Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Vishal Amin Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Ecolego Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

FactSet Research Systems &‎ User:Ktsummer

Resolved

 – Company appears notable, but article needs rewriting. Tagged as {{advertisement}}. No COI edits since 5 December. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look a FactSet Research Systems and Ktsummer's recent edits. This looks to me like pure PR. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The company appears notable. I added {{advertisement}}. Article contains usable facts, though it's one-sided, and it could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Max Boot

Resolved

 – The Controversy section has been removed from the article, and Tobogganoggin seems to be OK with the revised article. Since there is no surviving item of contention, we don't have to figure out if this was a COI or BLP issue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is appropriate here or if it should be brought to the attention of folks over at WP:BLP, and it's really just something old that never was properly addressed. Let's see if I can make sense out of it all:

1. During the course of litigation against tobacco companies (esp. Phillip Morris), documents were uncovered detailing the tobacco companies' attempts to manipulate scientific data in their favor. One such document, from the mid 1990s, attracted attention and spawned suggestions that while at the WSJ Max Boot had breached journalistic ethics by collaborating with a tobacco lobbyist in the course of authoring editorials discussing regulatory policy (in other words, creating a conflict of interest).
2. This paragraph was added to Boot's Wikipedia article, essentially repeating the accusations. (Note: the paragraph has been heavily edited and is in a much different form today, although its content is essentially the same.) See the included citations for background.
3. A Wikipedia edit war ensues, with the information repeatedly being removed and replaced by various editors. Full disclosure: I attempted to at least improve the controversial paragraph with copy edits and citations, and twice restored the paragraph when it was deleted with no prior discussion.
4. In January 2007, an anonymous letter is published by blogger Eric Alterman on his blog, hosted by Media Matters for America. The letter alleges that the information above was scrubbed or whitewashed from Wikipedia by one or more editors operating from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank that employs Boot. Thus, Boot or someone operating on his behalf is implicated in COI edits to Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, there isn't any evidence presented that these edits were actually made by an IP owned by CFR, but I'm IP illiterate, so what do I know. The allegations are discussed by bloggers Matthew Yglesias [1], Brad DeLong [2], and Steve Gilliard [3], among others.
5. Talk page discussion led me to mark the paragraph as containing original synthesis, but I wonder if adding a discussion of Alterman et. al.'s accusations would establish that this is not, in fact, an original argument made for the first time on Wikipedia.
6. Perhaps the whole thing is giving undue weight to a controversy about a 13 year-old editorial, but the accusations of whitewashing or scrubbing seem especially important. I'm basically just curious about the attribution status of blogs, and completely unsure about discussing the article in the article itself. I realize doing so may be nauseatingly meta for many readers, but any help or advice would certainly be appreciated.

- Tobogganoggin ^talk 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when BLP is involved, stuff that is factual, well-referenced, and very briefly stated usually will pass review. Looking at Max_Boot#Controversy, that section seems extremely short, and nobody seems to be arguing it is incorrect. Does even this very brief statement cause you concern? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly, I'm just hoping to achieve a bit more article stability by appeasing critics of the passage. I'd like to mention the CFR conflict-of-interest edits ("whitewashing") of Wikipedia as well, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Does such information belong in the article at all? If so, should I simply cite the accusations of popular bloggers who, while openly biased, appear to be correct? Perhaps I should instead also cite the edit history of Boot's Wikipedia article together with a reverse DNS lookup to make things a bit more factual, or would doing that be considered OR? - Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I finally woke up to see there is a long discussion of the propriety of this very passage over at Talk:Max Boot#Explaining a significant deletion. My conclusion is that the passage should be omitted. Essentially Boot, as a Wall Street Journal reporter, was faxing a draft of an editorial to a person who helped write the report being discussed, so that he could identify factual errors. The actual changes are enumerated in Brad DeLong's blog [4], and don't seem particularly alarming (unless you consider all WSJ editorials alarming). Also, any charges about Milloy being funded by tobacco firms certainly don't rub off on Max Boot, and don't seem pertinent to his article. Regarding the use of blogs, I don't see the need to repeat charges made only in blogs, and not picked up by any reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that the charges do have some merit, as Boot seems to have inaccurately described a "private consulting firm" (really a public relations firm employed by Phillip Morris) as a "non-profit organization" at Milloy's suggestion. Boot may have been remiss in adhering to journalism ethics and standards by failing to have any fact-checking or research performed on this point, which he accepted, without disclosure, at face value by an interested party. However, since the group's funding source had yet to be uncovered by the litigation proceedings, we don't know if Boot actually knew this characterization was inaccurate or not, although it is genuinely possible that he did. Nevertheless, since the charge isn't made by a RS, I agree that it deserves to be omitted. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion conflict of interest

Resolved

 – The IP editor cited here for COI has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user admits to being Jed Rothwell, the librarian for the cite LENR-CANR.org, a pro-cold fusion site that makes its money promoting cold fusion. This user, in particular, has been insisting on including references that he himself has had a hand in creating (for example a translation of a book by a Japanese cold fusion advocate). In particular, I'm concerned that some of the references he insists on including at cold fusion are published by vanity presses and he is using Wikipedia to make money on the translations he himself provided. I believe that this conflict of interest is so pronounced that he probably should avoid editing the article completely: or at least his attempts to include links to books are seen by me to be very close to using Wikipedia as a soapbox or even a source of advertisement. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: The situation seems to be getting worse. Jed is taking things way too personally. His threats are coming increasingly incendiary and I'm afraid that he won't take advice from those of us with whom he's already gotten upset. Will an uninvolved admin please counsel him? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I cannot believe it, but things have gotten even worse. I'm requesting a community ban here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate at WP:ANI has been archived, but no ban was implemented. User:Hu12 blocked the IP for 24 hours on 6 December with the comment Continued disruptive editing despite warnings. Since then the IP has not resumed editing. EdJohnston (talk)

