General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Before posting, determine whether this is the most appropriate place. 
Archives 
Add new incident reports at the bottom of this page.
Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics. It is for conflict of interest issues that require outside intervention, such as disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time. It is not for simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-COI breaches of neutral point of view policy.
COI affected editors may use this board to get help with proposed article changes. Propose changes at the article talk page, and then leave a message here if more neutral editors are needed to establish consensus.
The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
- Please limit statements to 200 words or less. Long, drawn-out speeches may be ignored.
- If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them.
- You can tag COI affected articles with {{COI}}.
- You can warn editors about COI concerns with {{subst:uw-coi}}.
All Wikipedia editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest.
When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
- To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
- Create a new section with the article name
- Describe the dispute using the following format:
-
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~
- Add new entries at the bottom of the page
- To close an incident
- Add Template:resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature
- Old issues are taken away by the archive bot
Contents
-
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.
LisaFromSourceWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a self-described staff member of the Center for Media and Democracy, made the following edit to the same article. The edit includes disputing claims made by a critic of the organization. No prior discussion was made at the article's Talk page, and no formal references were given (although an informal reference to one of the organization's websites was provided to counter one of the claims of the critic). Drrll (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed some of the information added and also added one reference. I'm inclined to remove the criticism section as it's essentially a slagging match between two groups and I'm not sure we can consider either to be RSs. I've had a look for sources to see if we can improve the article but haven't found any which really directly discuss the organisation, rather than what they've published. I'd advise LisaFromSourceWatch to follow WP:BESTCOI, and edit the talk page in the future, rather than the article. I'll be watching the page so should spot any comments made. Smartse (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
LisaFromSourceWatch has made a comment on the talk page, and I have since removed the whole criticism section due to poor sourcing. I don't think there's anything left to do so will mark this resolved. Smartse (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Ayako Shirasaki - cleanup and neutral point of view needed to get rid of COI warning
Resolved: Article is fully sourced and neutrally worded. The COI template has been removed Smartse (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Article of Ayako Shirasaki - Hello, I'm the manager of jazz pianist Ayako Shirasaki and a beginner on Wikipedia contribution. I started an article about her and got flagged with a COI warning. It is already reviewed and cleared for 2 or 3 peacocks. To get rid of the COI warning on top someone needs to check for neutral point of view. Citations are there already. Thank you for helping to get the article finished! --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your openness. The COI tag needs to stay for the moment, mainly because most of the article is unreferenced. If you can find third party sources (newspapers, magazines and the like) to reference the life and career section then I'd be happy to remove the COI tag. This might help, but it looks like it might have been written by you, there are a few mentions on google news but they are behind paywalls, maybe you have copies? Smartse (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
-
- Thank your for letting me know what is needed I try to provide as good as I can, I don't speak japanese and her early musical career began when the internet was in the very early stages. I hope it is ok if I simply give website addresses? Sakura Music School= http://sakuramusicschool.com --- with a performance at the 1st International Jazz Solo Piano Festival 2009 in Germany= http://jazzsolopianofestival.com/en/?cat=7 --- Marian McPartlands "An NPR Jazz Christmas with Marian McPartland and Friends, Vol. 3".= http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfpxqqrldfe~T1 --- Ayako’s solo piano album "Home Alone" was released in April 2006= http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=WNCJ-2163 --- Before giving birth to her two children=no reference for that, sorry --- Her second major CD "Musically Yours" was released in June, 2005= http://diskunion.net/jp/ct/detail/XAT-1245393133 --- In August 2003, her major debut CD "Existence" (Lewis Nash on drums, Marco Panascia on bass) was released in Japan= http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fm20031221mp.html --- The rest has no reference I fear, hopefully that is good enough. I took a look at the link for the google news that you gave above. They don't reference to the items in Life and career.... --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
