Scott Mayer (driver)

Resolved
 – closing as there has been no activity in 3 days from this user Tiggerjay (talk) 07:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

User continues to replace article with his personal biography, which focuses on his businesses (which are not notable) rather than his professional racing career (which is notable). Also consistently removes facts about his racing career that could be viewed negatively (such as failing to complete rookie orientation for the Indy 500 twice). Then created another article Scott A. Mayer (now redirected) with his content. Drdisque (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The redirect isn't specifically a problem, so I would just disregard it. As far as the COI editing, it definitely appears to be the case. I have also posted a new message on his talk page, which hopefully will provide some results. The good news is that since your last revert, he has not attempted to reintroduce the content. Let's keep an eye on this one. Also, it might be a nice gesture of good faith to take a second look at his post and see how you might be able to properly introduce and integrate that information in a non spammy way. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Functional medicine

User adding material referenced to works by "Ronald Grisanti". I have not reverted any of it because as a layman it's hard to know what is an accepted medical field and what is not. An external link to a related Quackwatch article was deleted in February.

Article was tagged COI on March 2; user was warned for COI on March 3. User has identified himself at EAR here, stating "I am medical director for Functional Medicine University." I just now removed external links to 'Functional Medicine University' and an apparently similar organization, 'Institute for Functional Medicine', that didn't seem to add anything to the article. The article history shows a struggle for dominance between promoters of the two institutions. --CliffC (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Have returned info from quackwatch. Will keep an eye on this topic. This user does not appear be independent of the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

This long biography appears to be a self-promotional piece written and maintained by a WP:SPA named User:Asterysk, and there is good reason to believe this editor is the subject of the article. Contains over 40 (!) external links, not including at least a dozen interspersed in the body of the article. About half the sourcing seems subpar. List of recent lectures and talks. Numerous unsourced assertions. While Dr. De Brouwer may merit a biography, I propose we remove any materials not properly sourced. Jokestress (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: I removed all inline ELs and vetted all sources. Tagged talk page for editor who wrote and maintained this article (compare to previous version). Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Leroy july 4

Resolved
 – No activity in the prior week, and the COI has stopped editing. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lengthy series of text blanking from user in question. Issue was widely discussed in BLPN, and issue had been previously resolved until recent round of deletion. User claims to be related to article subject. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A quick review shows that the most recent "self admitted" COI has stopped editing since your post on their talk page[1]. However, it appears that a new-to-the-article editor has reverted back and is self asserting the "retraction" of information[2]. I have reverted their edit since their own claim is insufficient and posted some helpful direction on their userpage[3]. I will monitor these pages over the next couple of days. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Promotional campaign

User appears to be conducting a promotional campaign for Gold's products, and continues to do so after a COI warning. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Warned user on his talk page, he has nearly been 3R on some of the articles. Let's keep an eye on this one. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like after the long holiday weekend, this user is back to editing these pages. I left a sterner message on his talk page hoping for some results. Please avoid entering into an edit war with this user. If he continues to edit today without responding to any of the notices on his talk page, we may need to block him temporarily to get his attention. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Gamify

Resolved
 – User has stopped editing and is looking for assistance and better understanding of the issues. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Article created by owner of business; edits suggest a primarily promotional agenda. 99.170.155.202 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What action are you looking for? It appears that that page was rolled back to a state before the article was created and is now simply a redirect. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PeopleBrowsr et al.

The PeopleBrowsr article, and others on related topics, seem to be largely the work of a small group of contributors who post nothing but PeopleBrowsr-related articles, or material promoting PeopleBrowsr in other articles. This makes me suspect that some or all of these editors are sock puppets, or are employed by or otherwise have an interest in PeopleBrowsr. All relevant articles ought to be double-checked for promotional language, neutrality, and to ensure the sources are indeed reliable and establish notability. I regret I don't have the time to do all this now, but am posting this message here in hopes that someone else can.

Some of the relevant articles:

Here are some of the editors in question:

—Psychonaut (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NXIVM, NPOV, COI, violations of WP:Good Faith, abusive language, for NXIVM, Keith Raniere

Resolved
 – Problematic editor/sockmaster blocked, dispute resolution proceeding. -- Atama頭 20:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I filed out that form wrong, but I never have filed this out before!

NPOV, COI, violations of WP:Good Faith, abusive language, for NXIVM, Keith Raniere

I think we have a serious problem on our hands. We seem to have a group of people who believe that NXIVM is a cult and are willing to do everything to make it so that the entire page reads that way. On the other hand, we have a group of people who want people to be able to understand what NXIVM is on its own terms, much the same way that they understand the Church of Latter-Day Saints, Scientology, or the Catholic faith. If Wikipedia is about educating people, which it is, this seems obvious.

The first group's edits are almost exclusively about NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and the Bronfmans. This is because they have been directed to participate on Wikipedia by a blog post on a website Saratoga in Decline, which has an obsessive focus on NXIVM and is run by a Mr. John Tighe, who has posted repeatedly, who doesn't want consensus, just to attack NXIVM and anyone wanting to edit it fairly. You can read his two posts about the "Wiki wars" here and here. [1] The author of that website it would seem is John Tighe, the blogger who created an attack site and is to some degree boasting about his edits: http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/ His website is on a server in Russia so the edits happen in that time zone. I recommend banning him from the NXVIM, Raniere and Bronfman pages.

Tighe has since all but admitted that he is maintaining two usernames. I recommend filing a CheckUser request on those two usernames. I would be that they are the same person. Redacted per WP:OUTING. -- Atama頭 19:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC) JamesChambers666 (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe James has no interest in the truth and I believe is is a paid NXIVM employee clearly a conflict of interest. He only hopes to attack Mr.Tighe,a person who runs a critical blog about NXIVM but also allows NXIVM to answer unedited on his blog.He also signs his blog and takes full responsibility for what is written there by him. Hardy the behavior of an “attack” blog. Hopefully Wiki will return to being the largest collection of knowledge in the world and not a sugar coated revisionist history and advertising and recruitment tool for a organization that 6 publications some international have labeled a cult. Just like the edit james made about an Bouchey "extortion letter" that he postet as neutral, which as never let to any criminal indictment I stand behind every edit I have made. I hope he does the same.Link1914 (talk)

If someone is trying to canvass to bring in meatpuppets, that is a real concern. But regardless, you cannot attempt to reveal an editor's personal information on Wikipedia. If they let slip their real identity, or leave information on Wikipedia that otherwise reveals who they are, then that can be used as a basis for COI claims. But going to a blog and using information there to connect the dots, and using that to reveal an editor's identity will get you indefinitely blocked. I've left you with a warning this time. Please take care not to do that again. -- Atama頭 19:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have made it repeatedly clear that I am not a NXIVM employee, nor do I believe any of the organization's claims. I have edited other pages, unlike Link1914 and [[User:. I am sorry for alleging outing someone, but I request that a CheckUser request be filed. It looks like we do have someone who is trying to canvass to bring in meatpuppets. Have a look for yourself here. [2]

I quote,

Well the edits were flying as over a hundred edits were entered in the Wiki-Keith Raniere self-promoting bullshit wars. Complaint after complaint was filed over every claim the dirty one ever made. A special fight erupted over the famous “I’ve had people killed tape” For now the page stands as it is till until June 8, 2011. The augment is being adjudicated by wiki administrators. Remember you can join the fray and Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Please file a CheckUser request and ask them to stop engaging in meatpuppery and canvassing. Moreover, I revealed no personal information that wasn't readily accessible from that blogger's own about me page... His personal information is available for the world to see. Please investigate for yourself. [3]--JamesChambers666 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, just so we are clear, I never edited anything about an extortion letter. I have no idea what is being talked about here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesChambers666 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that it's on the blog's "about me" page. Not on Wikipedia. I'll look into this but just remember you cannot out someone. It's stated very clearly at the top of this noticeboard, even when you edit this noticeboard it says at the top of the page, "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline." That's how important the policy is. -- Atama頭 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Atama. I will never violate that policy again. Could you be so kind as to ask Keyser Sözetigho and User:Link1914 to be neutral in their edits and to stop harassing me on my talk page? As you can see below, User:Keyser Sözetigho admits to being a fan of the blog Saratoga in Decline, which has focused obsessively on NXIVM, uses profanity, and can no way be seen as a credible source. Some of us are trying to build an encyclopedia here. I have no problem with anyone adding material to a controversies section, but I ask that it not become the place to diss on NXIVM, that users edit by WP:consensus and stop insisting that we are bought and paid for. I'm just interested in the truth and being fair. I also ask that the NXIVM page be locked until a future date given the attempts at WP:Canvass that exist on the blog Saratoga in Decline. Thanks.--JamesChambers666 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well James I see you are still obsessing and attracting Mr.tighe me and a blog. First I will not confirm or deney who I am I take my name Keyser Sözetigho from the movie the Usual suspects. I had quite a bit of difficulty in getting Keyser Söze as it appears to be a popular moniker. The usual suspects is my favorite movie and I am a fan of the blog Saratogaindecline. Maybe I took some NXIVM classes and want my money back. Maybe my 18 year old sister joined this cult or one like i. Maybe I’m related to 35-year-old Kristin Snyder the environmentalist who vanished from an Alaska hotel after taking NXIVM classes. Her body was never found. But you seem to think I’m posting from “Russian servers” Perhaps with your keen investigative skills you should be in law enforcement I see you chose the numbers 666 in your name. I believe that is the number of the beast. Did I accuse you of being a beast? Instead of obsessing over my identity why don’t you concentrate on my edits? I’m sure you don’t like them but each one is referenced to a publication and not cult recurring material. I find the unsubstantiated claims of Mr.Ranier to be the smartest, fastest and also good at judo absurd. Wiki administrators are well aware that I and link 1914 are at different locations using different computers but you complain away. I guess next you will claim I’m using a proxy. Wiki isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information. I am thinking of starting some wiki pages of my own. 1. On the disappearance of Kristin Snyder 2. The highly controversial visit of the NXIVM sponsored trip of the Dali Lama to Albany You will of course be able to enter your own edits if they need wiki NPOV standards Keyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

I read that comment and he didn't tell people what to wrire just that they canKeyser Sözetigho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

This is funny, I choose 1914 as it was widely predicted to be the year the world would end. I thought it apropos a as a Christian cult predicted this year. Little did I know that number would link me to a conspiracy involving :Russians” Good thing I didn’t choose 1917,that would make me a Bolshevik or heaven forbid 2001 that would make a terrorist. Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

"isn’t about you promoting NXIVM but about fair neutral information" What part of that don't you understand. Cutting and posting material from NXIVM produced propaganda is far from neutral.All I am doing is presenting a balanced view. So if NXIVM is a cult that is my belief others can decide whatever they want. But this is not a promotional website for NXIVMLink1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

If by balanced you mean only posting negative information from sources such as blogs and forums, then you are definitely contributing towards a more balanced NXIVM and Raniere page Link1914! U21980 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was in bad faith for you James to heavily edit the article on NXIVM and then agree to and support a no editing agreement. This is typical NXIVM behavior.Link1914 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

Comment: Just as a heads-up to all involved in this discussion, it was confirmed that Link1914 == Keyser Sözetigho. I've blocked Link as a sockpuppet but have left Keyser Sözetigho alone as he is involved in this discussion. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/
  2. ^ http://saratogaindecline.blogspot.com/2011/05/success-in-nxivm-edit-wars.html
  3. ^ http://www.blogger.com/profile/05983865733377641879
  • Thanks HelloAnnyong (ANNYONG!) and Tiggerjay. I'll keep an eye on Keyser Sözetigho and try to keep up with the dispute and any behavioral problems. -- Atama頭 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So as any employee of NXIVM knows critics only post from public portals. So link and Soze shared a portal that doesn't discredit any thing they edited. One only has to seach NXIVN in google to find a host of derogatory and outright scary stories about NXIVM. All anyone ever sought is fairness and balance and not a public relations piece on an organization that many,many respected people beieve is a cult. I don't suspect this controversy will go away anytime soon NXIVMwatch (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC).

NXIVM Watch, Well I look forward to working with you to try and make decent edits on this page. I would like a citation for the information you have already posted on here that indicate the following: "So as you know being employees of NXIVM, NXIVM critics only post from public portals." As far I can tell, I haven't seen any NXIVM employees roaming about, but I have seen plenty NXIVM critics (two - three if you count Link and Keyser as one person just one). So if these are baseless accusations that are being spread, I would appreciate it if we do not post them in the first place. With that being said, I and most everyone else here does not consider Raniere a saint, but I am interested in trying to present a picture of the man that does not portray every single detail of his life as being negative. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. U21980 (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The comment made above was not made in the spirit of attacking you. I actually welcome you to this page and hope that we can work together here to strengthen the NXIVM page.U21980 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Just an update... "NXIVM Watch" was blocked as another sockpuppet of Keyser Sözetigho. I also want to note that all of this was done without having to reveal anyone's personal info. We have some really sharp administrators (much sharper than me) that can sniff these things out (as well as tools to help). As for the article itself, the content is still being discussed, and hopefully from this point it can be done constructively without any need to personally attack editors or create multiple accounts to provide fake support for views. -- Atama頭 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you think Atama, can we close the issue here for now, since the COI (or at least the immediate issues) have been addressed and let the dispute resolution simply continue over on the article talk page instead of having two running threads on the topic? Tiggerjay (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems settled now, I'm marking as resolved. -- Atama頭 20:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

A researcher at Tired Light

Resolved
 – Deferred to WP:FTN for further workTiggerjay (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)]]

Note that a researcher, a proponent of his own theories of "Tired Light" which are not published in mainstream literature is trying to insert his ideas at tired light. All the IP addresses resolving to Tampa and Clearwater are his. I have cross-posted this notice to WP:FTN where they can help evaluate the fact that this is a tiny minority idea that receives no notice in the relevant field. 198.202.202.22 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well first off, outing someone is completely inappropriate; your assumption that those IP addresses are related to this particular researcher is purely speculatory. Second it would appear that you are warring with this user by continuing to revert his additions. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong on the issue of the information, simply don't do it -- see WP:3R. You need to assume more good faith in this editor instead of immediate attacking him or her. Fringe theories are acceptable on wikipedia, so your subjective opinion that this is "too fringe" is your own syntehsis on the matter. However, I will defer this over to the FTN for further evaluation since they specialize in this area. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a Violation of wikipedia rules to attack living persons. 71.98.139.122 (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice or help with Eloqua

Resolved
 – Requested edit was appropriate and has been made. —C.Fred (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, a couple of days ago I posted a request to Talk:Eloqua to request an uninvolved editor consider removing an uncited section that has recently been added to the Eloqua article. I haven't received any reply there, so hope that someone here will be able to offer advice or make the change I suggested. The section is very short, just a couple of sentences long, and has no citations at all. In fact, to the extent of my knowledge, what has been written is not true. As I'm the VP of Content Marketing at Eloqua, it would be a COI issue for me to make changes to the article without getting the ok from other editors. Preferably another editor can look at this and remove it if that's the right action to take. Can anyone here be of assistance? Best, Jchernov (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only was the section unsourced, but it was also very vague. I've removed it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! The speedy action is very appreciated. Jchernov (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

SuperKombat and other related articles

This user has created many articles. He appears to be Eduard Irimia, a promoter, who owns SuperKombat and I don't know what else. According to the Irimia logo file page, which he uploaded (and has been nominated for deletion):

To be able to make this picture, I've spent lots of money (mainly equipment) and time. If you want to use this picture (even commercially), you can use it free of charge — if you comply with the license under which this image is released. This is required in any medium (internet, print, ...). The image has to appear with a copy of, or a full (hyperlinked) URL to the license. In addition, attribution of this image to me is required in a prominent location near to the image.

