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:Bill Ackman Talk:Asia Society Talk:Australian Maritime College Talk:Carbfix Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Edge Hill University Talk:Fundbox Talk:Globe Life Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Kevin Hartz Talk:Human Appeal Talk:List of sequence alignment software Talk:Moroccanoil Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation Talk:Oneok Talk:Ornge Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pod Point Talk:Runner's World Talk:Lester Sill Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Thandeka (minister) Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Xsolla 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.

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.

Jon Butcher

Extensively edited by JBAxis (talk · contribs) even after COI notice given. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jon Butcher is definitely notable, I can tell that from a quick Google News search. But that article is a mess, a terrible mess. To Jon's credit, however, he (Buckandthor) doesn't understand what the complaints about the article are based on and is repeatedly asking for help on his article's talk page. He says that his "friend and associate" was the one editing the article (who I presume to be JBAxis). I'm going to leave Jon a message on his talk page to give some advice. He seems well-intentioned, he hasn't made accusations or demands and I don't see that he wants to add promotional information to the article, he just wants to clarify some inaccuracies, which we should both respect and encourage. I'll suggest the best way for him to do so. -- Atama頭 23:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that at User talk:Buckandthor, Jon (the article's subject) has asked for help getting the article cleaned up. Again I think that there is a lot of reason to assume good faith in this situation despite the conflict of interest. -- Atama頭 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help with Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

• Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rammstein1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure this is a COI but it smells like it. The user is a fairly new SPA that just made a long series of edits to the article, completely unsourced and full of marketeer-speak ("The Sheraton's signature bed is the Sheraton Sweet Sleeper Bed"). I don't want to just revert the whole mess but it would take me a week to go through all the edits. Help! Rees11 (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have left the editor with a spam welcome template, and I think it's best to treat this as more of a spam issue than a COI, because the promotion is pretty blatant. The edits are clearly not productive and if they continue this could eventually be brought to WP:AIV assuming that the editor doesn't wish to cooperate. I can't see that anyone has yet approached the editor directly about their edits, which should be the first step in any situation like this. There is also similar language inserted by IPs who may or may not be the same person, and it's a bit stale now but if the anonymous editing starts again I'd suggest asking for semi-protection. Hopefully, Rammstein1980 will respond to my welcome if they are willing to discuss matters. -- Atama頭 22:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MTV Roadies

Promotional advertising copy, added by an editor self-declared as an MTV employee, is the root cause of other people badly trying to neutralize such advertising by retargetting external links to FaceBook. For details, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat at MTV Roadies. Better neutralization of advertising copy would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the worst of the promotional language has been cleared out, and the problematic editor is indef-blocked. -- Atama頭 22:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned Books Week

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, an acknowledged critic of Banned Books Week who maintains a website and an organization dedicated to denigrating Banned Books Week (see http://www.safelibraries.org), and who also comments negatively about Banned Books Week in the mass media (see article at http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iMj2Fmuq6lqm4kdFfy5Vhp8-suQg), appears to be editing the Banned Books Week article to push his point of view concerning Banned Books Week. This concern over his conflict of interest has been raised before on the Talk:Banned Books Week discussion page. His last batch of edits - eliminating links to resources that contradict his views, attempting to add his own anti-Banned Books Week media quote to the article,and creating footnotes containing cherry-picked quotes that are provided without context - seem to confirm this conflict of interest. I would appreciate guidance and assistance on resolving this dispute. In the meantime, I will attempt to restore the article items eliminated by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Bibliolover (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Suffice to say that the COI is obvious and the editor in question acknowledges it and seems to have been making an attempt to comply with COI guidelines (posting a request on the talk page and waiting for over a week before finally doing it himself. -- Atama頭 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm new, but here's my question: when you examine the history of his edits, it is pretty plain that he is editing the article to reflect his bias - eliminating the word "banned" from the entire article, for example, even when I wikilinked to the Wikipedia article listing banned books, cherry picking quotes, eliminating links to information that contradicts his viewpoint, etc. It seems that he only has stopped because I challenged it and called attention to his actions. To the extent that the article addresses his belief that Banned Books Week is controversial - it's nearly half the article now - he has succeeded in making the article more about the controversy and less about the event itself. How does the Wikipedia community address this?Bibliolover (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not eliminated the word "banned" from the entire article. I even wikilinked it as one point. I am not eliminating links that disagree with my viewpoint. For example, the very long "Doug Archer" quote from a blog wherein the author stated he was a guest blogger was added by the newbie, it disagrees with my viewpoint, but I have not removed it. That's just one example. The only reason I stopped editing for a while was in self-imposed penitence for accidentally edit warring. I have returned to editing the article, gained consensus in the matter of the duplicative link, and fully explained the reason to re-add the Muncy link. I love the claim that the BBW controversy is now nearly half the article. The "Doug Archer" guest blogger quote is huge by itself, was added by the complaintant, and is the prime contributor to the size of the controversy section. If it were up to me it would be removed and replaced with a shorter response from a more reliable source. But I have left it for other editors to make a similar conclusion and edit according to their own wishes.

I am not being defensive, rather I am just explaining in light of the complaintant's comments. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

LAEC has been pretty cooperative in my opinion, and open to criticism. The removal of the map link was perfectly legitimate and in line with WP:EL. The cherry-picked quote was poor judgment but LAEC has acknowledged that. And the Wikipedia community has been giving its opinion in the article so I wouldn't worry about it being controlled by LAEC. -- Atama頭 01:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The map link aside, the long history of edits done by LAEC to the Banned Books Week article appear to be designed to overemphasize his views in regard to Banned Book Week; and despite his disclaimers, he did attempt to remove all references to "banned books" and the Doug Archer blogger quote until called on it. (I'd also note that the Archer quote is a direct response to LAEC's addition of another librarian blogger's quote that happens to reflect his views. Why one librarian blogger is a more reliable source than another librarian blogger is beyond me.) He is now trying to include yet another long quote from an op-ed on Banned Books Week in a reference - a quote that does not support any factual assertion in the article.

But I still haven't received a direct response to my question: is it appropriate for a declared advocate, who is directly associated with an organization and a campaign to denigrate Banned Books Week, to edit the Wikipedia article on Banned Books Week at all, much less in a manner that appears designed to reflect his biases and to support his campaign against the event? If corporations are disfavored editors - why not advocacy campaigns/organization? Bibliolover (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your question is a blanket statement. Everyone is allowed to edit every article until that privilege is revoked. So, yes, it's perfectly appropriate until it is shown that there's enough disruption from LAEC. That hasn't been shown, so it's fine for him to edit it until it is. Keep in mind WP:Plaxico however. You have created an account called "Bibliolover" and have been tenaciously pushing a positive agenda in the article. Your own COI might be questioned, but I'm giving you the same courtesy that I'm giving LAEC. The biggest difference I see between the two of you is that LAEC's conflict of interest is openly declared. -- Atama頭 19:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point; but is it COI to decide to try to maintain some balance upon discovering that one of the major editors of the BBW article leads an effort to disparage BBW, especially when his edits appear to tilt or spin the article's POV? (Can't apologize much for the name - I am a voracious reader and book collector.)--Bibliolover (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I've learned after going over various disputes on this board and elsewhere is that bias is almost impossible to avoid. Even our NPOV policy acknowledges this fact. And that's okay, what's important is how that bias affects the article. I personally think it's a good thing that both yourself and LAEC are involved in the article. He has an anti-BBW stance, and you seem to have a pro-BBW stance. And that's a good thing because if you have both have biases, you have an interest in developing the article, an interest lacking in someone like me who has no opinion on the matter. It's healthy for people with opposing views to work on an article, but you have to be able to work together. If two people work on an article with opposing viewpoints, and compromise, then the article should end up with a net neutral slant as you keep each other in check. My hope is that the two of you can agree to disagree and work together on the article, and feel free to ask for outside help to mediate your differing viewpoints. -- Atama頭 22:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

I request an editor peruse the sandbox version of Center for Class Action Fairness, edit if necessary, and copy and paste it from my sandbox into a mainspace version if it meets WP:N requirements. Thank you. THF (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (repeating request of September 14)

