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:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Comcast Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Liberty Towers Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Marbella Apartments Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership User talk:Rob 0017/Wurdian Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

Requested edits

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

COI with Rjm7730

Rjm7730 recently edited Tucker Max to add original research (unsourced commentary about a lawsuit), Max's lawyers' names, and a link to Richard J Mockler's biography, one of the lawyers. Since the username in question is 'Rjm' and the lawyer is named Richard J Mockler, I assume there is a COI for him to add original research and his name to the article (contribs: [[1]] Theserialcomma (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there's certainly a COI since he has essentially admitted the connection. But COI or not, original research is a big no-no in a BLP anyway. Also, I would ask you to keep WP:BITE in mind... I'm sure a lawyer who's not a regular editor would be quite puzzled that cited court documents may not meet the standards of WP:RS and WP:V, and RJM does appear to be trying to adhere to the policies once explained to him. Beyond that, things seem to be proceeding as they should for a COI issue. You may want to bring it up on WP:BLPN if you've not already done so. Arakunem^Talk 15:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems that the reporting editor violated WP:OUTING, as seen in this dif. McJeff (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not initially aware that I was violating any COI policy. I was simply correcting an obvious inaccuracy in what apparently is a very controversial personal biography. I never denied the alleged COI. However, the reporting editor clearly violated Wikipedia's policies by publicly posting my name and other identifying information here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. This could have been addressed on my talk page. Instead, the editor made an effort to post my name and identifying information on the discussion page, this page, and on my talk page. This type of activity can be very dangerous in other circumstances. The editor should remove any references to my personal identity and stop posting it on Wikipedia. Further, others on the discussion page have pointed out the editor is actually conflicted as a contributor to a celebrity gossip and smut website.Rjm7730 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Eric Craig

Ericcraigis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Inoneearandoutyourmother (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.155.98.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
76.90.121.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Ericcraigis says he is Eric Craig (see summary). This person was a guitar player for The Cunninghams and is Director of A&R for Lakeshore Records. He started articles on these three subjects and is the major contributor to all three. The account Ericcraigis appears to have stopped editing and Inoneearandoutyourmother started soon after, doing the same sort of edits as Ericcraigis. After Eric Craig was deleted it was twice recreated by Inoneearandoutyourmother. Editor repeatedly removes tags from these articles without giving any reasons [2] [3] [4] and was repeatedly readding incorect information about Queens of the Stone Age [5] [6] (Talk:Lakeshore Records). Duffbeerforme (talk)

Douglas Romayne - COI

This article Douglas Romayne appears to be a COI under the Wikipedia standard, as it appears to be an autobiography that has been posted by user Bleu Jean Management and a user with the IP addrss 216.86.198.37. Bleu Jean Management is this persons management company, and writing an article about someone you are in bussiness with is a direct violation of the Wikipedia COI rules.

Also the section on "Albums" is a blatent attempt for self promotion, because it send people to iTunes, MovieScore Media and CD Baby where the CD can be purchased. The quotes provided are also the type of quotes that would be used in a promotional package, not a enyclopedia.

Simple Plan

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

I would like to know if this constitutes a COI. At the Simple Plan article there is an editor who knows the band in real life, his relationship is thus that he gets free passes to the band's shows. This relationship seems to be effecting his willingness to allow NPOV statements to be included the article. An archive of his talk page shows that he previously quit the WikiProject centering around this band in order to avoid COI concerns. There also comments at another user's talk page detailing his relationship with the band. I have tried discussing the issue with the editor but no progress has been made. Aurum ore (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I filled in the header with the article name and the user names. This band is so famous they have their own Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Simple Plan. I have notified User:Wehwalt that he's being discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the band. I edit the Simple Plan article because of my liking of the band. If this is a COI concern please ignore this comment. However, I know that editors tend to edit articles with subject matters that interest them; I know that most editors can edit without bias. Wehwalt is one such editor that is acting without a bias. Your fixation, Aurum one, with adding the 'Emo' genre into the article is the reason for this report. I would like to remind you that your two (very flimsy) sources are in an extreme minority. Faced with hundreds of articles reporting the band to be pop punk, your opinion can not be included in the article. Sorry. Please stop acting childish. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe sums it up well. I am a fan of the band who has become a "friend of the band", I see them at the shows, I rarely to never see them away from the venue, and who they put on the guest list. I should add that I can well afford to pay for a ticket, and that my travel expenses (which I pay) to get to the shows are many times the cost of a ticket. I can't imagine that for a $30 ticket, I have bought a COI. All this is disclosed on SP's talk page, and I believe on my talk page archives. Any conflict (I don't think there is) has been adequately disclosed. Aurum ore's theory, if he has one, is simply nuts. I'm not even clear on how he is saying there is a COI, unless he says I can be bought so cheaply. I am a fan, and take an interest in the band, and as Poe Joe says, people edit what they are interested in.