The archived location of the Dec. 6th ANI thread is here. This case continues to be discussed at Talk:Cold fusion and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Cold fusion, though Arbcom does not seem inclined to accept the case. It *does* appear that this IP editor, 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs), has a Conflict of Interest, but he has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. I'm marking this issue as Resolved to help clear out the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

IAC/InterActiveCorp & User:IACWik

Resolved

 – COI editing has stopped. Article has been tagged and should be fixable. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty blatant, even without the evidence of the extremely stilted, biased text that's been added. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted on my talkpage at the date above; moved here at 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)}

Having examined the article, the whole thing reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a peacock's tail. There are no cited sources (just site/company names in parentheses w/year), and the whole thing smells of "Company Spin". I will note, however, that IACWiki appears to be inactive (I have not checked the block log). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a poorly-written article about a notable company, one that clearly deserves coverage. Since COI editing is no longer taking place, I suggest this might be closed as a COI report. Anyone with a bit of free time is invited to fix the article. Curiously, IACWik stopped editing completely after receiving the original {{uw-coi}} notice. Since then a few improvements have happened (a bunch of spam links were removed) but the terrible prose remains. Stubbifying might be an option, while we are waiting for somebody who is inspired to write a better article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Business Research

Resolved

 – Article deleted, sites blacklisted due to continued persistant spamming --Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Worldwide Business Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TradeTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Brittenstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 208.49.200.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 38.112.44.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• wbresearch.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• wbr.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• iqpc.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sixsigmasummit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Business Research
See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 1#Worldwide Business Research (WBR)
--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Updated Hu12's link to the archived spam report. The articles on Worldwide Business Research and TradeTech were deleted at AfD. I undid the resolution of this item because 208.49.200.24 (talk · contribs) is continuing to spam links to www.wbr.co.uk, the web site of Worldwide Business Research, as of 21 December. This editor has never interacted on any Talk page, and about 50% of his edits are the addition of spam links. He has been blocked twice for spamming, the last time on 7 December. Ideas welcome. Hu12 has been following his activities. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BL'd the link, this should no longer be a problem. thanks EdJohnston. --Hu12 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos discussion on WP:AN

Resolved

 – A clear COI issue that is being vigorously debated in a long thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to list these here but then I realized there have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? (permanent link)

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:COI/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. You guys are our experts at finessing useful content out of spam as well as managing the editors that bring us that stuff. I think you'll enjoy this one. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible for you to bring the matter up at WP:AN where it will get more general attention from administrators. What action are you requesting be taken? Or are you going to take the action yourself, and just need general consent? I perceive that most people agree this is complete spam. EdJohnston (talk)

Had a quick glance. Agreed. This concerns a humungous number of links to an unreliable source: a personal website carrying personally-edited entries from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, which has long since been outed for unreliability (i.e. having fictitious entries). The links should go, as spam, and any material sourced from Appleton's be viewed as suspect. I suggest A. B. should take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, where they could set it up as a cleanup subproject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(the unanimous feeling at this point seems to be that the links at any rate must be removed, & the articles re-examined). DGG (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Conflict of Interest here seems obvious and serious. Since there are so many links involved this will most likely be handled like a spam issue. How to do this while protecting any genuine references is still being vigorously debated in a five-day-long thread over at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. Editors who normally follow discussions on this noticeboard are invited to give their views at WP:AN. I am marking this resolved so as not to multiply the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

MetaphorEnt

• Joshua Feinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marta McGonagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mimi Fuenzalida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Dennis W. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cassandra Braden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Erika Ringor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Milena Lukich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fatimah Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin T. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• LMA2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SJR2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.30.201.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorEnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pr.Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Linzmac78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zip100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LMA2007 seems to be connected Metaphor Entertainment/ Breakdown express. All the contributor’s edits have been in relation to actors, most of who have been metioned on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace.com Blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=102544542). Cassandra Braden‘s resume and Erika Ringor’s resume list Metaphor Entertainment as their management. These comments made by the LMA2007 indicate that they are representing Erika Ringor: [5] [6]

LMA2007 was blocked from editing for a month for photo copyright violations, the similarly named SJR2008 edited during that time and reuploaded two of the images that LMA2007 had previously uploaded.

HollywoodFan1 was created a day after SJR2008. They edited the same group of articles and created the Mimi Fuenzalida article. Mimi’s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment.

The IP Address 64.30.201.109 also edited the same set of articles. A number of other IP addresses also only edited these articles, but none of them made a significant number of edits.

MetaphorEnt, which is probably short for Metaphor Entertainment, created the Elle Travis article.

Pr.Girl created the Lindsay MacFarland article, Lindsay ‘s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment. Linzmac78 is likely Lindsay MacFarland. BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Clarify - Above Gordonofcartoon quotes "generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that." I would like to make the same argument for the articles I have contributed to. I do not know any of the people in the articles I edited. I took an interest in this group of talent through one Actress that I am a fan of her work. From there and myspace I have followed the people she's working with. Being an avid blogger, I though it would be interesting to slowly get involved with Wikipedia. From my understanding everyone's contributions are welcome as long as they are impartial. If that is not the case, please explain. (HollywoodFan1 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Beyond the evidence I previously provided, I noticed a number other items that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. First, you uploaded and indicated that you are the copyright holder for [7] and [8]. At the very least they indicate that you have met multiple actors managed by Metaphor Entertainment on two occasions. Second, you created the Mimi Fuenzalida article, it includes fairly detailed information that I could not find online. I’m curious as to where you found the information? Third, your edits have occurred on the same day and within the same hour as edits by 64.30.201.109. 64.30.201.109 has been editing this set of articles starting back in November of 2006 and has continued since you joined wikipedia. Finally, when I searched your username on google, most the results were from imdb.com. Most of the imdb.com pages were for the actors listed above. A hollywoodfan1-1 had posted on the message boards of these pages. The only other posters appeared to be the above listed actors and their Metaphor Entertainment manager Sharon Weintraub. If you are not directly involved with Metaphor Entertainment, you have a relationship that I believe is at least close to a conflict of interest.