Why not just add the text to Ted Frank rather than create a new stub? – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that THF is, in fact, Ted H. Frank and is trying to avoid a COI by adding anything to that article either. But regardless it looks to me like there's enough to show that CCAF is notable enough for its own article. I haven't looked at the proposed article closely yet. -- Atama頭 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ted Frank could stand an update and rewrite, but Lord knows I'm not going to be the one to do it. THF (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be added to Ted Frank rather than having a separate article - it doesn't quite seem notable enough yet as far as I could tell looking at the references given in the sandbox version. Smartse (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone be WP:BOLD and make the edit to one or both of the pages? I think it already meets WP:ORG, but am okay with a redirect if CCAF gets the first section in the Frank article (which should happen regardless). I'm a little frustrated that I'm following the rules, have been making this request for over two weeks, and hand-delivered a draft with properly formatted and reliably sourced verifiable information, and nothing's happening. Compare Drum Major Institute, whose self-serving self-advertisement has been up without a single reliable source for over two years. If you want the WP:COI policy to work, then it needs to be policed not just for violations but with assistance for those who follow the rules and use the requested-edit procedure that COI asks us to use. THF (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I threw your text in at Ted Frank for now. I put in after Advocate of tort reform and before Recorded viewpoints to keep the career chronological. It looks like it isn't perfectly organized so if it needs to be moved up for some reason or the sections need to be tinkered with it should be easy enough. I did not do the redirect because it looks like it could meet WP:ORG but concern was expressed up above. Let me (or anyone else) know if you want the redirect now and it should be done. I was thinking that might kill of any chance of discussion, though.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the right place for it. If/when the CCAF section becomes bigger (more notable cases to record, etc), it could then be forked out into a separate article. If you think that it may be a search term on Wikipedia, it could be created as a redirect as well. Also, kudos to THF for going the extra mile to avoid a COI, even at the cost of some delay to the addition. Arakunem^Talk 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Lisashaffer

User:Lisashaffer has made several promotional, first-person edits to the article Lisa Shaffer. After the article was tagged for COI by User:Eric444, she blanked it. I have told her about the conflict of interest and would like to know what else to do. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's about all we can do right now. I'm sure the blanking was done out of frustration and I don't hold that against her (unless it becomes a problem, which doesn't appear to be the case). I like that you personalized the COI notice too, to let her know exactly what the problem was rather than the cold impersonal COI template. At this point we can only keep a watch on the page, and if she re-visits it, encourage her to discuss changes on the article talk before adding them to the main article. Arakunem^Talk 15:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Epstein School

• The Epstein School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - COI editor Clou2epstein keeps re-inserting promotional-brochure language about their technology program (among other problems); insists that he/she can be a neutral editor while admitting COI. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Respectfully, I believe your statements here are misleading. I have not re-inserted the previous information...I changed/edited it after our discussion and let you know that I did it. I edited out the language that you indicated that you felt was not neutral. You never indicated you had a problem with the educational VODCAST that was listed as an educational tool. In fact you stated that you did not know what a vodcast was. I must say, if you felt that there was an additional issue, you could have simply talked to me about it in the discussion. I am very easy to talk to, have worked continuously to improve the page and have been polite and courteous. I respectfully request that the tech section be reverted.

Below is the code for your review:Also, as I mention, I feel that I am qualified to be neutral despite affliation, since I am also an online community editor.

Technology:

Students live in a digital world where they are exposed to an extraordinary amount of information. The school's goal for students is to grow beyond the mechanics of technology and acquire research and critical thinking skills in order to become information literate. In today’s technological environment, information literacy is essential in building a foundation for success in the 21st century.

Informational Vodcast: More than ever, children are taking part in the online techno-social world known as Web 2.0. Children today are bombarded with messages and peer pressure to engage in online social networking. In an effort to ensure that students are educated in the safe, responsible and moral ways in which to use technology and the school created an online multimedia vodcast to help better understand both the benefits and the potential risks of online social networking.

ThanksClou2epstein (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has just removed the "COI" tag from the article (and not for the first time)! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I back up Orange Mike's assertions that the material you wish to insert is not encyclopedic and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It does read like an ad, and even if rewritten in a neutral manner in the proper style I don't see what value it has in informing people about the school. I'm going to take a wild leap here and guess that you're part of the technology/computer department at the school, am I right? If so, then that would explain why you want to emphasize the "vodcast" achievement over other aspects of the school, but this cuts to the heart of why the conflict of interest is such a concern. In many cases people just can't see their own biases even if it seems obvious to others. You've said elsewhere that there is no rule preventing you from editing the article because of your affiliations, and you're absolutely correct. However, if other editors view your contributions and think that they are inappropriate that COI is going to wave like a red flag. I believe that's what is happening now. I also think that the notability of the school might be questioned, I'm sure you have a lot of pride in it and it might be a great school but I see a lack of references independent of the school demonstrating notability. That might mean that the article itself could be deleted soon if other references can't be found. -- Atama頭 00:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply: I respectfully disagree and again request reverting the material. I have reviewed other pages of other schools and feel strongly that the content is not only inline with the spirit of the website, but also accurate. If you have specific issues with the content, then please feel free to let me know what they are and I will be happy to discuss them. As for your interest in understanding why I feel technology is important...from an educational standpoint it is critical. As mentioned in the tech paragraph, while many of us right here in the "wiki world" should understand, regardless of your educational background, whether it be History, Science, Education or Journalism...etc...in today's world technology is crtical for most careers. Thus, I thought it would be a particularly appropriate piece to ad to an online educational medium such as wiki.

As for your assertion, you are NOT correct....I have nothing to do with any IT department, however, I am skilled in technology....just never had an interest in making it a career. Clou2epstein (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a 3RR warning on the user's talk page. I suggest moving the COI discussion to the article's talk page, and have started a section there for that purpose. I believe this is a simple misunderstanding and can be easily cleared up. Rees11 (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Thank you Rees11. I appreciate that and I have responded to your reply on the talk page. I agree with you about confusion and I hope that my reply clears up any that may exist. I have continued to act in good faith and be polite. I have also invited discussion; and I have not only listened to the input of others, but have acted accordingly to remove the disputed language and stay neutral. I have reviewed other school pages that are held up as "good articles." I strongly feel The Epstein School page is within the guidelines. I again respectfully request that the COI be removed ASAP and that the REVISED vodcast language be allowed for 4 reasons:

1.The offensive Tech language is not even on the page. It was removed.

2. The technology section revision discussion was misleading and innaccurate.

3. There is now discussion about the tech section and I continue to work hard to improve the section.

4.I have acted in good faith to be informative and neutral and have invited discussion/input.

Thanks, Clou2epstein (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Clou2epstein (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

He's still editing the article; and I've had to remove yet more promotional language from it again. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag, while this thing hasn't exploded into a big problem and Clou2epstein has been fairly cooperative, there are clearly still concerns about the editor's further contributions and promotional material is still being added and removed. -- Atama頭 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WaltonSimons1

Resolved

 – DSK1984 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:WaltonSimons1 - Relatively new user WaltonSimons1 (joined August '09) has been extremely focused on disparaging and getting deleted an entry I've worked on for Little Nobody. He/She has yet to counter any of the claims that he/she is solely here with a hidden agenda to have this article deleted for personal reasons. Please see discussion about same on the deletions discussion page here: [[1]]

This is especially apparent since WaltonSimons1 has not contributed to ANY other article at all (see here [[2]]), aside from King Britt - where he/she actually fished for support in deleting the Little Nobody thread. The language this person uses has also been counter-productive and far from constructive, with comments like: "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté".

I have addressed this matter with Duffbeerforme, and we are getting together information/evidence to make the Little Nobody entry a more accurate and stream-lined article (we all agree it needs tailoring), although I personally cannot contribute to the writing as I received a COI notation, which may be fair enough as I am a fan; that's the reason I previously worked on the article.

