Getnet abebe

I noticed that a new user, Getnetabebe, created an article about himself. I warned him on his talk page and shortly after placed a speedy deletion tag onto it. He removed the tag so I put a warning about that up and shortly afterwards, the IP above removed the speedy deletion tag once more. I'm not sure if this is the right place, but since the article is about himself I thought it would be. Can someone delete the article? Thanks. Jns4eva (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Getnetabebe has been banned, though his IP continues to remove the speedy deletion tag. Jns4eva (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This user appears to be socking as well. This IP has edited his bio on another account (Getnet abe) and he continues to revert my speedy deletion tag on the page. Jns4eva (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:EagerToddler39 and elance articles

Recently I stumbled upon EagerToddler39, a prolific content contributor and also a paid editor who operates via Elance. The elance account is pretty stealthy, getting the paid submissions taken off the site (hidden from view) after they are completed and in at least one case (Lucibel) he had the contractor remove evidence of the specific article he worked on. When confronted with this information, he did not deny any of it but he did remove all evidence pointing back to him as harrassment.

Now it is commonplace on Wikipedia to link accounts here with elance accounts and this should be no exception, as his elance account reveals little to no personal information about him and he is already linked from WikiProject Integrity. So I would like EagerToddler39 to understand that he can't scrub the evidence of him being a paid editor through a faux-claim of "harrassment".

Since I am very busy "in real life" I lack the time to go through EagerToddler39s large contribution history thoroughly for other paid or promotional articles. So I would like a hand if anybody wants to check this out. ThemFromSpace 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I offer no objection to anyone reviewing my credibility or neutrality. What I object to are masked attempts to post information that links this Wikipedia account with an account at Elance, posting links to someone's personal information. I already responded to ThemFromSpace's accusations by encouraging him to review and edit/delete whatever he finds that is inappropriate in those articles. I too am busy in real life. I note that the links to Elance were removed by another editor, to which ThemFromSpace objected. I was simply following through with that decision to omit those links to someone's personal/professional information. Happy to stay away from further discussions since my integrity is sound. EagerToddler39 (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Jehrentraut

Jehrentraut is a dual-track WP:SPA who created and maintains Joseph G. Healey and Thomas J. Healey, with no substantive editing to other articles (both were created as outright copyvios, but that's for another board). It appears from User talk:Jehrentraut that the editor has access to the personal emails of Joseph G Healey. It may or may not be relevant that someone called Jennifer Ehrentraut is described on pipl as an Administrative Assistant at Healey Development LLC - a company with which Thomas J. Healey is associated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Italian company advertising their services

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The most recent posts from that IP were in April 2012. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
SInce the edits seem to be mostly adding weblinks, wouldn't this fit better at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Investment Company

The Advanced Technology Investment Company page possesses significant factual inaccuracies and also does not reflect the majority of the organization's activities. As an employee with a COI, I would very much appreciate if another editor can review the page. I've made suggested amendments on the talk page, which are all reinforced by objective third-party sources. Harrisonrice (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Advanced_Technology_Investment_Company

I have replied to your post on that talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem...

While reading through some Japanese literature articles I discovered a user had made a fairly significant number of edits. The user now appears to be inactive, and most of their edits were constructive, but a few were problematic. They kept inserting references to a source I thought looked dodgy. Examining the background of the source, I found that there was such a close correlation between their background and the selfbio on the user's user page, that they are almost certainly the same person. I could remove most of the refs as self-published, but...

One of them is not self-published, but is a "translation" by the person of a short poem. The user in question added it, and in the same edit made a dramatic mistake that indicates he/she doesn't actually speak Japanese. The "translation" is likely an adaptation of one of the previous translations (it's been done at least twice by recognized experts). This seems somewhat inappropriate to be quoting in an encyclopedia article. However, I can find no direct indication that the author (as opposed to the Wikipedia user) can't speak Japanese.

How can I deal with this without outing the user?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Without being sure what the article is, it's hard to give specific advice, but I don't see why you can't fix the problems without outing the user. If a source is dodgy and the content it supposedly supports seems wrong, you can remove them both, and you don't need to specify why you're doing so in the edit summary; just indicate you're removing dubious content with a dubious source. If the user who added the material is now inactive, perhaps that will be the end of it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ivica Dačić

Hi, I've recently proposed some edits on the talk page of the article for the Serbian Prime Minister Ivica Dačić. I have registered my COI here before with regard to this and other Serbia-related articles, but would like to reiterate again that I work for Bell Pottinger and that the Government of Serbia is my client. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Pakeman

This article about a guy who played soccer 30 years ago reads like a resume... take a look at the version before I just edited it, which was even worse.

I can't say any more because of the red instruction at the top of this page! Which is confusing... Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have broken that rule with my edit summary too :( sorry... can an admin fix it? Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 15:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The edit summary can't be fixed, but I've seen worse. Read over Edit summary dos and don'ts and that should take care of that. As for the article, it visually is hard on the eyes due to so many words using upper case first letters, which seems to try to show subject importance through formal event name dropping rather than his life events. Nice photos, but they do not appear to be free license photos. If the topic does not meet WP:NSOCCER, then a trip to AfD should fix the matter. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
There's no diffs posted showing a direct connection between Peter Pakeman and User:205.207.78.4, User:Xave2000, User:InPerpetuity, or User:184.147.37.128. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Jreferee. I was unsure about mentioning those users but I guess it's okay since you've done it. I can't prove any direct connection with the named users but the version of the article before my edit said that Pakeman works for the Canadian Health Information Management Association. 205.207.78.4 belongs to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, so it seems to me that this is a case of autobiography. I see you have also done AfD and PUFC listings, thank you for that. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
This file you tagged was uploaded by Xave2000 then added to an article 28 minutes later by InPerpetuity, I think it is clear they are the same person. Should this go to sockpuppet investigation? Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 01:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"Both of them" seem to be trying to blank the article and it will probably be deleted so I imagine this situation will resolve itself without needing to be investigated. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Diane Harper COI editing

It appears as though Diane Harper has discovered her Wikipedia page and has created an account whose only contribs are to that page: [2] This isn't really a big deal. The reason I am posting here is that she may have created a sock account to make similar edits (i.e. edits which aim to make Harper look good). That account is User:Cassandraofdelphi, which has also only ever edited the Diane Harper page. User:Softlavender already posted on Cassandra's talk page warning him/her, and I would like to ask for an admin to see if one account is a sockpuppet of the other. Jinkinson (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is something of a ghost town at present. If you seriously suspect disruptive sockpuppetry, you can request that a CheckUser investigate by filing a report at WP:SPI. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of the written account of Diane Harper's life in the Wikipedia Diane Harper article is not independent of Diane Harper. The references in the article in which she is an author are not independent of Diane Harper and the information sourced to those references should be removed from the article. If what is left is not enough for a stand alone biography, then AfD should be considered. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Jreferee, this is not the place for such complaints. You've already made this observation, and been answered, on the article's Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Softlavender, I have already opened an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dianemharper. I didn't request Checkuser though, maybe I should have. Jinkinson (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Protocol

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation.

A friend asked me to create a wiki page about himself, and I tried to explain that this was not ethical.

Here's his response:

As you might know, for creating an article, Wikipedia recommends (in Tip number 5 of their site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Starting_an_article): "Please do not create pages about yourself". For this reason, as I explained to you in my e-mail of 30th July, "perhaps it will be more appropriate and have more credibility if [my biography] is sent in by a third person - somebody with great international respectability … like you!" I thought of you because you are a person that has been in professional contact with me (and not just my buddy) for over 17 years and who knows well my professional development over the years. If you insist on calling this request "unethical", then I admit I am completely confused.

My view is that this is a no-brainer. COI says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or your close friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI

But what should I do if he continues? Do I rat him out? What are my options and what's the protocol? Planeta (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The inverse of Ignore all rules means that if you do not think something would be a good contribution to the encyclopedia, then don't do it, even if you can't find a specific rule. Andrew327 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WR Entertainment Group

User has made edits relating to WR Entertainment Group. The edits appear to be promotional, or at least POV, in nature. The user's name is the acronym for the group the user is editing about. Reported the username to UAA, but was directed here (though it still suggests WP:ISU imho). This is my first time filling out a COI report, so I apologize if I have made a mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User should be permabanned as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.75.111.162 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Claire Perry

Claire Perry is a British MP. They have been active in calling for tighter controls on teh interwebs. They also had an embarrassing episode recently where their website was hacked and they then chose to publicly blame a prominent political blogger for this in a way that has been widely seen as libelous. A sourced section to this effect is on their article. The crucial point is not "politician makes gaffe" or "politician favours control/censorship/whatever", but the combination of "politician dictating technical policy demonstrates personal ignorance of subject".