That seems to say that the logo is his, in which case these articles are incredible self-promotion. The deletion nomination says that the logo is that of an organization and therefore cannot be his. That is, of course, a possibility, but it is just as possible that the organization belongs to Cyperuspapyrus. This should be sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to chastise you for outing but then I see that you're absolutely right, he named himself (or at least suggested who he was) in that image upload. There definitely seems to be a COI concern. I don't see that the editor has ever participated in any discussion anywhere, which is a problem. Also, edit summary usage is very low. I think the best course of action is to judge the edits on their own, attempt to engage the editor if they become unduly disruptive, and if the editor fails to communicate, an indef block as a promotional account would be necessary. -- Atama頭 19:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Gross National Happiness

Resolved
 – no current activity, prior activity was 2 edits over 3 months Tiggerjay (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Anjanim (Anjani Millet) claims to be the founder and president of the organization and website added in this diff and this diff, despite one intervening COI warning. These are her only edits; account may be single-purpose. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, probably not a big issue, yes a COI but these two edits (actually the users ONLY two edits) are 3 months apart, and there has been no activity since the warning. I don't think there is anything here since we've gone several days without any edits. Just fix it if it happens again in 3 months, but if something more significant starts to happen, then we definately want to address this again Tiggerjay (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Empire Life

Extremely similar username to article name. The user has made edits only to that article. (other than creating his userpage). Probable COI here. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the actual content of the contributions, this user's edits confuse me. They basically haven't changed the article. They remove a 1 or 2 characters in one edit, then revert those changes in the next edit. Sancho 22:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Not so much a problem as a typical COI editor, but something you probably want to bring up over at WP:UAA. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Amarie2

User:Amarie2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a new WP:SPA user, has admitted a WP:COI with respect to C. John Collins and Casey Luskin‎ (two articles recently merged after consensus on Talk:Center for Science and Culture), but has been edit-warring to restore these articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely there is COIN and 3R going on here. She was notified and has subseqently blanked her talk page, which is her right. I have added a gentler notice on her talk page which will hopefully get her attention. She hasn't edited in the past couple of days, so lets just keep an eye on this one but quickly act to block if needed. Also keep an eye out for sockpuppets, just in case. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Staffordshire Police

The user appears to work for the police force and added the facebook and twitter pages for the force to the article as well as their phone number. Heyitsme22 (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for username violations (their username is clearly meant to represent the police force in violation of WP:ORGNAME). It's a "soft" block, so the editor can feel free to create a new account with an appropriate username if they wish. Also, their one and only edit was already reverted by a bot because it violated WP:ELNO. -- Atama頭 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

World Chiropractic Alliance

User:BarbaraBigham re-wrote the article World Chiropractic Alliance, to completely whitewash it of all the negative information, despite that that was all referenced and documented. In the process, she lists herself as their Director of Communications, and this is a clear violation of WP:NOPAY. As she lists herself in the article, I presume that my citing this issue is not itself an outing of the editor. Д-рСДжП,ДС 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like she has stopped editing since the warning and she has been properly notified. Let's wait this out to see what sort of activity resumes in the coming week. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, she didn't list herself as Director of Communication; I added that fact based on the organization's own website. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Which I would point out is fine, it's not outing when someone uses their own name on Wikipedia. Just in case someone is concerned. I often do that myself, if an editor uses their real name and looks to have a COI, look them up and see who they are. Anyone who uses their real name is waiving their right to anonymity. -- Atama頭 20:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
COI issues aside, where are the reliable sources that demonstrate that this subject is notable per WP:CORP? – ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any significant coverage of this organization after searching online; nothing at all in the news, and while they're mentioned in a number of books I can't see anything in-depth. -- Atama頭 18:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

List of webcomics

Well, the user above made an edit to the above page which seemed to be a COI. Here it is. Island Monkey talk the talk 07:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I liked how they said the comic was started on June 1, 2011. It became notable in 5 days, wow! Anyway, I assume it was a one-time thing and we can ignore it. If that editor continues making edits to promote his comic, it's at least blockable per WP:ORGNAME and possibly for spam depending on the nature of the edits. -- Atama頭 16:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Brian Tyler (composer)

I'm a little confused because the article is his name, so if I put his username, it "outs" him. So.... for the sake of following rules, I'm not going to put his username unless specifically requested, and this pretty much makes my case that much more difficult. Anyway, I believe I have found this Hollywood personage (not necessarily a celebrity) to be editing his own article. None of the additions are sourced, some of the edits are seemingly allowed (adding brackets, quotation marks), and some are fuzzy on the neutral bit, like adding and removing names and awards, all of which are unsourced (even the removals). I could tag the article with a template at the top, but out of privacy of the person, I wouldn't be able to add the user warning on their talk page, because suddenly their privacy no longer exists (anyone could make the connection through my edit history). Their edits are very few and far between, I suppose, in comparison to other potential COI editors. However, the edits are 90% on his article. Finally, what little proof I may have of the COI would give away his username again. So from this point forward, someone tell me what to do :D – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your caution in trying to abide behind our rules for outing editors, especially since many people who post on this board aren't nearly cautious enough or outright ignore that part of our harassment policy. But the essence of the policy is that you should respect other editors' privacy by not posting personal information about that person using off-wiki methods. For example, if you find a blog post where a person says that their Wikipedia name is so-and-so, and then search through their blog to find out what their user name is on a message board, then look at the properties of the message board profile to find their real life name, and post their name on Wikipedia, that's outing. If on the other hand someone named Fredsmith creates an article for a real estate company whose founder is named Fred Smith, that editor has already "outed" himself already and discussing his identity is fine. As the policy says, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia."
In your case, you're declining to even mention the editor's username. Well, since they chose the username they have, go ahead and mention it. You're not revealing any information that the editor hasn't volunteered already. And there's not a lot of help people can provide without that info anyway. -- Atama頭 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to add, see World Chiropractic Alliance above in this list for a similar situation to yours. -- Atama頭 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you for clearing that up. I've added the name above. This may or may not be a minor case, I mean, this guy isn't editing his page like some of the other examples here. In 2009, he added his own image. But it was a minor edit to the file description that brought his attention to me, where he removes "me" from the source of the image. He's since returned to the article a few times. That's really all I have going. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's hard to say. Maybe he meant, I got it from Brian Tyler, and so put both names down, then later decided that it wasn't appropriate or accurate to include himself. Or maybe he was declaring who he was, then removed it for privacy reasons. Who knows. Either way, the COI is likely, but since there doesn't seem to be any disruption from this editor I wouldn't be too concerned. A COI tag on the article shouldn't be necessary unless you feel that there may be something improper in the article because of the editor's contributions (too much promotion for example). The purpose of a COI tag isn't to brand the article, it's to request that someone clean up the article in response to edits made by someone with a COI. I've left a welcome message on the editor's talk page, as well as a notification to this discussion, if they choose to participate. I don't think further action is necessary at this point. -- Atama頭 22:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you've seen this discussion, or if that had led you to noticing the attribution for the image. If not, I thought I'd point it out. -- Atama頭 22:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, that's exactly how I came across the article and its user, through the FAC page. Well good, it sounds like everything is settled then. I felt it appropriate to report my concerns, but I definitely wasn't sure about the level of concern this would have. Thanks so much for your help, Atama. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Maryknoll

Aside from the obvious COI betrayed by the user's username, the edits are very favorable to and from the POV of the Maryknollers. This is no longer a balanced article. Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why, but the edit summary for this edit cracked me up. I'm curious about how much damage has actually been done. I assume that the editor in question is affiliated with this church (Maryknollerhk = Maryknoll member from Hong Kong). The COI is pretty clear, it's just the actual disruption I'm not clear about. For example, the edit summary for their first edit was a bit rough but I actually agree that those tags didn't seem to apply to the article. -- Atama頭 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It's the (unsourced) language like "Bro. Albert was a... very capable builder" - this is the sort of language you find in a staff directory or internal company history, not in an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyprus best companies

User created a spam article. Obvious COI. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T or M/Sign mine 19:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Article speedily deleted, username reported to WP:UAA and blocked. – ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Lowell Milken

Here's an situation which needs some attention. At Talk:Lowell Milken, a new editor identifies themself with "I work for Lowell Milken and we intend to add additional unbiased biographical information to his page in the next few days.". They've made a number of edits to polish the reputation of Lowell Milken.

There's some history here. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_47#Milken_family_reputation_enhancement_project. That resulted in a sockpuppet investigation and some blocks and bans. Last time, though, the edits were rather blatant attempts to remove well-sourced negative information. (Lowell Milken is the brother and former business associate of Michael Milken, one of the biggest white-collar crooks of the 1980s.) This time, it's not so heavy-handed.

I'm not sure what to do here, but the situation bears watching. --John Nagle (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarah is the "Web Communications Specialist" working in Lowell Milken's office, but that's really no more than what she has declared up front already. If the information is really unbiased, it might not be an issue, but the best case is probably for her to add information to the talk page of the article for others to add to the body in a neutral manner. -- Atama頭 06:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to Nagle and Atama for this information. You both recommend that I add new sources and information to the talk page so other people can choose to add it, is this correct? If so, I'll make sure to do this in the future. Thanks. Sarahkeen (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
You are very welcome. If you haven't yet, I strongly suggest that you read this section of our guideline: WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest It contains advice on how to contribute to the article without coming into conflict with other editors. As long as you are willing to work with other editors, we do very much welcome your participation, thank you. -- Atama頭 16:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Pogo stick

I am a relatively new editor and I am not sure what is the best course of action here. I see a COI in the recent edit by Cjjohnson73 since the addition to the article is presumably the recent world record for consecutive jumps by "Caleb Johnson." The user name suggests a COI with this article. Additionally, no sources are cited for the claim. In any case, the article should revert back to the previous version. What is the proper course for an editor to make in this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pogo_stick&oldid=432951676. Kjmonkey (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As it is unsourced, and a quick Google search finds no confirmation, I've reverted to the previous version. I'll keep an eye on the article, but I don't think there is much point in doing anything else for now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kjmonkey (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, a little maths shows the impossibility of the claim: 697,325 consecutive jumps in 9 Hours 42 minutes works out as around 20 jumps per second! AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That pogo stick would be difficult to ride. My guess is that the edit is less a matter of COI, and more matter of being a hoax or vandalism. -- Atama頭 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
That pogo stick would make an audible tone, 20 Hz, down near the very bottom of human ability to detect pitch. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Black Veil Brides

Per this talk page message, Jinxxed4life claims to be Jinxx, of the band, Black Veil Brides. As the edit history of this article shows, they have made multiple edits to the article about the band, which is clearly a COI violation. Also, the user BeAwareX1 claims to be the band's management, per this edit summary. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jinxxed4life has been editing Wikipedia for more than 3 years, first creating the article Jinxx (now a redirect to the band's article). I think of great help to both editors would be to advise them of WP:FAQO. What I find a little concerning is labeling the edits of these editors as vandalism; if they are who they say they are, I have trouble believing that they are intentionally trying to ruin the article about the band. Right now the article is protected because of a dispute about content, there needs to be communication between these people and other editors at the article or it can't be resolved. Oh, and by the way, just for your information this isn't an administrators' noticeboard, just a noticeboard. In fact, before I became an admin there really weren't any administrators who watched this board, at least not when I started participating here. Now I think there are a few of us. The only actual admin noticeboards are WP:AN and WP:ANI (which is technically a subpage of AN). -- Atama頭 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I realized after the fact that I had mislabeled this board in my notification with both users. A completely unintentional error on my part. I have no problem with them participating, but just want to make sure that everyone is playing by the rules. I agree with the comment about the status of the BVB article right now. I went to RFPP with it because it was starting to get out of hand. What I don't want to see is a situation where they start to own the article. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
BeAwareX1 posted on my talk page which I take as a very good sign. I think your protection request was appropriate, and now what's necessary is to get people to talk. I think that's possible now, I'll try to steer the discussion over to here so we can hopefully work this out. -- Atama頭 04:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP

An article (about "the twelfth largest law firm in Northeast Ohio" - hardly notable, I'd think?) clearly created by someone with a COI, judging from the user name. Also adding multiple links to the law firm's blog, e.g. at WikiLeaks [5]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account. The username is a borderline violation of WP:ORGNAME but their continual linking to their company's law blog and generally promotional nature of their edits warrants the block. The article itself should probably be taken to AfD. -- Atama頭 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

