Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 54

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56→Archive 60

University of Wales

Being edited by the self-professed webmaster of one of the universities also being merged into Trinity St. David. Edits went against the sources, and removed the widely-reported controversies. Have notified the user, but it's worth keeping an eye on the situation. 86.** IP (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously a close connection. The only potentially problematic edit I see is this one where an issue is sugar coated compared to its previous version. I don't know if the previous version was overly cruel to say if the edit was justified or not. I'll keep an eye on the situation and report back if I see bigger problems. OlYeller21Talktome 19:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed; I just wanted to mention it as I noticed it had happened; I suspect that edit was just ignorance of the COI rules. 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
A new SPA, Tbarrett26 (talk · contribs), just made a similar edit. Assumedly, "Tbarrett" is the University of Wales' Communications Officer, Tom Barrett. I've reverted the edit as it makes contradictory claims to the previously made referenced claims. I haven't checked the references and I'm about to step out for a meeting. Anyone else have time to check the references to see if they were possibly misused in the first place? OlYeller21Talktome 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the title of this reference, not really - the reliable sources say it's been "effectively abolished", and there have been no contrary sources provided. There may be some room for clarification, but not for a whitewash. 86.** IP (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
There's obviously some editorial license used in the title of that article but the BBC is certainly a reliable source and the editors with an obviously close connection have provided no references to the contrary. At least not yet. Hopefully they take discuss the situation on the talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 15:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Aye. The article's a bit rough at the moment - as it would be shortly after probably the most shocking shakeup in British education in the last few decades, and there's room to try and present other views of the situation. But sources are needed... 86.** IP (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The slow edit war continues. Recently, an IP that belongs to the University of Wales, made the same problematic edit again. As it's most likely a shared IP, the connection can't be fully assessed (it could be an employee or student). I have attempted to push the editors to the talk page with no luck. I don't like edit warring and could use some more eyes on the article in case the removal happens again. OlYeller21Talktome 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

El Rod

This seems like a duck COI to me. From the amount of unsourced and unverifiable content, Kudpung and I assumed it was an autobiography although the user claims it's not (see edit summary). The user has removed the maintenance templates from the article three times without addressing the issues although the last time, in good faith, they think they did (see edit summary). I've attempted to engage the user on the talk page of the article, issued the appropriate warnings, and invited the user to have a conversation on the talk page with no luck so far. The IP 81.148.223.103 has also remove the templates but never returned. As I look at their edit summary, it looks like they may have been following my edits and blindly reverting me so it may not be related.

At the heart of the problem, the article is a mess. It's written like a personal essay and has a load of unverifiable information like the unannounced intent of the subject of the article when they were a child. It talks about what social media he liked using and unsourced quotes. I haven't sifted through everything to completely assess notability but there's a claim of notability given the notability artists the subject claims to have worked with. I could use some help. OlYeller21Talktome 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

May be a WP:USERNAME violation as well but I doubt that will solve the underlying problem. OlYeller21Talktome 14:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
User was indef blocked for a username violation. User is now requesting a name change. Not sure how this will play out with the article. OlYeller21Talktome 13:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Leslie Bradshaw

Resolved
 – The move has been made and checked again by me. Keeping page on watchlist as well. OlYeller21Talktome 13:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed an expansion of the article about the businessperson Leslie Bradshaw on the discussion page for the article about her, here. It so happens she is a friend and business associate, and she has asked me to improve the article, so I have a potential COI and am seeking feedback before making any direct edits. If you're interested in reviewing the draft (in my user space here) and moving it, making edits or offering feedback, I'd welcome any thoughtful responses. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've glanced over your draft and while it seems just slightly like an essay (which I may have been found because I was looking for it), it looks good to me. OlYeller21Talktome 20:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, in that case I'll go ahead and copy it over. And if you or someone else wants to try their hand at it later, I'm receptive to all constructive edits and suggestions. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Sepy Dobronyi

Smarmy fawning biography of Hungarian-born baron, "playboy," artist and sculptor who worked under the pseudonym "Sepy". The article is poorly written by somebody whose native language is apparently not English; it depends very heavily on articles about the subject written by him or by journalists writing for men's magazines where fact-checking was not the core of their mission. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it's still pretty horrid, with lots of duplication and overlinking. Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely--I noticed this in the making a few days ago. It's a sprawling promotional vehicle and may require the use of a backhoe to conform to encyclopedic standards. Perhaps a mention at the visual arts page will kindle some interest in copy editing.....76.248.149.98 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Texas Young Communist League

I've tagged this for speedy deletion as an article about a non-notable organization. Unsourced, and written as a promotional vehicle, per multiple talk page protestations. User doesn't seem to understand guidelines, or perceive the niceties of spamming. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to suggest keep, per chutzpah, but sadly(?) you seem to be right - there seems to be no reliable source that suggests that being young, and a communist, in Texas is notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Point taken--who knew? One imagines brief and dolorous gatherings. I miss Molly Ivins. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
There's sometimes a thin line between not biting the newbies and feeding the trolls--I think the article talk page is being gamed by single purpose accounts, which tends to happen at late hours when the admins go to sleep.... 76.248.149.98 (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Sleep? I've been awake so long I've forgotten what that means. Which is another good reason not to make me an admin. Frankly, If our Texan comrades (with whom I have more sympathy than I should probably admit to) wish to declare a Socialist Republic of This Here Wikipedia Page, I think we should let them be for now. I doubt very much they will overthrow Dallas while we are gone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I hear you. There's no shuteye tonight, except for serene administrators [1]. And though I actually rooted for the Cardinals because I couldn't bear the thought of Texas winning the World Series--such bountiful gifts they've provided of late--all political zealotry gives me the willies. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kallihalliburton has declared themselves retired. Jediknight36 only has 2 live edits to Wikipedia after the deletion of Texas Young Communist League. The IP has no live edits at this point. Jediknight36 might bear some watching, but for the most part this is probably resolved. -- Atama頭 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As is always the case, the subject can be revisited if and when it's received adequate coverage...and preferably written by objective parties. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Nickyjamz

The userpage of User:Nickyjamz is being used by the editor for self-promotion, in violation of WP:UP#PROMO and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The editor is not here to build the encyclopedia—check the contribution history and you'll see only self promo. I am guessing that this is the best noticeboard for this guy! Binksternet (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I just added {{userpage}} to the userpage with a no-index argument so if it is just for advertising, the damage is concealed. WP:USERPAGE says that a userpage must have "Limited autobiographical content" and I think this is far past that. Also, I think it's fair to assume that the account is being used solely to promote the person on the userpage. I'd like to assume that this is the first draft of a mainspace article so I've asked the user what its purpose is as a sort of ticking clock. If they don't answer or move it to mainspace where it will most likely be deleted as a G11 if not an A7 as well, we can ask that it be deleted according to the portions of guidelines that you linked. OlYeller21Talktome 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Binksternet (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I have tagged it for G12 speedy as promotional - no point beating about the bush here. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I was attempting to be as un-bite-y as possible towards a new editor and assume good faith by giving them the benefit of the doubt and a little help. OlYeller21Talktome 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Your method was going to take more patience and time. I think the situation would have ended up just like the quicker method taken by other admins, but I may be wrong, and we ought not assume the worst about the guy without giving him a chance. Binksternet (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Angel.com

I'm writing because I'm working for a Marketing firm, Right Source Marketing, to try and get a page up for one of our clients, Angel. In 2009, they had an article up that had been salted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) because the person working on it restored it after it had been deleted several times (or something like that). That person is no longer involved on the page, nor an active user on Wikipedia. The page is now userfied at User:Socialmedia2011/Angel.com, and needs a lot of work because Angel has changed significantly since 2009.

I realize that I'm probably being over-transparent by posting here when I'm not even editing a real page yet, but I want to be very clear that I've agreed to work on this page because I believe it meets objective notability standards and that Wikipedia would benefit from having a page about Angel. I would absolutely love any and all help from other editors, as well as advice on how to get the page restored and what might be good to include in the article. I'm extremely open to feedback from the community, and am new at editing, so please assume that my mistakes are from ignorance, not poor intentions.

Socialmedia2011 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Social. Thanks for bringing this fact to the attention of others. There are some important things to know about creating an article that a lot of new editors aren't aware of that I could quickly go over with you if you'd like. OlYeller21Talktome 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I've left some pointers about the article on its talk page. I hope they help. If you have any questions, you can ask there or on my talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 21:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ty Taylor (author)

SPA editor is sole author of article content, claims to be "industry insider" on user page. Article is tagged for GNG and reads like an autobiography. Is it an autobiography? Editor should at least be warned of COI policy. Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

CMA is communicative, I see them involved in discussion on their own user talk page and at least one other. Many times SPAs are only here for a particular agenda and aren't interested in collaboration, but this editor doesn't seem to have that problem. I'm inviting them to this page to discuss matters and hopefully they'll be willing to discuss any potential conflicts of interest or other concerns, and maybe get some assistance as well. -- Atama頭 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Brianhe, Atama sent me a link to the page about COI. I can understand why you might have concerns about a conflict of interest. I am interested in writing living biographies of notable Tennesseans. My first article was created under the pseudonyme CMA. The other two (also works in progress)Bill Herzer and [[Bill Taylor (Martial artists) were created under a second pseudonyme, Chromatography. I have a lot to learn. After I started the first article I decided to change my account name to one that reflected my broad range of interests. My error. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia discouraged contributors from having multiple accounts. When I changed my name I didn't think it would be ethical to write the same article under two different account names. I have no problem with deleting CMA.

As far as a COI - I have no financial interest or expect to derive monetary or other benefits from creating the articles (except perhaps the enjoyment thereof). I am open to learning and want to continue to try to work from a neutral point of view. Your suggestions are totally welcome. Now that I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding accounts I will continue to use only one account.... Thanx, Chromatography AKACountry music aficionado (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Christian Michelides

Two of the authors are strongly involved in the articles theme. See also discussion page and the (origin) german article. One of the accounts is therefore blocked in german WP, just for info. --Robertsan (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I've received a few messages from involved editors regarding this page. I'm still not sure that there's a COI as opposed to just POV editing. I'll check it out today and report back. OlYeller21Talktome 15:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
This looks like spill over from German WP. COI tags are being added and removed, citing German WP COI investigations. The article itself shows no obvious skew in its inclusions but the skew may be shown it what it omits, assuming there is anything that can be perceived as negative to omit.
Ultimately, this is an issue for WP:NPOVN to handle unless there's some proof of a close connection. So far, there's no proof of a close connection or even a SPA besides 81.189.43.153 who has only copy edited the article.
So unless there's some proof of a connection, I don't see that there's anything we can do here as the article doesn't have any glaring issues as of this moment. OlYeller21Talktome 18:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The conversation here might be pertinent at some point. My assessment of the situation is unchanged, though. OlYeller21Talktome 19:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have invited the involved editors here to discuss the situation. Unless there's some substantial evidence that there's a close connection between any of the editors and the subject of the article, I'll ask that the conversation be moved to WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 19:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Short report on the German/Austrian discussion on this subject: The Germans and Austrians are fighting avidly (a) about the numbers of exhibitions admitted in German WP, (b) about the dog in the picture (which is now deleted in the German version), (c) about the legitimity to mention the psychoanalytic men's group in the article and several other small details. The German article has only 8.872 bytes. But there are more than 340.000 bytes on the discussion page plus about the same in deletion, CU and vandalism discussions, on user pages and several other sites of this war going on since three months. The article had to be blocked four times till now - due to childish edit wars on the details mentioned above. In my eyes the english and spanish versions are much more concise, objective and easy to read then the by now peculiar German version. I can assure that no relevant information on this subject is omitted in the english version.--McWien (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget the very important discussion in commentlines about the year of the picture!--Das-Geheimnis-der-Sphinx (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In the German WP there had been a Checkuser. Several Edit-wars, a closed article, a blocked MacWien (because being a man on a mission). You can see where these two accounts do their edits. They try to manipulate the articles, to put their POV in them. Other users tried to find a neutral POV, and we have a very long history in the German Christian Michelides and also the Discussion is. You may see, although without knowledge of the German language, that the users trying to find a POV, are editing a lot in many fields (myself in arts), Oliver SY and Elisabeth are well known proper workers. But these accounts are only editing in CM and in his field (the magazine FORVM he wrote for and so on). The fanclub (some of them is proposed to be CM himself, you find the arguments on the CU), tries to glorify the person. There are no reliable sources for a lot of things, (e.g. exhibition organisation, a lot of studies, but no final degree and so on). and when some accounts try to take them out, the fanclub puts them in again, then the article gets blocked and so on. Realizing, that the German WP administrators do not accept the unsourced things, the fanclub now tries to play that game in English. You can see at what time these accounts were born and where else they work. And the Sphinx is not in German WP but is talking with MacWien in German. The English version is the translation of a former German version, which was corrected ba other users using reliable sources. --Robertsan (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me give an example: and was the driving force behind Austria's first CSD parade, called Regenbogenparade. In German we have he was one of the driving orces behind because there were several others too. The catalogues he published while CM was working for the GGK advertising company. This GGK company had a company's gallery and CM organized an exhibition for this gallery. The first time he brougt the famous photographers to Austria is not sourced. The catalogues had been published by himself, so they are BODs. Only one of these books can be found in the Austrian or German national library. So there is a lot of POV in thís article.--Robertsan (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. I think we've heard accounts from all of the involved parties (at least the ones on En WP). So it sounds to me like there's still no proof of a close connection between any editors and the subject of the article. There's obviously some claims of fanclub members making problematic edits which is certainly an issue that should be addressed. There's also some accusations of socking going on but I can't asses the De WP's SPI because I don't read German. Ultimately, it sounds like the article is good in its current shape but may be the victim of future POV editing.
In conclusion, I don't believe this is a case for this noticeboard. It appears to be a case for WP:NPOVN (and WP:SPI if the sock issue pops up on En WP). I have started a report at WP:NPOVN HERE and unless there's any additional evidence that pops up that proves a close connection outside of fandom, all conversations should take place there. OlYeller21Talktome 19:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Steinway & Sons