Several edits to this article are from single-purpose ChristopherJones119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also the name of one of their staff (a moment's web searching). After a COI note to that account, today we're seeing similar spin control from a new account GC88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Before this turns into edit-warring, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on the situation. My regular pet troll (who I think is from Wikipediocracy, possibly Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Vigilant@Wikipediocracy, as he's done it before) has already emailed me to threaten to have me blocked for outing ChristopherJones119 (talk · contribs) as Christopher Jones. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. You might consider requesting semi-protection, which would force new SPAs to use the talk page and might head off a potential edit war. Rivertorch (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

School District 63 Saanich

Username and page edited share the same (but abbreviated) name. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A user (contribs) has been changing links to papers he apparently wrote concerning world population figures for Islam. The old links had rotted, and rather than updating them to working urls he has been linking instead to his curriculum vitae. He has done this with both external links (example) and inline references (example). His CV page does link to PDF versions of the papers in question. I have multiple concerns, some of which are beyond the usual scope of this noticeboard:

I initiated a discussion, which I have now copied onto my user talk page. I would be grateful for the opinions of other editors on the points I've raised above. Rivertorch (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Tangential discussion collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Is this a policy based statement, Rivertorch? "Personal résumés or CVs are always inappropriate links for articles, whether used as references or as external links." I've always viewed CV's as adequate sources for the mundane facts of someones career, provided that there is adequate evidence that it is actually their CV. This seems to be in line with WP:SELFPUB's guidelines. Sorry for the minor hijack, I'm just quite curious if there is opposing guidance somewhere. I'd certainly never use a CV for an overly selfserving statement, but for something like "John Doe worked at Johns Hopkins in 1978 as an assistant researcher," I would consider a CV adequate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't mind your hijacking if you don't mind my hatting! I'd tend to accept a verifiably authentic CV as reliable only for WP:SELFSOURCE claims (which appears to be the same as WP:SELFPUB). I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement, and you're quite right that there's an exception for claims about self. I guess I didn't think of that because it had no relation to the issue at hand here. (It's worth noting that some people don't seem to think any self-sourced claims should be used. If you can get through the top half of this discussion without either laughing or crying, you have remarkable self-control!) Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting help at Accenture

Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Accenture to make some improvements to their Wikipedia article. I've raised some issues over at Talk:Accenture, and although there's been a discussion between myself and two editors, the changes haven't yet been implemented (despite reaching consensus about one of the issues). It's been a couple of weeks now, but the editors don't seem to have had time to come back to the page. Because of the rather involved discussion on the Talk page over there, I'll briefly summarize the two remaining issues here:

  • The Principal subsidiaries section be removed
  • A link be inserted into the External links section of the article that points to the complete list of subsidiaries in Accenture's SEC filings
  • The one subsidiary that has a Wikipedia article, Avanade, remain in the article, but be moved to the History section, under Initial public offering, with language like the following:

Also in 2001, Accenture became the majority owner of Avanade, an IT consulting subsidiary it initially formed in 2000 as a joint venture with Microsoft.[1]

References

  1. ^ Todd Bishop (2 October 2006). "Seattle tech firm gets big, quietly". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
Again, there seems to be consensus amongst myself, FeralOink, and Stalwart111 that this is the best way to move forward, but neither has yet had a chance to make the changes. As an editor with a COI, I don't edit directly, so if someone would be willing to help here, I'd really appreciate it.

If anyone here has time to take a look at the discussions, and, if everything looks okay, roll out the change re: the principal subsidiaries, and also weigh in on the Tiger Woods issue, I'd sure appreciate it. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is  Done. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 12:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Yassmin Ghandehari

Hi, I have recently drafted an article in my sandbox on Yassmin Ghandehari, an Iranian-born interior designer and patron of the arts in the UK. In the interests of transparency I am declaring that I work for Bell Pottinger, a UK public relations agency, and that Yassmin Ghandehari is my client. Please see my talk page for more information. Feedback on the draft article with a view to an AfC submission would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. GATalbot (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Cyclists

They are members of the group or sockpuppet of a single user. Rahat | Message 11:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that now you are going for personal attacks on each of these individuals? You have been asked for clarification but you have declined to clarify either point. You have made some of your own revisions which are most welcome. But your only focus is on deleting the article. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drabiralam (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have handed the issue to administrators. It's not my duty to decide the article's deletion or keeping. An administrator's intervention is not a personal attack. An administrator will decide and check for shockpupettry. - Rahat | Message 12:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Without even bothering to go in a discussion with the creators of the page, you straightway nominated the page for a speedy deletion. Ridwanq (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No matters who created the article. It's not his/her own property. Deletion or keeping of article will be according to policy and guideline of wikipedia. - Rahat | Message 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The users are more likely to be meatpuppets than sockpuppets. AFDs are closed according to the arguments made for or against deletion and are not a simple vote. As other established editors have pointed out already, the organisation appears to be notable so accusations of COI are a moot point. SmartSE (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Housel article

User:EmpressMatilda posted a request at the Help Desk for assistance with an article of which she created and is the subject. The request is here. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi EmpressMatilda. To determine which one image to add to an infobox, we can use WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, specifically WP:LEADIMAGE. I listed both the images at graphics lab.[3] Once they do their magic, we should be able to figure out which image to use in the infobox by applying what it says at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Your rights relative to the article about you generally are listed at WP:BLPEDIT. After reviewing these, please list what ever you would like assistance with. Thanks! -- Jreferee (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

MV Seaman Guard Ohio

I understand that Wikipedia is not a place for business wars, but our competitors are using it as a place to hold such wars with us. I represent a company named AdvanFort, and this article was written to attack our company’s integrity, because it contains many irrelevant and untrue statements.

It is an article about MV Seaman Guard Ohio yet it contains data about “Issues involving AdvanFort”; “2009 Revoked Corporate Licence”; “2011 Allegations of contact mismanagement in Estonia”; “2011 Arrest of Advanfort Texas and Advanfort Alaska”; “2013 guilty plea to illegal acquisition of firearms." Most of this article is not about the subject matter. Most of it is about our company, not the ship, however, most of it is untrue, and we have documentation to dispute every piece of information that has been written about us.

I ask you to look into the author/editor and question their motive. They surely are in the Maritime industry. I urge you: don’t allow your website to be used for business wars as these people are using it. Jmartin77 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded this report to include you, Jmartin77, as you appear to have some affiliation to the subject of the article. So yes, since we're not for "business wars", I suggest you stay away from the article. I will likely be cutting the article down heavily, as right now some of it is reads like a PR piece for the vessel, and some of it reads like an angry rant against the owners. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
81.240.180.58 (talk · contribs) continues revert removal of material of questionable/contentious names, which often repeats the names of key personnel for this. The information may be sourced, but it is clearly written in a libelous manner to cast doubt on the people/AdvanFort aspect. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I have blocked User:81.240.180.58 for 48 hours for edit warring and violations of WP:NPOV. The article still needs significant cleanup, as right now it seems like it's really got a lot of undue coverage in it. In retrospect I should have let someone else do the block as I (inadvertently) got involved in the content dispute. That said, I stand by the fact that the IP's behaviour was blockworthy and therefore stand by the actual block, it just shouldn't have been me that did it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about it, Deskana: you and I must have edit-conflicted here; I intended to do the same thing and, I guess, claimed credit for it in the AN thread (or I logged in as you?). For such edits clearly based on policy, which (I believe) it is your sworn duty to uphold, one cannot claim INVOLVED as an impediment in taking the appropriate action. But that's just my opinion, man. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
If some of the sourced material about the company is not relevant to the article on the ship, it might perhaps be relevant at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/AdvanFort (2). Editors will, of course, have to take account of the guidance at WP:UNDUE. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A statement in the MV Seaman Guard Ohio article says it all: "We are still to find answers to many questions, the probe will bring out the truth." The MV Seaman Guard Ohio article is not about the ship. Instead, it is about a recent news event for which there remain many questions but little information fit for an encyclopedic article in Wikipedia. A way to handle this is to create a AdvanFort article, seek to merge and redirect MV Seaman Guard Ohio to the AdvanFort article, and allow WP:SPINOUT to determine whether we should have a stand-alone article on MV Seaman Guard Ohio. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I extend my gratitude to the administrators for their time and effort in producing a fair article about my company. I most certainly will stay away from it as I am connected to the subject of the article, however, I would like to point out that the situation in India is currently ongoing, and has not been resolved as of yet. You may find this article useful http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arms-ship-may-escape-action-if-it-was-beyond-indian-waters-dy-nsa/article5243604.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartin77 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Avichay Adraee