Editors are free to look through my edits to the SP and related articles; they are uniformly NPOV and aimed at improving the articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I know your feelings on the matter, and I know my feelings on the matter. I have come here to get an outside opinion. I should have notified you that you were being discussed here, and for that I apologize. Aurum ore (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

From your discussion here, and an admittedly brief look over the article an its talk page, i don't think that this can be classed as a COI, rathers its simply an edit conflict about whether to call them emo or pop punk, and you need to stop changing it, leave it as it is until your debate is resolved. If i can be so bold as to make a suggestion for a solution to this conflict though, why not a compromise. On the talk page you say there are sources for either, why not put change the header to something like "Simple Plan is a French Canadian pop punk<ref>/Emo<ref> band. If you are willing to make such a compromise, it would solve all the drama, and save you all from a lot of tension--Jac16888 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally never meant to imply that I wanted "pop punk" to be removed. I'd be perfectly happy to have them both listed since there are references for each. Aurum ore (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. Again, your flimsy sources are in an extremely small minority when faced with the hundreds of reliable sources calling them pop punk. 'Emo' must not be included as a genre. -- Poe Joe (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) First of all, this is not the place for you to be having this discussion, and secondly, if you're not willing to compromise over something so trivial, this is likely to get dragged on for a long time--Jac16888 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Poe Joe, again I am already aware of your stance. This is not the place to discuss our personal views on the subject, that's what the talk page is for. I am here solely for other editor's opinions as to whether Wehwalt's previous comments constitute a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so. In view of the fact that Aurum ore began this discussion by alleging that I was not willing to "allow NPOV edits", Poe Joe is certainly within his rights to acquaint other editors as to what the matter in dispute is. And Jac16888, you made a proposal on this page relevant to the content; certainly Poe Joe is within his rights to respond.

Aurum ore has acknowledged that I have disclosed on talk page, which is the proper way of handling such things. I very much question the way that Aurum ore has gone about this. Deep in a content dispute in which he has failed to convince any other editor, either myself or Poe Joe (who certainly has no COI), he makes an issue of this disclosed matter. Aurum ore, incidently, has used this techniques of invoking questionable reviews as RS to add "emo" to the genre of at least one other band, New Found Glory through tendentious edits. And aside from the current content dispute, in which no regular editor of the page has agreed with him, he cannot point to a single edit made by me which is inconsistent with WP policies.

WP:COI says that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." There is no there there in Aurum ore's arguments, who appears to be in full flown retreat since now he is saying that he just wants a second opinion. Dragging the name of another WP editor through this board is not acceptable without a solid basis for doing so, and he doesn't have any basis--other than the possibility that I can be bought for a thirty dollar concert ticket. That's not a sustainable position. But any stick works to beat a dog.

