Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A Time Called You Talk:A&P Talk:Access Industries Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:American Water Works Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:William Bolcom Talk:BP Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Citadel LLC Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Clearview Federal Credit Union Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Dowa Holdings Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Energy Capital Partners Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician) Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor) Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King School Talk:King the Land Talk:Dana Klisanin Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist) Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:Moody Nolan Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Optum Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Karen O'Rourke Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Joseph C. Papa Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Polymarket Talk:Programming language Talk:Alexander Pruss Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Robin Queen Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Jarred Rome Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Brian Rush Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tencent Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Vincit Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Thomas Albert Work Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zerodur Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Derek Wayne Johnson

• Derek Wayne Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This biographical article is written like a résumé

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. sites own sources of information

Fashion Net

• Fashion Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stig Harder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lumiere Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stephen Todd (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hatice Güleryüz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• {{Fashion Net}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)
• Shousokutsuu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.235.85.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 69.235.169.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.9.165.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shousokutsuu is the creator and principal maintainer of Stig Harder, Fashion Net and {{Fashion Net}}, though various monothematic IPs have also contributed. Fashion Net is an internet search engine started by Stig Harder; the template is simply a vehicle for links to it, of which some dozens or perhaps hundreds have been added to various articles by Shousokutsuu, who nevertheless maintains that they are not spam - see User talk:SFK2#Fashion Net template and User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Fashion Net template. There are related discussions at WP:RSPAM#Fashion Net and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 19#Template:Fashion Net. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the COI also extends to Lumiere Magazine (sic), a magazine started by Stig Harder, and Stephen Todd (editor), an editor of that magazine. Both articles started and substantially maintained by Shousokutsuu. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps also worth noting that Shousokutsuu stated that he/she is a "senior independent fashion editor" [1]. -SFK2 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But I think the clincher is the diff from 2007 that you posted on Shousokutsuu's talkpage, where he clearly states his real world identity and also his connection with Fashion Net: "I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net". I believe that decisively confirms that Shousokutsuu has a conflict of interest at the articles listed above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. After reviewing the external links on several fashion-related profiles on Wikipedia, I replaced several links to the Fashion Model Directory (such as http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/domenico-dolce--stefano-gabbana/) with links to Fashion Net (http://www.fashion.net/designers/dolce-gabbana/). To my knowledge now and then, and after lengthy discussions with Justlettersandnumbers and SFK2, these links can in no way be considered spam, but are rather useful links that do indeed "further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" as well as comply with Wikipedia's external links policies (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/External_links). Moreover, Fashion Net's Domain Authority is 62 (http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links.html?site=www.fashion.net); it is the number one search result for "fashion" at DMOZ (http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=fashion) and near the top on major search engines such as Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=fashion) and Bing (http://www.bing.com/search?q=fashion). (Search rankings for "fashion" have varied somewhat after May 22nd, before which Fashion Net was number one on all.) All of this, to my understanding, and also considering Fashion Net is the world's first site related to fashion, establishes authority. Shousokutsuu (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Fashion Net -isn't- a search engine, as alleged by Justlettersandnumbers above -- it -has- a search engine and the pages linked to from Wikipedia aren't search results, they're hard coded pages that can be searched, just like those on Wikipedia: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chanel isn't a search result, although searching for "chanel" on Wikipedia (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?search=chanel) will point directly to the hardcoded page at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chanel This, by nobody's definition of the term, makes Wikipedia a search engine. Fashion Net's search function may include external sites, but only sites listed on Fashion Net. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a conflict of interest noticeboard, it might be a good idea to actually address the issue in your response. -SFK2 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest and I herewith rest my case. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. There is a fairly conclusive COI case, given this comment. -SFK2 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the COI is conclusively established, thanks to research by SFK2. Shousokutsuu says he is Stig Harder. He therefore has a COI at that article (obviously), at Fashion Net (started by Stig Harder) and at {{Fashion Net}}, at Lumière (magazine), started by Stig Harder, and at Stephen Todd (editor), editor of that magazine. I suggest tagging those articles accordingly. Are there others to be added? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Answering my own question: Hatice Güleryüz, wife of Stig Harder according to our article on him, should be added to this list. Shousokutsuu is the principal editor there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

While I do not wish to reveal my identity, I'm very well connected in the industry; my aim has been to document without bias the early days of online fashion. Shousokutsuu (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You are under no obligation to reveal your identity. But be aware that COI editing (i.e. editing articles which you are affiliated with) is strongly discouraged. -SFK2 (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob Huff