An admin suggested I bring this here, and I realize now that perhaps I should have done so before nominating the article for deletion, but too late now. Anyway, given that the article contained a lot of text and no sources attesting notability, I suspected a promotional page, and ran the creator's username through Google. Sure enough, Michael Ramey is the communications director for the organization that's promoting the bill, ie. he is paid to promote the subject of an article he wrote. He admits as much on his talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this over to COIN. I reviewed the talk pages and the PROD that was put up for this article. I also did a quick review of the article. It sounds like the editor has good intentions so I don't think there is a huge risk of vandalism at this point and the user is permitting other editors to introduce new information, including controversy, and even edits to his contributions. I think a little correction and guidance will go a long way and resetting back to a state of good faith in this editor. Towards that end, I left a friendly note on his talk page about this COIN and that he should take a break from this page for a while and learn the ropes of WP on other articles he doesn't have COIN. Lets keep an eye on this one, but I don't think any immediate enforcement will be needed. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a note on the AfD nomination... Deletion discussions determine an article's subject on its own merits, not due to the quality of the article or any perceived conflicts of interest with the article's creator or contributors. If there was no apparent notability in your judgement after a good-faith effort to find sources, then the nomination was appropriate. Seeing that the discussion closed as "no consensus" I don't think anyone could reasonably call your nomination inappropriate. If the editor isn't being disruptive and the article is being improved then I think this is okay, however it is definitely worth pointing out the editor's COI for the benefit of everyone else who works on the article. -- Atama頭 20:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The admin in question suggested that if none of the "keep" nominators added any sources, I could renominate after a while, with the COI user having been warned. Do you agree? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Evans (meteorologist)

Similarly named SPA's adding promotional language, many deleting (article's sole, independently-sourced) sentence about Evan's global warming letter to The Nation. No edits outside Bill Evans (meteorologist). None reply to Talk page warnings. Accounts seem temporary, then abandoned, with BillEvans777 (talk · contribs) being the currently active account. Diffs are shown for erasing Global warming position only. IP editors not listed. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are two possibilities: (1) This is not actually Bill Evans or someone acting for him. In that case there is of course no conflict of interest. (2) This is Bill Evans or someone acting for him. In that case it is primarily a BLP problem, not a COI problem.
A sentence portraying him as a supporter of global warming denialism is arguably undue weight if all he has done to earn it was writing two short letters to the editor. (I only have access to the second letter cited, and that one is definitely short and not worth mentioning.) He may well have changed his opinion since then, and we wouldn't necessarily know it. It is perfectly reasonable to remove that information. The impression that he is an active global warming denier can make him unemployable for some positions, and we have no business portraying him that way if he isn't more persistently on record with such tendencies. Hans Adler 14:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I left a short not at WP:BLP/N pointing here. Hans Adler 14:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I do think there are lucrative employment opportunities for global warming deniers, but it may be undue weight. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with Hans. I tweaked the content to a more NPOV position. However the more I look at it the less I like it. It is a primary source and wikipedia has become the primary vehicle for it. - Has it been reported in another reliable source and also can we be sure it was actually him - was it verified to be him are questions worthy of asking. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
update - this seems to be pretty much resolved. A comment that was a bit undue and was being removed has been rewritten, if whats left is removed again we can revisit. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of HBO properties and related artists

Seems to be engaged in press-agentry for various HBO series, the artists appearing in them, and perhaps for other Hollywood/media figures. Examples [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14]. --CliffC (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The first example here is odd (it pointlessly deletes information), but everything else that I see smacks of someone who watches too much TV, not necessarily someone with an HBO aggenda. Does anyone see anything that guarantees COI and discounts good-faith? P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You make a good point. Upon consideration, I'm withdrawing the report. --CliffC (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I reverted one edit because it was unsourced speculation, it couldn't even name the actors that were to play the rumored roles in undecided episodes in the future season of a series. But I agree that there's no evidence of a COI. If the editor puts in an edit summary that their information is factual because they represent HBO, or some similar remark, that's a different story. -- Atama頭 17:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Crouch, Jr.

Resolved
 – There are issues to be worked out, but COI isn't one of them. -- Atama頭 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This IP user, who appears to occasionally edit as BermudaWoman going by the IP's editing of a comment previously left by BermudaWoman and by their sharing the exact same editing patterns and edit summary style, edits only in articles and discussions relating to the Crouch family, a group of Christian TV evangelists, and to the TV stations they own. These edits tend to be of a promotional nature and are generally sourced to SPS or to other sources that are unreliable for notability purposes. Currently, the user is stonewalling an AfD discussion by overwhelming it with vast walls of text that claim to assert the notability of the subject, although none of the text or references in fact do so (either the sources are unreliable or they're an attempt to borrow notability for him from the TV network his parents founded). The same user is also being rather ornery about a proposed merge of the Jan Crouch article, claiming independent notability (I'd suggested a merge and rename rather than a delete because she and Paul Sr. founded TBN together) that is not supported by sources.

Given this, it's extremely likely that the user is a paid employee of, or otherwise closely associated with, the Crouch family or Trinity Broadcasting Network. It would be helpful if they were warned about Wikipedia's COI policy and advised not to edit on behalf of employers, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any real indication that they're associated with the family or TBN? Have they claimed to represent the company, or claimed to know the family, or be a member of the family? Having a POV does not mean having a COI, in fact we have a totally separate noticeboard for POV issues that lack a COI; WP:POVN. -- Atama頭 17:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I mean, POV is also an issue, but in my observation, such a complete focus on one business (TBN) or its personnel tends to indicate association with it or them in some way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I should have been clearer - the user having said she's not affiliated with the family or the network, I'll take her at her word, but I wanted to explain that it was a reasonable suspicion given the single-minded focus on promoting the Crouch family and their business. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I am a new Wiki user, and I am not an employee of TBN. I am a fan. Just as Roscelese is a fan of the artists and authors that she writes about. When I saw how horribly written the articles were for TBN, I attempted to improve them. If i am responding too much on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crouch, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)it is not intended to be nonconforming to Wiki protocol, but a logical response to some of the responses which seem illogical and verging on malicious. It would appear that Roscelese has targeted TBN, and those associated to this network, in a egregiously bias fashion. Speech used in the discussion on Paul Crouch, regarding a page merge with Jan Crouch, were based on very demeaning descriptions of Jan Crouch, and no apparent reasoning when it comes to the presentation of the facts. Jan Crouch was referred to as 'sweeping the floors at Holy Land Experience', when in fact she is the Director and CEO. The arguments seemed to go on and on in spite of several NPOV sources proving the articles notability. This user then went on to use the same broad sweeping, unsourced verbiage on all TBN related articles. My response is rather wordy because I believe this user is very biased about this network, and it's owners/management. In this users profile, they state quite clearly that they specifically look for any article that uses non-NPOV buzzwords with conservative themes. That in itself is non-NPOV. As the author of so many articles on well know artists/writers, it is even more illogical to me that this user cannot recognize and give credit to individuals that have contributed so much to the media field? This entire discussion baffles me. I am confident that neutral Wikipedia editors will actually read the articles, and the sources, and acknowledge credibility and notability.71.97.55.109 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that I said things that I didn't say, such as saying that Jan sweeps the floors at HLE, is going to make you look worse, not better. In fact, I specifically said that she does not! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This sounds like a plain old content dispute, without any reason to believe that anyone has a conflict of interest, much less is abusing Wikipedia to promote his or her own interests. If you need help figuring out how to make the article reflect the balance of the existing sources, then try WP:NPOVN or other forms of WP:Dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
See comment above - the user having said she's not affiliated with the family or the network, I'll take her at her word, but COI was a reasonable suspicion given the user's single-minded focus on promoting the Crouch family and their business, a behavior we often see in COI accounts. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's entirely unreasonable of you to wonder about a conflict of interest, but COI isn't the only motivation for single-purpose accounts. In my experience, it's not even the most common reason. But no matter how reasonable the initial concern, it doesn't seem to be relevant, so it's time to move on to other forms of dispute resolution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Yup, we're done here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bold text

Quilla Constance article

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

This page is being used as self promotion and is not in following with the Wikipedia guidelines.

It contains: Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

This page is written by her about herself and is blatantly self promotional.... it is a "puff" piece and is basically an ad for her music career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.129.62 (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the article, I'm not sure where the conflict of interest comes in. While promotional, there have been multiple editors in the article over its two-month lifespan, and I'm not spotting which one is tied directly to the artist. That said, there's no denying the promotional tone, and on reading the article proper, I'm not convinced of the notability. I'm going to nominate the article for deletion via the full process. It might fit CSD:A7, but as noted before, there have been enough editors involved already to (IMO) preclude the CSD process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Richmond

Charlie Richmond, in addition to reference issues, looks like it was edited by User:Charlierichmond --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this thread.
I've only been on Wikipedia since '07, but Richmond logged on in '05. He's an old timer! I've known him in a loose online sense since about '03 when we both were on Dave Stevens's Live Audio Board. Though we have conversed by email several times, on Audio Engineering Society business, I've never met him in person.
I have looked at Richmond's early additions to Wikipedia, and he was like all of early WP in that he did a lot of shooting from the hip, writing down what he knew but without citing sources. The thing is, he was always writing as an expert in the topic area, and his additions were not overly self-serving. I imagine that everything he has written can be found in reliable sources.
Do you have a specific complaint about one or more of his edits? Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is much of a COI issue. Charlie hasn't edited his biographical article for more than 3 years (and he has been active since then, making dozens of edits, as recent as half a year ago). The article itself is in poor shape, especially for a BLP, and drastically needs improvement. There hasn't been any article discussion for that article for more than 5 years. I think the only issue is that an article needs to be improved. By the way, the COI isn't news, see this AfD which was withdrawn, it was started in 2005 because the article was an autobiography. -- Atama頭 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Vitalité Québec

Resolved
 – page was deleted

Article created by the magazine's founder. Only sourcing is to the magazine itself. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've actually tagged it for speedy deletion--beyond the clear COI problem, there appears to be no chance of reliable sourcing (to judge from a few searches). P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sleddale Hall

Resolved
 – JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if I am in the right place. A new editor, User talk:Tim Ellis RIBA , has been removing cited material from the article on Sleddale Hall. On his talk page he says he is the Tim Ellis who now owns Sleddale Hall (and I have no proof he is, but then again no reason to doubt him). The material he has been removing is about the Hall being boarded up, as he wishes to discourage people from breaking in. It is a historic fact that the Hall has been boarded up for years and a Guardian article reflected this in its reporting; I am somewhat loathe to remove this reference as it is part of the 'story' of Sleddale Hall. But I am no expert on COI editing or what would be prudent in this situation: does what he want take precedence over objective reporting of facts? How much can we 'bend' to help him, if at all? Can anyone step in and advise please? And what's the position on his COI editing? (I assume I haven't outed him, given his editing name ...) Stronach (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that having the information in the article is important, and so I don't see that removing it does any harm. Since there are genuine grounds for concern about publicising the information, it seems to me it may as well be removed. This seems to me to be a case where, despite conflict of interest, the user's editing is reasonable. However, I will suggest to him that requesting an edit might sometimes be better. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with Illinois College article and Phi Alpha Literary Society article

Long story short it has come to my attention that an editor with a direct connection to Phi Alpha has been editing the Phi Alpha article and removing content from the Illinois College article off and on since at least 2008. The editor has also been involved with deletion debates involving articles of past Phi Alpha members always voting keep. I counted over 200 edits before I stopped counting. I did the investigation on the editor after he insisted the removal of an alum he feels is not notable enough to be listed in the notable alumni section of the Illinois College article. This alum has been considered notable by Wikipedia consensus for several years now and yet single IP address editors have removed his name from the alumni section list on Illinois College several times. This editor used his legal name as his Wikipedia name and has a link on his user page that once visited mentions Phi Alpha and links to other material that made his identity clear. I called him out on it. From what I understand I did not violate his privacy because he made that information available on Wikipedia. Since 2008 he has not revealed his connection to Phi Alpha until now after being exposed. I've had suspicions that the Illinois College article has been 'gatekeeped' and in my opinion this discover confirms that. I've never had to deal with a COI directly before so do take that in mind if I've handled it wrong. It is just very frustrating to see editors making their own rules about content. Even more so when I find out they are connected to the articles they are editing and removing stuff from. Can someone please come take a look?SunRiddled (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Having a connection to a subject doesn't mean that the person is abusing Wikipedia to promote his or her own interests. We care when people hurt Wikipedia to benefit themselves, not when they just have a connection to or a keen interest in a subject.
If the person is acting against current consensus (for example, multiple editors on the talk page disagree with this person's changes), then you should should consider WP:Dispute resolution or typical steps to stop WP:Edit warring. If it's just the two of you, try asking for a WP:Third opinion. Having a connection to a subject plus having a different opinion about how to write the article is not, by itself, a violation of the COI guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
A member of the society writing bios about past society members and involving himself in those deletion debates having never mentioned that he is a member of the society until now after 4 years and only after being called out is questionable in my opinion. Practically all of his edits are for Phi Alpha and related content. An interest is one thing direct involvement with an organization that he is editing about is another. Seems to me he is promoting his society and removing content from the college articles that he does not agree with. He has removed alums that he feels "does not fit" and admits to adding alums to the list who are past society members. That does not seem neutral to me. A third opinion of the college article would be great. Still even for the article about the society he should have made it clear years ago that he is in fact a member of the society. From what I read in the deletion debates he has often tried to use society documents, specifically lists, to serve as fact even when it goes against reliable sources. The iffy content he has added in the past served to make the past members of the society look more prominent than they actually are. I agree with the implication that he may have something to offer to the society article and college article but his view in my opinion has not been neutral and appears to be self-serving for the society he belongs to and apparently still has contact with as an alum. A third opinion would be appreciated.SunRiddled (talk) 12:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to avoid an edit war. He and another editor who has taken a sudden interest in the college article alumni section both appear to feel that their shared opinions are enough to remove notable alumni from the list if they don't "fit" in their opinions. I've added several art writers to the alumni lists of the colleges they attended because I have an interest in art criticism and improving art content on Wikipedia and this is the first time I've had a problem with people removing them by saying they are not notable enough to be listed or don't "fit". The alum in question has been decided as notable by Wikipedia consensus in the past. If there is a different standard for notable alumni lists on college articles I'm not aware of it.SunRiddled (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"…he should have made it clear years ago that he is in fact a member of the society."
That would be nice, but disclosure is not actually required by any policy or guideline. It is officially "encouraged", but it is optional.
Alumni lists normally cannot name every WP:Notable alumnus. Some large, old institutions might actually name a thousand people that way. Merely having an article on Wikipedia is not a sufficient reason to include an entry.
You've already got five people on the talk page, but if this is what you're trying to add, then I tend to agree with your opponents that a pretty run-of-the-mill journalist doesn't really fit in a list that is mostly politicians who've held some of the highest offices in the US, like state governors and secretaries of state. The article might use ((Category see also)) to send readers to the longer list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) There may be a concern here. An undisclosed connection to a subject (for 4 years) combined with being a single-purpose account toward that subject, that's at least worth noting. I'm not sure what can be done, though, especially since you haven't provided any diffs or even named any editors in this complaint. I'm particularly interested in where this individual (or any others) have mentioned that he is a member of the society (on Wikipedia). -- Atama頭 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

American Center for International Labor Solidarity

The editor Kimscipes, who previously outed himself as Assoc. Professor Kim Scipes of a regional campus of Purdue U., has again engaged in self-promotion and POV pushing on this page, adding a copy of his book, with this text in the article:

An academic book published in 2010, AFL-CIO's Secret War against Developing Country Workers: Solidarity or Sabotage? by Kim Scipes (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010) examined the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program in general, including the Solidarity Center. After examining the origins of US Labor's foreign policy under American Federation of Labor President Samuel Gompers in the late 1890s, Scipes claims to have established that the AFL-CIO's foreign policy leadership--acting behind the backs, and without the knowledge, of American union workers--has engaged in "labor imperialism." Scipes makes the point that the Solidarity Center has never given an honest and complete accounting of its activities to AFL-CIO affiliated union members.