I'm trying to add some searched information about the company "Steinway & Sons" to the article "Steinway & Sons". I am trying to add the goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons and five independent references. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458447959&oldid=458397062). Unfortunately, it is impossible because every time I add the information and references the user named Binksternet deletes what I and other users have added. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458449465&oldid=458447959). It seems that the user named Binksternet has taken ownership of the article and controls everything that various users add to the article. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=history). Does Binksternet work for one of Steinway & Sons' rival companies or is Binksternet a piano tuner - and does he have a conflict of interest? What do I do wrong? The goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons is relevant to the article and I wrote four independent references after the sentence. I see it as a big problem that user Binksternet censors the article and deletes some of the fascinating history of Steinway & Sons that he doesn't like. 195.254.169.226 (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 195. I'll call you that, if that's OK with you (it's the first three numbers of your IP address). I could only speculate on Binksternet's actions but I took a look at the edit you are attempting to make and think I can give some advice. The goal of the company may or may not be appropriate to put into the article. I can see an argument from both sides in that it could be peacocking as Binksternet put it or simply relevant information. For their to be an actual conflict of interest, there would have to be evidence of a close connection, otherwise, at worst, it what we call point of view editing and would be handled at WP:NPOVN but I think this is more of a content issue that should be handled on the talk page of the article. Posting here will invite others to review the addition and discuss it on the talk page but posting at a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments will invite people who are interested in musical instruments to assess the edit.
In short, there's no real action that will be taken here, in my opinion, other than to get some additional eyes on the article. Also, accusing others of a conflict of interest as you have done on the talk page with essentially no evidence is generally frowned up as you're not assuming good faith.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them on your talk page or mine and I'll do my best to assist you. OlYeller21Talktome 16:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding article content, the disputed text is simply this: "Heinrich Engelhard Steinweg founded the company with the goal 'to build the best piano possible.'" To me, this is fluff; peacock prose. If the guy really wanted to make the best piano possible he would have stopped back in the early 20th century when he reached his goal. The truth is that he wanted to build pianos of the highest quality and sell a lot of them.
Regarding my behavior: I have no conflict of interest in pianos. I took piano lessons for about six months when I was six, and that was the end of it. I don't sell them or make them or tune them.
Regarding the behavior of IP 195: This IP is based in Denmark. Previously at the Steinway article there was a Danish editor who was too strongly promotional, was stopped from putting too much promotion in the article, and who then turned to sockpuppetry to continue pushing POV edits. The sockpuppet investigation is archived here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fanoftheworld/Archive. Fanoftheworld and his socks primarily focused on Steinway articles, but also worked on Freemasonry topics and Danish politician biographies. English Wikipedia gets a few Danish editors but very few who militantly promote Steinway, leading me to think this IP is also operated by blocked puppeteer Fanoftheworld. I expressed this belief last month in this reversion with an edit summary of "Revert IP editor from Aarhus Kobmandsskole in Aarhus Denmark, likely a sockpuppet of Fanoftheworld". In that light, I have given the IP very little leeway in editing the article regarding content, but more leeway in maintenance edits such as cite formatting. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Your actions make sense to me. I probably would have done the same. In my opinion, this issue is dead as far as WP:COIN is concerned unless there's proof of a connection between the IP and Steinway. WP:SPI may be able to help link the IP to Fanoftheworld but I don't foresee any action being taken via WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Paul Dettwiler

User persistently adds external links to a website with Paul Dettwiler's work, has written an article about this apparently non-notable artist (it's up for discussion as to whether his professional career meets notability guidelines), and continuously adds redlink names to list of Swedish artists. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say it's up for discussion, do you mean there's a deletion discussion somewhere? I glanced around a bit and didn't see one. We may want to start an AfD but I don't want to double efforts unneeded. OlYeller21Talktome 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, no, it was a figure of speech. Feel free to begin the process.... 76.248.149.98 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we won't need to. I'll watchlist the page and bring a report back if he start back up. I think his other contribs needs attention, though. OlYeller21Talktome 00:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Some may be well-intentioned, though I wonder if the addition of the external links to the virtual museum is spam....kind of borderline, but the connection to this particular person was the tipping point. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Roger Steare

Hi, I was patrolling recent changes and came across what looked like promotional edits on a new article about Roger Steare (It is likely he would meet notability). One of the users who was editing the page was also editing User:Lizcable/Ethicability, a book by Roger - as were two other editors. I became suspicious the edits may be being made by a PR company and did a quick google. Searching for combinations of the usersnames leads to a social media company, and so it is likely they are creating promotional edits for a fee. I'm not sure how best to respond to this, so came here. Thanks Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done some clean up on the article, but it could probably do with more. It was hardly neutral with many uses of "regularly" and "influential" etc. I've notified the editors of this discussion. To improve the article, you will need to find articles that directly discuss Steare, rather than only doing so in passing. You also need to find a published source for his DOB etc. or this should be removed per our policy on biographies. Regarding the book, it is very unlikely that it meets our notability requirement for books and so there is little point in trying to write an article about it, as it will likely be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

University of Essex

Transparently the university editing its own article. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as a role/promotional account and cleaned up their edits. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Drei Ros

WP:SPA extensively editing article about themself in violation of WP:COI. — 68.239.65.132 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like warning templates given to the editor have been somewhat mis-issued (several level 1s for the same issue). The COI is secondary to the AfD so we can wait to address the COI unless the editor keeps vandalizing the page (removing the AfD template). The article has several sources provided that seem to contain significant coverage from reliable and independent sources (it's hard to tell sometimes is Google Translate) so I think the article is savable. I have asked WP:ARS to assist with removal of vanispamcruftisement issues.
In short, I think we can get a decent or at least acceptable article out of what's there. After that, we can address the editor if an article still exists. OlYeller21Talktome 17:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drei Ros was closed as Delete … this user claims to be a fan, not the subject of the article. — 72.75.52.11 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ave Maria University

Two or three users have been removing a criticism/controversy paragraph from the lead section of the Ave Maria University article. One of those is an anonymous IP editor using an IP registered to the university. The IP editor has been informed on the user talk page of the conflict of interest limitations but has edit warred the paragraph back out with the summary, "it belongs under controversy. Period." I have argued that the lead section should include a summary of critical information that is found in the article body, according to the guideline at WP:LEAD, but the conflicted IP will not accept this. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the only claim to fame the school has is the controversies generated by Monaghan's behavior, I'd say a bit about those belongs in the lede. I would advise you to tighten it up a bit for the lede, though. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with OrangeMike. Also, watch out for 3RR. It's not overtly vandalism so there's a possibility you (Binksternet) could be blocked, in my opinion. I'm guessing you know where you're at but the slight possibility of you getting surprised makes me think it's worth a mention. OlYeller21Talktome 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet and I discussed a trimmed down version of the disputed information on the talk page of the article, came to an agreement with no other input over two days. Binksternet made the edit, and mere hours later, an IP registered to Ave Maria University reverted it here with roughly the same edit summary. Now what?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor also keeps removing the school notice from the IP's user talk page. Can that notice be protected? Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I have no idea how that would work. It can be semi-protected for autoconfirmed account or the IP wouldn't be able to edit its own talk page at all. I'm not even sure what policy they would be violating by removing the template. WP:ANI may be able to address that issue. It's new to me. OlYeller21Talktome 00:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Ave Maria University IP address reverting without discussion yet again. Advice?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

and still removing the shared IP address template.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The policy explicitly permits users to remove notices, including warnings, from their user talk pages. Additionally, it's possible that it isn't a shared IP at all, but instead a fixed IP (e.g., for one of the administrative offices).
I haven't looked at the article history, but it sounds like you have been planning to make changes to that paragraph. Have those been made? If so, then you might see if you can start a discussion with the unregistered user about the importance of finding a compromise. Have you encouraged the new user to read about what belongs in the WP:LEAD of a well-written article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the info about the notice. It occurred to me that it possibly wasn't shared, but it's good to know that it doesn't matter either way. We're in the process of roughing out a sentence for the lead, but haven't reached consensus yet. Editors on both sides of the discussion about the sentences in the lead have invited the IP to join the discussion, to no avail. There's civil discussion between editors with different points of view on the talk page, but the IP won't participate, and just reverts.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Even if the IP is a fixed one, assigned to a desk in administrative offices, it could be shared by administrators, or it could be used by the next person who holds that administrative position. I don't see the problem with replacing the school IP notice, especially when the IP is not communicative, and when the person behind the IP can very well register a username like the rest of us. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

New Leaders for New Schools

Hi, I have recently written a new draft of the article for the non-profit New Leaders (formerly New Leaders for New Schools), on behalf of the organization. This fall, the organization has been renamed and has launched new programs, and asked me to create an updated article to reflect these changes. Due to my conflict of interest, I do not wish to replace and rename the current article myself without seeking input from other editors. I'd like to ask that another editor read through my draft and the explanation I have previously posted on the article's talk page, and offer any feedback you might have. Although I have taken care to write the article from a neutral POV, it may be that other editors have some changes to suggest, and I welcome any constructive comments.

You can see the proposed draft here in my userspace:User:16912 Rhiannon/New Leaders and my full explanation of the draft and requested change of article name on the New Leaders for New Schools talk page.

Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on the draft/change of name. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, as I haven't had any objections to the new draft or proposed change of name, per WP:SILENCE I have been bold and made the replacement of the article, and also the move to New Leaders. If you have any comments or questions, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer as soon as I can. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Crcorrea

Crcorrea (talk · contribs · count) appears to be an single purpose account, with the purpose of promoting a university project PublicMind. While I realize that .edu links are usually fine as a reference, I'd like second opinions on the user's contributions and COI before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits like this where a user inserts dubious internal links are of concern to me. There's also a section at Fairleigh_Dickinson_University#PublicMind that we may need to pay attention to.
I guess the question we'll need to answer is, is PublicMind notable or noteworthy (regarding content inclusion, not article inclusion). If the information isn't noteworthy, the user's aims conflict with Wikipedia's. The connection between Crcorrea and the university or PublicMind is unclear but I'm trying to link that username with both. OlYeller21Talktome 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any link between the user and the university or PublicMind. The information's tone isn't advertorial in my opinion but I can see how someone might think its inclusion is. Personally, it looks like the information is being cited and covered (news) by several sources and may be notable on its own but with no clear connection, I'd have trouble backing action outside of a talk page content dispute discussion or WP:NPOVN report. OlYeller21Talktome 18:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. File:C:\Users\Vishal Raj\Documents\bodhi.jpg

This article edited by someone which contradicts the truth and also stirs racism which talks about a higher caste in India. the information was recently updated and semi protected we have the picture evidence how it was manipulated. I don't know the process how to complaint to Wikipedia about this product. Still i am not sure this will reach the right person. This article misguides high time. Sturdyrajesh1 (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're concerns are, but they don't appear to have anything to do with WP:COI.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs)
The link you provided is to a picture on, what I assume, it your personal computer meaning that we can't see it. I'll investigate and report back if there's a COI. If the page was semi-protected, an admin is probably overseeing the situation already (hopefully). OlYeller21Talktome 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The subject is a monk that's been dead for 1500 years so I can't think of how someone could have a close connection with him besides someone promoting Buddhism (even that's a stretch). This appears to be a content dispute and as I don't see any racism stirring by anyone involved, I'm not going to continue researching this case based on a false and drastic claim. Feel free to make a report at WP:ANI if you feel that an editor is being racist or at WP:NPOVN if you feel that the content shows some sort of bias. OlYeller21Talktome 15:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug Guetzloe

This is a smalltime reactionary radio talkshow host who's raised some political stink in Florida. He owns a one-show "radio network" called The Phoenix Network, and the s.p.a. User:Phoenix545 created both the article on Guetzloe and a (since-deleted) advertisement "article" on The Phoenix Network. I've spamblocked the Phoenix account, but would like some eyes on the Guetzloe article, preferably by somebody who despises guys like this less than I do, for NPOV and other edits. I think he (barely) meets WP:N, but am not sure. Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Cases like this always make me want to go elsewhere. It looks like there's a lot of dubious claims like, "was described by a park resident and Winter Garden City Commissioner as 'a knight in shining armor charging in on his white horse.'" and it has a reference to the Baltimore Sun. I never like getting into content disputes about such claims. It's always way worse in political cases as there's always some "reliable" sources out there with enough bias willing to back up a claim.
The article is likely full of synthesis with sentences like, "Jeffrey Arnold sentenced Guetzloe in open defiance of the US Supreme Court decision and the Federal District Court injunction" with a reference from centralfloridapolitics.com, a self-proclaimed non-partisan news sources that openly supports Phoenix Networks and the Tea Party.
I generally don't like the idea of deleting content based on a COI but the amount of work that would have to be done to actually verify the information and remove bias views is overwhelming. I think the subject is probably notable but I feel that the article would need a fundamental rewrite to be acceptable. OlYeller21Talktome 15:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Parental acceptance-rejection theory and User:Rohner Research

This user self-identifies as Rohner, the psychologist who developed the theory in the article. He (pronoun following self-ID) has nominated this article for deletion, probably through a misunderstanding of normal editing possibilities. I asked him about COI on his talk page, and he mentioned that he has research associates editing under the same username. He hasn't actually edited the article with this username except to nominate for deletion, and he's being quite communicative. I gave him some brief advice on his talk page and also told him that I was going to start a thread here so he could get advice from the experts on how to proceed, since I'm feeling a little out of my depth. Here's the talk page conversation: User_talk:Rohner_Research#Possible_conflict_of_interest_on_Parental_acceptance-rejection_theory. That's it!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Le Boeuf Brothers

One of the members of this jazz duo has made a complete revamp of the page, introducing significant non neutral information. 76.168.134.217 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Raised fist

Obvious COI username removed an image concerning anti-feminism. Calabe1992 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not a conflict of interest, it is simply a difference of opinion regarding content. At Raised fist, I think nearly the whole image gallery should be deleted. That's what we have Commons links for... Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pete and the Pirates and many others

This user has inserted links to jameelaoberman.com here, there, and everywhere over the last few days. Xe has made a few constructive edits, but not many. I'm not bothering to list all the articles above, because would duplicate the user's contribs. There are templates on the user's talk page, and I'm going to leave a note by hand right now. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Now xe is edit-warring over it. I'm at 3RR on Pete and the Pirates, so I'm going to leave this to the professionals now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? who is user XE? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

xe is a gender-neutral pronoun. As a self published source it is unlikely that jameelaoberman.com should be added as external links at all, and especially by the owner of the site. SmartSE (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

More eyes on possible paid editing

I've just come across Sigma0 1 again, who some people might remember was mentioned in this thread at WP:AN about a year ago and here at the start of the year. I can't find any diffs where it is disclosed, but there it was suggested that Sigma0 1 is a paid editor. I've been looking over their contribs and came across a fair few problems. While most of the articles probably meet WP:N, some such as Thom Russo, Bulgarian Bag and Tibbo BASIC(already PRODed) are rather more borderline. In other articles I found problems of OR: 1 and 2. I will try to look over more of them myself, but wanted to post here to see if any one can lend a hand in checking other articles and cleaning up as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction regarding Full Sail University

Hi, I'm Tyler. I am here on behalf of my employer, Full Sail University, where I am the Social Media Manager. I'm aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, and in cases where I am discussing content related to the Full Sail University article, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.

Note: I am on a university IP address, shared by thousands of people and it is possible that someone other than myself may make changes and/or edits without my knowing.

I want others to know of this conflict of interest up front, and would like the community's feedback on if this is a sound approach to participate.

Thank you. --Tylergarner (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being open about your COI. Please make sure that you read WP:COI carefully. If you stick to its guidelines you will be OK. As for the IP addresses, so long as you make sure that you are logged in when you edit, that shouldn't be a problem. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback, ukexpat. I’ve reviewed WP:COI and plan on following it closely. If I have any questions later on, would you mind if I ask you for assistance? --Tylergarner (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem - please contact me via my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Huawei additions to "Security concerns"

Recently, two additions have been made to the Huawei article, regarding Iran and the Taliban, and I would like to suggest a rewording of each. I have a potential conflict of interest with Huawei as a topic, since I work with the company, and over time this year I have discussed changes with other editors before improving the article. In this case again I have been cautious about making any change to these sentences directly. Recently I made a request on the Huawei talk page regarding the Iran sentence, but I have not received any response. Now that someone has added the incomplete Taliban statement, I decided to come here.

The sentence on Iran was initially added to the introduction of the article and I have moved it into the "Security concerns" section. The sentence on the Taliban was added to this section earlier this week. Both are poorly written, and the first implies that Huawei intentionally aided censorship, when this is not stated in the source article. The second implies that Huawei was shown to have a connection with the Taliban, when this is not the case according to later news articles.