• Bob Huff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billbird2111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Billbird is Huff's head press agent ("Communications Director") and was previously in the same position for another State Senator. He has been making COI edits for years on behalf of his boss, and has been tossing the word "libelous" around lately because he doesn't like the fact that edits do not reflect Huff's own website (which Billbird controls). When after increasingly heated discussion on his part it became clear that other editors were not going to do what he demanded, he went ahead in spite of repeated warnings from multiple editors, and crossed the Bright Line with some very NPOV-violating edits. He was reverted by one experienced editor, and I have now blocked him briefly (72 hours). Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have rarely come across an editor so clueless about how a conflict of interest should be handled. Most editors will try to deny the conflict or attempt to portray themselves as neutral. Some quotes from this editor: "It makes [me] a tad upset because it makes the Senator a tad upset. Since I do work for this person, and the way he is portrayed in public is important to him, I do my best to make him happy. I would hope that you would understand this." [2] and "These latest changes aren't going to make him happy..." [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This is my favorite Billbird quote so far (from NeilN's talk page): "Listing rankings from organizations that do not support Republicans or Republican policy and have clearly aligned themselves with one political point of view is not neutral, third party, editing. It's a blatant political attack. This is libelous. It is an attack." I am aghast with near-admiration at the utter, boundless depths of his cluelessness. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Given this editor's two-year history of promotional edits to the Bob Huff article, his blatant disregard of other editors, and his cluelessness about both COI and NPOV, a topic ban would seem in order. 71.139.157.123 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We're asked to stay away from personal attacks on these pages, and keep arguments calm and concise, correct? Yet you have editors like Mark Miller (Redacted) Really? You call this calm and concise? Avoiding personal attacks? --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Retract that, apologize or back that accusation up sir.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Bill, what are you talking about? If this (Redacted), the last public (non-official) post on that page was on October 23. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. The proper thing to do when an editor appears to be clueless is to politely offer them a clue. On-wiki. If they either don't get get it, or continue on in an appropriate way, you educate them, with as much good faith as you can muster, while reverting their bad edits and escalating warnings. Eventually, an admin takes the action OrangeMike did and upwards from there. What you don't do is complain about it, off-wiki, to the person who appears to be his boss. Did I understand that this was a complaint to the subject of the BLP on(Redacted)? If true, that's a much worser thing to do than the original edits. We have ways, on-wiki, to deal with out-of-policy edits and editors who violate core rules. But as clear-cut as this might seem, there ARE other possibilities. The editor could be purposely impersonating the person we assume him to be, to make trouble for him. If so, the manipulation has worked. Now, I grant you, Occam's Razor seems to be in play here, and the editor is probably who he purports to be. But even so, posting to the BLP subject's (Redacted), to try to get him to rein in the editor, is bad business. Reverts, blocks, even bans might be appropriate reactions. But off-wiki contact with someone who may be (ok, who probably is) a guy's boss? That behavior is far more troubling than the initial, edits ever were. Those edits are garden variety misbehavior, committed by an editor who's either truly off-course or doing one helluva job of acting. They're just electrons, easily erased. The (Redacted), as described by User:Mark Miller himself, could have real-world consequences for the real life person, whether he is the editor called Billbird2111 or not. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no complaint made, but a simple request that was outed here against our policy. If you want to discuss my off-Wiki activity, do so through my e-mail. WP:PRIVACY--Mark Miller (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You announced what you did in your own post, right on this page. I see now that someone has redacted it. If you post what you did here, there's no policy based reason I shouldn't react in horror right under your announcement. What you said you did is reprehensible. It ought to win you a block. It has certainly won you my scorn. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review our policy on privacy. I have told you point blank to stop linking to my off wiki private accounts and to use e-mail as our policy does indeed mention. Period. This has now become harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed it. It does not require me to ignore self-disclosure. This is what User:Mark Miller posted. "Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed." Except I responded to it before he self-redacted. I violated no policy by responding to User:Mark Miller's own post before he chose to self-bowdlerize. I resent the accusation that I did. I suppose it's foolish to hope for an apology. But hope springs eternal for fools like me.

Please do not misunderstand me. I think Billbird2111's edits violated WP:COI and that Orange Mike's block of him was well-waranted. But I stand by my assertion that the behavior that User:Mark Miller explicitly announced that he'd engaged in, right here in this very thread, is far worse, and reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians. David in DC (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I am a Californian and as I said and have not redacted or retracted. I have also stated that I live in Elk Grove California (something I have mentioned many times). You did, in fact, add other information after it was redacted. I find that harrassive and if you, as the fool you claim to be, are sanctioned...then you well deserve it. As for your freaking "scorn". I don't give a gosh darn rat's patootie about that. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditions of Louisiana Tech University, Spirit of '88

• Traditions of Louisiana Tech University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was reading the section on the Spirit of '88 and noticed an obvious conflict of interest. It comes off as a story that promotes Louisiana Tech as a university. Somebody should take a look at the rest of the page to determine whether or not it is that lone section.

Thank you. 68.185.226.140 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Diane Harkey / Jeff Gorell / Brian Dahle

• Diane Harkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dianeharkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeff Gorell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jgorell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brian Dahle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Assemblyman.dahle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three politicians possibly editing their own pages. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia

• Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:John21john (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It seems pretty clear that there is a connection here, given this statement. The text is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia -

As a faithful Shepherd, Archbishop Dionysios guided the flock entrusted to him by Christ our Saviour of the narrow path of salvation. His Eminence was a true pillar of Orthodoxy and defended the faithful little flock and vigorously any Wolf that were around the sheep. Away off the modernists, and the pseudo-orthodox defenders of heresy.

I came upon this working copyright and flagged the COI, also notifying the editor, but I haven't got time to strip this down to usable content - copyright work beckons. I mention it here in case somebody else does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutorvista management editing own article

