Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 61

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63→Archive 65

Linda Melconian

A puff piece with very few relevant references, many incorrectly formatted, reads more like a CV. I've tried to tidy it up, but I'm not getting very farTheroadislong (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Without diff evidence, COIN can't concluded that User:Melconian has a COI with the Linda Melconian topic merely because they have Melconian in common. You might want to try following the steps at WP:BADNAME regarding Inappropriate usernames. The article now reads OK (good job on the tidying up). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Of course they have a COI. The evidence is the article history. Gigs (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence in the article history of User:Melconian's connection to Linda Melconian. If you have diffs that show otherwise, please post. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure it was a coincidence and User:Melconian just happened to come upon Linda Melconian's article and decided to write a very positive biography and upload a "self-made" picture they happened to have of Melconian. That sounds plausible. Gigs (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that the user has no other contributions, this sounds like a duck test.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Organogallium peroxides

The article is largely the creation of the user; the references are largely to primary sources that are papers written by a researcher of the same name. A warning on the user's talk page that repeated removal of the {{COI}} tag would result in a report here resulted removal of the tag. COI isn't my area - I'm much happier doing AV. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the COI and NPOV tags at Organogallium peroxides have been removed again. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That's actually backwards. Report at COIN first, get a consensus at COIN that the user has a COI, and then tag with COI tag. I listed Organogallium peroxides at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organogallium peroxides. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not really necessary when the username is the editor's real name. Gigs (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
You're right. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Syed ali raza author

Resolved
 – Deleted Gigs (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The article has been created and edited by the User:Istehkam, who is possibly either a person directly related or the person in the impugned article. The article relates to a person who is the Chairman of Tehreek-e-Istehkam-e-Pakistan organisation, which resembles similarity with the Username. Further the contribution of the user revealed that he has edited articles only related to the organisation and the person concerned in the article, which increases the probability of COI. The user has removed maintenance tags and continued editing in a non-neutral manner even after giving an warning. Amartyabag TALK2ME 09:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedily deleted per G11.--ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

HelloGiggles

Advertisement in a cutesy-poo tone for a potentially-notable website, created and edited by usernames that leave me cynical (and wondering about sockpuppetry). Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sophia, Molly, and Zooey are the names of the three (note the theme here) co-founders of the site; and that a prior spammy version of an article on this site, created by that account, was already deleted a few days ago. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
this is not the owner for the website making this article, nor affiliated with hellogiggles, i have made a change to the article, is it better now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeThreeHG (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
actually, the changes to the article have been made by editors other than the ones listed as having potential conflict of interest -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Reynolds American

I have some basic factual edit suggestions for the Reynolds American article I posted on the article’s talk page. I am an employee of the company and I am therefore just suggesting edits due to my WP:COI. Could someone here please take a look at them? Thanks. Velinflo (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

How about copying this: {{Help me}} and pasting it on your talk page? It's the best way of getting personal assistance here, I think. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I have done as you suggested. Velinflo (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski / Weight of Chains

Closing this. We need to start putting out this wildfire. Please take further comments to Wikipedia:Ani#ARBMAC_enforcement_needed Gigs (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(I moved the below discussion from here to this thread rather than have it posted in continuation of the previously closed discussion at Boris Malagurski COIN1. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that walls of text may have distracted people from looking more closely at the evidence. So, let's try again. The following table is based on Psychonaut's table, a list of all UrbanVillager's edits in article-space, but with some context added. I haven't bothered updating the edit counts - UrbanVillager may well have made a few more edits to the same articles since then.

article # edits Connection
Boris Malagurski 96 At the centre of the problematic editing.
The Weight of Chains 75 Film made by Malagurski. Promotional article made by UrbanVillager 2 months before the film was released, and early versions included details which were not in any of the sources. CorenSearchBot flagged the initial version as a copy-paste of the Weight of Chains website set up by Malagurski's mom.
Nova srpska politička misao 9 Obscure newspaper used as a source in the Malagurski article. UrbanVillager created the article, emphasising how great the contributors are, on 01 November 2010. On the same day, Malagurski had an article published in the paper, then two days later UrbanVillager boasted about this interview in the Malagurski article and linked to the shiny new NSPM article. Since then it's only gained inbound links from two other articles.
Lewis MacKenzie 7 Canadian officer appearing in Malagurski films. UrbanVillager added this two months before the film was released to the public.
Yugoslav Wars 6 Subject of Malagurski's films. UrbanVillager's edits are aligned with the films, and like Nemambrata (talk · contribs) there's an attempt to downgrade the "Srebrenica genoicide" to "Srebrenica massacre"
Jože Mencinger 6 Interviewed in The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager created this article 2 months before the film was released but still managed to tell us what he discussed in the interview. There was no source for it at the time; a source could be added later when the film was released to the public.
Tesla Motors 4 UrbanVillager only edited to say that Nikola Tesla was really a Serb; Malagurski made a "documentary" about this.
World War II persecution of Serbs 3 Another topic covered by Malagurski's films. More emphasis on the serbs-as-victims angle.
Slobodan Samardžić 3 Interviewed in The Weight of Chains. 2 months before the film was released, UrbanVillager gave us details of the interview.
Scott Taylor (journalist) 3 Interviewed in The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager added this before the film was released; of course we got a source post-release. The two other edits both concerned The Weight Of Chains. [1] [2]
Nikola Tesla 3 Only edits were to say that Tesla was really a Serb". Malagurski made a "documentary" about this.
Vlade Divac 2 Another person interviewed by Malagurski, the subject of both UrbanVillager's edits. Again, UrbanVillager told us about the interview in the present tense, but before it was published.
John Perkins (author) 2 Both UrbanVillager's edits concern Perkins' appearance in a Malagurski film. As with other interviewees, predating publication of the film.
John Bosnitch 2 Another person interviewed in a Malagurski film. Again, UrbanVillager tells us about the interview before the film is released.
Death of Muammar Gaddafi 2 You'd be forgiven for thinking that Gaddafi is unrelated, but UrbanVillager's two edits actually concern Kosovo, repeating a point made by Malagurski and fans.
Branislav Lečić 2 Again, UrbanVillager tells us about his appearance in a Malagurski film] before the film's release.
Yeonpyeongdo 1 This is the only article UrbanVillager has edited which isn't directly linked to a Malagurski film. However, UrbanVillager's edit is neatly aligned with a point pushed by Globalresearch.ca, one of Malagurski's backers. UrbanVillager is very keen to remove any mention of this backing. [3] [4] [5].
Weight of chains 1 Redirect to The Weight of Chains, above.
Trepča 1 Redirect to Trepča Mines. Featured in The Weight of Chains.
The Weight Of Chains 1 Redirect to The Weight of Chains, above.
Srđa Trifković 1 UrbanVillager's only edit is to add The Weight of Chains to his filmography.
Škabo 1 Another interviewee in The Weight of Chains. Again, UrbanVillager says this well before the film is actually published.
Radio Television Serbia 1 Redirect to Radio Television of Serbia which provided footage for The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager created the redirect to fix a redlink in the first version of The Weight of Chains article.
Organ trafficking Kosovo 1 Redirect to Organ theft in Kosovo, which Malagurski has covered. Here's an added bonus: [6]
NSPM 1 Points to Nova srpska politička misao, as above
Nova srpska politicka misao 1 Points to Nova srpska politička misao, as above
New Serbian political thought 1 Points to Nova srpska politička misao, as above
Milan Levar 1 A character in The Weight of Chains, added by UrbanVillager
Joze Mencinger 1 Points to Jože Mencinger, as above
Jasenovac concentration camp 1 A couple of months before The Weight of Chains is released, UrbanVillager removes some sourced content which doesn't fit the film's message.
James Byron Bissett 1 Appeared in Malagurski's films. UrbanVillager added this months before Weight of Chains was released, but (as ever) worded it in the present tense.
Evo zore, evo dana 1 Removed some content on Ustaše and Croat-Serb conflict. Guess what? That paragraph had an awkward overlap with the content of a Malagurski film.
Đakovica Airport 1 UrbanVillager's only edit is to imply that Đakovica is really in Serbia, not in Kosovo. Come on, haven't you seen any of Malagurski's work?

If any uninvolved editor can read this list and say, with a straight face, that there's no COI... then I'd be happy to repeat this exercise with more of UrbanVillager's edits in another namespace. -- Bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Notice: User:PRODUCER has just opened another sockpuppet investigation alleging that UrbanVillager is Boris Malagurski; several other accounts are named. The investigation provides evidence and arguments above and beyond those presented in the COIN report above. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (I closed the prior Boris Malagurski/UrbanVillager discussion.[7]) Bobrayner, I think you are misunderstanding COIN. COIN works to establish a connection external to Wikipedia to a topic within WIkipedia. The COIN diff evidence needs to point to something external to Wikipedia to establish a COI connection, e.g, UrbanVillager listed on an external website as Vice President of Boris Malagurski's corporation, UrbanVillager maintaining an official fan site on behalf of Boris Malagurski, a Wikipedia diff showing that UrbanVillager posted something to the effect of "I am being paid to edit." (the external connection is the work contract), etc. The diffs you provide merely show a editing pattern within Wikipedia and do not show any connection by UrbanVillager to Boris Malagurski outside of Wikipedia. The diffs you provide could be used at WP:NPOVN if you want to claim that UrbanVillager is making biased post in articles. However, they do not support a claim that UrbanVillager has a connection to Boris Malagurski outside of Wikipedia. If you haven't already, you may want to open a discussion at WP:NPOVN. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The following is the status (as of this post) of noticeboard requests concerning UrbanVillager:
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marianna Yarovskaya‎

The article was written and is still edited by User:Y marianna, who is possibly the subject of the article. I had difficulties to establish whether the article has to ba AFDed and therefore placed there a number of tags without reviewing the article. Another user added well-sourced criticism. User:Y marianna, who was obviously unhappy, started to remove the tags and the info, despite my warnings. May by someone can have a look at the article, and, in case it is not an AfD case, try to explain the user what the problems are. Thank you. --Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ohio politician editing bio

Ohio congressman User:Andrewobrenner (and his wife?) is editing his Wikipedia profile and blanking some sections he says are untrue. You guys probably can handle this better than me. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Block the IP if he keeps inserting the negative information. It looks like a lot of that stuff was sourced from primary sources inappropriately. Gigs (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lev Vygotsky

This article is being edited by what appears to be a genuine expert, who unfortunately mostly cites his own work. I am having a bit of worries with a possible WP:SELFCITE problem because of what seems to be possible undue weight to the editors own publucations adn viewpoints.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Association of Scientists, Developers and Faculties

This article was created by User:Asdfindia. It appears to be pretty well written after a quick look. The author claims to be a member of the group. Review is needed. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is something fishy going on here. Pretty much none of the citations are to independent sources. The articles makes this out to be a large international organization, but their membership database shows the real story, 451 student members who paid $10 each. No external coverage I could see, only press releases. This article has serious verifiability problems and should probably be stubbed. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I nominated the ASDF article and the article for the creator at AfD. The more I look into it the more the claims in the article don't fit together. Without secondary sources to verify the claims, we don't know what's true and what is made up. In this case it's probably best to delete. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Chaim Elozor Wax

et al.

Poland kollel, an SPA, has been adding information to all the above articles on his namesake, the Kollel Poland organization (no article exists yet for this particular quite historic and still active Kollel-see he:כולל פולין), sometimes relevant, but overemphasized; often completely irrelevant. Especially disturbing is Poland kollel's adding interwiki links to four of the above articles, that have only tangential connections to Kollel Poland, to the article on "Kollel Poland" to Wikipedia in four languages—three of which do not have such an article.

Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added User רוחית above, whose edits and interests match Poland kollel's very closely. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It also seems to me that Poland kollel is intent on promoting the Kollel Polin and Kupat Rabbi Meir Baal HaNes charity organization in Israel. The user's insistence on renaming this venerable and well-known organization as "Poland Kollel", and adding Chaim Elozor Wax's presidency of this organization to every article in which he appears without appropriate sourcing, shows WP:POV and WP:CONFLICT. I reverted all the user's edits to the articles listed by Ratzd'mishukribo, as well as to:
Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Note: Poland kollel has just created Batei Warsaw. While a significant subject, this article has no references and appears to be further plugging Kollel Polin. Yoninah (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This worries me most of all, because the real-life Kollel Poland is now involved in a heated conflict over the management of Batei Varsha. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
On closer examination, it seems that both the above users are specifically promoting [9], which duplicates (with attribution) WP's article on Chaim Elozor Wax. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I suspected all along that this is an employee of the charity organization trying to plug it. Yoninah (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that Poland kollel and רוחית are a case of unintentional sockpuppetry: see רוחית's contribution's to the Hebrew Wikipedia—רוחית is an automatically created account on the English Wikipedia. All of רוחית's contributions here predate Poland kollel's account creation here. רוחית is an SPA devoted to Kollel Poland and obsessed with Rabbi Chaim Elozor Wax and esrogim, as can be seen on the link provided. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record: correspondence with Poland kollel on my talk page indicates that the bad interwiki links were put there in good faith: Poland kollel apparently did not know how interwiki links work nor what purpose they serve. But the promotional editing is still an issue. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Amweder

Amweder wrote an article on the subject in 1999. She has added potentially defamatory, non-cited, unverifiable information to the article on three occasions (October 22, November 18, November 25), apparently to improve the reputation both of her article and the sources she consulted while writing it (all of which have been challenged by other works referenced in the article). When asked, she claimed she collected this information while researching the article in 1999, though none of the claims were published then or have been since. This evening, Amweder removed a cited quotation that challenged the reliability of her article calling it "inaccurate, non-NPOV, defamatory". Her edits removed a quotation that was critical of her article. Have consistently pointed her to WP:COI guidelines and WP:NPOV with no effect (please see our talk pages). Rawlangs (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Franklin Mint

The Franklin Mint article has long been viewed as containing advertising material (at least since May 2010 on the talk page). After another editor noted the ads in the article, I did a major cleanup (the second or third time over several years). User:Cstevencampbell has added material back of minor relevance to the overall article, referenced by materials of questionable reliability such as catalogues, with many points in his text opinions that are not the type of thing usually covered by catalogues. He questions the basic idea of a reliable source "Most 'reliable sources' are just people's opinions that happen to have been published somewhere." One editor on talk calls it OR rather than advertising, but it's hard to tell. Please note that if there is a COI here, it is not likely to be an employee of Franklin Mint, which is essentially defunct. Rather it might be more in the line of a collector-dealer in the minor product line covered. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor appears to be an enthusiast and expert, not a COI case. I have left a more detailed reply on the talk page. Gigs (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Material that is being continuously removed from this article is of MAJOR importance to Franklin Mint. Vehicles were a major product of the company (I have less experience with the coins or plates). Negative and positive aspects of the vehicles are discussed so it is NOT an ad (the new material on vehicles, though, is better than what was here previously). Would an ad say certain aspects of the product were not made correctly or produced erroneously? Absolutely not. I did at one point say that opinions that exist just because they happen to be published does not necessarily carry weight with me. Still, in my personal quest for knowledge, I use sources from all kinds of outlets (web, published, government documents, correspondence, whatever), though I understand Wikipedia's need to be consistent with published sources. In other words, I believe in proper coverage in relaying information, but there is no such thing as a source that is completely 'reliable'. Regarding edits to this article, it is as if some people read anything with a bit of detail and cannot believe it might be credible, because it is too detailed.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Some of our policies lead to an inherent bias against experts. It's a side effect of some otherwise good policies and practices. That said, try to work with the other editors on this, within our policy and guideline framework. Gigs (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance.--Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Also Smallbones asserts some of my sources were catalogs. None of my sources were catalogs. He/she seems to have a hard time distinguishing between the contributions of previous editors. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching his edits for a year or so. I'm confident that he is just an enthusiast and that there is no conflict of interest. Overall, the information he added is fair, balanced and knowlegable. However, his references are sometimes information pages from web stores. Using them is certainly convenient but it does give the appearance of commercial interest.  Stepho  talk  05:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Cstevencampbell brought my attention to this dispute and sought my advice about it. While reviewing the situation, I found this COI notice, which seems to the highest priority issue to resolve. I concur with Gigs. There is no obvious signs of COI and the user appears to be a hobbyist/enthusiast. I think this COI notice is rather unfair to Cstevencampbell. Thankfully, Smallbones did ask directly if there was a conflict of interest on the article's talk page but seems to have only waited only 17 minutes (!) before posting this notice. Cstevencampbell answered in just a bit over an hour (a prompt reply in my estimation) that he "write[s] generally on toy and collector cars". Although I'd like to see a more direct response to the question, I think the response is a valid "no". A COI notice is a somewhat serious charge and I think they should not be undertaken lightly. The notes for filing a COIN clearly state that diffs should be added to support the charge. No diffs are given in this case. Unless Smallbones wants to actually build a strong case with specific evidence, I suggest he/she assume good faith. As for the content dispute, I am still reviewing the edit history and building an opinion and may offer some advice if time allows (I'm visiting family for the Thanksgiving holiday so I don't know if I'll have time to do it). Jason Quinn (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not that serious an accusation. Most people here have a COI in at least one subject area. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User:FreedomCorpComm

Looks pretty straightforward - user is editing on behalf of Freedom Communications, but isn't very active. I only found one bit of serious whitewashing. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Can do an WP:ORGNAME softblock. Gigs (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Username blocked,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

SALC

An account identifying itself as User:SALCcontributors has created two articles on recent Southern Africa Litigation Centre cases through Articles for Submission, and edited an article on a third [10]. Nothing in their editing seems egregiously POV, though their article on Southern Africa Litigation Centre & Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions & Others relies extensively on SALC court documents rather than a balance with documents submitted by opposition lawyers. (The article also appears over-reliant on primary sources generally).