I'd really like an uninvolved admin to look at this, and see if Aurum ore should be topic blocked on the subject of music for misuse of this page. I also note that he did not notify me of the allegations he was making against me, another editor had to do that. While I like to AGF, the assumption can be worn away, and given Aurum ore's words and conduct, it is hard to AGF with him/her anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wewhalt, the COI guideline suggests first approaching the editor directly on the matter, which I have at Simple Plan's talk page. It then suggests bringing the matter either here or to WP:DR. I am not trying to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Simple Plan is not linked to WP:NPOVD, which is what content dispute redirects to on the COI article. I am perfectly willing to discuss the matter with other editors such as Poe Joe, and have even continued to discuss the matter with you at the Talk Page after bringing the matter here. Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's unorthodox to discuss music genres here on this page. But it's not the first time this problem has come up on Wikipedia. Can you tell us, briefly, how you think music genre disputes ought to be settled? Do you know of any successful examples where you think a genre issue was correctly laid to rest using reliable sources? (If this discussion gets too verbose we can move it elsewhere, but I personally would like to know the answer). EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked Aurum ore to get some news articles in which Simple Plan is called emo. I think that there has to be a threshold showing of news coverage (or articles on the band, not opinion reviews in other words) in which the band is called by the second genre. I would say that if he can come up with a significant number of such articles, or, since band genres and also terminology shift over time, a smaller number from a discrete period of time, then I'd tend to accede to a second genre, with the location of the mention within the article to be negotiated. I'm thinking that if 20 percent of news articles/feature articles on the band mention the proposed genre, that would be good enough. But reviews are opinions, necessarily so, and I can't give them weight. Unhappily, Aurum ore chose to stand on the review articles he posited, and did not respond to my request. If it's less than 20 percent (I'd even make it 15), then I think it falls under WP:UNDUE. I can't give you an example of genre disputes that were resolved, because I mostly don't follow such things. It was Aurum ore's assertions that emo should be listed coequally with pop punk when I follow the news coverage of SP reasonably closely and I know that news articles always call them pop punk that brought me into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing we might want to do is move the question of whether CD reviews are considered RS over to the RS noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wehwalt and Poe Joe, I have tired to be very courteous to you throughout our discussions. I have never insulted you or your viewpoints, so please do not continue to insult mine. You never requested that I find additional references to back up my statement (the closest you got was asking: where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? You never indicated that offering more references would have any effect on your opinion. A statement you made on Poe Joe's talk page when you asked him to join the discussion indicated that you intended on prolonging the dispute until I went away rather than engaging in meaningful discussion.

Typically they get discouraged or else bored and go away after a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Aurum ore (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not only false, it is demonstrably false. Here are some quotes from our discussion:

". In a nutshell--you have a couple of reviews that call them emo, which may or may not be RS, it doesn't matter. But I'm looking at the news stories on the recent tour, and news article after news article calls them pop punk and doesn't call them emo.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"According to WP:UNDUE, small minority views (which you seem to admit yours is, they are the views of individual reviewers, you have two of them, and one refers to the music on the first two CDs) are not to be given space on WP. Reviews are close to personal opinion, which are not to be used for WP:RS except under limited conditions that don't apply here, where are all the newspaper reports that call SP emo? Here's a few of the recent ones that call them pop punk! I'm in a hurry or I'd put in more.[7][8][9][10] (there are many more, and news articles are far more reliable than reviews) I would hesitate to call your UK source a "major component of the mainstream media", leaving a brief Rolling Stone review. Whereas newspapers routinely refer to SP as a pop punk band. WP:UNDUE is a subset of WP:NPOV. Those who call SP emo are not a significant minority, therefore we do not put them in. And to paraphrase Poe Joe, that pretty much says it all!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)"

"You've given a couple of opinion pieces about music, reviews in other words. You haven't shown a single news piece. If this is a significant minority view, and not just "flat earth", you should be able to show that there are many news reports that refer to them as an emo band. Two reviewers are "flat earth", not a significant minority. You know, the sort of coverage they get when they play a city. Not just the opinion of two reviewers, but offhand references in serious news reports.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)"

Thus, your claim that I never asked you for more sources, or more RS, is not true. I find it amazing that you choose to link directly to matters you feel support your claims, but if you don't, you just make an offhand characterization (although clearly untrue). I would expect you to be both civil and truthful when bringing matters to this page. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In order to make the discussion more accessable to outside editors, I am detailing my reasons for initiating this discussion with links for each instance: I am aware that Wehwalt previously commented on his relationship with the band on the article's talk page. However the statement is not current and does not include all the details of his relationship. The statement was posted on 9 February 2007. He did not remove his name from the WikiProject until December 2007, indicating that his relationship with the band had changed, to the extent that he now feared COI concenrns in regards to his continued participation. When questioned by Poe Joe about his departure he stated:

"Uh, given that I get a pass now from the band, I feared WP:COI concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC) "[7]