• Tutorvista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Subrata2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This whole debacle started when I was watching the abuse filters one night and found Subrata2011 was blanking the Tutorvista page [4]. I restored the content and went to notify him on his talk page, only to find that he had a warning from both ClueBot and Slazenger about unconstructive edits (though Slazenger redacted his warning after discussing it with him on his talk page), so I gave him a level 2 warning [5]. He then added in material that was in violation of WP:PEACOCK and was seemed to be advertising in nature due to the way it was written and the addition of non-notable people without references [6]. I undid his revision and warned him again [7]. He then blanked the page a second time [8] so I gave him a final warning [9]. He immediately quits editing the article and posts a message on Slazenger's talk page about how he was merely trying to edit the article and that I was stopping him from doing so, asking Slazenger to help him out [10]. I replied both on Slazenger's talk page and on own talk page to try and clarify Wikipedia's procedures and to try and help him edit the article positively. Instead, he ignores the message I put on his talk page and writes a lengthy rant, saying things like "Whatever reason your reviewer (myself) has put across to you is nothing but justifying his/her action", "i will have a serious doubt about the reviewers knowledge of things or wiki's checking methods itself." and "What your reviewer did yesterday was plain and simple knee jerk reaction to changes" [11]. Within the post, he mentions that "I am may be from Management of this company but i will definitely won't want the tags that we have now in our page" and earlier, when he's addressing Slazenger, he mentions that he is "Subrata Majumdar, Assistant Manager, Content Development, TutorVista, Pearson Education Service." [12]. I then post another lengthy reply, stating exactly what he's doing wrong and how to fix it [13], which I assume he doesn't read, as he disappears for several days. However, he seems to have completely ignored the post and has since resumed editing the Tutorvista page, continuing with adding in non-notable people, violating WP:PEACOCK and not sourcing his material [14]. While I think he could be a useful editor, I think his position as a manager and the fact that he continues to make comments like "our page" and "force to be reckoned with" are clear examples he isn't adhering to WP:NPOV. While Slazenger has been gracious enough to attempt being a mediator in the debacle, I believe it's time to seek higher help since Subrata isn't listening to our advice (as Slazenger has told him to reference his material and keep a neutral point of view [15]). Jns4eva (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and cleaned up a little of the COI phrasing and added sourcing. It looks like it used to be a sourced page, but all the back-and-forth stripped the links away in favor of company boosterism and unsourced hype. Subatra's edits are bald-faced promotion, and unfortunately there are thin sources for anything other than its acquisition by Pearson. It still needs work. It would be helpful if he could point to non-company references for this company, but the page doesn't need more of anything promotional, and I think he's been told this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the eyes and for cleaning up the article Elaqueate, it's much appreciated. I was planning on doing it myself but I was trying not to start an edit war with Subrata. I tried to discuss how to edit positively and neutrally with him, but the discussion went stagnant as he merely took our advice as an attack and returned to his previous behavior. Jns4eva (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added this page to my watchlist as well, so if nothing else, there are now more eyes on the article to keep an eye on things. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred for your assistance and for keeping an eye on the page. Hopefully this will help improve the article and serve as a wake up call to Subrata. Jns4eva (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevron Open Vision

• List of platform-independent GUI libraries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cross-platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of widget toolkits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Windows Presentation Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of graphical user interface builders and rapid application development tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christo nevron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi.

This looks like a potential COI situation. An editor called Christo nevron is adding mention of "Nevron Open Vision" to the articles listed above. The added entry lacks source, lacks evidence of notability and goes against WP:NOTDIR. This user has had no other activity on Wikipedia since registration.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Trafigura

Hi – I have recently posted on the talk page of the article for Trafigura, a multinational commodities trader. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger, a London-based PR firm, and that Trafigura is my client. The current article lacks important information on the company's history, structure and business operations. I have submitted a draft Company History section to my user space here, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council

American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ALEC)

Rebeccalutz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ms. Lutz is an WP:SPA who has done not much beyond low-level edit warring,WP:PROMOTION, and consistent pro-ALEC POV-pushing, and her edits both in the article and on the talk page reveal an overall pattern of disruption and disregard for Wikipedia WP:BASICS. She denies she has a COI but her edits speak much louder than her words. Some of this is more appropriate for other noticeboards so I'll just stick with the COI-related stuff here:

Insider behavior: Ms. Lutz has demonstrated an uncanny knowledge of ALEC without evidence of prior research. Four instances:

• She added, unsourced, not only the city where ALEC recently moved to but also its neighborhood (Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia). The ALEC website doesn't list the neighborhood, and none of the sources cited in the article mention it either, so this suggests Ms. Lutz is at the least quite familiar with the DC-Metro area. Moreover the facade of the building is unmarked so she can't say she was driving by and noticed it.
• She changed the date of ALEC's formation from 1975 to 1973 without sourcing. This change his was not supported by the article as it had existed. On the talk page, she stated with surprising confidence (and no sources) that she was right. Subsequent discussion suggests that she had done no online research beforehand.
• She stated matter-of-factly, without sources, that the Edison Electric Institute is currently a member of ALEC. My subsequent research confirms this, but I had to go beyond the article and its cited sources.
• She has repeatedly changed all references to "model bills" to "model policies," and has pushed hard on the talk page for this change. Her representation that "most" of our sources use "model policies" is verifiably false; I went through all of them, and (excluding ALEC's website) not a single one used "model policies." Feel free to do the same. The overwhelming majority use "model bills," "model legislation," or a mix of both. So who is using "model policies" in reference to ALEC? There are some reliable sources out there that do, but they aren't cited in our article. But it just so happens that ALEC has made a sustained effort in the last two months to scrub references to "model bills" and "model legislation" from its website and replace them with "model policies." The evidence comes courtesy of the Wayback Machine:

• Frequently Asked Questions: compare October 30, 2013 to December 5, 2013
• Legislative Membership: compare October 20, 2013 to November 3, 2013
• Task Forces: compare November 3, 2013 to December 5, 2013
• Commerce, Insurance, and Economic Development: compare September 21, 2013 to October 20, 2013

(As an aside, another, now-inactive ALEC SPA, TheGregMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did the same thing in July, see here, here.)