It doesn't appear to me that anyone's yet discussed COI issues with this user. Since court cases are involved, could an editor more experienced give advice on how to proceed? Wikipedia:COI#Legal_antagonists appears to me to strictly ban direct editing on SALC cases by this account, but perhaps I'm over-reading the guideline. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, their username alone is certainly an issue. It's clearly a case of WP:ORGNAME and WP:NOSHARE. --Drm310 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:RingARoses

I would like it investigated that “Ringaroses” actually has a COI on the Optical Express page. I believe this user is the owner of the gripe site www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk and is a campaigner who has campaigned vigorously against Optical Express in 2012 and therefore has an agenda to pursue against the company. They are the owner of the gripe site and is actively posting malicious and false comments about Optical Express across a variety of internet message boards under a variety of usernames, some of which I have set out below.

Extended content

Evidence Description of owner of the gripe site here: http://www.swaptopshoes.com/shop/interchangeable-ladies-shoes/bare-sole-strappy-shoes/leather-flip-flops-for-women.html Owner of the gripe site - Creator of the Serendipity Sandal (Owner of the gripe site) is an amazing woman who has been busy for the last decade bringing us some real fashion treats. The Serendipity Sandal, previously known as the Barcelona sandal because of how practical it is to pack on a weekend with different straps to match different outfits, is a simple leather flop flop for women with five loops. It started off life over five years ago when she was on a buying trip in India and had the brainwave. It was first sold in the shop (owner of the gripe site) used to have in Camden, London where it was a huge hit with shoppers and (owner of the gripe site) has kindly allowed us to sell it at Swap Top Shoes now.

Please note the owner of the gripe site has links to Camden Market, India and footwear in general. Other than Optical Express page, the user ‘ringaroses’ has edited limited articles but has made some edits on the following pages which:

21:57, 7 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+203)‎ . . Camden Market ‎ (→‎Historic Stables Market: Facts edited) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m Goa ‎ (→‎Road: spelling) 22:20, 7 October 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+95)‎ . . m Ugg boots ‎ (→‎Trademark disputes: Added info)

In addition to these edits, one of the edits made was actually to include a campaign by owner of the gripe site around Camden Market. The edit was:

In 2006 Stables Market trader (owner of the gripe site) launched "Save Camden Stables Market Campaign" in a bid to stop developers destroying the original stables horse hospital buildings and tunnels which made up the market. Under the pseudonym "Suki Jacobs" she published an HMGovernment epetition and organised press coverage.

I would suggest that these edits highlight a clear link between the owner of the gripe site and the user ‘ringaroses’. In addition to this, the owner of the gripe site also pushes her campaign across a variety of online channels and forums. One of these forums is called Who Calls Me, a forum which she propagates untrue material and asks users to get in touch with her. There is no doubt of the link between the personalities on WCM and the owner of the gripe site as she implicitly states her identity on the forum.

She has posted on a number of occasions within Who Calls Me about the Optical Express Wikipedia page and has a clear interest in the page itself. It is beyond doubt, given the owner of the gripe sites other campaign tactics, that she would not attempt to edit the Wikipedia page. The fact that there is no account with one of her usual monikers would also support the theory that ringaroses is the owner of the gripe site.

Some of the owner of the gripe site Who Calls Me posts (N.B. Names include ORLM, Optical Express Ruined My Life (.co.uk) & Speechless amongst others):

ORML replies to Wondering 14 Sep 2012 Lol - pls can I choose surgeon ;) For information re DM's companies - including DM's date of birth (1968) - http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/906980843 Meanwhile, Wikipedia continues to be (allegedly) influenced by OE donations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optical_Express Factual content added to page, including details re www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk domain name victory, deleted by OE 'sock puppet' - rumoured to be David Moulsdale himself!

ORMLinfo replies to ORMLinfo 26 Sep 2012 Also of interest! David Moulsdale obviously desperate to bury any negative info about Optical Express as 'Hardlygone' (allegedly OE employee Patrick Kelly) fought hard last night to keep www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.ukfrom being mentioned on Wikipedia! thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optical_Express Some of the claims made by 'Hardlygone' on the Talk page are simply laughable! Wouldn't David M's time/money/resources be better spent helping/compensating patients he's hurt & improving his service?

ORMLinfo replies to ORMLinfo 26 Sep 2012 Correct Wikipedia link! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optical_Express

Optical Express Ruined My Life (.co.uk) replies to wondering 10 Nov 2012 Any reference to OERML deleted from article!! Corruption even at the heart of Wikipedia :( Hey ho... web designer currently working on brand new OERML site with lots of new info & recordings - including a press statement from Surrey police concerning an alleged "murder suspect" currently working for OE (see Pages 50/51) www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

This post suggests that the owner of the gripe site has been posting on Wikipedia as an active member and has more than a passing interest in the Optical Express page.

Different Channels Since “Ringaroses” created an account and started editing the Optical Express page (NB the only page the user edited for a while), many of her social media profiles including her Youtube channel videos include a link to the Optical Express Wikipedia page.

For the reasons above, I believe this user is the owner of the gripe site and therefore has a COI on the Optical Express page, as has been displayed consistently through their actions.

Hardlygone (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough behavioral evidence to say that Ringaroses is indeed the owner of the "gripe site", or someone very closely connected with the site. I note as well that Hardlygone has a declared COI with Optical Express. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not she, nor responsible for posts from ORMLinfo, I have never denied knowing the owner of the gripe site. I would suggest some paranoia being displayed here as it is glaringly obvious more and more people are reading the Wiki page due to a level of dispute creating a tsunami of interest from some who may never have looked at the page otherwise! Of course it will now be mentioned on forums. I must point out that I added only one entry to the OE article, quite a while ago in fact, which remained undisturbed until recently. I have fought to keep it because I believe the verified information should be included, not least because the Nominet decision was a significant one, regardless of which company it concerns. Finally, with unmerited accusations of "self promotion" from Hardlygone, I was amazed to see his own reference to OE's Team 21 added, without doubt blatant advertising and self promotion. As I said, this is farcical.RingARoses (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have a personal relationship with the owner of the gripe site that is motivating your editing, that is a conflict of interest. As I noted, Hardlygone also has a conflict of interest. Information on the Nominet dispute can be included since it drew media coverage. However, there should not be a reference that links to the gripe forum, nor do I see a particularly compelling reason to have any external links to it. The references should link to the media coverage, and potentially the Nominet dispute report only. Gigs (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you are being hoodwinked here. I have declared my COI openly. Others on the page have not. Please look again at the facts and your initial thoughts. The gripe site owner is/was a market trader at Camden Market and trades in footwear including UGG socks and has an interest in India and Optical Express. This individual also has posted on forums under various personalities that and has even been observed having exchanges with herself - responding to her own posts(to make out there are more behind her campaign and to keep conversation going), has posted defamatory material and has encouraged others in her posts to break the law. The gripe site owner has also directly posted on the OE page under her "known" IP 85.195.87.250 and also various other "Indian" interest articles. RingARoses has posted on a few articles regarding the subject of Camden Market, UGGs and India. To claim not to be the same person is laughable and I am sure an IP check might resolve this, although using a different IP is not beyond the realms of possibility. Even if it wasn't the same person, there is huge evidence of collaboration.
Further, an experienced editor and two experienced admins have removed the gripe site post in three separate occassions under the provisos that it was largely an insignificant event in the scheme of things and gave undue weight, or in the initial deletion case, for self-promotion, vandalism and edit warring.
I have explained more fully on the talk page to make editors aware that the original site contained defamatory content. Various actions were taken and by the time Nominet investigated, the hosting company had forced the site to a holding page because of defamation. The current content is not defamatory and as it stands, however the current text in the OE article does not convey this matter fully, and the gripe site owner under the guise of RingARoses (another of her online personalities), is making out that OE were trying to prevent free lawful speech. I urge you to rethink your position on the edit of this COI who has self-promoted.Hardlygone (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
We have to report it roughly the way the media did. That the media generally takes a dim view of companies using domain ownership disputes to shut down perceived defamation is something that's outside of our control. Avoiding an EL or ref link to the gripe site addresses promotional problems to a large extent in my eyes. My edit isn't binding or anything, but I think it was in line with our policies and guidelines. I know you aren't happy with any mention of this bit of negative information, but our articles include both negative and positive information that's drawn coverage in reliable sources. Gigs (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I just highlight that I am not unhappy with negative pieces of information being added if they are required for justified inclusion in the article. My problem in this instance is that I believe that several independent editors/admins have agreed that the inclusion of this is adding undue weight to a story which really is a non-event in the history of the company. The site received no mainstream media coverage and the only person who has been interested in posting it is the user who I have reported here as having a COI. I believe this user is attempting to utilise Wikipedia as an outlet for their anti-business campaign. The decision without any context is wrongly portrayed in this article whilst we cannot just accept a few bloggers opinion as a matter of fact, regardless of their background. If we look at other examples online, Ryanair had an issue with a gripe site which is not included in their article. That was a story that was reported in mainstream media but editors clearly believe it adds undue weight to the article. The Optical Express gripe site was not reported in mainstream media, was not a major event in the company’s history and its inclusion is solely for advertising purposes. I am trying to work with the community over this article to improve it – not for promotion Optical Express and certainly not to “keep negative stories out.” I want to enhance the Wikipedia community. As a COI, I am following best practice by not making any changes without agreement and by seeking constructive debate on the article. There are clearly other editors with COI who are not following this best practice, the simple reason being that they wish to use the article as a battleground to further their own agenda without any attempt to work with either myself or other editors.Hardlygone (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
One short sentence is rarely undue weight. Undue weight is about the article as a whole. It's often abused by people who want to include or exclude things to justify such additions or removals, but that's not the intention of the guideline. I don't disagree with you that there have been people pushing for negative information and trying to bias the article. Gigs (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You have asked that I step away from this article in order to improve it. I have said I am happy to do this as a COI but the user Ringaroses is continuing to edit the page to suit their own agenda despite several editors disagreeing with this comment. As I have said, I am willing to step away from the article if neutral editors create a neutral article within Wiki guidelines. I am concerned that this user continues to edit the page without concensus. Hardlygone (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask when it is likely that we will see an outcome of this report. I believe that I have set out enough evidence above along with recent edits to suggest that RAR has a clear COI. The user Gigs has already agreed with this whilst I am sure that recent edits will have done nothing to change this opinion. Again, I am obeying COI guidelines and seem to be punished for doing so. I would appreciate an update on this. Hardlygone (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
What outcome do you want? I think it's clear Ringaroses has a sort of COI because of their close relationship with the person that runs the gripe site forum. We usually don't impose enforceable sanctions here. So the outcome is, yes, Ringaroses has a COI. Gigs (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
On the article itself, there is a notice which highlights my own COI and I believe that there should also be similar for RAR. I think this would be useful for any neutral editors looking at the talk page as they may not see that issue immediately whereas they would be instantly aware of my COI. I think this would just help with clarity for anyone not involved thus far. Also, I believe it would be useful if a neutral editor was able to highlight COI guidelines to RAR in terms of directly editing the page. If they do not directly edit the page but engage in discussion on the talk page, as I have been doing, then I believe this would definitely help keep the article healthy and avoid any potential of edit warring in the future. Hardlygone (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:WestportWiki

I'm only reporting this username because I think they're worth keeping an eye on; my gut is telling me they're being paid to edit, and even if the words are generally neutral, the content most likely isn't. What clued me was, the following content at FirstGiving was created by User:FirstGiving:

FirstGiving is a online fundraising platform for 501c3 nonprofits in the United States. FirstGiving helps nonprofit organizations empower fundraisers to raise money online. With 10 years of experience in the space, FirstGiving's fundraising platform allows nonprofits to manage and run fundraising events and campaigns online, as well as take donations directly on a website or Facebook page.

The page was deleted by User:JamesBWatson as an implausible redirect, who added: "The previous content was spam." I blocked the user using {{uw-softestblock}}. It's very unusual for such pages to be recreated after deletion and blocking ... the few that do get recreated are often a sign that someone is very dedicated to their job, and I note that WestportWiki's edits do fit the profile. I'm not making a specific complaint about a specific page, just passing this name along as someone to watch. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi User:Dank first things first -- I see we're both interested in maritime--which is great. Hopefully we can work together in the future. But first as you have passed my name along as someone to watch (which im thankful for as had you not we'd have never met). As you have passed my name along as someone to watch and one watches one for reason and by doing so raise ethical questions around me (which by the way is a great thing to do as we'll catch cheaters most of the time and the community will be all the better for it).

So can we please scrutinize my edits and see if I'm a cheat? Rather than leave a cloud of suspicion over me let's look at any of my edits (either individually or/and what affect and change I am responsible for. Is it slanted or overweighting or removing controversial issues--I think you'll find the opposite is the case).

On FirstGiving -- the NYT reported that they are notable. Can you please verify via the JustGiving page (there is a section on FirstGiving with a link to the NYT story.

On the larger question of FirstGiving and the question of whether im paid or just passionate you can get a sense via reviewing the before and after version of FirstGiving's parent company's page: JustGiving. (If i was paid or had a COI I wouldnt have de-fluffed it. Dank can you please check to see if I'm cheating so what I am is clear -- otherwise I'm charged and suspect without a real trial so to speak? ThanksWestportWiki (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't have an "enemies list" here, and you don't need to worry about scrutiny; if no one says anything here, then we're done. I posted this only because some of your edits are similar to problematic edits, and I wondered if other people who work in the same area know something that I don't. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard Incidents re COI re Bipolar disorder and Bipolar spectrum at WP?

Admin noticeboard Incidents re COI re Bipolar disorder and Bipolar spectrum at WP? ParkSehJik (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that ParkSehJik has failed to provide any verifiable evidence regarding COI editing of the articles. This appears to be a non-event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

John Buchanan

An IP with an acknowledged conflict of interest has been blanking reference to funds paid secretly to Buchanan by his party for more than a decade, or rewriting to make it seem as if it all may not have happened:

blanking: [12][13]

doubtful rewrites:[14][15][16][17][18]

While the user is correct to point out that an early contemporary reference uses cagey language (specifically this one, which uses wording like "may have"), there is no shortage of refs that use terms such as "secret" (the ref already given) and "confirmed" or describe the arrangement in no uncertain terms. This was a major scandal in Nova Scotia at the time — Buchanan was under police investigation at the time of his Senate appointment — but has usually gone unmentioned on wiki.

This has all the makings of a garden-variety content dispute, but given the COI, I am bringing this here. Hairhorn (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Another IP editor from the University of Calgary has made a similar edit. Is this now an IP sockpuppet case? --Drm310 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Since all the IPs resolve to Calgary, I assume it's merely a case of never logging in, rather than deliberately changing IPs. Hairhorn (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The IP edits continue to obsessively revert to their preferred version. I don't think this will stop without additional action. --Drm310 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Onboard DC Grid

Please see my remarks on the talk page of the article Onboard DC grid and my message on Ensby's talk page to familiarise Yourself with the situation. As both have gone unanswered for more than a week, I decided to send Ensby a user warning {{uw-coi}} and create this discussion on the appropriate noticeboard. Björn Andersen (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The user hasn't been active since his last edit on 2 May 2012. I think it's safe to say that it's now an inactive account. Seems like a clear case of COI, but I wouldn't expect any response from him. I would either prune the article back to a version that isn't so promotional, or propose it for deletion. --Drm310 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Ensby last edit was about 7 months ago(cleanup is needed), however I'm a bit concerned by your current COI activity as their competitor.
I'm curious to know what your companies interest is with Onboard DC grid? --Hu12 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good News Club

Resolved

This editor created the article for Good News Club, and is one of the only editors in its relatively short history. The editor does not appear to have edited articles outside the scope of this single topic. The editor also runs a website (http://www.goodnewsclubs.info) which is specifically aimed at critiquing Good News Clubs. While I don't deny this editor probably has some beneficial content to bring to the article, I would argue that the conflict of interest exists wherever the editor cites their own website for reference. Does this fall under this arena, or into something else like reliable sources or original research? Just looking for a neutral opinion here. HokieRNB 19:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that Hokie (apparently the author of the original article on Child Evangelism Fellowship) is jumping the gun. I have not reverted any of Hokie's deletions, including any links to the (http://www.goodnewsclubs.info) website. The "Good News Club" article, in its current form, does not include any links to my website, so I don't understand why this is being escalated so quickly. In the "talk" section, I noted that in due course, I will provide additional links to secondary sources, including many newspaper articles and published books. I definitely welcome input, but until I have the opportunity to provide that additional content, any judgment is premature.Intrinsicdignity 8:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
You specifically asked for another party's opinion. Please assume good faith and understand there is no rush to judgment. I'm just asking the question. HokieRNB 23:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it can wait awhile until more formal citations are produced. It could just be a content issue, between two folks who have strong feelings on the topic. A short cooling off period could help. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mitsuo Fuchida

User Theleopard has said on the article talk page that he is Martin Bennett, a filmmaker who is working on producing a film about Fuchida. He is emphasizing his recent article published in the Naval War College Review by adding more words saying the same thing:

  • However, Martin Bennett contends in the Naval War College Review that Parshall's arguments are based primarily on conjecture and speculation.
  • On the other hand, in the Naval War College Review, Martin Bennett contends that Parshall’s article against Fuchida is riddled with errors, is based primarily on conjecture and speculation, and contains misplaced confidence in unreliable sources, and that his charges are groundless and without credibility.

