Commenter1234

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

I represent and have a connection to Airborne, the manufacturer of the Airborne Health Supplement. Pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and guides concerning conflicts of interest Wikipedia:COI, I have included this disclosure and will attempt, where practical in discussion pages, to indicate my affiliation to Airborne.

Pursuant to Wikipedia's policies and guides concerning businesses Wikipedia:BFAQ my primary goal is to
(1) point out in the Airborne article's discussion page material that may be inaccurate, or unverified,
(2) point out in the Airborne article's discusssion page material which is not neutral in tone, and
(3) suggest in the Airborne article's dicussion page the addition of other material.
I do not edit the content of the Airborne article. I request only that other editors evaluate the merits of my comments and decide if a change to the article's contents is warranted based on your own evaluation.

As an informational note, my former userid was "AirborneInc." Due to Wikipedia's policies and guidance against using corporate tradenames in a userid that name has been changed to "Commenter1234." AirborneInc (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it has been identified as an account used for promotion of a company or group, with a username that implies that this has been done by that company or group. See Wikipedia:Business' FAQ and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.

You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.

Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.

--Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you also agree to avoid directly editing those articles yourself? I think that's more or less what Coren told you, I just want to make sure you're clear on that part of the guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I also would like to hear some assurance before granting the unblock that you will not place yourself in a conflict of interest. Changing your name really means nothing if you are making edits intent on promoting your company. Trusilver 19:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand and recognize the concerns noted above and have no desire to edit the main article.
As a quick point of clarification (and please feel free to go back through the history to confirm this) I have not substantively edited the Airborne article. As advised by Wikipedia:FAQ/Business, the only edits made to the main article were to add tags {Fact} {dubious} {dispute} and then indicate on the dicussion page the reasons for those tags. Although the business guide indicates that this is appropriate conduct, to avoid any perception of impropriety, I will avoid directly editing in any way (substance, tags, etc) the main article, and insert comments only on the article's discussion page.
In terms of conflict of interest, I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest guide, and have also reviewed the Wikipedia:FAQ/Business guide. My understanding based upon those guides is that COI restricts those with a conflict of interest from editing an article itself. Per the above, I have not, and will not, edit an article directly. COI also occurs in cases where "the editor does not identify themselves or their affiliation" on a discussion page. In the past my affiliation was noted in my username, and I indicated "Airborne Representative" in the title of each post on the discussion page. I had hoped that this belt-and-suspenders approach would ensure that all editors were aware of my connection to the company. Going forward (and per Coren's advice) I will indicate it only once on the Airborne discussion page, but will also indicate it at the top of my personal talk page so that anyone who misses the original disclosure can see it by clicking on my user id. Please let me know if you have any additional guidance or suggestions concerning complying with the COI and Business guides.

AirborneInc (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to unblock

Per the rename instructions I have requested that the "AirborneInc" user name be renamed to "Commenter1234" and listed as the reason "previous name conflicted with Wikipedia policy concerning use of corporate tradename in user id." Thanks again to the above-editors, and Coren for the comments and suggestions.--AirborneInc (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I just hope you'll stick around and edit articles unrelated to Airborne; we can always use another good editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Airborne talk

I didn't want you to think you were just being ignored on this talk page. I appreciate that you are trying very hard to stay within Wikipedia policies and not edit the article yourself. Unfortunately, I am having some trouble with my internet connection just now, so my editing is rather limited at the moment. It should be fixed by the weekend, and I will try to find the time to go over the issues you have identified and make whatever changes seem needed. As you have also seen, there is another editor who seems to have a grudge against airborne, I would guess they were one of the plaintiffs in the class action suit. I am in the position of not really caring one way or the other as long as material is properly referenced and the article does not promote any particular point of view, but achieving and maintaining that state on this article may take some time. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and I appreciate anytime that you have to review the comments that I posted and/or to revise the article. I imagine that in company-topic wikipedia articles its not uncommon for some people who have an interset in editing the article to also have a personal financial interest in the company; I would hope that any plaintiff who had a financial interest in the litigation would at least disclose (as I have done) that they have a conflict, refrain from editing, and limit themselves to discussion. Again, thanks for any help you can provide in evaluating the material cited and in removing unsupported statements. Commenter1234 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)