In these circumstances, I really think WaltonSimons1 should also receive a COI, or at least actively work in other areas of Wikipedia before engaging in such a heavy-handed, unproductive approach.DSK1984 (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is where an editor is connected to or is the subject of the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron, thanks for getting back so quickly. Just to fill you in, I believe the conflict of interest here is related to the subject of the article not in trying to promote or "sell" it, but the diametric opposite - a desire to see it deleted for whatever reasons.

All along, ever since the beginning of August, I've asked for some sort of explanation of his/her extreme interest in this entry - in somewhat unusual circumstances, as pointed out on Athaenara's talk page on 2 August [[3]].

On that page I pointed out that I noticed WaltonSimons1 was a new addition to Wikipedia, and that his sign-up and focus on the Little Nobody entry strangely coincided with the work of a very aggressive individual known as "V-Tron" on the Australian ITM Forum [[4]] who in late July and early August seemed to be irate and personally attacked Andrez Bergen (Little Nobody) as well as myself quite publicly on the forum threads there.

For instance this posting by him, which openly refers to the Little Nobody entry on Wikipedia: [5].

And this one which has a picture of the Little Nobody Wikipedia revision history - right before WaltonSimons1 got involved: [6].

And this one which refers to his smashing both Andrez and seems angry at me too: [7].

If you look at WaltonSimons1's profile, for starters his contributions page [[8]], you will find that his only postings have been on the Little Nobody entry, in apparent quest to have it deleted - other that one foray into the King Britt entry [[9]] on 11th August to actually fish for help..... in deleting THIS entry.

WaltonSimons1 has not once addressed the concerns I have raised about his/her motives here, nor answered the challenge about his/her relationship with this V-Tron character, in almost two months of being a member of Wikipedia. He/she seems to be obsessive about having the Little Nobody entry deleted, which does make me wonder about his/her background reasons.DSK1984 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Glass houses. Please see the COI notice on DSK1984's talk page from Athaenara as well as contributions related wholly to IF? Records and Little Nobody. I have not edited the content of Little Nobody whatsoever in a positive or negative way and merely participated in the deletion discussion in order to determine the article's verifiability as well as the notability of its subject. To date, nothing substantial has been posted to justify that the article ought to be kept. I have refrained from attacks whereas this user has been intent on drawing a tenuous connection with an Australian dance music website. I only posted the statement "By all means continue to make unsubstantiated claims. It is after all your forté" in response to repeated accusations as well as the nature of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, glass houses indeed. The only reason I lodged this COI submission was because you are quite clearly conflicted in your attention to this article, and this article only. Yes, I have a COI as I previously noted (above). I was being honest in my submission. But if a fan has a COI, it stands to reason that someone who acts the complete opposite should also be presented with a COI, in order that more objective souls than you or myself should work on the entry, defining it by its merits rather than the admiration or vitriol it induces.

I have never directly attacked you, WaltonSimons1, but I have pointed out some suspicions about your extreme interest in the Little Nobody entry, which has taken up 100% of your activities since you joined Wikipedia in August - see here [[10]] - but you have never addressed these concerns.

Instead you prefer to attack the people working on the entry, such as myself and Duffbeerforme, and mock our efforts to make the entry appropriate to meet Wikipedia needs. If you could be constructive in some way, that would be fantastic, but you act like it's your mission in life to see this particular article deleted.

And if you don't have a personal interest here, why is it that you have not worked on a single other Wikipedia entry in 2 months? DSK1984 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you want any of us to do. The editor you accuse of COI hasn't touched the article more than once. He has participated in the AfD discussion, but that's closed now. He has participated on the talk page, but that's what editors with a COI are expected to do. I don't see any evidence of COI. I would urge you to assume good faith and beware of wp:outing. Rees11 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem is this person Walton1 has been pretty annoying in his activities in the notes and on peoples talk-pages and often putting down peoples attempts to make the article appropriate for Wiki. Personally I think he's trolling but I don't think a COI is necessary.Popstarr69 (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rees11 and Popstarr69, I appreciate the honest feed back. DSK1984 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Danvujic

Resolved

 – Speedied as G12 and A7 respectively.Arakunem^Talk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Danvujic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D. Daniel Vujic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hollydan works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His own article has been tagged as copyvio by CorenSearchBot; it didn't seem to me an exact enough copy to tag for speedy on those grounds, and a quick search suggests notability doubtful but perhaps enough to avoid A7. His company article has been tagged A7. COI warning given. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• His article was Speedied G12, though he seemed to assert on Coren's page [11] that the text was not copyrighted (or copyrightable) by the source given. Alas I don't get to see the deleted article, so can't go on that hunt. If he is notable enough for an article though, he should be instructed as to the peculiarities of WP:DCM. Company article was A7'ed as well... Arakunem^Talk 14:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the article for deletion, it was a blatant copy of another site that had a big copyright label at the bottom of it. He probably is notable but the article couldn't have been kept as it was. Smartse (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The proper action then, thanks. I guess we can close this for now, and any future article can be addressed at that point. Arakunem^Talk 14:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Dudelsonphotos

It appears that the primary purpose of this account is to include attribution for photos that he has taken. In addition to the COI issues, this seems to be a form of linkspamming for self-promotion. (I won't even go into the User name violation.) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info on COI, it was not my intent, but rather it was my intent to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia by placing photos I have taken - and own - onto Wiki commons and then onto the proper Wikipedia pages. In no way was i trying to spam and have taken note of this going forward (as i plan on adding more pictures to articles that need them) Dudelsonphotos (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely understand, and quite honestly I'm not sure this is a COI problem, which is why I brought it to the noticeboard. Offering your photos is appreciated and I hope you will continue to do so. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say my opinion is that the photographs would be helpful to the encyclopedia. I understand the reasoning behind the COI notice, but I don't see the harm in the photos. Regarding the linkspamming, I don't actually see any links being provided, only credit for the photo (which is not only allowed, but in most cases required). -- Atama頭 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would mostly concur with Atama. As far as putting the photographer credit in the caption, I don't think that is the normal way of crediting. The caption is normally meant to establish context of the photo to the article, as should normally be brief as possible. The credits and attribution would be found on the image descriptor page. The captions guideline includes the following: Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article. It is assumed that this is not necessary to fulfill attribution requirements of the GFDL or Creative Commons licenses as long as the appropriate credit is on the image description page. Arakunem^Talk 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't aware of that. -- Atama頭 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all the photo credits (it looked VERY promotional to me)he is still credited in the file name of all the images though. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Teapotgeorge - please revert those changes - you should not do that. Under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, any distribution of photos are required to include attribution. Mr. Dudelson has been kind enough to let us on Wikipedia use his photos, and we should respect the terms of that license. Ray^Talk 20:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have only removed the attribution from the articles NOT the image page itself. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Dudelson hasn't commented on the attribution question and most likely didn't even know that he wasn't supposed to be putting the attribution in the caption. The terms of the license certainly shouldn't require such attribution, the attribution should be on the image page as they are on other images in Wiki(p/m)edia. -- Atama頭 23:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note I have placed a RFC regarding this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Captions#Crediting_section. Interested editors are invited to comment, particularly those with any legal expertise on the subject matter. Ray^Talk 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all this information. I was not aware that attribution in caption is frowned upon and will not include this in any contributions going forward. My intent has always been to provide a meaningful contribution to the encyclopedia and I will continue opening my archive in an effort to do this. I applaud every editor who participates in this great project and am happy to be a part of it. Dudelsonphotos (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know that it is even "frowned upon", but rather its "the way its always been done". Please feel free to comment at the above RFC that Ray opened. And thank you for your photos, and I hope you will continue to add them, as they do add a lot the articles! Arakunem^Talk 14:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:AVmedia

• AVmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - only writes/edits articles about politicians who lead the Arubaanse Volkspartij (Aruban People's Party). Articles reek of partisan campaign bios, and references to charges against one politician were simply removed. Orange Mike | Talk 20:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the editor for username violations and restored the tags removed from Mike Eman. I haven't reverted the latest IP edits though, as they've been mostly constructive. -- Atama頭 23:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tigerdirect12345

