Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 96

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Reader Magazine

WikiBalandina, (a WP:SPA) has implied without saying that they don't have a COI on their talk page, but has added substantial flattering content containing obscure info such as specific circulation numbers over time. Some edits have sources, but they don't always support the attached details.[1]. Brand-new editor Ginger2020 has done a copy-paste revert of this info with an edit summary accusing me of having a COI, which is pretty funny.[2] Both editors have added promotional info about the environmental impact and benefit corporation status which are sourced to routine non-independent sources, and these claims are also prominently touted on the magazine's website, which suggests promotional intent.

Currently, the only substantial independent coverage of this magazine is a 2011 article in the Columbia Journalism Review discussing plagiarism accusations, and a Courthouse News brief about the magazine editor's subsequent libel lawsuit.

The article did not include the plagiarism accusations when it was first written by 27century. That editor is a relatively new account who has created a several promotional articles about unrelated, obscure, recent topics, which speaks for itself. It looks like many of these articles were deleted or are up for deletion. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done much editing here and I don't have as much experience as you do. My initial impression is that you're more concerned with feeling you are right than anything else, including welcoming work and someone new, even when they have more experience and knowledge about a subject than you. When that becomes apparent-- that they actually might know something that you do not-- your approach/stance is to accuse them of having a conflict of interest or to label their work in negative terms. You also use your superior understanding of Wikipedia in ways that could certainly be considered bullying. You do not appear to be interested in the contributions/edits of others and you take a dogmatic approach to others' contributions-- labeling them as "promotional", questioning their motives rather than acknowledging they may-- because of longstanding interest-- know things about a subject and have a desire to share it. You are not practicing civility in your communications and certainly not in the way you continually change a page and eliminate the work of others because it isn't your work, or because of [fill in the blank].WikiBalandina (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
If you are willing to discuss these edits on the talk page instead of edit warring, we may be able to figure out a way to add some more of the information you know to the article in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I have incorporated some of the changes you have made to the article, although you've since been reverted to a verions with more promotional wording. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. You have been adding content but haven't been providing reliable sources. When I try to discuss this with you on your talk page you avoid answering me, then insult me, and restore the info anyway. Saying that you haven't done much editing is an understatement, since this is the only topic you have edited. The history of the article suggest that undisclosed COI editing is a realistic concern, which is a concern you still haven't actually addressed. You still haven't explained how you know the c. 2003 circulation numbers of the Yucaipa Reader, for example. As at least one other editor has tried to discuss with you, this is a major cause for concern and a possible violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Bailey

The BLP Sir Anthony Bailey was written by an SPA, Culture759 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose edits only concern Bailey and his various honors. I added the PR template to the article and it was reverted without explanation. The article needs to be neutrally written and retitled - "Sir" does not usually go in titles unless they are baronets. He has a PR firm (culture is one of his areas of speciality according to his website, www.anthonybailey.org) and I would have to guess Culture759 works for him. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Sir" does not belong in this Wikipedia title. Moved per WP:OBE. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I don't know how notable he really is. He does have a lot of post-nominals but everything about him appears to be from primary sources, so article needs to be hacked down to non-promotional. Culture759 also wrote the article about his wife, Princess Marie-Therese of Hohenberg, of dubious notability, whose claim to fame is being a great-granddaughter of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Culture759 also created three other articles on very minor awards, Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada, all of which were, coincidentally, awarded to His Self-Promotional Excellency, Sir Anthony Bailey. The Grenada constitution mentions the Order of Grenada but I can't find any other recipients. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: An OBE certainly is a significant acheivement, and it appears he's also been honoured by the Pope, [3] I agree that the tone of the article needs a complete overhaul, but he probably passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree he meets GNG, but the problem is it's from all primary sources, like press releases, so everything is going to come off very slick. Even his intro is very oily - "a campaigner engaged in furthering cultural, educational, commercial and inter-religious relations between Europe, the Caribbean and the wider world." I have no idea what that is. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it odd that the only things that I know about this guy, (I'm a Brit) aren't covered in this peacock article? -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If what you know about him isn't extremely flattering, then I'm not surprised in the least. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
As one of the main contributors of this article I would like to put on record that I do not know, work for or have met or communicated with the subject or his companies and suggestions to that effect made Мандичка are plain false. I find the subject interesting and notable having been honoured with 20 or so high state awards including being knighted by the Queen in right of Antigua and Grenada and in the UK getting a OBE and twice by the Pope in Vatican. I shall endeavour to add some more sources to each but the use of both statements, official releases and front page media coverages in major publications speak for themselves. Even on the subjects own websites you can download official third party sources are shown which confirm what is stated in the article including letters from Buckingham Palace and others. I agree about the article template agree about the 'Sir' being added to the articles title by another contributor . I am aware of the use of titles in articles but he certainly meets GNG. I have also created and contributed to many other articles on relevant subjects which have merit. I have an interest too in lesser known state awards and decorations and have created articles about them. As to his wife she certainly is of note both in terms of her family and the honours that have been awarded to her. I have regularly removed a number of post nominals but other contributors have seen fit to add them again. Reference is also made to very minor awards Sternberg Interfaith Gold Medallion, Sisserou Award of Honour, and Order of Grenada ?? These are national state honours founded by a Queen or President or a quick look at the recipients of the Sternberg Interfaith Medal show the signifiant public figures including prominent Heads of State and Government so have received it. Culture759 (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Culture759.
Hey, culture, do you think we should cover this guys arrest record? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
hi Roxy the dog, I assume you refer to the allegations made in 1994 which sources show were dismissed by a magistrate and the subject not even sent to trial and an apology issued to him. a quick look at the Press Complaints Commission show a number of apologies being published by uk media in this regard who had referred to it so no to your question would be my thought. . Culture759 (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

European Graduate School


This article has been the subject of repeated vandalism in the past by accounts that seem to be linked to the institution. These accounts take issue with the fact that the Wikipedia article for the European Graduate School references its lack of accreditation as a degree-issuing university in the United States. The edits usually involve deleting links to credible and sourced U.S. government websites that record this institution as unaccredited. The EGS website was previously protected from edits to halt this abuse under WP's Conflict of Interest policy (See case here: [4]). Since that time the EGS has taken to misrepresenting its status with Wikipedia on its own website (link: [5]), which claims:

The entry on Wikipedia has been vandalized and is inaccurate. We are in formal communication with those responsible at Wikipedia and have asked them to lock the site until it is replaced with a correct page listing.

A review of the edit history on this article reveals that this is exactly the opposite of what happened. Several EGS-linked accounts were repeatedly vandalizing the site by removing sourced references to its lack of US accreditation, and the page was temporarily locked from editing to prevent EGS-affiliated accounts from continued vandalism. In light of this pattern & given a clear indication on this institution's website that it is trying to remove relevant and sourced but unfavorable information about itself from its wikipedia article, I'm reposting it here and asking that a permanent Conflict of Interest notice be placed on the article's talk page to govern further edits from a persons that are formally connected to this school. Thanks - Contextualist (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

There's always a problem is saying lack of accreditation, which is something that usually cannot actually be documented. But just as Contextualist (talk · contribs) sys the article history illustrates he repeated efforts of publicists for the school to improperly use anything that might possibly suggest accreditation way beyond their proper meaning. (A good indication of this is anything suggesting accreditation in Switzerland. That country only accredits the schools listed in List of universities in Switzerland, but. like most places, will register almost anything as a business. It's routine in such cases for people to use business licenses as if they mean accreddited. It's routine for state ment about links with other colleges to be used, when they can not actually be demonstrated to be current. We really need a proper way of wording to deal with this sort of situation. (one way is to delete the articles, but that can remove useful smd sourceable NPOV information about a widely publicized "university"). DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
We went through this in October. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93#European_Graduate_School. The current article text seems reasonable. They really do seem to be accredited in Malta, but that may just mean that Malta recognizes diplomas from them. The recognition by the canton of Valais is much weaker. They're in category J, "Private schools of tertiary level recognized by the Canton", along with two schools of hotel management.[6]. This seems to be related to an European Union convention of which Switzerland is a signatory.[7] There's a EU distinction between diploma acceptance for cross-border employment, and diploma acceptance for academic purposes. The certifications mentioned here seem to be for the first purpose. John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I checked this. Malta recognises one qualification, and based on this EGS states that is is an "EU accredited Institution of Higher Education", which is not a style I have ever seen elsewhere, and the top Google hits are all EGS: [8] - they appear to have coined it. Accreditation in the EU is a matter for member states, and there's no actual evidence that Malta does accredit them, only that one qualification is listed as licensed. Bear in mind that we have had Bircham International University banging on for years about how being licensed by the Spanish Chamber of Commerce is a form of accreditation, which it plainly is not. So I have added an {{editprotected}} to remove that paragraph as WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Belly (loyalty program)

Cleaned up by jytdog.