I am writing to you here because of a very biased article against the above listed individual and a statement to make a wikipedia article on him. I urge you to look at this link here There’s not even a Wikipedia page for him; but there will be one next week when I’m done building it.. You may want to be aware of this as I think it's a violation of the conflict of interest or at least shows a lack of a neutral point of view. New England Cop (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thedailybeast.com article says that Maysoon Zayid Peter Beinart is going to build a Wikipedia article on Avichay Adraee, Israeli Defense Forces spokesman. There's a few articles on Adraee: [6], [7], mostly on what he says on behalf of others. May not be enough for a biography article such that what he says on behalf of others may be better represented in articles about the others rather than in a stand alone article on Avichay Adraee. There is no indication that Peter Beinart has a Wikipedia user name. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The Beast article is written by Maysoon Zayid, not Peter Beinart. Zayid is very unflattering to Adraee and certainly shouldn't be involved in "building" a wikipedia article about him. New England Cop (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw Peter Beinart to the right of the article and mistakenly thought he wrote the article. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. The Wikipedia article on Maysoon Zayid says she's "an American actress, comedian and activist of Palestinian descent." I'm not sure if she has a Wikipedia user name. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Avichay Adraee might just about meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) requirements based on the following 3 sources[8][9][10], subject to consensus of course. Hard to tell. Adding content to IDF Spokesperson's Unit might be better. But I don't agree that Maysoon Zayid 'certainly shouldn't be involved in "building" a wikipedia article about him'. Wikipedia already has numerous editors who consistently advocate on behalf on the IDF, the Israeli government, organizations that regard themselves as pro-Israel, so on and so forth. Some of these editors have very strong nationalist/anti-Palestinian views, but they can and do edit here, including articles about things or people they strongly oppose or support, as long as they follow policy. English Wikipedia has almost no editors like Maysoon Zayid of Palestinian descent, and it shows. The demographic imbalance is remarkable. Ultimately an editor's personal opinions shouldn't matter as long as they follow policy (and lots of editors struggle with that in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area). Plenty of help and advice is available for people unfamiliar with the rules and processes are in place to deal with problem editors in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Articles about living people are covered by a strict policy, WP:BLP, and issues can be raised at a dedicated noticeboard if an article or editor doesn't comply with that policy. Taking pre-emptive action against an editor (assuming they are or will be an editor) to prevent them editing a particular subject without any evidence of a conflict of interest in the way WP:COI means it or any evidence about problematic editing, just because they don't like a particular person in the IDF or the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades etc, would probably be unprecedented and strikes me as very odd indeed. From COI, "Conflict of interest is not simply bias". It might be better if it was, but in Wikipedia, it isn't. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I should have added for interest that there's already a short uncontroversial looking Arabic article ar:أفيخاي أدرعي based largely on a translation of the Hebrew version of the English language Ynetnews article I've linked above, along with a bit of unsourced but probably uncontentious material. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Manoj Saxena

This article has been written as self promotion with far less third party sources and there are many incorrect reports. For example even though the subject received young alumni award for Michigan university it is written as distinguished alumni award. - 70.114.218.73 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The article passed through AfC in March 2012.[11] It's current version[12] tilts towards the promotional side. In the article lead "accomplished CEO" "Webify ..., a leader in industry", and, unlike anyone else in the world, "he has been singled out for various awards." That listed "Distinguished Alumni Award" is a "Young Alumni Achievement Award".[13] The article was last edited 10 June 2013‎. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the poorly cited and non-neutral section on 'Community Contributions' and also corrected the alumni award. It is worrying to find an inaccuracy like that though as it suggests that other parts of the article could not be correct. Some more trimming is probably in order. I've also added User:Bridgeweave as another single purpose account. SmartSE (talk) 11:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The article was deleted via AFD in 2007: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Manoj_Saxena. It doesn't look as if there have been many other sources published since then which would demonstrate notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User Blackbow17

Three monothematic WP:SPAs. Blackbow17 knows Morris well enough to be able to upload her artworks to Commons with correct permissions as "Own work", e.g. File:Vogue SM.jpg, File:Paine Webber (Midtown).jpg, File:Endeavor.jpg, File:SM RedOwl.jpg. Vandayam has also asserted that he/she is the copyright holder of Morris's work, at File:Sarah Morris The Conversation.jpeg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lastkingkoby

I noticed that Lastkingkoby triggered an edit filter for creating autobiographies with his user page and submitted the article for creation, but was declined. Normally I would ignore it but it appears that he's tried twice before to create the article, which was quickly speedy deleted. His only contribs are to his user page, the above mentioned page creations and minor grammar edits to OVO sound and it appears he's WP:NOTHERE. Jns4eva (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tameka Norris

Three monothematic WP:SPAs; there may be more. The IP geolocates to New Haven, CT, which may not be entirely coincidence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems that 2stupid is close enough to Norris to have taken this picture. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

User Webows111

Three monothematic WP:SPAs. Blackbow17 knows Morris well enough to be able to upload her artworks to Commons with correct permissions as "Own work", e.g. File:Vogue SM.jpg, File:Paine Webber (Midtown).jpg, File:Endeavor.jpg, File:SM RedOwl.jpg. Vandayam has also asserted that he/she is the copyright holder of Morris's work, at File:Sarah Morris The Conversation.jpeg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

User Vandayam

Three monothematic WP:SPAs. Blackbow17 knows Morris well enough to be able to upload her artworks to Commons with correct permissions as "Own work", e.g. File:Vogue SM.jpg, File:Paine Webber (Midtown).jpg, File:Endeavor.jpg, File:SM RedOwl.jpg. Vandayam has also asserted that he/she is the copyright holder of Morris's work, at File:Sarah Morris The Conversation.jpeg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

David LaChapelle

This seems to be quite a big mess. There may be more editors involved than those I have listed.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Fields (businessman)

Resolved
 – Article has been updated.

Hi there, I've posted twice on the talk page and gotten no reply. I am the US Social Media Manager for Ford Motor Company and Mark Fields is our Chief Operating Officer since earlier this year. The "Career in business" section was updated with his new title but the first sentence and the blue box to the right still use his old title. I've provided links to both his biography for Ford Motor Company and the press release when his role was announced. His biography: [1] and the announcement: [2] Thanks so much! Karenuntereker (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny. You and I have something in common. When I repair my Ford, I don't read the Ford instruction manual. I torque the bolts to any amount and tighten them in any order I think fit. Of course, I don't get paid to repair cars. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Jim DeMint

Over the last few weeks I've been looking for editors to review a request I left on the Jim DeMint talk page. I left the request, instead of making changes myself, because I work for The Heritage Foundation where DeMint is the president. The discussion on the talk page ended up being mostly about what conflict of interest editors in my position should and should not be allowed to do and in the end I was only able to get a little bit of feedback on my actual suggestion.

During the discussion, I revisited the conflict of interest guidelines and saw this noticeboard mentioned. I'm wondering if someone here can take a look at my original message and maybe provide some feedback or advice about how to move forward with this. I'd still really like to see some positive changes to the section under discussion, the Reception, policies, and politics section, so the two tags can be removed. Any advice would be appreciated! Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

At first glance I would say your version is better than what's there, but I understand the other editors' objection even if they were couched in "I don't like it" terms. For example, the list (bad list, bad) in the current version mentions the subject's position on abortion - you omitted it completely. You omitted the school prayer bit, establishment of English as official language, and you coached the visit to Honduras in a way that makes it sound less controversial than it was. I didn't check all the sources in the current version, it's possible I guess that they merited removal if they were poorly sourced. But your version comes across as a bit of a whitewash, rather than being neutral or better written. People are understandably going to be very cautious when you have a COI, so I'd recommend incorporating everything present in the current version if possible, or offer an explanation as to why that's not appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You have a bias, but you might not have a COI. Are you a low level employee at the The Heritage Foundation? Your use page says "as part of my current role at The Heritage Foundation, I'd like to help improve Heritage's coverage on Wikipedia". Are you saying "my current role at The Heritage Foundation includes improving Heritage's coverage on Wikipedia"? Does The Heritage Foundation approve, instruct, or other wise consult with you on your Heritage Foundation Wikipedia edits? If you give more details along these lines, I can let you know whether you have a COI. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thurmant, I've reviewed your request and incorporated it into Jim DeMint's article, with a few wording changes and keeping a couple of the bulleted items, without the bullets. I don't suffer from paranoia, so I am untroubled by COI or paid editing or any of the related nonsense. I couldn't care less if Jim DeMint himself wrote what you're requesting—we are supposed to evaluate the edit, not the editor. Your requested addition/re-write is NPOV and well sourced, so I added it with a few tweaks. Thank you for being patient. --72.66.30.115 (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the draft I proposed. I appreciate the help here, the changes you and Gandydancer made look good to me. Thanks again! Thurmant (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Pet

Are you the owner or the guardian of your pet? 2% of US citizens live in municipalities that substituted "owner" for "guardian" in local legal terms, while remaining 98% are pet owners as per local legal terminology. Use of term "guardian" is campaigned by animal rights organizations such as PETA, HSUS and others that oppose an idea of animal ownership. Professional associations such as American Kennel Club, American Veterinary Medical Association and so on oppose use of "guardian" term, and rightfully claim that it is misleading. Pet in a version of editor Startswithj who keeps reverting my edits already can be used as illustration to this statement: A pet (or companion animal) is an animal kept primarily for a person's company or protection, as opposed to working animals, sport animals [3] One can state that working dog is kept for person's protection, but this is not nearly what the mentioned editor meant. I oppose use of "guardian" term as being equal to "owner" term in the article. I already tried to tag the page, and asked for help. See Pet talk page and/or edits history of this article for more.