• Tigerdirect12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This person's username seems like it may be a conflict of interest. He/she added advertising/promotional content to the article Tiger Direct. Based on his/her username, one might infer that he/she works for that company. Also, this person was previously blocked for having an inappropriate/profane username, but apparently didn't notice the section in the username guidelines about not choosing a name related to a "real-world" group or organization. —BMRR (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the editor to WP:UAA for violating username restrictions. I'm confused about what you said about being "previously blocked"; did they have a previous account? -- Atama頭 23:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After I left a message on Tigerdirect12345's talk page -- which resulted in the talk page being added to my watchlist -- I saw the following in my watchlist:

16:12 (User creation log) . . The colour of shìt is orange (talk | contribs) created new account User:Tigerdirect12345

I then viewed the talk page for "The colour of shìt is orange" and saw that the user had been blocked for having an inappropriate username. Hope this helps. —BMRR (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A perfectly auspicious beginning for an editor. Well, they're blocked now. -- Atama頭 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Potential Press and User:Greatpotential

Resolved

 – ArcAngel (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Greatpotential created the article on October 1, 2009. Username is clear username violation. If the only person that creates this article is someone affiliated with the subject, I would believe that it is not too notable. Netalarmtalk 00:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged article with CSD for advertising. Netalarmtalk 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue has been taken care of =D. Netalarmtalk 02:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CircularEvidence1

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked. -- Atama頭 20:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CircularEvidence1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no edits other than adding references to the book Circular Evidence by Colin Andrews, and other work by Andrews. This is pretty unsubtle stuff, I have left a warning. He also appears to be a believer in fringe theories, which is also a problem. Guy (Help!) 06:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported the editor to WP:UAA, because the username is promotional (promoting the book "Circular Evidence"). -- Atama頭 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ottens

Ottens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is be the owner of the "online magazine" (i.e. website) Gatehouse Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article on which he has created three times now. I have deleted it for the third time. His talk page shows a long list of redlinks and other issues, I suspect he may need some help understanding what Wikipedia is for. Guy (Help!) 07:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I just removed a number of cites to his WP:SELFPUB "magazine" citing him as author including at Steampunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Clothed male, naked female (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), TWA Flight Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of steampunk works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There is also multiply-deleted Space Captain Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 07:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's pretty much textbook COI. I've left him a template and also suggested that he comment here. -- Atama頭 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Gatehouse Gazette article is concerned, if you consider that self-promoting, ok. I disagree with you, but the accusation is understandable, considering that I am the chief editor of the magazine.

I recreated that page when I was suggested to do so at Deletion review. The article had been deleted the first time because it lacked reliable, third-party sources. I recreated the article when there were such sources available, however then it got deleted, citing the entry as a "Recreation" of the first article. This was not the case so I contested that and was recommended to recreate the article -- for the third time -- showing the sources that I believe were sufficient to demonstrate notability. In this latest instance, you deleted the entry, without even granting the time for an AfD discussion.

The references to my websites listed on those other entries were not added by me. (Seriously, Clothed male, naked female?! What's going on there?) These also refered not to the magazine, the Gatehouse Gazette; rather, they linked to two of my websites, the first, The Gatehouse; the second, Forgotten Trek.

The Space Captain Smith article has little to do with me. I created it in the first place. It was deleted because it wasn't deemed notable enough. Another user recreated it a couple of days ago, this time including several reliable, third-party sources, yet you deleted the entry, claiming it was nothing more than a "recreation" of the first. This was not the case. For that reason, I've asked you to reconsider this deletion on your talk page but you didn't respond.

Altogether, I think you're overreacting greatly here and I hope you might consider this matter objectively and seize the witch hunt against me. Thank you. Ottens (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't add the links on the other articles you can hardly be blamed for them. (On another note, Guy I recommend you use diffs rather than just linking articles, that's customary at noticeboards and helps pinpoint what you're talking about.) My personal COI concern was only about the Gatehouse Gazette article and since you've acknowledged that I don't see an issue any longer. I'll await Guy's response though. -- Atama頭 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually care who added the links, they were removed per WP:SELFPUB not WP:COI. It's merely an indication that a shitstorm might be coming (as has happened in similar circumstances before). Ottens appears to me to be a reasonably knowledgeable contributor on steampunk, albeit with some ideas that are rejected by other such editors. That doesn't make his website a reliable source, still less a viable article subject. The main problem was his having three times created an article on his own website. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It does matter a bit who added the links, for you seemed to blame me for them! (On a sidenote: I didn't create an article about my website; I created an article about the ezine that is published through it.) Ottens (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Note that I don't quite acknowledge the latter though: I wrote that I can understand how my actions in regard to the Gatehouse Gazette entry might be interpreted as advertizing, since I am the editor and recreated the article twice. (Though I hope you can see my reasoning there.) It was never my intention however to advertize. It's a free magazine, I'm not making any money with it. What good would advertizing do me anyway? Ottens (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A conflict of interest need not have a financial motive, often it doesn't. For example, a person editing his own biography to add positive information doesn't do so because he wants to make money, he does so to make himself look good. Generally, a COI involved a financial and/or promotional benefit, or at least the potential for one. To answer your question, the good that advertising would do is to bring attention to the web site that you've put time and effort into. Whether or not that was your conscious goal, when a person is tied so closely to the subject of an article it is difficult or even impossible to avoid bias. -- Atama頭 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cancellation of interwiki links

Resolved

 – Totally misplaced protest of the deleted edits of an inter-wiki sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 22:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• House of Džamanjić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cancellation of interwiki link
• House of Sorkočević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cancellation of interwiki link
• House of Ranjina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cancellation of interwiki link
• House of Lukarić/Lucari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Cancellation of interwiki link
• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Any cancellation is made by the same user. This user doesn't accept that an Italian article can use the Italian name of the family. In an historical point of view the correct name is the Italian one because these are Italian families emigrated in Dalmatia (please read the coat of arm), it's like to use Sylvester Stallion instead of Sylvester Stallone. In a technical point of view these are "vandalism" or at least in the it.wikipedia we (sysops) consider them like vandalisms. It seems to be like a xenofobic attempt to cancel any connections of these families with Italy or with the Italian name. Please take any action to solve the problem. Ilario (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks to be a content dispute and not a COI issue at all. Can you explain how WP:COI has come into play? Are you suggesting that DIREKTOR is a member of one of these houses, for example, or is part of an organization in opposition to them? -- Atama頭 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with the interwiki links. I was simply reverting the edits of the IP sock of indeffed User:Luigi 28 (not a shred of doubt about the identity of the IP, this is him for the millionth time). That user has been blocked for moths and years but simply insists on editing here, this is why I revert all his edits regardless of merit. This guy needs to get the message. Also, I was the one that reported him so he also likes to go around badmouthing and insulting me. As I told old Retaggio on my talk: feel free to revert me at any time [12] (if I'm not mistaken Retaggio did in fact reintroduce the interwiki links).

Heh, User:Ilario is on a personal agenda against me (again), but apparently does not know where to report me for reverting socks... Nice one this time. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any COI whatsoever. I consider this resolved. Smartse (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against no one, I could only see that some content has been inserted correctly without any problem. The interwikis are correct. The sockpuppet could be blocked but if the content is correct the content could stay intact because sockpuppet <> vandalism. We are working for the quality of Wikipedia and not for personal battles. If I would work for the quality of the article probably I should block the sockpuppet but I could keep the interwikis considering that they are correct. If someone delete also a neutral and unarmed content like interwikis probably there are some "personal" interests. --Ilario (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits. You may be a sysop at the Italian Wikipedia but you should be aware of policies at the English Wikipedia prior to making complaints. Thank you. -- Atama頭 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising by Alexander Gray Associates

Every single article created by Alexandergray (talk · contribs) has an external link to some WWW site run by "Alexander Gray Associates", so there's a glaringly obvious conflict of interest here. Many of the articles contained, and possibly still contain, some utterly atrocious prose. J. Morgan Puett, for example, contained (until I fixed it) a sentence reading "The daughter of a third generation beekeeper and painter respectively, Morgan’s work focuses on […]". No, her work is not the daughter of anything, and "respectively" has no referent.