-
- Found this: http://diskunion.net/classic/ct/detail/SJ0305-16 for the Duo Live --- that is one more :) --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- We need sources which directly discuss her for there to be an article on her, websites that mention performances aren't enough. Looking more closely, I'm not sure if she meets our requirements for inclusion for musicians at the moment. If I'm wrong, could you point out which criteria she meets. If I'm correct then I will nominate the article for deletion. Smartse (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- She meets the following criteria: A - "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1] * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries" Please take a look here http://jazzsolopianofestival.com/en/?cat=7 and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rB-W9U_dLc /// B. Next criteria she meets is Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Please take a look at What's new Records http://www.wn-records.com/ it is a more important indie label in Japan, where Jazz CD's are still important and bought. She released 3 CD's on that Label - 2 of them are still on the Labels home page: http://www.wn-records.com/shinpu2148.html and http://www.wn-records.com/shinpu2163.html /// C. Next criteria she meets is Has won or placed in a major music competition. Finalist in the Mary Lou Williams Women In Jazz Piano Competition 2005 and 2006; Washington, D.C., USA [4] - Finalist in the Great American Jazz Piano Competition 2004, 2005 and 2006; Jacksonville, Fl., USA [5] references are from her article on Wikipedia with links to reliable websites. /// D. Next criteria she meets is Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album - Song "Sleigh Ride" on 2006 - Marian McPartlands "An NPR Jazz Christmas with Marian McPartland and Friends, Vol. 3".= http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:dzfpxqqrldfe~T1 Please take a look at Marian McPartlands Wikipedia Article /// E. Next criteria that she meets is Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. in 2003 her first CD has been in rotation on WBGO, THE major radio jazz station in the U.S.A. Can't give a reference though. ATM we have a radio campaign going on with a radio add date of Sept 7, 2010. KSDS from San Diego one of the Top 10 Jazz Stations in the U.S.A. already played two songs from her new album before the radio add date: Please take a look at the second photo here http://thenewjazzthing.com/ /// F. Finally she meets this criteria: Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. She has been featured in Marian McPartlands 1 hour long Radio show "Piano Jazz" which is NPR and syndicated to a whole bunch of other stations http://www.npr.org/programs/pianojazz/previousguests/fall2006/shirasaki.html /// Thank you so much for your help, it is really appreciated. Yours, Jan --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I almost forgot she was in the Feb. 2010 issue of Jazztimes: http://janmatthies.com/blog/en/?p=184 --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you Smartse for editing Ayako's article, please also watch the discussion page there. Are we far away from removing the COI flag? --JanMatthiesMM (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied at Talk:Ayako Shirasaki but another opinion wouldn't go amiss. Smartse (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkboildb (talk · contribs) and Darkboi
Resolved: Article and userpage deleted as spam Smartse (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Darkboi appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable rapper, who apparently edits as Darkboildb. Darkboildb's user page is a copy of the article. He appears to be here only for self-promotion, having no edits outside his userpage and Darkboi. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
-
Arctic2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - This s.p.a. has carefully crafted a campaign ad for this writer now running for Congress. It's unencyclopedic and promotional, full of pull quotes from reviews of his books, and generally reads like it was taken straight from his press kit. It has no footnotes, and until recently was "sourced" to things like amazon.com reviews of his books. Orange Mike | Talk 13:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The same s.p.a. keeps trying to re-instert the amazon blurbs and so forth, but refuses to do anything to actually improve the article. I've temporarily protected it while attempting to engage the s.p.a. on the subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- We (or at least I) can't do anything to fix the article when it is still fully protected, can it be unprotected? Smartse (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was unprotected yesterday by HJ Mitchell. I'd like to point out that unlike some COI promotional editors, this one is communicative, see here where the editor is appealing to another editor in regards to the creation of the article, and here where they made an appeal to tags left on the article. So far, these communications have been appeals/notices, not actual conversations, so I'm not certain if this is any real indicator of a willingness to discuss issues with the article or if this is just more promotion to get the word out about this candidate. It's not at all uncommon for candidates at all levels of government to use Wikipedia as another part of their advocacy; many campaigns see it as free advertising and the worst thing that will happen to them is that the article is deleted and the single-purpose accounts they use are blocked. No loss to them. I suggest giving this editor a chance but based on past experience with similar situations I don't have a lot of hope. -- Atama頭 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- He, or she, has never gotten in touch with me despite repeated requests. Has registered no email address. Communication seems to be limited to, "Hey, work on my article" I did a little bit in order to put his political campaign in context. Fred Talk 15:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