Scipes previously posted this section on the talk page:

NPOV WATCH!!

The following writer claims the article is "blatantly POV." As one who has done the most writing on the AFL-CIO's foreign policy program over the past 17 years, I would agree: I have a "point of view," and it guides my writing: I am against imperialism in all forms, and against all oppression. As I (and a number of other writers) have documented, again and again, the leadership of the AFL-CIO has been carrying out a foreign policy program out of sight, behind the backs, and against the interests of workers in the US and around the world--and done everything possible to keep US union members from learning about these activities, and have even corrupted what democratic processes that exist within the national labor movement to do so.

Don't take my word for this--read the literature on AFL-CIO foreign operations and make up your own mind. The largest bibliography of material on this subject--including many articles on both sides of the debate, and with many articles downloadable from the Internet--is on my "Contemporary Labor Issues" web site at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_foreign_operations .


My work is carefully documented, and often has extended references. The three most important articles I have written are each on-line (and listed in the above bibliography), but I would like to draw people's attention to them:



For more information on the AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Program, I suggest you check out the Worker to Worker Solidarity Committee's web site at www.workertoworker.net .

And, for the record, in case any one considers me an ideologue, please note that I am a former Sergeant in the US Marine Corps (serving 1969-73, although staying in the States all four years), and am a current member of the National Writers Union, affiliated to the United Auto Workers and the AFL-CIO. (I have also been a member of the Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO; the National Education Association; and the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.) I currently teach sociology for one of the regional campuses of Purdue University.

Kim Scipes, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Sociology Purdue University North Central 1410 S. US Hwy 421 Westville, IN 46391 E-mail: kscipes@pnc.edu

Scipes's POV pushing has driven other editors up the wall. One editor has already removed the following list of "further reading":

  • Diana Barahona, 2005, Venezuela's National Workers Union" Counterpunch, October 25 [15]
  • Kim Scipes, 2000, “It’s Time to Come Clean: Open the AFL-CIO Archives on International Labor Operations.” Labor Studies Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, Summer: 4-25. [Posted on-line in English by LabourNet Germany at http://www.labournet.de/diskussion/gewerkschaft/scipes2.html .]
  • Kim Scipes, 2004, “AFL-CIO in Venezuela: Déjà vu All Over Again.” Labor Notes, April: 5. On-line at http://www.counterpunch.org/scipes03292004.html l
  • Kim Scipes, 2005, "Labor Imperialism Redux? The AFL-CIO's Foreign Policy Since 1999" Monthly Review, May [16]
  • Kim Scipes, 2005, "Unholy Alliance: The AFL-CIO and the National Endowment for Democracy in Venezuela" Z Net, July 10 [17]
  • Kim Scipes, 2006, "Worker-to-Worker Solidarity Committee to AFL-CIO: Cut All Ties with NED" [18]
  • Kim Scipes, 2007, "The AFL-CIO Foreign Policy Program and the 2002 Coup in Venezuela: Was the AFL-CIO Involved?" Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, Vol. X: 133-147. [An earlier version of this peer-reviewed article is on-line at http://www.workertoworker.net/afl_cio_foreign_policy_venezuela_kim_scipes.html .]
  • Lee Sustar, 2005. “Revolution and Counter-revolution in Venezuela: Assessing the Role of the AFL-CIO” and “Lee Sustar Responds to Stan Gacek.” New Labor Forum, Vol. 14, No. 3, Fall: 97-108. On-line at http://www.selvesandothers.org/article10406.html .
  • Kim Scipes, "Contemporary Labor Issues" Bibliography—most extensive listing of references on AFL-CIO foreign operations. On-line at http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes/LaborBib.htm#AFL-CIO_Foreign_Operations

The writing he cites is mostly published with extremely left-wing groups, mostly on the totalitarian left. The "journal" Labor Notes used to be associated with a less-nutty-than-usual Trotskyist organization calling itself Solidarity. TheMonthly Review is the main Marxist/small-c communist "theoretical journal" in the USA, the source of the understatement "40 years is too long to go without an election" when it switched to Mao's China (and since to Castro's Cuba, and then to North Korea ...).

The last paragraph should clarify that I am not the editor best equipped to deal with totalitarian leftists ....

The article most distorted fails to mention that most of the money from NED went to fund Poland's Solidarity. Indeed, it fails to mention Poland at all. (Today, the AFL-CIO's aid to Solidarity is mentioned in a DYK I wrote.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing is a serious problem, and editors have been blocked for engaging in it despite warnings. (I've blocked at least one person for it.) However, that editor has made only one edit in the past 4 years, which you properly reverted. If they continue that behavior, it might be worth a block, but if they stay away for another 4 years I don't see the harm. -- Atama頭 17:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I agree that no action is needed now, because of the low level of activity by Kim Scopes.
A second reason for a COIN notice was my wish to have a second opinion about my own edits, because of my obvious political differences with the KS. Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

David Nathan (music writer)

Page is full of instances of self promotion. 86.19.238.17 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Much unsourced material & spam (removed; added references). Thanks for bringing this to our attention. If material gets reloaded into the article without references, maybe we should put it up for deletion since I'm not sure overall about notability.  Done --Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Raised already with User:Tomwsulcer. As the writer of the original article back in 2008, I acknowledge that I used some self-published sources at that time - and that some more unreliable sources have been added by others since, including by the article subject. However, it's unfortunate, in my view, that the IP brought it to this page without raising any question at the article talk page first (or with me directly) - had they done so I would have addressed the problem without needing to trouble this noticeboard. Reliable independent sources do exist on Nathan, and I would very strongly contest any suggestion of deletion on notability grounds. I'll work on the article asap - but that may not be immediately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Natural Sapphire Company‎

This is getting increasingly messy, and I'm somewhat out of my depth here. The above contributors appear to have links with competing concerns, and are engaged in an edit war over article content, combined with some dubious claims being made in the AfD discussion (I've had to redact one as potentially libellous already). Outside assistance would be much appreciated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved, since the article has been deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Laura Kightlinger

User claims: "We are entertainment counsel for a number of celebrities and public figures, and, at times, submit or revise information in a client's biography to correct inaccurate facts." Similar claims are found in numerous other edit summaries. Has also edited Stan Lee and Stan Lee Media in the past under the same pretext. Username is also probably a violation of WP:CORPNAME. TDL (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Their actions are almost the essence of why we have WP:COI in the first place. -- Atama頭 00:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears that the dispute here is over the subject's age/birthdate. The "non-COI" Wikipedians are inventing estimating a birthdate based on the year that they claim she graduated from university—which is a WP:NOR violation. The self-identified "entertainment counsel" for the subject is trying to get IMDB accepted as the right source for her age, which is a WP:RS problem (imdb's fact checking is dubious at best).
I suggest that the paid "counsel" advise the subject herself contact WP:Volunteer response team to have the error (if any) corrected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ken Ring (astrologer)

Ken Ring hit the headlines in New Zealand a couple of months ago when the Christchurch earthquakes struck. His main business is predicting weather years in advance by using the position of the moon. He has also used the moon to predict when Earthquakes could occur. His noteworthyness comes from one of his earthquake predictions occuring near the date of one of the Earthquakes. Duely an article was stated [19], which in my opinion used a lot of unreliable sources[20] [21]. I put the article up for deletion, partly because I did not think he was notable and partly because I wanted to fix the issues and not waste my time on an article that might later be deleted. At the time it was decided that the article was worth keeping [22]. One issue is that not many reliable sources exist about Ring before the earthquakes, so most of the information either comes from his own website [23] (which has meet opposition [24]) and an interview conducted in 2008 [25].

Ken Ring himself has now got involved in editing the article. This is not outing as he now signs his names as Ken Ring [26] and has identified himself on the talk page [27]. I have no problem with someone editing there own article but his are problematic.[28]. I am not sure what, if anything, needs to be done, but think it would be good for someone who is experienced in dealing with this, is outside of New Zealand and who has not heard of Ring previously to keep an eye on it. Personally I do not beleive Ring can use the moon to accurately predict weather or the moon, but have tried to keep the article as neutral as possible despite my POV.

Note: Gadfium (another kiwi) has reverted while I was preparing this, so there are other eyes on it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted all the way back, and then removed the bit in the lead saying he is a mathematician - if he wants that out, fine. I note he's been blocked twice this year. He needs to use the talk page or WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
So far he is refusing to use the talk page or WP:BLPN and continues to make the same edits. I think a block is needed. Bidgee (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
He continues to make the article positive about himself, removing reliable sources and content which don't support his view. He refuses to use the talk page or WP:BLPN. Are we just going to let him censor his own article just to put him in a positive light? Bidgee (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry didn't mean to remove your comment, I think we were editing at the same time so after you clicked save page I clicked save page with only the previous version and my new information on it, accidentally deleting yours. --Motherfrakker (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Schoenfeld

An article created some time ago by User:Exeko. I quote Moonriddengirl (in the article's talk page): According to the source primarily used in constructing this article, here, "Exeko represents the American artist photographer and philanthropist Wayne Schoenfeld in Canada, and selected markets in United States." Recently the article has been edited and augmented by User:Wschoenfeld, whose additions have included the extraordinary claim that International exhibitions of Schoenfeld's self styled and staged circus imagery, "Icons/Iconoclasts" have drawn crowds of over ten thousand visitors each in Paris and Montreal, a claim accompanied by footnotes, but footnotes that seem to elaborate -- incidentally, suggesting that the exhibitions drew hundreds of viewers per hour -- rather than providing any evidence. -- Hoary (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This all sounds like a content dispute, in which COI is trotted out as a way to dismiss the other side's claims about how many people attended the exhibitions. You might want to take this to RSN, while remembering that sources do not have to provide evidence to back up their claims. Also, the claim might not actually be extraordinary: The Louvre draws 100 visitors every five minutes. If the exhibitions were in a high-traffic area, then 100 visitors an hour might actually constitute a slow day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Victoria_Preobrazhenskaya

I wasn't sure where this should go but anyway. Upon investigation I found out that a previous page called Victoria Preobrazhenskaya was deleted as db-g11. It seems that the user has resurrected that page and is planning on writing up another one. Contribs shows no other edits than the project at hand. That's why I didn't know where this should go.. it's a user page and not an actual article. I've looked all over but I can't seem to find any protocol for such a situation even though I've encountered it a couple of times. When a user starts making an autobiographical page using their user page, are we supposed to let them make the page on their user page to their heart's content, and put a deletion tag on them only once they try to publish? Or do we nip it at the bud and tag for speedy deletion under db-spam? Can someone please clarify? Sorry, I'm kinda new at this stuff. --Motherfrakker (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've never come across this issue either but it looks as if a writer is mis-using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes. The idea of the user pages is a way for contributors to give other contributors a sense about what they're interested in, to tell others about their past contributions and so forth; it's kind of like a public face for essentially anonymous people. The user pages don't technically belong to the user but at the same time, if a contributor is sincere in wishing to help the project, then users are accorded much deference about what to put on their "user page", and I think this is generally a good thing, particularly if it helps motivate contributors to keep contributing since we're all unpaid volunteers (presumably). But in this case, like you've pointed out, the so-called contributor hasn't done much, apparently, to further Wikipedia, but rather is using the user-page strategy to skirt the rules about biographies which require as you know reliable sources, verifiability, notability and so forth. I'm wondering whether you might take this to the administrators' noticeboard which I think is WP:ANI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I will report it to WP:ANI now. --Motherfrakker (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Well it seems I can't report to them just yet, so I leave this open. Any input and opinions would be helpful regardless of whether this goes to the admins or not. Thanks. --Motherfrakker (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pashtun people

I removed a redundant section from the Pashtun people article and explained my reason in the edit sumamry [29] but my edit was quickly reverted by User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan [30] who seems to be making alot of strange edits based on his personal POV. I explained to him that this is not how you edit articles, but he came with a reply talking nonsense about reporting me. [31]. Can someone please explain to User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan that the information he added in that way is not needed in the article. I don't think he will listen to me since he feels like he owns the article. He acts like if he owns the articles in Wikipedia and that others cannot even add a word to them.[32]--AlimNaz (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see exactly how there's a WP:COI here. It can't be because the user self-identifies as an Afghan. Perhaps you should take a look at WP:DR. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a conflict of interest here, but there does seem to be some questionable use of sources by User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan to push a pov. WP:NPOVN or WP:RS would be more appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Dresden and Johnston