I have also added two more accounts to the list above:

In addition to the username, MetaphorPR’s only editing was to one the articles in question.

Zip100 created the article for Marta McGonagle and only edited that article, Marta’s management is list as Metaphor Entertainment. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not MetaphorPR, nor am I Zip100. My relationship with Metaphor has been through myspace. Isn't is a blessing that multiple users have contributed to a group of articles. Shouldn't that suggest that there is diversified interest. Isn't that what WP is founded on? Do you have issues with the articles content or is there something I contributed that you object to? I've only written one article, and most of my edits have been minor. I openly admitted to meeting one of the actresses once at a premiere. That photo was indeed placed on this site. I contacted you directly for a solution and didn't hear back. What else do you suggest? Please clarify what your solution is.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BlueAzure, please review WP:DBN and return with some constructive suggestions. I am truly open to that. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say you were MetaphorPR or Zip100. In my previous message I was simply indicating that I was adding those accounts to the list above and providing my reason for doing so. I don’t know why you say that you “didn't hear back”, as I responded here and replied to your message on my talk page. If you have a conflict of interest, as I believe you do, you need to follow Conflict of interest guidelines. I am unable to provide further assistance in doing that, as I am not well versed in how a COI editor should handle the situation. Hopefully, someone else that is can assist you. BlueAzure (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my research, I found you did not follow the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Please review WP:COI and if you have concrete suggestions for change in accordance with the examples on that page, I'm sure the editors will comply as long as you follow the required "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline".HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:AGF, editors get to ask only one question: "Please review the conflict of interest policy; do you have a conflict of interest on this article?" If the answer is "No," that should be the end of the inquiry. I found no issues in accordance with Conflict of interest guidelines in the article I have written.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In my research, I have found that all of the articles in question abide by WP:NPOV. Placing COIs on well written articles because the subjects have common threads without verifiable evidence of COI isn't in accordance with WP:FIVE or WP:AGF.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the closure of this issue by HollywoodFan1, who is one of the editors named in the above complaint. Let's have opinions from others whether this case has been adequately addressed. In particular, it would be good to have the views of BlueAzure who made the initial report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking over several of the articles in question, NPOV seems to be adhered to quite well by the named editors. I didn't see any things like "This talent is represented by Metaphor Entertainment" or any Peacock Words of similar purpose. The articles seem factual and very neutral in tone. While BlueAzure was correct to bring a suspected COI issue here for evaluation, WP:COI does not necessarily prohibit editing by someone with a potential conflict, so long as those articles remain neutral and factual. Therefore I feel this can be closed with no particular action required beyond just the usual keeping an eye on things, which we all do anyway. Arakunem^Talk 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I think some of the articles created above may not meet the notability criteria for entertainers, found at WP:BIO:

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

• With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
• Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
• Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

A notable actor should usually have appeared in notable films. We should have WP articles on the films. As I went through the Elle Travis article, I found the article was linked to many unrelated topics with coinciding names. For example, our articles on Never Give Up, Broken, First Watch and The Tipping Point are not about any films (with those names) in which Elle Travis appeared. Those films she did appear in seem in the cases I studied not to have WP articles. It may turn out that this and other articles should be sent to AfD. Since there are so many articles listed here, it would be good to have others help to review them for notability per WP:BIO. EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:EdJohnson for noticing the unrelated links. I have corrected my article on Elle Travis and will hear any other changes you want to suggest. Should you have any question to Elle Travis as a viable talent, you can find many links to her work and celebrity on imdb.com, google.com, gettyimages.com & wireimage.com. User:BlueAzure has pointed out, we do openly represent several of the talent listed, yet we did not write all of the articles. The few articles we have contributed to have, by our belief, adhered to both the WP:BIO and the WP:NPOV. Having written one article and made minor changes to two articles only, in good faith we request that the topic of this complaint be changed. The topic as our company name could prove to be defamatory and being that there are no articles written about our company on Wiki, nor are we are mentioned in any article to our knowledge, it was unnecessary and suspect on the part of User:BlueAzure to name this complaint after the company name.Metaphor Ent (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title of this complaint to MetaphorEnt since it seems equally good to me. Nonetheless, I suggest that you strike through or remove your above comment about libel, because otherwise you risk being blocked due to our policy of Wikipedia:No legal threats. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I came across Lindsay MacFarland’s article a few months ago, and noticed the same connection between her, Metaphor Entertainment, and the other actor’s listed. I was going to bring this up for WP:COI discussion myself, but in doing some research, I found that it was unnecessary. Metaphor, itself, is never mentioned in any of the articles, and they are all clearly written in a neutral tone and without bias. The notability of actors is my forte in both my work in the PR field, as well as my work as a Wikipedian. In researching each of these actors listed, I have found that they all clearly meet the guidelines for WP:BIO, have high ratings on IMDB Pro, and also have outside sources crediting their notability.TGreenburgPR (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To set the record straight we do not represent Joshua Feinman. Unless you can find another link beyond management representation that validates WP:COI, I would recommend that User:BlueAzure remove him from their list.Metaphor Ent (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Joshua Feinman article was created by LMA2007 and was edited by the same set of accounts as the other articles. According to the Elle Travis article, Elle Travis is dating Joshua Feinman. This is enough for me to continue to include it in the filing. BlueAzure (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Some articles proposed for deletion. Under WP:PROD I have nominated three of the above articles for deletion: Marta McGonagle, Elle Travis and Mimi Fuenzalida. If anyone believes they should be kept, please try to find evidence that any of these actresses has received credit for a major role in a notable film. You should be able to provide a URL showing screen credit. See Wikipedia:Generally notable people for the criteria for entertainers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Marta McGonagle

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1159715/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/230012-703388
• http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?navtyp=SRH&sfld=C&logsrch=1&s=marta%20mcgonagle
• http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117970108.html?categoryid=28&cs=1
• http://www.martamcgonagle.com

These are only a few of almost 8,000 sites with Marta McGonagle listed.