He has also made statements indicating that he knows the band well enough to receive favors or perks for his friends:

I haven´t forgotten (though I will probably have to remind them) but don´t expect it soon. I´ve seen the schedule, nothing your way anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[8]

One of his edit summaries indicates that he speaks to the band outside of shows, and has spoken with them on the phone:

Well, call it OR if you want, but i got a call[9]

When I made a good faith edit with several reliable sources, he reverted it without discussion. No previous discussions had adressed the sources in question. He has a history of reverting genre edits to the article without discussing them at the talk page[10][11], or in some cases doing so without even explaining what he was reverting in the edit summary.[12] In a few instances he has said this was due to previous conensus at the talk page, however none of the discussions in question appear to have arrived at any form of consensus.[13]He has also removed article headers without discussing them [14] and has even taken it upon himself to correct statements backed by the band's official site, replacing it with his personal knowledge.[15]

I trust the opinions of the editors at this article and will gladly abide by their decision regarding Wehwalt. Although, I have tried to keep relatively level headed and assume good faith throughout the discussion, I admit that my temper has risen and as such will take a few days' leave from this discussion in order to cool off. Aurum ore (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Woah, woah, woah. Why did you, Aurum ore, add my name on there? How in the Sam Hill do I have a conflict of interest?! Now, it is beyond obvious that you are reporting us only to gain an advantage in this content dispute. I strongly urge you to drop this COI case, so that we can continue this discussion civilly on the Simple Plan talk page. -- Poe Joe (talk)

I didn't add your name to the discussion header, one of the other editors did. I assume it's because Wewhalt made comments regarding his relationship with the band on your talk page. I'm not accusing you at all of having a COI. Aurum ore (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually rather shocked at the uncivil tone taken by Aurum ore, whether or not he is here to read it, and the misleading and incorrect characterizations he has given. I think we know that Aurum ore spent a considerable amount of time last night looking for anything he could use against me, and in most cases did not content himself with the link, but posted his own (wrong) conclusions based on them. This is uncivil and he has failed to WP:AGF. For example, [16] is a reversal of vandalism. Take a look at the previous edit, it puts some kid's name in as the producer. I do not get calls from the band, or release non public info on the band (not that I ever have any), so there goes that right now. There is a consensus, stated after discussion on the talk page, that SP is pop punk, and unsourced changes to that get reverted as a matter of course. Usually they come from IP addresses. Too bad I didn't post detailed edit summaries, but on a page which receives a lot of vandalism, you get into a habit of being rather summary. And yes, most disruptive editors, whether or not you fall into that category, do get bored and go away after a while.

Moving on to other items in the kitchen sink he has thrown at me, [17]. Of course I removed the unencyclopedic tag; the editor failed to state any specific concerns and what were we supposed to do, guess? The tag says "please discuss on talk page"; the editor did not start a talk page discussion. Other tags, properly applied, have remained on the articles concerning the band[18] (double tag, inserted December 2007 and remained ever since). [19], the call was from the Foundation, and they were supposed to modify their web page, which they never did, unfortunately. That was after I applied for a ticket, and was called back to be told it was sold out. Um, given that I didn't go, that hardly makes Aurum ore's case! I thought it would be helpful to put the information it was sold out on WP pending the official announcement, which unfortunately never came. Aurum ore is mistaking tongue in cheek edit summaries because he is hoping to see violations of WP policy. [20] common courtesy to let another fan know if SP is coming their way, jeez. And when I did let Poe Joe know, I backed it up with a link. Something wrong with that?

Concerning my edit about COI concerns, I felt that in a wikiproject, I might get more deference than I deserved, and thus resigned from the wikiproject. That is a matter of my personal ethics, and not of WP COI standards. I'm still not clear on what basis Aurum ore is even contending there is a COI (other than his kitchen sink approach to dispute resolution). Is he still saying a thirty dollar concert ticket buys a Wikipedia shill? If so, he hasn't shown it. At the worst, all he's shown is carelessness in editing in an article which makes no pretentions to be a FA. And his attempt, and general incivilities, very much leaves his own ability to properly engage on this article open to question. I note he has said he won't engage with me any more, just with Poe Joe. Guess what. Even if I did have a COI, which I do not, I'd still be able to participate on talk page. Aurum ore's "I won't talk with you but I will talk with him" displays a rather childish attitute (to borrow Poe Joe's phrasing).