The original wording of the sentence on Iran is:

In October 2011 Wall Street Journal revealed Huawei Technologie has offered censorship equipments to Iranian government against Iranian people.[1]

The wording I propose is:

In October 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei had become Iran's leading provider of telecommunications equipment, including monitoring technologies that could be used for surveillance.[2] Huawei responded with a statement claiming the story misrepresented the company's involvement: "We have never been involved and do not provide any services relating to monitoring or filtering technologies and equipment anywhere in the world".[3]

The original wording of the sentence on the Taliban is:

Huawei's ties to the Taliban were criticized in 2001.[4]

The wording I suggest is:

In 2001, it was alleged that Huawei Technologies India had developed telecommunications equipment for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and newspapers reported that the Indian government had launched a probe into the firm's operations.[5][6] Huawei responded, stating that the company did not have "any link with the Taliban", as its only customers are telecommunications carriers[7] and its facilities "always operate according to U.N. rules and the local laws of each country".[8] On December 15, 2001, the Indian authorities announced that they had not found any evidence that Huawei India had any connection to the Taliban.[9]

It would be greatly appreciated if an editor could review the changes I suggest and make the edits if they seem reasonable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Futura 2000

User:Futura2000 twice added reference to themselves to 'notable alumni' section of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology [2] [3], and once again after being warned of the potential conflict of interest [4]. User seems to have article of same name, Futura 2000, but has not edited it under his user account. User has also made at least two vandalism edits to other articles [5] [6]. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for now per WP:REALNAME - the edits to the school article make me suspect that it may not be Futura 2000 editing the articles - is it really possible for a 56 year old to graduate from a high school in 2013? SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Nica Noelle

This article is about the pornographic actress and film director Nica Noelle. Lately, User:NicaNoelle has been editing, first by strangely removing information ([7] [8] [9] -- after which s/he was warned ([10])), and lately just adding non-neutral, unverified information (nine consecutive edits from [11] to [12]). Now, if this really is Nica Noelle, I love her work and I hate to look as though I'm tattling, but s/he just isn't understanding the concept of WP:COI. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In the case of BLPs, when such a clear case emerges (if she really is Noelle), one has to be really very sympathetic towards the individual who is trying to edit her own biography in order to correct statements she feels are incorrect. One can and should be very supportive in such cases. My take would be to educate her repeatedly about the need for citing information she feels should be included. And with respect to information that she wishes to be removed, in case the same is not critical in an encyclopedic manner, just remove it - we have to be very supportive of BLP requests. Wifione Message 08:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

University of Wales

I'm getting worried that the article, about the subject of a major British educational controvers) is now primarily written by people in that university's administration. Can some people take a look? 86.** IP (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

After looking at it - I completely agree - there is clearly an attempt to bring that article under the control of the university and turn it into a puff-piece. I'd urge editors to watchlist it and resist this stage management. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking further into this, it seems there is some slightly confusion in that some editors think the university no longer exists, while others (including the staff of the university) think that it is *currently* being merged into other universities - as far as I can determine from recent sources, the later is true. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've had this article on my watchlist since it was brought up here previously. The issue with the doesn't-exists/merging issue was based around a BBC reference. The university employees basically stated that it was false but would never provide a contrary reference. Personally, I believe the university is merging but the article will need references to back that up. The issue doesn't only show itself in the portion about its accreditation but also in the tense of the whole article. There's been a lot of slow edit warring going on to show either side of the coin instead of both. To me, it's the common argument regarding what's true compared to what's verifiable. We may just need to do the leg work to verify what is true.
As for a COI, IoloMorg (talk · contribs) is the latest SPA to edit the article in a favorable way for the university. A little further back (2+ weeks), 194.80.131.5 (talk · contribs) which is register to the university, did the same. Their edits to other articles may need to be addressed as well. OlYeller21Talktome 18:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel that the problematic editors can be addressed, specifically. Often, the edits are coming from university owned IPs and we can't go blocking a university (I think). At this point, we seem to have the article on enough people's watchlist that unexplained changes to the article will be caught. Also, it seems that the issue that was causing the most confusion is being worked out (allegedly) which should cause the problematic edits to dwindle. In short, the article may never be "safe" but I think we have enough people watching it that it will be OK. OlYeller21Talktome 20:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela

I'm here to get feedback and see if there is concensus to remove a tag on the article Migdia Chinea Varela.

This article currently has an autobiography tag at the top of it. I would like to remove it because the editor in question has not edited the page since October 15th. (That edit was reverted soon after.) Also the current article is not her version. Instead the current wording is the work of several other editors including myself. If there is more problematic editing it is easy enough to replace the tag, but for now the connected contributer tag that is on on the talk page seems sufficent to me.

If it's not reasonable to remove it now, what would a reasonable waiting period be? Cloveapple (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, but if the subject edits the article again, it will be put back immediately. – ukexpat (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Tales of The Kama Sutra 2 : Monsoon

Appears to be associated with the Tales of The Kama Sutra series —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Lauren LeMay, Kevin Break, et al.

Resolved
 – Associated pages have been deleted. Keep an eye out. OlYeller21Talktome 21:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Anamathes

This user is apparently the subject using the name of her first husband. I informed her of the conflict of interest policy, left tags on her talk page, and she's continued to edit her own page, marking significant changes as minor. [13] JFHJr (㊟) 04:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suzannegawel

This user is the "webmistress" for Lauren LeMay, and sometimes uses the above IP. [14] All of her edits relate to subjects with whom she shares a close connection. When I brought to her attention the conflict of interest in authoring pages about Lauren LeMay, her husband Kevin Break, his model Emily Marilyn, and associated articles, she removed her name and contact information from the Lauren LeMay website and denied the relationship on her talk page. Currently, however, a google search still shows results from the cached version: https://www.google.com/search?q=gawel+"lauren+lemay" (a search for: gawel "lauren lemay"; sorry, the quotes are necessary and I can't seem to wikify it properly). She also continued to edit the articles in question while logged out. [15][16] That second edit was her attempt to stop a current AfD for the Kevin Break article. It seems she understands the situation but won't stop. JFHJr (㊟) 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles above have been deleted, and the BLPs were creation protected. I suppose their COI topics are pretty much foreclosed. This problem seems  Fixed JFHJr (㊟) 00:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added the articles to my talk list. The user(s) went to MichaelQSchmidt, an editor I personally hold in high regard. He rightfully suggested that they wait in which they agreed to do. In short, keep an eye out. I doubt this is the end. OlYeller21Talktome 21:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Scentura

Resolved
 – Article looks OK. Editor seems to have stopped editing. OlYeller21Talktome 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I originally wrote the Scentura article in 2007, as User:Calendar then left for many years. I added that the Illinois Appellate Court ruled Scentura a pyramid sales scheme and 37 other references. I was dismayed, but not surprised, when I returned four years later and every reference was gone and a glowing review of the company was in its place, with plenty of links to Scentura's site.

I do want to police this article alone, so I come here, letting the community be aware of this page, and asking the community to help. If this is the wrong forum, please let me know. Calendar2 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added links to the article and the editor who whitewashed the page. The user in question shares the name of the "web-admin" of the company. I have placed a COI tag on the article. The content has been reverted but I think it could still use a look. OlYeller21Talktome 21:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
As i wrote on your page: incredible find! Thank you! Calendar2 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

At this point, NickBrunson is mass-reverting without discussion, including removal of the COI tag.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like several editors have been paying attention to this article now. Since your last post here, NickBrunson has stopped editing. I'm going to mark this resolved as the article looks OK at this point but come back if the situation requires more attention. OlYeller21Talktome 21:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Food Not Bombs

Resolved
 – Resolved/stale. User made three edits in a day and never came back. Will hopefully see my message on their talk page when they return. OlYeller21Talktome 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Food Not Bombs? An editor claiming to be the founder of the group has been making changes to the page, pasting information from their website and complaining about inaccuracies. He seems to be somewhat irritated and unfamiliar with our policies. I would work on it, but I'm not quite sure what the best way to proceed would be. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor's username matches that of a cofounder of the organization. I've added a {{copypaste}} and {{COI}} tag to the article. I'll look at cleaning it up today but my free time is limited. So if someone else is able to beat me to it, they're welcome. OlYeller21Talktome 19:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I reverted the user's contributions and left a message on their talk page. The article looks like it might have some bias to it but I don't think that's due to anyone's conflict of interest. I think I can manage to situation between the user and I. I'll report back if I can't handle it on my own. OlYeller21Talktome 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, good job with your message on his talk page, it was probably more eloquent than I could have managed to be. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug Lynch (academic)

Resolved
 – Resolved/stale. One editor hasn't edited since June and the other has been indefinitely banned. Article seems clear of COI issues. OlYeller21Talktome 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this user hasn't done much harm, though the user's employer has done some editing as well. I don't have time to go through it now, but the article needs to be cleaned up anyway. Both users need to be more careful about conflict of interest and what it means for Wikipedia's neutrality. The Haz talk 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left a COI notice for User:ViceDeanLynch and reported User:Penngse as a user name violation. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the COI tag from the article as it seems that there are plenty of eyes on the article now and the additions made by the users in question have either been reverted or are not promotional/POV. The ViceDeanLynch hasn't edited since June and the Penngse account has been indefinitely banned for a WP:USERNAME violation. At this point, I think the issue is resolved/stale and that the article is on enough watchlists to be protected in the future. OlYeller21Talktome 22:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Slander and Libel

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Braindead2011 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Certification Video (UK)

I have deleted my sub section on the above article after I was informed that my post is slander and potentially libellous. I had created a small article about the function of a website related to the subject.

The site operates a private members list, and if the police or inland revenue wanted to investigate the site or threads they would have to join and in that time any contiguous material could be deleted. I mentioned that the forum closed its chat room down, how is libel. I did not mention how a member threatened to chase me down with dogs, gut me and finish me off with his shotgun. I was also called a homosexual. I can't prove this happened because the site deleted the posts and banned me.

In the article I mentioned how members have infringed copyright laws on more than one occasion. The members deleting my posts are aware of the facts that I stated and have consistently edited out those facts. Site members have acquired a u-matic disc of a film and have funded an attempt to have the tape played back and obtain member site copies on DVD. I was actually banned from the forum 18 months ago after one of the administrators of the site was outed by another member for requesting copyright material on a home made disc. I did not mention that fact in my post. So have I slandered of libelled the site?

I also pointed out that the site has an anti censorship vibe, members do moan about government bodies censoring films and actively swap and collect illegal copies of films that carry no certificate. I mentioned that in terms of video cassettes banned/censored films can be reviewed on appeal and have a reason why the decision still stands. I pointed out that a banned member does not have the right of appeal to a ban, or is given an explanation for any decision.

On the auction site eBay have a section that deals with pre-certificate sales and this does contravene the Video recording Act, 1994. I noted that the website I discussed does not include a notice informing its members it is against the law to sell or trade those tapes. How is that libel.

I could produce the welcome page of the web site and connect it to a link and prove that the welcom page does not mention this, So how is this libel?

Braindead2011 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Dean Paramor

First, you may wish to read a dictionary definition of libel (Merriam-Webster: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression). You essentially answer your question over and over. If evidence doesn't exist, or isn't accessible, this is all considered libelous. Virtually no one would be able to prove that this is true. Also, as a former member that was ejected from the group, you seem to have a grudge to settle which definitely puts you in conflict of interest. I suggest taking a breather and making the suggestions on a talk page or not at all. If the information can't be sourced to a secondary source, you probably shouldn't use it. Just a suggestion. The Haz talk 21:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where to start here. The AN3 report went stale. The last edit Braindead2011 made was to this noticeboard and that was a week ago. MahavishnuChris left the libel warning on Braindead2011's userpage, in error and hasn't edited for a week, either.
I guess the easy thing to do would be to focus on WP's goals and focus on the article itself. I don't see any glaring issues besides what the improvement templates point out. Ukexpat, I see you edited the page a bit today, what do you think? OlYeller21Talktome 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

XL Recordings

Promotional username, making a lot of edits to the article. So far editing nothing else. I left a note on user's talk page just now, and haven't had time to look over quality of edits, but wanted to get more eyes on situation. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The XL Recordings article contains a number of factual errors. I am correcting these errors and providing references. User:Xlrecordings 18 November 2011

I've copyedited the article and removed some puffery, refs that fail WP:GOODREFS etc.  —SMALLJIM  20:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added the user Doowelgnip to the list as it's an WP:SPA whose only edits are to this page. Addmitedly, I find no connection between that name and XL Recordings but the creation of the account coincides with the indefinite blocking of the Xlrecordings account.
Ultimately, I don't see any blatant advertising or puffery. The content seems to be sources although I haven't assessed every reference. Does anyone see any issues with this article? If not, I think the issue is resolved but that the page should be watched for future issues. OlYeller21Talktome 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
After Smalljim's excellent work, I think that there aren't outstanding issues left. I'll keep it on my watchlist, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ChemSpider

Two editors who are members of Open PHACTS are editing and promoting their own articles including writing autobiography Antony John Williams adding in external links and. ChemConnector was notified previously for a COI when editing as User:ChemSpiderMan (has also edited as User:Tony27587). These two editors are active in deletion discussions. I am happy to step back from this and let other editors have more say. Widefox (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I deliberately made edits with this account to make my affiliation (and professional identity, stick the user name into Google) clear. I would have had no problem with reversions, or questions, but the process has started on an assumption of bad faith - I have been tagged as a possible sock puppet, undeclared COI (despite username and *explicit* acknowledgement of project involvement in deletion discussions), tagged as possible SPA... The process - started when I reverted a redirect - immediately led to mass tagging of pages for deletion. Less important in my case, I have fewer edits to lose, but my colleague ChemConnector had several major scientist entries tagged for deletion immediately. I think the bad faith assumption has led to a huge overreaction in this case Rsc.kidd (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Boris Wild (magician)

COI article without objective sources, promotional or press-release tone, continued removal of maintenance tags. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Because the editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, I have blocked the account for 48 hours. Whether there is anything else to be done I don't know. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. The article will surely require rewriting to remove the resume aspect, provided reliable sources can be added. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Article has been deleted as promotional. 99.12.242.97 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I speedy deleted it under G11. If what was in that article is verifiable by independent reliable sources then Boris Wild may be notable enough for an article here. But that one wasn't it, and it looks very much as if User:Boriswild isn't the one to write it.  —SMALLJIM  19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Amen (said after having ingested too much turkey). 99.12.242.97 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

MXit

This article has been seen here at COIN once before. It looks like the accounts involved have been blocked for socking and the article hasn't been edited since the end of October. The article is very long and could use some combing through. OlYeller21Talktome 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done some combing. The "Features" section is still only sourced to primaries, so might need better source/rewrite. I'm fairly confident what I've taken out isn't encyclopedic. The Interior (Talk) 19:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Repoulis

A WP:SPA, creating multiple articles about this composer and adding him to numerous others. Subject's significance hasn't yet been established via reliable sources. JNW (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mrepoulis has recreated the article Michael Repoulis after it had already been deleted once. The author has not addressed issues such as notability, possible autobiography and lack of proper references but continues to remove article maintenance tags. Also repeatedly adding name to various lists. Requires attention. (RT) (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Academic vanity?