But perhaps the worst prose in this little group of advertisements was this, from Bruce Yonemoto: "His photographs, installations, sculptures, and films appropriate familiar narrative forms and then circumvent convention through direct, over-eager adoption of heavily clichéd dialogue, music, gestures, and scenes that click in the viewer’s memory without being identifiable.". It got worse: "Bruce Yonemoto has set out to divulge a body of work at the crossroads of television, art, commerce, and the museum/gallery world.". So, basically, nothing specific at all, then.

I've trimmed some of this waffle, but the articles need further attention. In particular, several of them look like link farms, and one editor has already noted that all of the external links on one article appear to be primary sources, and non-neutral ones at that — press releases, autobiographies, publicity blurbs, and raw data. Uncle G (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Alexander Gray Associates are a gallery & they put up several of their artists in 2007. You've obviously not experienced gallerist prose before! The ones I looked at seemed notable, & had links to works in MOMA etc. The articles also seemed part copyvio from the gallery bios; perhaps there was more before. I haven't done much to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've experienced all sorts of prose before. It doesn't make the aforementioned any less bad. And notability isn't the issue. Bad prose and external links are. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • No referencing, copyvio and prose are the main issues. The artists own website & gallery & museums are perfectly valid external links. It doesn't help that an admin who ought to know better has prodded Jo Baer and maybe others without saying so in his edit summary [13]. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Myasuda has pointed out that Bruce Yonemoto is redundant to Bruce and Norman Yonemoto, and pointed to Talk:Bruce and Norman Yonemoto#Move article?. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lorenzo_(singer-writer)

This user has created pages for his releases (the latest being Lorenzo (EP)) and edits his userpage as if it was the article page for himself. He keeps doing so despite my warning him in late August about conflict of interest. I strongly suspect that this user is uninterested in editing Wikipedia past promoting his own music. TheLetterM (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there may be a language barrier issue here. Notice that the article he created was entirely in Italian. Unfortunately, a certainly competency in the English language is pretty much a requirement to contributing to the English Wikipedia, unless you can find another editor willing to translate for you. You might want to try Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if someone there is willing to leave him a notice in Italian, otherwise there's probably not much we can do for him. -- Atama頭 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I did notice that one of his earlier pages (as well as his userpage) was written in English, though to what extent I can't remember. In any case an Italian notice may be a good idea, but it doesn't take knowledge of Italian to suspect that he indents to promote his music on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not he's fully cognizant of the fact that what he's doing is not allowed.

By the by, just to check on whether or not Lorenzo is indeed an artist for Warner Bros. Records, I checked the website for Warner Music Italy. No such mention. I also found a [14] blog for Lorenzo, though most of his entries seem to be about the singer Laura Pausini. TheLetterM (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Men of Israel

• Men of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WatchingWhales (talk · contribs)
• David Shankbone (talk · contribs)

Men of Israel is a gay porn film directed by Michael Lucas. The article was created by User:WatchingWhales, who has self-identified as a "sock" of User:David Shankbone, although this does not appear to be stated on the account's user or talk pages. David Shankbone has a relationship with Michael Lucas which has been discussed here before.User:David Shankbone was the only other editor of the page until I placed a COI tag on it. His reasons for using an alternate account aren't clear to me, and could be interpreted as deliberately deceptive.

There has been some discussion of this already on the article's talk page. Rather than admit that there may be a conflict of interest that needs to be addressed, Shankbone has chosen to downplay his association with Lucas by stating "My only association with Lucas is via my work on Wikimedia". Here are some of the photographs of Michale Lucas taken by David Shankbone over the past two years:

• Oct 2007 File:Michael_Lucas_2_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
• Oct 2007 File:Michael_Lucas_by_David_Shankbone.jpg
• Dec 2007 File:Russian_Birth_Certificiate_of_Michael_Lucas.JPG
• Aug 2008 File:Michael Lucas with Israeli flag on Fire Island.jpg
• Aug 2008 File:PJ DeBoy on Fire Island at the home of Michael Lucas.jpg
• Aug 2008 File:Diving off a deck into the Great South Bay of Long Island.jpg
• Feb 2009 File:Michael Lucas portrait shot.jpg

note that the photos taken in August of 2008 are described as taken at the home of Michael Lucas and link to a blog post which notes that Lucas invited Shankbone to stay with him. The image File:Friends eating lunch at the home of Michael Lucas on Fire Island.jpg includes Shankbone himself.

While I am not questioning the notability of the article's subject, the conflict of interest guidelines have concrete suggestions for situations such as this, which Shankbone has chosen to ignore. I suggest that, at the very least, Shankbone should voluntarily refrain from editing or creating any new Lucas-related articles and the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to do so should be treated as disruptive sockpuppetry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to include the two days Shankbone spent on the set of one of Lucas' films (the images themselves seem to have been deleted). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• The photos of his documents, as I pointed out on the Talk:Men of Israel article, were to settle the birth name error for his Wikipedia article. Heh - believe it or not, I don't photograph my friend's identification papers as course of habit. It was the first time I had met him when I was at his office to do a Wikinews interview and...take those photos for the article (which solved an intractable problem caused by sloppy reporting in sources). Lucas, who obtained his Israeli citizenship this year, noticed my well-publicized work in Israel, and also saw all the New York City photography I've done. Because I had photographed two places he considers home, he invited me to photograph his third: Fire Island. We had very few good images. The blog posts make the purpose of the trip clear: to document the island's tourist season at its peak, when hotel rooms were going for $1,200 a night that Labor Day weekend. The photographs are found throughout Wikipedia, on the Internet and published. While I was a guest of Lucas and his husband, a prominent businessman, it was for Wikimedia and the creative commons. I walked around with a camera the entire time. I was probably an annoyance. They hosted three different groups of people, and we all did our own thing and barely saw one another. Lucas is not a friend, he's an acquaintance. I have photographed hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people for this website, particularly New York City-based people. You could fashion a COI out of selectively looking at my contributions. For instance, I photographed gay marriage founder Evan Wolfson; wrote a biography of him that has changed very, very little in its year and a half of existence with the antiquated criticism section; interviewed him for a Wikinews feature article and my blog; I *would* call Evan a good friend; and yet if you were to poll all the editors at Same-sex marriage, where I have taken the lead in drastically re-shaping the article, they would all probably tell you that I'm seen as fair and neutral to all sides. You're using innuendo and select contributions to say there is an obvious COI, yet you have failed to actually show any articlespace evidence of this supposed COI. You can't just have weapons with a COI charge--particularly those flimsy ones--you also need a crime, which you have failed to show. -->David Shankbone 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Some discussion" huh. Quite a bit there if you ask me. :) As has been said on the talk page of the article, the alternate account of David isn't a sockpuppet. Per WP:SOCK, a sockpuppet is only "when an alternate account is used in violation of this policy." David's use of the alternative account seems fully in compliance with the policy. So I suggest not calling it a sock, even in quotes, as that could be considered offensive or an unfounded accusation. As to the COI concerns, a COI alone is rarely cause for anything but additional scrutiny toward an editor's actions. Certainly in David's case that scrutiny has occurred. But absent any other inappropriate behavior with those images and/or that article, I don't see why we should restrict David from it any way. WP:COI certainly doesn't state that it's necessary. Do you have any other complaints related to this that might show the COI to be a problem? -- Atama頭 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "sock" is in quotes because that was the word used by Shankbone himself. I use the term "sockpuppet" in the loosest sense and not as an accusation of any policy violation. Since he has admitted it is an alternate account, any accusation of sockpuppetry is moot.