Temporary pattern of COI-aware editing: Ms. Lutz started editing on Oct 28 but her first edit to ALEC was on November 14. From Nov 19-25 she followed a pattern of exclusively editing the talk page rather than the article, except for edits that she might have seen as uncontroversial, in line with COI recommended practices. On Nov 25 I noted on her user talk her possible COI and made some suggestions. The next morning, she acknowledged my message, and, 3 minutes later, abandoned her COI editing practices. After that the disruption began in earnest.

Reliance on ALEC's website: Here are examples of self-serving / promotional additions she has made, citing only ALEC's own website:

• "According to IRS documents, ALEC recieves 98% of its funing from foundations, corporations, other nonprofits and meeting revenue." [16]
• "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." [17]
• "The Task Forces were built to model Task Forces created during the Reagan Administration to address questions of Federalism." [18]

Promotion of ALEC: Just about all of Ms. Lutz's edits are biased in favor of ALEC, but here are some of the most egregious ones that rise to the level of WP:PROMOTION:

• ALEC's allowing legislatures to research "best practices" ([19]) a term frequently used on ALEC's website
• "To this end, ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model bills that it says are intended as academic documents for individual study." ([20], [21], [22]) (edit warred over this)
• "ALEC's Justice Performance Project is 'an program to advance proven criminal justice reforms based on over two decades of data-driven research and practice' focused on 'Corrections and Reentry, Pretrial Release, and Overcriminalization'." ([23]) (Ms. Lutz denied that this language was unduly self-serving.)
• referring to "ALEC's proposed solutions" ([24])

Well that's about it. Oh, and there's some off-wiki evidence, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING. I guess I'm WP:DUCK hunting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As an involved editor at the ALEC article, I would agree this is an agenda-driven single-purpose account. Circumstantially, the contribution history looks exactly like one would expect from a COI account. For the record, this editor denied any conflict of interest in response to my direct question, so I'm not sure where that leaves us. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It leaves us waiting for uninvolved editors to pore through the evidence and evaluate it. I hope someone takes up the challenge, since the disruption is pretty major. Productive work on this article (which has been hot in the news lately) has ground to a halt. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a frivilous complaint by an editor who disagrees with me who only started this after he began losing the two discussions that he started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I edited other pages before ALEC and am interested in doing so in the future but when I do there is this one guy who keeps following me and undoes my edit on pages that he has never edited before 1, 2. Fleishchman is clearly biased against the topic and exhibits considerable Wikipedia:Ownership of articles issues. His personal opinions are fine but his constant need to revert what others have edited have led to him reintroducing factually incorrect statements several times, even though they were not supported by any source.

Per Fleishchman's accusations that I have "insider knowledge"

1 No, I didn't source their location being in Virginia because, you know, something that uncontroversial shouldn't need to be sourced, was not sourced previously and is not currently sourced. Why did you fight me so hard on this? Why did you keep reverting my edit to say that they are located in DC?

2 ALEC was founded in 1973. Every source that we have says that. I am surprised that no one noticed it earlier. Why did you revert that edit? Why did you reflexively revert something so clearly true and present incorrect information?

3 EEI and ALEC's relationship is only mysterious if you haven't discovered google yet. I didn't even scroll down. I learned this while researching a questionable source introduced by Fleishman, one of the Reliable Source discussions currently in progress.

4 Wikipedia described them as "model policies" well before 2 months ago. It was the standard description and you changed it to something more sinister sounding which was not supported by our sources. I asked you why you did that on the talk page. Nothing too mysterious there.

I wanted to expand the criticism coverage in the opening paragraph as well as expanding what is arguably their most controversial topic and my sources were Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. But while we're throwing around accusations: how many positive edits have you made to this page? What is your interest here?

• Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand who does that page quote? Thats right, the IRS tax documents that they voluntarily disclosed. Quite different from taking their word for it, as you imply that I did.
• The text "ALEC's website contains a searchable list of provisional model policies intended as academic documents for individual study." predates my editing of the ALEC page. Get your story straight.

• Lots of people use the term "best practices". The ALEC page used the term "best practices" well before I showed up.
• Again, I didn't write that text, that text predates my editing of the ALEC page.
• Yes, I quoted their website. As a quote. In quotation marks.
• Is "proposed solutions" controversial? They're solutions that were proposed. ALEC proposed them. I didn't think that choice of words was controversial but am more than happy to discuss it on the talk page if it really offends you that much.

Per Fleischman's ownership: along with several smaller edits that could be considered reversions, Fleishman has made more that 3 flat out reversion inside of a 24 hour period constituting the classic definition of edit-warring:

• 1 at 4:50 on 2 Dec.
• 2 at 4:51 on 2 Dec.
• 3 at 5:03 on 2 Dec.
• 4 at 18:08 on 2 Dec.

Thanks for trying to stalk me, I guess? I'll make sure to sleep with a phone in reach.