I think the trimming is appropriate because the extra words do not add extra information. Theleopard Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Surely there are more than two historians who can discuss the reliability of one of the chief Japanese witnesses to two of the most analyzed battles of the war. I'm not keen on Bennett using himself as his own rejoinder but I'd want more documentation that Parshall's opinion represents the state-of-the-field, especially since it sounds as if it is an "everyone before me was wrong" position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 21:02, December 5, 2012‎

Elizabeth Chan

Anonymous WP:SPA dial-up keeps adding inappropriate sources to the article, won't discuss on talk page, is the primary defender on the AfD, has been accused by an editor other than myself of COI. This one could use a lot more uninvolved eyes. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there is another SPA account User:RosePetalCrush who has been referred to as a "stalker" by the subject (apparently police have been called) and who has inserted such vandalism as this namecalling and similar insults into this BLP. On this article, any COI is really not the issue - victims of BLP savagery are not required to understand the sometimes-arcane rules of Wikipedia to defend themselves from blatant harassment. User:RosePetalCrush should be indef blocked based on demonstrated behavior on-wiki, as well as a realistic assessment of the potentially dangerous off-wiki situation.
After promising "Ok, I will leave this subject alone." RosePetalCrush has continued the harassment campaign with a series of posts defending the prior attacks on the victim as being justified due to the victim calling the police after some kind of off-wiki feud (perhaps imagined on the part of RosePetalCrush? I don't know, but experience gives rise to the question).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Sheesh. Please block RosePetalCrush.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

RPC has removed her problematic edits to the deletion discussion and agreed at 02:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC) not to edit in the topic area again. One more peep out of her will result in a block.

Qworty has already been reminded several times not to treat editors who he perceives as having a COI as if they were the antichrist. This post to RPC, someone plainly not editing from a neutral point of view, was unhelpful, and the fact that an article may have been edited by its own subject is NOT a reason for deletion. The AfD was created in good faith by Little green Rosetta, recommend Qworty, RPC and the IP all consider they have said their piece and leave it alone for others to determine notability.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. Thank you for your input. The reason I brought this up here was so that other editors could take a look at this troublesome situation. I'll step away from it now. I am not, however, the editor who put the COI tag on the article, and in fact do not know if there definitely is a COI, which is why I asked the user the question. Also, I did not post the question to RPC, but to the anonymous dial-up. Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is a COI, but of the relatively benign kind in which someone realizes that some sort of online enemy is using their BLP as yet another attack ground and comes to Wikipedia to try to resolve the situation. My view is that the article will be deleted soon and this will all go away.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment When I noticed the legal threats, I tried to follow WP:DOLT to defuse the situation between the subject and RPC, and advised RPC to back off. I agree that "one more peep" out of RPC should result in a block.. The editor who claims to br Ms. Chan appears to want the article deleted but unfortunately I have reason to question the honesty of this editor and suspect that the anonymous ip(s) might be socks of this editor or have been canvassed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Cave (Wisconsin)

User admits that he works for this place, but demands the right to control and edit it to match his/her idea of how it should read. Has been warned about edit-warring and about COI, but ignores warnings. Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there might be several other SPA/COI and/or SockPuppets involved in more recent edits. Definitely still an open COI issue at the moment. Although this specific user has stopped editing since the COIN notice was placed on their talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Golfbravoecho

Resolved

This editor has been editing the Optical Express & Optical Express Talk pages for around two months now. They have solely edited these two pages with the exception of investigations into them. They have clearly been pushing an agenda against the company with their edits and have engaged in edit warring on a number of occasions where their point of view doesn't exist. I believe that this user has an obvious unstated COI as is clear through their contribs and believe this should be added as a banner at the top of the talk page in order to make neutral editors aware of this users agenda. Hardlygone (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just note that User:Hardlygone has declared a COI on his user page, working for the firm. I'm not sure whether Golfbravoecho has a COI, but it is clear that he doesn't like the firm (perhaps justifiably). HG might consider describing what he thinks Golfbravoecho's COI is. There's a specific case that he might possibly be referring to - that GBE works for a competitor - that we must be very careful with. As I understand it, a competitor adding negative info anonymously to a company's article in the UK would be breaking the law. But making any kind of legal threat on Wikipedia will get you in trouble here as fast as you can say "Scotland Yard." If anything like that is the assumed COI of GBE, I can only suggest settling it off Wikipedia. If it is not, then I can't even guess what the COI would be. Do disgruntled customers or former employees normally have COIs according to our rules? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Two points. Hardlygone has stated that the company (meaning Optical Express) have known my identity for sometime and that explains my editing. They are mistaken but this is a threatening statement and in addition they have never explained how they have this supposed knowledge when my identity is anonymous on here. I request that Hardlygone fully explains his previous statement that is on the Optical Express talk page.

Hardlygone has also had two attempts to show I am a sockpuppet and has had two formal sockpuppet investigations opened against me. Both have been closed and the decision was that I am not a sockpuppet. As an editor of Wikipedia I have every right to edit Optical Express. My edits are supported by references and I feel that Optical Express just don't like the fact I can edit the article. This explains their voracious attempts to have me silenced.--Golfbravoecho (talk) 07:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that there has only been one case opened. The two cases refer to a request for re-submission in regards to the layout of the initial information presented.Hardlygone (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of observations from a non-involved editor:

  1. It is rather ironic that the initiator of the COI/N User:Hardlygone has a specific conflict of interest himself; considering the fact that he has effectively entered into edit warring is in strict conflict with WP:COI. Further attempts to indirectly out and silence Golfbravoecho are not in good faith;
  2. It is unquestionable that User:Golfbravoecho has been involved in editwarring with Hardlygone and is also acting in what appears to be bad faith. Instead of working out issues in the talk/discussion area are not taking place, and instead boldly editing without discussion upon reversion.
  3. It is also apparent that User:Golfbravoecho is a single purpose account. While it is not specifically prohibited, it is certainly drawing extra attention and scrutiny to their edits.

I think this article is salvageable. I believe the best way to go about this, is to request that all involved editors to: (1) voluntarily stop editing the article directly; (2) contribute their suggestions and references to Talk:Optical Express#COI Resolution Section, and post the information they would like to see added to the article. Then several un-involved editors will go about sorting, vetting and including that information as appropriate. A couple of ground rules: (1) I suggest a voluntary edit pause of 1 month from all involved editors; (2) talk page submissions will be regarding the article content, and will be focused on why their content should be included; (3) No edit warring, personal attacks or debates about other involved editors will be tolerated; (4) voluntary agreement to a temporary block of 24 hours for any violations from involved editors. Hopefully everyone can agree to this resolution to the issues at hand so we can move forward with a good article. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. However, I assumed attempted "outing" or threats to "out" were grounds for an immediate block?--Golfbravoecho (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I am happy with the article as it stands, so will not be making any suggestions for improvements.Theroadislong (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe all issues revolving around COI have been addresses as well as the edit warring and will be marking this as resolved. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kudelski Group

Resolved

I am not looking to make a complaint about anyone here. I just would like some extra eyes on the above article due to a COI issue. Please see User:Gtwfan52#Kudelski group article for an explanation. Again, I am not seeking any sanctions against anyone, just some extra eyes on the article. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the article, did some research and posted to the AFD nomination. I will be making some BOLD edits to help clean things up, however it will turn into something more stub like. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears that the COI concerns have been resolved. There is currently a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kudelski Group in place. I will close this incident. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Jaeger-LeCoultre

Resolved

Potential COI but also maybe a chance to improve on the article. Could someone interested (I don't have time) have a look at Talk:Jaeger-LeCoultre? It's the nicest COI message I have ever seen. :) Garion96 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

User notified of COI policy on talk page; user self discloses coi; and only edits have been to talk page. Closing Tiggerjay (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Straw bale gardening

Resolved

I know nothing about gardening in general or about the subject of this article in particular - a purported superior method of gardening using straw bales, but the article is sourced exclusively by citations from the works of one Joel Karsten. A certain Joel Karsten - not necessarily the same one - uses "gyrojoe" as his username on Amazon and eBay (according to his public user profile page). I am thus concerned that the author of this article is affiliated with the prime source of information thereof, perhaps a case of WP:SELFCITE. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is certainly problematic - it currently consists of a list of claimed advantages of "straw bale gardening", ending with a virtual instruction to see Joel Karsten's books for expansion of more "advantages". There's no description of possible problems with using such a method of growing things - problems such as nutrient deficiency/imbalance, insufficient retention of moisture, excessive heat in the rootzone as decomposition takes place..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup. To all intents and purposes an advertisement. I think the simplest course of action will be placing a speedy deletion template on the article, and ensuring that Gyrojoe understands WP:COI policy. I'll go ahead with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
...And then it was gone... I see the article has now been deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sophie Masson

User has a similar name to the article title and has made a number of edits recently. Davidelit (Talk) 02:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am the author Sophie Masson and I have simply updated the page so it has relevant updated info on my work--just new books, new website, etc. Otherwise the info on this Wikipedia page would be outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophievmasson (talk • contribs) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I have advised the editor [19] to refrain from making changes to the article directly and post them on the article talk page instead. --Drm310 (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Subsea Valley

Resolved

User with same name as organization editing article of said organization.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue was resolved, the account was indefinitely blocked. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Talpinator2010 and Hokkaido

A few days ago, brand new account Talpinator2010 began adding large descriptions of the national parks of Hokkaido to the small table on the article. I reverted this initially because of the fishy reference of hokkaidonationalparks.com. I reverted for this fact, and then after he reverted, again, I reverted a second time upon seeing the unnecessary value of the text he added to the table. This is when I began the dialog with him on his talk page. His immediate response was to state something concerning tourism which first made me believe that he was perhaps involved in some sort of school project, but upon looking at the website he insisted on adding and the content on the article, it ust seems to me that he may be financially motivated to promote tourism to the island of Hokkaido. The text added is way too flowery, and my idea to incorporate it in a better fashion did not seem any better. There does not appear to me to be any need to have all that prose on the page, even if other pages have the content, and this single purpose account is just starting to smell a little funny.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ansei (talk · contribs) has seen fit to move everything Talpinator2010 had created to National parks in Hokkaido, where everything still reads like a puff piece but that's not exactly within the scope of this board I think.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nasmem

Resolved
 – Editor has been contributing constructively - No promotion involved. This is not a conflict, rather a common interest. Toddst1 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User appears to be an SPA adding external links to National Academy of Sciences bios to many articles. I have left a message on the user's talk page.--ukexpat (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

These look like useful links to me as they are good references. In some cases though e.g. this and this the biography is already cited as a reference, so isn't needed as an external link as well. I can't see any COI since there is nothing that Nasmem could gain from doing this. SmartSE (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Westinghouse Electric

I'm looking for help updating two details in the infobox of the Westinghouse Electric Company article. Earlier this week I posted a request on the Talk page (see here) explaining, with corrections and citations, that the CEO listed and ownership structure percentages are currently out-of-date. Would an editor here be willing to make these changes? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look now.--ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done--ukexpat (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Very much appreciated, ukexpat, thank you! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Help updating image in Hector Ruiz article

Resolved

On behalf of Hector Ruiz, I've requested help on his article's Talk page to update the image in the article's infobox. The existing image is a few years old and not a terribly clear or flattering photograph. I've uploaded a new photo to Wikimedia Commons, can an editor here help me by substituting this for the current photo? Since I am working with Mr. Ruiz's communications team I'd rather not edit the article myself, to avoid COI issues. If you can help, I'd be very grateful. Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I found the picture you uploaded but it looks like it's copyrighted meaning we can't use it. Here is where I found it. Do you know who holds the copyright? It might be easiest if you just took a new picture and uploaded it to commons.
Thanks for disclosing your COI, by the way. That always makes things easier. OlYeller21Talktome 00:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi OlYeller, thanks for looking into this and getting back to me. The copyright to the image is actually owned by Hector Ruiz and the image is in use on his own website, from where it was probably borrowed by computerhope.com. He has emailed the permissions desk with permission for its use under a CC-BY-3.0 license, hence the OTRS pending template that was on the image's page before. I've replied to the editor on Commons who has now removed the image to explain this and will try to re-upload the image.
Once the image is re-uploaded and OTRS has marked the image as permission received, would you be able to add it into the article for me? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I would be happy to. OlYeller21Talktome 16:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I put in the new pic. I don't think it is necessary to wait for OTRS to mark this as received. We can assume good faith since it can take OTRS six months to react to a submission. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Smallbones! Happily, OTRS have now processed the request and marked the image as permission received, so all is squared away there. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Cydia