To quote WP:COI, "edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged". I think there's more than enough evidence for a reasonable person to assume that there is a conflict of interest here. While the guideline may not expressly prohibit editors from COI editing, the community presumably created it for a reason. If Shankbone was not associated with Lucas, would he have created this article? The circumstances under which Lucas was indef blocked from WP could lead to the appearance that Shankbone is proxying for Lucas. Surely even if this is not the case, it would be best for everyone to avoid creating a situation which could be seen that way? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, actually. Shankbone has been open about using an alternative account and as pointed out is doing so in compliance. I believe as well that account was create solely because they were getting harassed ... on articles with Jewish subject matter similar to this situation. This board isn't for guessing who may have a conflict where - it's for demonstrating that an editor is consistently and purposefully violating COI likely by adding or removing content thus degrading the NPOV of an article. I don't think there is a case of that at all. Instead we have anons accusing and maligning and throwing in a bit of politics and bad faith. COI concerns are very real on many articles and those deserve all the help possible, I think there is hysterics with lots of bad wiki buzzwords enticing action where none is needed except maybe semi-protecting the article and talkpage if the harassment continues. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The community created the COI guideline because conflicts of interest often lead to serious problems. Look at other notices on this board and you'll see evidence of that. But the COI alone isn't a reason to ban a person from an article. Now, it's also worthy to note where a COI exists even if there isn't any other problem, so I'm not criticizing you for this notice, in fact I think it's totally appropriate. Does David actually have a conflict of interest... I don't know, he denies it, I'm not sure if he does or doesn't. Maybe someone else will have a different opinion. If you're wondering if anyone will do anything about it, I doubt that, unless something else shows how the potential COI is a problem. When you say the COI guideline has "concrete suggestions", actually the COI guideline is about as wishy-washy and open-ended as it gets. In particular, see WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest where it states, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias." That should be a guideline on how to proceed here. -- Atama頭 22:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Could lead to the appearance" to whom? To our readers, who have a heavily-sourced article that you apparently see no problems with? This request is only born from the Wikipedia Review's drama-mongering. -->David Shankbone 22:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion that since you have obviously talked to Lucas in real life, and constantly upload his pictures, that you know him. You've met him, and you agree with him on several issues. It is quite obvious that you have an association with this man, no matter where it originates, and you have uploaded many of his promotional photographs for pornography films. You once wrote the name on your mailing address as "David Shankbone, c/o Michael Lucas" on a Chinese Wikipedia user page. [15] Aside from the fact that "Shankbone" is not your real last name, listing your address as "care of Michael Lucas" implies some sort of friendship or acquaintance with Michael Lucas.

In regards to the WR thing, David, let's put this in context. I have been banned from WR, but it wasn't for trolling the Board, and my comments are usually welcome there until they find out who I am. I always will feel as if I am a member of that Board, no matter what happens to it. You have been banned from the Board for behavior that could only be described as arrogant trolling. I am not surprised that you have a grudge against the members of the board. Not that this is on topic at all.

Benjiboi, you had two autobiographies on this website. I am not surprised that you would defend your fellow self-promoter. And before you accuse me of homophobia, I have no interest in the fact that you or "Shankbone" are homosexual. I stand firmly against any kind of discrimination. My interest lies solely in the fact that "Shankbone" has been protected by the Wikipedia community for much too long, and Wikipedia should put a stop to it. I don't see how he hasn't been banned yet. Spamming links to his blog should not encourage people to create vapid, unquestioning defenses of his behavior. Jonas from Nevada 216.241.55.204 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP above self-admits to being used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as User:Jonas D. Rand. -->David Shankbone 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quit trying to divert the discussion toward my identity. You should be permanently banned from this site. Jonas 216.241.55.204 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no accusation here of anything COI related that violates Wikipedia policy. Sure, David has a connection to Michael Lucas; nobody's ever denied that. 216, you're right that it's always good to take a look at the content when somebody with a connection with an article's subject matter has contributed heavily; but sometimes those people are able to rise above the perceived conflict, and write a decent article anyway. In fact, it happens all the time. So in the absence of any specific concern about content, I believe this matter should be dropped.

A few side notes:

• As a disclosure, David is a former client of mine and a good friend, and I talked this matter over with him this morning. But I'm speaking only for myself.
• In the case of a duplicate account like this one, it's my firm belief that the accounts in question should link to one another. The SOCK policy ought to require this, and in the absence of a requirement, in my opinion editors should do so voluntarily. That all is just my opinion though, nothing more; apparently policy does not require that.
• I believe that the IP address above should be admonished and blocked, since he has just admitted to being a banned user. But because of my connection to David, I don't want to issue the block myself. It would be best if an uninvolved administrator were to take a look at the situation.

-Pete (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"216, you're right that it's always good to take a look at the content when somebody with a connection with an article's subject matter has contributed heavily; but sometimes those people are able to rise above the perceived conflict, and write a decent article anyway." I don't believe this is the case with the article Men of Israel as it seems to be composed of positive quotes from rave reviews that doesn't look fit for an encyclopedia site. My accounts User:Nevadawp (lost the password) and User:Nevadawp2 can be blocked, but not the IP address. There are several edits that were not mine with this IP, please look at User_talk:216.241.55.204 for an explanation. As far as admitting his sock and linking it, I agree. But it seems that he is not able to edit neutrally on matters relating to Lucas and his films. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have noteworthy non-"positive quotes from rave reviews" that you feel would help add NPOV benefitting our readers it may be wisest to simply link to them on the article's talkpage and suggest what content could be added. In general, gay porn films rarely get mainstream press so IMHO this article should strive to balance what the "typical" gay porn reviewers state on what they note as noteworthy - warning, all likely to be quite positive - with what the mainstream media report. My hunch is that the mainstream ones will be more focussed on the non-sex aspects but any lengthy review will note some aspects that didn't work. See what if any recurring criticism comes from the top twenty or so reviews and look to adding that. Otherwise this is starting to smell like the recurring anons who have gone after both Lucas (director) and Shankbone in the past. In short, offer up something better for the article or move on. -- Banjeboi 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To the anon, I'm not quite sure what's going on here, but I've been told you're a banned user, User:Ionas68224. Is that correct? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SlimmyShankerSleuths. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well if you're banned, you ought not to be posting, and especially not posting allegations about other editors. Please request an unblock by posting a note on your talk page. You can read how to do it here. But you can't keep on editing without going through that process. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AEB

There is no conflict of interest here, as COI is not generated by mere friendship with the subject of a BLP article that one has edited. I myself have met and photographed, corresponded and/or become friends with some BLP subjects whose article I've edited, precisely because I was editing their articles. COI must be established through the wording or weight in an article that gives the appearance of a slant or POV. I repeatedly asked on the Men of Israel Talk Page for those alleging COI to provide a quoted passage whose wording would be different if it were not for this COI on David Shankbone's part, and none were provided.

Another point that was ignored was the sock puppet/alternate account point. Just because David Shankbone was unaware or forgot of the distinction between an alternate account and a sock, or engaged in a bit of casual shorthand by referring to his aa as a "sock", does not mean that it's a sock. David was simply mistaken. You, on the other hand, Delicious, continued to insist on this term even after the distinction was pointed out to you on the Men of Israel talk page, and because a sock is indicates willful policy violation, you are in violation of WP:AGF by doing this. Ignoring this point, and merely repeating "David said himself" doesn't change this.