I sometimes see academics adding references to their own works into articles. Sometimes it's appropriate and adds to the article, but other times the usefulness to the parent article is very weak, and it looks like the academic version of linkspam. Does anyone have a suggested way to handle these, especially where some of the editor's contributions are useful? Would it make sense to have a special version of the uw-coi template for this? Cheers A13ean (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Eseschool

User:Eseschool has edited European School of Economics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I stubbed the article, it's largely unsourced and promotional in tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Rostislav_V._Lapshin

I don't have any time now, but could someone take a look at some of these additions? A few of them are OK but others appear not to be constructive, and may need to be reverted or replaced with better refs. A13ean (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Stay15

(Copied from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention)

Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. January (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
So copied. Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

Lilith (magazine)

Today, a series of edits have been made by a user editing as User:lilithmag, adding a raft of awards won by Lilith magazine. I assume good faith, but wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for even the most worthy of magazines. David in DC (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked and advised on how to change usernames. Looks like the issue is resolved. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cuvette#Specialized_cuvettes

Orchidee3 added "Specialized Cuvettes" section to Cuvette, which primarily serves to advertise "DiluCell(TM)" cuvettes (which are made by Implen). Looking at other contributions, they added the section "Nanospectrophotometry" (later NanoPhotometry), which is also an Implen product, and a suggestion to use the "NanoPhotometer(TM)" on the Cyanine page. The reference (pdf), which is added to most of those pages. I think it reads like an ad. Kjsharke (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Theadore Beale

This is the third report at COIN regarding this user and article (see here and here). The username Xday allegedly stands for "Vox Day" which is the subject of the article's standard internet handle. I definitely consider the editor's additions/removals to be contentious and I see some strong ownership issues. The article has a good amount of bloat in it and I believe that the issue stem from the subject's strong political views which may be why several editors have voiced a concern. The article could use some eyes on it. OlYeller21Talktome 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I need help with this. The editor is now inserting text such as, "and is considered to be one of the Internet's most influential libertarians, as his Vox Popoli blog ranks #25 on the list of Libertarian Top 50 sites, as ranked by Alexa worldwide traffic". They're also adding some heavy claims with only one reference to articles with no cited author. OlYeller21Talktome 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor continues to make edits to the article. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't claim to have resolved anything, but I've copyedited the article and left a brief explanatory note on its talk page.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the article adequately calls out where citations are needed. None of those claims are overly promotional that I can see. There are some heavy claims made and have one reference associated. There may be some synthesis present but the editor in question seems to understand the issues at this point and is using the talk page. The article still needs work but I don't feel that the help of this noticeboard is currently needed at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The editor in question keeps making edits to the article which are unverified and contentious. What are further Wikipedia steps in a situation like this? The editor has not addressed any of the COI concerns raised.76.218.68.67 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Alf.laylah.wa.laylah and I have been monitoring the page and reverting/discussing changes with the author. We've at least opened a channel of communication but in my opinion, there's still some resistance from the subject of the article. He's not arguing that our policies and guidelines are wrong which is something I always look for. I like to think that we can work with him to improve the article in compliance with WP's policies and guidelines but if problematic editing persists, I think greater action may be warranted to get the editor's attention. In short, I think we're making progress and wait to see how it plays out. OlYeller21Talktome 14:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
He's been making a number of WP:POINTy edits recently - today's included. Since he doesn't appear to be able to stop himself from making controversial edits to the article, I have strongly advised him to restrict his editing to the article's talk page in future (as recommended by WP:AVOIDCOI). He also now knows that if he doesn't stop, he's likely to find himself blocked.  —SMALLJIM  22:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, things fell apart quickly. It's becoming clearer and clearer that his goals do not align with Wikipedia's. OlYeller21Talktome 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Horasis

Note: Section renamed as my original suspicion appears unfounded. Looks like a standard COI problem now. Hans Adler 09:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Germany's former finance, then defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg appears to be planning a comeback, as the popular press has simultaneously started to hype him. (The quality press has commented on this.) On the height of the plagiarism affair, he had received an amount of support on Facebook that appeared far out of proportion for any politician however popular, and consequently some people suspected foul play. (It is possible to buy Facebook fans for fake grassroots campaigns.)

User:Dewritech has, since 28 June (4 weeks after interest in Guttenberg had subsided, as witnessed by page views both here and on the German Wikipedia, and by 4 weeks without any edit to the article), consistently and very slowly been moving the article in a more Guttenberg-friendly direction. In many cases his changes were clear corrections and improvements, but for reasons that will be obvious I am a bit suspicious, which made me look at the user's contributions.

The user's first activity was to create an article on a Swiss think tank called "Horasis". An article on Horasis had been deleted in January 2010 after a first AfD. He wrote the new article in his user space [17], then pasted it into article space and blanked the draft. Speedy deletion as recreated deleted article was declined due to new content, but as a result of the second AfD the article was deleted again in May 2010.

In July 2011, User:Dundswk, a single-purpose account that was active only for 4 days, recreated the article and used an image uploaded by Dewritech. The first lead sentences were identical to those of Dewritech's version, although Google does not find these formulations anywhere except in Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article exists to this day under Horasis and still starts with words that were already in Dewritech's version. I cannot see the deleted revisions, so can't check whether they were also in the earliest version, the one that was deleted by the first AfD. It has seen significant activity by red-linked SPA accounts.

There are several dimensions here:

I am documenting this here so that other editors can also have a look, and will now file an SPI on the obvious Horasis socks. Hans Adler 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI page started under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dundswk. Hans Adler 12:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
We have a walled garden of spam - Global Arab Business Meeting, Global China Business Meeting, Global India Business Meeting, Global Russia Business Meeting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
All tagged for G11 speedy. – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
As mentioned above here some infos about my way into wiki:
At beginning of 2010 one of my younger family members told me about the problem of one of his friends, who had created a Wiki-article, Horasis, which was in danger of being deleted. As I had just used Wiki from time to time before in order to get information, I (having fun with writing) decided to make my first steps as an author and promised to try to improve the article. But after creating my account I discovered that the article in the meantime had already been deleted. So I started in my user space to create a new Horasis article and finally published it. In the following weeks I learned a lot about notability, reliable sources, etc. as in the end the article was deleted again. But within the AfD someone gave the hint, that maybe the Global China Business Meeting could obtain notability. This in mind, and frustrated with my first result, I started again – and this time with more success. After that my Wiki activities slowed down again, but a few months later I was asked to check a different meeting, the Global India Business Meeting, if it has enough notability for an article and if yes, if I could write it. I checked the sources and agreed and wrote the article. My second success.
Since then, being out of business since summer (and still being/feeling young), my activities in Wiki increased, but this time focused on politics, which I like much more. And yes, politically I consider myself being a conservative, what you might discover in my edits. My preference for the Guttenberg article derives out of the poor quality and sourcing the article had in the past, when I saw it the first time. So, since then I have been trying to improve the article step by step, always based on sources – and after discussions, when they were necessary because of different views. Although I was able to start working with AWB in the meantime, making most of my edits there, the Guttenberg article remains of some (maybe sentimental) special interest to me. And I like controversial topics, they keep your mind young.
With my first two articles I have no relations any more (just remained in my watchlist). Just compare my first versions of them with the current ones…
The socket puppetry is absolutely not my business, what some check of the IP’s will validate.
This has been my way in Wikipedia so far. -- Dewritech (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and taking the suspicion so well. If I may ask you for clarification on two points:
  • So you have no idea who re-created the article once more? (You are under no obligation to answer this.)
  • Where did the text come from that makes up the first lead sentences? Did you base it on some source about Horasis, or did you write it free-style? I am asking this because it's remarkable how it was copied literally also into the latest incarnation. It appears to me that either the person copied it from you and so was fully familiar with how and why the article was deleted, or you both used a common source. Hans Adler 16:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Here my answers:
  • q1: No, I have absolutely no idea, who re-created the article.
  • q2: I just checked my remaining records in detail but could not find an external source for the questioned passage there. At google I found this but can not say which was first. According to my remembrance I tried to avoid carefully any copy-paste of official material for copyright reasons and to prevent any PR-character, therefore I’m quite sure that the passage was indeed "genuine me". -- Dewritech (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Especially your answer to my second question rings true as it is absolutely consistent with the high quality of your copy edits to the Guttenberg article. Johnbkidd has now come to my talk page, is just as cooperative as you are (a rare sight on this website) and also claims to have no idea who you are. So everything is consistent. Hans Adler 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your positive feedback. Glad this could be cleared up so quickly. -- Dewritech (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see the Johnbkidd (talk · contribs) account has popped up this afternoon as well, if this is not sockpuppets, on a behavioural level, it certainly looks like Meatpuppets. I think we need to recruit more eyes to start look at the contributions of those accounts in more detail. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Aquamari has created a specific cat for the org.([18]), and is also a newly revived account. The Interior (Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
And Aquamari has been editing the Guy Spier article - and what does Spier do he runs a financial fund called the Aquamarine fund and he sits on the board of Horasis.... so whoever that account is, it is likely linked to both. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Adamsonians

COI, only contribution is to add an eponymous EL to Adamson University. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Kokai / John Locke Foundation

User name matches the director of communications for the foundation, article may bear checking. A13ean (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Jared Pelletier and Halo:Faith

Per the IP's comment here ("I work for Halo:Faith"), and the promotional nature of Pelletier's article, this needs a look. A lot of sourcing to blogs, puffery, etc. It's unclear to me if Pelletier even meets the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 12:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Brownbrokers

I've been working with this editor and they have been very open about their connection to the subject of the article. I don't foresee any problems occurring with this editor. They've been very cooperative.

They have asked that the article be assessed so that the COI tag can be removed from the article. I'm stepping out and don't have time to check right now. Is anyone able to check the article for issues and remove the tag if there are no issues (related to a COI)? If not, I'll do it sometime this weekend. OlYeller21Talktome 21:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Brownbrokers article is at a place where it need to be combed by an editor for neutrality. I have declared a close connection to the subject - I was a manager for the group 2 times during my undergraduate career at Brown University - though I was never a writer or director and I am not cited in any way in the article. I have worked hard to write with a neutral point of view, factually and using encyclopedia rhetoric. All of this can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Charliehertz) discussion with OlYeller21. Charliehertz (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made all of the edits according to the editor's suggestions, including eliminating the Leadership section (working a little in elsewhere) and significantly trimming down the past productions section and adding a link to the comprehensive list elsewhere.
Charliehertz (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I've been very busy at work but another editor has taken the time to comb through the article. We discussed the situation and feel that the COI tag can be removed. I believe they planned on removing it today. Sorry for the delay and again, thanks for being so forthcoming about your connection. OlYeller21Talktome 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Nationallawreview

While the username is immediately suspect of being from an organisation to promote its website/agenda, the 2 edits he made to the article ([19][20]) link directly back to his site. Lihaas (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dee Dee Myers

I've just posted an explanatory note and {{request edit}} template on the article of former White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers, seeking consenus to replace the mostly-unsourced, low-quality current article with a better-researched, better-written version. That version is available in my user space here—prepared by myself at the request of Ms. Myers' current firm—and I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone here will take the time to review it and perhaps move it over. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm‎

Woodward21 is a longstanding WP:SPA on this article, who shows considerable WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Based upon the similarity between his nick, and the name of the Communications Manager at the zoo, I suspect there may be a conflict of interest here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nyckelharpa

There seems to be some promotional editing (on multiple Wikipedias) around Nyckelharpa and Nyckelharpa players. Also some dubious sources (e.g. a talk page at the German Wikipedia) seem to be used in the article. —Ruud 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sreelakshmi Suresh

The author of this article,User:Gk00900, has made no other contribution (ever since creation of the user account in 2007) other than authoring this article. The only other page edited by User:Gk00900 is List of people from Kerala to insert this very article in it. Hence it is obvious that User:Gk00900 is either 'Sreelakshmi Suresh' or a promoter of the 'subject'. The article itself is obviously self promotional, hence has been suggested for deletion (AfD) twice, the third discussion is going on. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Martin Frost

These edits are unsourced. Please review them to see why I'm posting my concern on this board. David in DC (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added the ref to his first wife's obituary which was already on her page (seems slightly lacking in sensitivity asking him to provide it...) - Hunting dog (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I've apologized. David in DC (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Heriot-Watt University

As the Digital Communications Officer for Heriot-Watt University I've become concerned that the Wikipedia article for the institution is not of as high a standard as it could be, being poorly organised, badly referenced, out-of-date and in some places factually inaccurate. I've left a proposed rewrite of the article in my userspace which I'd be grateful if neutral editors could look over- I've attempted to be as neutral as possible, but appreciate as per WP:COI and WP:SCOIC that review of what I've written is still required.

Thanks,

Robert HW (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done with some notes on Talk:Heriot-Watt University#Edit Request and a salvaged prestigious ranking which Robert probably omitted out of an abundance of caution. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I have made a few other changes: removed the non-free image - not permitted while draft is in user space; removed inline ELs per WP:EL; commented out categories while in user space. – ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 Russian protests

Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed information and edited the article in ways supportive of the Russian government. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

He has a history of promoting Russian government positions in such articles as Medvedev modernisation programme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
And some other users repeatedly added such information in ways against the Russian government. So what, we should accuse them in COI as well? I never realized so far that I should suspect COI in any arbitrary case of editorial disagreement. Note that I've cited the proper wikipolicies (WP:ADVERTISEMENT and WP:CRYSTALBALL) and started a discussion on the talk page regarding the bit of information inserted by you. Instead of resolving the question there you go here for some reason. Note that the government of Moscow postponed the decision to sanction the meetings in question until Friday, and it proposed to use a different location, so your sources are outdated and even more WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know whether the event will actually take place at supposed location and date, especially given the information on postponement, and we do not know how much people actually will engage. We will know that on Saturday, and no need to write it until then. Especially there is no need to give false information about sanctioning the meeting. GreyHood Talk 18:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Unless either of you have evidence of a close connection, this report is better suited for WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 19:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the pattern of your editing I think there is probably a conflict of interest. As to others, I haven't closely looked at their editing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not suppose COI in my opponents without good reason, and advice them to act in a similar way. As for the WP:NPOVN, there is already a discussion opened there. GreyHood Talk 19:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
If there was not strong evidence, I would not have brought it here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
What is your strong evidence? GreyHood Talk 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
In conflict of interest matters we go only by an editor's pattern of editing, which in your case, has a strong point of view corresponding with the Russian government's and United Russia's. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
If there is strong evidence as you say there is, you need to present it here. I haven't read the discussion at WP:NPOVN but why has it been posted in both locations? I hope this isn't forum shopping. OlYeller21Talktome 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I posted the article to WP:NPOV/N prior to this posting by Fred. a13ean (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As I hope is obvious to you by now, our editing conflict arisen only because you have been using the outdated information from English-language sources, while I used the most recent one from Russian, as well as tried to uphold a number of quite obvious wikipolicies. Is inserting a new information to the article and removing outdated stuff "supportive of the Russian government"? In my last edit in fact I tried to insert the new information with even larger numbers of supposed protesters than ever before. GreyHood Talk 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a COI with Greyhood. I see someone with a stricter view of sourcing, and (sorry Fred) a rather better command of Russian and Russian politics. user:Fred Bauder has been trying to use Facebook as a source, as well as paraphrasing sources beyond what some editors might describe as fair. Whether Greyhood is pushing a POV is another matter (I don't think so), but this particular argument is over use of sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
As I've said on certain talk pages, Greyhood's edits are close to being disruptive. He deletes consistently in a pro-government manner, often making spurious edit summaries, sometimes even misquoting WP policies. That said, I don't know if he has a COI - but he seems certainly intent on pushing his POV.Malick78 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
GreyHood is one of the most valuable contributors on Russian issues we have. The notion that he is a problem editor is ludicrous. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how this is a COI. Not a single piece of evidence of a close connection has even been presented let alone verified. All I've seen is involved editors going on a hunch and while those hunches may very well be right, luckily, we don't act on only hunches of involved editors. If anyone feels that another editor is being intentionally disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI. If you feel that the article isn't neutral which seems to be the consensus, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article and/or at WP:NPOVN. If you feel that someone is here to push a candidate they like or the inverse, I hope someone can finally present some evidence of a close connection. Personally, it seems to me that the issue is that the Russian government can/does manipulate the Russian media making sources used in the article unreliable which would make this a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It might not even be a case for WP:NPOVN as it seems that the base of this problem is the reliability of sources and not someone explicitly trying to push a non-neutral point of view. OlYeller21Talktome 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You touch on one of the issues - competence in handling Russian sources. Russian=unreliable is not valid; one needs to know which ones generally are and are not. There are biases in Western coverage too, for example the persistent focus on English-speaking/western educated (economic) liberals as if they are the popular opposition in waiting. (The main opposition are actually nationalists and communists, probably plus pro -Medvedev supporters trying to undermine Putin). This naive account fits into the narrative being promoted by the editors in conflict with Greyhood; GreyHood is trying to keep a lid on their exuberance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
"Keep a lid on" is a very kind spin on things. I'd have said he deletes things willy-nilly, whenever they go against is views. But that's just me :) Malick78 (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You comment on my views a bit too freely when you don't know these views in fact. No need to make exaggerated conclusions from editing disagreement on a pair of articles. And what I really do is trying to support some Wikipedia policies - if I understand some of them wrong, I'm open to discussion, and I'm always ready to accept reasonable arguments. This is what the talk pages are for. GreyHood Talk 19:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I comment because you are disruptive. As for "reasonable arguments", you unwillingness to understand the policies you quote is repeated and does not show a willingness to discuss (Like your misquoting of WP:CRYSTAL and misuse of the AFD procedure when you really want to merge).Malick78 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Here, the last link you mention, I haven't made a single edit so far, so I didn't misquote anything and the accusation in wikilawyering is utmost unjustice in this case. I accept your apologizes here, thanks.
VsevolodKrolikov might be interested in this part of discussion, since he is mentioned there. GreyHood Talk 14:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Moody's