I have done some edits on the article on Dresden and Johnston since the article was written in a highly non-neutral manner. From the pattern of the contributions of the editors it seems they are someone associated to the duo because that is the only work edited. There is a constant addition of itunes spam links or twitter and facebook accounts. Most of the edits are coming from MathewFaust (talk · contribs) or 2 IP addresses. Could someone look into it and see what needs to be done? At the moment, I have requested semi-protection to avoid IP edits. Hassan514 (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The named account has been active for less than three months, and made a total of 41 edits to four different articles during that time. That pattern is associated with being an inexperienced editor—perhaps a fan—rather than proving a conflict of interest. You could encourage him to learn more about Wikipedia, perhaps by suggesting that he join one of WP:WikiProject Music's many sub-groups. Interacting with other editors is often a useful way to learn about the content policies.
You might also consider asking User:XLinkBot's owner to put itunes.apple.com on the IP reversion list; Twitter and Facebook are already on its automatic-reversion list (only if added by an unregistered user or a brand-new account). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for the reply. I'll probably send the user a message. I should've added this information about the IPs, which was probably more relevant to COI, the two IP addresses are based in the San Francisco area where the duo is based. Their contribution history is mostly related to work done by Mikael Johnston, and mostly adding words like "influential" or "pioneering", which is why I brought it here. Is there anything, which needs to be done about stopping those IPs from editing. Someone told me to request semi-protection but it was denied because the edits weren't enough to warrant that. Hassan514 (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that puffery is irritating. You might leave them a nice note about the undesirability of WP:PEACOCKing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Balance board

Does someone have time to look at Balance board and the editing by the above accounts? They all appear to be the same person, and have a conflict of interest with at least some of the links/references and related material that they've added to the article. It appears that they've added considerable material to the article since December '07, so I'm not sure how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[Reply to Ronz:] Yes, those IP addresses were my computer's (at one time or another). It's clear that your intention is to uphold Wikipedia's integrity and credibility. I don't want to discourage you from trying to serve that important purpose, but your worry that there is a conflict of interest in my contribution (a few days ago and earlier) of external links in Wikipedia's "Balance board" article may be dispelled by inspecting the webpages that I linked to. I think their content will show that the interest that guided me to create two of those webpages and to cite the others is the same general interest that guides Wikipedia: making useful and interesting information and pictures available to the public. I haven't used my balance-board webpages for private gain. I haven't received or sought money, gifts, favors or employment from any manufacturer or seller of balance boards. There is no advertising at my balance-board webpages. I haven't charged any of the people that I've trained to use a balance board. I haven't tried to market my knowledge of balance boards in any way. Was I attempting, via those external links, to drum up business for balance-board manufacturers, wrist-guard manufacturers, the publisher of Balance: In Search of the Lost Sense and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? Absolutely and blatantly, Yes. In order to comply strictly with Wikipedia's policy and to prevent giving the appearance of a possible conflict of interest, I should have asked someone else to contribute the links to my own two webpages. If it is now not too late, may I ask you to do that contributing? Your polite consideration of this request will be appreciated.DavidMaisel (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
DavidMaisel, thank you for your reply, I believe the concern here is that your links are against our policy relating to external links. As you've already stated that these links you've added have been to "drum up business" which is against our policy on spam as well. I see that another editor has removed these links which is appropriate. But, I don't see a huge problem with conflict of interest here. One other policy you should look at is WP:N. If you need specific help or assistance, please feel free to reach up on my talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Growingjadeplant.com-Largest_in_the_world.jpg

The operator of this website brags that this pic is bringing him traffic from all over the world via Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He can claim all he wants, but that spam was only on Wikipedia for a few hours at the longest. He's one strike from an indef block as I see it. -- Atama頭 16:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
We could consider WP:BLACKLISTing his site... WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a word of caution, while very tempting, if you somehow match-up this person, please be careful to not out him on wikipedia. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the domain name from the file description.   Will Beback  talk  03:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with additions to Eloqua

Resolved

Hello, I previously made a request on this noticeboard regarding the Eloqua article and an editor here was very helpful, so I would like to ask for some further assistance with a couple of additions to the article. I posted a request on Talk:Eloqua a couple of weeks ago, but haven't received any response so far. There are two additions I'd like to suggest for the Clients and recognition section: adding a recent client, Fidelity Investments, and also adding a recent award from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association. In my Talk page note I had suggested replacing the Miami Heat with Fidelity Investments, but on second thoughts I would be happy to simply add this client to the existing list. While I don't think that these edits are controversial, since I work for Eloqua (as VP of Content Marketing) and there is a potential COI it seemed best to check with other editors. Please can another editor take a look at the suggested additions and make the edits, if this is appropriate. Thanks, Jchernov (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed this and have boldly added the information according to the talk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter De Brouwer

Despite previous warning, user has returned to remove COI/AUTO tags and to reintroduce unsourced puffery. It appears the editor is the subject of the article. I am recusing myself from further edits in the article space. Please consider reverting and warning this editor again. Jokestress (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have boldly reverted the content back to the latest version prior to his recent string of edits. I have left a strong, but non-biting notice on his talk page. Lets keep an eye on this. If edits continue without any acknowledgement of talk pages, simply re-adding information and other acts, we should consider a temporary block to grab the editors attention. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an update for interested editors. The user has contacted me and Biruitorul regarding this article and has not made any changes to this article. While I am still concerned about COI, I think this is under control, and is simply an editor who is passionate but misguided in his editing and what the policies are. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pink Dot SG

User identifies himself as an "organisers of Pink Dot" and appears to be "Roy Tan" here. Roy Tan started Pink Dot, see here. Editor is engaged in a slow edit war at the article which includes: repeatedly inserting content sourced to Facebook, youtube, blogs; at least twice removing the ((advert)) template. Editor is exerting ownership of Pink Dot and has created an homage to the org featuring walls of unsourced claims. Editor has been warned but persists in adding poorly sourced content. Request that the editor be required to use ((request edit)) at this page to arrest the promotional editing. – Lionel (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Its obvious that Groyn88 is a very involved person of the group, most probably Dr Roy Tan himself. As such, he has been warned with a final warning to discontinue his editing on the article page due to his bleedingly apparent COI issue. Secondly, I've cleaned up most of the dubious ref tags he has provided per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as they are mostly blog-related and are thus unverifiable per WP:Verifiability#Sources that are usually not reliable. Also, sections of the article reads, as you've mentioned, like an advert. Hence, I have tagged the article with multiple tags for improvement in view of its other "short comings" (puns not intended!). Most likely, this will be on our watchlist from now on until the issue has been resolved or Dr Roy Tan comes forward to discuss this. Anyway, my suggestion is to block Groyn88 if he continues to ignore our warnings and/or edit. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberty Games

This article was originally written by StuartKerr, Tecnical Director of Liberty Games. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-kerr/15/a57/7a5 Not only if it a conflict of interest but it has no value to Wikipedia and is something that has been created purely for SEO purposes. There is nothing notable in this article that is worthy of a wiki page. I believe it should be removed. The Novotable company has ceased trading for a few years not http://www.novotable.com/ Also the offside football table is not a exclusive product as it is also sold in John Lewis. http://www.trifledesign.co.uk/ Kookieshell (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Article now at Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Games. – ukexpat (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I suggested that we keep the article at the AfD (the sources now in the article seem enough to pass our notability threshold) but I still think there's a real COI concern here. Aside from the COI concerns and the worry about notability, are there any other problems, such as violations of WP:SPAM or WP:NPOV or other forms of disruption to be concerned about? I'm uneasy about the technical director creating and editing the company's article, but if they're doing a decent job of it, it's in Wikipedia's best interest to let it continue. -- Atama頭 19:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamal Al-Karboli‎

The user, either the actual person or someone else, created an autobiography page of Jamal Al-Karboli. FWIW, I've brought the matter to the attention of UAA but was asked to report here instead. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts... The article seems to do a really good job of showing notability, so the article merits inclusion. Gurt Posh has done a fantastic job of cleaning the article up. My only real worry here is possible impersonation, I doubt that an Iraqi sheik who is the head of a political party would take the time to write an autobiography. I'm going to soft-block the editor on those grounds. -- Atama頭 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you seeing through all that smoke but I'm really puzzled as to why UAA didn't accept my nomination the first time round? --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 06:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Beats me, maybe they thought there was a bigger issue than just the username and suggested it be brought to a larger venue? But it seems like common sense to block for impersonation; if an editor named "Barack Obama" started editing the US president's article page, the last thing I'd suspect is COI. -- Atama頭 19:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Parking In Motion

PIM seems an awful lot like Parking In Motion to me; Only edits were on Parking In Motion, which included deleting a Speedy deletion template. Swimnteach (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Article listed for afd, as a precaution. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DiskTune

This user account was created to edit this article, and no others. In 15 consecutive edits, the user managed to add a lot of text to the article. Fortunately, he or she admits to being the author of the software (and thus the official website, most likely) on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, most of the contributed text comes from the official (and copyrighted!) website. I genuinely believe they are acting in good faith, but WP:COI or not, this is at minimum a WP:COPYVIO and WP:PRIMARY problem.

In my time on Wikipedia, I've never dealt with this type of situation. I read WP:COI, but hope to learn from your ruling/response how best to deal with these situations in the future. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 05:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You did the right thing by reporting this here, but you should have also notified DIYDDR of this discussion, which I will do. The next step is to look for reliable sources for the software to determine if it passes WP:N, and WP:V and add the references to the article accordingly. If no reliable sources can be found, then the article can either be proposed for deletion, or taken to AFD.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying DIYDDR. As far as notability and verification, the article is already tagged (as I'm sure you've seen). A Google search for "DiskTune" lists about 15,500 results. Two listings on the first page of results are for software-reviewing websites that I trust: CNET and Softpedia. That should satisfy WP:N and WP:V, and I will gladly add these references to the article. But first, where do you think we stand on WP:COI, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PRIMARY, and even WP:SPAM? Or are you hoping for a response from DIYDDR?
I hope to cleanup the DiskTune article, but not before we remove whatever text and external links violate policy. Better to hold off on the construction until after the demolition, in my opinion. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 00:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
First thing I would do is to try and establish the notabilty of the program by looking for multiple, independent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of the software, and go from there. There's no use attempting article cleanup until that is accomplished, and once that is done then that will determine where to go from there.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I found the CNET and Softpedia sources, which I believe to be reliable; I can certainly add more if necessary. That should fix the WP:N and WP:V issues. But what are the WP:COI, WP:COPYVIO, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SPAM statuses? Is any of DIYDDR's text okay to stay on Wikipedia (even though he wrote the software that is the topic of the article and copied much of the text verbatim from the copyrighted official website), or should I remove all of his contributed text and go from there? —voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I would consider CNET to be a reliable source, but not Softpedia, though it could be used as a secondary source. The article needs to be re-written so that WP:COPYVIO is no longer an issue, which means the copyrighted text needs to be removed. As far as the WP:COI status, all that could be done has been done, and WP:SPAM can be taken care of with the article re-write.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! I'll begin work on the article soon. I just wanted an expert opinion before I did anything drastic. In nearly six years of editing Wikipedia, I've never taken a sludge hammer to an article! This will be a learning experience. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudolph Valentino

Not sure if this is the correct place but I think this matter qualifies as a conflict of interest. More editors need to watchlist Rudolph Valentino as author David Bret (under the username David Bret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is inserting the title of his book about Valentino and also adding unsourced content about Valentino being gay and a blurb about a new book he is supposedly writing about Valentino. He recently removed a large amount of sourced content that presents the content about Valentino's alleged homosexuality in a neutral point of view and instead just added a bunch of unsourced crap in its place. Two days previous to that edit, he edited the article to disparage what I assume is rival author Evelyn Zumaya, but removed the content in the following edit. Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together and read past a third grade level, so I do not believe his books qualify as reliable source for even the most basic information. He cites no sources in his books and always writes about. Ever. I brought this here as Bret has a nasty habit of stalking and harassing those who challenge his opinion or disagree with him and I'm not at all interested in having him create blogs about me or follow me around the internet. Before anyone thinks I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, look on Amazon.com and look at his whiny author's page. Also note the many deleted comments made by him as "rebuttals" to negative reviews on a books. He's also done the same thing on LiveJournal. Someone needs to have a word with him about trying to pimp yet another of his books on Wikipedia or at least keep an eye on the article to keep the unsubstantiated salacious bullshit out. 70.241.28.1 (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am very concerned about the Rudolph Valentino sexuality debate that has spilled over from Katie Lynn Birchard's, A.K.A. "Hala Pickford" blogs & websites. I also strongly suspect that Birchard is the author of the above rant regarding Bret's edits. There is a gross amount of public mudslinging going on between Birchard, one of her authors, Evelyn Zumaya and David Bret. Birchard claims to have properly sourced material indicating that Valentino was straight. The problem is that she has a vested interest in such claims, and is the publisher for the book(s) in question under the business name "1921 PVG Publishing." She has been successfully sued in Burbank California by yet another well-known Valentino biographer for more than $100,000 dollars for libel and slander and currently has an active warrant for her arrest for violating a court-order involved in this same lawsuit. Court documents relating to the successful suit against Birchard, as well as the warrant for her arrest can be searched via public court records in Burbank, California. Neither she, Zumaya or Bret have any business publishing anything regarding Valentino to Wikipedia, as they all have a vested interest in defaming and fighting each other. Birchard or Zumaya can not make "good faith" edits to this article when they clearly are biased and one sided regarding the subject in question. For the sake of argument, I will leave out further details regarding Birchard. I am personally asking admins to remove all references to Birchard, her alias "Hala Pickford," any reference to any materials sourced from a book published by "1921 PVG Publishing," including her most recent work, written by Evelyn Zumaya. Please be aware of "sexuality" based feuds coming from unknown ip addresses with only argumentative edits as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.82.40 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
WTF is an "unknown IP address"? All IP address can be traced back to some geographical location so that is an ignorant comment. I have no dog in race. I am NOT an author trying to pimp a book or even someone with aspirations to write about long-dead movie stars. I don't even care about this stupid feud. I saw what I believe to be conflict of interest and reported it. Seems like no one gives a damn, but whatever. I tried. 70.241.28.1 (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
David Bret has also added his book to other articles previously[36]. I have just removed them. As it was six months ago I did not leave a warning, but if it resumes then something should be done. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I take great exception to the opening paragraph of this debate posted by 70-241-28-1 aka Hala Pickford aka Hala Pickford, the publisher of Evelyn Zumaya's biography of Valentino. This woman as pointed out elsewhere has had all of her blogs closed down by a court order, she has been fined $100,000, she has been found guilty of common assault and issued with a 24-month restraining order, and following a non-show at the Burbank Court House currently has a warrant out for her arrest. Terms such as "bunch of unsourced" crap" and "Bret's biographies are regularly derided by most people who can group two sentences together" and "unsubstantiated salacious bullshit" are highly offensive. Again, just because hers and Zumaya's views differ from mine, there is no need for such rudeness. Yes, I did add my books to various Wikipedia because I believed I was allowed to do this. I would like all of the above comments by Birchard and Zumaya to be removed from here, otherwise this information will be posted to the file already in the possession of the Burbank Police. I would also point out that Evelyn Zumaya and Birchard, besides posting salacious articles hither and thither in my name, opened a Boycott David Bret Blog (currently by invitation only) accusing me of some of the most heinous crimes--so heinous that, before the Blog was privatized, Birchard was questioned by the Burbank police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Bret (talk • contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC) The paragraph posted by 70.241.28.1 which begins, "Bret's biographies are regularly derided..." should be removed. This is a spiteful attack on my books for no other reason than the writer is prejudiced because she has been sued for slander. There is NO blog by me against this writer, though she does have two very litigious blogs about me. If these comments remain here I shall have no alternative but to report this to the police to add to their current file about her, and to instigate legal action. Just because I believe that Valentino was gay and she does not, and whether this is sourced or not, does not excuse this type of behaviour and comment. David Bret (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And that was a clearcut legal threat. You're blocked until you withdraw it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Variable data printing

Adding DesignMerge that has been around longer, comparable to xmpie and makes plug-in software for Adobe InDesign.