References

  1. ^ https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/people/mark-fields.html
  2. ^ https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2012/11/01/ford-says-mulally-to-remain-as-president-and-ceo-through-at-leas.html
  3. ^ A pet (or companion animal) is an animal kept primarily for a person's company or protection, as opposed to working animals, sport animals.[1]

-- Afru (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The article's definition in contrast to working animals predates my contributions by several years. I'm also not advocating equal weight for guardian, just concise, balanced mention. The "rightfully" statement above, the "so you admit" and "Mommy" statements on the Talk:Pet#Owner_vs_Guardian, and the animal-related infoboxes on User:Afru show a stronger COI. Wikipedia:NOTIGERS. Startswithj (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The "guardian" issue is not one to be balance with "owner" in the pet article. It is a subtopic of pet legalities that probably could be treated in its own Guardian (pet) article. As the pet article now reads, guardian should not be mentioned as "Pets commonly provide their owners (or guardians) physical and emotional benefits" in the article lead per WP:LEAD. I do not think "owner" is a good term to use either. Pets provide children of pet owners and house guests of pet owners physical and emotional benefits. A pet lamb or a pet horse lives outside the home and does not provide the same physical and emotional benefits as an indoor dog or cat. The "Pet" article needs to be written broadly when describing pets. Afru, Startswithj, perhaps you can replace the "owners (or guardians)" lead sentence with "Animals commonly provide people emotional benefits when kept as companions and cared for affectionately." As for the COI issue, I do not see anyone meeting the external relationship requirement for the "pet" topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Check on COI issues

Hi all. I've recently become an unpaid contributor to the website WhatCulture! and I wanted to know where I stand with regards to COI issues. I have no wish to work on articles relating to the website itself (I can probably count on one hand the number of company related articles I've ever worked on), but I wanted to check if there was any issues with my continued use of the website as a source. I know that I won't be able to use anything I write or contribute (as it'll be Original Research) but I wanted to know where the line was before I accidentally stumbled over it. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Optical Express: more eyes please

I would be much obliged if experienced editors (especially admins) from here could add Optical Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to their watchlists and keep an eye on the article and its talk page. There's a slow-moving but long-running conflict between editors with opposing conflicts of interest, and I don't have the time at the moment to monitor things as closely as I'd like. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some editors appear to be obtaining negative, but sourced, event information (possible foreclosure, purportedly not closing a deal when they said, closed a subsidiary, pre-tax loss, owner resigned from the board of another company) and adding it to the article with some being removed by other editors. You might want to cross post at WP:NPOVN. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I notice that two editors are specifically cited for COI at the very top of the talk page. Has their conflict of interest been admitted or demonstrated? Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The first one has on their user page. The second one has not declared a connection. --Drm310 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd say that the first user's disclosure is completely inadequate, as it fails to indicate on the article talk page that he works for the company. The second editor's conflict disclosure is confusing, as it does not indicate what his conflict is. Coretheapple (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is also inadequate. It is clear that a company employee has been able to gain editorial control by proxy of the content. The content is inaccurate and overly advertorial. The info box contains financial information that is historically correct but has been superseded by further audited accounts with large losses that have been reported widely. It needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.85.37 (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

A COI case very easy to understand. The article talks about a "imaginary party" (yes, a party that does not officially exist) in Brazil, which would aim to keep the "bourgeois capitalist" power through "media coup". That is, the article itself is problematic , partial and biased, because it talks about an offensive term created by left-wing extremists in Brazil, to attack his opponents . Analyzing the Al Lemos edits, we realize that he is expanding the article exactly three years since its creation. The problem is, the referred user makes very few editions at Wikipedia, and mainly on politics articles , always trying to attack people and parties linked to the Brazil right, with his main (I would say, only) focus "watch" these articles (specially Partido da Imprensa Golpista). Al Lemos acts as a single-purpose account. He is always expanding the article based on COI , because this user has notably anti-press behavior. I request that this user receives a permanent ban , because there is a great possibility that he is receiving payment of leftist parties Brazilians interested in maligning the press of the country (there are in Brazil and throughout Latin America , a growing trend to censor all news/press organizations , attempting against democracy ), to edit on Wikipedia. This user have no more intention in contribute to Wikipedia, just want to use Wikipedia structure to attack what he hates. Rauzaruku (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Most sources used in this article are non-reliable sources, from blogs that pretend to be serious sites like Observatório de Imprensa and Carta Maior, organizations that are sponsored by parties of the left to attack the "capitalists". Other sources are from left-wing extremist writers. The entire article is a big Conspiracy Theory ceaselessly propagated in the head of the Brazilian people to feel hatred from the "richs" and elect "the saviors of the political left". Rauzaruku (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've detected a lot of ORIGINAL RESEARCH too. This user is collecting fragmented information to create "someting from nothing". This article is a masterpiece of illusion. Rauzaruku (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The same old "watchdog" talk. The article was created originally in Portuguese in 2009. The English version has a lot of well-credited and academical sources. There's no vestige of original research in it. And I am an editor with more than 2,000 articles created only in Portuguese (with little few about political issues). So, I recommend that Mr. Rauzaruku find something useful to do and let those who want to work in peace. - Al Lemos (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know who are you. But now you will start to rewrite this article like an adult, not this garbage version, trying to tell your version of history. You've created a ton of articles? Me too. This don't make you an angel. This article is a pure political propaganda. If you don't start to write this in a impartial version, you can be sure that I'll start to access the administrators here, article copywriters and those who I need to stop your COI. You purposely ignores multiple connections and issues related to the article, and puts only the parts that interest to you, and also, insert original research without verifiable bases. And then I even begin to check other COIs that you verty likely should have done here. "This article was created in Portuguese in 2009", so what? Some people tried to delete this article in Portuguese because he is a giant COI, with massive speculation and accusations without foundation. This article, into the Portuguese Wiki, was created by a used that have a PT star in his personal page (complete COI, to the PT party is interesting to use the Wiki strcture to attack his opponents), and the other two versions (english and spanish) was created by a very suspect user which came in wikipedia only to create these articles and never done anything more, disappeared (another COI). The article subject is a party that don't exist and the creator of the term has no credibility as a person, by the sources I've added. This article is most referred to Bolivarian Propaganda than anything. Rauzaruku (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

COI editing at Naveen Jain yet again

Past COIN reports: January 2008 December 2010

Yes, coi-editing at Naveen Jain again. I'm not one to report COI problems until they are bad, so it might be helpful to look closer at the other ip's on this and related articles.

173.160.176.110/111 are new WP:SPA ips registered to "NAVEEN JAIN NAVEENJAIN". The ip's have repeatedly violated BLP and NPOV with their editing, and have attacked me to justify their viewpoints.

A couple of edits from 110:

I don't believe this editor is one of the past ip's, and so a block would be the easiest solution. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


70.103.74.91 is an Intelius ip. --Ronz (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've requested an open proxy check on a number of other ip's that are on confirmed proxy servers. I've never done this before, so I'm not sure this is an appropriate next step with them. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The results of the check are that they are cell phone ip's, with the exception of one which is a hotel. No action taken. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

COI on All Tomorrow's Parties (band)

This page was created and written by Wladek Sheen (who later renamed his account.) He seems to be the lead singer/guitarist of this unsigned band and the refs on the page are mostly from very questionable sources like blogs and fanzines. A possibly misguided regard for WP:WORLDVIEW on my part has prevented me from sending the article to AFD, so I tagged the page for COI instead. Now User:RumpelStylish, a single purpose account that could very well be a sock or meat puppet has appeared to revert me. I'm not going to edit war over that tag, but can I ask someone else to have a look at this situation? Valenciano (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability is something we should discuss on the talk page or at an AFD, not here, so I'll reply to you very briefly. I'd suggest you read WP:BAND. I'm not convinced that your group meets any of that criteria. Regarding the links you post above, only the Московский комсомолец one comes close to what we need. The rest are very brief mentions that your band has played gigs in the Moscow region. This link, like a lot of the others, is about a music festival which lots of bands play at and your group gets a brief mention. Those links prove that yes, your group was one of many playing at a music festival, but not that you have the individual notability for a band to meet WP:MUSIC. All that is besides the point of this noticeboard, that the article appears to be being used by the lead singer/guitarist of a group to promote his band, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Edit warring to remove that maintenance tag is a very bad idea, which can only lead to your account being blocked. Valenciano (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Additionally since making this post, I notice that you have blanked the article's talk page, in violation of WP:TPG and again removed the COI tag, which four editors have now added. Your editing is now bordering on disruption and I would respectfully advise you to stop, before you end up blocked. Valenciano (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