To any editor who happens to be watching this page: I have written a draft that I would like to see replace the current Moody's article, and am now seeking to organize a discussion about how best to do that (as I have a COI with the topic) on the Moody's discussion page. If anyone here is interested to get involved, your input would be very welcome. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shirish B Patel

While this is an AfC, the original article was written like a promotional resume. What I neglected to detect the first time around was that the name of the user editing the account is also the name of a marketing firm that specializes in promoting people in order to bring in more customers. They did edit the article to make it less promotional but there's still a big conflict of interest going on here, especially if they were potentially hired by Patel to create the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

User:EdQuine and BBC World Book Club

Since at least 2008, User:EdQuine has been posting messages to talk pages about books, with a link to a website "the World Book Club homepage" (run by the BBC) and promoting opportunities to get involved in events about each individual book.

The first request for him to desist seems to have been in 2008. There have been several such requests since then.

In 2009 he was asked to make clear whether he had any potential conflict of interest, and declined.

The talk page messages sent by EdQuine have continued at a steady pace, the latest on 17th October includes an attempt to suggest talk page relevance by including the text "A chance to ask questions to improve this article!" although that's quite clearly not the intention of the edit, since there is no mechanism for information discovered by the World Book Club to be fed back into Wikipedia articles by the organisation. (EdQuine does not appear to do any improvement of the articles whose talk pages he posts these advertisements on.)

EdQuine's most recent edit, 9th December, was to add information, albeit properly sourced and possibly useful information, to the biography of someone who is employed by the BBC working on the World Book Club program.

Finally, EdQuine is the primary, in fact almost the only, contributor to the article World Book Club.

I'm wondering if any steps should be taken to deal with these messages on book talk pages, or other aspects of the editing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I have no connection with the BBC or any of its programmes or employees. Anyone wishing to improve the articles on the books or writers can refer to the programmes in editing relevant articles. The programmes are permanently available online after transmission. It seems to me entirely proper for editors to be notified of the opportunity to improve the articles by putting questions directly to the author of books. Editors are likely to be people with an established interest in the subject and likely welcome a heads-up. I am in the habit of removing the notice when the opportunity has lapsed. EdQuine (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
As much as I try to presume good faith, I am entirely unconvinced that a SPA which only promotes the interests of this series and related people does not have a conflict of interest. Bulk-scale advertising on talk pages is not productive. a13ean (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any concrete evidence of a close connection but your (EdQuine) extensive history of "Liking" things posted by the BBC and specifically the BBC World Book Club on Facebook, I'd feel comfortable saying that there's a good chance that your aims may be unintentionally skewed by your interest. As for the talk page messages, they're innapropriate advertisement. If the goal was to improve the articles by getting editors to ask the authors questions, this would be original research, in my opinion. If the editor wrote down an answer, they'd be citing themselves (a non-published source) or citing themselves in a published source (if they can actually publish their information). Both bad scenarios. Even if there was some value to have editors as authors questions, promoting it on talk pages is inappropriate. Imagine allowing that for every subject. "Editors are likely to be people with an established interest in the subject" is a statement that somewhat alarms me. While we all edit articles of subjects which we have an interest, we should not promote that at all. I have an interest in Star Wars movies but it's not appropriate for LucasFilms to advertise the creation/opening of a new film on the talk page of the article to make sure that I know.
I have viewed the mainspace edits of EdQuine yet but based on the talk page edits and statements I've seen, I think that their edits need to be reviewed. As this is one of those in-between cases, I think this can be handled here or on WP:NPOVN.
Also, I'm going to continue looking for evidence of a close connection. OlYeller21Talktome 19:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a straight forward spammer to me - the posts on the talkpages should be deleted on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance with Cracker Barrel article

Last month, I arranged for the placement of a new draft of the article about Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which I had researched and written on behalf of Cracker Barrel. I disclosed the fact, in no uncertain terms, on the article's Talk page when I first posted the request and again when I asked for assistance at WikiProject Food and drink. An editor from that project reviewed the article, agreed it was a significant improvement, and moved it into place.

Just yesterday, Orangemike (whom I know sometimes participates on this noticeboard) placed a COI tag on the article, implying that the article "may require cleanup", etc., but did not leave a note on the Talk page explaining what is wrong with it now. This is perplexing; I couldn't have done this more by-the-book (per WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI, &c.), and I think a comparison between versions shows plainly that my version is much better—I'd go so far as to say it's now GA level. Of note, there is actually more information about the company's 1990s discrimination controversies in the draft I prepared than there was before.

Anyway, 24 hours have passed since I posted a note on Orangemike's Talk page asking him to reconsider. Since he has been active on-site since then, but has not responded, it's my assumption that he doesn't intend to do so. Would someone else here be willing to review the situation and perhaps remove the template? Thanks for your consideration, WWB Too (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As you noted, the version you substituted represents, on the whole, an improvement of the page. However, it is also true, as Orangemike noted, that the new version of the page has been edited by someone who has a close connection to the subject. I would even agree that it now paints somewhat-friendlier than neutral picture of the company. Posting it here is a good first step, an other users can point out specific issues, but it may take a few days. a13ean (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your concern the article might be "friendly" to Cracker Barrel—this is exactly why I sought input on the Talk page and the most relevant WikiProject, rather than immediately taking it live. Likewise, I hope I do not imply any ownership whatseover, and in fact Orangemike has made some edits I that I haven't contested.
Meanwhile, as far as I understand the warning, it's meant to highlight problematic articles edited without disclosure, not as a "scarlet letter" applied to work by an editor who has followed the rules. Frankly, this is the impression I have, given the lack of explanation or response. I hope you can also understand my concern about how this was handled.
I'm reminded of a proposal for a Talk page version of this template, which I do think would be appropriate for a situation like this. Anyway, I hope we can find consensus to make any necessary changes and decide the current template is not needed. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I find the article well enough balanced. The Diversity and discrimination claims contrasts well with the Reception section, for instance. I'm a little dismayed and perplexed that Orangemike has not joined this conversation. In the absence of specific complaints about the article, I would wish to see the COI tag removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who moved the article, I can say that I personally did not find any NPOV issues with that article. That the contributor created it as a part of a deal with the company was unknown to me and I would not have noticed it unless I hadn't read about this page. I believe that WWB Too acted properly and did a good job with the article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 00:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Taking account of the header of this page "Please note that the conflict of interest guideline does not absolutely prohibit subject-matter experts or other people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have a connection to the subject fully comply with the conflicts of interest guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.", I've removed the COI tag. WWB Too seems to me to have complied with the letter and the spirit of COI editing and being a COI editor. We do not mark articles as COI merely because they are written by COI editors, but because they have identifiable problems, and here, no problems have been identified. In my view the tag should not be reapplied in the absence of identification of specific issues. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and actions here, Tagishsimon and Jeremy. Glad you agree the article is of high quality and the template was not appropriate. As I said before, I do hope other editors will continue to improve it, and if I can be of help in that process I'd like to do so. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I have no complaints. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Mikepabell

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

This user (who appears to have a glaring COI) has created a series of related articles, the subjects of which do not appear to be notable and which I have either tagged for speedy deletion or PRODded. Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. – ukexpat (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I endorse the expat's concerns. I also note that the original version of this account's userpage, before he started writing or editing all the articles about his company and its products, was much more forthcoming about who he worked for; so there is no issue with "outing" him. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger Christian (filmmaker)

Referenced material has been removed by coi editor without discussion, what are other editors thoughts? Theroadislong (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Request discussion? Phearson (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
It's far from the first time he's done that, and it has been explained that that sort of behavior is unacceptable. I'll try explaining some more. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger Steare

Please note Talk:Roger Steare#Declaration of interest. The article was discussed here in November. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed this article and am happy that it's neutral in tone, referenced, and lacking peacocks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Graham Conway Davis

Unreferenced BLP, although largely uncontroversial. By the user name, we can assume that the main editor is the subject. Removes tags, and adds links to Amazon. The JPStalk to me 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sent to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Conway Davis. – ukexpat (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Mars Pathfinder

A close relative of mine worked as a research scientist on Mars Pathfinder, and I'm interested in both contributing to the main article here and creating new pages for the scientific equipment aboard Pathfinder's lander and the Sojourner rover. I don't think this is a conflict of interest because my relative no longer has a pecuniary interest in the project, and I never worked on it myself. Even if these are problems, I think my access to scholarly information about the project and its various experiments is grounds to mitigate any COI that might exist, and I'll be sure to cite the information I contribute. May I ask what this group thinks? Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question; I'm still learning the ropes.

I don't think that would be a problem provided that you cite your sources. If you are in any doubt, please discuss on the article's talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you could make some very valuable contributions to the article. It sounds like you are well aware of WP's COI rules and know how to stay within them. BE BOLD, I say! Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. The article's discussion page hasn't had any activity in over a year, so I think I'll go ahead and start drafting changes and being careful about observing NPOV. -- Darmokandjalad (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Athanasios Orphanides

I am concerned that the basis (please see here for details):[21] for the above article which is on the current Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, has been put in place by the PR representative of the Central Bank who I believe to be user:Kyproula, if you look at her postings here:[22] they only relate to this article, my concerns arise from the fact that there is a conflict of interest. The article, apart from reading a lot like a CV, only mentions the subject's research contributions prior to 2007, which is the year he took up his public office position as governor, in order to portray him in a more favourable light, whilst ignoring his term as governor, no mention of what he has acheived during those years is made.

I would have expected some critical presentation of the Governor's time in office and his policies etc. Also, if you look at the article's discussion page another user tried to add a section on the subject's time as governor with criticism based on his policy of regulating Cypriot banks, but it was removed as undue weight. I think, there is a case for an independent editor to look at the article and add a section about recent events i.e. the subject's term as governor between 2007-2012 in a way that is objective and not biased. Thanks 212.31.115.186 (talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Werner J. A. Dahm

All of these are apparently either Werner or his socks/meatpuppets. All are s.p.a.s editing only the article about him. I've just had to stub the article, which mostly consisted of a big fat copyright violation (cut and paste from his ASU profile, which [contrary to assertions of his in the past], is copyrighted by the Arizona Board of Regents). Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rogerfgay

An editor with lots of experience in COI issues suggested I post here. I am concerned that Rogerfgay is editing in a self-promotional manner, and that I have not been able to adequately explain Wikipedia policies to him in this area. Here are a few diffs showing self-promotion on his part:

diff1
diff2
diff3. Note that this edit began an edit war. I won't bother posting all the ensuing diffs, but there were many.

I believe he is editing in good faith and is not intentionally violating Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, he seems to have come to the conclusion that I am on a personal vendetta to block his additions, so I think it would be best if I stepped back at this point. If other editors could do a more effective job at guiding him through the ins and outs of WP:COI, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ebikeguy, for stepping back after I pointed out that you were effectively blocking discussion about improvement of the article. You already mentioned that you weren't doing it on purpose, and I acknowledged that it "gave the impression" that you may have been doing so, even if not intentionally. I still think you're going overboard in reporting potential problems as a way (as you have said) of learning the rules. Continuously pushing to start bureaucratic processes is what's giving the impression that you're obstructing - and it actually does take up time and effort unnecessarily. For your further consideration - was filing this possible COI an act of stepping back? You've already been shown an archived discussion in which editors accepted my participation. Rogerfgay (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been around this situation a bit and I think we'll be OK here. I think everyone wants what's best for WP which gives us a clear avenue for discussion. If there's been misunderstandings or confusion in the past, I think we can assume everyone was acting in good faith and now that a report has been made here, we can get other editors involved in the discussion and solve this matter rather easily as I think reports here generally helps solve issues more quickly than not. OlYeller21Talktome 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this needs some discussion. Mr. Gay has a long history of writing articles about which he has a strong connection: he is quite upfront about his identity so there is no outing here. He created the articles on his colleague/boss Peter Nordin, the Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB, the company where he is/was employed as vice president of business development, and The Humanoid Project, one of Nordin' projets [23][24]. He has repeatedly added links and information to other articles about this business.[25][26][27][28][29]. He also created the article on Men's News Daily, since deleted as a non-notable website[30][31], where many of Mr. Gay's articles are hosted. He has created WP articles (later determined as POV forks... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Support Policy) which cited his own (self-published) writings, and made other edits citing himself [32][33][34] even after he was aware that WP did not regard Men's News Daily as a reliable source[35] He was blocked for disruptive, POV editing and a pointy AFD nomination of Child Support.[36][37].