You did not post with reliable sources; you posted with opinion reviews. When you persisted, I told you that. Your editing is tendentious, to say the least, and now you are throwing in the kitchen sink in an effort to gain your ends. This is uncivil and wrong. Perhaps an opinion review is good enough for [21] this list, whereby one mention in any music review of "emo" makes you emo, but we've asked, repeatedly, repeatedly, Aurum ore to post news articles, feature articles which refer to SP as emo. He won't even reply. The regular editors of the Simple Plan article properly refused Aurum ore's attempts to insert the "emo" genre under WP:UNDUE (if he can't find news or feature articles . . . ) and told him of the need to find pieces which were more than someone's personal opinion. Unfortunately, his responses have been to come here and try to get me thrown off the article, without good cause. I have refrained from going back and looking at Aurum ore's edits, forcing him to defend everything he has done against a hostile editor, like he has done for me.

Poe Joe has stated that Aurum ore is engaging in this discussion to get an advantage in a content dispute. I agree, it is proved beyond doubt. I've quoted from what WP:COI has said are the consequences of that, and unlike Aurum ore, see no need to repeat myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidently, the position that a review is not a RS is one I've taken before, in a context [22] almost a year old and having nothing to do with SP. I've edited with a consistent position. The band itself could edit, if it wanted to (maybe they do, I have no idea) so long as they maintained NPOV. I say again, where's the COI?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Though this debate could be of interest, I no longer perceive any COI issue. I suggest that the discussion continue at Talk:Simple Plan, and this thread be closed for COIN purposes. Is there any reason for more investigation here? EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's no COI, then there's no COI. Consider it closed. Thanks for looking into it, though. Aurum ore (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias

Resolved

 – COI policies explained, article brought into NPOV Arakunem^Talk 20:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Quentin Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- After checking the article, I noticed some diffs that may need to be checked[23] [24]. Given the nature of the edits I think A WP:COI may be present, but since this is a biography of a living person the edits may have merit. But I still think they should be checked. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Article is provided directly by the artist "Quentin Elias" by electro boy inc records. His current managment and record label. All that has been put in the article are facts and are documented so by links directing there integrity and documentation.

If the person needs to talk to his representation feel free to without deleting the truth.

flash electro boy inc records electroboyinc@aol.com

or

Quentin Elias qnyc@mac.com

Heads up: editing, and vandalism, from UBS

Robert Wolf is a journalist and author of some (perhaps minor) note. Coincidentally Robert Wolf is also the name of the chairman of UBS AG, a large bank. A few months ago Pistoneme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Robert Wolf (UBS AG) about the banker (and similar articles with very similar names). That article has been deleted four times, at least twice because it appeared to be a copy of UBS' page on banker Wolf. Pistoneme has repeatedly attempted to move, blank, or have deleted the article on the journalist Wolf. Pistoneme identifies herself as an employee of UBS here. Following a fairly daft run of vandalism earlier today Pistoneme has been indefinitely blocked. Subsequent to that Pistoneme's talk page has been blanked by two IPs which WHOIS to UBS, one of which also repeated Pistoneme's request to zap journalist Wolf's article (here). While there is no outstanding COI editing now, Pistoneme appears to be determined, and undeterred by blocks. Can I suggest a few uninterested parties add Robert Wolf and maybe (redlink) Robert Wolf (UBS AG) to their watchlists. And perhaps someone richer with the milk of human kindness than I might gently point out to Pistonme how unwise her recent behaviour has been. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Other concerned accounts appear to include PKurer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and UBS Fixer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), both whose edits concern the same subject. UBS Fixer's deleted edits also include a legal threat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

UBS IPs: 151.191.175.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.191.175.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.191.175.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 151.191.175.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Conversely there's UnionBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who appears to be disgruntled in some fashion too arcane for me to figure out. Oh what a world we live in, why can't everyone be gruntled? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also JM0207.0909 (talk · contribs). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The chairman of a large bank is almost certain to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It would have been easy enough to rewrite the copyvio. And to find sources. DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cdrkit