DesignMerge is at the top of the Adobe partners page.... http://www.adobe.com/products/vdp/partners.html and there are many others to include in this article as well...just putting in directsmile and xmpie seems biased to me...

VDP Software & Services

There are many software packages available to merge text and images into VDP print files. Some are stand-alone software packages for VDP, however most of the advanced VDP software packages, such as DesignMerge, DirectSmile and XMPie from Xerox, are actually plug-in modules for one or more publishing software packages such as Adobe Creative Suite [6].

Besides VDP software, other software packages may be necessary for VDP print projects. Mailing software is necessary in the United States (United States Postal Service) and Canada to take advantage of reduced postage for bulk mailing [2]. Used prior to the VDP print file creation, mailing software presorts and validates and generates bar codes for mailing addresses. Pieces can then be printed in the proper sequence for sorting by postal code. Software to manage data quality (e.g. for duplicate removal or handling of bad records) and uniformity may also be needed[7].

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Gbane (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The user being complained about seems to be 66.102.112.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so that is the IP that I supplied in the report header. I am notifying him of this complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Just for a bit of clarification, the IP is Gbane, who is Greg Bane, the Channel Manager for DesignMerge (see here for the disclosure). He has been attempting to include information about the product to various Wikipedia pages since February 2008 under the IP and only recently registered an account. My only advice is to read WP:PSCOI (which is fairly new and I heartily endorse). -- Atama頭 17:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

GameZone and User:SisterSister00

Based on their edits, SisterSister00 appears to have a conflict of interest. All of their edits have included adding reviews to video games articles from a website called GameZone. Although the edits are valid as the website is considered a reliable source, it seems clear that the user has some affiliation with GameZone and has a vested interest in promoting the website which may conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. I have posted a notice on the user's talk page warning them of Wikipedia's policy on such practices but I wasn't sure if I should do anything else considering the volume of edits made in just the last couple of days? I also wanted to make administrators aware of the situation, although it's unlikely that any action is required from them at this stage. Cheers. Chimpanzee+ Us | Ta | Co 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm uncomfortable any time an editor adds a ton of links or references, and the COI as well makes me even more uneasy. However, each addition seems to be sourced, GameZone is RS as you said, and they improve the articles, so if there's a COI here it doesn't seem to be a harmful one. It's worth noting however. -- Atama頭 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Landor Associates

Would appreciate some extra eyes on this one. I just reverted it back to a much less spammy version removing edits by one of their employees. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Trevor Wade is "Director of Digital Marketing" for Landor Associates so this is no surprise. -- Atama頭 23:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Shayfer James

One of a series of articles written about marginally notable musicians and bands who are associated with a collective known as the Brooklyn Hive. The author is user:DeborahHoney who from the name I assume is associated with the hive . Porturology (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note that most (if not all) of the hive-related articles are being considered for deletion. -- Atama頭 00:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

links to my website

Hi, don't know where to put this, as this whole wiki way of reporting things and saving them as changes is very wierd, but anyways..... I NEED AN INOUT FROM SEVERAL NEUTRAL EDITORS.... several weeks ago i put links to my railfan pages on appropriate pages, such as the Hiawatha (Minneapolis MN) light rail page, because my pages are guides for railfans visiting said location, to help them find what they want, get around town, etc, and, in many ways, is the same kind of information receptacle as Wikipedia is, it just isn't in an encyclopedia type format, so my problem is that the links have been removed because your link police have deemed them as COI's..... (my stuff appears at www.railroadsignals.us or rawww.railfanguides.us, BTW) if this is truly your policy, to cut off the learning experience for your uses, then I guess I will have to take the same stance and go thru each and every one of my 700+ pages and remove the links to Wiki for the same reasons, and also because the information placed on Wikipedia may be of suspect informational value because any fool out there can make changes (as the owner of a number one website on railroad signals, I have found many descrepencies, but I have never bothered to do anything about them because the process is way too difficult..... in fact, I'm not even sure why I am writing this, cause I kinda don't really care anymore because my love affair with Wikipedia is over, and I won't be using ya'll any more for research or sending anyone there... and to think I almost gave in to your founder's request for contributions, shame on me..... Toddgp30 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ADV ("you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines"). These kinds of links will almost always be removed and properly so pursuant to policy. It also looks even worse to most experienced editors when a newly registered editor's only edits are to put links to his own website in different articles. You may have a completely unself-interested purpose in doing so, but, as the policy says, the best course of action is to suggest the edit on each article's Talk page. Wikipedia prefers to cite to well-established sources rather than websites created by individuals, even if those individual websites may indeed be accurate and helpful. It's a conservative approach that tends to work well overall.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
"the information placed on Wikipedia may be of suspect informational value because any fool out there can make changes" - To be honest that's absolutely true. There's a good reason why we don't allow Wikipedia itself to be considered a reliable source. That's not to say you can't trust anything you find on these pages, but what I usually recommend to people is to see what a Wikipedia article uses as a reference and consider using that as your source rather than the article itself, if you want to find a reference for your own use outside of Wikipedia. Earlier today I was listening to the radio (a local pop culture talk show) and someone was quoting a Wikipedia article, and I winced a bit. I believe in the site or I wouldn't have put in years of contributions, but I've also fixed and deleted so much garbage that I know very well you can't take everything here at face value. And no, Wikipedia isn't easy to contribute to. We try to make people feel welcome and offer help and advice, but there is so much you have to learn to be a competent editor, it took me a couple of years before I could consider myself halfway decent at article contribution and I know I'll never be great at it. -- Atama頭 23:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Brianmanagermissguy

User keeps creating a page for this subject. He is the lead singer of this band. All information added is information found on the band's article. Endlessdan (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

COI notice has been issued. – ukexpat (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with Potential COI

Hello. I need help with a potential COI. Yesterday I was told I appeared on Wikipedia and out of curiosity i went and checked it out. and sure enough i am. i have no idea how i got on wikipedia. Unfortunately, i found a mess of an article on me with numerous errors and huge gaps in career and publishing and speaking info. so, i started to fix things then thought to myself, "wait a minute, am i even allowed to do this?". at the same time i was staring at the mark up language used and thank god i didn't put a bunch of time into it because it most certainly looks like it is taboo to edit your own article.

So, is there advice on what to do? i most certainly cannot be unique in this situation of being caught between a "rock and a hard place".

tim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timhuckaby (talk • contribs) — Timhuckaby (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If it makes you feel better, the article is being considered for deletion. If you'd like to weigh in to ask for it to be deleted, you can do so, see here. -- Atama頭 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuddruckers

Article being edited by employee of Luby's. Originally with a corporate name but that was blocked, still adding promotional material. I've reverted some but it comes back. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about ASF1975 who used to be LubysFudds? They were reverted again, and warned. The Fuddruckers article is in pretty good shape at this point, and ASF1975 hasn't contributed for awhile. I've put the article on my watchlist, and if the editor keeps up the promotional additions we'll treat them like any other spammer (escalating warnings before a block, if they don't cooperate). -- Atama頭 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Institute for Healthcare Improvement

Check out the contribs, this user was canvassing users to create an article with pre-written content, presumably looking to lend the article credibility. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I speedily deleted the page as G11. It was very promotional, every part of it. -- Atama頭 16:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Leningradartist

I've not included specific articles because there are many--this has previously been discussed several times at the visual arts project page, and perhaps here as well, though I don't recall. The contributor is an author and art historian who has written hundreds of articles on Wikipedia, often using his book as a source. Given Wikipedia guidelines, this calls into question neutrality and promotional concerns--in proposing deletion of several articles an editor noted a possible connection with the estates of artists whose works are being written about [37]. My thinking is that if there's deemed to be no COI or promotional issue, very well. If there is, then the question is why has this been permitted to continue for so long? Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

See prior discussion here:[38]...Modernist (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
... and here, here, and here. Leningradartist (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Modernist--I didn't remember, but I take it this was left unresolved. The issues seem to remain the same. JNW (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
One waits again, in vain. My takeaway is that it is okay for a contributor to introduce a line of articles, each referencing their publications, and several representing artworks from estates with which they appear to be connected. I've also learned that if the contributor refrains from addressing the concerns, it is less likely they will be called to account. I take the lack of resolution on the subject as tacit approval, a blank check to introduce articles on a subject which will use my own published work as a source, and focus on materials which I may represent for commercial gains. Duly noted. I've also learned that the COI noticeboard is Wikipedia's equivalent to the dead letter office---it's where an issue goes to die. JNW (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
What specifically do you want people to do? You do realize that there is no prohibition against editing with a COI, correct? What disruption is occurring with this editor's actions? The conflict of interest is known, and the specific articles can be dealt with individually. The specific article you addressed here, which is at AfD, seems to be getting support from the community as to whether or not it is kept. It's far too common that people assume that nobody is allowed to edit subjects where they have a COI, yet our guideline shows that accounts are only blocked "when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies". Again, while editing with a COI is strongly discouraged, it is not prohibited, and thus far I see nobody who has found any blatant promotion from this account. There's a reason why this issue has been at this board twice before with no action. -- Atama頭 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want anything, and intend to enjoy life without Wikipedia. As noted, I consider the distinction that finds these edits acceptable a signal that it's open season for self-promotion on this site: nearly every article by this account refers to the author's book and website as main references--in numerous cases they are the sole online links to support the articles' content. As for the community's response to the AfD,my fellow contributors must be more perceptive than am I, and that's cool. If this is where the community and its administrators come down on this kind of issue, re: COI and objectivity, I wish it good luck. Because I believe you'll need it. JNW (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael Lissack

Edits to Michael Lissack. Swimnteach (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This issue seems covered well at WP:BLPN#Michael Lissack. -- Atama頭 16:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

List of New Zealand artists

Added self "((Sally Randell)) - Artist, Crafter, Photographer, Singer, Inventor" to List of New Zealand artists. Also tried to add a promotional facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Sally-Randell-CreatioNZ/161297000564992) to the same article. Swimnteach (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked as a spam account. -- Atama頭 16:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Piller Scott Shepherd and Shawn Piller

Lloyd Segan

Employee (he admits this here [39]) of Piller/Segan/Shepherd promoting business by editing articles of Scott Shepherd Lloyd Segan Shawn Piller . TeapotgeorgeTalk 19:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was going to block the editor as a spam account with a promotional username but Orange Mike (good man!) already took care of it. -- Atama頭 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ken Ring (writer)

He is back at it again. Currently his edits are not horrible, but I am off so could someone else keep an eye on this. There are enough warnings on the talk page to maybe justify a stronger message.. AIRcorn (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a new, stronger message on their talk page, and recommend them to bring their concerns to the article talk page instead of editing the article directly. Hopefully that will help, otherwise, I think a block may be in order again. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Emmett Till

User adding works by "Berger, Martin A" to 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' sections of various articles. So far the user has added no text, cited or otherwise, to any article, so these 'Bibliography' and 'Reference' additions seem purely promotional. User sometimes adds Berger works to "Further reading" sections, which I suppose might be acceptable if it turns out there is no COI. --CliffC (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion with the editor is ongoing at User talk:Mberger200. I have suggested he look at Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance for guidance. --CliffC (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

David Nathan (music writer)

Resolved

Again article is full of self promotion and subject is in my opinion not notable. His recording career is also self financed and little more than a self recorded karaoke CD.