Now all this was a long time ago, but I do think it useful to point that most of Mr. Gay's contribution in Wikipedia has been to connected to advocacy, either of his work or of his strongly held views about men's rights issues. I was very sorry to see that he had returned to engage in more of the same, in this case to insert himself as a notable writer about Father's rights, first as an IP and then logged in. [38][39][40][41]. On the plus side, he did eventually ask, as appropriate, for consensus to for the addition of his name on the talkpage. The proposal hasn't received any support, because it doesn't seem that there is any sign that he is a notable writer per reliable secondary sources. On the downside, I am also sorry that Mr. Gay has returned to guessing at motivations of other editors, including opining that "opposition activists" and "activist trolls" have been thwarting him, and commenting on Ebikeguy above and elsewhere. I have a pretty high threshold for COI editing, and I am sure all the editors are contributing in good faith, but I do think User:Rogerfgay needs to be considerably more careful about promoting himself, his business and advocacy interests on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because some of the issues Slp1 is citing are from Winter 2007 it's worth noting that:
a) User:Rogerfgay's contribs to the mainspace show a very sporadic use of WP.
b) His last edit to the mainspace was to re-add himself to the Father's right's article[42] on December 9th 2011.
c) Prior to that he has 1 other mainspace edit in 2011, 3 in 2010, 11 in 2008 (including the Nordin and Robotics edits), and the rest end in the period that Slp1 has mentioned above (winter '07).
The latest mainspace edit and the claim that the father's rights article is "incomplete without him"[43] show a return to the COI issues from the period Slp mentions. These last activities fall under WP:SELFPROMOTE and may be considered to fall within the current community probation on men's rights articles too.
I believe that no action is required here as long as User:Rogerfgay's future actions comply with WP:INSIDE. As long as he approaches articles that he has, or may have a close connection with, in accordance with this policy there should be no problems--Cailil talk 15:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Working on contentious topics is a tough sport. I'd like the WP page on Mens News Daily to come back. Activist trolls attacked that too, first removing references, then complaining that content wasn't referenced, then on that basis removing the content, and then setting it up for removal for lack of content. The MND argument clearly illustrates the problem. Editors don't want to mention it in relation to the fathers rights movement, even though it was the largest and most successful fathers' rights publication. This somehow comes from their judgment that it's "unreliable." In what sense? Did it go in and out of the physical plane of existence? Then they contend that the content is unreliable? It provided tons of commentary on fathers' rights issues. So in what sense could it be unreliable? It's a POV source perhaps, but that's exactly what's needed in the fathers' rights movement article - the POV of the fathers' rights movement. Rogerfgay (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Before this discussion gets archived, I want to voice my concerns over Rogerfgay's comments, above. In them, he has misrepresented my position and put inaccurate words in my mouth. He has also attacked me personally, and other un-named Wikipedia editors whom he labels as "Activist trolls." He refuses to accept the possibility that any of his additions to Wikipedia have been deleted because they were not within Wikipedia's rules. In Rogerfgay, I see an unrepentant disruptive editor who shows every sign that he will cause more problems in the future. I don't think it would be appropriate to take any administrative action against him at this point in time, but I do believe that his edits should be monitored and that future transgressions should be acted upon as swiftly as possible. Thanks, Ebikeguy (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Office of Nonproliferation & International Security

NIS Outreach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has created Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. Since this government agency is known as NIS, the username violates policy as it appears to represent the organization. Further, some of the text of the article is copied from the agency's website. Since its a government agency, copyright is not an issue, but plagiarism and COI are still relevant concerns. GabrielF (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Indiana University East

Iueweb (talk · contribs) created an article about Indiana University East's Chancellor (Nasser Paydar) which was deleted as a copyvio. The account name gives the appearance of representing the university. GabrielF (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps it simply means that the user is a student there. Since there are now no undeleted edits made by that account, I don't believe it requires any further action. If the user starts editing again, then further encouragement to change the account name would be appropriate. (We wouldn't block him or her merely for having chosen an ambiguous account name.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wally Lamb

Amandatindersmith (talk · contribs) claims to be Mr. Lamb's assistant, and is making changes to the article which do not meet Wikipedia formatting and sourcing requirements. I've asked her to read COI, OWN and BLP, but she continues to make the unsourced changes. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

She continues to revert my changes, I will not get into an edit war over this, but the non-sourced, promotional, BLP violating edits she keeps making need to be reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the edits were so bad. A little biased, but generally seem factual, and I've done some cleanup. There is also a list of references that I'm guessing most of the article could be sourced to - I've recommended that she add inline cites. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Classical Movements

JessicaZaluzecCM appears to represent the company Classical Movements (cf her username) and has created the article Classical Movements. Despite several editors strongly advising her to stop editing the article, she persists in doing so, adding unsourced promotional material. I am attempting to rescue the article as I think the company is probably notable, but am being frustrated by the editor's lack of communication and insistence on adding inappropriate material to the article. Would appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A person with a name matching the username is listed as an employee of Classical Movements on their website. Also note that the editor in question has been blocked now by OrangeMike. Sperril (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And she's indignantly e-mailed me, insisting that her intent was not promotional (an assertion which does not correspond with the tone of her edits). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I nearly reported this too, and I thought about referring the username to WP:UAA when they were aggressively editing the Classical Movements page. The whole article is a mess, it's been CSD'ed twice (once by me), while other editors assert potential notability. It's a coin flip if it will end up in AFD—maybe someone uninvolved would be willing to do a little research and make an independent assessment on the article's talk page? Livit⇑Eh?/What? 01:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
She might well have had the purest of intentions. People who spend their professional lives promoting a business often believe that what they do all day long, every day, for years on end, is perfectly normal behavior rather than promotional work. That's why the COI guideline warns people about "unintentional bias". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
There's now a Sockpuppet Investigation going on as two new SPAs just started editing the article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
And now all three have been blocked. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Loquar

The user's very first edit to their user page says it all "Loquar is a marketing company specializing in viral and meme marketing. Founded in 2010 based in Palo Alto." Yworo (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The account has been blocked for spamming/promotion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Phenomenex

This article seems to be the target of a multi-year effort by the company to promote itself. There appears to be a once yearly update by the company, with promotional wording mixed into the updates, which though most edits may not constitute a gross violation of wikipedia policy, does look unbalanced. An examination of Fasha Mahjoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may also be in order, considering that two of the aforementioned editors edited both articles, and the latter subject is the CEO of the former subject. This article has been spam-clean-up'd atleast once before after promotional material was added. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I stubbed it, but in doing so I seem to have broken the infobox; could somebody help with that? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Missing bracket. Fixed. CIreland (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
¡Muy muchas gracias! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We've got what looks like a sockfarm here; the pattern is consistent, but the spam accounts change with the seasons. I've put a spamusername block on those eligible, but a Checkuser would probably reveal something which would surprise none of us. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User: Rej3ctzNWO

User appears to represent the music group The Rej3ctz, as their management company, based on this message. Seems to be violative of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. GrayFullbuster (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

International Acquisition Group

Hbuckner has created and recreated the article International Acquisition Group which is clearly promotional. From his userpage he is a "Business Analyst for International Acqusitions Group (IAG)" Sparthorse (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gen Next

Only purpose of this account is apparently to publicize this organization and its Dear Leader Michael Davidson; all edits are to that purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul S. Farmer

Please canyou help? A COI tag was put on this article originally, but after being raised here by Moonriddengirl in September it was removed. I now see another editor has replaced it last month. Can I seek approval to remove, having done so much to clean up the piece earlier? Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to be neutral and factual to me. I would think that there is no reason for a COI tag unless it is to note the reason for other defects in the article. I believe there is a talk page equivalent to the article COI tag and that's where the notice should be, if at all. However, I will wait for other editors to give their views before making any changes. Yworo (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Its not normal for the subject to edit their own page other than basic corrections of fact, dealing with vandalism etc. However having looked at the page it appears neutral, although the closure of the school probably needs to be directly discussed rather than the somewhat enigmatic statement at the moment. However the talk page does need to be flagged to make the subject's involvement clear. Otherwise I think its OK to remove the COI tag, but it needs watching.
That said I think there is a bigger problem with Dick Sheppard School where Paul is a major editor and where he was an active participant in the various controversies there. For such a participant to make major changes is and will always be problematic whatever the intent. I'd suggest a propose changes on the talk page but don't edit direct there other than basic references and error correction --Snowded TALK 19:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not normal for the subject to edit the article: it's unfortunately normal for them to suffer in silence. However, there's no actual rule prohibiting such editing so long as the end product is what Wikipedia would want, and unless there is an actual, identifiable problem, then that tag should not be used. Its purpose is not to warn the reader or shame the editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I agreed that on that article the tag can be removed, I am tempted to put it on Dick Sheppard School where there are large edits being made to the history of a dispute by an interested party. I know about suffering in silence having enduring various forms of vandalism on Dave Snowden so I'm sympathetic but there are limits. If you look at the edit history of the user then they all seem concerned with reputation management which can easily become problematic. I repeat my suggest that he uses the talk page rather than editing main space as a way forward if he wants to avoid this sort of accusation in the future. I have put the pages on watch so happy to look at them.--Snowded TALK 08:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks all for your time and advice. I'm still learning. I have just reviewed Dick Sheppard School and removed two sentences which had no citation/reference. Do I wait for further comment before removing COI tag for Paul S Farmer or does someone else do it?

Whilst I'm here I should explain that I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated. --Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You can always pipeline as follows Paul Farmer on the articles in question. If you create a series of articles about other namesakes, and they are notable, then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. I also suggest that you would have been better fact tagging that paragraph you deleted. --Snowded TALK 06:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hästens

It seems that there are a few editors active] who, with intervals, try to add marketing material (which I deleted [44][45][46]) or delete criticism [47] (which was added by me). They don't respond on Talk pages and they may well be different people (except Elfibon/Lara.hastens). I'm not sure how to deal with this. It seems that I'm the only one watching that article, but I don't want to be watching this article for eternity since I'm not really that interested in the subject. Han-Kwang (t) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

PandaBoard

Ngunasekera recently made some sizable changes to the article. I believe that they are [Outing redacted], an employee of Texas Instruments. LMB caught the edits and said, "We may have been raided by TI's PR department -> PR style into Wikipedia style". Ngunasekera submitted a PandaBoard article to AfC and shortly after its rejection, it was created in mainspace by Dingo aus. Since then, the two accounts have edited most of the same articles. I can not find any solid indication that Dingo aus is linked to TI or Ngunasekera but I thought it was worth noting given the odd way that the article was created.

I feel that the PandaBoard article is fine as it stands but felt that a report needed to be made as the link between the user and TI isn't that easy to find and the two user's edit history may need checked. I would do it myself but I'm heading out now to make a delivery. OlYeller21Talktome 15:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My own COI - request for review/advice

This user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.230.113.150

has been systematically removing my research from the above articles, and also has removed a comment I made from a talk page. (Contributions posted above shows this.)

I have flagged the two articles as COI-check, as I am the author of the materials removed. There are so few researchers in adaptive grammar that COI on the topic area at least to get an article up and running is nigh-impossible.

My thinking is to just sit back and let the wheels-of-wiki deal with this now that I've COI'd the articles in question. Any other suggestions? (Moving this from another page to here.) 

QTJ (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Whatever else this is, it - the current removal - is not COI. I suggest per WP:COI that you argue for the inclusion of your research in the talk pages of the articles and see if anyone bites. It's difficult for an outsider to make a determination, which is a problem. I have some difficulty in estimating whether a book published by Ibis Publishing, and a paper in a journal called "Perfection" - neither of which I've found by quick googling - are reliable sources or not. You might get feedback from the talk page of WP:RS as to whether either is a reliable source, which would help the case. Much the best, of course, and the thing that would be a proof against Wikipedia:Fringe theories is evidence of citation of your work in other RS. Ah! I see you've done that at Talk:Adaptive grammar. I'll have a think... --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I self-flagged AS COI to avoid going back into the article and perpetuating an unsightly self-concerned back-and-forth. The rest I now leave to the natural processes here at WikiPedia. Cheers. QTJ (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed both and reverted with a presumption in your favour, as explained at Talk:Adaptive_grammar#Jackson_removal_issue. I'll watch the pages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I now return to my regularly scheduled cave. QTJ (talk) 02:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TopGun

Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks 174.138.162.218 (talk) 09:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the neutrality of the editor's work, please report at the neutrality noticeboard. This board is for reporting incidents where a conflict of interest is evident. The Interior (Talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

chess

This user is editing these two articles (several edits to chess today) and adding as a reference a paper written by himself/herself. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since I filed this, the paragraph in question was removed from Chess aesthetics by another editor. There has been a lot of debate over a sentence added by the user to chess. Five other editors have reverted it, but at present it is in there, but without the original reference to this editor. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm

I'm accused of COI regarding the xxxterm article as I've written a review of the xxxterm browser (article's topic). The review was submitted to OSNews site, where it got published after editor's overview. I properly disclosed the fact of my authorship both in the article (by (1) replacing the nickname I was credited with on the OSNews site with my name as it is displayed in my Wikipedia signature and (2) specifically starting the WP:RS/N#xxxterm draft sources discussion on the topic). As I don't believe the accusations of COI have proper grounds, I would like to ask the community to either confirm or reject my opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another editor on the talk page trying to establish consensus. Dmitrij is acting in good-faith but fails to understand certain wikipedia policies and guidelines. I encourage any interested editors to refer to the talk page where numerous editors have have noted a POV issue. I also encourage editors to refer to the page history where even more editors have noted a POV problem. To offer a brief history on the issue:

  • the article was nominated for deletion (the discussion is here) for notability reasons. The result of the discussion was to userfy the article to Dmitrij's namespace.
  • On the day the AfD discussion closed (Dec 5th) Dmitrij wrote an article to try to make the subject notable as noted in his comments in the AfD. Note that while the article is not self-published the article is user-generated sp:sps. He continued that he would promote the article to help spawn third party articles to help establish notability.
  • the very next day (Dec 6th) Dmitrij proposed the article be returned to the mainspace based on his new article that he argued established notability. This notion was rejected. It was only until another source cropped up (9 days after his article) that notability for the purpose of inclusion was considered satisfied in his request to move (refer to the talk page).

I believe that this pattern (starting with the POV problems) demonstrates a conflict of interest because the user has stated and has accomplished outside promotion of the subject. Note also that I am not arguing the article is not notable, but that I'm providing background on a suspected COI problem. Thanks for taking the time to read. Johnathlon (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cave coordinates

Firstly; a disclosure. Leitmotiv and I are already in dispute over this issue. Leitmotiv is actively engaged in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about the above system (1; 2) and other caves (links below) on Wikipedia. His user page says:

One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.

and has previously said:

That's [controlling the publication of inappropriate [sic] coordinate information] why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud

I believe that he therefore has a clear conflict of interest; not least since his books will lose exclusivity if that information is published in Wikipedia. The book is advertised as including maps.