• Cdrkit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An unregistered user has made a few tendentious edits to the cdrkit article, where he declared various sources unreliable and removed or {{fact}}ed cited content without (IMO) good reason. [REDACT unintentional OUTING. See WP:COI and WP:OUTING for guidance.Jehochman ^Talk 20:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)]
• I'm reluctant to begin reverting his edits without some outside review concurring with my assessment of the situation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't force the issue of his identity, especially as a condition of being allowed to edit the article. COI says that *if* he is Schilling, he is not automatically precluded from editing, as long as he maintains a neutral POV. If his editing does not maintain NPOV, then that is its own problem (regardless of who he is) and those edits should be addressed accordingly. He should not be removing cited facts from the article without a proper explanation, though he is right to also request cites of some claims made in the article. I would start by opening a discussion section on the article's Talk page, and leave the IP a note on his talk. Alternately, as it appears his IP changes from session to session, leave a note about the discussion as an edit summary. Opening the dialog though is key here, as otherwise it will just become an edit war. Arakunem^Talk 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can report this case at WP:NPOVN. Let's not identify editors by name, unless they do so themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also please draw WP:OTRS and the email address to this editor's attention if you believe they may need private advice in handling issues with an article concerning their own interests. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, Quentin Elias

Quentin Elias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See Talk:Quentin_Elias#The_future_of_the_article. COI from management, 'nuff said. Keegan^talk 05:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I see much clue was dispensed. Article is fairly quiescent now. Arakunem^Talk 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mikegooderson (talk · contribs), Coldwinterday (talk · contribs), 81.192.195.118 (talk · contribs), 81.192.167.196 (talk · contribs), 81.192.191.48 (talk · contribs): problematic pattern of contributions to Tahir Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles

Overview: History of promotional, possibly self-serving edits and article creations, with apparent use of multiple user IDs (sockpuppets). Possible candidate for Checkuser, although from the evidence (unbroken strings of edits, some under IP, some under user names) it seems fairly clear that we are dealing only with one person.

According to geobytes, all the IPs involved hail from Casablanca, Morocco, the place of residence of the article subject of Tahir Shah.

Previous talk page requests to comply with COI and core content policies: [25], [26].

Examples of problematic edits:

• Mikegooderson creates The Phararoh Code (with misspelt title): [27]. The article Pharaoh code has been deleted twice before: [28]. Article cites no third-party reliable sources and appears to exist solely to promote Tahir Shah's theory.

• Coldwinterday inserts circular reference (using a Wikipedia mirror site) to Tahir Shah's Qantara Foundation, which appears to lack independent notability: [29]. Undone by another editor: [30] Mikegooderson steps in and inserts references to another open wiki that uses Wikipedia content: [31]

• Coldwinterday edits Tahir Shah to describe the father of Tahir Shah as "legendary": [32]; the cited source (the New York Times) describes him as "well-known", as our article said. (Ironically, Tahir Shah's father was accused by critics of self-aggrandisement, and self-publishing an unparalleled corpus of pseudonymous literature in adulation of himself.)

• IP 81.192.167.196 reinserts unsupported claim that Tahir Shah holds various memberships and honorary titles: [33], [34]. I insert fact templates after the claims: [35]. Now, an hour later, IP 81.192.195.118 adds Tahir Shah as a club member in the article on the Travellers Club, again without RS support: [36], and shortly after adds the edited Travellers Club article as a reference for Tahir Shah's membership in the Travellers Club in Tahir Shah: [37]. Note that it is quite possible, even likely, that Shah is a member of the said clubs; his father was a member of the Athenaeum club, and some of these things are hereditary; but I don't think it is encyclopedically relevant to the Tahir Shah article if no reliable source has commented upon it, making it essentially unverifiable for our readers.

• Coldwinterday and one of the IPs create an article on Trail of feathers, one of Tahir Shah's books, by lifting out material from one of Tahir Shah's blogs. The article is flagged for speedy deletion for copyright violation by Bonadea (talk · contribs): User_talk:Coldwinterday#Copyright_problems, [38] and deleted accordingly by Edgar181 (talk · contribs).