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

Article was created fully formed by a one-edit account; then maintained by a string of SPAs. Best I can tell it has ever had only one substantive editor who is neither an SPA nor anon. It has a telltale list of unknown awards and company social media links. Needs a thorough scrub at least. Brianhe (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

i cleaned it up and have it on my watchlist. 03:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC) [ jytdog partial signature]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hamsuselvam

Page deleted by Tokyogirl79, editor acknowledges COI guideline.

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

Author of self-published book appears to have written article on book then derailed AfD with incorrect page move to user space. Brianhe (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted the move and marked the user page for WP:CSD#U2 deletion. ansh666 09:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the book's page since it was up for AfD and there wasn't really any chance of it surviving a full week. I've given the user himself a warning about editing with a COI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bluezell

Editor's sole purpose seems to be to spam links to user's talk pages offering "assistance" in the form of links to a website that they purport to work for. It didn't feel like a straight AIV or spam blacklist case (but maybe it is) as they aren't actually editing articles so I wasn't sure the PAID rules applied directly:

are two examples, but essentially all their edits are the same. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

OneSky - removal of COI notice by editor who has a COI

Editor self-disclosed COI and article was deleted by JzG as promo. Brianhe (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

This user appears to have a major connection with the subject and they have made many contributions to the article. They continue to edit the article and have removed a COI notice from the page, which I reverted. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the article link above and have put this on my watchlist. They have now disclosed on their user page - seems teachable. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Has someone gone through the article for NPOV so that the tag can be removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
CNMall41 it appears to be moot now that the article has been deleted. I'll close this COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure how this went G11. I did not see anything that made it so overly promotional that it would need an entire rewrite, but I guess I would need to see it again to know for sure. I don't see deleting it due to conflict of interest as a something we should make a habit of unless it was truly so promotional that its only purpose was to promote and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. @JzG If you have access, you can place it in my userspace and I will see if it is salvageable.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Allegorithmic

Speedy deletion completed by SmartSE. Brianhe (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Company gets a fully formed article with incoming links mere hours after a new user registers. Unsurprised if this is just another tentacle of a massive sock farm that you can't do anything about. 217.38.157.35 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's tagged for speedy deletion and an admin should do that right away. It's basically like, "We've got a great company. Here's our product list" That's after I deleted the list of former products. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging it. I've deleted it and concur that it is likely part of a sockfarm, and that unfortunately there is little else we can do. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jonathan Mitchell

User has made substantive changes and denies COI. He is not telling the truth. He has a personal online friendship with the subject through Facebook and through his blog Autism Gadfly. He has also appeared on the blog of known friend Oliver Canby. He should not be editing the article and I have tried to revert his edits but he has chosen to edit war forcing me to come here and report him. He must go through the COI procedure on the talk page to get his edits approved by non involved parties. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - And what is your relationship here, @KrazyKlimber:. I see you nominated the article which is fully within your right as a Wikipedia editor. I would like to point out WP:POINT in case you are not familiar. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
You should also be aware of WP:OUTING. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You are both edit warring, stop it. Your claims, like theirs are uncited and therefore hard to act on. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought reverting COI was protected editing behaviour. Proof of my claims will come shortly, but they are off Wiki so I wasn't sure if they would be considered. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Here's one source. I'm searching for more. KrazyKlimber (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    I'm beginning to wonder about WP:BOOMERANG. KrazyKlimber is a new editor who's taken to this with great passion; that's fine, but the conversation here and at the article talk page--I can't access all the diffs, which have presumably been expunged for outing, but [9] gives a picture, and the rest is here [10]--suggests unusual determination. Moreover, these blankings [11], [12] appear to be a bit overzealous. I've seen and reported a lot of COI accounts, and while this may eventually be seen as problematic, it's not egregious. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
    • i agree that KrazyKlimber needs to be less strident, but Ylevental has now disclosed that they have a personal relationship with the article subject. I left Ylevental a note on their Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dynegy

This article in its current form was almost entirely written by these two editors. Dynegy's External Communications and Media Relations Manager is named David Onufer;[13] the IP address is registered to Dynegy, according to the whois record. Before these two editors re-made the page, it contained a great deal of dirt on the company; now most of it is gone. Given that the article was apparently written by the company, I'm not sure how to clean this up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The version at 17:46, 8 July 2015 would be a start, but there would probably be a huge stink raised, so I'd wait for other voices. The 'article' as it stands hurts my eyes. Ow! -Roxy the dog™ woof 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been bold. I've reverted all the edits back to the last good edit dated July 8, 2015. It's just unconscionable that two Dynegy-related accounts would edit this article. Period. Very clear violation of WP:COIN. (Kendall-K1, I apologize if I stepped on your toes and reverted your good-faith edits. It was going to be too hard to restore the article otherwise. My abject apologies!) - Tim1965 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That revert seems reasonable. Davidonufer was last active in summer 2015, so that's a dead issue for now. The IP editor does seem to act like a COI editor. IP editor, please register an account. If you're going to do something controversial on Wikipedia, an account lets people talk to you. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Heather Anne Campbell

After Laucb had twice removed referenced statements I added to the article about Heather Anne Campbell, I looked at their contributions and noted that they've only ever edited articles with a direct connection to Heather Anne Campbell.

I questioned their activities on their talk page, but received no reply; the same removal has again been carried out by the same user - with no explanation.

It is clear to me that Laucb has a strong bias regarding Heather Anne Campbell, and one way or another, a strong bias is a conflict of interest. fredgandt 06:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That may just be a fancruft problem; it's hard to tell COI from fan obsession in the popular culture space. What needs to be fixed in the article? There's nothing on the article talk page? John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If no COI is declared, the problem with the main article listed will be the continued unreasonable curation by a clearly biased individual.
Specifically, only the repeated removal of one valid piece of information needs fixing, but this is the only issue I am personally aware of - there may be others - which, where a bias is evident, wouldn't surprise me.
I hope it can be agreed that the user is biased, and as such a COI exists, even if not in the strictest sense. fredgandt 09:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps WP:SPA if not COI? fredgandt
This user only made one edit last year and one the year before, so I don't think any further action is needed. I reverted the removal of sourced material, I don't think anyone would object if you put the rest of it back in. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that it's what they do that matters more than how often they do it. Anyway, that's that. fredgandt 20:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

American Film Market

Hi everyone, I'm a film buff who's also done some freelance writing in film industry periodicals. I just started editing Wikipedia a few months ago. However, I noticed some suspicious behavior when I tried to add a few details to the American Film Market page.

Seeing as I read a great article about the AFM awhile back, I decided to use it as a source to add a number of details to the entry. I even added a picture I took. I was surprised and frustrated to see my handiwork quickly undone by a user called JonathanWolfWiki. Even the picture I added was gone! Seeing as the article is a stub, I thought my additions would be welcome. Apart from the annoyance of seeing edits I took a long time to write deleted, I wasn't even given a reason (which I was always given in the past; for example, I've often made mistakes when citing sources).

I thought there might be an error, so I undid the edits. However, I now see my revisions have been undone again by a user called Jennaflower. I don't understand why my edits keep getting undone! Rather than spend time and energy I don't have to undertake an edit war, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to alert the mods.

This is the page after my edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=695193433

This is the current page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Film_Market&oldid=698599196

Prior to posting here, I performed a quick google search. As it turns out, the profile JonathanWolfWiki is tied to Jonathan Wolf (he has edited other entries about himself), a Managing Director of the AFM. I can't understand why he wouldn't want to include my edits (which were sourced, balanced, and informative) apart from a desire to control all content that goes on his organization's entry. That's not how Wikipedia works, and completely in conflict with the spirit of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.. AlviseFalier (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Trimmed some peacocking from the article. Right now, there's a reasonable basic article. There's what looks like a 3-way edit war, with none of the parties putting anything on talk pages. Please discuss your disagreements on the article talk pages. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is a response to the post by AlviseFalier:

    The edits made by AlviseFalier were reverted back because they were broadly inaccurate, biased and defaming to the American Film Market (AFM.) The changes did not reflect the event, its history or the companies involved. These edits included defaming statements such as: "Initially, the bulk of sales during the AFM were of pornographic films."

    The edits also included inaccurate event dates, inaccurate event locations, inaccurate statements about marketplace conditions, inaccurate statements about the City of Santa Monica, etc.

    The changes made by AlviseFalier are sourced solely from a publication called VideoAge International. It has no subscribers and is distributed free at film and TV events. Four references to VideoAge accompanied the edits by AlviseFalier even though the AFM is covered widely in the media by every major international outlet.

    VideoAge published an inaccurate, biased and defaming “history” of the American Film Market in its November, 2015 issue. I believe that AlviseFalier has a direct involvement with VideoAge and is seeking to use Wikipedia to pursue its inaccurate, biased and defaming campaign and to promote VideoAge.