Elle Travis

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0871387/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/108474-361948
• http://www.wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?navtyp=SRH&sfld=C&logsrch=1&s=elle%20travis
• http://www.indiewire.com/ots/fes_99Tell_990904_lineup.html
• http://fromla.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2007/10/professionalism.html
• http://www.elletravis.com

"Palisadian Post" (USA) 24 July 2003, pg. 11 (Front Cover of the Lifestyle Section), by: Laurel Busby, "In Loving Memory"

"L.A. Times" (USA) 11 April 2002, pg. F. 39, by: Daryl H. Miller, "Fun and Games in a First Family; The well-dressed Kennedys play to win in a biting musical satire on the life of 'Jack.'"

"The Play Review" (USA) February 2002, pg. 10-11, by: Jose Ruiz, "Camelot? That's Jack!"

"Digital Post Production" (USA) 27 March 2001, pg. 1, by: DMN Newswire, "Look! Effects Creates 3D Intergalactic Journey for Indie Feature First Watch"

"Cannes Market News" (France) 18 May 2002, Vol. 3, pg. 1, by: Chantal Julien, "Cannes In Pictures Day Three"

"KTLA Morning News" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007) ... aka KTLA Morning Show (USA)

   - Episode dated 13 November 2007 (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"Starz the Hollywood Reporter" .... Herself (1 episode, 2007)

   - Dan in Real Life (2007)  TV episode .... Herself

"The Oprah Winfrey Show" .... Herself (1 episode, 2003) ... aka Oprah (USA: short title)

   - Episode dated 17 July 2003 (2003)  TV episode .... Herself 

"National Public Radio" ....Herself (10-05-1999) (interviewed about Broken, Stella Adler & growing up in Hollywood)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaphorEnt (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 

These are only a few of over 300,000 sites with Elle Travis listed

Mimi Fuenzalida

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0297497/
• http://resumes.breakdownexpress.com/103180-988575
• http://www.tv.com/10-8/show/16742/episode.html
• http://www.mimifuenzalida.com
• These are only a few of almost 2,000 sites with Mimi Fuenzalida listed, and she had a career in Chile where the internet is utilized a little less than the US.

I thought this was a forum for COI. How did it turn into a forum for deletion? Will an editor who knows more about tagging references please help with these three articles? I have provided links but don't know how to properly place them.Metaphor Ent (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who helped with the tags on the Elle Travis article. Can someone please volunteer to help with the Marta McGonagle article and the Mimi Fuenzalida article User:EdJohnston, did you contact the creators of these articles to give them a chance to make the changes you are requesting? I have to say it's such a relief to find people who are willing to help rather than WP:Bite. Thank you again. Metaphor Ent (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A friendly editor helped to clean up my article on Mimi Fuenzalida. Another editor contacted me and gave me some tips on how to make references. All of this help has been great. Thanks to User:MetaphorEnt for requesting the much needed help and giving us links to start. I could try to help with the Marta McGonagle article if it's not a conflict. This whole thing has made my head spin and I'm not sure what I'm allowed to do or not do anymore. Does anyone have any suggestions?HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Anything more to do here? Thanks to all who helped to improve the articles. I am not happy with the creation of these articles by COI-affected editors, but unless someone wants to follow up on any more of the articles listed above, we may have to close this thread. It would be good to get comments from anyone else who often monitors this noticeboard as to whether the problem is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I would like to thank you for taking a look at this. If the articles can be reviewed for notability and sent to AFD if they don’t appear to be notable, that would resolve the situation for me. I would like to thank the editors who helped to improve the three articles you proded. After reviewing the articles, I still feel they do not meet notability per WP:BIO. Elle Travis’s only film that wikipedia have article for she is listed as playing “screaming hottie”, in the TV shows wikipedia has articles for she is listed as having been a voice. Mimi Fuenzalida only role that wikipedia has a listing for is the TV show 10-8: Officers on Duty, according to IMDB she appeared in an uncredited role in one episode. In Marta McGonagle’s case, the The Spot that she appeared in is different than the one that has a wikipedia article. I would nominate these for deletions, but I am concerned if that is appropriate. One of the involved editors has claimed that I have violated WP:FIVE, WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. I am not sure what actions I am and am not allowed to take in relation to this situtation. I have speedied Dennis W. Hall as it is a recreation of Dennis Wayne Hall which was deleted per a AFD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueAzure (talk • contribs) 03:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I made a new sub-section for ease of editing. Responding now to BlueAzure who opened this complaint, I see no problem taking those three articles to AfD, if you wish to nominate them. If you do so, it should be OK to announce that fact here and anyone following this debate can decide if they want to participate. If any editor from this debate chooses to comment in an AfD, please mention whether you have an affiliation with any of the firms named in this report. If you are COI-affected, you can leave a comment without formally voting Keep or Delete and your argument will still be listened to. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston, when I file the AFD’s should I mention that the article in question is part of this case? I have a filed two suspected sock puppetry cases involving accounts included in this case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LMA2007 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109. BlueAzure (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can mention it in the AfD. In answer to your other point, we expect no sockpuppets will join in the AfDs. Participate under your real account. If anyone in this discussion is concerned they might have run afoul of WP:SOCK, explaining that now will help to avoid any criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated three of the articles for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milena Lukich
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatimah Adams
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Fuenzalida