Resolved

I have a fully-disclosed affiliation with Cydia (I work for the company that develops it), and another editor, User:Cantaloupe2, has recently been concerned about my edits related to this page, and removed several parts of the article due to multiple concerns (NPOV, sourcing, balance, COI, etc). We've had a lot of discussion of these concerns on Talk:Cydia, starting with Talk:Cydia#Neutrality and continuing through Talk:Cydia#Addressing recent changes, but we've had difficulty coming to consensus. We've also had disagreements on edits to articles on the related subjects iOS jailbreaking and SHSH blob. We agreed to start an RFC to invite outside perspectives on Talk:Cydia#RfC, and Cantaloupe2 is very concerned about the notifications that I posted to members of a task force related to the article. I would like to be a responsible COI editor, so I'm interested in external perspectives on these edits and discussions. Thanks in advance! Dreamyshade (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We civilly agreed on DS starting an RfC, but when there was no comment to RfC after 15 hours or so. DS moved forward with leaving ten identical personal messages to ten unique users he selected at his discretion from a pool of narrowly focused target audience found within iOS task force. He only provided 15 hours before he spread this message to ten users he chose in a span of ~four minutes which can arguably constitute spam canvas. A disagreement arose as he is a COI editor representing the subject Cydia and I feel that mass notification to a cluster of purposefully selected audience infringes spam and vote manipulation sections of WP:CANVAS.
This is a task force focused on operating system platforms of Apple Computer devices to comment on the matter of Cydia, a program used to facilitate installation of unapproved programs on Apple devices which had restrictions removed. The process is colloquially known as "jailbreaking". The programs used to breach usage restrictions on Apple devices commonly installs "Cydia".
Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Quick note: as disclosed in my user page categories, I'm a "she" instead of a "he". :) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(uninvolved non-admin comment) @ DS - The WP:COI policy does not prohibit conflicted editing but it strongly discourages it for a range of reasons. I would think a scenario like this would fit into that "list of reasons" fairly snugly. The simple fact of the matter is that a conflict becomes a problem when it encourages you to edit (with regard to a particular topic) differently to the way you would edit elsewhere. I think you understand why others might have a concern about what seems like a fairly obvious case of canvassing, even if it was not intended that way. So my question is - would you have done the same with regard to a subject with which you don't have a personal connection? 15 hours is a very short period of time for an RfC to be open before "getting impatient" and trying to bring others in (given +12 time zones for foreign editors mean some page-watchers might not have even seen it at all). So another two questions - did you do so because you don't like to leave things unresolved (and have done so elsewhere) or because you wanted to resolve this quickly without "more eyes" on it in order to protect the product from scrutiny? Are you a genuine editor who works on building WP who happens to have a conflict or are you only interested in this article/subject?
Only you can answer questions as to your motives (well, people can check records for my last question - I haven't by the way, it wouldn't change my comment). It's not impossible to contribute as a conflicted editor but you need to be aware of things that might suggest you are here to WP:PROMO something and that you're WP:NOTHERE to build WP. If your conflict is impacting your editing then you should consider only editing the talk page - asking others to make the actual edits - as many COI editors choose to do. If you are comfortable that it is not, then I could only suggest you be slightly more careful about such things, perhaps apologise in this instance and leave the RfC to do its thing for a while. Cheers, Stalwart111 12:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to comment! I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years, with 4k edits across many subjects and no major disputes until now. I believe I understand the issues with COI editing (here's another post I've made to this noticeboard), and I've made an effort to contribute usefully - as a person knowledgeable about these subjects instead of as a marketer (my work for Cydia is technical support and documentation, not advertising). Since Cantaloupe2 began revising this article significantly, I've mostly stuck to its talk page; I've edited the article twice and the talk page eleven times. After a few days of trying to discuss Cantaloupe2's revisions and not making much progress on consensus, I was itching to encourage more scrutiny on this article. :) I looked up the task force listed at the top of the article's talk page, and I notified its newest ten members, an attempt to avoid a biased selection. This is the first RFC I've participated in, and I agreed in the talk page discussion that I was a little hasty. An uninvolved editor has commented that they were "rather surprised by the accusations of canvassing", and another uninvolved editor removed Cantaloupe2's "Comments from canvassed editors" header with an edit summary of "As it didn't fall under 'canvassing', that's just an insulting section header, and completely unnecessary." Dreamyshade (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose I should clarify that. I recently posted a notification on the talk page of the editor who later removed that header; I invited User:SudoGhost to the talk page discussion due to recent participation in editing the article. Dreamyshade (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, yeah, it looks like they've made comments about motivations based on the content of the messages, whereas Cantaloupe seems to object on the basis of context (who you sent it to and when). So their comments are helpful but I'm not sure their comments will resolve Cantaloupe's concerns. It sounds like Cantaloupe is looking for an assurance that any haste was a matter of genuine enthusiasm and not related to any conflict of interest. From there it's all WP:AGF. Stalwart111 13:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the exact issue I have. You expressed that you removed the outdated WSJ source and the prose, because you're concerned the article can mislead during the few weeks it stays outdated/inaccurate while it gets sorted out. There are many outdated articles. Why do you give a greater level of concern for Cydia than any other articles?
I think DS has an unreasonable expectations of priority and urgency from editors. The editor demonstrates antsyness. It's important to remember that casual editors are not journalists or career public relations wiki editors who have specific goals, expectations on time frame, etc. Life first, and free time may get spent on wikipedia at their leisure. When one exhibits a higher level of concerns for a company that is directly connected to them than some random article, that is a sign of COI.
DS, in Cydia article, you've exhibited signs of greater vested interest than say ConsumerLab.com where we're both working on. Impatient in RfC (jumping the gun and serial talk page msg dump on 10 users), concerned about "inaccurate" information staying on for some time during editing and a significant effort put in talk page more so than anywhere.
To respond to DS' allegation that "Part of my concern here is that Cantaloupe2 has declined to respond to many ". Again, I sense unrealistic expectations of urgency. It takes time to address things. This kind of statement infers you expect me to take time out from real life activities and maintain wiki discussion at your expected pace.
Are you being permitted to edit Wiki on the clock? Are there expectations from your employer SaurikIT in any form or shape about Wikipepdia article on Cydia? Why do you exhibit a greater sense of urgency on Cydia page than Consumerlab.com article? Does the employer monitor the page and discuss about it on the clock? You've put significant effort in talk discussion. You're doing all this on your free time, on your own and not attributed as work spent on work-related activities as I am doing and you receive no compensation, recognition or any consideration from SaurikIT for your part on Wiki? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I do care about the Cydia article, and I can't find discouragement against effort in WP:COI, WP:COI+, or WP:BPCOI. You can see from my edit history that I've contributed significantly to lots of articles, including fixing inaccuracies when I have enough knowledge to be confident about them, and that I do tend to respond very quickly to comments and issues on articles I watch - for example, see recent discussions on the talk page for social bookmarking and the edit history archives on Etsy. I edit articles out of interest; I like software and websites, so I work on them professionally, and I improve articles about them for fun.
Whether or not there are guidelines for balanced effort on topics, I believe that I've put in a decent amount of effort on ConsumerLab.com issues (deletion discussion, fish oil talk, CL article and talk, Absander talk, RS/N board, etc.), with quick responses for a few days; currently I'm waiting for the reliable source discussion to arrive at consensus so that working on related articles will involve less debate. I am discussing Cydia so thoroughly because I have a lot of knowledge of the subject, I can't edit its article directly, there are many recent edits and comments to address, and not many other editors seem interested in it. You've also seemed to often respond very quickly to material you find questionable, but you're right that I need to be more careful about expecting quick responses - it's a nice thing, not something I should expect, and I'm sorry for any stress I've caused. I recently saw that WP:COI+ includes a suggested Response Timeline, which is helpful - it says 48 hours for talk page discussions. I'll stick with that as a minimum.
Tiny software companies tend to be informal; we don't have clocks or assigned tasks; we trust each other to work on what is needed. (Larger software companies sometimes do this as well, like Valve.) I do not consider Wikipedia editing to be what I'm paid to do - for one thing, as I've explained in a few places, Wikipedia editing wouldn't be a good choice to include in my work, since it can only reach a small subset of current and potential users. Only a portion of article readers have iOS devices, and probably most readers who do own iOS devices wouldn't be able to jailbreak them even if they wanted to, since there are no jailbreaks available right now for many devices. There are probably some readers who already have jailbroken devices and are curious to learn more about Cydia, but this article can't be very useful to them since it can't include how-to information (much to the dismay of many people posting feedback on the Cydia article, but they're incorrect). With fewer than 2k views of the Cydia article every day, millions of Cydia users, and large numbers of Cydia users who don't speak English, I spend my work time on more efficient and productive ways to help our users. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dreamyshade, the COI guideline advises editors with a financial conflict of interest not to edit the article directly (see the section called WP:NOPAY): "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly, and to provide full disclosure of the connection." Whether you directly work in marketing isn't relevant here, in part because the company is (I believe) tiny. It would be better if you were to use the talk page to suggest changes.
I can't tell whether your edits were appropriate because I'm not familiar with the subject, but here for example you removed the Wall Street Journal as a source without explaining why (that I can see).
As for the RfC notifications, they were neutral, but it would have been better to post them on the WikiProject talk page, rather than alerting individuals. It's also worth mentioning that the RfC is more likely to attract responses if you ask a specific question. If you need further input, there's the reliable sources noticeboard for questions about particular sources, and the neutrality noticeboard if that is the issue. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you as well! It sounds like I went too far in thinking that my general editing experience could help me be neutral when editing this article, encouraged by lack of challenges during the 1.5 years that I've been working for Cydia and editing these articles; I've started sticking to the talk page for anything substantial, and I'll continue to do that. I've added a lot more material to iOS jailbreaking than I have to Cydia, and I've made major contributions there that haven't been challenged: adding non-US material to fix a globalization problem, adding a section of technical detail, and resolving a dispute about detail level by coming up with a compromise for this section and writing the prose to make it happen. I also recently improved SHSH blob from this state to this state (although Cantaloupe2 challenged its balance and we haven't yet resolved that issue).
Part of my concern here is that Cantaloupe2 has declined to respond to many of my talk page comments about their edits; see this section. I wrote detailed comments explaining that several of their edits made the article worse instead of better, including removing material that was poorly sourced seemingly without making an effort to check whether it was verifiable, which doesn't seem to fit with the recommendations on WP:V. I believe my talk page comments have been reasonable and worth addressing, but due to my COI, I'm interested in more opinions on this to make sure.
Regarding removing the WSJ source, it was supporting Cantaloupe2's addition of an outdated and easily disproved statement, so I decided that the least controversial way to fix that problem during a dispute (in order to avoid misleading article readers during the possible weeks of editor discussion) was to remove the statement and its source until we could agree on what to do about it. Before removing it, I discussed my concern in my comment here that starts with "Unfortunately you've replaced a poorly-sourced but accurate statement with a well-sourced but inaccurate statement." I just added a comment with a more recent Washington Post source that can be used to verify the original text that Cantaloupe2 removed.
I chose not to post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apple Inc. because it said "This page is for discussion of the project only"; I figured I had an issue with a specific article, not with WikiProject administration - did I misinterpret this statement? I'll post to the talk page to ask the project to consider adjusting that text to be more clear about inviting RFCs. And since Cantaloupe2 and I disagree on many things, I figured that it was best to write a maximally-neutral RFC question - any details I included probably would have been contested. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, the issue with financial COI is whether the editor is able to be neutral, or whether they would have to worry about their jobs. If something very bad were to be reliably published about your boss, would you rush to the article to add it? Probably not, and that's where the problem lies. Conflict of interest stems from external relationships that affect an editor's ability to write neutrally on a topic. It isn't possible for outsiders to judge the content of everything, so we have to assume that the editors on the page are at least able to be neutral, in theory, and that they wouldn't be penalized in some way if they were. But when it's an employee, especially of a tiny company where the employee's real name is known, that assumption is no longer a safe one. As a matter of interest, what was the inaccurate statement in the WSJ? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to stick to describing general information that seemed missing instead of adding news updates, but I see your point that I wouldn't rush to add something new that was drastically negative - partly because I wouldn't trust myself to describe it neutrally, unlike my usual contributions of describing technical features. Fortunately I wouldn't lose my job if I added negative but accurate material - that's one benefit of a tiny company! I recently updated information about the DMCA exemption for jailbreaking tablets being declined, which isn't exactly flattering, but it's important. In any case, this seems like it's still a concern even if COI editors only propose new material on a talk page instead of adding it directly; I'll keep it in mind.
The WSJ article was accurate when it was published in 2009, but it's now outdated. Here's the text of Cantaloupe2's recent article revision: "Some of the software packages available through Cydia are free, while some may become available through Cydia Store. In order to use these software, user must download special software that alters their iPhones." The reference is "Breaking Apple's Grip on the iPhone", March 2009, WSJ, and the text of the article includes "The developer behind some popular iPhone software on Friday plans to open a service called Cydia Store that could potentially sell hundreds of iPhone applications that are not available through Apple's official store. Users must download special software that alters their iPhones before they can run these programs." That plan did happen; this April 2011 Washington Post article (an existing citation for a couple statements in the article) says: "...Cydia, the biggest unofficial iPhone app store, which offers about 700 paid designs and other modifications out of about 30,000 others that are free." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The sentence I was wondering about (a sentence you removed from the lead, sourced to the WSJ) was: "In order to use these software, user must download special software that alters their iPhones." [20] The source said: "Users must download special software that alters their iPhones before they can run these programs." [21] Is that inaccurate? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That WSJ sentence is accurate. It's somewhat confusing/vague (you aren't a "user" of Cydia until after you jailbreak your device), but it's fine. I had no COI reason to remove that part (it's actually helpful to Cydia if Wikipedia tells people how to install it!); it was basically collateral damage while removing the factual problem. I could have left that part there and fixed the grammar and clarity, but Cantaloupe2 and I have disagreed about the details of phrasing fixes before, so I felt it was best to remove the whole WSJ edit and discuss it on the talk page. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I added a note to Talk:Cydia to invite Cantaloupe2 to specifically discuss this sentence. Thanks for asking about it! Dreamyshade (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hope things work out. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Amity University

A simple google search shows that the above user is an alum of the University. The have been told repeatedly about our COI policies. [22] They continue to solely edit the article about Amity University with the intent to remove any unflattering content (and admittedly previously the article had been used inappropriately to COATRACK inappropriate BLP content about its founder) and insert promotional content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

slight modification to the above assessment, the editor has now slightly expanded their editing scope from simply scrubbing and puffing the University article to whitewashing the article about the Universities founder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

COI

The above 4 articles appear to be WP:COI with WP:SPIP, WP:AUTO, WP:LINKFARM, and article creation via WP:MEATPUPPET(???) PeterWesco (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

One more article to be included: Space City (newspaper) PeterWesco (talk) 02:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor has started a dialog on his talk page: [Tdreyer talk page] PeterWesco (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Dagoldman

User:Dagoldman ([[23]]) appears to be an account primarily devoted to adding references to the research of a doctor of the same name. Unfortunately, one of this doctor's articles had a new theory about Franklin D. Roosevelt's illness, and Dagoldman appears to have added this theory to every FDR-related article on Wikipedia. Is it acceptable for me to systematically remove these? Other articles edited by the account appear to be tainted by COI concerns as well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The account explicitly identifies as the author here. I've gone ahead and begun to remove these additions, which the author acknowledges are designed to promote his research ("If the idea ever does get generally accepted, I think it will be largely attributable to the exposure in wikipedia."), while noting my actions and the reason at each talk page to invite neutral eyes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that Dagoldman has also been on the talk page arguing in support of his research as several IP addresses (or so one of the IP addresses has just stated). The IP accused me of threatening and harassing him by reverting his edits, and asked for outside editors to review my actions. I directed him to AN/I, but thought I'd post another note here as well. Like him, I'd be really glad to get more eyes on this. It's my first time dealing with COI of this magnitude. Your opinions would be welcome at Talk:Franklin_D._Roosevelt's_paralytic_illness#Conflict_of_interest.
Alternatively, if I can't get any assistance at this board, is there another board I can go to? Frankly, this is getting pretty exhausting.-- Khazar2 (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the Armond S. Goldman scholarly publication called "What was the cause of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's paralytic illness?" is useful because it was cited by about 7 other scholarly works, making it fairly notable as these things go. This work should not be removed as a reference simply because it was added by a guy with a conflict of interest. You cannot fault the guy for being aware of the power of publishing a theory in Wikipedia.
However, uncited opinion-based sentences such as this are very problematic: "However, retrospective analysis favors the diagnosis of Guillain-Barré syndrome." These promote the Goldman et al conclusion as being the new norm whereas such an announcement should be indicated strongly in the references, which is not there. Of course, a non-Goldman reference must be found to say how important is the Goldman et al finding. Absent of that there is no firm conclusion to be made about FDR's disease. Instead, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV must be used to say who is behind each of the theories, and to make sure that the mainstream view gets shown to the reader as the standard, established version.
Any author of this paper cannot revert article content against the wishes of an editor who is not conflicted. Instead, the COI person must discuss the issue on the article talk page and gain consensus. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it's still worth using as a reference in some articles (I think I left three paragraphs on it in the illness one), and am working with a user at the FDR main article to figure out how best to re-incorporate it there. As for the many other articles that mention FDR's polio in passing, my take is that it's fine to leave them as is for now; that's what an overwhelming majority of sources say. However, if someone wanted to go through and add, say, a footnote to each to note the GBS minority opinion, while clearly identifying it as a minority opinion, that would seem reasonable to me, too. (Maybe not desirable... but reasonable. =)) -- Khazar2 (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Beyond the content issue, would anyone be willing to speak directly to this user about the behavior issues involved here--the promotional editing, the failure to disclose COI, and the sock-puppeting with IP accounts? These seem like behaviors that shouldn't continue. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have left him a message. It's not necessary to start so many discussions. Once you open an SPI I would close the ANI and direct further discussion here. Gigs (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I started the second thread because this one initially went 2 days without response, and the user requested outside intervention because of perceived threats and harassment. I appreciate your taking a look. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sterling College (Vermont)

Sterling Admissions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The curriculum combines structured academic study with experiential challenges and plain hard work to build responsible, productive, stewards of the environment.

The WP:PROMO is getting deep.

You mentioned in your edit summary that you, "thought I'd try this board one more time." This user hasn't been reported here before. They only have three edits. Have you tried talking with them? I've looked for a conversation with them and I haven't found anything. OlYeller21Talktome 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I made no such comment PeterWesco (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
User name reported to WP:UAA as a CORP/SPAMNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
@Peter, you're right. I misread diffs in the history. My apologies. Please make sure to sign your comments in the future to avoid such issues in the future. OlYeller21Talktome 17:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Library (movie)

Seems that he himself is the author of the film and claims he made all the picture and stuff. Conflict of Interest declared here. Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: Article going through a AFD now (entry here). Was tagged as G-12 speedy delete (copyright infringement from this site) by me but it was rescued by FreeRangeFrog (who dialed a AFD instead). --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 12:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

SkillPages

I have cleaned up these two articles about a new social media company and its founder; they were originally written as puff pieces by single-purpose accounts. SkillPages has just recently started gaining some notoriety for its approach to adding new members by reportedly raiding people's e-mail address books; see:

I also left notes about COI for the accounts above.

Requested actions:

  1. Add these articles to your watchlists.
    • I'm off-line a lot these days. We now have 2 article risks -- corporate white-washing and drive-by, non-neutral, unreferenced edits by angry recipients of what they think is spam. I've seen both in the last several days.
  2. See what you think of Iain MacDonald's notability.
    • I think he's borderline; there are plenty of articles about his companies that give him some attention but does that add up to notability? You decide.