174.49.4.11 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has been making extensive edits to Ben Hayslip since May 2010. The IP's edits are extremely promotional in nature: This and this suggest that the editor may be someone very closely related, or Hayslip himself. Some of the other edits, such as this, are slightly promotional. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know about this one. The COI might be true, this editor seems to know a lot about this person, especially his baseball career. But at the same time, I can't make sense of this which is actually removing mention of a couple of awards that Hayslip won. Why would someone who was interested in promoting someone want to remove mention of awards from the page? Also, I'm not seeing the edits as overly promotional, there aren't any peacock terms or other fluff, the info this editor has added has so far been relevant to the biography (though unsourced). The article is worth keeping an eye on (it's a BLP after all) but I don't see a huge problem with this editor, and it's more difficult to deal with an IP than a registered account. A message left for this IP about conflicts of interest might be lost if they change their address (it looks like 173.25.160.73 might have been the same person). -- Atama頭 17:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Some people may have come across him before; he appears to be the author of a book on "Unknown Socialist Realism, The Leningrad School", and is now adding massive inappropriate blocks of images by modern "socialist realist" artists to several general articles: [1] These all seem to be from his book, and on his website (http://www.leningradartist.com), & I suspect they are for sale, although the website seems coy about this. They were all added to Commons by him under a OTRS licence: "I, Leningradartist, hereby publish this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license. I hereby claim that I am duly authorized to do so by virtue of the contract with the author of this image in accordance with Russian legislation." Hmmm. I have reverted some edits but not looked at them all. He is an SPA on this topic. Also posting to the Visual arts project. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm indeed. It looks to me like a massive copyvio because he can't hold the copyright to the paintings. I've posted at the commons village pump about it. I can't really see the COI issue though - are you suggesting that by adding teh images, they hope to increase sales of their book? Smartse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, and possibly the paintings too. But it would be COI even with no financial incentive. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The above articles (and others close to the subject) are being edited by Harrybrunjes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who here claims to be her namesake's secretary. I suspect it may be Harry Brunjes himself, due to the user editing Folkington Manor - which is owned by Brunjes... but there's no proof of that. Just thought others should know as the Harry Brünjes article is in danger of becoming a vanity page. The subject is clearly influential in business, but that's not the same as notable in an encyclopaedia. Malick78 (talk) 12:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've added the some template links, I also spotted Thedeckchairman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who's edits need checking over (they haven't edited since Nov 09) and the Premier Medical Group has also been edited by these editors. Smartse (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
-
The Singing Scott Brothers needs checking over too. Smartse (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've looked for sources for both Harry Brünjes and Jacqueline Storey and couldn't find anything like what is required to meet WP:BASIC so have nominated them for deletion at AfD here and here. Smartse (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on some copyright concerns with images uploaded by this user but could not help noticing an obvious COI. These articles are interrelated, and based on the attribution for File:Safe image.jpg, it seems that the individual may be Jordan Schaul or a relative. That image was first uploaded at File:Fellow schaul.jpg, where it was claimed that the photographer was "S.Schaul" and that it was uploaded under permission from "J.Schaul." It was tagged for lack of permission on August 15th and deleted in due course when the contributor failed to follow the processes of which s/he was notified. The contributor reuploaded under a different name under claim that he or she is himself the copyright owner. Either this is one of the Schauls, or this is blatant copyright fraud. (Maybe the latter, unless the Schauls are also Doug Lindstrand's publicist, which he claims to be here, though even there the possibility that he is Schaul is more strongly implied.)