I am going to continue to review the rest of the articles. After reviewing LMA2007’s talk page and the images uploaded by these accounts, I think we need to get someone familiar with Wikipedia photo licensing polices to review the images. LMA2007 uploaded headshot photos Image:Cassandra.jpg and Image:Erika_Ringor.jpg claiming to be the copyright holder. From the info on the talk page it appears that the actor would be the copyright holder, not the publicist. These images could be kept on the Wikipedia if the licensing was properly handled. Of more concern is Image:LindsayMacFarlandRC.jpg, it was uploaded by Linzmac78 who claimed to be the copyright holder. The metadata on the image lists the copyright holder as “2007 Jean-Paul Aussenard” and I found the photo on [wireimage.com]. BlueAzure (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Atlas terriers

Author is User:Autumnbriar - Lauren Wolfe of AutumnBriar Farms is the originator of the Atlas Terrier name, and the Atlas terrier "breed". --jdege (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After a quick read of the article and its tags, I've prodded this for speedy deletion as spam. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I contested speedy on this as it does not, to my eyes, read as an advertisement. However, I would support a prod if the tagged issues (refs, coi, etc.) are not addressed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the associated Mini Parsons article to AFD for failure to verify. IrishJack looks COI too, as one of the breeders is also Autumnbriar Farms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Miniparsons deleted at AFD. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church

User Steve Dufour has been consistently watering down articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church, an organization of which he is a member (see his user page and this website[9] (look for Dufour)). Articles include Jeffrey T. Kuhner, which he is pushing for deletion and from which he has repeatedly removed relevant information to make it appear less notable, as well as Insight (magazine), which he has been monitoring and watering down. His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's. The possible COI may be in the fact that Insight is owned by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church[10], and Kuhner is editor in chief of Insight. Dufour seems to have an interest in these articles because of his affiliation with the church. He has also consistently removed mentions of the Unification Church and Moon when it appears in the Insight and Kuhner articles. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any "watering down" which conceals the existence of a controversy. I glance at my user page shows that my main focus at Wikipedia is identifying controversies - not concealing them. Insight is owned by the same holding corporation which owns the Washington Times, so the two are clearly affiliated. And Rev. Moon is the founder (but not literally the owner) of the Times. He has pumped well over a billion dollars of church funds into it,

I'd like to see the linkage between Insight and the Unification Church clarified. (Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Jimbo and Lee Crocker and Maveric knew I was a follower of Sun Myung Moon six years ago when I was helping out with the database, the mailing list, and was made a sysop. The only POV I push is that we should HIGHLIGHT the existence of controversy! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a genuine COI problem with User:Steve Dufour on Unification Church-related topics. I've run into this with him and another editor, both UC members, at articles of other UC members, notably Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) in the past. I've not edited any of the articles mentioned here so I'm uninvolved enough to have a word with Steve but if he ignores my advice I'm leaving it for another admin to take any additional steps to avoid any concerns over my past run ins with him. It would be even better if Ed, being friend and fellow UC member, were to get Steve to step back and find something else to edit. Want to help Ed? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be fair in my edits and have never tried to restrict the right of anyone else to edit here. If I am to be kicked off WP for editing articles about my church then I think the same standard should apply to political parties and other organizations. Hmmm....that might be a good idea. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jonathan Wells's article is unreadably badly written. I have tried to help with that but have never removed any information about his church membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Steve. As I've said in my email to you I've found you to be a a reasonable chap in our previous run-ins and we've somehow managed to work things out, so I'm sure you'll be reasonable now. I'm signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wrote this at the same time as FeloniousMonk) That's why people recuse themselves--because although they may sincerely "try to be fair," they can't. I would probably agree, too--if someone expresses an affiliation to an organization that they're supposed to objectively portray, they should recuse themselves. Unfortunately, you have disclosed that you are a religious follower of the owner of Insight magazine, which is controversial, and thus, I think that you should recuse yourself from editing these related articles. I would not ask that you be kicked off wikipedia. I think that your intentions are good; in this case, though, I believe that you have a COI.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Christians can edit the article Christianity and that they do not have a COI per se, but I admit that User:Athene cunicularian has a point. A committed adherent may not have a COI, but may have such a strong POV that they are unable to be fair even if they sincerely try, indistinguishable in effect of having a COI. Andries (talk) 10:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What matters isn't the presence of a conflict, it's how that conflict is handleed. When people come to Wikipedia to act as editors it's expected that they will put the welfare of this project ahead of other interests. Nobody is neutral on everytihng, but people who participate in Wikipedia must make neutral edits. Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, atheists, or Unificationists can all edit articles on those topics so long as they do so neutrally. If they can't they can still participate by commenting on talk pages. If there is concrete evidence of an editor making non-neutral edits regularly then that may be a cause for concern. However I don't see that here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I will try to be more aware of these issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be okay to close this. Steve has not recused himself, which would be preferable, but it seems like he has stepped away from his persistent efforts to portray these articles in accordance with his vision. I will keep an eye on these issues and post a new complaint again, if necessary. Thanks to everyone for your input and assistance.Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jjhmccarty