Thanks!
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Aarons

A defense attorney who first paid someone to create an article about himself, and now adding various inappropriate references to himself and vigorously defending his article's AfD. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Response: I am the defense attorney. I did not pay someone to create an article about me. I did vigorously defend my article's AfD for notabilty and identified myself properly. I do not believe that is improper. However, I do agree that my reference to myself in Tesuque, New Mexico was inappropriate. It has been removed. I am brand new to Wiki editor COI customs and procedures, and did not understand I should not make self serving references. Steve Aarons (talk) 18 December 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You have a clear conflict of interest so you are strongly encouraged not to edit the article or comment at AFD. Oh and you do say on your talk page that you are working with "professional Wiki author"...what does that mean other than paying someone to write or edit an article?--ukexpat (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
A $5 search fee at fiverr or a free cup of coffee should not create a conflict of interest. A greater danger stems from deletionist bias without any rational basis. As a fledgling editor -this is my first week here - i will heed the Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia suggestion on the article in question and "propose edits to other editors on article talk pages, and seek their feedback." Steve Aarons (talk)
AfD page editing: Changes made to comments under an IP and is voting on his own page to keep. He has now voted twice. PeterWesco (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for help with revisions to MindManager article

In recent weeks, I've been working for the company Mindjet in order to make some updates to the article for their software product MindManager. I've posted my proposed revisions at Talk:MindManager, and one volunteer editor, User:Ronz looked at things and seemed okay with the changes that I proposed, but it now appears that he won't have time to actually move them over into the mainspace. I'm hoping someone from here might be able to take a look at the revisions that I've proposed and, assuming everything looks okay, go ahead and make the changes. Thanks so much! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 16:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ASCII Group

I had speedied this as a copyvio a few days ago, the editor requested the source via email, but when I obliged returned copyright violating material to the page (then in their userspace). Over the course of the next couple days, I outlined all the things I thought were wrong with the article and removed all the copyright violating material (I hope), but it seems like the editor is not making the changes necessary to make the article neutral and verifiable. The discussion is on the talk page. The editor stated their conflict of interest there but then removed it, so I'll leave it to folks to check the talk page history if they're interested. I think the article should be AFD'd for the reasons I outlined on the talk page but I'd like to step back from this so I'd like to leave it in the capable hands of folks here. Thanks much! delldot ∇. 02:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Scott F. Wolter

Hookedx claims to be the subject of this article and is reverting material critical of him with the edit summary "Nielsen is publishing his opinion based on negative personal bias. My geological work on the KRS was peer-reviewed by eight geologists and it is inappropriate for a engineer to publish comments about geological research he once supported." When he did it the first time I gave him a COI warning, but he's done it again with the edit summary "I will now be filing a complaint with Wikiepedia". I'll tell him about this discussion on his talk page now. I don't see any BLP issues as the edits are sourced and attributed and relevant. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

comment: Does Wolter, or his theories, have any notability? The article appears to be WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO (Google infobox glory / Book sales) with the only people who care seem to be the subject of the article and the person who disputes his findings. Seems like an AfD candidate with a possible merge of his glorious one paragraph into Kensington Runestone. PeterWesco (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
That was my thought too - and I suspect that the books may possibly be self-published. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hank Harrison editing his own article and removing negative material

Stone Savant has been removing negative material from this article and added a link to an anonymous polygraph test on Harrison's site with text saying "In 2011 he took and passed a series of Polygraph tests proving he is not racist or anti - semetic and did not give his daughter drugs at any time." which I removed as clearly not a WP:RS, containing material not in the source and also claiming a polygraph test can prove something.[24] I found a talk page in which he said he had uploaded an image of Hank Harrison and that it was copyright to Hank Harrison and assumed a close relationship and COI. He posted to my talk page saying " I do not have a close relationship with Hank Harrison. I Just took a snap and assumed I would be able to post it." So I assumed good faith and withdrew the COI allegations I made at BLPN over his continued removal of negative material (he is now at 3RR). Another editor noted that he is signing as zendogg@gmail.com which is Harrison's contact address.[25]. [26] shows that this is Harrison himself. See also User:Stone Savant Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Stone Savant's posts at Talk:Hank Harrison now claim he is Hank Harrison. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

How to deal with COI

I was recently investigating a source that kept popping up in one or two articles and seemed somewhat dodgy. One user was responsible for adding the source. While investigating, I found that one of the people behind the source bears an uncanny resemblance to the user's self-description on his/her userpage. (Being any more specific than this would come very close to outing.)

How do I deal with this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Do consider a simple, polite question to the editor: "Are you aware of our guideline WP:COI?" And possibly a followup "Do you have a conflict of interest of the type that WP:COI encourages you to disclose?" If, after a polite discusion with that editor, you have suspicions that he has an undeclared COI and is making problematic edits, post the problem here. Don't reveal the suspected name. Do realize that it's almost impossible to know who somebody is simply by his/her edits. Make sure that you are meeting the standards you're asking him or her to meet - e.g. have you declared any COI? Don't edit war. A little transparency can go a long way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 10:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Young Liberals (Australia)

Single purpose editor has been pushing very strongly for changes at the young liberal Australia article. this account has only edited this article although he claims to have previously edited under an anon IP. he believes the Young Liberals articles is the "worst" article and offers very long winded arguments on the article's talk page. in my long experience on WP, the style of pushing indicates to me a connection to the article subject. Veritas80 denies being a member of the group and just claims to be a "political science student". I've tried to engage him and request what other articles he has worked on and how he drew the conclusion of this from his "audit" of political articles. lastly he shows no interest in my request to edit or look at other similar articles in his determination to push through his changes. it's fine to check WP for bias but to say only one article is the number one and absolute highest priority for "correction". he has probably spent an hour arguing with no attempt to edit other articles. I ask the broader community to look into this. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Being an ordinary member of a political party wouldn't in itself be a COI. COI would normally require that he held some position, was paid in some capacity, had close relationships with those who were, or was campaigning in real life for something he was editing about onwiki. I can see he's making arguably POV edits (removing well-sourced material, [27] though I'm saying that without looking at the context), but that's a separate issue from COI. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
young liberals is not a political party but the youth arm. COI is relevant here as the motivation for editing as " highest priority". also it's COI to go about soley removing criticusm sections of something you are connected with. We see this time and time on wp, companies/ organizations trying to remove negative material on their wp article. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to bring the community's attention to the Talk page of the article in question, specifically the section titled 27/12/12 Discussion: 'Criticism' Editing'. Nothing highlights LibStar's disingenuous attempts at editing this article than his refusal to acknowledge my extensive effort in attempting to engage in discussion about the legitimacy of some pieces of information in the article. As is easily visible, upon making edits and having them undone immediately with no counterargument or reasoning aside from accusations of bias, I spent considerable time outlining in the talk page why I believe the information does not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. In response, three times, LibStar has not contributed even one word into this discussion and has instead accused me of having a conflict of interest. As was pointed out by SlimVirgin, conflict of interest is a specific thing defined by Wikipedia guidelines as 'editing Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers.' I have attempted to engage in a discussion about the content in good faith before editing and have extensively outlined my concerns, highlighting the fact that I am not intending to promote any interest other than that of not having this article remain a hotbed for political knife-wielding. I ask anyone seeking an explanation of my editing practices to see said Talk discussion and contribute their opinion. Despite making it clear that I am not involved with the young liberals and giving full reasoning for my choice of edits LibStar is continuing under the assumption that I am affiliated. It is therefore their assertion that seeking to edit this article as 'highest priority' is a COI. I believe it to be firmly against Wikipedia's spirit;; that an article needing serious attention a should be left as is in fear of appearing biased. I have asked several times for a discussion of the issue but LibStar has refused, as evidenced by the talk page. Veritas80 (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

if this is merely a pov issue, then why isn't the editor looking at other articles for pov? Rather than relentlessly arguing that this article is highest priority. Highest priority in comparison to what other article, please list them. Veritas constant refusal to even look at other articles demonstrates a single focus here. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As made clear in the talk page of the article in question, when deeming this article as in highest need of attention, I have compared it to every other Australian political party/interest group page as part of an academic exercise for a course and then subsequently as a self audit. This account was created 2-3 days ago. I had intended to do significantly more editing at this point and indeed as mentioned in the talk discussion of the article, I was set to move my immediate attention to another article until my edits were undone without any counter-argument or reasoning by LibStar, I take exception to such activities and will not be bullied out of removing political knife-wielding from an encylopedia article. It is for this reason that the article will remain my highest priority until these issues are resolved; I note that you have put forward no effort whatsoever to assist in resolving these issues and instead are turning this COI board into your personal attack channel, as you did 3 times now to the article's talk page.
Might I also remind you for your future encounters with editors that Wikipedia requires care to be taken when questioning the editing of single purpose accounts and that well-intentioned, niche editing is welcomed where the aim is not to promote/advocate for an unsuitable agenda. Veritas80 (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

which university course is this? And can you give me examples of negative bias found on labor and green party related articles. Do you intend to edit other articles? LibStar (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Political Science as a discipline involves many courses examining political behaviour and the effect of bias. An example of a negative bias elsewhere, also high on my list of importance, is the relationship portion of the Australian Greens article, particularly the subsection The Coalition. I have stated several times that I intend to edit other articles and indeed would have by now if I hadn't faced such baseless opposition to my edits. You will note I do not ask whether you have a COI or ask about your personal details because the only thing important to me is the content of the article, Julia Gillard (Prime Minister on opposite side of politics to the Young Liberals) herself could edit this article and I wouldn't complain as long as in doing so she ensured the article was neutral, encyclopedic and did not promote/advocate her personal views.Veritas80 (talk) 03:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
at which university has a subject asking to review wikipedia articles? last year we had a UTS lecturer asking students to create Wikipedia articles. I have absolutely zero conflict of interest, check my edit history, I edit a wide range of articles and am not singularly focused on one article. one topic eg politics is fine but you have not shown any interest in actually editing other articles despite spending hours arguing your case. sometimes a simple edit take 2 minutes, so you could easily edit 3 or 4 articles in 10 mins. LibStar (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Jack Royerton

Resolved
 – user inactive for 2 months, reopen if problems return

As I pointed out here, there is an IP editor ([28]) who geolocates to Flagler College in Florida and keeps adding unsourced claims regarding a certain Jack Royerton to a wide selection of articles ranging from folk and rock music to theological topics. Apparently there is a Jack Royerton on the college's staff, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest (i. e., that the IP is either Royerton or one of his students). Most of these claims seem to be almost impossible to verify, since there is almost nothing about Royerton on the internet and a Google search for him consists almost entirely of sites that mirror Wikipedia. Perhaps someone should consider contacting him (or whomever is editing on his behalf), if there is a way of doing so, and asking him to provide reliable sources backing up the claim about him. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I added a more detailed notification to the IP user's talk page. If he's still using that IP, hopefully he'll notice it and respond. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This IP hasn't edited in two months, so I'm not sure there is much discussion to have over an inactive editor. I would suggest keeping an eye on this user, and reporting again should they become disruptive again. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Marshall Strabala

Previous participants

Current participants

Previous discussions

I'm walking out the door but need to start this report. Several SPA-COI editors are attempting to remove information regarding a lawsuit against the subject of the article essentially because it was settled out of court. I can present more information later unless Novaseminary beats me to it. The COI editors include one IP with a declared COI and Jon Strabala. I'm bringing this here because the number of COI editors is increasing and one is now making accusations of libel. Sorry I couldn't provide more information right now but the talk page should be enough to bring anyone up to speed. Later, I'll continue to present more info. OlYeller21Talktome 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Here's information that should bring others up-to-speed and show evidence that several COI editors (possibly WP:MEAT puppets, I don't see a reason to think they're WP:SOCKs) are letting their COI get in the way of what's best for Wikipedia.
Previously on the article about Marshall Strabala, 108.75.223.67 was found to be Jon Strabala, a relative of the subject of the article (obviously a close connection). Jon was good enough to declare his COI. While he was initially very close to making legal threats and regularly arguing with others on talk pages (see short contrib lists of "Previous participants" section), in my opinion, he has since been a more constructive participant on the talk page of the article but there are still issues with his editing. As an example, he presents his opinion and facts with references when he would like something to be changed about the article (see here and here for examples) but as you can see here, he added the information about the lawsuit being settled (I'll get to that below) but made the article show that the judge had dismissed the case with prejudice as opposed to that the plaintiff requested this action due to a settlement being reached. While his entry was technically true, it was hardly showing the whole story and in my opinion, misrepresented the facts. In short, the previous COIN discussion outlines Jon's bad behavior which has turned around but still shows some issues.
The problem stems from a legal case involving Marshall Strabala where he was being sued because his firm "publicly misrepresented his role in several projects while 'intentionally minimizing or entirely omitting the nature of Gensler's contribution.'". Editors have since attempted to wax the page, making the lawsuit look less negative. They did so by reiterating that the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Recently, 24.148.81.208 tried to alter the text to show that Strabala alone created a design as opposed to helped design - the very issue that got Strabala sued (see here).
Recently, the case has been dismissed with prejudice at the request of the plaintiff after a settlement conference (see here). In case you're not familiar with these terms, a settlement was reached and part of that settlement required that the plaintiff request that the case be dismissed with prejudice so that it could never be reinstated.
Since then, the talk page has been filled with attempts by RobertJoeIllinois, 67.120.51.46, and 24.148.81.208 to have any mention of the lawsuit removed from the lead, which other editors (Novaseminary and me) agreed to but now they want it removed entirely from the article. I suspect puppetry because all of these accounts link policy as external links, they believe that Novaseminary is some sort of master overseer of the article (he didn't egg this on, they came up with this themselves), and all keep citing "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPCRIME#BLPCRIM" specifically which is a redirect of Wikipedia:BLP#BLPCRIME that seems too specific for all to have accidentally found and linked in the same way on their own. They also have the same opinions which obviously doesn't prove that they're socks of any sort but is important to note.
76.175.49.35 has one edit to WP - the talk page of this article - and supports the three users listed in the last paragraph. They understand internal links and may be another person entirely.
Regarding the COIs, 67.120.51.46 outed himself as Jon Strabala (also edits under 108.75.223.67). 24.148.81.208 declared that he has a COI here. RobertJoeIllinois hasn't specifically outed themselves but mentioned here that they made a comment "last week" and the only editor that isn't Novaseminary or me that has edited the page in the last week is 76.175.49.35, the WP:SPA that clearly has a different editing pattern than RobertJoeIllinois but shares his feelings. From this, I think that we can assume that he's either Jon Strabala or 24.148.81.208 who declared that they have a COI. I won't assume but it's possible that this is Marshall's attorney and brother, Joe Strabala (I don't know where the "Robert" comes from). The "Illinois" most likely comes from the fact that the case was transferred to Illinois.
As for the argument taking place, right now, it seems to be hinging on the belief that any mention of the settled lawsuit in the article should be removed per Wikipedia:BLP#BLPCRIME and RobertJoeIllinois believes that if it is kept in the article, it is libel. He emailed WMF per WP:LIBEL but I'm not sure how or if WMF will participate. He was warned by Orangemike about legal threats as apparently both of us feel that he was close to making a legal threat but had no yet made one.
I feel that Novaseminary and can monitor the article itself and make sure that it's adhering to policy but more participants won't hurt. I'd also like to get this information down somewhere in case it pops back up in the future. We may need to start an WP:SPI or meatpupperty investigation before long. OlYeller21Talktome 20:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree entirely with OlYeller21's report. I would just reiterate that the article really could use some more watchers (so could many others, I know). Other than in spurts there is not much to review so I hope it wouldn't be a big drain. As discussed in the prior COIN report, the article early on had been largely the product of a PR individual who claimed to personally represent Strabala (and subsequntly made legal threats and was blocked). My early work on the article was to remove the self-serving, POV fluff and make the article NPOV. As for the material the IP and others want removed (Marshall Strabala#Lawsuits), I find it to be a straightforward (even boring) recounting of the facts as reported in RSs of a series of events clearly related to Strabala's career (the reason he passes BIO in the first place). It makes quite clear who alleged what about Starbala and through what means, nothing more. Novaseminary (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't see that Mykjoseph was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. It may be worth starting an SPI with that being the case. OlYeller21Talktome 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The COI/SPA/IP eds seem to have stopped for the time being. If they start up again, I agree it would be time for SPI per WP:QUACK. Novaseminary (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Greenpois0n

Resolved

A bit more than a week ago, I added a request edit template to Talk:Greenpois0n with a proposed rewrite, and I haven't seen any comments since then, so I'm just posting a note here to invite some extra eyes on the project. The current article is poorly-sourced with overly specific technical details, and the revision is well-sourced and hopefully more readable, so I hope this seems like a sensible rewrite. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't an issue for COI unless you believe you or someone else has a direct conflict of interest in this article. I see this page has already has a AfD request, and it is actively being discussed. If it survives that, then consider WP:RFC instead. Marking as resolved since COIN appears to be mispalced for this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I work for the company that produces software installed by the tools discussed in the article, so I believe I have to follow COI guidelines and ask for external opinions before making changes to it. I was hoping that this rewrite could present a better version of the article to people discussing whether it should be deleted. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Columbia International College

Resolved
 – no problems in over 1 week after contributors were properly warned Tiggerjay (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This article keeps getting additional pictures and videos, to the point where it's as much a recruiting website as an article. Orange Mike | Talk 16:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

74.112.41.242 (talk · contribs)which is the school is reverting tags. I removed some promotional images and videos, and one of them was supposedly 'own work' by Higherhigherhigher and was a video of a staff member. Dougweller (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
And they restored the videos, this may be higherhigherhigher. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The good news is that since both users have been notified on their talk pages, they haven't edited those pages. Hopefully that will do the trick. :) Let's keep an eye on this one. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Susan Essien Etok

This article appears to have been written by someone with a close connection to the subject, and it also extensively self-cites. I believe that the author is attempting to establish notability where no such notability exists.