Tribs' speak for themselves. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Two accounts that have edited almost exclusively the article on Art Plural Gallery and those on artists represented by the gallery, such as Dane Patterson, Tian Taiquan, Fu Lei (Artist), Qiu Jie, Bernar Venet, Thukral & Tagra, Fabienne Verdier and so on. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Establishing the conflict is aided by diffs/links showing a connection between the user behind the user name and the topic of the article. I don't find a COI at this point in time. CorneliaHTang has 108[29] of the 168[30] revisions to the Art Plural Gallery article and her talk page shows a desire to contribute, but that she might not be aware to how to go about it. I'll post a note[31] on her talk page. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, 100% agreed on the first point. But I can't actually do that, can I, as to do so would be outing? As for the talk page note, many thanks, yours is much better than the one I left her. Let's see if she takes any more notice of yours than she did of mine. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The diffs/links would be those posts that the person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on/in Wikipedia. The Art Plural Gallery article is not a troubled article. Vijayaartplural has few edits and the information notice on Cornelia's talk page should be sufficient for now. If she continues along the same lines as before, WP:NPOVN may be a better noticeboard to post at. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm bewildered by your response. Those diffs you mention would only be available in the case of a declared conflict of interest. Here you have two people who are very obviously employees of the gallery (or masquerading as such) adding wholly promotional content about it and about the artists it represents, vast chunks of it lifted direct from the gallery's own website. The fact that they have not declared their conflict of interest does not make it less one. Or is it OK to edit when you have a conflict of interest as long as you don't actually come out and admit it? I don't think so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. This discussion is to determine whether COIN is going to declare that an editor has a COI for a specific article. CorneliaHTang and Vijayaartplural do not yet have a COIN declared COI. Part of determining whether to declare a COI is to establish through diffs the editor's connection to the topic (see the top of this noticeboard). Editors may post in Wikipedia things like ... I work at ..., I maintain a website on behalf of ..., I'm good friends with the owner of ... . Diffs to such posts help COIN determine whether to declare a COI. The Art Plural Gallery article appears to have been cleaned up. CorneliaHTang received a notice and has not posted contrary to that notice.[32] Is there something else that needs to be done? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, see her recent edits. Meanwhile, 58.185.1.178 has also edited Art Plural Gallery, and turns out to have an edit history that resembles in many ways that of CorneliaHTang. WHOIS indicates that the range 58.185.1.176 – 58.185.1.191 is assigned to Art Plural Gallery, 38 Armenian Street, Singapore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping that my first post on her talk page would cause her to pause and discuss. I posted another note. If that doesn't work, we'll have to kick it up a notch. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I notice that CorneliaHTang has uploaded fair use image File:Avant Premiere.jpg with a licence which stipulates "In addition to the fair-use assertion shown on this page, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties" and stating that the copyright belongs to Art Plural Gallery. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear there is a conflict of interest. When someone uses the actual name of an employee of Art Plural, or includes "artplural" in their username, they are hardly being deceptive. Though some edits are promotional, others are adequately sourced while others can be adequately sourced. I think what you've done - attempting to open up a dialogue with the editor(s) - is the best way forward. Sionk (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Flickr

Beginning on May 20th, 2013, there was a major redesign of the website Flickr. I began a section under Flickr's "Controversies" section pertaining to this major redesign of a website that purportedly has 10's of millions of users. The discussion about the redesign began here: [33]. After months of criticism to remove the content from actual users of Flickr, as well as major removal edits, an RfC [34] resulted in the removal of the entire section. One of the contentious discussions/issues related to an article by a 'journalist' named David Pogue [35]. Recent news has confirmed Pogue is now an employee of Yahoo (owner of Flickr) [36] and considering an article by [[Vice magazine] about COI on WP due to paid edits [37] I would like to open up a COI case on this contentious issue. Keep in mind, other Controversies such as "Censorship", a "Virgin Mobile Ad" and "DMCA copyright implementation" have had much less Wikipedia contention and discussion and remain in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I can say so far is that what is presented here is a list of involved users and a description of a content dispute that one user doesn't seem to want to let go of. What I don't see is any evidence of or even a logical argument suggesting that any of the other users involved has a conflict. This looks as likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG as an indictment of the other participants. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The RfC in question was an open straw poll which attracted nine users, six of whom felt that policy supported the removal of the material, with four of those users taking no other part in the discussion or the editing of the article. User:Jakerome did not participate in this RFC, having already abandoned the discussion (and perhaps Wikipedia) a month previously, after feeling "harassed" by User:Caffeinaddict over a possible COI. I myself have no professional or social connection to Yahoo, and have received no compensation for any of my edits to Wikipedia. --McGeddon (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should have stated that as well, but I think it should be pretty obvious that I too have no professional, social, or financial connection to Yahoo/Flickr, was unaware of any redesign at Flickr prior to the RfC, and was summoned to Talk:Flickr by RfCbot. I stuck around to make a few uncontroversial edits to the article when I decided it could use some copy editing, but that's it. I agree that Use:Jakerome was hounded off Wikipedia by Use:CaffeinAddict, and I doubt that he'll show up here to defend himself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have dredged up some diffs. RFCbot solicited me to comment on Talk:Flickr on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the page was also on June 20 (diff). My first edit to the mainspace article was on July 24 (diff). It is trivially easily to validate these statements, as seen in the article history and my own contribution log. My arguments in the RfC were rooted in a stated preference for minimalism, as seen on my user page and in other policy discussions. Is there anything else that really needs be said? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

We should really stay on point. This forum is not about myself as an editor, it is about a possible COI in relation to the Flickr, Yahoo and the removal of a controversy on Flickr's wikipedia page. I would defend that I am not in any way harassing any user. User:Jakerome also used very strong language and accused users of various things during the debate. Again, this is not a case about Wiki-Bullying anyone (however you all have used WikiLawyering to some effect against me) - this is a case about a possible COI. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Any relevant behavioral issues may be discussed if you bring a case to one of Wikipedia's noticeboards. In this case, your behavior looks very disruptive. This discussion is likely to focus on what problems you are causing rather than on your accusations against others. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me - what disruptive editing? - I haven't edited the Flickr page since the RfC. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Does it really need to be pointed out in excruciating detail? Try reading WP:DIVA. You are strongly exhibiting several of the criteria: spurious, public threats to leave the project; rejection of consensus; bullying editors (Jakerome) over trivial disputes; keeping long-term grudges; and insisting that everyone else is being disruptive while presenting absolutely no evidence, which is disruptive in itself. I suggest you either start presenting some evidence in the form of diffs or you withdraw your accusations. Do you have anything to say about what I've already presented? Are you still pushing this ridiculous assertion that I have a CoI, after I've shown that RFC bot invited me to the discussion? The frustrating thing is that you knew that was the case, because McGeddon and I had discussed it during the RfC, when I suggested that we needed more input from uninvolved editors, and McGeddon pointed out that I myself had been summoned by RFC bot. Seriously? Would a shill actively solicit more uninvolved editors (diff)? I'm getting myself a bit worked up over this, because this case is so poorly thought-out and obviously based on WP:HARASSMENT. I think that I've conclusively demonstrated that my behavior has been the opposite of biased; that I was solicited to post on Talk:Flickr by a bot; and that User:CaffeinAddict knew these facts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I would say you've bullied me on the Talk page more than anyone. If you just want to WP:link to various things to try to wikilawyer me away from this forum, go ahead. The COI claim still stands. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious? Wikilawyering? Have you presented one shred of evidence yet? Please read the instructions at the top of this page. Link to actual behavior indicative of a CoI in the form of diffs. You know why you haven't? Because you can't. There is none – only evidence to show my lack of a CoI. You've all but admitted in this previous post that you've done this because your feelings got hurt, more evidence of disruptive WP:DIVA behavior. Do you know why I keep linking to Wikipedia policies and providing diffs? It's because that's what you're supposed to do. All you've done so far is make baseless accusations with no evidence. Keep digging that hole, User:CaffeinAddict. This is going to come back and bite you in WP:ANI. If nobody is going to provide any evidence, I move that this discussion be closed and we move the proceedings to WP:ANI, where user behavior is more on-topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Just a quick comment here as I observed this conversation as well as look at the Flickr Talk Page, I would have to agree that maybe this should move forward to WP:ANI as there seems to be no resolution here at all. Jguard18 Critique Me 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If some admins can verify/assure that there is no COI (my main suspicion being User:Jakerome ) then I'm perfectly satisfied and know we followed up properly. Moving to the ANI might just continue this small group of us bickering... but I would suggest an admin make that call. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

One elance bidder, at least two en.wiki accounts, many articles

Hello all,
I think I might have stumbled across quite a large WP:COI problem. The Muhammad Ali K. account on elance has won a large number of bids to write articles here; mostly BLPs and businesses. The exact identities of many elance bidders are unclear, so it's not always easy to make connections, but here's what I've found so far:

The article described him in the lede as "an American engineer, consultant, author and speaker" and went on to repetitive elaboration, mostly of the speaking and consulting. (The only book of his I could find on Worldcat had exactly one library holding), I am extremely suspicious of articles that claim notability in multiple professions -- especially when two of them are as a speaker or consultant. A proper bio of someone who is actually notable in a specific field will list that field as the notability. Only promotional articles do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

So, I conclude that one person has been paid to write lots of problematic content, and they have used multiple accounts to cover their tracks. At no point did either of the main accounts declare any conflict of interest. Do we need to get SPI involved? I think it could be a good idea to flush out any other accounts. After I posted a COI warning on User talk:Muhammad Ali Khalid, something very strange happened; Muhammad Ali K's most recent bids changes status to "Job cancelled" and "pending cancellation". I think that this editor has realised he's been caught and is now covering his tracks. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that Khalid was the primary editor of Dean Andrew Kantis (which I got involved with upon noting some severe BLP issues relating to someone with whom Kantis has differences), and will also note that the first AfD of Morris Waxler followed a pattern similar to the Kantis AfD, with the only concurrence with Khalid's keep being a new SPA, User:Rogerdavis101. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! That's interesting. I wonder whether checkuser would be helpful (partly to flush out other accounts). bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Note a SPI report has been filed here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the SPI. Sorry for the long and hard-to-follow post; it took a lot of time to make a series of connections, and most of the posts on elance try to conceal the subject of the article they want written. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you have any reason to apologise. It looks to me as if you have done an outstanding piece of detective work, and highlighted why we urgently need an effective paid editor policy and code of practice for dealing with such behaviour. Mike Ghouse seems to me a perfect example of the appalling sort of article Wikipedia will end up hosting if we don't do something about this now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
We already have the proper method--we just have to apply it. Examine articles more closely, list the dubious ones for deletion, and follow up all related articles. In any case, we can only prohibit what we can detect. Myself, I consider borderline notability plus borderline promotionalism a sufficient argument at AfD. Most of the articles have now been prodded; the only reason I'm not speedy deleting some of them is so more non-admins here can see the evidence first. But I well remember trying to delete two articles on borderline notable bands written for ridiculously trivial sums of money, only to find at AfD that those knowing the subject considered the bands clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the update. If the deleted Ted Garrison was American, then (considering the dates) that article probably corresponds to this client of Muhammad Ali K which I hadn't been able to identify before. I haven't been able to identify all the articles associated with Muhammad Ali K. but we've got almost all the recent ones. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
At this point almost all the articles have been nominated for deletion as either Prod or AfD, either by myself or by other editors. There's one I'm still checking on, because it's in a field where if there is any notability , I might be wiling to rewrite, and there's one iI would appreciate an opinion on by someone who knows the standards for the subject field, Jerry Carroll (comedian). Some of the other people might conceivably be appropriate for articles also, but that will need to be done by someone who knows and respects our standards--and if so, the first step would be getting rid of the current material. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again.
The SPI revealed another account, Jacob Pabst (talk · contribs). This account created seven new articles but also edited some existing articles (one of which, Emily VanCamp, overlaps with Just A Common Guy). bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your point exactly Bob?

You have sent me a message stating "I have raised concerns about some of your edits" When I go to what you say I edited I see that you have smeared me by stating "an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." Really? Since you have no idea that this account has been on Wikipedia for 6 years basically what you are saying is I have no right to state my opinion. I find your statement "Gibco65 (talk · contribs), an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep"." extremely offensive. I don't know the author, I don't know Muhammad Ali K, I don't know Dean Andrew Kantis but I do live in Chicagoland and know of his story. It was among 60 others that were presented to The Illinois Department of Professional Regulation. A Doctor lost his license for basically blinding people. I state my opinion and have a far deeper knowledge of what happened then you and say keep. Then you just outright accuse me of creating an account to vote keep. I ask, What is your point exactly Bob? Are you seriously accusing me of sitting in wait for 6 years, then being some part of a conspiracy? You have some perceived notion that only people like yourselves have a say so in what or what should not be on Wikipedia and you know what? You are right. I have no time to defend myself or "edit" what you just proved is in reality just a very biased blog. I am too busy with life and teaching at a National Lab. You have basically attacked me for stating my opinion but yet you make no mention of the people who posted far more things then me against said article. It was an AfD and I stated my opinion which I later changed saying "I think it needs to be rewritten properly" and you question my right to comment? It would be like saying that your account appeared for the sole purpose of making false statements. This is why I want nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. Since TRUTH is not a requirement and your accusation just proves that, really what is the point? In a way I'm glad you had to message me. I looked up your account and you have many Wikipedia Awards. Good for you! Yet it is people like you that try and censor anyone who comments on Wikipedia. That is why in the Real World Wikipedia is taken with a grain of salt. It is a bunch of people who decide what is worthy or not of basically a blog. I don't have time for your wild theories on something that was settled a month ago. I have better things to do. I wanted to participate and then realized I would just be part of a fraud. Thanks for your outright attack on my right to comment. Basically commenting on anything is a COI. By the way I took the exclamation point out of your accusation against me. Sorry for the edit. Gibco65 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

@Gibco65: It looks like you were caught up in a sockpuppet investigation by mistake (see discussion above and this). It happens sometimes, sorry. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate the explanation and apology BUT I feel that a proper apology should come from the person who made wild wrongful accusations AND opened a sockpuppet investigation on me and another innocent person. That would be bobrayner . In his overzealousness he actually started a sockpuppet investigation on me and others and outright accused me of creating an account for the sole purpose of adding keep to an Article that was up for AfD. I'm glad he found his culprit, it really wasn't a big surprise since Muhammad Ali K was on elance advertising his services. Basically bobrayner will probably get another "The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar" but at what cost? A wild witch-hunt that smeared a couple people. How many people have been accused by him over the years and exonerated? To Wikipedia this is acceptable and encouraged behavior? I find having my integrity questioned by someone without a shred of proof to be unacceptable behavior. He has six Barnstars for being "The Defender of the Wiki" How many innocent people were accused of wrongdoing in his quest for those accolades? Basically I find people like him to be offensive. "I stumbled upon something and now I'm going to accuse a bunch of people of wrongdoing." To me it is borderline paranoia and yet he gets praise for his wild accusations. He had his man from the start but that wasn't good enough. This is the problem with Wikipedia. You want people to contribute and when they do they are accused of wrongdoing by someone whose sole purpose seems to be to start trouble with other people. That's my take on bobrayner and from reading his talk page I see I'm one of many who feel the same way. It's Bobs way whether he has a clue as to what he actually editing or not. The outcome of his big "investigation"? One week blocked for Muhammad Ali K. Was it worth smearing two people for this? Then on top of all of it he doesn't have the decency as a man to apologize for an outright mistake. Gibco65(talk)14:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A considerable wall of text. Gibco65 Could you explain what Bobs conflict of interest actually is supposed to be any time soon? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a response to the above thread. I'll bump it down a subheading level. --McGeddon (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a response to Free Range Frog. Unlike Bob I'm not stating that Bob has a conflict of interest. I'm merely stating that I find his accusation offensive and that I would think that if you are going to run around just accusing people of things, when they are proven to be unfounded it would be proper to apologize. Yes its a little long but it explains how I feel about the false statements and investigation that was initiated against me for making a simple comment on an AfD. You would be pretty insulted yourself Roxy the dog if it were you. No COI is implied, just rabid fanaticalness. Gibco65 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I forgot, it was Bob himself who directed me to this page in his message. Gibco65 (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If it were me, I'd figure out what was going on first before exploding into incandescent rage and making a total fool of myself, but that's just me. As it is, you've made a fool of yourself. Bob made a mistake in his analysis, but otherwise it seems as if he's done a rather good job. The checksummer thing (I actually have no idea at all what that is) appears to have identified you as an incidental casualty, and at that stage you should have shut up. You look quite foolish now. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, the idea is to wait for the results of the SPI to come in before casting aspersions at editors. That's why there is no requirement to notify people of SPIs like there is for ANI, for example. In an ideal happy-happy flower world, Bob would have apologized by now, and Gibco65 could be doing something more fulfilling and less stressful than this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime, I have looked at bobs Talk page, and he has apologised. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I have looked at Bobs talk page and have also apologized. I did go on a rant but I was accused of something over something that happened almost a month ago. I may look the fool, fair enough but when I found out that I was accused of being a sockpuppet in an official investigation I flew off the handle in defense of my account. I had done nothing wrong and yet was accused of making an account for an AfD disscusion, then I find out I'm on a list of suspected sockpuppets. My comments were made almost a month ago and I thought this was pretty much a done issue. Now it is. To anyone who was offended by my rant, I apologize. My comment on the British was out of line. My rant, justified or not was really just my defense of myself. I was getting sick of being called all these puppet names and an outright accusation of making up an account to vote on something. I have since calmed down, I realize that this is the way of Wikipedia and that Bob was just doing his job if you will. To anyone who was offended I apologize once again. I was pretty POed. Really from the day one I had to look up "meatpuppet" and the other day "sockpuppet". I hate puppets and clowns. I'll be quiet now. Gibco65 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.
Can we turn this around and get something positive out of it? Are there any articles you'd like to improve? bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Advanced Technology Investment Company