• IP adds various chunks of unsourced material serving to enhance Tahir Shah in the reader's eyes in Tahir Shah: [39] ("His work is characterized by an extraordinary attention to detail and characters, and is regarded as unusually original, a fusion of styles.")

• Here are earlier edits by Chinawhitecotton (talk · contribs) deleting what they felt was gratuitously self-promotional material in Tahir Shah: [40], [41].

To be clear, Tahir Shah is a notable and talented author, with congratulatory coverage in top-class newspapers, as well as a filmmaker, a book reviewer for the Washington Post, a writer of screenplays and much besides.

It is all the more puzzling that these accounts, rather than capitalising on the good press coverage there is on the man, seek to inflate his achievements with unsourced claims and fawning descriptions. Here is an example of the state the article was in after one of the user's recent editing sessions: [42]

To be fair, I will grant that some of the contributions made by the above IDs have been pertinent, if invariably flattering to the subject.

The problem is long-standing; here, in 2006, yet another Casablancan IP deletes "copyedit" and "verify" tags, they are restored by the other user, and then the same Casablancan IP deletes them again the next day.

None of the user IDs concerned has so far responded to talk page messages. Over to you guys. Jayen466 19:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User(s) concerned has been notified of this thread: [43], [44], [45]. Jayen466 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More of the same: [46], misspelt title, POV and unsourced. Jayen466 11:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC) _{Title spelling now fixed, page moved. Jayen466 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)}

I agree wholeheartedly Jayen. The editor/s have created or contributed to several articles promoting possible associates, sometimes with backlinks to Tahir Shah. 81.192.186.193 (Morocco again) unilaterally deleted two sections of Idries Shah, Tahir Shah's father, without first or subsequently discussing. These sections were critical of his father. EricT (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that one. It's another Casablanca IP: Special:Contributions/81.192.186.193, diff link. Jayen466 12:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears there haven't been any further edits by the user(s) in the last week or so. What to do? Mothball this thread until they come back? Jayen466 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Drew Technologies, Inc.

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

This IP address (which maps directly to DREW TECHNOLOGIES INC according to http://ws.arin.net/whois/) has repeatedly vandalized the pages which list commercial OBD-II products (which is Drew Technologies core business). Please see the contributions list for this IP. The 8 most recent edits (at the time of this writing) by this IP (going back roughly two months time) appear to be DREW TECHNOLOGIES moving themselves to the top of the list (and moving people above them down the list) in order to self-promote. They also removed (without discussion) someone's concern about one of the articles being used purely for advertising. The article lists (containing DREW TECHNOLOGIES products and competitors' products) had recently been arranged alphabetically to discourage this kind of product "bumping", but they again put their products at the top of the list. Since the history of this practice goes back roughly two months' time, I propose a two-month IP ban for this address. As the edits in question were already listed in an alphabetically ordered list, the only reason for moving to the top would be self-promotion. Can someone else please review the edits by this IP and give a second opinion?

• The talk page is a redlink ,which indicates that you have not yet tried dialogue. Please do. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• issued a stern warning   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Gurvic

Resolved

 – Articles deleted. MER-C 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gurvic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Academic Assistance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PENCAMP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Freelance Academic Assistants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User has created all three abovementioned articles. PENCAMP, according to the Academic Assistance article, was created by Victor Gursky, which is very similar to the username. User has also tried to shirk the deletion process of these articles by creating duplicate articles (diff) and removing AfD templates (diff). MuZemike (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

These actions combined strike as a bit more that just plain COI: he's gaming the system (disruption) to propagate spam basically. None of the articles he added have any merit. Isn't it time to take it to AN/I?VG ☎ 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning for this editor. Let's hope for an appropriate response. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Heimerdinger