I believe that the key issue here is that the subject claims to be a long-time friend of Michael Jackson, although the only citation for that appears to be the subject's own blog, plus several unverified claims made through the media. There is no independent verification that Ms Etok was a long-time friend of Jackson's and none of the other claims seem to be verifiable.

The author claims on my talk page to have no connection to the subject - User_talk:Shritwod#Susan_Etok_page, and yet they unloaded a copyrighted studio photograph (File:Dr_Susan_Essien_Etok.jpg) and then assigned usage rights under Creative Commons. The author then claims (in an apparent contradiction) that they downloaded the picture from the subject's web site, and then afterwards that it was a picture taken by their employee instead. These claims are inconsistent.

Furthermore, editor Respect77 has *only* worked on this one article, and at one point appears to accidentally reveal their IP address of 86.13.229.160, which is an IP address in Bedfordshire, UK, where the subject lives. I believe that this editor is either the subject themselves, or someone closely related to them, on the basis of the unusual editing history, matching IP address and uploaded photograph. Shritwod (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am respect77 and yes I do live in Bedfordshire UK. I am not Susan Etok and neither have I ever met. I believe Shritwood is launching a hate campaign against me as a user and the subject of my article for an unknown resaon. There is no strange editing history at all. Please look at your editing history and realise that for the last 48 hours, you have done nothing but tried to get my article killed. This is absolutely shocking and I am fightling my case purely because I put so much effort into the article and do not want to see it killed because Shritwood does not like the subject of the article. I am also going to write two more articles relating to people.
Shritwood is a michael jackson fan celarly and is mounting this campaign on off the back of the pressure from other Michael Jackson fans to kill this article. It surprises me that it bothers you that Dr Etok claims that she was Michael Jackson's friend. Whether she was or not does not affect the fact of the case.
I do not appreciate you twisting my words Shritwood and trying to claim picture fraud. As I said to you before, it is very easy to verify.
I feel that I am being bullied and harassed by Shritwood and will escalate this matter to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I sent the copyright holder (Paul William photography) a message about the picture, but I haven't received a reply so far. Can your check you email, Respect77? You did identify yourself as that photographer. Shritwod (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
For your information Shritwood there are NO QUOTES relating to the person in the articles blog whatsoever. You have gone through the article REMOVING CREDIBLE SOURCES and then launching complaints to try and get the article killed. This is very underhand behaviour. Why are you doing this. You have threatened me, called me a fraud and liar. Why? All because I wrote an article about someone who said something about Michael Jackson that you did not like?Respect77 17:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respect77 (talk • contribs)
The majority of the comments here by both Shritwod and Respect77 are irrelevant to any potential COI problem, and they should both moderate their tone. It's quite possible for a diligent fan to dig up all the information which Respect77 used in creating the article, and it's also credible that Shritwod believes that Susan Etok is not notable on her own merits.

To my mind, the primary COI question to be answered is this: if Respect77 has to connection to Susan Etok, then how did she come to be the copyright holder on the image used in the article, a studio portrait which would normally be owned by either the subject or the photographer, and certianly not by an uninvolved third party. There are really only two answers: either Respect77 is not connected with Etok and misrepresented her ownership of the image (in which case it should be deleted), or Respect77 owns the photo and misrepresents her independence from Etok.

I have previously advised Respect77 that if she does have a connection with Susan Etok, it would be best to admit to it rather than continue to mislead the community, and I repeat that now. On the other hand, if she misunderstood the rules concerning ownership of the image, and does not have the legal right to upload the photo, she needs to make that clear. Beyond My Ken (talk)

--

In summary (because the discussion is spread over several pages), Respect77 claims to have no connection to the subject, but they also claim the copyright to a studio quality photograph of the subject (as discussed). The account is a single-purpose account used only for this subject and no other edits, but the article was technically very competent which might suggest sockpuppetry (or alternatively just plain hard work). We can tell too from looking at the edit history, that Respect77 lives very close to the subject (in Bedfordshire, UK) because they revealed their IP address of 86.13.229.160. It is perhaps circumstantial that if you Google Respect77 you find a prominent poster to a Michael Jackson forum, despite Respect77 asserting that they have no interest in Michael Jackson at all. I note that 1977 is the year of the subject's birth and also forms part of their username, but that is circumstantial too.

The article as originally published on 25th December did present several unverified claims as verified facts, indicating bias towards the subject. The article has been significantly cleaned up by other editors, but it may well be deleted for non-notability. I think that it is extremely unlikely that this article was written by anybody other than a close associate of the subject.

Some references where a discussion has taken place:

Shritwod (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One additional item of potential interest. The central point that would make the subject notable is most likely their claimed long-term friendship with Michael Jackson. But when Respect77 (as user 86.13.229.160) linked in some other pages to that of the subject, they did NOT link from any Michael Jackson topic pages (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.13.229.160), instead concentrating on several other types of page (for example, locality pages). I suspect that this action was deliberate, because the author knew that the subject's page would be challenged by editors who knowledgeable about this field. Shritwod (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: they are also using IP 86.43.86.168 (talk · contribs), and left message on my talk page which clearly violates WP:OUTING. For the record, I received no reply via email and I strongly suspect that their assertion made in this edit is a lie. Shritwod (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

General question about how to handle a situation

  • No particular article

If I were fairly convinced that I have uncovered evidence that shows that another Wikipedia editor was using Wikipedia for activities that were promotional or propagandistic and that they were editing articles to reflect the goals of outside campaigns and were basically editing as a means of advocacy in the same area, but I know that if I confronted that editor or exposed the evidence that I would inevitably reveal the real life identity of that editor, how should I proceed please? MeasureIT (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's sort of tricky. outing can get you in trouble but if the person has outed themselves by doing something like giving their name in the comment section of a file they uploaded. If they've done that, then you're not outing them. You'd simply be pointing out their self-outing. If you have determined their identity through off-Wiki means, sharing their identity here would be outing.
I generally like to take a straight-forward approach and just ask them to declare their conflict of interest. Whether or not they decide to declare their COI, you can still let them know about our COI guideline which outlines the problems they may be facing or causing.
In any case, if their edits are problematic (contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines), their connection to the subjects whose articles they're editing is usually not important, unless they're really out of control and warrant a topic ban or more.
If you want, you can email me their username and I can see if they've outed themselves. If we can't establish a COI without outing, WP:NPOVN would probably be the next best place to go. OlYeller21Talktome 23:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, a couple of recent threads at COIN give the impression that COIN can only handle problematic editing by making a clear connection between on-wiki and off-wiki identities (and the bar is sometimes set very high). I think this is inappropriate, and cannot be reconciled with our policy on outing. We should be focussing on the on-wiki behaviour; we can't send COI detectives to roam around the outside world. bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
As with anything on Wikipedia, the lines that hold one thing from another are very flexible. I'm sure there are people here who are willing to help with POV editing, regardless of a confirmed COI just as I'm sure there are editors at NPOVN that are willing to help with problematic COI editing. Having two noticeboards doesn't mean each covers both or that each doesn't cover the other's area of concern. I guess I don't understand why pointing that out is important. I generally try to solve problems and not get hung up on the invisible lines we've setup for ourselves.
On a more related note, it seems important to note that MeasureIT has an open SPI here. OlYeller21Talktome 20:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip-off about that SPI thing - I've left a message there to try to find out what is going on. I wonder if it's related to the matter in hand here? Anyway, I've got to go offline now, but will try to digest the advice offered here and try to figure out how best to proceed. I might be back with more questions! Thanks. MeasureIT (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, MeasureIT. The person who started the SPI should have notified you. I thought they were required to notify you but I guess I was wrong. At any rate, I see you made a comment there and they should be able to answer any questions you have. Let me know if you have more questions about the problematic edits and I'll do my best to help. OlYeller21Talktome 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Good man OlYeller21, thanks for your valuable advice on this. I am a bit distracted at the moment though and need to first concentrate on the more pressing issue. MeasureIT (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dennis L. Montgomery

An anon editor is repeatedly removing references and content on the article Dennis L. Montgomery and it appears to be someone with a COI. Trnsproducers (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This article also appears to have some NPOV and citations for BLP issues that should be addressed.LawlessBill (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that there's a close connection? If you've already discovered a close connection, it saves time if you share that information so that others don't have to find it for themselves.
LawlessBill, I'm guessing you meant BLP issues? To be honest, that both you and Trnsproducers are making the exact same, odd mistake by calling it a BLOP issue, is troubling. It's also troubling that you (LawlessBill) have came directly here to report this IP with your first edits and only edited the page that Trnsproducers was editing. Of course, this could be a perfectly understandable mistake and coincidence but I thought it appropriate to ask if either of you have a connection to the other.
I did mean BLP and corrected it later, I just mistakenly copied BLOP from reading the previous posts, I don't know Trnsproducer and haven't done any past editing with them or know their work other than this article. In fact, I thought several of their inclusions in this article were inappropriate and said so. I think your recommendations below to move this to a simple case of vandalism makes sense. It also makes sense to address (via the talk page and perhaps an appropriate BLP working group) the other deficiencies of this article which I'm doing.LawlessBill (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to wait for an explanation regarding a close connection between the anonymous editor and the subject of the article. The editor has made no edits to a talk page and makes no mention of a close connection in their edit summaries. If there's a close connection, please provide evidence. If not, from the looks of the issue, it looks like simply vandalism to me. It seem obvious that the editor wants to omit certain information from the article which would be a content issue but they're also deleting the infobox. I would suggest alerting ANI but the single warning isn't adequate - they'd just tell you to discuss the issue with the editor and/or issue the regular four warnings. I suggest you try leaving a non-template message on their talk page, inviting them to the talk page of the article to discuss the issue.
If you have no evidence of a close connection, try asking. It works more often than you would think and could actually lead to an amicable solution regarding the article. OlYeller21Talktome 04:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
        • I have no "evidence" of a close connection, it was the wholesale removal of content and replacement with apparently self-promotional alternative and un-sourced text that mirrored some of the defense claims of Mr. Montgomery in court transcripts from a fully-masked IP address which made me believe this was a "first person" editor associated with this article. I thought I was following the appropriate course of action posting to this board, but will take your advice and see if the user's talk page will respond and use the article talk page to address the edits and vandalism. Thank you for the counsel. As for LawlessBill, I don't know him/her but will respond to his/her comments and recommendations on the article talk page.Trnsproducers (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
          • This issue, while not resolved vis-a-vis the anon-editor vandalism, appears to be handled from a COI point of view. Apologies, but how do I recommend this COI topic be archived? Thank you for the recommendations and guidance OlYeller21. Trnsproducers (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User Siavash777 and Amir-Abbas Fakhravar Page

Siavash777 has been removing negative material from this article, replacing criticisms about the subject (a former political prisoner in Iran) by other former political prisoners in Iran with allegations that the criticisms are from leftist, Marxists. He also continues to add unsubstantiated claims, such as that the subject spoke before the Israeli Parliament (even though the cited to authority only states that the author went to the Parliament to speak with one representative). Efforts to resolve these disputes using the talk page and noticeboard on the biography of living persons has gone no where. Siavash777 initially participated in those forums wherein he personally attacked anyone criticizing the subject and has since made no efforts to continue the dialogue. Instead the user continues to revert the subject's page whenever any criticism of the subject appears. There are a number of reasons to believe that the user Siavash777 is an alter ego for the subject himself: (1) the subject's nickname, as indicated on the subject's page, is "Siavash", the same name as the user; (2) the user continuously suggests that he has personal information about the subject, such as knowledge about the subject's "enemies"; (3) only two people have edited the page as to remove controversial information about the subject: "Siavash777" and "Aafakhravar"; and (4) the subject was initially actively involved in editing his own wikipedia page and many of the same tone, spelling errors and grammatical errors are common between the subject and user Siavash777. See also User:Aafakhravar Kabirat (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mobileye

I have an IP user who is trying to get help "fixing" this article, which he just requested be un-PRODded at DRV, and for which I obliged. He's open about his COI, but is completely new to Wikipedia and just wants to do the right thing. Can one or more users drop by at User talk:Jclemens#Mobileye and give the user some more current perspectives than what I have? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Kehuna.org and User:Kehuna, now Anuhek

This has been here before when adverts for website retailing silver trumpets were placed, which ended with speedy deletion nomination of Mitzvah to kohanim to sound silver trumpets. The urls are being added to articles again. I've deleted two additions of the urls, but given that I've also had concerns with this user about undiscussed moves of articles to titles/names with no support in English sources I'm "involved". Can someone else please adjudicate on the addition of kehuna.org. User says its a non-profit website, I'm not aware whether that makes a difference. I need to go the gym so will be offline. latest diff. User has just been notified I intend to pass the buck to here. Cheers and many thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Gentlemen. The disagreement here is regarding a purely encyclopedic article on biblical research I've inserted into the levite article. The regarded website is informational, even encyclopedic, in nature and is entirely not profit-seeking. Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that it does not appear that the link you attempting to insert meets the guidelines at WP:EL, and so it appears as WP:SPAM. Even though you are well meaning, and wanting to contribute valuable information, on the surface it doesn't appear that website meets the guidelines. If you are associated with the website you are attempting to add, I would highly discourage it. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I dont see why WP:EL would exclude this link in the levite article, especially since WP:EL guidelines actually promote such linking, to quote: "It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site..when the link is to the subject's text in its original language" in this case the said link contains information of the listing in its source language of Hebrew.--Anuhek (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Just a note - the language isn't the issue (actually I hadn't even noticed that below the English some Hebrew verses are listed) the issue is that "Kehuna.org, an affil­i­ate of Igud HaKo­hanim, a New York based not-for-profit edu­ca­tional orga­ni­za­tion, is ded­i­cated to kohanim and kehuna-related מצוות." and has a DONATE page. Yourself and User talk:Marecheth Ho'eElohuth have created pages, or inserted into pages, on en.wp material effectively duplicating content on kehuna.org which repeatedly seems to have a commercial aspect. For example Pidyon haben now has "Pidyon HaBen certificate commonly issued by the Igud HaKohanim organization.", coming after the selling silver trumpets issue, it sort of itches of COI. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I understood from the mediator (Tiggerjay?) that this is a WP:EL issue to which I feel it is not. Again, the site link in question is encyclopedic in nature and compliments the levite page. Thank-You--Anuhek (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any relationship to Kehuna.org or Igud HaKohanim at all? Sperril (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
No--Anuhek (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Just in case anyone missed it, 'anuhek is simply 'kehuna' backwards. -Oreo Priest talk 16:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Beef Products Inc.

Hi, Beef Products Inc keeps editing their own wiki page in a clearly biased way. They have pretty much copied and pasted PR stuff from their website into the article. Any attempt to point out the articles bias to them just results in the same PR response every time MarineCorps (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From the looks of it, there doesn't seem to be a clear close connection. He may be an employee but if I had to guess, he's not a spokesperson or official representative. He could be anything from a knowledgeable bystander to an employee, from what I see. Outside of that, this just seems to be a previously hashed out content dispute at best (vandalism at worst). Did I miss a self-outing outside of his first name (Chuck)?
Regardless, it seems that several established editors are watching and editing the article. Unless I've missed something, I think this issue has been addressed. OlYeller21Talktome 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The Whois shows the IP as registered to BPI, with a location of Dakota Dunes, South Dakota aka Beef Products Inc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I simply ask that false and slanderous information not be added to this page. It's that simple. I ask so respectfully. I contest some of the information and state that it is false and offer source material to back it up. If I need to do more I'm all ears.--66.172.199.26 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes that you think should be made and be prepared to provide reliable sources.--ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Chuck, you're essentially arguing the difference between a fact and an opinion, from what I can tell. Just saying that a thing is or is not, won't work here. You're going to need to provide references from reliable sources to back up the information you're claiming. Even then, it seems that, as this case has not been decided in court yet, that both sides of the opinion will be represented.
On a side note, thank you for being respectful and attempting to work on this with others. It makes things much easier. If you haven't noticed the template on your talk page, your IP address has been linked to BPI and declaring your conflict of interest would also be helpful. If you're, let's say, the president of a "a marketing and public relations firm that concentrates on the food industry", working for and at BPI, declaring your identity would be a sign of good faith. If you're not, declaring what your position is at BPI and what your intent is would also be a sign of good faith.
It looks like there are plenty of editors willing to work with you but if you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As we've covered, this IP belongs to BPI. In my opinion, there is only one person editing from that IP address. That person has stated that their name is Chuck. I won't speculate on their identity here but I believe that they have a close connection to the entire beef industry but when confronted regarding their COI, they have stated that they will, "make suggestions only via the talking page."