After following up for several months to have amendments made to our page and closely following the COI guidelines, I have made edits to the page which are non-controversial, firmly backed up by news and academic articles from multiple sources, and core to the work of the organization and thus the relevance of the page. Given that I have a conflict of interest, which I have previously disclosed, I welcome the further edits and refinements of the community. Harrisonrice (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The entire article uses the firm name much too often, and is written in the short choppy sentences of a press release: use paragraphs for connected ideas. Of the material you added (1) the last sentence in History & Growth is speculation; all you can say is that the project was placed on hold. (2) "Within the first three years, ACE4S will seek to..." is also pure speculation--when you have done it, only then does it belong in the article DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: I had replied to Harrisonrice on the talk page of that article per an earlier thread at this noticeboard. I missed his reply to my reply and had stopped watching the talk page—sorry! I agree with DGG and will try to take a closer look soon, if RL allows. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Manoj Saxena

Monothematic WP:SPA keeps on working on this article, which has already been deleted twice and is now nominated again. Manoj Saxena is head of Webify Solutions Inc.. Draw your own conclusions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be something seriously wrong with the archive search on this page. I thought I had seen this here, so searched for it, both by article name and by username. When I didn't find it, I posted the above. I now find that it is already at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 67#Manoj Saxena. Apologies all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Joemeservy

I have NO links to Wiki-PR, whatever that is...Also, I am an American with a keen interest in rock groups. Accordingly, I regularly make updates regarding rock groups of which I am a big fan. I have NEVER once received payment for such an act in the last two plus years.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Please immediately refrain from making un-based accusations without evidence. Regarding COI, I am currently an unemployed law student--hopefully that alleviates your concerns.--Joemeservy (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to our WP:OUTING policy, I can't post my evidence on-wiki without your consent. I'm pretty confident I'm not making a baseless accusation however, and will gladly send evidence, via email, to any admin passerby who would like to see it who doesn't stumble upon it yourself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking through old contributions, I found a way to make the connection apparent without violating outing. In this old diff of Joe's sandbox, he describes himself as a senior agent at a talent agency that represents Imagine Dragons. Joe made edits to Imagine Dragons, as well as a number of other bands he represented, while he was representing them. He's basically written most of the article for ID, a band he personally represented. This represents a rather large and rather obvious conflict of interest. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Imagine Dragons have been represented by APA since 2011. I patterned all of my edits off the pages of other bands of similar genres on wikipedia. Moreover, Imagine Dragons meet requirements for notability (they released a major label album which was certified for sales, they went on a publicized tour, they received a nationally recognized award, etc) as have the subjects of any wiki articles I have edited. Finally, I would underscore the incontrovertible fact that I am not nor was I ever paid to edit the wiki pages of any of these artists. The sole exception to this would be some edits I made to The Killers pages for a short period of time where I was on a salary. Those edits were done in accordance with the wikipedia rules of 2011, when they occurred.--Joemeservy (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing about conflicts of interest on Wikipedia is disclosure - and conflicts of interest don't necessarily have to be financial. If you represented a group, you presumably have a pretty close relationship to that group and have feelings about them that may bias your editing pattern in one way or another, even if you no longer have a direct financial tie to the group. If your CoI (and you do have one) is disclosed, then other editors can be aware of it, and can keep that in mind when looking at your edits. Would you mind adding a mention to your user page that you formerly ran a talent agency that represented artists whose Wikipedia pages you have since edited? I'm willing to take your word that none of your ID etc work has been financially compensated, but disclosure is still an important thing to help ensure neutrality. Sorry if I came off a bit harsh at first, I was expecting a bigger COI than apparently exists. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Rpinkett and Randal Pinkett articles

Not sure if this major enough, but for your review: I noticed a few edits on articles I watch where a new user, User:Rpinkett, has inserted references to "Randal Pinkett" and his career in articles about Randal Pinkett and institutions connected to Pinkett. Not sure if this is the actual Randal Pinkett, but this smacks of COI/Self-promotion if it is...while Pinkett is a notable person, I'm rather certain this is not entirely proper, but not knowing how y'all seem to go about it. User's contributions: [38] --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Joel Hyatt

User with same name as article removed unsavory tidbits [40]. Unclear if tidbits are true, but you know how it goes. Article subject is a TV lawyer. Blackguard 07:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

P.H. Yu

This article is an obvious puff piece written by a team of single purpose accounts, most likely as part of a paid editing scheme by a PR firm. The question is, what to do with the article? I don't feel good about having volunteers put a ton of time into this article. Maybe it can be stubbed instead.

The accounts appear to be throw away sock or meat puppets. There's no way to checkuser them because they are stale by now. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow that's an impressive list of socks. Is this more Wiki-PR work? Judging by this he might well be notable, but as that shows the article is far from being neutral. It seems like stubbing it is probably the best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly the same editors have worked on the Chinese version. SmartSE (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Send it to AFD. There's no point in wasting editors' time with this. The subject may be notable, but his biography is a complete shill, with glowing inflated praise that does not match up to the references. Several of the editors named above have their names taken from US TV show Fairly Legal, it's clear that this is an advertising exercise. From the Chinese Wikipedia edits, you can also add the following users -
We should not waste Wikipedians' time with this. Just delete it, and if the PR firm comes back with more hagiographic bullshit, delete it again - waste the PR firm's time and money until they come up with something neutral. Also, I don't think this is Wiki-PR, the operators here are much more competent and are multilingual. It's a shame that the IPs are too old to do anything about, I'm sure they have plenty of sleepers. - hahnchen 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

doual'art

An external review of those articles would be really helpful. I have been in general accused of COI. The articles appears to me neutral and not promotional; furthermore I have been never being payed directly or indirectly by doual'art or any of the people and events related, and I have never received direct or indirect benefit from supporting their work (I have no COI related to those institutions). I have a bias because I really like their work and I do have an expertise in the field because I have been working in research in Douala. Iopensa (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously not entirely an easy question, as Iolanda Pensa is, as she says, an expert in this field, and experts are sorely needed in this project and should not be discouraged from contributing. Nevertheless, my initial impression is that there is some degree of conflict of interest in relation to Doual'art. This page from Africa e Mediterraneo says that she "... collaborated with several magazines, ... with the art centre Doual’Art in Douala, Cameroon". Lettera27 says that "she is a freelance consultant for Doual'art". Would it be appropriate to suggest that Ms. Pensa contribute her expertise to the talkpage of that article rather than editing it directly? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Justlettersandnumbers. I see that it is not clear from my CVs or biography. To try to clarify it:
  1. my CVs and biographies do not differentiate clearly my volunteer and payed work. I have started introducing some differentiations when i thought they were relevant; for example all the work I have being doing in Esino Lario is not payed, it is completely pro bono and nobody asks me to do it; I have started explicitly saying it because the initiatives and projects have been growing through time and people might assume I get something out of it. In my CV and bios mentioning doual'art (and I have also mentioned other institutions I have being supporting) was rather meant to say that – even if I am a white Italian-Swiss art critic – I do have a specific knowledge of Africa (which is often not the case); those bios were meant for specific targets for which payed or unpaid work would not be specifically relevant and for which a clarification of potential COI was not necessary to be explicit (for example also in my publication list I do not differentiate the typology of relationship I have with the different publications). I believe word such as "consultant" and "collaborations" clarify that my work was not inscribed within the organization and that my judgment was independent (this is very different from internship, in which the work is often volunteer but the interns normally execute tasks). A certain degree of potential misunderstand are unfortunately common in biographies: it is like writing "I am an editor on Wikipedia"; for people within the movement this is clearly a volunteer work meant to support open knowledge, but for outsiders it can be ambiguous; people can assume you are paid to do it. Through time I become more aware of how my CV and bio can be read; the bio you are referring to date back 2006 and 2007. This for example is a more recent CV but it already contains a mistake (I am not correspondent for Africa for the magazine "Domus" any more); in this bio for example I do not say that my work as art director of the association Amici del Museo delle Grigne Onlus is volunteer because I trust is not relevant for the target; they might be more interested in knowing that I have experience in commissioning artworks.
  2. I have wrote a detailed information about my work and conflicts of interest within the discussion with ThurnerRupert. Just to focus on doual'art: in 2005 my travel costs to Douala have been covered by doual'art since I was an invited guest to the Ars&Urbis 2005 symposium; in 2007 my travel costs to Douala have been covered by Mondriaan Foundation and doual'art to contribute to the Ars&Urbis international workshop. Those are the only financial and professional benefits I received in my collaboration. I have been contributing to support doual'art by triggering financial grants from which I did not benefitted nor directly nor indirectly: notably Doen Foundation, Prince Claus Fund, Orange Foundation (WikiAfrica Cameroon project); doual'art has also been supported by lettera27; the iStrike Foundation I founded in 2005 also contributed to doual'art work by leverage fundings; I didn't receive payment or exchange of benefit from the work I did at iStrike neither. I am also currently applying to the IGE Individual Grant Engagement for a project involving doual'art; the project includes my travel costs to Wikimania 2014 London to participate in the project presentation; I contribute to the project as a volunteer and I do not receive from the potential grant any salary (not directly from the grant nor indirectly from doual'art or any person involved in the call).
  3. I do absolutely have a bias: I believe knowledge related to Africa has to be more documented on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects (which is not currently the case). I do not have personal interests or benefits in contributing to African content or doual'art and related articles. I do it because I trust it will make knowledge better for all of us. If I contribute to topics related to my research (on background knowledge which is indeed not the aim of research), it is because I believe research work has the moral duty to make sure people can understand what it is talking about. This is something which is not requested, nor encouraged and often not even understood (or simply discouraged). The reason why I am applying for a IEG grant which will provide some resources for doual'art (and a commission to two artists) is because I think Wikipedia in Africa needs to be triggered. The advantage I see for myself is that I think it can produce something cool and relevant for our movement; I have not been asked or commissioned to do it and this activity will only bring me more volunteer work: I really do not see any personal interest or benefit from doing it (indeed my husband and children made it very clear that it is rather a disadvantage).
My background, my focus and my way of contributing to Wikipedia might be a little peculiar; but a conflict of interest presumes an incompatibility. According to WP:COI "the word interest is used here to refer to benefit or gain, not to something you are merely interested in, such as a hobby or area of expertise." I would really like to continue contributing to Wikipedia on topics I am merely interested in because it is what I like doing and what I trust I can do the best. --Iopensa (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc

Resolved
 – Carol has disclosed her past connection to Rothbard, and most users (including OP) have no interest in pursuing further discussion.

Carol is the third most prolific editor to Murray Rothbard (1), a page she first edited in December 2008. However, she has never (to my knowledge) disclosed on WP that she had a relationship with Rothbard years ago, until I confronted her about old statements on her website (in which she described Rothbard as an "early co-conspirator" of hers) a few weeks ago. She then admitted that she and Rothbard had "collaborated on a couple events in 1980 and then just saw each other every few months at public events in NYC til I left in 1982 for LA" (2), and also stated that while she "knew" him back then, they had a "falling out" in the early 80s (3). WP:COS admonishes users not to edit the pages of those who they are connected to. The policy defines personal connection extremely broadly, as a category including "employee[s], family ties or some other relationship." Those with a personal connection are "advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." This extremely broad language ("Some other relationship") indicates that WP is wary about users with any personal connection to the subject of a WP article, even a relatively modest one, editing that person's page.

Two questions for the community: Does Carol have a "personal connection" that should prevent her from editing the Rothbard page? Should she at least be required to disclose more about her connection to Rothbard, including the nature and extent of their political co-organizing in 1980, and the nature of their "falling out"? Steeletrap (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) NOTE A bunch of users are completely ignoring the questions at hand and instead imputing bad-faith motives on to me. To clarify, I have no interest in subjecting Carol to sanctions or "blocks" for her alleged COI and do not call for this above. I simply asks for community input on two questions. It is very strange that people are insisting on going off-topic. Steeletrap (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be having ongoing disagreements with this editor, so is this the real reason you're trying to stop her editing the article? Having some sort of professional connection over 30 years ago seems very tenuous. Sionk (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
It's fair for you to point out our past squabbles. But I think the charges are clear enough that they can be evaluated independent of such speculations. Steeletrap (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Steeletrap is well aware that WP guidelines about friendships. In fact, she made a modification to the guideline here [41], and wisely reverted it here [42], deciding to seek discussion. Shortly thereafter, User:Slim Virgin, who has quite a bit of WP experience, made another change here [43], so I'm not worried about any requirements that friendships be "close" or not. But I do wonder if any of Carolmooredc's edits indicate antipathy or favoritism toward Rothbard personally. I doubt it. And until such biased or undue edits appear, I think the best course of action is WP:AGF. This fundamental principle of WP certainly has priority over a broad guideline. The fourth introductory paragraph of WP:COI may apply as well. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think people are over-thinking this. The question isn't: "What are steeletrap's motivations"? or "What sort of an editor is Carol"? The question is: Did Carol's relationship with Rothbard constitute a "personal connection" as defined by WP:COS? Good-faith is not sufficient, or there would be no need for any other policy. Steeletrap (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:COI is quite clear on this. Carol does have a conflict of interest and she should have revealed it. The fact that she contributed prolifically without revealing this conflict is itself troubling. As for specific examples of bias, they're not hard to find, but they're also not required. The conflict of interest, in itself, is sufficient to justify asking Carol to limit her involvement in this article.
All of this is true regardless of Steele's motives, so speculation on motives is counterproductive and likely to violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and related policies. This is about Carol, not Steele. MilesMoney (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Having a work connection with someone over 30 years ago and nothing since then is such a small detail that is over the top to ban someone from a topic. What is counterproductive is constantly looking for reasons to get people banned from working on Wikipedia.--NK (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Completely agree. There are better ways to deal with these editing disagreements. Even more worrying is Steeletrap's off-wiki investigations to try and uncover a reason to sanction someone they disagree with. Many of us edit articles related to our specialisms, work or college history and some sensible perspective needs to be taken on this. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As we have the question brought up, and as we have a response from Carolmooredc, I do not think any further comments would help. Sooner or later a volunteer will come by and review the question. In the meantime, I see three courses of action: 1. OP can drop the issue and we then archive the thread as closed. 2. We do not make any additional posts, in which case either the thread is closed by a volunteer or it is automatically archived. Or, 3. we post a WP:ANRFC asking for admin action. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Srich32977 - Since "the community" is responding to this issue in a completely illogical manner -- somehow equating it to a personal insult as opposed to discussing whether her relationship with MR constitutes a "personal connection" under COS; falsely implying that I want to use it to get CMDC banned -- there may be little use continuing this discussion, and I wouldn't object to closing it. I think Carol has made clear the nature of the personal connection (and expands upon it below), and I am glad the thread served that purpose. Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
While I am personally inclined to archive this discussion, I do not want to do so for the wrong reasons. So I will wait for another editor to do so, and do so (hopefully) with some sort of COI determination. I do note the page instructions for this board say "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." – S. Rich (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Response from Carolmooredc

From WP:COI page, it defines COI as:

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship."

Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.

I think this is an instance that requires common sense. And given all that Carolmooredc has voluntarily shared, I think that an association that ended before many Wikipedia Editors were even born is old news. She has self-disclosed at a level of detail that I find unusual so now everyone who follows this controversial topic area knows where she stands. The problem COI cases are those where relationships are not disclosed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, but it goes further than that. There are immense flaws in Steeltrap's allegation of an issue. They ignored the main bolded definition of a COI in the lead of wp:coi and instead tried to gin up the categorizaiton section into an alternate definition that is not in the guideline. Next they tried to (incorrectly) imply that there is a requirement for disclose, and then improperly gin up a 30 year old acquaintanceship into something that supposedly needed disclosure under that non-existent rule. Then they tried to widen wp:COI by a factor of 10 by their personal broadening into "those you are connected to". North8000 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Liz, I agree. Please note that before I raised these questions a few days ago, she had not disclosed these facts about the personal connection. Now that it has been disclosed, I'm perfectly ready to move on. I don't see why getting this stuff out does anything but help the community.Steeletrap (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
North8000. Yeah, I'd say scratching around for things that were relevant in 1980-82 when I was associating with him is a bit much. I had more trouble when I asked Steeletrap about the faculty advisor who encouraged Steeletrap to research these Austrian economists, since it sounded like Steeletrap could be inserting all this problematic material to get an MBA (corrected Masters) thesis accepted or to get better grades or whatever. That would be a real conflict of interest. I remember just getting a nonspecific denial, but I still have to wonder. User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 00:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
For the record, I 1) Had no problem disclosing this at the time, and did not allege "harassment" when Carol asked me about it. 2) purged all the Austro-libertarian stuff from my thesis (which relates to fringe political movements) so as to not get "outed" by one of my "friends" in the "community". 3) I am not and never have been an "MBA" student. [User:Steeletrap|Steeletrap]] (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Considering that a) this is a 30 year old issue, as opposed to yours being contemporary and b) I didn't bring you to WP:COIN, but I did last week have to complain to an admin you were harassing me at my user talk page again, after I had to take you to ANI a few months ago and you were warned about posting after I repeatedly banned you, yes, I think it's harassment. However, sorry I got confused on what you are studying for from this uncontested post to you from SRich in April mentioning your being a "Masters candidate". Later: I see I wrote MBA - now corrected - when just mean "Masters" as in what Steeletrap wrote here: my independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements)... (plus an admission of bias, but bias isn't necessarily COI). User:Carolmooredc surprisedtalk 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
More