Prior discussion is at:

The issue of CoI was also raised by other editors in the above TfD; in which Leitmotiv himself referred to an "obvious conflict of interest" and "conflict in interest". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Response: First I want to point out a few things that may be sidestepped here.
  • PotW's incivility toward me and not assuming good faith in my edits.
  • PotW's inability to first come to my talk page and talk to me about the matter at hand and express his concerns in a normal fashion, but instead immediately accuses me of wrong doing and thrusts the conversation here.
  • PotW's inability to give direct answers to my concerns or questions which helps neither of us. He often responds with redirects to other parts of Wikipedia, but does not explicitly say exactly what he means or what part of that page he is concerned with. I feel that this is in part on purpose and with intent to irritate, intimidate, troll, throw in red herrings, or in some manner try to affect some means of filibustering.
But that is neither here nor there. So I must now defend against myself against these allegations, and how do you exactly prove a negative? I am not familiar with most of the ropes on Wikipedia and I am still in a learning phase, probably always will be, so I would ask for a little patience on everyone's behalf. If there are some rules in this proceeding that I must follow, please speak up immediately, and especially guide me in how to prove a negative. I would also like to point out that COI is probably inherent in every one of us as Wikipedia editors who have outside interests. I could just as easily accuse PotW for being pro-anticensorship, but he may fare better because he is in a pro-anticensorship environment here at Wikipedia.
Since PotW is the accuser, I would like for him to explicitly show how I would lose exclusivity. I am completely at a loss. It was I who created the Horse Lava Tube System pages. If I was in any way concerned that Wikipedia would beat me to it, I wouldn't have created the page to begin with. It's very likely that if I hadn't created the page in question, no one else would have either. You can probably surmise there may indeed be items I have not posted on Wikipedia and am saving for my book project, however, in juxtaposition to PotW's lack of good faith, those unpublished items are not coordinates as he erringly interpreted.
Finally, PotW's quote from my userpage notes that my book is "not for public consumption". At this point, the book/s don't even exist! Does PotW even know if they will ever be? Lots of projects get started and never finish. This one is no different and has come close to not finishing many times.
In summary, if I get this straight, PotW is suggesting I'm competing with my own edits on Wikipedia, for a book that is not for public consumption, and for a book that is only theoretical at this moment in time?
I will now address PotW's minor point, the "nip this in the bud" quote. At the time of that posting (Sept. 2010), I indeed felt that way. But after much time and learning some of the ropes on Wikipedia, it no longer holds true. At that time, I honestly thought it was a good idea to not have coordinates for commercial caves. I have since changed my position. I learned some things. In this manner, my response from Sept. 2010 is not applicable to anything today, because it only applies to my understanding of Wikipedia at that point in September of 2010. If I was held to things I did and believed two years ago, it's not so different than increasing that number to 10 years ago, or 20, or 30. Can I hold PotW's to his views and statements for when he too was learning the ropes at Wikipedia? Should I take his statements from 5 years ago and act as if they are concrete, unchanging, and unwaivering? That seems to me, insincere to PotW and is not assuming good faith, which I feel in conclusion, is the root of why PotW is here posting in the COI noticeboard, whether he's aware of it or not. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you ignore this report, although you might occasionally view it to see if any uninvolved parties have a question which you wish to answer. The COI guideline is astonishingly vacuous when it comes down to it, and is often only useful to provide guidance to a new user, and to alert other users about a potential problem (so edits can be more carefully scrutinized). For the case in question, you appear to have an interest in the topic, but there is no COI as that term is used at Wikipedia. I have participated in the discussion at Talk:BLP and have quickly scanned a couple of the other locations where the cave coordinates issue has been discussed, and it appears that US cavers generally do not publicly disclose cave locations in order to avoid the vandalism that would arise from indiscriminate publicity—the fact that you share that view is not a COI issue, it just means you share a view that is widely held by US cavers. The claim in the report about your books losing exclusivity if coordinates information is published in Wikipedia is very fanciful—your books will be wanted by a small number of people interested in caving, and apparently will have a total of around 100 pages of info which would not in anyway lose its interest because of what an article here says. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:SchmuckyTheCat COI on DJ Dan

I have a self-disclosed COI on this article. I corrected a recent edit which contained a negative accusation (which is true) to be more factual using a better reference regarding dates and the responsible party. I believe I corrected the accusation using neutral wording but I would like the diff examined: [48] SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the diff and read the sources and think that your edit is fine. SmartSE (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Eidos Institute

Jaimi090 declares his COI with this edit: "I am writing up a new page for the ceo of the Eidos Institute".

The other users appear connected; it seems likely the IP will be linked to one or both of the above users. Note these are the three main editors of the article.

The article does not appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G11; I have proposed deletion. I also note that a similarly named article was deleted before after AfD. I do not have priveleges to verify if the article qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. I am reporting this clear case of COI so that those more experienced in dealing with these matters can advise on or themselves take appropriate action.

Thank you --MegaSloth (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I've declined the PROD as it was previously nominated for deletion through AFD making it ineligible for PROD. I've also checked the version that was deleted after that AFD in 2009 and don't think it qualifies for G4, mainly due to the awards and mentions section that was not present before. Those sources aren't enough to satisfy the GNG though, so we may need to revisit AFD, but only after making sure there aren't more sources out there. SmartSE (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked and couldn't find any significant coverage so sent it to AFD here. If it is kept, then we need to clean it up quite majorly, but that may as well wait until the AFD is finished. SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Apologies about the PROD - I thought that as this was a new article albeit with the same title, a PROD was appropriate. Clearly I was incorrect. I will bear that in mind in future. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

3 Minutes World Silence

Aweaver2 admits to being Mary Cassini, originator of this concept. Either while logged in or (I believe) under various IP addresses while not logged in, she has been carefully maintaining this article to reflect the ideals of her movement, rather than NPOV. Now she is asking that it be prettied up because she is planning to send out press releases thanking Wikipedia for our "cooperation" in publicizing her concept!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while I haven't gotten as directly involved in the content issues here as some other editors, I have noted an ongoing problem with the article's categorization; the article has reappeared on the uncategorized articles list seven or eight times in the past few months because User:Aweaver2 has repeatedly replaced properly declared categories and/or the uncat template with random strings of googlemarketing keywords (e.g. Category:Peace. Philosophy and Thinking.) that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the way categories are actually structured and named on Wikipedia. That said, it's apparent that there's a big fat conflict of interest happening here — and while I haven't pursued it previously, I'm still rather unconvinced that the event really meets our notability rules in the first place. YMMV, I suppose. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here is where the cooperation statement and self-identification claims were made. Also, after reviewing the user's edits, I believe that the editor's intentions are in good faith. OlYeller21Talktome 18:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Nélida Nassar

This is my first time reporting anything at this Noticeboard, so if this is the wrong place I apologize.

It appears this is a single-use account for editing an article about that person, which most likely is a conflict of interest. Lord Roem (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

update - user has now confirmed [49] that she is Nelida Nassar. She says "it is a resource for my design firm". Lord Roem (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note Lord Roem, this is indeed the right place. I can't find any sources whatsoever so have sent it to AFD here. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_hanger

This was written by a company selling door hangers and included links to pricing pages on their site... 184.10.247.4 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There should probably be a merge and redirect from do not disturb sign to door hanger. The advertorial content and image from the current version of door hanger can get thoroughly red-penciled. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to go ahead and do that now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Aaaaand...done. Feel free to expand and clean up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Davidhar

I think it is time someone else looks at the contributions that Davidhar has made, and his reason for editing WP. He edits mainily on the subject of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York in a way I think is designed to promote the university he attends, he has made a number of statements to that effect :

  1. about how he and his family have been associated with for over 40 years,
  2. about how has been in contact with University Communication about how best to present the university in articles here.
  3. how he is trying to show wikipedia a hidden gem within academia.

He has also uploaded numinous copyvio images here and at commons to make the article look better, in one case going as far as submitting a WP:ORTS ticket claiming to release images on belaf of the university (see commons:User talk:Adrignola/Archive 4#File:South Campus architecture close up.jpg).

Thanks Mtking (edits) 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

The picture that I released behalf of the university is actually within my jurisdiction because of my position within the university, being the graphic designer of a large organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhar (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Then an e-mail from someone able to bind the university making this clear was all that was needed to avoid deletion. Mtking (edits) 07:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Society for Undergraduate Science Students (SUSS)

Resolved
 – Issue is resolved/stale at this point. OlYeller21Talktome 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about a student organization whose significance has not been established, written by a single purpose account, acronym implying COI. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Article has been deleted. One account has been blocked indefinitely. The other has stopped editing. I see no evidence that the user is still attempting to create an article. Issue is resolved/stale. OlYeller21Talktome 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DialATrade

Resolved
 – Issue has been dealt with. Seems to be stale/resolved. OlYeller21Talktome 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The username sounds promotional but the admin, Daniel Case referred me here. He created two promotional articles out of which 1 is already deleted and the other one tagged for deletion. Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User blocked by admin, Peridon because the account was used only for promotional purposes. The page has also been deleted, so this thread may now be closed.--Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

E-Cat

Disregard
 – New user unaware of difference between conflict of interest and content dispute. Not a report for this board. OlYeller21Talktome 17:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to place balanced, logical, true information on this page, only to get it removed multiple times by what appear to be to be very rude users. They advise me to place information on this page that is based on science, is referenced by multiple sources, etc. etc. When I do so, they refuse to read or admit the information is true and just abuse me. What can I do to publish this information? Solmil (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You could start by purchasing a dictionary, and looking up the words "balanced", "logical" and "true". Then read Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality and reliable sources. Nonsense like this edit of yours [50] will get removed, and soapboxing like you did at Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Proof_of_Cold_Fusion isn't likely to help your case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This complaint has no validity at COI/N—there can be no conflict of interest by people who generally have a low opinion of cold fusion experiments. There is no company or organization called "Cold Fusion is Bollocks" or similar. People who generally agree with mainstream science cannot be called conflicted. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Portland Communications

Tom Watson M.P. has made some observations about Portland Communications' alleged activities on Wikipedia at his blog William Avery (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added some links. SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
A quick look through this suggests that they haven't edited a great deal compared to BP and Qorvis - Mukhtar Ablyazov is the only article that needs attention AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Covered in "Lobbying company tried to wipe out 'wife beater' beer references". The Independent. Retrieved 4 January 2012.. I've tagged/ will tag the talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've added Portlander11 for completeness, although their single edit seems reasonable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's what A-B InBev UK have to say, about hiring Portland to edit Wikipedia on their behalf. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Added User:Jimmy007boy and (edits to Tullow Oil, after receiving tip in private correspondence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Stacy Erwin Oakes

Conflict appears self-explanatory. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't searched through this report intensely but I'm not seeing a clear connection. Can you provide some evidence, please? Sorry if I'm being dense. OlYeller21Talktome 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm talking about WGFA123 and possibly Emmitotter. The account that was blocked is very obvious. OlYeller21Talktome 17:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Emmitotter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single purpose account that's only edited Stacy Erwin Oakes, but the edits appear to be mostly non-controversial. It seems that most of the activity has died down, and the current article looks fine. It would still be in our best interest to watchlist it for future developments though. Netalarmtalk 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Blazemaster (Fire Sprinkler System)

Jmtucci's user page claims she works for The Lubrizol Corporation, the parent company of Blazemaster. Sparthorse (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The sprinkler article has been deleted and I've done some clean up of Lubrizol which Jmtucci had filled with a list of products back in August. I would recommend that Jmtucci follows WP:BESTCOI in the future and refrains from editing the article without seeking consensus to include material on the talk page first. Any content that is added should be predominantly from independent secondary sources rather than from the company's own website. SmartSE (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC

I am confused by all of this. How are other company's allowed to put all their information out there an it is okay? This is a learning experience for me, so I'm not trying to be difficult. I added to Lubrizol's page with cited information. I was advised by my legal team to disclose that I worked for the company in order to be in compliance with FTC regulations. We are trying to put factual information about our company on the website and I think it's more factual coming from us than a third party. When I was creating the Blazemaster page, I knew how to use Wikipedia, but I was having problems with the templates, so I saved before I was done. I didn't have a second to go back in and change before I was up for deletion. Please advise how other companies can manage / edit their Wikipedia site without being flagged.

Hello, the information on other company's pages wasn't necessarily inserted there by the companies themselves. A lot of the time it's actually inserted by editors that have looked into the company and inserted what they found. While users affiliated with the company they are writing about are allowed to contribute, they need to be especially careful and need to remember to abide by the notability & conflict of interest guidelines. In this case, it would be in your best interest to collaborate with other editors on the talk page and gain consensus before inserting material into the article. Netalarmtalk 21:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, an article to which you've already been referred by SmartSE. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniel DeBourg

User self-identifying as subject is disruptively editing e.g. legal threat and recent 3RR blanking. User is apparently not responsive to talk page messages, particularly WP:COI issues and WP:V requirements. WP:BLP cleanup may be warranted, but seems difficult to engage on this e.g. edit summary from another editor. Dl2000 (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The legal threat is clear but we shouldn't look over the issue. I think the user should be indefinitely blocked per WP:NLT after an attempt is made to find out from the user what information is incorrect. OlYeller21Talktome 14:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The legal threat was two weeks ago and more recently they've asked for help. It seems to me that some advice would be more sensible than a block. SmartSE (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a block is more than likely not the most productive action but I thought NLT required it. For the sake of records, I'd at least like to ask that the user redact their threat.
The issue seems to be two fold. First, the subject has made a legal threat and while I think it's an idle threat, I think it needs to be addressed. The subject has made edits to the article since asking for help (it's unclear if they've read the advice given to them) that don't address any real mistakes besides a possible difference in opinion on the artist's genre. If we are to move forward, I think the threat needs to be redacted and the subject needs to identify what about the article is wrong.
Secondly, calling his own music a "massive hit" and citing a seemingly non-notable award to back up that claim, is troubling and in my opinion, it constitutes contradicting aims between the subject and Wikipedia.
I'll leave a message on their talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Rather than going straight for the lblock, I left a message on his talk page. He in turn left a message (originally on my userpage) that I feel constitutes a withdrawal of the legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Qorvis