I feel that the editor sometimes feels that they know the truth and that regardless of what others feel (independent and reliable sources), only the truth should be covered. Still, the user has been doing something between discussing and full-out edit warring with TheRedPenOfDoom.

I'm about to go through the edits but before I do, I'll state my current opinion: Reliable sources made a claim about BPI. Those claims should be covered in the article. BPI is suing at least one of those sources, stating that the information which they gave is false. That should also be included in the article. This isn't new or just my opinion. This is what Wikipedia has done for years.

This situation could use some more attention. OlYeller21Talktome 18:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Park Hyatt Chennai

User:Vikram.koushik registered on January 3rd, and immediately set to editing the article Park Hyatt Chennai (he's since edited nothing but that page). His changes are primarily demonstrated in this diff, where he adds some very flowery language to the page ("a wonderfully sublime setting", "the most innovative and versatile", "a blissful escape", ect), with the end result of all his additions sounding as if the page is a press release to prospective customers. He's thus far refused to communicate at all, and any attempt to remove his additions result in him immediately reverting. It's also worth noting that he's likely User:Parkhyattchennai, who was banned for an inappropriate username on January 2nd. InShaneee (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As of just now, he's crossed the 4 reverts in one day threshold. InShaneee (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
The text that he constantly re-inserts are copyvios from here [29]. I had marked them as {{copypaste}}s but the templates were deleted by an IP editor. Because of the IP's similar editing history and location, I suspect them of being the same person, so I've added them to the user list of this report. --Drm310 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A new IP, User:182.19.52.123, has now reverted the page, word for word, to Vikram's last edit. This is the first time the IP has ever edited. Seems pretty likely it's another alternate of Vikram. I think semi-protection might be in order until this can be sorted out. InShaneee (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have semiprotected....COI is also quite open, as Mr. Koushik is working for IT of Hyatt...Lectonar (talk) 10:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Illinois Family Institute

New users are adding primary source material to the article, and adding promotional propaganda. I imagine that Davsmith88 is the same as IllinoisFamily but he changed his username in response to a template I posted. This is a good thing. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

COI drafts and attribution

Hello all. An editor with a self-disclosed COI has posted a draft of some changes requested by the subject on the talk page. Some of the changes are good, and I'd like to incorporate them. Does anyone know the correct protocol in regards to attribution? If the content was researched and written by the new editor, is it problematic for me to add it myself to the article? The Interior (Talk) 00:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable and verify what's written, then I would say that it is appropriate for you to post them on the COI editor's behalf. I would also say it's appropriate for you to rephrase anything that isn't NPOV, just inform the COI editor of the changes you make. --Drm310 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just wondering if I should put something in my edit summary, or a post something to talk, indicating that the edits aren't my own content, but came from another editor. Was reading Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, and wondering if those steps should be followed in this situation. The Interior (Talk) 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think something like "Adding verified text contributed by [[User:name of user]] on [[Talk:Joe Schlesinger]]" would sufficiently attribute the original contributor, while reassuring other editors that it passed a disconnected editor's scrutiny. --Drm310 (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll do something along those lines, unless I hear otherwise. Best, The Interior (Talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Chichester

I have just noticed that the said editor is editing the above article. Whilst his edits do not immediately appear disruptive, I believe his username implies a conflict of interest. If an admin could take a look at this it would be appreciated. MisterShiney ✉ 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Attributing a website with the same name as the username is a pretty open-and-shut case of WP:CORPNAME. I've left a notice and I'm sure a block will follow shortly. --Drm310 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Bittar

Novice user (IP at the subject's company) repeatedly removing content from a bio of a living person, which is sourced from a New York Times article, and some may find controversial - although the subject himself provided the information to NYT reporter. IP user then registered a user in the company name, after asking me to email the company for removal justification at the original talk. I have placed gentle warnings at User_talk:AlexisBittar, however the fact that I wrote much of the existing article may make it seem that I am claiming some rights to it. A comment from an admin would be appreciated. Nixie9 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you had off-wiki correspondence with the IP editor? Did anything they say have traits of WP:OWN? --Drm310 (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
No correspondence, but User_talk:64.206.40.210 asked me to email them at service@alexisbittar.com so "I can explain to you why the edits were changed."--Nixie9 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sun (R&B band)

Byron Byrd, a member of the band Sun (R&B band) is adding content to the band's article that seems to me to be non-encyclopedic and heavily slanted as far as POV. Sources provided do not seem to meet WP:RS. I've discussed this with him on his talk page but his most recent edits don't seem appropriate. Another set of eyes is required to evaluate the edits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

William Forsythe (choreographer)

User admits to working for subject; for almost four years, she has been polishing and elaborating this article, to the point where it reads like a promotional pamphlet for subject. Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Punkcast

Wwwhats up admitted to a direct interest in the articles here [30] and here [31]. Both companies are founded by Joly MacFie. User may be MacFie or has ties to MacFie, they have uploaded photos owned by MacFie and have the name Joly MacFie link to the Wwwhatsup wikipedia account [32]. Has also uploaded files credited to punkcast [33]. There is a clear association of some type. Website [www.wwwhatsup.com] links to Joly MacFie's Facebook page. Wwwhatsup is really the only significant editor of both articles [34] [35], MarioNovi (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

  • There may well be a conflict of interest by the articles' author... but Mario's continued zeal and forum-shopping about this suggests a conflic of interest on his own part - namely, that he's tried (and failed, so far) to get the articles deleted based on who their author is. That is, it sounds like a personal vendetta. And his unwillingness to reveal his own past activity here reinforces that suspicion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello Bugs. My interest is in only those pages was originally because they read like disguised advertisements and had only one contributor. Also I believe you are involed in WP:HOUND as Stalwart showed me by following me around everywhere, can you please stop? Please reply on my talk page not here so you do not clutter it up, Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't believe you for one second. Your only purpose here has been to target that one user. You got a problem with an article? Work on improving the article, by providing proper citations and references. If the subject is not notable, attack it on that basis, not on "this particular guy wrote it, therefore it should be deleted." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What is going on here. Rutabega has removed an important part of this COI report here[37] and bragged about doing it in a sneaky way here[38]. Are people allowed to edit each others comments?? I have put it back in. I don't think this is supposed to be the right way to do it. I don't understand why people I don't know are following me here. Can people please just let the regular COI people decide what is going on without modifying my comments or attacking me? As I said I originally noted the article was not notable then only later discovered it was edited by one author which angered people. Many people on ANI were supporting of me and said this was not OUTING because the information is posted on wikipedia itself, this makes sense and policy seems to say this. Some people disagreed and seem to be taking matters into their own hands? I don't understand why I keep being re-accused and asked to re-defend myself. I feel like I'm being baited. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk)
  • For reference, my intent was to IAR and remove content I believed was OUTING and would soon be suppressed. Things didn't go as I had intended, and if I offended anyone, I apologize for my actions. (Additionally, I've stricken my above post) —Rutebega (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully I can head off the looming boomerang. Although I had initial suspicions, I do not believe there is bad faith on behalf of MarioNovi, perhaps a minor case of WP:COMPETENCE. I am happy that the deletion nominations have brought the attention of other editors to these articles. I have added 'connected contributor' tags to both talk pages, just to clarify my interest. If there are particular edits that are felt to be compromised, I'll be glad to discuss them there. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you hold Mario's approach to be in good faith, then so be it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sun (R&B band)

Byron Byrd, a member of the band Sun (R&B band) is adding content to the band's article that seems to me to be non-encyclopedic and heavily slanted as far as POV. Sources provided do not seem to meet WP:RS. I've discussed this with him on his talk page but his most recent edits don't seem appropriate. Another set of eyes is required to evaluate the edits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

User:209.48.246.82, which is directly linked to FDD's IP, and what appear to be its related socks have been continually attempting to assert unsourced puffery that is turning the article into an WP:Advert. Just look at the page's history [39] since January 2 when User:Liberty20036 made his or her first edit. Since then, Liberty20036, 209.48.246.82 and now User:Mad256 have been attempting to insert the same unsourced testimonials section, which they have renamed "Praise" Foundation for Defense of Democracies#Praise. Support on how to handle this situation would be appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

  • It's pretty clear that the information, which I have just removed, is unsourced and promotional. The person who keeps re-adding it is clearly being disruptive. We could use a lot more eyes on this one. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The actual source of the material is the FDD website, including their "About FDD" page and various press releases and transcripts of speeches given at FDD. If it's caught immediately, such material can simply be removed as a copyvio and the contributor warned with the appropriate template. In some cases here other users edited the infringing material after it was posted, which complicates things—I've blanked one section and sent it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for a copyright clerk or administrator to disentangle. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

KUPL

First article had a change in branding this weekend (not format), and users above are attempting to use the radio station article in order to act as an WP:ADVERT for their station apparently. KUPL was redirected to 98.7 The Bull by Jenny28GS against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (broadcasting) before being turned back to the station calls. Attempts to reason with each of these users about our COI, NPOV and MOS policies have failed and the promotional materials (including a blank DJ list and mention of when their "10,000 songs in a row" promo will end) have been re-added despite warnings, and the article for Alpha Broadcasting (KUPL's owner), though not edited often, has a terrible ADVERT tone which does not seem conducive to neutrality at all. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I live in the Portland area so I hear this station all the time I have updated the article with 100% true information about the station and current staff. Please do not remove any of the information if you have a question please ask me.DU2010OR (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
We don't do programming guides unless they involve mostly syndicated personalities outside of the market, and then solely in prose (i.e. 'The morning show is hosted by Skippy and Buzz, with the afternoon drive covered by Don Quixote'). Sorry, but "B-Dub" and "Automated playlist computer" aren't known personalities, and a list of the programming schedules violates the WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE guideline, especially when there's only one human in that schedule. Thus, it is removed again. And every mention outside of the slogan mention, including page links, must use the call letters, not the branding. As I have listed again, please read WP:COI, WP:MOS and WP:NPOV. Finally, for 'living in the Portland area', it seems awfully suspicious your only contributions seem to be to articles dealing with Alpha and Bend Radio Group, and not Alpha's competitors, thus why you are named in this notice. To top it all off, you have no ownership over the article, so as long as it's within guidelines I can do what I can with the article to make it readable and neutral without asking you.
As for your assertion that the personalities should be in the article, it's because the article hasn't been checked in awhile, and the guidelines I and the members of WP:WPRS adhere to haven't been applied. We are not to be used for promotion of a radio station, but providing good information about it. Thus, the article has been cleaned up to the standards of WPRS, removing overly promotional content. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, with the upload of this station logo by you under the ownership of Alpha Broadcasting under public domain (which would be utterly stupid as a competitor could now do whatever they want to defame the station's image because you make no claim to how the image is used), I cannot believe you're just a Portland radio enthusiast who just loves KUPL a lot. I would suggest having that logo image deleted from Commons and uploaded here with the proper rationales, and stating your exact position or relationship to Alpha and KUPL. Nate • (chatter) 11:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything should be fixed now. I do work in the KUPL office so i have access to any information related to the station.DU2010OR (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
First you said you lived in the area. Now you work in the office. Care to elaborate on your true relationship? Are you an employee? You say everything is fixed. What is different now? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I do work in the office as freelance. The logo has proper copyright information and all the content is correct. Your the only person that sees a problem with the edits i do. DU2010OR (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that you are confused. There is more than one person commenting here and reverting your edits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Park Hyatt Chennai

The above users appear to have been vandalizing and undoing all the reverts done in the Park Hyatt Chennai page, which had been protected for about a couple of weeks. Seems like they are promoting this hotel, though not sure. User in the above IP address has already been blocked for three-revert rule. Am not reverting their edits for now. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, article protected again, IP blocked for good measure, the autoblock should catch Hyattismanager if I am not very much mistaken. Lectonar (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
And I have left a message on both users talk-pages. Perhaps an email to the hotel's general manager, Mr. Yann Gillet, could be a next step. This really is cheap and shameful. Lectonar (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Roza Bal

A long-running problem. See for instance Talk:Roza Bal - the discussions go back to 2008, up to the 24th of this month where she asks "would it resolve these issues if the very same information was submitted by someone else, preferably far away in a different State or country?". It's not just COI it's RS and EL issues as well. rozabal.com is her own domain, thus a personal website. See also her post at User talk:Katchu2. I'm sure she can get other people to edit for her, eg her grandchild User talk:Kashmir2. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal Conflicts

My new domain, rozabal.com, just went 'live' about 3 weeks ago. I have been trying to get that domain for years! Do you know why Dooug? Because that is my main researchh field for years. A Shroud of Turin website would aptly be named 'Shroud of Turin" in the same way Ih ave been attempting to update sites where this is relevent. Roza Bal topic at Wiki is one of the key places people look for information about Roza Bal. There are maybe 4 people in the entire world who can contribute to this topic. I am one of them, and have been for over 10 years, and so of course my name is coming up everywhere this topic comes up. Several years ago Dougweller, myself, and others clashed over this topic. At that time Doug believed it was a 'fringe' wacko theory and didn't want it to have any presence at Wikipedia.From then till Doug taken over the Roza Bal page being sure to delete every legitimate lead there. The other day I tested this by posting links to several other books on the same topic, books written by other investigators. Doug deleted all of them. Roza Bal appears to be an obscure topic supported by a lone group of Ahmaddis (whom Doug does tolerate but only after arguments with him years ago). Further Doug has relentlessly followed me around Wikipedia to argue, delete, and comment on everything I do here. At the top of this page in bright red letters is a 'warning' about harassment.Doug,I consider you harassing me. This has nothing to do with Roza Bal anymore. You have taken this to a whole new personal level. How can you determine that it's OK for the Tomb of Jesus website to remain on the page? How can you allow Fida Hassnain, my co-author to remain on this page (and in other Wiki pages) as a source and reference, but not me? How can you allow the TOJ and Ahmaddi views and sources remain on the page, places that have used me as a source reference for years, but you do not tolerate me or my web site, www.rozabal.com, even if the contribution is made by my grandaughter or legitimately someone in China? You are clearly prejudiced and blindsided. You couldn't make that any more obvious than in your posts here. You have become the worse kind of Wiki editor. Shame on you Dougweller. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you have clearly admitted COI here Ms Olsson, as I noticed elsewhere with this edit. But Wikipedia is not the place to promote/advertise your passion. May I suggest using Craigslist instead? That might be a better medium for you. History2007 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your input about my "passion". So nice of you to notice! Barrie Schwortz has a similar passion regarding the Shroud of Turin. My co-author Fida Hassnain is also passionate about Roza Bal. We passionate people in life do accomplish good once in a while. What is the difference between updating an entry and COI? I added numerous titles for further reading about Roza Bal, all by other authors. These were deleted. WhY? The only possible association is because they were submitted by me. They are important contributions to this topic, yet deleted because I made them, and for no other reason. If all submissions and corrections MUST be made by others, that is easy to accomplish. I am sure 90% of all pages here at Wiki are done that way, by a wife or a grandchild or a friend. Otherwise how could so much info be known about another? What my concern is, no matter who or where the entry comes from, how do you determine "deletion"? Seems to be a personal choice for individual editors under all circumstances. By what criteria are you determining 'relevancy"? Something from this group or person is acceptable abut Roza Bal, but not 'that' group or person? This is where your logic fails me.

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. Craigslist? I know what it took me to learn about Roza Bal. What does it take to be an "editor" at Wikipedia? Is it a promotion from Craig list editing? Just asking.By the way, I read your bio page. I thought you were going to retire? Now you do "only" fifty edits per day? I am beginning to understand. "In June 2012 I achieved liberation from Wikipedia and I am not going to be that active any more. I still watch some pages I have written and may make minor fixes against vandalism there, but will not be undertaking major new projects. I used to have 1,500 pages on my watchlist, now I watch 50 or so every day or so. The liberation has been quite pleasant." You lament about poorly written pages. Well, my friend, take Roza Bal as an example of a poorly written page. When I do try to improve and edit it,to expand on it, I get knocked right down. Apparently even if someone in India does same, it gets removed, especially if there is a remote reference to me. There is much that can be included, such as the political and religious wrangling over the tomb, or the fact that it generates more income for the local private "Trust" second only to the entire budget for the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. That's a lot of rupees! Do you know how many visitors come to Roza Bal each year? How many additional books about the place? How many documentary films? What religious relics were in the tomb that led people to conclude it was the tomb of Jesus? No. And no one will ever know because of Wiki "editors" making pooor judgement calls. By the way, I think you need to get out more. That's way too much time "editing" at Wikipedia.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to present this page about the Talpiot Tomb.