    I am a big supporter of Wikipedia and open source and welcome and appreciate updates made to the American Film Market. I post with my full name, not anonymously, so others can easily direct their comments to me.

    I would also like to point out that AlviseFalier appears to be violating Wikipedia’s Policy against “single purpose accounts.” This user is new to Wikipedia and has never posted to another Wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AlviseFalier.

    Thanks, Jonathan Wolf -- JonathanWolfWiki ( JonathanWolfWiki) 19:47, 8 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against "single purpose accounts". Single purpose accounts are fine so long as they are editing responsibly... which is the same situations as accounts showing a broader purpose. And every new user starts by editing on a single page until they edit another. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful to put the block of text above on the article's talk page. So far, no one involved in this dispute has put anything on the article talk page. Anyone editing the article can find the talk page, and it helps to justify including or excluding that information. Content disputes are normally resolved on article talk pages. Editors with a conflict of interest should write on talk pages, and avoid changes to the article itself. See WP:COI#COI editing strongly discouraged. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Record Store Day

User indeffed by User:Randykitty. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor name points to a clear conflict of interest, and they have repeated removed properly sourced criticism of the event. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Now been indeffed by @Randykitty:. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
CNMall41 stated that remaining COI issues seem to be resolved. Brianhe (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

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

This actually looks more like a content dispute. While the person may have a conflict of interest, this should not warrant an automatic block. If there is a conflict of interest, the person is still allowed to edit as long as they do it NPOV. Normally I wouldn't opine, but this one looks like a quick judgement. In fact, I see @Ilikeeatingwaffles on the talk page of the user who is now requesting to be unblocked. There is really no need for that either. Overall, this originated as a content dispute, not a COI. The COI was used as justification for the block which seems unfair to me. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
My take was that there's a content dispute with an editor who wouldn't accept the accusation of having a conflict of interest. Was seeking assistance/arbitration/etc. rather than pushing for a block. Perhaps I took the wrong approach? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
COI is not here to deal with content disputes, but COI is. You did fine bringing it here for COI, but I would suggest that it is done for the COI, not as part of a content dispute. This makes things look - regardless of your intentions - that it was done to win a content dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The account was mainly blocked for having a username not in accordance with our policy. If it makes you feel better, I can change the block template (taking out the part on promotional editing), but they would remain blocked all the same. They can ask for a rename and then an unblock. BTW, the remarks on their talk page ("our wiki page" and such) don't instill me with a lot of confidence that they can edit NPOV. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Randykitty - Thanks. The username block makes perfect sense. No other information needed. I agree that the editor is unlikely to be NPOV, but many people are frustrated with Wikipedia and do not understand the rules. This user likely does not understand COI guidelines as they clearly out themselves on their talk page without fear of repercussion. I guess I would just like to see it explained better to new users, despite their intentions. However, I do not think this user will be back so it would be pointless to do so now. Thanks again for your explanation. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that I conflated two issues here, and I can see how it could be interpreted that I was trying to use COI to win an argument. That was not my intention, but as the discussion became more heated (on the use's talk page) it appears that some form of action would have been taking down another route. Maybe the unintended consequence speeded up the inevitable? Apologies for any problems caused. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. Just wanted to point out the appearance of impropriety. Your intentions were good and the issues now seems to be resolved. If you feel there is a COI, don't think twice before coming here. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surbiton High School

Article cleaned by Nagle and others, user blocked for username policy violation. Brianhe (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

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

SHSPR exists as a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest to promote Surbiton High School, and has contributed extensive non-NPOV edits to the school's article. Mlleangelique (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The ad copy seems to have been removed. I removed the collage of images of famous alumni because the middle image was from Getty Images. See file deletion request on Commons.[14] John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orpheus (band)

I've never reported a COI before and would appreciate advice. This article appears to have been created by the subject and most all of the edits have been entered by same. I did place a request that COI be read before continued editing. Pjefts (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The article is both promotional and contains much uncited information from the band itself. It's not new; it dates from 2006, and was created by a non-SPA editor back then. Over the years, there have been some SPAs involved with the article, including Orpheus metal (talk · contribs) (involving a band of the same name in Australia) and Iwasthere67 (talk · contribs). There was also an edit war over the band's history [15], so sources need to be checked. The band does seem to have two recordings on a major label, although that claim needs to be checked. "Orpheusband" uploaded the band's portrait photos as "own work" at File:OrpheusInMarin(2014).JPG, and File:Orpheus (1969)-2.jpg. They confirmed ownership of the images via OTRS, so we can assume they have a direct connection to the band and have had one for decades. The article has been tagged for reference improvement since 2011. References are present but not well connected to the text. The COI editor has not replied to requests to communicate on Talk or here. Suggest trimming the article down considerably by deleting unreferenced insider detail. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that User:Orpheusband has a COI for the Orpheus (band) article due to the close personal or business connections that come with owning the copyright and creating as his/her own work the two OTRS images. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I asked for assistance from User:Marchjuly regarding the images, started the ball rolling on the user name, and tagged the user and article talk pages with COI notices. As for the article text, the referencing is not inline. However, there is a lot of source material out there and much of the Wikipedia article text probably could be sourced. The amount of text is not outrageous as to require trimming. As with any article, any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (see WP:RS). In other words, if you think the material would tend to lead to an argument or quarrel, feel free to trim it. As for the band origin, they originated in Worcester, Massachusetts, but only became known once they moved to Boston. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

RDX Inc

Article and redirects have been deleted by DGG and SmartSE. Brianhe (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Pretty obvious advertisement complete with product lists, PRwire refs, etc. User has also edited articles on related products, but is otherwise an SPA. A speedy deletion notice is on Davidboom's talk page but I can't find any trace of it. I'd suggest deletion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RDX Inc has been speedily deleted, but (I've never seen this before) RDX INC and Rdx sports are redirects to it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
There are several reasons for deleting redirects at WP:R#DELETE, including redirects like this one that exist only for promotion. - Brianhe (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the redirects per G8 and also removed a couple of spam links. There are also two others users they've been editing alongside which I've added. SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mohammed Rahif Hakmi and Armada Group

All editors have been been creating / editing articles relating to Armada Group and it's owner, and I suspect work for the company (the first is presumably the company owner). Edits seem promotional in nature. {{coi}} tag has been repeatedly removed from Mohammed Rahif Hakmi. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Added editor FlaviusAetiusLaelius, SPA whose contribs include adding the phrase "Armada Towers is imposing magnificent design". Brianhe (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Caliber Home Loans and L1 Elliott

I stumbled across this last night and felt the content was quite odd. It was the second one I ran across that uses the method of putting up a couple of lines of facts and then pours on the agenda in a negative attack. When I looked deeper there was a history of this handle doing the same in the past. In trying to figure out why and where this is coming from I uncovered that they all have a theme in common, the union Unite Here is involved with each one of them. Just do a simple Google search for 'North America Western Asia Holdings Unite Here' and for the others and you will see exactly what I uncovered. In my research I also learned that this is called a sleeper account WP:SLEEPER. The entries are definitely notable, but I shutter to think this type of practice would be allowed. The history can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/L1_Elliott --RedmondKane (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Win Gatchalian

This politician is almost certainly notable, but the article is mainly created by an account that appears closely linked to the subject, the subject's homepage is the source of 90% of the sourced claims and the whole article is unencyclopedic, written like an ad or glowing biography and reflects badly on Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Jeppiz (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Project Ascension

Edits are by a team member of the project 50.176.74.64 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ernest Lee Straughter

Apparent autobiography. I'd initially earmarked this for deletion, but some good research by another editor has rescued the article. Unfortunately, the creator is using Wikipedia space to add unsourced content and write their own bio. Assistance requested, especially with respect to WP:OWNERSHIP. Thanks. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Directory entries for non-notable journals