I notice that you didn't bother to put the username for the person you were reporting, which is important to note since there really isn't anyone to report. That's because there is no longer a COI issue, any additions from the subject have been removed and all that's left is a content dispute that no longer has anything to do with this board. You should deal with this on the talk page of the article, or if that doesn't work, try WP:DRN. -- Atama頭 18:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ross Hauser

Hi, I'm a new contributor and I re-wrote this article Ross Hauser. I do know Hauser, but not very well. I adressed the specifics of it on the article's talk page because I read in guidelines somewhere that this is what I was supposed to do. I was directed here to ask if someone could read over the article and check that it is properly balanced and follows Wikipedia guidelines so that the tag could be removed Thanks! Savethelastbook (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've done anything wrong here. You disclosed your conflict of interest, and brought it to the attention of this noticeboard. Unfortunately, a couple of editors have nominated the article for deletion, and the fate of the article lies in the conclusion of that debate. You stated at the deletion discussion: "The fact that this project exists shows that even Wikipedia knows that most traditional media doesn't cover alternative medicine very well. The alternative medicine project can not succeed if doctors like Ross Hauser are not allowed to have pages on Wikipedia" The problem with this is that Wikipedia requires that articles be verified by reliable sources, which means that the subject needs to be covered by traditional media. If you are concerned that WP:ALTMED is doomed to failure, then you should address the concerns with the Wikiproject. Projects exist to support articles, we don't create articles to support projects. Just an FYI, one of the stated goals of that project is to "support the use of the highest-quality sources", which seems contrary to your suggestions. -- Atama頭 18:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adrianna Costa

This user has tried to rework the article into a promotional piece and can be seen to have edited the article in May in the same way as well to eliminate anyone else's work on the article and replace it with their version. They've asserted in OTRS ticket 2011070110008751 that they have full authority over her page and no other person has the right unless Adrianna or they are notified. – Adrignola talk 15:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

They're wrong. I have a watchlist on the article now, and I'll consider the editor in question to be no different than any other spammer, vandal, or BLP violator. Further disruption will lead to an indefinite block. The COI is almost incidental in this case, though it does make their case worse, as we can be more sure that their motives are not in the best interest of Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 18:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Larry Norman

The user appears to be a family member or other interested party of the subject and attempts to place any negative information or remove material that may not meet WP:RS that support the subject are met with opposition. Only one other article is edited by the user and it is listed below. What concerns me is that material from a discussion group outside of Wikipedia is being brought against me as is seen here: "you have stated as much on his discussion page recently". The problem is that I never made any comments of in any talk pages and this is an accusation from this discussion group. Editor could be referencing this edit. Any comments that suggest editor is in COI are met with hostility and in one instance, [40], a removal of the comment which can be more clearly seen with this series. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Similar to the above: the editor does not allow the removal of defamatory material about the subject. The claim that it is defamatory is from the subject as can be seen in the article's talk pages. Again, the editor does not show interest in other subjects, only these two. This article is about the director of a documentary that contains some damning but verifiable material about the previous subject. It appears that the goal of the editor is to make it seem as though the subject is an uneducated person. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the second article has been deleted so there's really no conflict there anymore. As to the editor's conduct in general, I have some comments. First, a COI is established through one of two ways, either an editor's clear admission or blatant evidence demonstrated by their actions and comments on Wikipedia. I don't really see either here (the editor is adamantly denying the COI in fact) so I'm not sure we really can treat this as a COI issue. I notice that you said CJ "appears to be a family member or other interested party", and while the former would be a COI that latter wouldn't.
On the other hand, there are some conduct issues. Removal of your talk page comments on a page other than CJ's own user talk page is a violation of WP:TPO. That's the only truly actionable issue here that I can see. A conflict over the content of the Larry Norman article is just that, a content dispute, and should be addressed through proper WP:DR channels. Also, I don't see that we can do anything about "material from a discussion group outside of Wikipedia is being brought against" you. If you have an off-wiki dispute with the editor, it needs to be handled off-wiki, I don't feel comfortable addressing problems in off-wiki discussion groups in light of WP:OUTING. My suggestion to you is that if the editor wants to bring up anything that happened off-wiki, tell them that it's not a matter to discuss on Wikipedia and has no relevance here, and if they push it, reference them to our harassment policy. -- Atama頭 19:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Olirecords

User:Olirecords is a new user who appears to be affiliated with One Little Indian Records: The username connection is obvious, the user's userpage is a cut-n-paste copy of the One Little Indian Records article's lead, and all of the user's edits are to article's about the label's artists. Why this is a problem: The user has added unsourced POV peacock-type language that makes the articles read like a promotional piece, as in this edit. They are also uploading non-free promotional photos of living people and active bands, such as File:Flats.jpg and File:Astrid williamson.jpg. The user appears to either not be familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NFCC, or their aim is simply to promote the label's artists. Either way, they should probably be informed of these policies as well as WP:COI and WP:CORPNAME. IllaZilla (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for spam and WP:ORGNAME violation. -- Atama頭 16:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion does this meet Wikipedia guidelines for not being spammE/ AdvertisE?

Akiban (Ah-kee-buhn) Technologies was founded in 2009 with the mission of delivering a database solution to allow high performance and scalability. The product, which is not yet in the market, allows companies to maintain existing relational databases, but restructures the storage of the data for scale. The company touts this approach as breaking “through the SQL scalability barrier”. The initial unreleased product appears to support MySQL, and we infer plans to support other relational databases in the future.[1] Akiban has a MIT cadre of DBMS developers like Jack Orenstein, who was an Object Design founder, Ori Herrnstadt from the Israeli Defense Forces, Mike McMahon who was a founder of Oberon and Blue Agarve Software and Peter Beaman who used to work for Intersystems.[2]

Akiban Server

Operational databases with normalized schemas suffer from performance and scalability problems as schemas become complex. Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process, to handle growing amounts of work in a graceful manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth.[3] These problems are not inherent in the amount of data however, but rather in the SQL joins required to construct objects from that data. Typical workarounds for these challenges include de-normalization, materialized views, and alternative database solutions. Rather than compromising the integrity and benefits of a relational model through denormalization, the database technology will make SQL run better.

References

  1. ^ Luca, Andrei. "Akiban « High Tech in the Hub." High Tech in the Hub. 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.hightechinthehub.com/tag/akiban/>.
  2. ^ "Akiban | DBMS 2 : Database Management System Services." DBMS 2 : Database Management and Analytic Technologies in a Changing World. Monash Research, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 05 July 2011. <http://www.dbms2.com/category/products-and-vendors/akiban/>.
  3. ^ André B. Bondi, 'Characteristics of scalability and their impact on performance', Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2000, ISBN 1-58113-195-X, pages 195 - 203

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.149.135.141 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A few things... You are currently blocked (see User talk:AkibanTech) so this is block evasion. Secondly, you were told that you should not be attempting to promote your company on Wikipedia, and this is still promotion. Third, your product isn't even released yet. I'd delete the article per A7 if it were created. And you asked if this was advertising? Language like "The company touts this approach as breaking 'through the SQL scalability barrier'" is certainly promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for your company to have free advertising. If you release your software, and it's successful, and raises a big buzz in the industry and gets lots of attention, then someone will probably write an article about it. You need to be notable to have an article, you don't create an article to help make your company notable. -- Atama頭 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am blocked on Akibantech, and submitted a username change that was processed for several days, then disappeared. Am I just suppose to have a Wikipedia account that I can never change the name, or use, or write anything? What would be the point of that.

"The company touts this approach as breaking 'through the SQL scalability barrier'" is taken from a third party article by a writer not at all related to the company. Everything that is positive is not necessarily advertising.

Thank you for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by NO.Denormalization (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's an unattributed direct quote, then that's plagiarism. What your'e supposed to do is not edit Wikipedia, period, as any account or IP address. When we block people, that's what we're saying. Creating additional accounts to get around a block is called sockpuppetry. To your credit, you're being honest about who you are, but you need to convince people that you deserve to be unblocked before you can make any of these requests. I've probably been too lenient already in not blocking your IP the first time I saw this thread. I'll be doing so now. You know how to make a block request on your user talk page, and I suggest you do so if you still wish to participate. On the other hand, I will do you this one favor, I'll keep your user talk page (your original one) on my watchlist and if you want to communicate with me, leave a message there, and I'll respond. -- Atama頭 18:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP editing own biographical article?

I noticed that an IP range from Los Angeles, 76.213.227.230 and 76.213.226.18, has been scrubbing critical sources out of an article about a Los Angeles resident, Ben Shapiro. Probably either him or someone close to him? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

LA's a big place, and Shapiro is an author and political talk show host so I'd be surprised if he didn't have publicity folks working for him. I'm not sure what exactly the best step is here, semi-protection would stop disruption from IPs but it's difficult to justify that when you consider that there have been less than a half dozen anonymous edits in the past month. There's no real indication that these people really do have a COI, not until an IP starts saying something like "I'm his publicist" or "this is Ben's request" or something along those lines. It might be best just to watch it and revert disruption like any other article. -- Atama頭 19:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Article was created by Bamanh27 (talk · contribs) a couple days after the ad was posted. The same user has created several other articles. I realize the community is divided over whether paid editing should be allowed, but in my opinion it's a huge COI problem. They can't be neutral, I'm certain the client would not accept or pay for an article with negative content in it. -- œ™ 02:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted (obviously). The ad was reported at this address. Looking at the editor's contributions, where they have created a number of articles from scratch and developed them in a focused manner, I would suggest that all of their edits have been done for financial motives. This is clearly a conflict of interest. As you pointed out, we've been unable to come up with any kind of policy or even a guideline about how to handle editors who are paid for their contributions, so we have to judge the editor's contributions on their own merits. But it's worth noting that this is occurring, and it would be in the editor's best interest to disclose this.
By coincidence, I declined a speedy deletion request on another article they recently created, National Speakers Association. It was nominated per G11 as an advertisement, but I didn't feel it was quite promotional enough to qualify. I still stand behind that decision but the article does need a bit of cleanup, but I really have trouble pointing out any particular wording that's bad, it's just the overall tone that feels a little too positive. Someone who is a better editor than myself might be able to figure it out. As to the group's notability, this article in Forbes is 2 pages long and at least half of it is about the group, which seems pretty significant to me. -- Atama頭 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It should probably be noted that two other contributions from this user, Dianna Booher, and Laura Stack, are listed on the National Speakers Association website. The other page created by Bamanh27, Sahpreem A. King, is said in the lede to be a "public speaker", but that might be a coincidence. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) [forgot to sign]
There have been cases in the past in which commercial speakers agencies have spammed content from their speaker's bios into articles.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This user is indeed a paid editor, his profile is here where he proudly advertises his "Wikipedia Page services" and his job history includes comments of thanks from none other than 6ixspace (was paid $124), Sahpreem A. King ($99 article), and Laura Stack ($137 article): “Andy is great to work with! Responsive, kind, and knowledgable. Knew how to write a wikipedia page and get it up quickly! All technical aspects satisfied and page passed muster by the wikipedia reviewers quickly. Will definitely recommend him to my colleagues! Thanks Andy!” -- œ™ 21:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed - and tagged for cleanup - those articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
That's ok.. if the subject truly is notable I'm okay with the articles existing.. even if they may not be in a neutral state.. As long as there is no official policy on paid editing, what I want is for the paid editor.. any paid editors.. to disclose their conflict of interest on their userpages and on the talk pages of any articles they create, including how much they were paid to create the article. -- Ϫ 23:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with all that apart from the financial info - that's private to the parties involved, and may in any case be part of a wider arrangement involving other services. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Agree with OE. We want good articles and from some of the free editing I've seen, it may be worth having a few professionals around, provided potential COI is addressed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Cohen & Hari

In:

Cohen, Nick (9 July 2011). "Diary". The Spectator. Retrieved 9 July 2011. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Cohen continues his spat with fellow journalist Johann Hari, alleging improper editing of the articles about each of them, and others, by User:David r from meth productions; implying CoI. I have no views as to the veracity of his claims, but this seemed the best place to raise the matter. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, someone mentioned this at WP:AN also. I'll take a look and see if there's anything actionable and comment further. -- Atama頭 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
So just from a cursory examination of David's edit history and talk page notices, it looks like Cohen is not the first to be suspicious about David. Also, David has been inactive for a few months. I'll dig further, my main concern here is the possibility of sneaky BLP violations. -- Atama頭 23:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected both articles. The CU data is stale on User:David r from meth productions, so not much can be done there unless he returns. Brandon (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have had emails from David R in the past - if any of them would be useful then I will gladly forward. But note also this. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

More, by David Allen Green, who also writes for the Spectator [New Statesman], at http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, David Allen Green is a writer for the Spectator's rival, the New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green Doctorbob (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course. How silly of me. Apologies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • We could? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • He hasn't edited for three months. Deal with it should he come back and only then if his editing causes a problem at that time. 86.156.83.178 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Blunt (magazine)

The article's creator and major contributing editor has supplied two references that are from the subject's website (or its parent organisation). The article has a list of "Contributing Writers" which includes "Emily Swanson" and thus there appears to be a conflict of interest by self-citing or self-promotion.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted, so I'm not sure what else needs to be done except to note that if that article or similar articles are created in the future, that the editor needs to be aware of our COI and promotion guidelines, and that disruption may lead to a block. -- Atama頭 18:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Manmin Central Church

Over a period of more than a year this user has consistently been editing the above articles to delete negative sourced material, remove English sources, insert hagiography attributed sources which turn out not to be independent (either TV stations controlled by the church, or press releases which have been reprinted in mainstream newspapers), and use sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Presidentofctai/Archive). I have requested help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea but no one there is interested in looking into this situation. The article has also had problems with previous strings of sockpuppets, but I have no evidence of a concrete link between them and Presidentofctai. "CTAI" I believe refers to be the Christian Trade Association International, which has an association with Jaerock Lee's publisher Urim Books.

Some examples of recent problematic edits include:

Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated as I am the only other editor watching this article and I do not have remotely enough time to scrutinise his numerous edits. Thank you, cab (call) 04:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for sockpuppetry, I'm surprised with all of the damage they cause that they were allowed to go on as they did. Their username alone would have merited at least a softblock per WP:ORGNAME (and considering the COI, sockpuppetry, and NPOV editing a hardblock was definitely warranted). -- Atama頭 16:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GrowVC

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. DavideLerda (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Hi, I created GrowVC page and I have 2 notifications: - possible conflict of interest - it lacks inline citations I'm going to work on point 2, since we have citations on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_equity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_funding but I want to know how to solve point 1. I wrote the article in a descriptive way, to avoid marketing, and added external links (BBC, LAtimes). Is it sufficient? Having thousands of users, we can ask on our website for somebody to create a descriptive page on Wikipedia. Let me know which way you prefer.