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

I believe this user is editing articles (rivet, Wrought iron, RMS Titanic), and creating articles (Tim Foecke) to promote her soon to be published book. The fact that she created an article on her co-author seems to present a clear conflict of interest. Pjbflynn (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Platelet edits [11] concerning the work of OJT McCarty, who a little Googling finds to be her husband. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to violate the prohibition on Self-Cites. Additionally, as the book has not been released yet, it is un-verifiable as a source. The references to the book should be removed, at the very least until such time as it is released and independently evaluated. If the material cited does add value to the articles in question, then the cites should reference the sources used by the author in the book, and not the book itself. If those sources are OR, well then.... Arakunem^Talk 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Foecke is a recognized expert on rivet failure, and McCarty wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the subject. Having an article on Tim Foecke is justified, in my opinion, and the Foecke & McCarty material is worth keeping in some form. I removed a sentence about the number of rivets in the Titanic from the Rivet article, which seemed out of place. The forthcoming 2008 book is probably not allowed due to WP:CRYSTAL, but there are some other reports by one or both authors that may be worth citing instead. I'll try to sort this out eventually if someone else doesn't address it first. What's needed is a bit of rewriting but not much undoing, I think. I'll let others decide if the Platelet edit is OK. I left a {{uw-coi}} warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but how do you feel about the fact that all edits (excepting one wikify) on the Tim Foecke article were made by her co-author McCarty, indeed that she created it? Pjbflynn (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

COI editing is against the rules, but the best plan is a discussion. You could invite her to participate here, but she hasn't edited since 12 November. This thread may well close without her participation. If you have the patience, you could use Google to check for an email address through one of her institutions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Errol Louis

Resolved

 – Please re-open this if further negotiations fail, per Talk:Errol Louis. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I have no expertise in this field of Wikipedia policy and am not about to start wading in with my clumsy boots on and wielding my mop.

I noticed this ([12]) and it seems that User:ErrolLouis who has on more than one occasion removed a photograph from the Errol Louis biog, claims to be, erm, Errol Louis.

See Special:Contributions/ErrolLouis.

I will notify both users in the conflict of this thread. --Dweller (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really a conflict. Or a big conflict. Louis doesn't like my photo of him, which is fine. He uploaded a photo of himself, but it was a tiny one that is ten years old in black and white. In an effort to prod him into uploading a better, more recent photo I posted a message about it on his talk page and restored my photo he dislikes. He took it down, and I haven't reverted. He sent me a message on my Talk page that I can re-photograph him, but I have too much going on this month that I said it would have to be after the holidays. That's all. --David Shankbone 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up an edit protected request at Talk:Errol_Louis#new_image. At least that way it can be unprotected for now. Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merely the subject who gets to decide on the picture. There needs to be a Talk page consensus. (I sympathize with the subject's dislike of the new one that was proposed). I gather from Talk:Errol Louis that an effort will be made in January to take a new picture that will be acceptable to all. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritz Newspaper

• Ritz Newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Franceslynn (talk · contribs)
• Stephen Lavers (talk · contribs)

Could we have extra input on this? User:Franceslynn is being mentored and has understood the COI issues with editing the previously-discussed Frances Lynn, but as she's an ex-staffer of Ritz Newspaper, I think there's a strong COI here too. I'm not comfortable with information being added direct by someone with a COI and cited out to a defunct publication where it's extremely difficult for other editors to check the accuracy of the citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: Stephen Lavers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now also editing the article (a Stephen Lavers also being on the previous staff). While I hope it's in good faith, I'm not sure ex major staffers of a publication editing its article makes for good dynamics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Motorsports

Resolved

 – Copyvio, tagged. MER-C 12:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• World Championship Motorsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is about a MotoGP team and was created by Peter Clifford WCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), The user name suggests he is the co-founder of the team. I believe that this is an obvious conflict of interest and it shows in the articleChris Ssk (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be because a non-trivial portion (as in several paragraphs) of the article is plagiarized from http://www.blatawcm.com/HISTORY.asp , which makes this a possible copyright infringement. MER-C 02:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Asymptote Architecture

• Asymptote Architecture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts

• Asy arch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 72.43.147.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above account and IP are basically creating advertisements for the above firm...this extends to image pages, as well (see Image:Alessi Flagship Store.jpg for an example.) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Self declaration

Resolved

I have just added a public domain image from one of my websites to Stroller history. I would rather someone checked they were happy with the COI aspect. The image is important because there is a wide claim on the internet (including by a museum in Winsconsin) that the stroller was invented in 1848 whereas the image clearly shows one in use in 1847. I removed this claim from the article. There is therefore also an OR aspect which I would like some form of absolution on. --BozMo talk 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd remove the URL from the image caption but otherwise it's OK. I wish I could say the same thing about the article, though. MER-C 13:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have done thanks. Yep the article is rubbish to the point where I mulled AfDing it. --BozMo talk 14:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible self promotion/ spam account

Resolved

 – Dtemkin4 has been indef blocked by Sandahl. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Dtemkin4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Amalgam Entertainment, LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amalgam entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amalgam Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I wanted to bring this account to the attention of a sysop. He or she has created Amalgam Entertainment, LLC, and Amalgam entertainment, both of which have been tagged and deleted (the first article twice in fact) as G11 CSD. When the second iteration (Amalgam entertainment) was posted, the edit summary this user gave was (sic) "No promoting any product or service." This in paticular makes me think this might be a conflict of interest/ single purpose advertising account. Thanks, Mr Senseless (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I added Amalgam Digital to the above list after checking the contributions of this editor. It might be a WP:PROD candidate, but it seems to link to other articles in which regular editors do participate. So it's not open and shut. There is some COI editing but not all the results are bad. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have prodded Amalgam Digital for deletion, and warned all alleged sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets Bearian (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Marking this COI report resolved, since User:Dtemkin4 has been indefinitely blocked. Anyone who wants to look further into the notability of Amalgam Digital is welcome to do so, but the article survived a PROD and is favorably viewed by some. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Starwood Festival, Jeff Rosenbaum, et al