sample articles

Now-inactive user Luke.j.ruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is employed by Sage Publishing. His main space contributions consist, as far as I can tell, solely of creating a series of directory entries for Sage journals. The majority of these journals are not in the least bit notable. The "sources" are, in every case I have reviewed, merely the journal descriptors in various directories - and of course this text is not independent. I think they should all be deleted but there are a large number of them. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The list of creations is indeed large, over 300 articles. I've listed the latest 5 above for perusal. The full list is at User:Brianhe/COIbox31.
Off-wiki evidence also links sjh88 to Sage through January 2015 with high probability. - Brianhe (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Luke.j.ruby noted here: "I am an editorial assistant at SAGE Publications based in the London office." Here's a list from which to work:
List of 329 new pages by User:Luke.j.ruby
-- Jreferee (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The great majority of these journals are notable. When I stumble upon one of Luke's creations, I generally take a broom through it, update and correct links, add independent references, etc. That's easy to do (see WP:JWG for helpful tips). It actually takes less time and is less hassle to do this than to take all these journal articles to AfD (or PROD them). And given that it is often quite difficult or even impossible to convince editors that an article on a non-notable journal should be deleted (for a current example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubrovnik Annals), taking these Sage journals to AfD will in the majority of cases be futile (but not all, note that I have added "prod2" templates to a few of the PRODs of JzG). --Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The great majority of them have single-digit impact factors, often barely more than 1, as far as I can see, but it matters not: the spammer has got what he wanted, and we will keep the directory of shit journals. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, having an impact factor at all is rather distinctive: There are something like a 100,000 academic journals around (about 1000 new ones were launched [http://thinkchecksubmit.org/faq/ in 2014 alone) and I think that only about 10.000 are selected for inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports. So inclusion in the JCR is for about the top 10% of all journals. Scopus is a bit less selective, but still "only" covers about 20,000 journals, which is about 1 in 5. So inclusion in either one of those databases, which only happens after a journal has been vetted by a commission of specialists, is rather good evidence that a journal belongs in the top 10-20% of the most important journals world-wide. As an aside, a "single digit IF" can be very high, depending on what field you are talking about. In mathematics, an IF >1 is pretty big, for example. In most fields and IF of 9 is pretty huge.
As I said above, it is currently already difficult enough to get even less notable journals deleted, because people seem to think that "looks interesting" or being indexed in Google Scholar is enough for an academic journal to be notable. At this point, my personal goal is more to keep predatory journals and publishers out (unless they are so bad that they have generated enough coverage to meet GNG, see OMICS Publishing, for example). And journals that have no shred of a claim to notability such as Journal of Statistics and Management Systems (currently at AfD) are difficult enough to get deleted. So instead of going after articles just because they were created by a COI editor, I rather clean them up from any POV and provide independent references (see WP:JWG) saving my "AfD energy" for the really non-notable ones. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I just have this weird view that we shoud not reward spammers, and Wikipedia is not actually a directory, of minor journals or anything else. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Raheja Developers

Raheja Developers has been a problematic article for ages, with some people clearly intent on showing the company in a bad light and others intent on whitewashing it, in particular by using press releases, minor awards etc. There were also articles for the directors that were absolutely ridiculous but I think they have been sorted out.

I don't want to get into a row about the merits of paid editing but, following a series of SPAs, the most recent contributor - Mr RD - turned up and acknowledged their conflict of interest. I had a word with Iridescent, who suggested I posted about the issue here and then stepped away. That seems sensible so I'd be grateful if some fresh eyes took a look at the thing. It is dreadful now, imo, but a lot of the whitewashing went way too far also. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, as a nota bene, construction/property development in India is - along with politics - notoriously corrupt. There probably is substance to many of the accusations that have be made but the balance/tone is unsettling to me. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done just a little looking into this and made some notes at User:Brianhe/COIbox32. It looks likely that a sockfarm is working here and on DLF (company). A sockfarm was found previously; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wikiaccnt1234. The actual creator of the article Raheja Developers in 2013 was the sockmaster, Wikiaccnt1234.
This had come up before at COIN archive 92 but apparently fizzled out. - Brianhe (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is no doubt that a sockfarm has been operating at the Raheja article and those relating to its directors. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


It is true that Real Estate is a very corrupt and unethical business as currently practiced in India. But, reading majority of the pages on builders in India on Wikipedia you would not know that. The biggest company of India, DLF, was fined Rs 630 crores for unethical practices, and abuse of its buyers. The 2nd biggest company Unitech is awash in litigations, and it's top 4 directors had to spend 1 night in Tihar Jail (prison) before they were bailed out last week. Companies like BPTP have hundreds of cases against them, and homes and shops/offices that were supposed to be delivered in 3 years are still undelivered 8 years later. In all cases buyers have paid almost 90% of the price of the property years ago to the builder. Another behemoth builder Jaypee Associates has over 350 cases in the National Consumer Commission. Raheja Developers has been sued by over 750 buyers in the National Consumer Commission, and cases are pending at the High Courts & Supreme Court of India. There is also case of tax cheating against Raheja Developers at the Supreme Court. In all cases, the builders are powerful enough not to let majority of their misdeeds appear in the mainstream news sources, which is why they do not find mention in Wikipedia. If the tone is a little harsh, even though backed with facts, it is a good idea to edit it so that it is neutral. But, I believe, it should not lull the reader into believing that they are seeing all there is to see about the builder. It should provoke them into investigating a little more before they decide to plunk their hard-earned money (often running into millions) into the coffers of the builders. There are some good builders, and their pages should reflect them. There are some bad builders, and the pages should not hide that. Leoaugust (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Lincoln Townley

User appears to be Townley, based on his uploading multiple pictures of artwork and personal photos, and then adding to Townley page, e.g.: File:National Gallery Exhibition - March 2015.jpg, File:Mickey Rourke portrait by Lincoln Townley.jpg. Has also specified he is author of the pictures, and account is an SPA. User has also been adding promotional material to Townley page. At the very least someone with a very close connection to the article subject. FuriouslySerene (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Have you gone through for the article for NPOV? Despite there being a possible COI, you are more than welcome to check to make sure the article is neutral. Also looks like the original article went through AfC so someone would have reviewed it prior to going to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I have previously but the user keeps restoring/adding stuff so thought I'd bring it here. Majority of the edits on the page are from DeanoJD. Also, there's been multiple edits since it went through AfC (where it was previously declined). I think subject is probably notable, but the editor seems to either be Townley or an associate of his. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Indiamart

editors

Noticed this at the spam board (permlink). Perhaps 400+ articles have had indiamart.com links added. The article IndiaMART itself, a subsidiary, and that of its founder Dinesh Agarwal, look like they have been the target of undisclosed COI editing as well. – Brianhe (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndiaMART (2nd nomination). and note in particular the " IndiaMART Leaders of Tomorrow Award" . , a non-notable promotional award that should as a minimum be removed from all articles where it appears, and should also cause those articles to be examined for promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Spacious and others

Case #1

Case #2

Case #3

Lumping these together due to the interrelated editor lists -- there is an SPI on one or more of these editors but it looks like it's not going to result in technically confirmed relationships. However, feel free to refactor into multi reports if you think it's better. There is a fresh Contribution Surveyor report on Ireneshih here. — Brianhe (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Brianhe, please explain the reasoning behind your inclusion of my username in your report. To make it easier for you, this was my only edit to the Namrata Mohanty article. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably simply because you had edited there in April-May-June 2015 with the others, and, like many conflicted editors, you didn't have a userpage. It looks like your edit was harmless minor reformatting and addition of categories, so you should not have been listed. Sometimes errors occur. - Brianhe (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply, User:Brianhe. As my username was added to the list in error, please remove it either by striking it through and adding a note or by deleting it from the report entirely. Iaritmioawp (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Done. Brianhe (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Goodwork84

Goodwork84 is writing a promotional article on the company Grovo in draft space. The article was deleted at least once in main space. After one deletion they had a short talk with User:DGG in which they were warned about COI and admitted to being "friends" with the company owners. They have not posted a COI notice on the draft nor on their own page. Looking at the edit history for this person I sincerely suspect paid editing. LaMona LaMona (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not being paid to edit anything, and the article is not promotional. It's factual, objective, and backed up by over two dozen credible sources, including Bloomberg, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal. Literally every sentence has a reference. Is helping a friend who is confused by Wikipedia a COI? I'd be happy to add a notice if that's needed, but I honestly don't know how to do that... The original Wikipedia page was up for years with no issues until User:DGG deleted it. When I talked to him, User:DGG suggested that I rewrite the page as a draft with better sources, which I've done. It seems crazy that a business that's been recognized by so many prominent people, publications, and companies wouldn't be considered "notable." Simply trying to get a page back up. Goodwork84 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Goodwork84: Just one question: you mention "a friend who is confused". Is this friend a Grovo investor, executive, employee, contractor, or otherwise associated with Grovo? If so, you have a conflict of interest. – Brianhe (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
"a friend" in this context unfortunately usually turns out to mean a paid editor, or someone else with COI. We will judge by the results. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's this person's edit history: They began editing on Wikipedia by creating an extensive and highly promotional article for Charitybuzz, a non-profit, then they did Skillshare, which looks pretty promotional (lots of wp:refspam, and then Grovo, another promotional site for a company or organization. The original Grovo article in mainspace was deleted for promotion by User:DGG. The Draft:Grovo article looks like nothing more than an advert for the company although I already removed a lot of refcruft before declining it at AfC (press releases, etc.) LaMona (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to call this one resolved. We got the person's attention, they have agreed to write neutrally and to put a notice on their user page. I'll work with the person on cleaning up some articles as per NPOV, and we'll see how it goes. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, I have a list of folks for whom I have left a COI notice based on an AfC article, and at some point I'll summarize the results. In most cases, the outcome is a resolution to the problem. LaMona (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Deepak Arora