Once again, this is a frivolous complaint by an edit-warrior who is disappointed that he is losing the discussion. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to take your edit warring complaint to WP:ANEW, if you wish. But make sure you read up on WP:3RR before you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Re "best practices": It is indeed true that this material pre-dated Ms. Lutz's time here, but she did revert it back in, without explanation I might add. It was originally added back in October 2011 by yet another ALEC SPA, this one Jude1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Although Jude1979 only made 2 edits, those edits share a common whitewashing style with both Ms. Lutz and TheGregMachine, and the following edits show a more link between Jude1979 (here) and TheGregMachine (here). Probably not enough evidence to prove anything, but a very troubling possibility of meatpuppetry. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the accusation, remind me to return the favor some time. If the phrase "best practices" offended you so much why didn't you ever bring it up on the talk page? Rebeccalutz (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks to DrFleischman for bringing such good evidence here. I am involved at the article, and I just assumed Rebeccalutz's conflict of interest, obvious as it was to those of us working at the article, was something that could not be addressed with any success. DrFleischman proves me wrong. The evidence is 100% circumstantial, but this is no different than the evidence we very often use to determine similar cases. I find especially unconvincing the non-response supplied by Rebeccalutz to explain her knowledge of the precise neighborhood where ALEC had recently moved. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Their precise location is available to anyone who knows how google works: http://www.alec.org/contact-us/directions-to-our-office/ Rebeccalutz (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Those directions were not cited in your change to the article. The Wayback Machine shows they had only recently changed, so now we can conclude you are either extraordinarily alert to changes at ALEC's website, or you learned the location in some other manner. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Well Ms. Lutz didn't start editing until after ALEC changed its directions. The bigger point is that nothing on the new page says ALEC is located in the Crystal City neighborhood. From personal knowledge I can say that DC-area residents talk about Crystal City like it's almost a separate place from the rest of Arlington. You don't say you're going to Arlington, you say you're going to Crystal City. There's no reason a non-DC area editor would go to the "Directions to Our Office" page and then list "Crystal City" based on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes gentlemen, I have been to Washington before. Any other smoking guns you would like to discuss? Why are you giving my shit for giving a different answer than ALEC gives as to which sub-section of NOVA they're in? Rebeccalutz (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

NOVA, interesting. I've never heard that term before. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Its right up there with SoCal. In either case, I should not be held guilty for your geographic ignorance. Rebeccalutz (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's not. This is borne out by a comparison of Northern Virginia versus Southern California, as well as a comparison between the relevant Google searches: "northern virginia" "nova" -"northern virginia community college" vs. "southern california" "socal" (almost 4x as many hits). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not from DC, but am familiar with the East Coast usage of "NOVA", and a cursory look at newspapers in the East from South Carolina up to New York shows it is widely used and known. [25] comes from a fairly reliable source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That link is broken, but it comes from the Washington Post, the Local section no less, which supports my very point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL! That is a clear case of "IDONTLIKEIT" at this point -- would you really like three hundred cites on this page? I trust not. But if you think dismissing the WaPo is being "local news" means much (NoVa is "local" to the WaPo, but that does not reduce the use of the term in the RS any more than NYT use of "SoHo" means that people outside NY will not know what it means!) BTW, Wikipedia lists "Northern Virginia" on the disambiguation page for "Nova". I take it that you did not find that WP already knows what NoVa means? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No no, I think you're missing my point. Of course NoVa is known to mean Northern Virginia. What I'm suggesting is that it's more of a local term than a national one. "SoCal" is much more widely known, which is why it appears in the first sentence of Southern California. "SoHo" is inapposite because that's the common name of the place (as reflected by the title of the article). There's no other name for it (aside from "South of Houston," which would draw funny looks). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't say I proved you wrong, we'll see. We need uninvolved editors who are willing to do a deep dive into the evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I find myself somewhat dismayed by this COI action. The evidence seems wildly thin. I live in Wisconsin but have visited DC often. Anyone who has would look at the org's website address and know that the Crystal Drive address is in Crystal City. The fact that she takes the 1973 date from the org's website as accurate is entirely unremarkable. The "model bill"/"model policy" debate is absurd. Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website...so what? The EEI bit is already debunked. Lastly, if there exists some secret off-wiki knowledge you had better discuss it with admins because I couldn't find any using google, and suggesting it without proof seems wrong, unfair, and a cheap shot. I find this a sad, sad thing. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the input and I can understand Capitalismojo's reaction, even though I disagree with it. There are strong feelings with every COI accusation. I don't understand what is meant by "The EEI bit is already debunked." And regarding the statement "Clearly she has viewed the usage on the org's website," if this was the basis for her position then Ms. Lutz wasn't being straight with me in this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Capitalismojo is involved in the article and some of the relevant disputes. As are MastCell, Binksternet, and of course Rebeccalutz and myself. Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) our positions on the COI issue are lining up with our positions on the substantive issues. This highlights the need for uninvolved editors to do a deep dive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

So far this appears to be far more witchhunt than proof. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Manulife Financial

• Manulife Financial

I work for Manulife in a communications role, and have been in discussions with the Wikipedia editing community over the past several months to update this entry. On Nov. 12, I proposed some changes to the structure and content of this entry's History section via the article's Talk page, including revising content and adding new sub-section headers, with the intent to ensure the information is complete and coherent (the current text is confusing and in places inaccurate). I work closely with Manulife's Manager of Corporate Archives, and have researched / documented the appropriate references for these proposed changes. I can provide source PDFs if needed. (Please note: I had submitted all of the references in my submission on Nov. 12, however for some reason they did not show up on the Talk page as they did when I previewed.)

