Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the ((edit COI)) template:
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
Talk:A&P
Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
Talk:American Water Works
Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
Talk:Bank of Greene County
Talk:Bell Bank
Talk:William Bolcom
Talk:Doug Bremner
Talk:British Gas
Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
Talk:Cboe Global Markets
Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
Talk:Character.ai
Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
Talk:Chime (company)
Talk:Cohen Milstein
Talk:Comcast
Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
Talk:Dahua Technology
Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
Talk:Edmund de Waal
Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
Talk:Discovery Land Company
Talk:Dixy Chicken
Talk:Michael Douglas
Talk:End-user license agreement
Talk:ESAB
Talk:Ex Libris Group
Talk:Scott Farquhar
Talk:Fastly
Talk:Randy Fine
Talk:Anne Finucane
Talk:Florida Power & Light
Talk:Bryan Fogel
Talk:John Freund (business executive)
Talk:Bradley Fried
Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
Talk:Judy Genshaft
Talk:GetYourGuide
Talk:GLX Digital
Talk:Colin Goldberg
Talk:Grail (company)
Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
Talk:Grove Collaborative
Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
Talk:Shashi Gupta
Talk:H.B. Fuller
Talk:Richard Harland
Talk:Eric Hippeau
Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
Talk:HOK (firm)
Talk:Index Ventures
Talk:Industrious
Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
Talk:International Churches of Christ
Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson
Talk:Valerie Jarrett
Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
Talk:Amitabh Kant
Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
Talk:KieranTimberlake
Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
Talk:Dion Lee
Talk:Kewsong Lee
Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
Talk:Robert Luciano
Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
Talk:Anthony Marinelli
Talk:Masdar
Talk:Metlifecare
Talk:Christos Metskas
Talk:Monero
Talk:MP Materials
Talk:Netvibes
Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
Talk:NextEra Energy
Talk:Oasis Management
Talk:Omaha Steaks
Talk:Operating system
Talk:Orphan Train
Talk:Orphanage
Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
Talk:Perkins Eastman
Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
Talk:Plinabulin
Talk:Programming language
Talk:Pure Storage
Talk:David E. I. Pyott
Talk:Qiagen
Talk:QIAGEN
Talk:Quantitative storytelling
Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
Talk:Roland Rudd
Talk:Jay Ruderman
Talk:Sartorius AG
Talk:ShareFile
Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
Talk:SoundExchange
Talk:Subway (restaurant)
Talk:Sysco
Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
Talk:Tencent
Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
Talk:Tricentis
Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
Talk:Bradley Tusk
Talk:Carla Ulbrich
Talk:United Launch Alliance
Talk:United States Postal Service
Talk:UnitedHealth Group
Talk:Veris Residential
Talk:Versapay
Talk:Dan Wagner
Talk:Terry Wahls
Talk:Washington University Medical Center
Talk:Joey Wat
Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
Talk:Maya Wiley
Talk:Thomas Albert Work
Talk:Sam Yagan
Talk:Zearn
Talk:Zero-day vulnerability


Charter School Growth Fund

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Has someone gone through the article for NPOV so that the tag can be removed? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Un-archived at request of CNMall41. - Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 [1], 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Finery (company)

Article was created and expanded by COI editor FineryLondonSocial, who was later blocked for obvious username issues. They seem to have been replaced by Mariniluca, an SPA. No outing intended, but in this instance they did use a form of their real name and if you Google that username and the word finery, you'll notice they work at the company and in fact are a co-founder of it, mentioned in the wiki article. Edits from both accounts are very promotional. Softlavender (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC); edited 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the quotes in the product section I do not see anything that violates WP:NPOV. Maybe leave a notice on the talk page about a connected contributor, but the AfD should weed out any additional concerns. Seems rather straight forward article to me. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped the user the ((uw-paid)) template but without more information there's not much to do here. - Brianhe (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Filsaime

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Project Ascension

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RDX Inc

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

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)[reply]

Deepak Arora

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Categories