then the only remaining issue would be which one goes in the infobox. Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The mugshot image is probably going to be deleted from Commons, as it's not a work of the US Government but rather that of the State of New York, so it's not "public domain". If we want an image, we may need to use the glamor shot (provided it's released under the proper license). --Versageek 03:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the editing but as far as I'm aware we encourage everyone, even the people themselves to contribute free photos. If there were other valid photos, then a discussion may be appropriate on which ones to use but since there aren't I don't see any COI issues. Ignoring the copyright issues, the use of mug shots particularly in BLPs is fairly controversial Nil Einne (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion

    Resolved
     – No-one has objected to closing the COI discussion. EdJohnston (talk)

    This article was mainly written by the author of the book Mbeychok. I have concerns about self-promotion and representation bias. Notability could also be an issue, but that is a minor concern compared to the other two. I won't get involved because I previously ran in Mbeychok and I don't feel like being the target of personal attacks yet again. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think notability is a problem: Google Scholar covers that nicely. I'm going to trim it down a bit and tag it for expansion and expert attention.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The scholar search appears to show that it's been cited once. There are not independent reliable sources about it, as far as I can see. I've tagged it for notability and coi. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I see 4 or 5 citations just on that first page, never mind the other 7...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The revisions from SoV makes the article acceptably neutral IMO. Notability might still be a concern, but whatever. There's bigger fish to fry than this, and this one might not even warrant the frying.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This article looks OK to me. It could be made slightly more neutral, but it is already short and matter-of-fact. I'd suggest that we close the COI discussion, while still encouraging those who've worked on it so far to make it better if they can. The top item in this Google Scholar search shows that there are 63 other works that have cited the book. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiskeharrison

    Resolved
     – The article Alexander Fiske-Harrison was kept at AfD; both articles seem to be improved; revert this closure if you see anything more that needs doing. EdJohnston (talk)

    User in question is the subject of the biography article and the author/lead of the play. The first attempt at creating a biography was speedily deleted. He's also admitted on my talk page to asking someone else to create the play article for him after the first attempt was deleted for notability. He doesn't appear to see that cutting and pasting (what I feel) is marketing bumpf and using wikipedia as a photo host for his play's publicity photos are a problem. He's had COI warnings and has recreated his biography. I'm still not sure that a play with a small run in a tiny theatre is that notable (although my AFD failed - but then do we list everything reviewed for the Edinburgh fringe? - meh, off topic) Blowdart | talk 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Found little to no coverage of the subject so AFD'd the article. Listing is here. --aktsu (t / c) 19:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An entry for a play most certain does not have to have photographs, those would be for a production rather than the play itself. Where do you get the idea that photographs are required in a wikipedia article? --Blowdart | talk 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm not objecting to the play at all, it passed AFD. I am objecting to you using wikipedia as a marketing vehicle, but even that is not at question here. What is at question is your obvious COI issues and your creation of an autobiography. --Blowdart | talk 23:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting how you flagged a COI contribution of Fh's on The Pendulum page, then, rather than waiting for a discussion, merely removed the material at your own discretion.--Bigjimedge (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed that's how it works. WP:BOLD. When something is obvious to an editor they can edit or add or remove. I have to say I find it interesting that you're chipping in again, after having admitted you know the author and you both colluding on creating articles about him and his work. Be aware that [[WP:MEAT|meat puppets] are frowned upon, Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. --Blowdart | talk 16:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So it is lucky I am neither related, a friend or a community member, but instead someone who met a person on a single occasion (as I have met, for example, David Frost or Margaret Thatcher - should I avoid commenting on them as well?). --Bigjimedge (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chckmtechmp138

    Resolved
     – Not a conflict of interest. EdJohnston (talk)
    Don't think this is the place (where's the conflict of interest?). Maybe WP:AN/WP:ANI, or just go ahead and AFD them all in one fell swoop if you believe they're non-notable? --aktsu (t / c) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; plus I don't see any issues even outside COI. Disused railway stations are generally viewed as notable, and while I think Chckmtechmp138 needs guidance on formatting, I can't see any reason to view these as problematic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bola tangkas

    Resolved
     – Article survived an AfD, still tagged for notability, some editors were blocked, does not seem to be anything more to do here. EdJohnston (talk)

    Various accounts are trying to advertise an online version of this gambling game. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I took it to WP:RPP. If that doesn't work I'll keep an eye on the page and what links to it. Themfromspace (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Username has been indef blocked and the IP blocked for a month. Themfromspace (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added to the header (above) the accounts that I found from a Whatlinkshere search on Bola tangkas. I note that the article was kept at AfD, and the problem is with the spamming more than the article itself. Still, if the article doesn't acquire references, it may not survive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nyoman Rudana/Museum Rudana