These proposed changes have not been addressed since I submitted them more than three weeks ago, and I am wondering if I could engage some help via COIN. Would someone be able to take a look and provide some advice / guidance? I am more than happy to discuss here or via my Talk page. Thanks for your time. Jnuwame (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for disclosing your COI and adhering to COI best practices. An editor might assist you based on your note above. An even better way to get assistance is using a {{request edit}} tag. Instructions can be found here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

...Oops, I see you already did, but it was a long time ago. I think you need to add a new tag for each new requested edit (or each new set of requested edits). If you add requests without adding a new tag the tracking system will think your request has already been fulfilled. You should be able to monitor the status of your request here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Phineas Gage

• Phineas Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

EEng has over 1000 edits to Phineas Gage and has prominently displayed his work along with the work of a co-author to the point that the article is not neutral and is hampered by a long and well-known pattern of ownership that was not resolved even amongst our best editors like @John:. The issue of sources and dominance of Macmillan has been discussed in the past at Talk:Phineas_Gage#GAN.2C_McMillian_and_Gage and formatting at Talk:Phineas_Gage#Eccentric_formatting. EEng has a history of edit warring and abrasive interactions with other editors and making personal attacks. However, the main reason for bringing this here, is EEng's significant deviation from NPOV by omitting other academics. EEng's bias and pushing of the co-author's work represents a clear COI that EEng refuses to acknowledge or work within. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Of the earlier discussions ChrisGualtieri links above, one is about formatting, and the other is a concern raised by one editor, which I answered, and which ended there.
• CG himself cries "COI" over and over but refuses to say anything specific at all. As I said at Talk:Phineas_Gage#COI:

WP:SELFCITE provides:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

Despite multiple requests, you have given no example of anything in the article violating the above. It's perfectly obvious that you haven't the foggiest idea about the subject or the relationships of the sources -- you're just talking through your hat.

So once again, I challenge CG to point to anything in the article violating SELFCITE, including an explanation of what makes it a violation.

EEng (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris, I believe you're confusing WP:COI with WP:NPV. Just because an editor is biased doesn't mean they have a conflict. You have to show a close connection to the subject, which seems highly unlikely for an article about a guy who died 150 years ago. If you feel EEng is unduly promoting his own work in violation of WP:PROMOTION then that may be legitimate but it's not a basis for a COI. The problems you're having can be addressed elsewhere. If you're concerned about edit warring then WP:ANEW is an option. If you're concerned about a content dispute then you should consider dispute resolution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• EEng has exhibited serious OWN issues which have held back the development of this article. We have weird wordings like "went so far as to say" and saying "remarkably" in Wikipedia's voice. We have weird formatting of the references. It doesn't surprise me that there are COI problems here as well. EEng needs to back off and let others improve this article. It certainly isn't ok for him to use himself as a reference. --John (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