Chris Heimerdinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) My interest in the page is just through responding to a message on the BLP noticeboard; I am in discussion on the talk page about edits that should not really be very controversial. Also on the talk page there are accusations that one editor is the article subject and another is someone involved in a lawsuit against him. Would appreciate a further external look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to complain about a conflict of interest from Itsmejudith. I've been watching the article for quite some time myself and some of these edits you are making are absolutely baseless. Its ridiculous to constantly exhibit the need to monitor this article and make such obsessive-compulsive changes to it that are totally unnecessary. Given that Mr. Heimerdinger does not have an official page at the moment and some of this information is found on very few other places on the web, it is an abuse of power to frequently change things "just because you feel like it." The information presented in Mr. Heimerdinger's article is neutral and is helpful to anyone legitimately seeking information about this individual. As Thumper10 pointed out in his edits to the argument - you are welcome to go look up the track information to the CD on Amazon for instance - but if you can find it there - then you should provide a link for doing so. Honestly - if you aren't doing anything legitimate to contribute to this article, get out of the way so that some of us that would legitimately like to contribute to it can without the worry of the article being changed mere minutes later.--FireandFlames17 FireandFlames17 (talk)

Disagreeing with you isn't a conflict of interest or an abuse of power. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page, not here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears there are multiple people editing the article against a conflict of interest. Chris Heimerdinger is editing as 98.202.23.178, and there's speculation he's editing as Thumper10 as well. There is also speculation that 216.49.181.128 has a conflict of interest in the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FireandFlames17 is a new editor, whose edits border on sockpuppetry for other editors involved in the disputes. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved with the page in question for some time, I would like to offer moral support to itsmejudith and thank her for her help. It's quite clear that Heimerdinger has his paws on his page with some regularity and I find it easy to believe that the gentleman on the other side of the lawsuit does as well. It's pretty ugly. So continued stopbys from uninvolved editors are highly welcome. Thmazing (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Lpie7 and All By Students (ABS) Notebooks

• Lpie7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• All By Students (ABS) Notebooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Only article created by user. Also, only edits beside AfD/other tagging made by user. User has removed a {{coi}} tag (diff) which raises suspicions of trying to hide a COI. Article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All By Students (ABS) Notebooks, which faces a possibility of being kept. MuZemike (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Note — user has made comment on the AfD here. I will AGF as of now unless there may be any other reason brought up here not to. MuZemike (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ryan McAdams

One to watch. Related to New York Youth Symphony and being edited by User:Newyorkyouthsymphony. — Alan^✉ 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the user's talk page and excised some peacock terms and unneccesary promotional info. Arakunem^Talk 14:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WeatherBug

I noticed that the last edit on the article (as of October 1) was made by an anonymous user. The WHOIS data on the IP came back to WeatherBug. The edit deals with mobile versions of WeatherBug:

WeatherBug Direct is a line of free applications for mobile devices, including WeatherBug Direct for Blackberry and WeatherBug Direct for Windows Mobile.

Is this a major COI violation? Thanks, --Willking1979 (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, a minor one if that. If they were adding lavish praise or unnecessary detail, or were deleting unfavourable material, then that would be something to worry about. If there were making large changes to the article, shutting out others' edits, that would be both a WP:OWN and WP:COI problem. But a single edit, adding only a one sentence mention of a product, using pretty NPOV language, isn't a problem. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

COI with Bert Convy

User Bert Convy keeps editing the Gary Trauner article with obvious bias. Especially, since it's the only article he's edited, I'm suspicious that he's working for the Lummis campaign. BeIsKr (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the article's talk page. Arakunem^Talk 14:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

COI - The Foundation for a Better Life

Looks like a conflict of interest — see editing history. User:Forbetterlife has only edited this article and once the Philip Anschutz article. -BStarky (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sketch (restaurant)

Sketch is a notable restaurant in London, and an edit war is starting [47] between myself and an anonymous editor [48]. The editor claims that they work for Sketch, and their edits make the article look like, for want of a better phrase, a press release [49] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the talk page, which the IP will hopefully participate in, and take note of the policies. I also left an edit sumamry pointing to the talk page. We'll see what develops. Arakunem^Talk 19:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up, incoming influx Occupational Therapy COI edits

On the talk page of an article currently proposed for deletion (Occupational apartheid), the User:Occupational scientist writes that "There are going to be a large group of Occupational Therapists editing all things related to occupational therapy on wikipedia over the next few weeks...I am just one of those..." and states that this will be because of an event called OT wikiflash. The user points towards the website OTwikiflash.net. I feel that the community should be notified of these (seemingly good-faith) edits since they might unwittingly breach into COI range (as can be seen on the occupational apartheid page). Thank you. Themfromspace (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)