Most of these articles have been tagged with COI and are much in need of review to see if they comply with sourcing and neutrality concerns. I don't want to mix the copyright issue with the COI issue in case I need to remain an uninvolved admin for the former. Might somebody be willing to take this on? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've noted that a couple have been nominated for deletion and added Sandra Ferguson which is a copy of Sandra Dee Robinson. I'll try to work on the article if I have time this week, but any help, would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Schlitterbahn
- They appear to have learnt about the law of unintended consequences: [2]. Looking at the articles though, they don't exactly seem notable, so maybe they should be deleted. Smartse (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've been spending some time looking at the contributions of the new editor and the previous two socks that were blocked. What I found really telling was this edit by Finitude2222 and this edit by Stevemanagement. They are almost identical, in particular the way they pared down the "Accreditation and DIU" section is identical. Also, look at this edit from Finitude2222 and this edit from Louis900000 (Stevemanagement's sockpuppet), also nearly identical. This combined with Finitude2222 claiming to represent the schools is quacking very loudly to me, so I'm going to go ahead and mark this editor as a sock.
-
- On the other hand, I agree with Smartse, I don't know that these schools merit inclusion anyway. I don't really see the coverage that would meet WP:CORP or our general notability guideline. The only reason I see for keeping the articles around would be to warn the public about these schools, but that really isn't the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 17:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is it not canonical that colleges and universities, like high schools, are deemed inherently notable? Seems to me that even if their credentials are bogus, this principal still applies. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, oddly enough, I don't think so, though logically you'd think they would be. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, where it doesn't mention colleges and universities. In this case, I think it's arguable that these schools are even real colleges. -- Atama頭 00:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I'm of at least two minds on this question (I think the count is now up to three or four minds...). First off, let me say that it sometimes has been said in deletion discussions that "unaccredited institutions aren't notable," and I strenuously oppose that position. At the same time, I have misgivings about creating and maintaining articles about institutions for which there is little or no third-party content to use as the basis for an article. That lack of coverage is a chronic problem with unaccredited institutions, and it is one reason for the large number of red links at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning, but it's also a problem sometimes with institutions that are documented to be accredited (example). However, if there are people walking around out here in the real world whose professional credentials (whether on a resume or a plaque on their office walls) include degrees from a particular institution, I think that a reader ought to be able to come to Wikipedia to learn about that institution -- and if we have any information on which to base a stub article, they ought to be able to read that article. A while back when I had occasion to plow through a pile of resumes from job applicants, I was astonished to see that one applicant had listed a Ph.D from a diploma mill whose name I recognized as a result of having edited the school's article at Wikipedia. IMO, the existence of real people who claim degrees (especially advanced degrees) from an institution makes that institution notable in a very real way, even if that notability is not yet documented in a Wikipedia essay. Finally, my experience editing articles about unaccredited institutions has demonstrated to me that they are often significantly more interesting than normal universities (for an example, see Columbia State University and Ronald Pellar) -- and that once an article is created, it is likely to attract new content contributions from people who add the sourced information that they happened upon just before looking up the institution's name in Wikipedia.
-
-
-
-
-
- Having said all that, it looks to me like these two institutions don't appear to have enough sourcing for development of decent stub articles. At a minimum, however, they clearly qualify for reliably-sourced entries in List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. If separate articles are maintained, it would be a good idea to enroll them in "pending changes" so that future additions by self-interested WP:SPAs (which are a chronic problem at essentially all articles about unaccredited institutions) will be monitored and appropriately addressed. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
East India Company
East India Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - over the past few months, ananymous IPs have repeatedly inserted advertising text for a company of the same name which was formed in 2005. The last three such insertions ([3], [4], [5]) took place over the last four days. The sycophantic tone and use of peacock terms are clearly against Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion. The article ought at least to be protected against anonymous edits. HLGallon (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to protect it. It looks like good faith, though misguided, and this should be handled at article talk. They even added a cite, in cite template format!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I won't dispute your decision, but in my opinion, the actions of the editors (or possibly only one editor) from a narrow range of IP addresses based in New Delhi who have persisted (over twenty times now) in adding this section do not indicate good faith. The grovelling tone is nauseating enough, but it is very clearly intended for promotion or self-promotion of an otherwise non-notable business at the expense of the clarity of the article. HLGallon (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Kindly go to company house UK and check the records, as we want to provide the true thing in Wikipedia about the Incorporation in year 2005 As we really dont know how to contact you or edit that is why we do mistake here, you kind help required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.83.81 (talk • contribs)