Unless you can point out specific passages that betray a POV from the article, or explain how this standard is not the correct one for COI, then you haven't made your case. Nightscream (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone univolved take a look at [16] the talkpage discussion which I removed and now has been restored twice by this thread's originator. I feel it does nothing but bring grief to Shankbone and is a form of harassment. A quick look at the article shows that there was no actual COI editing going on (as of this writing there's like 30? edits altogether). Logically the only reason is to again reassert he used a second account and accuse - with no actual COI content concerns- that he must have or might have some COI. To me this is smelling more like a grudge and Delicious carbuncle might need to be encouraged to simply drop it. That they are re-adding this talkpage personalized and harassing comments after everything above shows animosity that is unhelpful at the least. Could someone else consider removing it if it seems my assessment is on target here? -- Banjeboi 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and removed. The fact that it was only serving as a drama magnet for an IP engaging in block evasion was probably a good indicator that it wasn't serving any constructive purpose. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not willing to edit war over this, but I am starting to get tired of having my actions mischaracterized. I believe if it had been just about any other editor involved in this, the discussion would have been over long ago. For Benjiboi to accuse me of "harassment" for simply stating my belief that David Shankbone has a conflict of interest doesn't seem to me to be at all in keeping with my actions. I tagged the article for COI. I discussed my reasons on the talk page per the template. I moved the discussion to this noticeboard when it became apparent that it wasn't going to be quickly settled. We may disagree here, but let's not start imagining harassment and "outing" where none exists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's take your points one by one. I believe that Shankbone and Lucas have a relationship and I believe I have demonstrated that through the diffs provided which show personal contact over a span of at least two years. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you seem to be acknowledging that with your comments about friendship. Shankbone appears to be downplaying the relationship, but I believe a reasonable person would conclude that they are more than just acquaintances. I have no way of knowing if the relationship is personal or professional.

As I have stated, I do not believe that Shankbone would have created this article at all, if not for his relationship with Lucas. Need I find specific phrases?

Once again, let me state that I have not accused Shankbone of "sockpuppetry". The term sockpuppet is frequently used on WP without connotations of policy violation. I do not know why he referred to his alternate account as a "sock" and it does not matter. I am very familiar with the SPI noticeboard and I would have filed a case there if I had any concerns. I do not. Shankbone has admitted that the account is his and I have provided the diffs several times now. There is absolutely no accusation of wrongdoing here. I am not violating AGF since I have not made any accusation with regard to sockpuppetry. It would be nice if people weren't distracted by this.

Without ignoring the above paragraph, it is my feeling that the use of an alternate account that isn't clearly linked to Shankbone's main account leaves him open to accusations of deceptive intent. Add to that the relationship between Shankbone and Lucas and you have the potential for other editors, readers, and outside observers to come to conclusions which do not show Wp in the best light. It is for this reason that I have suggested that Shankbone voluntarily withdraw from creating or editing articles related to Lucas. Whether or not any changes are made to the instant article is less important to me than finding a way forward. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

On one hand you say that my creation of this article with a sleepy article creation account has "deceptive intent" (even though your neck of the woods has known about it since June] because it's not linked to David Shankbone, as if I was trying to get away with something; on the other hand, you argue that I receive preferential treatment because I'm David Shankbone. Your arguments are all over the place. I was not aware of how solidified the negative connotations with "sock" have become on the site, but I do feel you exploited a use of the phrase in 2007 for full measure. I don't remember these prior discussions we had, to be honest, but I doubt I paid them much attention and they obviously left little impression upon me. Our core policies are WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The way to move forward is to review the article, its sources and look for more angles that perhaps I did not cover. For instance, I do not give a synopsis of the film - a way to move forward in this topic that interests you would be to watch the video, search for reviews and write a snappy summary. Otherwise, I would just let it go. -->David Shankbone 04:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misquote me. I said you left yourself open to the interpretation that your intention was to avoid scrutiny. I have no idea what you're referring to when you write about our "prior discussions". I have no idea why you keep trying to tie my actions back to something that is being discussed at Wikipedia Review - I have no control over what is said about you off-wiki. Everything about this episode has been abnormal, from the appearance of a trio of admins soon after I placed the COI tag on the article, to the repeated blanking of the discussion on the article's talk page, to the spurious accusations of "outing", to the repeated diversion of this discussion to the use of the word "sock" despite the lack of any accusation of violating WP:SOCK guidelines, to the extreme length of this discussion. So, yes, I think the fact that you are David Shankbone has been a factor here. Let's agree to disagree on the best way to move forward. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, really, it could use a synopsis. Isn't it strange that this video whose article "other editors, readers, and outside observers" might stumble upon, dig up the diff history, research me, see some photos, and assume immediately that I must have some nefarious reason for writing it; won't it be strange to such sophisticated readers that I didn't write a film synopsis, describing the plot and Jewish man/man action? Ostensibly, this would be the only thing potential buyers of the film would be interested in, yet its not there. These sophisticated readers who delve into the minutia of an adult film title's Wikipedia article will be perplexed. If you add it yourself, they'll certainly look at all your article contributions, look back for the ones around the time you added the synopsis, and then they'll discover this discussion here and say "I knew it! And somebody else did, too!" It's as likely a scenario as anything else you've written here. You're perplexed why I would write this article, but I can give you two hints: I'm gay (you know this) and I have written on many Israeli cultural topics, interviewed their President, and visited the country twice on press junkets to photograph it for the Creative Commons (you also know this). I will leave it at that, as I feel I have explained myself to you thoroughly. -->David Shankbone 05:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Far from being perplexed, my stated belief is that you would not have written the article if you did not have this relationship with Lucas which you attempt to minimize and downplay. Since a reasonable person would conclude that you do have this relationship, I submit that you should have followed the suggestions in WP:COI and avoided writing about Lucas entirely, which is what I'm suggesting you voluntarily agree to do in order to prevent future discussions such as this one. You have provided links to discussions on Wikipedia Review which show that people are already discussing this article off-wiki. You are a prolific and valued contributor here, you should expect that your actions may be noted more than the average editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious, I don't know what the issues are here, but knowing someone doesn't in and of itself put you in a COI in relation to their work. I see myself as a wikifriend of David's, by the way, so let me declare that up front, though I don't know anything about his knowledge of, or friendship with, Lucas. The essence of COI is whether advancing outside interests is being done at the expense of advancing the interests of Wikipedia. Often, Wikipedia's interests are advanced when we write positively about someone or a project of theirs. When I create an article about a great book I just read, I'm advancing that author's interests, as well as Wikipedia's (so long as the article's properly written); even if I personally know the author, that's still true. The COI issue kicks in if there is reason to believe Wikipedia's interests are not being served. Whether that's the case here, I have no idea, but perhaps looking at it that way will help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking that down into simple words for me, but it didn't help. You say you have no knowledge of Shankbone's relationship with Lucas - do you think that given the diffs I have presented here "a conflict [of interest] can be reasonably assumed" and Shankbone should be "strongly discouraged" from editing articles related to Michael Lucas, to use the words of WP:COI? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a "wikifriend" of David, and I know little about him except for the fact that he takes great photos. I've looked over the article, and I see no sign of any COI editing. In particularly, I cannot recognize anything that would indicate that the article "seems to be composed of positive quotes from rave reviews". While a conflict of interest "can be assumed", of course, I don't see how it can be reasonably assumed. In particular, you seem to have gone out of your way to explicitly collect material that might give that impression. I suggest you disengage and let it go. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I have collected diffs and presented them here to show that there is a close and longstanding relationship between Shankbone and Lucas and therefore in my opinion a conflict of interest. Would any amount of diffs convince you that there is a COI here? Would a diff showing that Shankbone is a paid employee of Lucas change your mind? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