You're not listening: This is not a COI problem. Contents disputes can be resolved through DR. Conduct disputes can be resolved at ANI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The first lines of WP:COI clearly state EEng has a conflict of interest, COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. EEng is promoting his own academic work and the work of his co-author which is not NPOV, but I am pointing out that there is an apparent if not actual conflict of interest by EEng's actions. WP:COISELF clearly states, " If you have a personal connection to a topic or person(such as being an employee, or having family ties or some other relationship), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." - I do well to believe that two different references, expanded to show the work and provide more than 50 citations on their book is rather promotional given that the entire structure of the references are designed to draw readers to that source. Why else are all the references organized in such a way as to prominently display EEng's own work and co-author in a specially crafted structure? Of the six references listed as For general audiences (Gage) the first is Harlow than the next four are Macmillan and/or Lena. The first of the next section is also EEng's own work. Then the others follow in a more natural set up, but I simply do not believe that EEng should be pushing their own work so heavily that 19 of 36 notes directly name Macmillan or Lena and others go to the book. The article's usage of sources and references result in about 75% Macmillan and Lena in some capacity. More concerning is that other academics have clearly portrayed the book with mixed reactions and Daniel Tranel noted it as having a "thinly disguised vendetta against other Gage experts and the frequent aspersions cast on their scholarship … [and] motives".[26] I'm not trying to be rude here, but I believe that EEng's ownership and abrasive interactions show that this is a matter of academic prominence which quite clearly impacts EEng's personal life and standing - so much so that dissenting opinions are clearly absent - even the massive controversy over Gage's death is glossed over with this choice line, "That Harlow (though in contact with Gage's mother as he was writing) was mistaken by exactly one year implies that certain other dates he gives for events late in Gage's life—​his move from Chile to San Francisco and the onset of his convulsions—​must also be mistaken, presumably by the same amount; this article follows Macmillan in correcting those dates..." Which is a pretty clear as a major contentious issue considering most academic sources, textbooks, even classes and works published AFTER Macmillan state 1861. Here's some sources:[27][28][29][30][31] Here is some textbooks: Social Neuroscience: Key ReadingsConfronting Traumatic Brain Injury: Devastation, Hope, and HealingThe Limbic Brain Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory. Do I need to go on? Considering "Cognitive Psychology In and Out of the Laboratory" was published in 2013 there is substantial evidence that even the date of death; let alone other dates prior to it, are highly contentious and the glossing over this fact by EEng represents not only a NPOV issue, but a COI in the line of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and advocacy if not outright promotion of the publications. I'm not saying that the work should be removed; but this NPOV issue is an apparent COI that makes Wikipedia a platform and soapbox for EEng. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I am listening, and reading. This is a classic COI problem. That's what this page is for. I agree substantially with Chris on this. --John (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see any reason to believe that EEng has any interest other than creating a neutral/reliable article. He may certainly be biased toward his own personal views or those propounded in his sources, but that isn't a COI. I'm not really sure what you hope to gain from your COI report. EEng's user page shows he is quite upfront about his authorship of various relevant sources. A COI tag therefore seems unnecessary, even if he did have a COI. And trying to restrict him to editing on the talk page seems wholly inappropriate to me. Subject matter experts should be welcomed, not shunned for their expertise. Everyone comes to this project with their own biases, experts included, and no one should be disqualified or COI-tagged for them. If you feel EEng is editing the article in a non-neutral fashion then you're free to engage in the BRD cycle, and escalate as appropriate through DR. Now, if you feel he is being disruptive then that's another story. In that case ANI may be a reasonable option. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• John Chris shows clearly that that EEng has a conflict of interest, with EEng making his own reference, and that of his colleague, more prominent than other available observers of Gage. I am astounded at the lengths gone to make the article conform to somebody's preference of format. The references should be reduced to just two sections, explanatory notes and footnotes, with no subsections. The instructions for making references should be thrown out. The special font tricks should be thrown out. The "Fig. x" format in the image captions should be ditched. (The image of the inscription is so blurry it's useless, and should be removed in favor of some text.) Too much emphasis is put upon Macmillan's 1860 death date, as if the cemetery records cannot be in error, as if the 1861-date authors are proved wrong in one fell swoop. The combination of EEng citing his own work, making it more prominent, failing to cite other works in appropriate balance, edit-warring for eccentric formatting adds up to a COI violation. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actually John commented just under my response, but yes, more of the issues could be present in the difficulty in editing the article with the usage of 486 "shy" templates and templates for dashes. I've been trying to explain to EEng about ownership, but given his edits to restore lengthy and useless invisible comments and replace the shys, I doubt I am being understood. He has previously edit warred over it here and here where he called the editors "MOS Nazis". The shy template thing got worse after he warred with @Eric Corbett: over the shy template, going so far as to insert shys into invisible text comments and rail against consensus. While there are clearly larger issues at play, it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit after rejecting both John and Eric Corbett and others' comments on it, but it seems EEng is really unaware of these formatting issues present. EEng is personally, both emotionally and academically invested in this article, given that small things like formatting are major points of contention I dare not address content issues following the previous GAR this year. I think someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article can reach Featured Status and EEng can become a better steward of the subject he is an expert in. And as a nod to the good doctor; I am aware of Wikipedia's lack of experts - I myself am one, but Wikipedia and academica do not mix well. My professors have always said to fight to prove and defend your work; make it prominent and back it with everything you can. Wikipedia is different, current the subject has no academic consensus in a variety of topics, including the date of death, this shows that while EEng's presentation is not WP:FRINGE it is not universally accepted as of yet. I welcome EEng's and Macmillan's efforts to right the record, but I do not think the other side consisting of Harvard and MIT researchers and textbooks of major publishers used to teach these classes to be dismissed either, as they are still very much mainstream. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Right you are, I was in error saying that John proved COI when it was you who did so. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• OK...where are we on this case? As I understand it, the editor that has been accused (can't think of a better phrase right now, sorry Chris) of COI editing and been so accused because they are the authors of a reference that they are attempting to edit war into the article (I hope that is accurate) More importantly for this board, has it or has it not been established with any certainty that the editor is attempting to advance outside interests as more important to the editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I just looked at the article for the first time in a while. I hadn't realised just how bad EEng had made it; it's almost uneditable, even for a highly experienced editor like me. I wanted to look at removing the stupid "Figure 1", "Figure 2" notation, but it is set up so that this is impossible to do easily. I also looked at some of EEng's comments in talk; he has gone beyond abrasive there, to a point where I feel there is little point engaging him. I propose a topic ban for a year, to allow other editors to fix this article up. It needs all the trick formatting removed, all the COI referencing and OR removed, and it needs to be brought in to line with MoS. This will mean trimming a few of the pictures out, enormously reducing the footnotes and a general rewrite. On the plus side, there is enough material here to make a decent GA if all this was done. --John (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with your assessment, including a crash diet for explanatory notes. This article can certainly be brought to GA, and even to FA, if all of those improvements are implemented, and a broader swath of published material is brought to bear on it. Binksternet (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
      • I have to say....that seems more than reasonable. I hope that it makes it to GA. If any assistance is needed let me know.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• @Binksternet:, could you point me to where Chris has shown that "EEng [is] making his own reference, and that of his colleague, more prominent than other available observers of Gage." If there is a problematic weight issue related to EEng promoting his own work with self-citing, I'd like to see it described articulately, and see it discussed / confirmed by others. I may have missed that. :/ @ChrisGualtieri:, which academic peer-reviewed literature published since has refuted or contested anything in the article? EEng has also been upfront about his relationship with the article. There is no doubt that his academic work is central to the article, and needs to be prominent. How prominent...? I have only seen mild discussion related to that, which belong on the talk page, perhaps with an RFC if consensus cant be reached.
  To me this seems to a post to the wrong noticeboard, as the core of the concerns raised are about style and WP:OWN. As others have discussed them here, I will too. The article formatting has been contentious at times, but I concur with Dr. Fleischman about EEng's intentions and beg that people have a bit of respect for EEng's work here. When EEng came to this article on Wikipedia in early 2008, it was 1366 words ("readable prose size") and riddled with errors and omissions. This article was a GA but delisted in 2007 for that reason. It is now 2967 words ("readable prose size"), very detailed, and incorporates the most recent research. And EEng is largely responsible for that. As a result it has been polished enough to be listed on the front page in 'On this day...' in 2012 (massive spike in pageviews) and 2013 (not significant increase in pageviews). Talk about the possibility of going for FA is possible only because of EEng's labour. He has 'promoted' the work of many other academics in the process. Also read the article feedback, and the very positive comments on Talk:Phineas Gage by the likes of Garrondo, Green_Cardamom, FiachraByrne and others. ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance, simplified the structure and even eliminated portions of quotes and prose that were unnecessary in response to the review by User:Garrondo. I must apologise for not having spent more time completing that. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWN concerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. There was also an unfortunate case of the article being nominated for GA when the primary author wasn't ready for the community to pounce on the article and virtually rip it to shreds. To accuse EEng of purposely making the syntax obtuse to prevent other editors contributing is abhorrent to me; perhaps his efforts were misguided, but if you take the time to look at it carefully, you can see a tremendous amount of effort has been put into source code to assist other contributors find their way around. There are parts of the source code that I found more than a bit curious, and some parts more complicated than necessary or even appropriate, but the result has always been an article that was useful to the reader, and gradually improving over time, with many contributors of useful content so EEng's nefarious plot to 'own' the text via obfuscation was obviously unsuccessful.
  Anyway, all that said, I think it wise for EEng to take a short break from the article, primarily to prevent this escalating to blocks and bans while the the COI accusers present their case properly. Also it will be interesting to see if the content improves when others have free reign. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel J. Caron