COI article deleted via AfD, no other contribs from this editor in article space. Brianhe (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Looks like a personal and or company promotional effort. All photos uploaded are of this man, all maps are of company locations. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We seem to have a lot of issues with automobile industry (sales)people lately. At any rate, it's been listed at AfD. - Brianhe (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CNNYAW

A primary intent appears to be promoting this topic, which is now being considered for deletion, and adding external links to other articles. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I've listed my evidence here, but this looks extremely likely to be a hoax. There's almost no web presence, their Alexa ranking is extremely low (going against their claims of high revenue and readership), and there's no mention of them on the official Time Warner website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack London (businessman)

Single-purpose account Alumzsh has stated that he works of the company that the subject heads and that he is editing at the subject's request. As you can see in that previous Dispute Resolution Noticeboard link, he has attempted to acquire ownership of the page. At the article, he has built and repeatedly restored ([16], [17], [18], [19]) a long bio which is an edited version of the subject's corporate bio, which presents not just sourcing issues, but WP:COPYVIO ones. Attempts to engage him and explain policies on either his talk page or [[20]] get a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response or no response, and he has not engaged on the article's talk page at all. His edits have been deleted and/or tagged by Fyddlestix (talk · contribs), Cwobeel (talk · contribs), and KConWiki (talk · contribs), with no sign that I find of editors supporting him, and that DRN attempt at ownership was properly slapped down quickly. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That will help. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
me too. nice work, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

R v. Elliott

It has been suggested by an IP that I have an "undisclosed personal relationship" (bolded in original) with people associated with this court trial, after I made a series of edits to the article and also nominated it for deletion. The IP's allegation is based on a Twitter interaction wherein I replied to a tweet by one of the complainants in the case; that tweet is probably hidden to most users here but the content probably isn't relevant. Although the IP didn't do much homework on the topic, I can confirm that I have interacted on Twitter with both complainants and the defendant in this case in the past. I absolutely have a bias in the subject area represented by this case, but I don't believe that simply following someone on a social media site is evidence of a relationship that rises to a level forbidden by the COI guideline. However, I respect the guideline and so I am requesting a review of the situation. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Could you expand on this? What's the extend of your relationship with the complainant and defendant? Do you know them outside of Twitter or was it a single solitary interaction there? Also, why did you call that person a "disgusting waste of flesh?" FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The extent of my relationship is Twitter interactions. Guthrie is a prominent local political commentator, and we have followed each other and occasionally interacted online for quite some time, I mean, that's the general idea of social media. I have attended a few events that she has hosted, as an interested member of the public. As for the presence of a "personal relationship", our "relationship" is as personal as my "relationship" with you. My interactions with Elliott are limited solely to Twitter, other than the possibility that he attended one of Guthrie's events which I also attended. As for why I called that person a "disgusting waste of flesh", Twitter suspended their account so I couldn't tell you for sure, but based on the content of Guthrie's tweet that I was replying to, the person apparently made threats of extreme sexual violence against her, and I firmly believe that people who go around making threats of extreme sexual violence against women on the internet are disgusting wastes of flesh. It's highly unlikely that that person was associated with the case anyway, just some random person on the internet. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
While threats of violence of any sort are strongly deprecated here, and I can understand why one would react strongly to them, were those threats made in wikipedia? It seems not. The issue is your calling someone names here based on what they apparently did outside wikipedia. If threats of violence (sexual or otherwise) were made, the proper response isn't name-calling (also deprecated here in wikipedia). It's action which is likely to address the issue.
If a threat of violence was made in wikipedia and you believe the threat is a real-world threat, it's a matter for which a response has been suggested (but is not mandatory as of yet) - see Wikipedia:Threats of Violence. The suggested response there is to report the threat to emergency@wikimedia.org.
If the threats were made outside wikipedia and you believe the threat is worrisome enough to warrant the attention of the real-world authorities, then by all means, inform them in the appropriate fashion.
But, reading your post, there seems to be a firm lack of actionable information (outside Twitter, anyway, and I have no idea what their policies are for handling threats of violence) regarding the person you called that name. So we fall back on WP:CIVIL, and its injunctions against name-calling (no matter how seemingly well-justified - and as a matter of principle, I don't care for those who threaten women with violence, either). loupgarous (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're addressing. The question is whether I have a conflict of interest with respect to the trial. The threat above did not involve Wikipedia in any way, and indeed it was dealt with through Twitter's channels - the extent of my involvement there was filing an abuse report through the Twitter website, which was actioned (the account was and is suspended, though I can't say due to this report) and then I also called the person a disgusting waste of flesh. I casually believe that WP:CIVIL applies to off-wiki interactions with Wikipedia editors (though not by letter of the policy), so had I identified a Wikipedia editor by their Twitter account and called them names there, perhaps that would be actionable here. However, the person being called names in this instance was using a throwaway anonymous account and therefore is not identifiable whether they have a Wikipedia account or not, and I have no idea if either Guthrie or Elliott have Wikipedia accounts. As for having called that person a name within this thread, I am describing an incident which happened, but I would be happy to redact if you like although I don't think it will affect anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I interpreted FuriouslySerene's asking if you'd called someone a "disgusting waste of flesh" as pertaining to a remark made in wikipedia. If that was an error, I apologize. Going from your explanation, you did take the name-calling out of wikipedia, and into Twitter. I'm not sure whether such conversations between wikipedia editors are governed by WP:CIVIL or not. I'd personally try to err on the safe side, even outside of wikipedia, but I don't know if that's asked of us. But please don't feel as though you have to redact the account you're referring to, unless you just wish to avoid having other editors make the same mistake I did, for your own convenience. loupgarous (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector kudos to you for bringing this yourself! There is actually policy that is relevant here - please see WP:BLPCOI. In terms of the COI guideline, please see WP:COISELF. In my view, per policy and the guideline, since you have external relationships with the involved parties (the back and forth on social media constitutes a 'relationship' in my view - if all you had done is talk on some blog somewhere there would be no issue but you have said that you interacted), you should refrain from directly editing the article and if you participate on the Talk page, you should make it clear that you have external relationships. Happy to discuss if you like. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both, this is helpful and I will take your advice into consideration. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Canadian Monarchist League

No evidence of any COI presented despite repeated requests. Despite repeated explanations from multiple editors that their behavior is disruptive, Travelmite refuses to drop the matter. I have blocked them for 24 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

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

An editor connected with the Canadian Monarchist League has been editing pages connected with Republicanism in Australia. This appears to be happening over many years. It is a clear conflict of interest, in that some monarchist organisations actively oppose their republican opponents in Canada and Australia. The edits delete or whitewash information in a manner similar to a political campaign. I see evidence of past edit warring, to frustrate other editors from getting involved. I am not sure if this person is paid, but he has a lot of time to do it. For the record, I am not a member of the Australian Republicans, but I was personally involved about ten years ago. I was looking up the article because it was Australia Day.