DC, I haven't seen any diffs about content, if that's what you mean i.e. showing inappropriate edits. In general, I'd agree with you that the closer we are to a person or group, the wiser it is to stay away from articles about them. But I have genuinely no idea what David's relationship is. His is an unusual case, because he's photographed so many people for Wikipedia and Wikinews, and he came to know them because he was editing articles about them or their projects. So we're faced with a cart-and-horse situation, in the sense that it's hard to judge whether the friendship has reached the point where it has overidden the Wikipedia connection, as it were. That's why it's important to focus on the content issues, and the question: are David's edits about this not in Wikipedia's interests, and if so, why not? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ducking the question. Take a look at the diffs I have provided. If you like, read the WIkipedia Review discussions that David Shankbone has linked to. Do you think a reasonable person would assume that Shankbone and Lucas have a relationship? I'm not asking if you know that they do, I'm asking your opinion about what someone more removed from the situation is likely to conclude. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a wiki-friend of David, I've only maybe seen his name a couple of times in different places. I've been contributing advice to the COI noticeboard and COI guideline discussion so I think I'm somewhat familiar with the guideline. My suggestion, counter to DC, is that David should continue contributing to the article since he has obviously done such a good job so far. How can you argue otherwise? Nobody but an IP sockpuppet of a banned user has complained about the article's content, as far as I can tell. If and when David actually causes problems with the article would I suggest that he restrict his editing per WP:COI. I've seen one noticeboard posting from a museum employee who outed himself and asked if he should be allowed to continue editing the article about his museum, and he had taken the article from a stub to something that might be given GA consideration and not a shred of it was even slightly promotional and everything was well-sourced. If DC's unusually strict interpretation of the COI guidelines was enforced, that editor would never have been allowed to do so. Conflicts of interest need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine what harm they might bring before we swing the COI bat around. -- Atama頭 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is my belief that the article would not currently exist if not for the relationship between Shankbone and Lucas not relevant to all of the content of the article? Besides, this isn't that article about a museum. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Who cares why the article was created? The motives for creating an article aren't relevant in any case I'm aware of. What matters is what the subject of the article is, and what the content of the article is. The subject of the article is notable and the content doesn't have any credible complaints. So what's the problem? -- Atama頭 16:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Imperial War Museum does not charge for admission (correct me if I'm wrong on this point) so it is unlikely that anyone would interpret its Wikipedia article as promoting interests outside Wikipedia, even if it were edited by one of the curators there. David Shankbone created an article about a commercial product created by someone with whom he has a relationship and whop stands to benefit by its viewing, sale, and promotion. Although, in my opinion, it really ought not to make a difference, the fact that it is an article about a porn video, and (gasp) a gay porn video, makes it the perfect fodder for stories in The Register or discussions on Slashdot or Wikipedia Review. These types of discussions are directly damaging to perception of Wikipedia and certainly not in its interests. It is a very easy situation to avoid by following the suggestions in WP:COI, and this is all that I have asked for, that Shankbone voluntarily pledge to avoid writing about Lucas in the future. Imagine that Shankbone was a judge - do you think that if Lucas were involved in a legal case before him, he should recuse himself? And, if so, why? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I might be new to this lark, but ever since all that fuss about ol' Dukey, I've kept an eye on these pages, and I was just this afternoon talking to my wife and her friends about the whole business. And she was saying that if I happened to be as famous as ol' Dukey, then I might very well make a page about myself. But that sure is against the law. So I might have to get my wife to do it. Now she don't know a great deal about science and can't use a computer like I can (though I'm onto her about getting a wiki account - stop her spending all that time down the swimming baths). At the time we were having dinner and one of my wife's friends said he'd do it. I've known him for a good few months and he does us a good turn - so he said he'd do it for a few cans of heineken. Well, you can go a long way with heineken, that's what I always say. So he's going to make the page when I get famous. Isn't this a bit like Mr Shankbone's problem? If I gave him some heineken and got me a page, I'd want it to be good. I mean, he's not at my solo command! But I'd expect a decent standard and some nice pictures. Believe me, you've set my wife a conundrum and no mistake. Yours always, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

David isn't a judge, this isn't a courtroom, and your insistence on this issue is troubling. You've failed to give a single reason why David should be banned from the article. And that's what you're asking for, a topic ban from the article. This does happen from time to time in COI cases but only to prevent disruptive editing. Since you're the only person pushing for this I suggest you drop it, unless you have an example of disruption that David has done on the article. Do you have one? -- Atama頭 17:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested that Shankbone be banned from articles pretaining to Lucas, I have asked that he voluntarily stop editing such articles. I'm sure that you can see the difference. I apologise if my question mislead you into falsely thinking that I was suggesting that we treat Shankbone as if he were in a courtroom. The judge analogy is yours, actually: "One thing I ask myself, is that if the editor were a judge, and the judge had a case before them involving the subject of the article, would that judge be expected to recuse themselves?" This is not a trick question and your answer one way or the other isn't going to be taken as an answer to the overall issue, so I'm not sure why you would be reluctant to answer the questions I posed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're not asking for the community to decide that David shouldn't edit the article then why do you keep bringing it up? David said he's not going to voluntarily stop editing the article and doesn't think he should, so the only way such a restriction would occur is through a ban. As to the quote from myself, it was an analogy to determine whether or not a COI exists. As I've already said, I don't know if there is an actual COI. Maybe there is. So the answer to your question, obviously, is maybe. But basically that's the end of it, I see a possible COI, enough of one that if there was any disruptive editing from David I would say that the COI is probably the motivation (depending on the actual nature of the disruption, of course). But absent any actual disruption it's academic. Since David doesn't agree to limit his participation on the article, and nobody seems interest in forcing him into that (whether or not you intended to suggest that) what else would you like to see? Did you want someone to review the article for neutrality? -- Atama頭 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(<==) And so, if Shankbone were a judge? Do you think he would or should recuse himself and why or why not? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Who cares and why should someone answer your leading questions? As I see it, your complaint now is not about anything in the article (although that differs from your original complaint), but only that the article exists. Well, it passes WP:N, we want to be a collection of all human knowledge, we are run by volunteers who decide what they write on. Having the article is a good thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is compelled to answer my questions, but I've taken pains to show that they aren't intended to trick of trap anyone. You have decided to be aggressive and "in your face" rather than respond. Slimvirgin has simply ignored my question. Atama has provided an honest and considered answer. I take this as a sign that they are actually considering my viewpoint and willing to have a dialogue instead of simply trying to bully me into silence. If you feel I have been inconsistent in this discussion, please point out where because I certainly haven't changed my opinion that there is a clear conflict of interest here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind answering the question. We have an article about the subject, and it does state that if the judge might have an "interest at all in the outcome" of a trial then he'd recuse. So, I'd say that if he didn't recuse, there might be an outcry from certain quarters, but that might be all there is to it. Just like here, there's an outcry about it (hence this notice). The question is really about how close David is to the subject.

I've thought about this and I have a personal parallel in my own life. A couple of my long-time school-age friends (who I've been out of contact with for years) were brothers, and a cousin of theirs was a male model. A fairly successful one, he had even appeared on television. He was wealthy and lived in a large house. One year I traveled with my friends to this model's house to celebrate Independence Day. I spent pretty much the whole day there and if I was a photographer I would have had plenty of opportunities to take pictures of his house and him. But I wouldn't consider myself to have a conflict of interest, he's a cousin of old friends and while I temporarily had a lot of access to him you wouldn't say I'm connected to him. It's quite possible that David's connection to the article subject is no closer, he insists that he is no more than an acquaintance of his. I'm not saying there isn't a COI, and I think there's enough cause to suspect there might be, but no "smoking gun" to show that there is (something like a recent blog post from David talking about hanging out with his good friend Michael Lucas might make the COI clearer). Does that clarify things any better? -- Atama頭 21:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Atama. I haven't looked at Shankbone's blog for evidence of COI because I feel that there is enough evidence on-wiki to reasonably conclude that there is a conflict. Even if I were to find such a posting, I'm sure that there would be several editors here who would tell me that there's nothing wrong with the article content and so any COI is moot. Unlike the example you give, Shankbone has photographed Lucas at work and at play over a period of at least two years. Most people don't let casual acquaintances stay at their home for two days. If people can't see how exactly this type of thing ends up making Wikipedia look bad, I'll drop it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread should be closed, as it is not leading to anything of substance to this noticeboard. The thread was opened in good faith, wanting some additional eyes on a situation that appeared questionable. Additional eyes were directed that way. It was found that there's maybe a bit of COI, but that in itself is not actionable -- it needs to be combined with a pattern of POV-pushing, disruptive editing, or the like, for any action to be taken. Delicious Carbuncle, I think your posting the initial notice was a good idea; but everybody, we need to just drop this, unless there is new factual information about someone's editing that leads to a new notice. -Pete (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Noreen Fraser Foundation

Noreenfraser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Conflict of interest with Noreen Fraser Foundation. Readding previously deleted material of non-notable organization. Basket of Puppies 00:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article subject seems notable, look at Gnews, but I agree with the COI. I'm going to report the editor to WP:UAA because they're clearly representing the organization. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)