• Daniel J. Caron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frelau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leptiminus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Frelau is a new single purpose editor who, based on this comment on my talk page, appears to have a conflict interest and has attempted to remove any controversial material including references from the article ([32] [33] [34] [35] [36]). I have warned them about COI on their talk page and mine, tried to work with them to make the article neutral and now need some help with the situation. On finalizing my edits to the article as discussed with Frelau on the article talk page, I was accused of COI by Frelau and received an edit warring warning from a brand new user Leptiminus that doesn't make any sense to me. I have no personal connection to Caron or the LAC (Caron's previous employer) whatsoever. I welcome a review of both our edits. See article talk page and my talk page. HelenOnline 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:HelenOnline has been warned fo past behaviour of edit warring, and this unecesary escalation constitutes the beginning of a harassament behaviour. The post on the editors' talk page was a reminder to follow known processes to address edit warring in order to encourage a productive, congenial editing style within community norms. --Leptiminus (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it still doesn't make any sense to me. In line with WP:NPA, please provide evidence for your accusations (diffs). HelenOnline 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this. It seems to me very likely that Frelau has a conflict of interest at Daniel J. Caron. It also seems to me very unlikely that Leptiminus, whose first edit read "I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP", is a new editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

From that edit and their comment here, it seems Leptiminus may be taking their cue from the previous discussion on my talk page, with a user who was blocked for edit warring and is now the subject of an Arbcom discussion. HelenOnline 06:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

This was the first time I posted here and except for one comment by JLAN I have been ignored and the case archived without resolution. Can someone please help me resolve this? HelenOnline 07:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel's Sex/Gender

Not a COI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Gabriel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Currently, there is an ongoing dispute over the gender of the angel Gabriel. We’re currently at the RfC level, and so far no real consensus is being reached. Although the primary dispute is over article content, I’m concerned that Elizium23 may have a Conflict of Interest that’s preventing him from approaching the issue from a neutral point of view. Elizium23’s user page clearly shows that he has interests in Christianity/Catholicism and I’m concerned that these views may be keeping him from representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on this topic. For example, the original revision# 581868678 included the following statement in the introduction section of the article "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous. Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature.” along with numerous in-text citations. I believe this statement not only met the NPOV requirements very well, but was also an excellent introductory statement for revision# 583698987 which moved Elizium23’s statement on Christian theology under its own heading in the Christianity section: "Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual, and they are generally depicted in art with prepubescent features. Some recent popular works on angels consider Gabriel to be female or androgynous.” I have no objections to Elizium23’s current statement that’s included under the section on christianity, assuming of course his statement can be properly referenced. The problem however is that he's still dead set on excluding my more general statement that’s in the introduction. Since all of the sources I provided supported the wording of that statement, I feel as though his reason for being against is likely related to a Conflict of Interest. I realize the brunt of our dispute is essentially article content, however the overwhelming majority of the discussion on his part so far has largely consisted of accusations. I've done my best to respond in good faith, however I don't think he cares. I think he has his mind made up and no amount of additional sources or explanations would make much of a difference. It's about WP:NPOV, but due to a Conflict of Interest. I’ve provided 19 sources that I believe meet the Wikipedia inclusion requirements for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE, etc. At least 10 of these sources, if not 12, certainly meet the Wikipedia inclusion requirements without a doubt, yet Elizium23 refuses to even discuss the matter beyond emphatically stating that these sources aren’t reliable. This is what has lead me to believe that there might be a very real Conflict of Interest. I’m still sort of new to the role of being a Wikipedia contributor, so I apologize if this belongs more under the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, No Original Research Noticeboard, or Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to start a discussion on those notice boards before the initial 30-day RfC period is up. If this belongs in one or more of those noticeboards, please let me know and I’ll switch it. Information on the 1st RfC involving discussion on the reliability of the sources is included here. Information on the 2nd RfC involving discussion on the article content statements is included here. Again, if this discussion belongs in one or more of the other noticeboards, please let me know and I’ll switch it. Right now I just don’t know really where else to turn for help. Crice88 (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Uhm...perhaps you don't understand what a conflict of interest means at Wikipedia....but OK, I'll play along. Now...prove or demonstrate how this editor ACTUALLY STANDS IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE ANGEL GABRIEL? Yes...you are correct...this belongs at another noticeboard. Being a Christian is not a conflict of interest in this manner. Take it from a pagan. This is ridiculous.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC) This actually belongs to ANI, for Crice88 to be topic-banned. May be at some point someone finds time to file a request.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Mark Miller, Thank you for your input. If the discussion is more NPOV than COI than I again apologize for the confusion. I've gone ahead and created discussions on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Crice88 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC) I would suggest you pick one and delete the rest.. You don't want to be accused of campaigning.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Mark Miller, thank you for the heads up--I didn't know I was opening myself up to anything like that. Can I just delete the entries like I would on any other page or does it require anything more. Crice88 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)