    These articles;

    have been primarily edited by

    who edit nothing else, save linking these. A lot of the images uploaded should be reviewed with a critical eye. There are also some anons in the page histories doing about the same thing. The articles are notable enough, but really need culling of fawning promotion. And it seems quite likely the above users are in fact the same user. I've left talk page messages for them all; Noniq21 was active just an hour ago while the others are older. The same thing is happening on the id:wp versions of these articles, too; same user names, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Interest from an officer of Massey Energy in reworking the Massey Energy page

    Resolved
     – Advice has been given, and there were no further comments here. EdJohnston (talk)

    Please direct your attention to Talk:Massey Energy. Is the reworking of a page on a controversial coal mining interest kosher at WP? Can someone with expertise in WP's COI rules please respond there? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The comment at Talk:Massey Energy by User:Jorfer seems correct. Massey should start their work on the Talk page and let other editors review the material that they propose to add. 04:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Otago

    IRL Abe Gray is/was spokesperson for Otago NORML.[21] There's been repeated attempts (diff, diff, diff) to put a promotional plug for Norml in the University of Otago article, the user contribs tie together very well, and show WP:SPA. XLerate (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at the talk pages will show that XLerate has a strong aversion to unbiased, factual, referenced sentences about cannabis law reform at Otago University being included in a synopsis of the tradition of student protest at the University. Using claims of COI to influence the outcome of a content dispute is discouraged.139.80.33.95 (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kerrydouglas

    Could someone take a look at what Kerrydouglas (talk · contribs) has been up to? This editor has been inserting a book into the further reading sections of a wide range of articles, perhaps inappropriately. Skomorokh 06:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know it's COI or not, but it's inappropriate to make an article on a book and then spam it across many articles. I reverted all those, and proposed the book article for deletion, as it has no evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    user:Skyisthebest

    This user is editing a lot on Sky Television related articles. I'm not sure if this is an employee but the username is definately inappropriate. See Contribs --DFS454 (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicolai Shmatko

    Can editors more experienced than I make sure that this article is maintained in an appropriate way? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Specifically, the issue is that Rerter 2 (talk · contribs) has self-identified [22] as the author of the English bio [23] on the official Nicolai Shmatko website, and is showing signs of WP:OWN. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well put. I've been trying to help a bit and the editor in question has been reponsive on the article's talk page and has been cooperative, so I'm inclined to call this resolved and keep an eye out. In fact the editor has requested input on improvements. I asked for sources and a load were provided (Is there a Ukranian translator in the house?). So I'm okay generally with the article. I do wonder about the photo size and the way it's captioned in the photo itself? It seems promotional. Other than that I can live with the article as I'm a softee when editors are responsive, helpful and cooperative. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensory Sweep Studios

    Both of these users appear to work for Sensory Sweep and are scrubbing all mention of the company's current lawsuit from the Sensory Sweep Studios wiki entry on a minute by minute basis. While an original post wasn't very objective, many of the follow ups have been inline with the wiki standards, and properly cited. This should be a pretty obvious COI.76.216.203.127 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There's an obvious edit war going on here, and I've warned a couple of participants. However: the lawsuit which has been linked to in the past mentions the firm's founder but (at least in the title) not Sensory Sweep; so I think there may be BLP-type issues involved. (That doesn't justify NPOV violations and vandalism by blanking.)--Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just had to block another of these meatpuppets or sockpuppets, User:Poopski1998, who said, There are several of us that will keep deleting anything that goes up about the fooptube lawsuit on the Sensory Sweep page. Sensory Sweep is currently working with their attorneys to get this page taken down to once and for all get rid of this childish immaturity. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block for NLT. I've commented over on the talk page regarding the section that's generating the blankings. ArakunemTalk 16:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensory Sweep Studios

    More blanking of articles by employees of Sensory Sweep. There are currently editors that have the required citations raised by the last legit edit, but we're holding off until we can make changes without being immediately blanked.76.216.203.127 (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian Gomm

    Resolved
     – at least being handled, content removed, page protected and user warned by User:Redvers pablo ::  ... hablo ... 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps adding word-for-word biography from Ian Gomm's website. Responded to its removal by replacing the biography, stating "I own the rights to iangomm.com so dont remove it again!!" I think that this is either a copyright violation, or a conflict of interest, or both, but I am unsure as to how to proceed. pablo ::  ... hablo ... 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Advertising?