I raised this issue on Talk:Republicanism in Australia. The person deleted the claim from the talk page, and has now done this three times, claiming that it is a personal attack. You may judge for yourself. He also deleted another editor's comment twice on the talk page, because he also expressed concern of this Canadian Monarchist League connection. I now claim, that he's trying every effort to get me to back away. This is now outside my knowledge of how Wikipedia handles things. Travelmite (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Let me just add that an administrator (this one) also removed those comments. And I'll add another thing: don't go calling an editor an "official". Just call them "editor" or whatever--your case isn't proven yet. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not a prosecutor, I am an editor with information about a serious violation of the rules. I have followed the guideline of presenting my case on the talk page. The matter was discussed, then the person claimed he was being personally attacked and he deleted everything several times. He didn't deny the substance of the violation, but claimed he was being OUTed to the admins on the AN/I page. Admin Drmeis removed the comments, and if that is the appropriate thing then so be it. Logically, he cannot be OUTed unless the organisation name was accurately posted, so that represents the first slip of direct evidence that there is a real connection. I will find out how the admins want to proceed. Travelmite (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify some more information I've discovered, the editor is not a senior official of the CML. Travelmite (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Travelmite, disclosing the real-life identity of another editor is seen as a serious wikioffence. It seems you are unsure of your facts. If you seriously believe that there is a conflict of interest, then you may put this forward via email, as noted at WP:COI, not blast it out in a public forum. Mies is entitled to comment on monarchical matters, even if he is a member of a monarchist association. We don't exclude Canadians from editing articles related to Canada, we don't prevent Catholics from editing articles about the Pope and so on. If Mies is some sort of paid or official spokesman for a monarchist organisation, then there may be a problem, but you had best be very certain of your facts before making any allegations. --Pete (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Another editor started sending me messages on my home page, at first they said they were going to help. Then immediately, the conversation made no sense and it felt like the person was just trying to push me to give up. I later discovered this person was or is under sanctions for breaking rules. The good thing is that I've found information within Wikipedia that helps to verify the COI claim. Travelmite (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I tried to open a discussion with you on your Talk page, here. What I told you there, is that if you have no self-disclosing diffs you cannot make claims of COI, and if you continue you will be blocked. That is what you have been told by others several times. I tried to explain that to you, and offered to tell you why, and offered to tell you what you can do to address your concerns about article content, which is what I think you are really upset about. If you persist as you have been, you will end up blocked. It is your decision, of course. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If the editor in question is a member of the board of directors, a branch executive, or a paid employee, of the Monarchist League of Canada then it would be a conflict of interest to edit the article Monarchist League of Canada but I don't think it would be a conflict to edit articles on monarchy in general, particularly about the monarchy of a foreign country such as Australia. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And looking at Monarchist League of Canada it appears that he's studiously avoided editing that article for the past 8 years. He did edit it before then but I think it would be a bit excessive for Wikipedia to punish an editor for a conflict of interest he may have had almost a decade ago. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I should add that I'm speaking hypothetically. I have no idea if the editor in question is a current or past member of the MLC board, branch executive, or a paid employee or even an MLC member (though there are fairly good odds that a dedicated Canadian monarchist would at least be a member of the organization).Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Conversely, I'd like to make the modest proposal that, as (presumably) a citizen of Australia, User:Travelmite should abstain from editing any article concering Australian-related topics as otherwise he may be in a conflict of interest. Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Citizenship in a country does not create a conflict of interest for editing about that country. I am closing this. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I did say it was a modest proposal. ;) Alexander's Hood (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not serious Travelmite (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No diffs have been presented showing that Miesianiacal has disclosed a relationship with the Canadian Monarchist League. Miesianiacal said they have no relationship with that organization in this dif. There may be issues with WP:ADVOCACY or persistent WP:NPOV editing, but those are matters for other boards. OP has been warned to stop making claims of COI without on-wiki evidence. The matter is under discussion at ANI here and further discussion can continue there. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)}} Miesianiacal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jytdog has prematurely closed this discussion. He assumed personal authority over the case, and I feel what he wrote on my talk page was disingenuous. I've put his "reason" for closing the discussion in the section above, but my matter has yet to be looked at, and should proceed to being investigated by an admin, until I find out from someone how to do that privately. Travelmite (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There are complaints about how Jytdog is involved in these issues on the Conflict of Interest Talk page. It seems to be that Jytdog has put pressure on me to not continue, on the threat that an admin will block me. I have not seen anything which suggests that to investigate is any problem. It is said that another editor will come to the aid of Jytdog if further pressure needs to be applied. Hindering an investigation is a serious offence. Travelmite (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I can now satisfy the requirement of Miesianiacal declaring his full name within the Wikipedia system, that name having a COI connection the Monarchist League. I am still concerned about the process here. Travelmite (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
My argument that you are in a COI for being Australian wasn't serious, but my point remains that if Miesianaical is affiliaed wih the MLC then COI would impact his editing on the Monarchist League of Canada article and specific edits to do with the organization but not on monarchism in general remain. A better analogy than the one I satirically presented before is that we wouldn't say a member of a church, even someone employed by a church, was not allowed to edit articles on Christianity or that being on the board of an environmentalis group means you're in a COI editing articles on environmentalism. You're simply casting the net too wide. Alexander's Hood (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
That aspect of Conflict of Interest is adequately explained by the Wikipedia policy, and it's a widespread notion across government, business and organisations. The interests of the organisation are served by both promoting itself and disparaging direct opponents. The person can be paid, or elected into a position of authority. This in meant to be an encyclopedia, so if the church leader was directly promoting their church, it's different from promoting Christianity generally. Impartial, co-operative efforts wouldn't get any attention. Here we are talking about a 12 year history of disputes, rule breaking and relentless editing, then using the rules tactically and frustrating other editors, so they give up. Wikipedia is made to serve the CML, not Wikipedia readers or even monarchists (who are good people) and this would also justify the person's position in the organisation. Travelmite (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Travelmite, if it were prooven that Mies 'has' a connection with MLC & was pushing that organization's PoV on Wikipedia? That would be a case of WP:ADVOCATE and WP:NPOV, but not WP:COI. -- GoodDay (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I find no examination of this problem on those policy pages. Aside from what I wrote, what about the misrepresentation. How many times over the years did Miesianaical has deny being a member or officeholder of CML? He tried to convince others he was personally attacked by me via that misrepresentation. Jytdog tried to shut down this thread before I had a chance to check everything. Why are you even defending this? Travelmite (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SIA Scotch Whisky

WP:SPA regarding clear COI. All edits have been to this article or adding mentions of this brand to related articles, even after a clear final warning. oknazevad (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Some older edits were deleted, apparently, so they don't show up in the user's edit history. Other affected articles, and another user:

—BarrelProof (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of SIA Scotch Whisky, seems it was created by SPA User:Starbella- they've been inactive for 6 months, but still worth adding them here I believe. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If you look at User talk:AlessandroSIAScotch, you'll see comments indicating that a prior version of the SIA Scotch Whisky article was created by AlessandroSIAScotch, then deleted by User:Alexf as unambiguous advertising (8 July 2015 at 18:29). Then the other user account (Starbella) was created about 24 hours later (9 July 2015 at 18:47), and that account recreated the article immediately after that. The article revision history only shows the history of the second version of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OneSky - removal of COI notice by editor who has a COI

Article was deleted due to promotional tone. Editor has disclosed her relationship to the company. Nothing else to do here. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

This user appears to have a major connection with the subject and they have made many contributions to the article. They continue to edit the article and have removed a COI notice from the page, which I reverted. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I added the article link above and have put this on my watchlist. They have now disclosed on their user page - seems teachable. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Has someone gone through the article for NPOV so that the tag can be removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
CNMall41 it appears to be moot now that the article has been deleted. I'll close this COIN case. - Brianhe (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how this went G11. I did not see anything that made it so overly promotional that it would need an entire rewrite, but I guess I would need to see it again to know for sure. I don't see deleting it due to conflict of interest as a something we should make a habit of unless it was truly so promotional that its only purpose was to promote and would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. @JzG If you have access, you can place it in my userspace and I will see if it is salvageable.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Un-archived at request of CNMall41. - Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted as a COI, it was deleted due to promotional tone. Virtually all substantive edits are by WP:SPAs, so this is not a surprise. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Guy. Unfortunately, I cannot view the deleted copy but I do not remember it being all that bad and believe the topic to be notable. If I can get it restored to my userspace I will see what is salvageable, if anything, and go from there. Could be a lost cause, but I can only speculate without seeing it again. If there is a way to facilitate this I would appreciate it. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mike Filsaime

article was deleted by decision here. Note that a redirect was set up to The Syndicate (group) and we can expect similar problems there. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Could we get a second set of eyes looking at Mike Filsaime? It looks like several of the citations aren't real citations, but some kind of affiliate marketing. – Brianhe (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Affiliate links would contain a code within the URL for tracking conversions. These do not so they are unlikely associated with affiliate marketing. However, the YouTube videos do not seem to be related and could possibly be there simply to get views. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
visitFrom in one of the URLs looked suspicious. I am going hands-off on this one but if somebody else wants to delete the YT links, go for it. Brianhe (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There's a "Further reading" link in the article that makes me think that, either a) the article ought to be deleted, or b) the further reading entry ought to be deleted. Does anybody know if The Verge is a reliable source? Just thinking now because I don't want to get into a BLP violation situation. Smallbones(smalltalk)
The Verge is a proper edited news source, if a specialist one, that would pass RS for relevant purposes - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, still thinking about the best way to handle this, but here's the main issues. It's clear that Filsaime is a self-promoter whose business is teaching others to be self promoters. The article has gone thru deletion review once and barely survived, and hasn't been improved since. The Verge article, which has been under "Further reading" in the article, accuses Filsaime (and many others) of very unethical conduct, at least bordering on criminal conduct. It uses the word "Syndicate" directly re: Filsaime, though their use of the word may not be exactly standard. If we keep our article, I'd think it would be required that we present something along this line to fulfill NPOV. But that could bring up a BLP morass. Probably the best solution would be to delete the article. Any feedback? Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the cleanup done by Brianhe would warrant the connected contributor tag to be removed. It now reads NPOV. For the prior deletion, I would not say it "barely survived." However, I think if nominated again - since the last discussion was in 2009 with looser standards - I think the result would lean more towards deletion. I think my !vote would be delete as I cannot locate anything in-depth at the moment. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There's an anon editor at the article today repeatedly adding links to stuff like millionairemarketingbootcamp.com and experttrainingandcoaching.com. Some help cleaning this up would be appreciated. - Brianhe.public (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There's not one RS -- can't this just get PROD'd? I see no reason to spend time on it. LaMona (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Herbertrafael now DigitalWizardry