Various assertions on Twitter that PR and lobbying firm Qorvis is engaging in "wiki-washing" for clients. (This is just a heads-up — I've no personal knowledge of the organisation and its activities, but thought I ought to raise this here in case people are unaware.)—A bit iffy (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The few edits I checked are definitely alarming. The search you linked (for "qorvis wikipeda") shows a lot of claims that don't seem to be backed up. Regardless of whether or not a close connection can be immediately made, the edits need checked immediately. OlYeller21Talktome 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The details can be found here if anyone is interested. SmartSE (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added links for the users mentioned there. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to be kept posted on the progress of this investigation, as I consider this to be an important issue for Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been very busy the last few weeks but I plan on doing one of my case studies on this issue from Tuesday to Thursday. OlYeller21Talktome 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
ProjectPM has been researching this extensively in the previous weeks and months. Our current research is at this link - http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Qorvis - and is by no means complete but the best way for us to discuss this rapidly evolving situation would be to contact one of us directly. Danger123 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked through a fair number of edits a few days ago and found quite a few problems either removing sourced negative information or adding positive info. There are also a number of barely notable articles created by these accounts which I've nominated for deletion. I don't think their editing is as widespread or as problematic as Bell Pottinger's, but if necessary, someone could start something similar to Wikipedia:Bell_Pottinger_COI_Investigations to ensure everything gets dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Good that people are willing to look into this. I now have a lot of free time over the next 10 days so I can assist in investigations/actions (if I can work out where to start). Now, as regards the ProjectPM thing: I'm not totally comfortable going down that road as their investigation into Qorvis doesn't seem focused on its Wikipedia activities, but on its wider PR activities which I think should be out of scope for us here. So I prefer to go with OIYeller21's case study thing, or what SmartSE suggests. What do others think?--A bit iffy (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that because we can't govern their off-wiki activities, they shouldn't deeply scrutinized but they may be important when showing the overall habits of the company. Ultimately, I think there will be enough on-wiki activity to make an assessment without the need of extra evidence (off-wiki activity).
I run a children's charity so I've been very busy this Decemeber. After Christmas, I'll be able to actually put some time into the report. I'll also make sure to set it up in a way that others can add information/evidence and I'll incorporate a Bell Pottinger type list so that accounts and articles can be investigated and dealt with on a case by case basis. Sorry for the delay, all. OlYeller21Talktome 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
While I can't speak to any company's edits, or any other handle than my own, I can say that this is my personal account and it's true that I often make edits at work. No one guides my edits and I'm careful not to let anyone direct me toward editing Wikipedia in any way that diminishes the project that's being built here. That said, through my work in (mostly) foreign affairs I am exposed to worlds of information and like the rest of the world, I use Wikipedia pages (and in particular, the citations on those pages) to anchor my initial inquiries into the various people, places, things, ideas, etc., that are new to me. My work provides me with constant unique opportunities to investigate these things through travel and research from which I add what I hope is helpful to Wikipedia. That said, I enjoy editing Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia is important. When an edit of mine gets flagged or stricken I very much appreciate the clear, concise, respectful approach the Wikipedia community has to socially monitor the integrity of the project's knowledge. It is a welcome break from the trolling that diminishes discourse throughout much of the social web. As I said at the beginning, I can't speak for any handle but my own and don't speak for any company or group. My expertise is very niche and my edits intend to enhance Wikipedia. Please let me know if (and where) I've failed in this, that my edits may be rectified and any future editing I do conformed to community standards. Beyond that, happy holidays. If I can assist you in any way, please don't hesitate to ask. --Ratfinx (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting Ratfinx and sorry for not notifying you of this discussion. I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to tell us - you've sidelined the issue of whether you work for Qorvis or not (not that it is terribly important). What I can say, is that regardless of whether you edit articles without external guidance or in a purely personal capacity, there have certainly been problems with some of your edits and many fit a pattern that I would expect from an editor working for Qorvis. In particular, many of your edits have been related to US-Equatorial Guinea relations, when EQ is known to have employed Qorvis. Amongst these edits was this which removed unsourced (but relatively easily sourced) content from Riggs Bank, creating articles about the embassy and ambassador of EQ to the US which are of questionable notability. Similarly, along with other editors listed here you substantially expanded Sam Dealey who I just discovered is an employee of Qorvis. Judging by the commons description for his portrait, Avalos2008 is Dealey (note that I have nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation). Whilst he is probably notable as a journalist, the article contains original research, is promotional in nature and by failing to mention he now works for Qorvis is not neutral. That you edited the article just 12 minutes after Avalos2008 makes it seem extremely unlikely to me that you edit independently as you suggest above. Just in case further evidence of working for Qorvis was required, your commons uploads include a Qorvis logo which you claim is your own work! (Again note that I have nominated it for deletion).SmartSE (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Now that I've said all that and it is abundantly clear that Qorvis employees edit Wikipedia, whether in their free time or as part of their job, I would like to provide advice of how you can do so, whilst being a net benefit to the project. There is good general advice at WP:BESTCOI, in particular, I would encourage all editors to disclose that they work for Qorvis if they are editing articles related to Qorvis' clients or employees. Secondly, if you find negative unsourced material included in articles, you should make a concerted effort to find reliable sources, rather than removing it (as in the case of Riggs Bank). If you cannot find any, then you should remove it, but note on the talk page that you have a conflict of interest so that other editors can also look for sources themselves. If you wish to create new articles you should first ensure that either WP:CORP or WP:BIO is met and once the article is written, it would be ideal if you notify this noticeboard, so that they can be checked over by other editors as soon as possible. If you are open about your motives for editing, you are more likely to be treated with respect by other editors as well as avoiding any embarrassing media coverage which could arise if your 'dirty tricks' are discovered later on. SmartSE (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I see how those edits would be cause for concern. Best response I can give: My bad. Lesson learned from your thoughtful advice. I hope that my edits since Riggs Bank and Sam Dealey have been up to standard. If not I hope that your watchful scrutiny will help guide my past and future contributions.--Ratfinx (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Back from break. Starting the report. Sorry for the delay. OlYeller21Talktome 17:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Great. I should have mentioned before that I've already gone through most of Ratfinx's edits although there might be more to deal with. I added WeatherBug17 because of this edit by Underscore77 who is obviously linked, suggesting that the articles WeatherBug17 wrote need attention. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Should Avalos2008 be added as well? Avalos removed an advert tag and contested a PROD [51] at PQ Media. You mentioned above that Avalos appears to be a Qorvis employee. And PQ Media is a Qorvis client. (The Avalos account hasn't edited since June.) Sperril (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
We could, but I've already cleaned up their edits. Thanks for reminding me about PQ Media though - AFAICT they fail WP:CORP so have sent the article to AfD here. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cry of Worship Ministries

Resolved
 – Article deleted, user blocked Netalarmtalk 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Articles have been deleted and the editor blocked per WP:U. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

37th Training Wing

In this edit I decided to remove a WP:BLP issue I felt was WP:UNDUE for an article on the wing. For full disclosure, I am assigned to this Wing, however I am not assigned to this Group and I have never met no care about this Colonel. There is an article about him at Joseph L. Romano and it is well sourced. The reason I removed it from the article, though, is because he was not assigned to the 37 Training Wing when the crime was comitted and the Wing was completely uninvolved. Also, upon this guy's future reassignment or retirement, there will be zero connection to the wing. It just doesn't belong in the article about the Wing, unless there is some sort of unique notability about him being assigned and that should be sourced. At most, I think a "See Also" might be warrented. I don't feel I have a WP:COI because I don't work for the Colonel and wasn't even aware of him until reading that blurb on this article, so I boldly did what I felt was correct, but I understand how someone could reasonable assume I do have one so I'll leave it for ya'all to decide whether to revert or not.--v/r - TP 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any thing wrong with your edit. Thanks for disclosing your COI though. SmartSE (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris Duckworth

A series of edits over more than two years have added material that is neither encyclopedic nor sourced and which seems close to self-advertisement or autobiography. Johnlp (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorted through an intervention from a patroller at the WP:BLP noticeboard. Johnlp (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Telugu literature

The user has a name which appears to be the same as a minor writer in the Telugu language. Almost every single edit that they have made has been to insert that author in various articles, usually with a link to the author's website. The author does not have a WP article and the insertions have continued today despite warnings about COI and edit warring. They're very sporadic in their contributions, and I have just cleaned up all but the Telugu literature article itself. (I am close to 3RR on that one.) Given their sporadic history, what if anything can be done? The possibility of COI appears high, the nature of the contributions is POV-y, and if it is not COI then probably the username gives cause for concern. Sitush (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've checked a random selection of their edits and agree that they are problematic. It's tempting to block them as a promotional only account, but since they haven't been warned so far, I think it is best to warn them instead and block them later on if they continue. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking over things. They have no only been warned but at the moment are on a 24 hour break for edit warring over just this issue. Or am I misunderstanding you?- Sitush (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignore the above. I've seen your note on their talk page and it makes sense to me now. Again, thanks for your doings. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

ADC Bioscientific

Steveadcuk (talk · contribs) who self-identifies at Talk:ADC Bioscientific as an employee of ADC Bioscientific has contributed significantly to the article ADC Bioscientific and has added content to anthocyanin which appears to promote ADC Bioscientific and its products. I reverted once at anthocyanin, and so has another editor, but Steveadcuk has simply re-added the promotional content both times. I'm not sure what do, so I'm reporting here so others can investigate and take appropriate actions themselves. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not exactly the most beautifully neutral work I've ever seen, either, but I wonder: have you considered improving the content, rather than just deleting it entirely? It's not at all unreasonable for that article to mention methods of measuring the substance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

David Westin

Hey Wikipedia! Just thought I should bring to your attention Mr David Westin (former ABC News president) who's been editing his own page. Most of his edits seem not to violate policy, but I'm filing this report so that users experienced in dealing with COI can watchlist this page for future potential problems. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted and left him a message. From his contribs, it looks like he only drops by rarely, but maybe he'll read it. The Interior (Talk) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Demcak

Previously AfD, had some copyvio issues and appears to be largely autobiographical. a13ean (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nom'd for AfD. Please add your input here. Phearson (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Elaine zimmermann

Resolved
 – Article deleted, links checked. Netalarmtalk 04:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The user recently created this autobiographical article that appears to have been copied and paste, though I haven't yet located the original. Clear COI based on username. Sparthorse (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The user's article has been deleted as a G11 but the user is still making edits to other articles. I believe the edits are spammy but in good faith. The user could use some help if someone is willing to give it. OlYeller21Talktome 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've done a link search on the 2 links the user was inserting. They've all been removed. It seems that this issue has mostly been resolved. Netalarmtalk 21:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Covanta Energy Report

Resolved
 – Edits reverted, page appears neutral now. Netalarmtalk 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Company seems to have replaced entry with marketing material, violating NPOV. 198.228.196.183 (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The username involved is in breach of policy (WP:USERNAME, for a start. And what's more, it seems to be largely copy-and-pasted from sections of the company's website [52] - a possible copyright violation. For now, I'll revert to the pre-copyvio version, and ask an admin to deal with the remaining issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Marking this as resolved, since the user has been blocked per the username policy and said user's edits to the article have been reverted. I've also removed an uncited claim on the article. Feel free to reopen if this issue arises again. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 04:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Rainer Buchmann

Article nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Buchmann. Zzarch (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the editor definitely has a COI. At the moment, it appears that the article is heading for deletion, though, so that should render the issue moot, since the user has never contributed to any other article. If the editor starts adding his own name to other articles, or interferes with the deletion process, then that would be a problem. However, the editor implies on the article's talk page that he will accept Wikipedia's judgment of notability, so hopefully this will sort itself out automatically once the AfD process is finished. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Daniela Georgieva

Editor has repeatedly removed information about article subject's positive test for metenolone. Test results are both relevant to the biography and referenced to reliable sources (well-respected newspapers in Milan and Sofia and a Bulgarian news agency). References have been removed as well. NellieBly (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, this could be either a COI or a fan, but either way the information should almost certainly stay since it is directly related to her notability (though should the test turn out to have been wrong for some reason, we should probably remove it to not further the injury). I'll put the article on my watchlist; if IPs keep removing, semi-protection will work; if the editor xyrself keeps removing it, I can block the editor. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Similar edits have also been made recently by 173.77.167.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'll notify the IP of this discussion as well. --NellieBly (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ali and Nino: A Love Story

...and possibly more

These articles, and I think a few others (possibly Yusif Vazir Chamanzaminli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Azerbaijan International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)) all revolve around the book Ali and Nino. There is a literary dispute about who wrote the book (it was written under a pseudonym). One major set of research on the work was done by the Azerbaijan International journal. Now, don't get me wrong--this looks like a massive piece of work, and may well be legitimate research, and may even, one day, be accepted as the primary theory on the authorship of this book. However, other authors and researcher have reached different conclusions, including Tom Reiss and Tamar Injia. That's normal, of course, for lit crit. The problem comes in that, right now, most of the listed articles write, in Wikipedia's voice, that the AI research is correct and that other researchers are wrong (especially Reiss). I've revamped the Nussimbaum article to be more neutral, but haven't got to the rest. Gizgalasi is the primary author of these articles as they currently stand. In addition, Gizgalasi states, in User Talk:Gizgalasi#Ali and Nino and associated pages that xe is a member of the Azerbaijan International research team just described. Gizgalasi has demonstrated an inability to edit articles neutrally, always starting from the perspective that the AI research is correct and other research is flawed or incomplete. Again, it may well be...but until such time as we have evidence that the AI theory is the widely accepted one, Wikipedia is required, per WP:NPOV, to address all relevant viewpoints. I explained WP:COI to Gizgalasi in this edit. However, per Gizgalasi's contributions, they have continued to make edits to these articles, including several that were not neutral (see [53] and [54]). Now, I am on record as saying that I have no problem with COI editing so long as it is neutral. But these articles are so far from neutral that I believe the only reasonable solution is to require Gizgalasi to work only from the talk pages of the articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I should add as a warning that these articles probably fall under the general sanctions enacted by WP:ARBAA2. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I would add Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery! to your list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Polarman and conflict of interest

User:Polarman, as you can see from his contribution history, has been quite prolific in adding links to a website entitled Playerhistory.com. By his own admission, Polarman is Hakon Winther, the founder of Playerhistory.com, which presents a massive conflict of interests. I would like an admin to intervene here so that Polarman is made properly aware of Wikipedia policy regarding self-published content and self-advertisement (and any other policies that may relate to WP:COI). – PeeJay 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but i just think it's fair that playerhistory share same info as soccerway and soccerbase. Who do you think add their links. We have gone from paysite to a public site so i don't really see the problem Polarman (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman

If i have to stop you just say so. Are contributors to playerhistory allowed to add links? Polarman (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman

I don't see this as a conflict of interest, as Polarman has declared his identity and connection to the website concerned. It appears not to be a personal website and, as stated, is not a commercial enterprise. Adding these links is hardly against the aims of wikipedia, especially since Wikiproject football themselves have just constructed a "bot" to update the several hundred existing links to the playerhistory website. 94.9.69.145 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it matters that he's declared himself as the party in question or not. It is inappropriate for any individual to post content on Wikipedia that they have an obvious connection to. It could be seen as self-advertisement, which is not what the Wiki is there for. – PeeJay 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out that User:Escape Orbit has removed the added links, with edit summary "Per WP:EL. Nothing on this website that couldn't be in the article." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed these links because, on examination of a few, the web pages were linking to appeared to be limited information, of unclear origin, that was significantly less than what was already in the article. Consequently I can see no convincing argument for their inclusion on the articles. They certainly do not "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". The fact that they were added by the owner of the website simply compounds my impression that their purpose was more concerned with drawing traffic to that website than improving the Wikipedia articles. This is not acceptable use of external links. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
@94.9.69.145, I don't believe a bot has been specifically constructed to do this, (although perhaps MerLinkBot which has been designed for this type of task may be doing such) but either way, updating "broken" links that exist to "working" links is not exactly the same as blanket adding links, particularly when they are to a self owned site. --ClubOranjeT 10:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple of points I'd like to make... It does matter that Polarman has made a full disclosure. It doesn't eliminate the conflict of interest, but it is always appreciated when an editor is forthcoming about their affiliations. It helps show that the person is acting in good faith. On the other hand, it doesn't matter what the nature of the web site is. We would give equal weight to a charity site raising money for cancer research and a commercial site that sells car insurance. Promotion is promotion. An individual who repeatedly links to their own web site on multiple articles (or even a single article) is most definitely a COI concern, and in this case may be a concern under WP:SPAM.
I do very much commend Polarman for declaring that he would stop adding the links if asked to. I don't think any sanctions should be given for behavior that was done out of a lack of knowledge of our guidelines and policies. Polarman, there is already a discussion of your web site by the Wikiproject Football, you can see the discussion here. You might want to participate there, there seems to be some question about the reliability and usefulness of your site, and as the founder of the site you may be able to answer any questions they may have about the site. If the project members decide that your site is helpful, they may add it themselves to pages where appropriate. Thank you. -- Atama頭 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Chinese Tech Giant Aids Iran". 19 Oct 2011. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011.
  2. ^ "Chinese Tech Giant Aids Iran". 19 Oct 2011. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011.
  3. ^ "Statement Regarding Inaccurate and Misleading Claims about Huawei's Commercial Operations in Iran". huawei.com. Huawei. Retrieved 7 November 2011.
  4. ^ http://www.hindu.com/2001/12/12/stories/2001121200721100.htm
  5. ^ Satyamurty, K (12 December 2001). "Chinese firm's dealings: police kept in the dark about probe". The Hindu. Retrieved 16 November 2011.
  6. ^ Shankar, Jay (10 December 2001). "Indian state government puts Chinese firm under microscope". Agence France-Presse.
  7. ^ Rajesh, Y.P (11 December 2001). "India probes unit of Chinese firm for Taliban link". Reuters News.
  8. ^ Kurtenback, Elaine (12 December 2001). "Chinese firm denies reports that software center in India helped Taliban". Associated Press Newswires.
  9. ^ Srinivasan, S. (15 December 2001). "No evidence of Taliban links to Chinese firm, Indian authorities say". Associated Press Newswires.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54&oldid=1151050075"