    Here [24]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, unquestionably. User listing his own book, which itself is comprised of his own personal experiences (by admission). In the absence of any substantive peer-review of the book, it is just self-promotional at this point. Edits have been reverted out by several others, with explanations given in edit summaries and on his talk page. Watching to see if he persists, but he's not re-added them in 2 days. ArakunemTalk 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:His1ojd and "Polite architecture" and a particular author's book

    Here is the contribution history [25]. Basically, in looking into the Polite architecture article (which I've put to an AfD) I found the terminology and the same book inserted in the Vernacular architecture article and the Polite redirect that is now a disambig. I guess if the terminology is well established an argument could be made for some of the additions... ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Others have suggested this term has some kind of significance in British architecture. So maybe I'm way off base. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-base, I'd say. As I and others have said at the AFD, it's a real term in architecture, and the Brunskill book is a significant source (i.e. Brunskill coined the distinction, and is much-quoted in the context). Apart from the article needing expansion using more than a single source, I think nothing to see here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    International Sport Combat Federation

    The IP is/was the president of ISCF/IKF, Steve Fossum (diff). --aktsu (t / c) 00:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP was blocked for disruptive editing (continuously inserting copyrighted material). Time will show if he'll be back. Didn't look like he grasped what he was doing wrong. --aktsu (t / c) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking over his edits, it seems he didn't understand the COI and Copyright issues, and may have taken the impersonal tone of the template warnings the wrong way. I've left a rather detailed (but more personal) note on the IP's talk page explaining where he ran into problems and why, and how to edit so as to stay within policy and guidelines. ArakunemTalk 17:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Errol Sawyer

    Article seems to have been created for purposes of promotion after a user claiming to be Sawyer ran into trouble inserting unnecessary info on himself into Christie Brinkley due to feeling slighted for not getting enough credit for discovering her.[26] The debate was subsequently taken over by Fischer, his wife/agent, who is now the main editor of Sawyer's article, and she doesn't seem interested in my repeated explanations of Wiki policy: the "Early Life" section is all OR, the career section is mostly quotes that push a positive POV (with citations that don't verify the text or link to self-published material from his website that's written by his agent), and the "Activism" section sounds like campaigning and is sourced using blogs and comments lists - reliable secondary sources on Sawyer are nearly non-existent; the only one there is doesn't do much more than verify that he discovered Brinkley, along with a few others things on Brinkley's discovery that are contradicted by other sources. Sawyer claims to know the author.

    His agent/wife sidesteps COI claims by saying she didn't create the article (although it seems clear it was created on her behalf or Sawyer's), has repeatedly deleted maintenance tags for "destroying" the article, and justifies non-policy-supported content with allusions to her "academic qualifications" and edit summaries of "truth is truth."[27]

    After first I just thought this was a matter of an editor pushing a COI too far, but now I'm thinking the article could just be deleted as spam and for the subject's non-notability in the absence of reliable sourcing. (Sorry this is so long.)  Mbinebri  talk ← 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GothicChessInventor at the Ed Trice article

    Over the last couple of weeks, GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) (who is Ed Trice, by his own admission) has been making several non-trivial edits to the Ed Trice article (e.g. [28],[29],[30]), as well as constant badgering for what should and shouldn't be included in the article (see recent sections of Talk:Ed Trice). This has culminated in the latest set of wholesale reversions ([31],[32],[33]) under the guise of "correcting errors".

    He has been warned about the COI policy countless times before (e.g. [34], [35], [36]) and has been reported at the COI noticeboard before. Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 16:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If Oli_Filth was correct, I would agree with him. The items he is removing are relevant, and have been a part of the article for years. In fact, I reverted the article to a prior version OF HIS OWN, yet he objects to this. He has yet to explain why
    1. My Gothic Chess rating, with hundreds of games (more than 300) is not relevant, yet my "chess rating" with hardly 100 games played over a 20 year spread, is relevant.
    2. I have cited many references, including hardback textbooks my artificial intelligence research appears in, yet you try and say it is not "notable". I helped solve the game of checkers, and the man who is given full credit for this even said so in a paper he published AND his website, yet YOU feel that you can revise history and claim I was not involved in the project
    3. You have repeatedly cited "Wikipedia Bylaws" at the end of a clause you typed, and the two are not related. You act like an attorney with no real knowledge of the law. In short, you are playing the "Oli said so" game, and more than one person has reverted some of your edits. You are a biased editor spending way too much time on an article that needs little to no revision.

    GothicChessInventor (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=266137833"