After discussion on their talk page, DigitalWizardry has disclosed their COI as a personal friend of Herbert Sin and seems to understand the COI guideline and terms of use. User has self-disclosed as a professor of PR at a Singapore university and has acknowledged issues with promotional tone and has said he/she will work to write encyclopedic content - is open to hearing about it if they fail. Hopefully things will improve going forward. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Herbertrafael has, in the past, created Wardrobe Trends Fashion, which was speedy deleted twice. He recently created WardrobeTrendsFashion, which I nominated for deletion, as it was sourced to press releases. I later noticed that Herbertrafael added Herbert Sim to Oklahoma City University's list of notable alumni. Doing a web search on Sim reveals that he is the founder of Wardrobe Trends Fashion and is associated with ETHOZ Group and CEOWorld Magazine (for example, this press release). Google searches of LinkedIn show further connections. These two articles were also recently created by Herbertrafael and were sourced to press releases. I prodded them. In addition to those articles, Herbertrafael seems to have attempted to created a biography for Herbert Sim at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Herbert Sim. Herbertrafael has avoided answering whether he has a conflict of interest, but his editing history would seem to indicate that he is either editing on behalf of Herbert Sim or he is Herbert Sim. I notice that on Wardrobe Trends Fashion, Herbert Sim's full name is Herbert Rafael Sim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So currently the COI evidence is the name? Is there anything that ties the user to the pages? I see the pages tied to each other and the press releases, but I'm hoping there is something showing a stronger connection to the actual user.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably could have tried speedy with CEOWorld Magazine. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Literally every sentence has a reference (many of which are reliable sources), for example, News Feature on The New Paper and republished on AsiaOne. Another example, Interview News Feature on My Paper.

Also, the pages WardrobeTrendsFashion, CEOWorld Magazine and ETHOZ Group were written neutrally WP:NPOV. Should you think otherwise, you are free to make edits, instead of listing it for deletion. Meanwhile, to highlight, in the very first place, "COI" was added to the WardrobeTrendsFashion page by my account, to ensure that this was highlighted to other wikipedia editors.

Also, whether or not, I am Herbert Sim, it is a personal matter, this is becoming a personal attack and harrassment should you wish to pursue this ground. E.g. If my username was something else, would this question even came up? WP:PERSONAL WP:OUTING

We are here to contribute knowledge (with reliable evidences to support the claim) for a better Wikipedian society.

Herbertrafael (talk) 08:46, 27 Jan 2016 (UTC+08:00)

The editor in question has an editing history of editing almost nothing but Wardrobe Trends Fashion related material. So this can be considered a WP:SPA single purpose account engaged in promotional editing, irrespective of who is behind it. John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed about the promotion hence the !votes to delete the articles. However, promotional editing and COI are not the same thing. I hate to see them get lumped together, even though they are often closely -if not directly- connected. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, whoever is behind it is engaging in promotion of Herbert Sim's business interests. But if he adds a COI template to Wardrobe Trends Fashion himself, it seems kind of obvious that he's got a COI there, doesn't it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It does seem obvious when presented. Not sure why you did not present that in the beginning - maybe didn't do enough digging - as you said "Herbertrafael has avoided answering whether he has a conflict of interest, but his editing history would seem to indicate that he is either editing on behalf of Herbert Sim or he is Herbert Sim." Maybe something like "the user added a COI tag for themself" could been clearer. If the article is already tagged as a COI by the person who has a COI, not sure why it wasn't clearer to you in the beginning. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Note that Herbertrafael is now DigitalWizardry (talk · contribs), via a move. Same history. John Nagle (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
CNMall41, I didn't present that in the beginning because I didn't realize that he was the one who added it. I just mentioned it now because Herbertrafael/DigitalWizardry mentioned it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Understood. It actually took me a while earlier until I noticed the name change. Regardless, I think the articles will be gone shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Quick note, folks. I had some extensive discussion with DigitalWizardry on their Talk page. The original username was a violation of IMPERSONATION so it is good they changed it, and they acknowledged the mistake. The person says he/she is a professor of public relations at a university in Singapore, and has known Herbert Sim personally for a long time and has acknowledged that they have a COI in WP for those two topics at least. Also personally knows some other players in the digital media scene there, so will have a COI if they choose to edit about them. Is an WP:EXPERT on the digital media scene there. Gets it, that the tone of what they had written was not encyclopedic and was promotional. Seems very teachable and talk-with-able. I think things will be OK going forward. We will see of course! The proof is always in the pudding. But I think this is close-able now. Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ninja. I will suggest that to them. Am closing this now. If things go awry in the future, I think we can bring that up with the user directly on their Talk page and if that fails, of course COIN is always here. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tonyeny

The ANI (archived) resulted in a community ban - block log.Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Just an FYI about this ANI discussion: SEO editor - requesting siteban. This editor was discussed here back in July in this thread Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

added articles he worked on that need cleaning; tagged their talk pages and the articles for now. Jytdog (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through two of the articles now with respect to NPOV and removed the tags. Feel free to tag the talk page if you want to put the users on notice. I also left a comment at ANI. Quick question I am hoping you can help with. Aside from the COI & TOU issues, I am not sure there would be an issue with Wikidata entries, despite not having Wikipedia entries. Is this correct. By that I am wondering if a Wikipedia page must exist in order to make an entry in Wikidata?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the article for Mr. Kirshner is borderline. If it goes to AfD, ping me and I will glad to leave my !vote after checking in greater detail. I am also unsure of the notability of TravelStore, but reads NPOV. That should take care of the articles, now just have to worry about the editor at ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
updated status of articles above. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The article for Mr. Kirshner went AfD. I updated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hei matau

account was indeffed by Randykitty 09:42, 30 January 2016 for "Promotional username, promotional edits". Article has been deleted Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Sorry if this isn't formatted correctly; this is my first report. User "Hawaii artist network" (which itself seems to violate the username guideline regarding shared used: "Usernames that are simply names of companies or groups are not permitted") has edited an advertisement into the article on Hei mauta--specifically, a link to a vendor that sells related products. I removed the advertisement, and it was promptly re-added. I added an {{Advert}} tag, and expect it will be promptly removed as well. This represents a clear conflict of interest and is blatant self-advertisement. There are many artists who make these products, and there is no reason for one specific vendor to be linked on a page like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c001:6c30:541d:2e97:77a7:dc88 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 January 2016‎ (UTC)

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

Robert Zimmer

Nagle has replied on the Talk page, as have I. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I have suggested edits to Robert Zimmer article regarding a gift that the University recently received under their Talk pages. It's been pending additional review from the Wikipedia editors.

As I work for the University of Chicago, I have a conflict of interest and hence the request for a review by Wikipedia editors. I believe the updates are factual and represented without bias.

Thank you in advance for helping these two Wikipedia articles stay accurate and up-to-date.Michikog (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Kwisha

Guy has indeffed Kwisha for "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes. Likely undisclosed paid editing, violation of terms of use.". Jytdog (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Steve Patrick Corcoran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ṭomas Gorny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kwisha is an undeclared shill.

Steve Corcoran
Kwisha twice recreated an article for Steve Corcoran, the second time deceptively at Steve Patrick Corcoran to avoid connection to the last afd. Kwisha claims [21] to have no connection to the subject but evidence shows otherwise. The repeated recreations. The bombardment with bad sources (the clear majority did not verify the claims in the article). The disclosed fact that Kwisha got the image used sent directly from the subject himself. Kwisha claims to just be "passionate about a subject" but Kwisha's list of subjects Xe is passionate about are not plausable. Corcoran is an obscure former U21 Rugby player now based in Texas. Tomas Gorny is a business man from Arizona. Anta Plumbing is a local plumbing company in Toronto.
Tomas Gorny
Kwisha recreated an article for Tomas Gorny deceptively at Ṭomas Gorny to avoid connection to the last afd. Previous article was created by a now banned paid editor. CEO of Nextiva, another favourite subject of paid spammers. This was done after unsuccessfully arguing for restoration at DRV, helped by another shill.
Anta Plumbing
Anta Plumbing. "Promotionally written article about a local plumbing company in Toronto with no claim to notability" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anta Plumbing. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This is very wrong accusation by the reporting editor. I think trying to dictate what things I should be passionate about writing here is ridiculous at the least. Recreation of the said pages was done in good faith and they are not the only articles I have created on Wikipedia BTW. These are not the only pages that have ever been recreated after deletion from Wikipedia. I think Duffbeerforme easily passes as a troll since whatever changes I make on Wikipedia seems to pass through his/her holy lens that decide what sticks or not on Wikipedia. Aha... (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
And I think you have created rather a lot more spammy articles than is normal for an editor who is not doing it for money. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Having looked at the deleted articles I agree with Duffbeerforme and JzG that it is implausible that Kwisha isn't editing for pay. In particular, they included some very specific details in the articles that don't appear to be available in the sources and the deceptive use of different titles is clearly an attempt to game the system. SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Kwisha also has a history of slightly Orangemoody like behaviour, including adding some of the same spam links as were added by some of the OM posse, interspersed with many minor edits. It should be said that although the manner of adding this kind of spam is similar, the number of spammy edits is much lower. One example is this (which followed immediately after they removed another spam link from the page, so it was very clearly a deliberate act of spamming a link also added by OM socks) and this - I know there were others but right now those are the only ones I can find (there's a limit to how much time one wants to spend on digging through this kind of stuff :-) ) --bonadea contributions talk 20:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • yes and the user's history of blanking their talk page to get rid of warnings about spam and copyright and promotional content, and speedy delete notifications is not promising.
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here, selectively and
here
here
this very strange last one