[Tomb](see 'Talpiot Tomb').It is very well written and provides a detailed history of this alleged tomb of Jesus. Could anyone with a COI have contributed to this information? How might any Wiki editor know this for a fact? Now I ask you to compare that Wiki page with this Wiki page about the Roza Bal, another alleged tomb of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal (see 'Roza Bal Tomb')

Now perhaps you see the frustration- Roza Bal merits every bit as much information as Talpiot tomb. I inserted links to at least five other books that included info about Roza bal, and all were deleted by Wiki editors who happen to think I am contributing to 'fringe' theories when clearly it is not. A few million people in India revere the tomb, as do a few million Ahmadii Muslims. There is ample documentation about the tomb, court cases that go back 500 years,there are also relics, books and film documentaries. There have been murders and deaths and threats of terrorism surrounding the tomb. It generates almost as much income as the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. A very interesting page could be (and should be) assembled with all this information, but because of the predjudice of some Wiki editors, the Roza Bal page cannot get past a paltry four meager paragraphs. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

[[40]]

I think you need to read:
Frankly, your self-confessed passion is conflicting with the logic needed to follow Wikipedia policy. You have not added an 800 number for ordering your book, but the website has the same effect. Time to stop. History2007 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Litten

Standard issues from a COI account, with WP:OWNERSHIP of an autobiography and no attempt to collaborate, communicate with other users, acknowledge receipt of warnings and suggestions or voice a willingness to observe guidelines. One tires of cleaning up after a WP:SPA user, and would appreciate some help. Thanks. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Formosa Plastics Corp

Formosa Plastics Corp page was edited to remove the Scandals 'text'. The IP address of the computer performing the edit resolves back to www.fpcusa.com, which is Formosa Plastics Corp.

152.158.216.65.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer host152.fpcusa.com.

Train2Game

It seems clear that this user is a PR agency employed by TIGA/Train2Game and is simply reverting any edit their client doesn't like. This is a first for me in terms of WP:COIN, so I'm not sure what I should be adding to this. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

... save that they are now past 3RR and heading for the hills. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hills have been reached; blocked for edit warring, username violations and promotional editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added a couple of the active sock users. --SubSeven (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
85.237.212.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another one, maybe? ZappaOMati 01:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
84.16.42.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also involved. They plausibly claim to be Radio Tatras International. Train2Game is prominently advertised in a number of places on RTI's website. They even have an entire section dedicated to "Train2Game news". It seems pretty clear that Train2Game sponsors RTI, or that the two organizations have some other sort of financial involvement. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We've since discovered that RTI and Train2Game are owned by the same person. See Talk:Train2Game for more details. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Both pages now at AfD, along with Skillstrain, another page that appears to have issues with this. WP:Articles for deletion/Train2Game, WP:Articles for deletion/Radio Tatras International, WP:Articles for deletion/Skillstrain. ZappaOMati 02:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Markle Foundation

Hi there I came across this article when trying to fix Check Wikipedia wikitext errors, so I have no expertise in the subject involved. This means that I cannot be effective in combating what seems to me to be obvious and blatant wikipuffery, which I can only assume is being perpetrated by someone with a conflict of interest.

Looking at Musician's muse's edit history, the edits seem either to introduce or bolster with citations existing wikipuffery on various pages that mostly appear unrelated; this seems to me to be be a very unusual and worrying edit history that merits challenging. MegaSloth (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

MegaSloth should make sure to sign his/her comments when adding notification to the user's page.
As far as Musician's Muse's edits, I can see the concerns, but didn't see much puffery in a brief look-around. Rather, the problem with those articles seems to be how boring they are. If somebody was paid to edit these, the employer should ask for his/her money back! I could possibly see this editing as an attempt to "follow NPOV" and all other Wikipedia rules by a paid editor. If so, these articles would be a good argument why that approach is not good for Wikipedia. Killing our readers by boredom doesn't solve any problems with paid editing. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sarath Gunapala

This edit popped up when I was patrolling using Stiki. The edit summary strongly implies that it was written by the subject or someone who is close to the subject. Some of the deleted content was unsourced, but the IP editor also removed the article's photograph, which appears to be public domain. Much of the editor's [history consists of similar edits to the same BLP. Andrew327 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Freemasonry

User:Blueboar describes himself on his user page here as follows: "The User Blueboar is a history teacher by avocation, and the curator of a Masonic historical society by profession." The individual is, rather clearly, stating that he is employed by the Freemasons. I believe that this raises extremely serious COI issues regarding this editor regarding matters related to Freemasonry, as he is according to his own statement employed by the Freemasons. For a specific instance of this editor acting in a way to promote Freemasonry, I believe the sentence under discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Citing "a lack of comment" qualifies, as the sentence being discussed there is one which Blueboar himself wrote in the form to which the tags were added, and I find it all but impossible to believe that it rather clearly can be seen as seeking to promote the possibility of Christians being Freemasons. I would welcome any input from others. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly a conflict of interest here when Blueboar is editing articles about Freemasonry. The question is how well he handles the conflict. If there is another discussion going on, I'd prefer to see how that one comes out first. Also there is a relation to the current Doncram case at Arbitration Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence where Blueboar is mentioned 2 or 3 times. I'd prefer to wait until that matter is decided, but I think it is clear that the conflict has not been entirely peaceful. Perhaps Blueboar could outline how he sees the conflict and steps he's taken to make sure the coi doesn't affect Wikipedia. Disclosure - I've been somewhat involved getting in between Doncram and Blueboar before. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Freemasonry is one of those areas where expert, inside knowledge is invaluable. The problem I find with most outside sources is that way too many of them are contaminated by fringey conspiracist thinking and are willing to credulously repeat wild allegations. In general I find Blueboar to be of immense help on this. That said, on the presenting issue I think he's going at this from the wrong angle and needs to back down; I think he's trying to cite what he would like to be true, not what is really accurate. Mangoe (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
In my experience, Blueboar has a conflict of interest but always is very straightforward about acknowledging this and making his interest clear. He also has a great deal of relevant knowledge and perspective, and has been very helpful regarding contentious topics related to Freemasonry, as Mangoe notes. I don't see a problem here. --Orlady (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Although later implied statements in the guideline confuse the matter a bit, the definition of a wp:coi in in wp:coi rightly defines a wp:coi as: " When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". Contrary to statements above, the mere presence of an interest related to the topic is not per se a wp:coi. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure you read the entire discussion, so I should clarify. Blueboar has I believe rather consistently edited Freemasonry important articles, include the specific edit of his which is the subject at RSN, in a way which is I believe rather clearly and obviously intending to advance his outside interest in Freemasonry over advancing the aims of Wikipedia. In this particular case, he wrote the article's lead as a one-sentence statement which is not only fairly clearly directly contradicted by the most easily available and highly regarded reference work on the basic subject of religion out there, but also clearly is written in such a way as to make Freemasonry appear more acceptable to the broader Christian community than it is, and, thus, by extension, promoting Freemasonry. So, in this instance, I definitely do believe that even that wording applies.
It also should be noted that I as an individual am not raising this claim in haste. I have been peripherally involved in Freemasonry content here, on and off, for years. For the most part, I agree Blueboar can be counted on to present the "orthodox" Msonic side, and their evidence for their assertions. Given the relative lack of really independent reliable sources, or attempts to actually try to find and access them, I myself think he has, by and large, probably been, overall, a benefit to the content. However, in this instance at least, and quite possibly in others as well, he can and does cross the line, and his having been, in general, generally good, so far as most people can tell, about being relatively fair and accurate tends to contribute to a view that he is generally such, and he can and I think in this instance did abuse that assumption on the part of others. Masonic views on Masons are, I think in general, not those of the outside world. Sometimes they might be more accurate, sometimes it would be all but impossible to tell given the lack of sources which had previously been consulted. However, I myself have no doubt whatsoever that in this particular instance he has definitely crossed the line. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My comment was limited to statement in this thread. Going further on that, I'd consider mere employment in the field to be much lower on the "potential" COI list, it being a dispersed interest. Like a baseball fan writing a baseball article or a person from Zanzibar writing in a Zanzibar article. Your comment prompted me to look at that RSN item and quickly at the article it referenced. It looks more like a routine content discussion to me. Ironically, in debates with Blueboar I often say that "sky is blue" statements are often hardest to source and they say not. This one is a good example. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
JC, I appreciate your concerns. I don't know how much I can share them. The problem one constantly finds with "outside world" sources is that most of them take a paranoid interest in the masons, making them flagrantly unreliable. Usually more sober sources tend to be consonant with masonic historians. For example, on the matter of the Eye of Providence outside sources are wont to claim that it is a masonic symbol and that its appearance on the reverse of the Great Seal of the USA is indicative of masonic influence. The facts seem to be that Charles Thomson wasn't a mason, that the symbol has an older, Christian provenance, and that the masons eventually picked it up from the Great Seal. In sourcing that, some of the sources were from masonic historians, but they agree with sober outsiders on the key points. I note your use of the word "orthodox" but must point out that, in my experience, most testimony to the "unorthodox" comes from people I don't find credible. Mangoe (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We ultimately have to rely on disinterested sources on many thing, if say we had a statement about the Catholic Church reading "The Catholic Church is the largest and most influential Christian Church." If only Catholics say this, or if other denominations disagree, then we'd have to leave it out. But that doesn't mean that we can't have major sections of an article relying on statements like "The Catholic Church says..." or "Catholic theologians argue ..." In short there has to be some outside views and some inside views (labeled as such).

I think for now the best we can do is hear what Blueboar has to say, and hear how he intends to handle the COI, that in at least one case has seemed to be problematic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mabey Group and a local "PR consultant"

Substantial changes, some additions, some repeated blanking of sourced content regarding an engineering company, Mabey Group, and issues over corruption involving the Saddam Hussein regime and also minor (and legitimate) contributions to national politics. Most contributions have been from DaveMclean (talk · contribs), self-described as a local PR consultant. There's also an IP, 82.5.215.79 (talk · contribs) that's a local ISP.

One to watch. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up your concerns, I have made a major cleanup of this article here, left a note for the COI editor, and have added this to my watchlist. Lets keep an eye on this. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

London Eye

Sent here from WP:UAA. 82.132.233.120 (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that Marksbarfieldarchitects has been blocked from editing for violating Username Policy. I will look into the rest in a moment. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Benjamin Barfield Marks has been making what appears to be unsourced changes to the page, however after a bit of digging, the official website for the London Eye supports that Marks Barfield Architects as the firm used. Since the edits appear to be appropriate, although poorly executed, there isn't much of a problem I see with his edits. Although i have requested over at WP:RPP that the page be semi-protected because this page has been the target of frequent manipulation by new and anonymous editors. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jared Diamond

Can someone with more experience than me suggests a way forward on the Jared Diamond article? Rhonda.R.Shearer (talk · contribs) has asked for advice on how she can correct the article; since she's writing about a legal case to which she has some measure of involvement. (There are other issues, but I think they're well-meaning mistakes by someone new to our rules.) Assistance would be appreciated - this requires a level of delicacy that I'm not certain I have. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing your concerns here, I have left a detailed message for that user on the article talk page and hope we can make some positive progress. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Derek Parker

Derek Parker has declared here that he is Julia Parker's husband. He has been editing his own article[41] his wifes[42] and is adding his wifes book to Sir Patrick Moore's article citing his own personal knowledge. The COI here is really very obvious. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Partido da Imprensa Golpista

This article is about a offensive term, created by brazilian radical leftlists (communists), against the brazilian press. Communists who wants to steal brazilian public money, without nobody watching, created this term to attack who watch them - the press. The man who created this term, Paulo Henrique Amorim, have a blog called Conversa Afiada, and it's pure scum, low level, fussy, sensationalist and posting lies all the time. So, here at english wikipedia, we have an article watchman, who considers himself the owner of it, called Al Lemos. This user was banned from portuguese wikipedia because he is a leftist political activist, not a normal user. Now here it behaves as if it were a single-purpose account: watch this item. He is 3 years doing VERY sporadic issues here, but the real purpose of it, is to watch this article, keeping it in a format that attack, rather, the Brazilian press. Al Lemos does crosswiki vigilance to maintain the article like he wants. He's probably paid for a state agency to keep watch Brazilian pages (yes, this is happening in Brazil, like occur in Venezuela, North Korea, China and Cuba, the current government pays web surfers to brainwash the people). So, if you could do something about it, brazilian people would be glad. 187.42.19.141 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I've done is reverted your edit to the article. Changing the lede with the text "its an offense created by brazilian communists, created by a crazy man who defends the Brazil's transformation into Cuba, and attacking the brazilian press, who don't let communists take Brazil" is a clear violation of the neutral point of view policy that Wikipedia follows. I'm not saying that the editor you accuse doesn't have a conflict of interest, but it's pretty clear that, if you don't have a conflict of interest, you at least have an agenda. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Complementing the situation: in Brazil, dozens of bloggers receive money from the Brazilian government to make attacks on the opposition, and praise to the situation. It is a fact absurd, however brazen, and proven by meetings of bloggers with the former president of Brazil, Lula da Silva. The Lula da Silva's right-arms, José Dirceu and Jose Genoino, were recently sentenced to prison by the Supreme Court of Brazil for having commanded the scheme of "monthly allowance", which was simply to buy the votes of the deputies to the political party of Lula approve everything he wanted, including washing leftist ideology that prevails in Latin America. It is a notorious fact in Brazil: Paulo Henrique Amorim works for the mob of Lula da Silva and his party, and I do not doubt that this user named Al Lemos do the same. Who has an agenda in Wikipedia, is this "Al Lemos". You are being used by a brazilian political party. 187.124.162.21 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm a serious editor with many years of good services provided to Wikipedia. My work speaks for me, in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan and Galician. My articles have sources - serious and reputable sources (UNESCO, Reporters Without Borders, the very Brazilian mainstream media, and so on)- and I don't hide myself behind an IP to make unfounded accusations. I'm not "banned" from Lusophone Wikipedia - simply, since 2010, I reserve to myself the right to edit in Portuguese just one day a year (January 23), to avoid having to live with this kind of cyberbullies. The part of the Brazilian government funding is very funny - this thug is accusing me of something that he is probably guilty of: receiving money from political parties to attack their opponents on the Internet! If this anonymous really had good intentions (and wasn't just a coward) he would have registered himself and would talk like a civilized person (what, supposedly, he is). Who has a political agenda is this IP, obviously a single-purpose account. To paraphrase William Shatner, "get a life"! - Al Lemos (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This user, Al Lemos, doesn't do almost nothing to contribute do Wikipedia. Most of his editions are at this page, and his user page. One or two serious edition by month is not really a regularly contribution. But if you see this page "Partido da Imprensa Golpista", wow, he is the owner of the article. Impossible to do anything in the article, he blocks everyone. single-purpose account, he pretend it's regular editor of wikipedia to watch this article. At Wiki-PT we have some fanatic people who do the same, everytime using the Wikipedia structure to do their particular political blog against his "mental enemies". He really hates brazilain press and don't have any mental condition to edit political articles. All communists in Brazil acts like religious extremist, calling all who criticizes their, "coup", don't care if the criticism is right or not. Sad, but this guy is a psychopath. 189.106.128.241 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Tea Party lover, go take your Prozac ;) - Al Lemos (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sun (R&B band)

Byron Byrd, a member of the band Sun (R&B band) is adding content to the band's article that seems to me to be non-encyclopedic and heavily slanted as far as POV. Sources provided do not seem to meet WP:RS. I've discussed this with him on his talk page but his most recent edits don't seem appropriate. Another set of eyes is required to evaluate the edits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have left a detailed reply on the users talk page, hopefully that will help with this matter. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the effort, but I don't have much confidence that one more message is going to change anything after all the previous discussions. It looks like User:Qworty did some cleanup so we'll see how long it is before Tweedybyrd reverts it. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jason Latimer

First, that's just one editor so far as I know, working on behalf of the subject (this was made clear with no attempt to hide it). At my request a new username was created (I should have had them do a name change via a Bureaucract). The 'online' accounts are now blocked. I tagged it as an autobigraphy in error. That tag has been removed but I think it should have a COI tag. If tagged, then how does the tag get removed? I think the author could use some guidance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Gavin Wheeldon

This article was protected due to edit warring, however before it was protected a seemingly biased edit was made largely of unsourced content. This is the original edit that caused the trouble. Harlem Baker Hughes recently reverted back to the last known good version, and then an ip user reverted that change, and Someguy1221 then protected the article.

Noone123456 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The original article referred to was not written with WP:NPOV and the largest proportion of the page was written about one contract in a long business career and aims to be derogatory about all other areas. The current version has been written with a view of being neutral as it does cover this topic with all others and brings the page up to date and adds additional information and resources such as a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GwheeldonWiKi (talk • contribs) 23:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While that particular item appears to have suffered from WP:UNDUE, but WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY still applies. Reliably sourced information, even if you consider it to be negative, is fair game for Wikipedia. I would advise you not to edit the page directly but rather suggest changes on Talk:Gavin Wheeldon. --Drm310 (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_61&oldid=1189654915"