• Jeff Rosenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Association for Consciousness Exploration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Starwood Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WinterStar Symposium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It is reasonably certain that Rosencomet (talk · contribs) is Jeff Rosenbaum (see Arbcom finding here), the Executive Director of the Association for Consciousness Exploration, LLC (ACE). Despite an Arbcom caution (here), he has extensively edited these articles (please see the histories of the articles.) I interpret these extensive revisions as "aggressive" editing as well as an autobio violation on the Jeff Rosenbaum article. Additionally, his editing and lack of posting of a COI notice on his user page mean that many more articles besides these four are affected. See this version of his userpage for a sizable (but possibly incomplete) listing. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying he sells the items personally. (As an aside, I found the Rosencomet Classic Thong offered on Starwood's Cafe Press store to be very attractive. And comfortable too.) As to why this hasn't been brought here before: This noticeboard didn't exist when I first brought the Arbcom case against Rosencomet in Dec. 2006 and I was burned out in the aftermath of the relatively toothless "caution" of Rosencomet by Arbcom in March, 2007. These issues have been discussed with Rosencomet extensively over the last 16 months. Read his talk page for a sampling of efforts. Links to other discussions and RfCs can be supplied here if desired. Questions? Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one piece. Further discussion to WP:AE#Rosencomet and Starwood related articles, thanks. MER-C 12:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. That discussion has been closed. [13] We'll have to handle it here and/or on WP:AN - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If the Arbcom decision in March, 2007 is considered the final word on Rosencomet's COI actions, sure, by all means keep discussion there. However, since User:Thatcher131 who clerked that arbitration has said in that discussion that the Arbcom decision is basically unenforceable [14] due to it being a "caution" rather than a specific and well-delineated course of action. That seems (to me) to shut down that path and discussion. This is why I brought it here. I believe the COI case is clearly strong enough to stand on its own. Still, why don't I copy the info I put above over to that discussion and see how that's recieved. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All statements coming from ArbCom right now, with those who handled this case ending their terms and not working on cases now, and the new members not yet installed, indicate this is something the community has to handle. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

After being warned about his COI issues many times in the past (during the RfCs, Mediations and Arbitration), and three times in the past few days[15] [16] [17] about his COI on the articles for people he hires for the Starwood festival (and whose tapes he then sells on the rosencomet.com website), Rosencomet has today gone back to work on his COI articles, adding yet more mentions of Starwood and himself (as well as reverting other editors removal of Starwood mentions): [18] [19] [20]. I think he has been warned sufficiently and has still crossed the line. But since he's screaming about me on his talk page, I'd prefer another admin handle the block. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support permablock for COI problems, etc. Rklawton (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support permablock for persistent, long-term COI spamming and apparent inability to grasp the fundamentals of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR despite numerous explanations by multiple editors over 16 months. Pigman☿ 03:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103/Patrick Haseldine

• Patrick Haseldine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Multiple autobiographical edits, definition of Phase4 username consistent with past career and beliefs & Lockerbie conspiracy theory.
• Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Militant article ownership, original research, POV. External petition of Patrick Haseldine pointing to this page, and updating negative info about this petition to portray it in a better light.
• Edits to multiple articles to link them to Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 and/or POV edits to put forward Haseldine conspiracy theory.
• Posting POV statements in talk pages e.g. Talk:Patrick Haseldine
• PJHaseldine and Phase4 are the same person (See signature with the wrong alias here [21])

This editor has been highly disruptive, and was warned in Jan 2007 about using Wiki for promotional purposes. Please ban these aliases ASAP so other editors can get started with fixing all the POV created under them. Socrates2008 (Talk) 15:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address, but I'm hesitant to do more without more evidence. Please request a check-user for sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The diff is pretty good evidence of sockpuppetry. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• 81.153.161.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate some input from an editor here as there's now an edit war starting over this on the Patrick Haseldine talk page. I will not be making an further edits or taking any other actions until an Admin intervenes. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, these allegations are unproven right now and especially given the article was started by an anon IP. And I dont believe sockpuppetry will prove the COI allegations either as one finds plenty of sockjs apart from COI matters. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  PJHaseldine = Phase4, as per the response to a warning in January on the PJHaseldine talk page using the wrong alias (corrected 5 mins later). Once this piece of information had been established, a very interesting and intricate web starts to unfold that illustrates how POV the Haseldine-related articles are. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  Socrates, I would say please edit the article in an NPOV way if you feel this is not what is happening right now, I do feel that this is the best approach, I am certainly not editing in favour of Haseldine. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  I believe I was doing that by flagging the Patrick Haseldine page, where the majority of content has been added by his aliases, as an autobiography when you started an edit war with me over that. So have you changed you mind then? Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate the input of an Administrator here please. The evidence that user:Phase4=user:PJHaseldine is pretty damning. What else needs to be proven before action is taken to stop the continuing POV edits by Mr Haseldine under the Phase4 alias? Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Bearian is an admin as I am and I can only suggest you take his advice Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.--Sandahl 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put a checkuser in as suggested, however Bearian banned only his IP and none of his accounts for some reason, making the ban completely ineffective against the primary POV account reported here, namely Phase4.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

user:PJHaseldine is still making edits about himself on the Patrick Haseldine page. Please can an Administrator intervene and stop this nonsense.

Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

An effective ban is now in place - thank you kindly to all concerned. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Klaus Ebner

• Klaus Ebner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Klaus Ebner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Admitted Autobiography. I tagged it to hell and ran away. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Irina Walter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Meatpuppet. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bart Hendrikx

• Bart Hendrikx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bart hendrikx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.93.173.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- user Bart hendrikx forgot to log in, forgot his password, or .... Blatant autobiography. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nic Nolan

I tagged the newish article on Nic Nolan after realising that the main contributor was probably his wife. It is reasonably well referenced (primarily printed magazines, harder to verify) and written in fairly neutral language. I shall leave it to the experts to decide when/if the tag can be removed. dramatic (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

• Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Glenn Hagele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 99.133.177.249 (talk · contribs)
• 68.123.109.90 (talk · contribs)
• Ghagele (talk · contribs)

Changes were made to CRSQA article to reflect a more unbiased perspective with additions to the external links as well as further information on criticism.