I've removed the block of text here and blocked the range of IPs originating the material temporarily. The spam itself is not particularly eggregious, but the IPs were literally only communicating by replicating the article content and placing it on project pages and user talk pages. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've reverted the user's most recent addition of his material to East India Company (formerly a featured article) as pure unashamed promotion of himself and his retail store. As you point out, he's also spewed the same spammy text to my talk page and to that of other editors. He needs to communicate otherwise. His store gets a one-paragraph mention at East_India_Company#2010_organisation and that seems more than sufficient, if it needs to be mentioned at all, and I don't see that it's at all notable except perhaps based on an article about him buying the name. --CliffC (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- Not to be cruel but I think we're running into a real competence problem. If the IP users are unable to properly communicate I don't know how there's any way to work with them. -- Atama頭 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Warned Gilifocht (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) regarding conflict of interest edits. This article has been nominated for deletion, and the entry may be found here. The article has already been cleaned up, so I don't think there will be any further issues. Netalarmtalk 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I was CoI-tagged, the tag was withdrawn, and then the tag was restored by the same editor. In short, I donated $25 or less to Feminists Fighting Pornography in the 1980s, spoke with the group several times, and saw it tabling in public places. The group became inactive, probably in the 1990s. I have no current contacts or contact information for anyone connected with the group. In reply, the complaining editor wrote, "it was more of an indicator than a big issue, your comments are appreciated and in good faith I will remove the template." That editor has restored the tag but has not stated any particulars despite having logged into WP since my last request. A search of this noticeboard's archives shows no inquiry by anyone concerning the group. I plan to notify the editor of this concern. Is there a conflict of interest?
Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have notified the editor. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing has changed the COI remains as in a user that has contributed to the article, (wrote it themselves mostly) has a close connection to the group and is a WP:SPA to the article, the tag has imo still a valid reason to be there and is presently beneficial to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- There's no close connection. As far as I know, the group hasn't existed in more than a decade.
- Anyone can edit. I haven't discouraged anyone.
- See my contributions list. SPA doesn't apply. I've performed over 1,100 edits and created 11 or 12 articles.
- Given the facts, what valid reason is there?
- The tag is not beneficial. Specific critiques that an editor, such as myself, can address, have been invited on the talk page. Those critiques have not lately been forthcoming. All older ones were resolved. Keeping critiques secret from me keeps them secret from most editors. Merely tagging and tagging incorrectly do not inform editors about particular needs.
- Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I'll start by saying that the group's lack of current activity doesn't necessarily indicate that a COI claim is invalid. A person's affiliation with an article subject can still be a concern even if that affiliation was in the past. To give an example, the son of a famous person who died 20 years ago might still work to whitewash his father's article.
-
- It's a good thing that you're open about your connection, that goes a long way toward gaining trust among other editors.
-
- I'm looking over your recent contributions and the claim that you're an SPA for that article is clearly very far off the mark. Looking at your past 500 contributions to Wikipedia, I count 35 edits to that article and its talk page; that comprises exactly 7% of your contributions. Now, I do see that feminism and other gender issues dominate your contributions, but that just means you have an interest in the area, no harm in that.
-
- I've looked over the discussion here and your statements elsewhere and my opinion is that the COI claim is a valid one, but weak. I don't see any reason to believe that your involvement with the group was more than you've said. Clearly, you'd had some personal involvement with the group, enough that other editors might view your contributions to the subject with some wariness, but I don't think it should be a major concern. Only if there were some serious conduct issues accompanying your edits (most especially an attempt to skew the POV) would I worry.
-
- So now let's get to the reason for this discussion... The COI tag. If you look at what the tag itself states, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." The language seen at the page for a similar tag, Template:POV, has some advice that should also apply to the COI tag. "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor." Most especially, the advice that applies here is, "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article."