This user has been warned repeatedly to stop adding promotional material/spam, not to violate copyright, etc and they ignore the warnings and persist, and Kwisha was combative and defiant here instead of addressing the concerns that were validly raised. I am generally happy to try to persuade editors to disclose and comply with PROMO and COI but I see little hope for a successful outcome if I were to try. I suggest that an admin who patrols this page can indef this user per WP:NOTHERE for consistently violating WP:PROMO and WP:COPYVIO and re-creating articles that were speedily deleted. The rationale doesn't have to touch on the likely TOU violation... If no one is willing to do that I would be happy to bring this to ANI and get a community-imposed indef, but I think that is unneccessary. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Ladbrokes

checked by two editors. OK now Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

I am a bit concerned about this article,the section on the loyalty card seems like advertising and promotional content and the section's only reference is a to a gambling advert. (I think this may be due to a bad link but as it stands it is an advert) Regarding the contributors some seem ok although there is a lot of repeated isp content and one of the contributors is called betting shop girl. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I don't think there's really a COI issue here, more like the article just needs to be cleaned up. The loyalty card section was created in 2009, and while there is a edit by a user named BookieGirl, that was in December 2014 and is the only activity on that account, plus the link itself no longer works. I've removed the irrelevant promotional content from the section. sixtynine • speak up • 19:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, its much better nowAtlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy

article deleted, conflicted editor no longer active. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible employee of this company. Editing only on this one article. sixtynine • speak up • 18:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment looks like the article creator might have COI too. I'm on my phone, so cannot easily add them to this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cruise (film)

No evidence of a COI. SmartSE (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

The article in question is an overtly promotional and fairly unnotable piece on a yet unreleased indie film. It has been featured on the frontpage through the DYK process.--Catlemur (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Cruise (film), it's clearly promotional dross and the worst kind of recentism, but I doubt very much that the creator (a very long-term editor here) has any involvement with or connection to the film. It reads as somewhat promotional because it's entirely based on press releases masquerading as "articles" in trade publications and padded to make the minimum character count for DYK. I'm not sure what can be done about that, apart from taking it to AfD. There simply aren't any sources available that aren't promotional. Voceditenore (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
It should be noted that TonyTheTiger has also made considerable contributions to various articles related to Emily Ratajkowski bringing the article about her to GA, being a top editor for Blurred Lines, and creating the We Are Your Friends (film) article (another film of questionable importance).--Catlemur (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused on why this issue is being raised here. Many biographies that have been raised to WP:GA and WP:FA standards have editors who have been involved in related articles. It does not mean that there is a WP:COI. I just am a huge fan of this woman and enjoy researching her activities. This research finds its way onto WP. I am not watching this page because this is a fairly baseless claim. Let me know if I am in any trouble for being a fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I seems that I was unable to produce enough evidence of COI and therefore I would like to ask the admins to close the discussion.I also apologize to TonyTheTiger, however I will pursue the deletion of Cruise (film) for reasons mentioned above.--Catlemur (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Amrita Rao

User: Tusharlove has stated on the article's talk page that he knows the subject of the BLP personally and that he has been employed by her to edit the Wikipedia article. Reproducing my post from the article's Talk page. "You mentioned in your first post (dated 17 February 2015) that you work for her, as in, you are employed by her and one of your tasks at the job is to edit the Wikipedia entry by her name. In another post (dated 8 January 2016), you outright mention that Amrita Rao wants photos other than the ones present in the article to be uploaded onto Wikipedia. That also indicates she is reading this page and instructing you about the content to be added or removed. Now you write that you know her personally. Your actions are a gross violation of the policy of conflict of interest. Please refrain from editing the article further. Also, I suggest you read the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources (WP: RS). Any information you contribute to Wikipedia in your personal capacity may not count as a reliable source. It needs to be properly referenced."

In 2013, I has received requests from a large media house employed by the subject of the BLP to help them edit the Wikipedia entry. I had educated them about paid editing and Wikipedia's CoI policy back then. Both these instances point to a case of persitent CoI editing and paid editing. -- Rohini (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Renzoy16

Renzoy16 is an undeclared shill.
Above is a selection of adverts he has worked on, some with comments by others.
He was also working on an advert for Ernesto Gapasin [22] but another shill beat him to it. His two most recent adverts were:

Nextiva, recreation of deleted article, posted at Nextiva, Inc to separate it from previous deletion. Previously created by another shill, User:BiH.
Terren Peizer, recreation of deleted article, posted at Terren Scott Peizer to separate it from previous deletion.

duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Buncee

Article Draft:Buncee was created by User:Banwaitharsh. User was notified on Nov 9 2015 of potential COI because Harshdeep Banwait is the name of the company's accounts manager. Buncee team page Article had be rejected at AfC (no record remains). On 20 November User:Linc22shan created article Buncee in main space. On 22 November user was given COI notice on their talk page User_talk:Linc22shan#Conflict_of_interest which user denied (but I don't believe). User continues to edit the article in mainspace. Article is promotional and lacks sources for the majority of its content. I got frustrated and tried to speedy it, but in fact the article may have merit. However, the COI issues remain. LaMona (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems Buncee has been G11ed by @JzG:. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I just checked contribs - neither has remaining contribs that are recent now that the article is deleted. Suggest we check contribs again in a while and then close if the accounts are abandoned. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Charter School Growth Fund

Stale - account seems to have been abandoned but I left a message on their talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

Oy, we never got to this. They haven't edited since August 2015 so they probably walked away. I have opened a discussion with the user on their talk page in case they come back and am watching the page... will close this anyway. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User DaveBurkum editing on Tyler Burkum

The editor is clearly a WP:SPA. I posted the COI warning template yesterday based on the similarity of the family name. Editor made an edit request directly on the article today, not the talk page and then made a change to it while logged out. I reverted the request and removed the unsourced content. Would like some assistance either with the editor or the article. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


I have been trying to learn how to make edits that could make this article more accurate, but these were removed because of Conflict of Interest issues. I tried to follow COI instructions on how to make requests for others who do not have a COI to make changes, but these requests were also removed. My only motive is to make the article more accurate and up to date. I would appreciate any help anyone can give me. Thanks. DaveBurkum (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion with Dave at their Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, they were removed because they were not sourced (see "unsourced content"). I also suspected you of having a CoI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Elance-driven content

Following up on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_90#Checking_Elance. An article on a topic brought to our attention by Doc James has just popped up. – Brianhe (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The subject doesn't appear notable and that editor's contributions certainly fit with the modus operandi of undisclosed paid editing. The account that was mentioned in the previous thread was linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kickingback77. I'll start an AFD and an SPI later on. SmartSE (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
noted that Smartse did as promised. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth_Spann_Craig

Article was at AfC with user Ecraig21. COI template added to talk page Nov. 18. Article was repeatedly rejected. Hooniveet created article in mainspace with same content diff. Hooniveet is a redirect from Ecraig21. Article is promotional and subject is of dubious notability. LaMona (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow the history of that article is ugly. As for the user, a rename was requested by the user here and done here. User blanked the page of the COI notice that LaMona gave here. I will try to talk with them but given their aggression I am not sure how this will go... but they stopped being active in Nov 2015 so I am not sure they are even around. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to take a crack at editing the article since it has a lot of RS problems and I'm not sure it meets notability. Would you prefer that I wait until we've resolved this COI? I note that none of the above users seems to have paid attention when tags were placed on the page, so they might be long gone. LaMona (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Myitsone Dam

I made a couple of points on the talk page of Myitsone Dam last year – one on 19 February (near the bottom here) after an exchange with Soewinhan. That post links to my sandbox where I've highlighted additional stats in bold. The second point (here) is that China isn't actually the primary market for electricity generated by the dam. As WikiProject Myanmar doesn't seem to be very active I thought I'd post here to see if anyone has time to take a look. As my user page says I'm a PR representative and China Power Investment Corporation is my client. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The usual procedure in this kind of case is to post an edit request on the article talkpage. Does that work for you? - Brianhe (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Brianhe, have used that template as suggested. Thanks. Jthomlinson1 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_96&oldid=1079647716"