At approximately 12:00 AM, 21 December 2007 these changes were undone by user 99.133.177.249. Subsequent request for deletion of related article Glenn Hagele was responded to by user Ghagele approximately 14 minutes later.

Users Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90 have all exchanged edits for both/either the CRSQA article and the Glenn Hagele article. In addition, 68.123.109.90 has edited the LASIK article in order to add reference to the CRSQA article further supporting a conflict of interest. Also important to note is that all three users (Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90) have for the large majority only participated in edits relating to the CRSQA and all such edits have been in the pursuit of promotion and the removal of criticism.

It is strongly suggested that this is an act of vandalism promoting self and it is recommended that both IP addresses and user Ghagele be prohibited from editing both aforementioned articles. Further it is recommended that the CRSQA article be re-ammended to the recent additions.

All claims of vandalism and abuse are unfounded as I am not involved in refractive surgery in any way and am participating in cleansing this information for the end user's access to unbiased information.

Please note that currently, the article has been reverted to it's biased form by user 99.133.177.249. I am not undoing this until an administrator comments on the issue. --SirDecius (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Piers Corbyn

• Piers Corbyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - editing by subject William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PiersCorbyn (who is currently using his user page for commercial advertising) is editing Piers Corbyn, indeed reverting large changes to it, e.g. [22]. For example, he removes from best known for his claims of an ability to predict the weather up to one year in advance which rather changes the sense.

While I'm here... he has also added a lot of non-controversial biographical stuff that is unverifiable. What should be done about that? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:PiersCorbyn's userpage looks spam much, maybe CSD#G6 or MFD.--Sandahl 05:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the article has been reverting well-intentioned edits that attempt to enforce policy. One of his edit summaries was: 'removing lies about me'. Looks like admin action may be needed if persuasion doesn't work. I see that WMC already notified Corbyn of this discussion. I invited User:SEWilco to join in here as well, since he is one of the regular editors who has worked on the article, though his last edit is puzzling. Gutting the article to remove all unsourced claims is one option that has been recommended by this noticeboard in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand use of {{fact}} to mark specific items? -- SEWilco (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, if there are indeed "lies," as Corbyn says, they should be immediately removed, whether by him or some other editor. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It could be a BLP issue. But its unclear what part Corbyn believes to be lies, since so far he won't talk. We still need to address the unverifiable bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Neophytou, NTW-20 Anti Materiel Rifle, Neopup PAW-20

• Neopup PAW-20 - User:T.Neo has contributed large amounts of information to this article, actually re-naming and changing parts with comments such as [23] & [24]
• NTW-20 Anti Materiel Rifle according to this bio created by him here Tony Neophytou, he is the designer of this weapon and has renamed it here [25]
• Tony Neophytou - was created by User:T.Neo, which seems to point to a likely autobio

While our policy doesn't prohibit people with COI's from editing articles, this user does not appear to have consulted the community before making these changes. Further, using reasons such as "Want a source? well, I KNOW THE DESIGNER!" are clearly against citations policy as it verges on Original Research. Mbisanz (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re the renaming [26]: this is a bit of a problematical point of truth vs verifiability. Though I can't find verification for this specific weapon, "materiel" is almost certainly correct; anti-materiel rifles are for use against materiel. Unfortunately the hypercorrection to "material" is rife in online discussions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cuban contemporary artists

ArleArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has single-handedly populated Category:Cuban contemporary artists with unsourced, poorly written articles, all of which contain a single EL to http://www.cubancontemporaryart.com/modules/news/ ... that site requires registration to use, and nothing on the linked webpage mentions the article's subject by name ... even assuming good faith, there is the strong appearance that this editor is pushing an agenda that may not be in the best interests of Wikipedia, and they seem oblivious to the WP:BIO notability guidelines, as well as ignoring Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) ... just look at a few random articles in this category ... most of them begin with a section heading that says, The Artist, and then the subject's name is wikilinked in italics ... —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In my use of AWB I've noticed a staggering number of minor bios with this source, presumably by this individual. Can someone with access to this site verify its not a copyvio? Where should mass contributions from a single source like this be discussed? Mbisanz (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.cubancontemporaryart.com

• cubancontemporaryart.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spam pages

See 147 pages on en.wiki and 98 pages on es.wiki.

Spammers

• ArleArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Pfft. Anything that requires registration is likely spam (this is). The pages seem to be generated from a template, which makes them even more suspect. I'm not wasting Christmas on this guy. I'll call the admins in. MER-C 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shareaza

• Shareaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 69.204.242.206 (talk · contribs)

This user keeps on editing the Shareaza article by deleting the sourceforge address and claims shareaza.com is the real one. However, shareaza.com has been stolen by a scamming site. The real GPL project has been moved too Shareaza.sourceforge.com . It seems like the person is hired by that scamming company to edit that wikipedia channel, whoever changes it. Still, I change it back, for free, to the SF address. Wikipedia users should be directed to the real site, and not being confronted with scammers.

The correct address is shareaza.sourceforge.net . This guy is being a real pain in the arse! he has also deleted other links such as links to the forum and www.shareazasecurity.be - the site that hosts blocklists for the program, the sourceforge project page, and links to beta/nightly releases. Please lock in the following external links:
http://shareaza.sourceforge.org/ - The Official Site
http://wwww.shareazasecurity.be/forums - The Official Forums
http://sourceforge.net/projects/shareaza/ - Shareaza Project Page
http://www.shareazasecurity.be/ - Security Filters for Shareaza
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?wiki - Shareaza Wiki
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?appId=1447 - Shareaza on Wine
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?release - Shareaza Latest Release
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?beta - Shareaza Latest Beta
http://shareaza.sourceforge.net/help/?alpha - Shareaza Nightly Builds
http://g2.trillinux.org/ - Gnutella2 specs
Cyko 01 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

69.204.242.206 (talk · contribs) warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)