-
- Absent a discussion on the talk page of the article outlining problems with the COI, the tag itself is useless. It's a cleanup tag and implores people to fix problems. As Nick suggested, if there is nothing to fix, the tag should be removed. -- Atama頭 16:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The article needs something, its bloated and primarily cited and created by this one involved user, this user moved three lines from another article and created this///leaving it as if an honest reflection of this groups actual position in history is false and misleading, if any editors are willing to work on the article and improve it please do. There is a clear COI with this user. The AFD from April is revealing the issues that have continued. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the true notability of this group without a COI, this is what we had at the Women Against Pornography article, all expansion of the content is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports.
Feminists Fighting Pornography, led by Page Mellish, was another New York City-based group. They are best known for their 1989 arrest for openly displaying pornography as part of an anti-pornography information table in Grand Central Station. The New York Civil Liberties Union (the state affiliate of the ACLU) successfully contested the arrest and established their legal right to display such material.[1] Feminists Against Pornography was a different group, active in Washington, D.C. during the late 1970s and early 1980s
All expansion of the content since Feb 2010 is from this single user through the excessive use of primary claims and reports. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Those are the kinds of concerns that the COI tag is supposed to draw attention to. :) Thanks for that information. I'll take another look over the article myself. If there aren't any third-part sources, that's particularly troubling. -- Atama頭 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I made a comment on the article's talk page, and in particular I'm concerned about the group's notability. -- Atama頭 20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
-
Chestertouristcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - As clearly stated on their userpage, this editor runs a website called chestertourist.com. Their first edit in December 2006 was to add a spamlink to their website to an existing article. On the flip side, they have contributed a vast array of useful images and some sound edits to the project over the years. If this was a noobie, I'd block the username right away; but an old account like this leaves me of two minds. Do we ask them to change their username of long standing and tone down the self-advertisement for their site on their userpage, or...? I seek the input of other editors. Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ask to change user name and tone down the userpage spam. – ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Ukexpat, that the userpage spam needs to be removed. I don't recommend any sort of block, even a softblock, because of all the contributions this editor has made over the years. A username change may not be necessary, I know that we routinely "grandfather" in usernames and there are a number of well-established editors who would have had their names changed if they had created their accounts today. The way I'd approach this matter is to inform the editor that we don't allow promotional usernames, but that if they were to carefully remove all mention of the web site from Wikipedia (including their user page) then nobody would make the association between their name and the site and that might be a way to avoid having to change their name. Also let them know that when referring to themselves, that they be sure not to call themselves "Chestertourist.com" as that again highlights the fact that their name is a URL. -- Atama頭 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Requested posting of Dutch and Spanish localized versions of "Xerox DocuShare" Wikipedia entry
My name is Suzanne Hawley, I am a Public Relations Manager at Xerox. I work from 13.13.137.1. I am concerned to learn that Dutch and Spanish versions of the "Xerox DocuShare" entry (English version - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_DocuShare) have been removed several times in the last couple weeks. We believe these pages are simply localized versions of the English page, which was updated in March 2010 and has not been flagged since, or been identified as violating guidelines. We carefully followed the guidelines then to make it adhere to a non-biased position. The page is comparable to descriptions of other products in this space. I am not able to view the deleted Spanish/Dutch pages to point you to them (the Dutch page was at http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_DocuShare). However I'd welcome a full review of the English page, and guidance about what changes need to be made in order to post the Dutch and Spanish versions. (Alternatively, my European colleagues can re-post the pages next week and request that before they are removed again, they have the opportunity to speak with the editor to identify the issues with the page, so that we can work together to meet the guidelines.) Appreciate your attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzhawley (talk • contribs) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Suzanne for being up-front about your affiliation with Xerox and choosing to bring the matter here. I'd be happy to look over the article here at the English Wikipedia and make changes/suggestions. Unfortunately, every Wikipedia of a different language has different rules, and any decisions made here won't affect what happens at the other Wikipedias. Your only recourse will be to make appeals at those Wikipedias to find out how to change the articles to merit inclusion. I think that you'll have to wait for your European colleagues as you've suggested. -- Atama頭 00:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