A few of points. First, I will be tagging the article for deletion because I think it is too promotional. Second, you cannot use other Wikipedia articles as a source, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Third, to avoid the COI problem, don't edit the article. It is almost impossible for someone with a conflict to edit from a neutral point of view, that's why we suggest that you don't try. Advertising for someone to create/edit the article won't help as they would also be conflicted. Please use the article's talk page to suggest changes, if it survives my speedy deletion tagging. – ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Ukexpat, do you think it would have been deleted as a non-notable subject or article with absolutely no hope of de-spamming or other improvement if it had gone through a full AFD? If not, then you shouldn't have tagged it for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is only to be used when you are 100% certain that the page would be deleted at AFD, no questions asked. It is not a handy way of disposing of articles whose current versions need a lot of work.
David, I suggest that if you try to re-create the article, that you ask for help at WP:FEEDBACK, which is better suited to giving advice on articles from new people. Folks at COI see some of the worst abuses, so naturally we tend to assume the worst on occasion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd also suggest that you review our guide at WP:PSCOI, which is meant to help editors who may have a conflict of interest to understand our policies and guidelines and avoid running into problems. And I'd like to add to what Ukexpat said before; he's correct when we say we "suggest you don't try". Editing with a COI is strongly discouraged. But it's not entirely forbidden. If you make the effort to work with other editors here, and act conscientiously, then you might find it easier to get along. I think the fact that you chose on your own to bring the issue to this board is in your favor. -- Atama頭 18:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Observer

Article about online news site is being edited by account whose name matches the name of the editor and owner, Linda Solomon. Promotional material is being added. The Interior (Talk) 16:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda's only other contribution is to The Tyee, another online publication that she was associated with. I've given her a COI welcome. The article itself was substantially cleaned up (which required gutting it, essentially) so whatever problems were added by Linda before have been removed, and I've removed the COI tag. If she continues to edit in a disruptive manner, I strongly suggest trying to talk to her (her user talk page was blank so obviously that has never been done). -- Atama頭 16:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The updates have eliminated most if not all of the advertorial content and have taken care of any the COI concern (assuming she doesn't add anything else). OlYellerTalktome 16:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks both, (and ukexpat), it looks like the editor has done a bit of policy reading and removed some material herself. While we're here, what about the notability tag? I'm thinking the awards put it on the notable side. The Interior (Talk) 06:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Violinconcerto

User Violinconcerto keeps adding links to his own website, and has started edit-warring over this. COI warnings have been ignored. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The editor added spam twice after your last warning so they've been blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. I also left a note that if for some reason someone decides to unblock this editor, that their username must be changed as well. -- Atama頭 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that the name violates the username policy. A Violin concerto is first and foremost a notable thing, not a company name. Any person seeing the account name is going to think "Oh, that person likes this kind of music", not "I bet they're associated with a company or website named ViolinConcerto.com". Consequently, while the user deserved the spam block, the username does not appear to meet the "unambiguous" standard set by the username policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:ORGNAME is mostly about representation. Usually, an editor with a name that matches the company or organization they are affiliated with is asked (or forced) to change their name because our username policy requires each account to represent a single person, not an organization. In other circumstances the username would be perfectly fine, but when you are adding links to a web site called "violinconcerto", that username is unacceptable. I'd consider a username that exactly matches the domain name of the web site being promoted is unambiguous enough (even if the .net TLD is excluded). -- Atama頭 17:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobby London

Bobby london1 has claimed to actually be Bobby London, and has made a huge series of major changes to these articles, adding a wealth of unreferenced content, removing items that portrayed him in a negative light, and in general white-washing the articles into something entirely more promotional, IMHO. I've warned him about the COI, but this really needs more eyes on the articles. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Until we can verify that this is the real London, I've blocked that account as a potential impersonator, while leaving instructions on how to verify identity. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Rangoon11

Resolved
After a long discussion, Lorifredrics has conceded that not enough evidence exists to pursue COI allegations. Discussion of Lori's actions here and elsewhere can continue at WP:ANI if necessary. -- Atama頭 21:16, 15 July 2011 (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've noticed that this editor has a history of the largest contributor to editing articles on behalf of two large media law firms, DLA Piper and Clifford Chance, and on behalf of several large UK universities, e.g. Warwick University and University College London. They recently demonstrated an unexpected interest in editing (or preventing thereof) an article on Kingston University. Could any other editors review this editor's contributions and suggest whether or not they might have an undeclared COI? If they are going to edit in a paid capacity, I would hope they would at least declare this in their user talk pages.--Lorifredrics (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also noticed that Rangoon11 has a history of being blocked for sockpuppetry. When taken together I am beginning to wonder if he has an undeclared COI as a paid Wikipedia editor for these organizations. Anyone have any further thoughts or suggestions?--Lorifredrics (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • A couple of things... Rangoon11 is a "she". Also, she used a sockpuppet once when she was new, in October of last year, and was blocked for it, but was unblocked a week later after she agreed to only use one account from that point on and has lived up to that. So why would you bring that up now? Do you have any evidence that she has broken that pledge? And why are you alleging a COI, is there any evidence other than that she shows a lot of interest in a few subjects? If that is evidence of a COI, then every Wikipedia editor would have a COI. I hope you have something to back any of this up, as it states at the top of this page, "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited and may result in sanctions against you". -- Atama頭 06:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for not being aware of Rangoon11's gender. Obviously, you must be sufficiently acquainted with her so as to have become aware of this. As for "accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest" I have made no such accusation. Rather, I have expressed a concern openly and requested input from other editors who might have greater experience in dealing with circumstances that might lead to lodging actual accusations of a COI (or not, as the case may be). The evidence I have is as I've described -- an editor with a history of being the largest contributor to specific articles involving media law firms and certain UK universities. That combination is, in conjunction with an seemingly heightened interest in opposing edits to the Kingston University article, on its own, suspicious to me, as it suggests that the editor may be on the payrolls of these universities and media law firms as a paid Wikipedia editor. It would be unusual for an editor to have such strong interests in and knowledge of this particular combination of topics, without having connections to these organizations. Perhaps it is pure coincidence, and I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Hence my putting it out there for feedback from more experienced editors. On the other hand, if there is a COI, then it would be simple for her to declare it openly.--Lorifredrics (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The "evidence" you've cited so far doesn't remotely suggest that this editor is on "the payrolls" of the various instiutions you've mentioned, as you have also suggested inappropriately at Talk:Kingston University, not to mention a similar unfounded accusation about another editor to that article. It was pointed out to you then that Rangoon11's edit counter shows her [44] having edited 3714 different pages and on everything from cars to helicopters to the Japanese inventor of a mechanical pencil to listed buildings in Norwich. Yes, many of her edits are related to Britain, and British universites and organizations, but it is normal for content editors to have a general field of interest. The vast majority of the articles I've edited or created are about opera singers, opera houses, operas, composers, etc. Does that mean I am on the payrolls of these subjects? Have you actually looked at Rangoon11's edits to Warwick University, for example? The ones I saw related to correcting formatting, copyediting for style, restructuring material into a more coherent organization, etc. Can you please cite some edits with links to them which can be construed by a neutral observer as attempting to significantly slant the multitude of different articles and subjects edited by her? I'm happy to be corrected, but if you cannot, I agree with Atama's analysis above and his warning to you. Voceditenore (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"Expressing a concern openly" without presenting any evidence feels more like an attempt to muddy the waters in a content dispute to me. The "paid Wikipedia editor" accusation (and don't pretend it wasn't) clearly falls under the sanctions mentioned by Atama. I suggest you either provide some evidence or withdraw with an apology. By the way, your user page is pretty close to breaking other wikipedia conventions. --Snowded TALK 08:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a thread on WP:ANI about this here (where the user page is also discussed.) Mtking (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I remain concerned about Rangoon11's editing history. The history shows more than mere contributions to many, many articles that read to me almost like corporate promotions. (e.g. Maxus, Pfizer_UK, King's_Health_Partners, Pharmaceutical_industry_in_the_United_Kingdom, etc.) These articles were all, in fact, created by this user. I therefore believe there is reason to question whether or not they might have been paid to write these articles by these companies/organizations. That doesn't violate WP:COI policy, however it would be appropriate to include a statement acknowledging such a COI if it exists. I would add that attacks against me and my pages should not be topics of discussion on the COI Noticeboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorifredrics (talk • contribs) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Making more vague insinuations about yet more supposed conflicts of interest, without providing any evidence beyond your 'concerns', is doing your case no good whatsoever. Can I suggest that you either provide diffs to particular edits by Rangoon11, you consider to show actual evidence of a COI, or cease making what amounts to a personal attack apparently based on nothing more than an assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically in the pay of outside interests? I think we have shown an exceptional degree of tolerance towards you, but we will not provide a forum for your dubious assertions indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not about a disagreement. This is about a user whose pattern of creating and editing articles suggests that they may be on the payroll of large companies for their editing work. The evidence has been provided via the articles themselves. No need to note diffs, as this editor is, in many instances the sole author and editor. You are, of course free to disagree with this expressed concern without resorting to veiled threats of sanctions.--Lorifredrics (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not making 'veiled threats'. I am pointing out that we do not provide a forum for unsubstantiated insinuations, and will take appropriate action to prevent people abusing facilities provided by the website. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears that I'm not alone in having concerns about the objectivity of Rangoon11.--Lorifredrics (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Lori, I've never heard of Rangoon11 until your posting here. But she set her gender to "female" in her user preferences. I have a script that shows me a person's info when I view their user page and user talk page, and one thing it shows me is a person's gender (if they have declared one in their preferences). I didn't expect you to know her gender, that's why I mentioned it. :) -- Atama頭 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Enough. I am going to ask that appropriate action now be taken to halt this ludicrous sequence of half-baked allegations. You clearly have no substantial evidence to back up your 'concerns', and are instead using this noticeboard as a platform for your attack on the integrity of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Lorifredrics may bring the WP:BOOMERANG upon herself if she continues to accuse others a conflict of interest. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Misuse_of_the_COI_noticeboard_by_User:Lorifredrics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Another of cause for concern is Rangoon11's apparent insistence on including what reads like corporate promotion rather than genuine notability in her edits in the Linklater's article.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Provide links to wikipedia to establish that accusation not to an offsite forum. I'm tempted simply to delete it --Snowded TALK 16:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
This source originates on Wikipedia Talk pages, as should be obvious from a cursory examination.Lorifredrics (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it was just redacted from ANI so if I were you I would get your act together. You're working yourself into a position where blocks are inevitable --Snowded TALK 16:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I redacted it in case it was an outing attempt. ANI has a new post every few seconds, sometimes, and if I have to do a revision delete then I had better do it right away or I'd have to delete a dozen revisions. But it was just a clumsy attempt to link to an article talk page, so no outing. I've undeleted the revision. Don't hold my knee-jerk reaction against Lori. I'm just overly cautious because outing is a constant problem when you are dealing with COI issues. -- Atama頭 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Noted, but my reason for almost deleting the comment was that it was yet another attack on another editor based on innuendo/vague accusations etc. etc. i.e. disruptive --Snowded TALK 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(←) Lori, here is the thing. Conflicts of interest are determined one of two ways... Either the editor admits to it, or does something on Wikipedia that makes it obvious. In other words, if they choose a username that identifies who they are (as you chose to), or that shows their affiliation (someone named "MicrosoftPR" editing the "Microsoft" article) or something similar. Showing an interest in a subject is not evidence of a COI. The vast majority of my article space edits have been related to World of Warcraft and iPhone, but I'm not affiliated in any way with either subject. So my suggestion to you is to drop the accusation. There is no harm in raising the question on this board about whether or not an editor might have a conflict of interest, and we could consider the matter closed. However, if you continue to insist that there is a conflict of interest, and especially that Rangoon11 is being paid to edit, based solely on the subjects she chooses, that can be considered a personal attack and isn't tolerated. I hope you can agree to gracefully withdraw your accusations and move on. -- Atama頭 16:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Atama for your comments, which are quite constructive and helpful. I appreciate your acknowledging the validity of raising genuine questions/concerns on this board. It is most unfortunate that other editors were so quick to presume nefarious intentions on my part and to conflate an expression of concern put forth for public input with a bona fide accusation. As the phrase goes, "if it walks like a duck..." -- well, it was beginning to develop webbed feet and a bit of a waddle in my eyes, and continued to do so the more I investigated, but I will accept what the consensus off editors is, particularly where such a view is so clearly and constructively expressed as it was by you. The issue of paid editing is one that is near and dear to my heart, and I shall continue to remain vigilant in my questioning of those who appear to be paid editors who don't openly acknowledge as much.--Lorifredrics (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate it, and in consideration of your concession I'm going to close this discussion as resolved, since it's not doing anyone any good, least of all Rangoon11 and yourself. -- Atama頭 21:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Really, Lori, this has got to stop. Talk:Linklaters#Offices_Section, which you characterise as "what reads like corporate promotion rather than genuine notability " is a disgreement amongst editors as to whether all the office locations of a company should be listed. Rangoon11 wasn't the only editor arguing that it wasn't necessarily promotional to list them. Yet, you jump from that to the accusation that she is on the payroll of Linklater's? And a twitter post from a UCL researcher (Rangoon11 has a ravenous appetite for anything UCL related. check his edits going back two months and a half) you characterise as someone "having concerns about the objectivity of Rangoon11"? It's either grasping at straws or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the content of the links you provide as "evidence". Either way, it's a misuse of this noticeboard and has reached the proportions of a personal attack on an editor who disagrees with you (one of the many, I might point out). Voceditenore (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Rangoon11 used to study at UCL, she disclosed this voluntarily on her talk page last year. That's her only connection to that school. And it doesn't constitute a COI either. -- Atama頭 18:29, 15 July 2011 (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.

Dew Tours

I've run across Dew Tour 2010 which was tagged as a large unwikified new article. I can't find that it's a copyvio but the tone of the articles are on the line between unecyclopedic prose and an advert. The articles are well linked together but all that I have seen only have one included reference to the official website of the event. They even go as far as to make notes about companies not being mentioned at the event but not officially affiliated (e.g. Sony & PlayStation).

Here's where the COI starts:

Companies

Users

Pages edits

I don't even know where to start with this issue. The COI is vast in its reach and I'm not even sure that any of the events are even notable. I haven't touched on that because I'm assuming they are given the sponsorship and even if it's not, the COI needs to be addressed. What do we do here? I was originally going to tag the Dew Tour 2011 article as a G11 until I noticed that it's the tip of the iceberg. I was then going to tag several articles for G11 but noticed that once notified of the possible speedy deletion, anon SPAs pop up and decline the speedy. Even stranger, some of the pages were created by a now retired user (Tv145033 (talk · contribs)) with a seemingly unrelated user name (may mean nothing).

Lastly, I was thinking that a mass AfD nom would be the way to go but I think that may not be the best thing for WP. Whoever is behind the creations knows what they're doing and what hoops to jump through to keep the articles off the radar. Mass prods may work but that wouldn't address the COI and socking issue.

I'm taking all suggestions. If we can't come up with a better way to deal with this issue, I'll probably just do a mass AfD. in a few days. OlYellerTalktome 00:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to handle this user but I've confirmed a conflict of interest. I'll leave it at that to avoid outing them. If I've said too much already, feel free to delete this edit and let me know of my mistake. OlYellerTalktome 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a big case and needs to be looked into thoroughly, there are a lot of articles involved and multiple editors. I will say though that the usernames seem to be violations of WP:ORGNAME which, when combined with the COI and possible spam issues, would warrant indefinite blocks. I'll have to evaluate this more.
As to the second issue, I don't think you've "said too much", you haven't really said anything at all. ;) Which is something of a problem, I'm not sure that anything is actionable. If we can't even mention the reason for suspecting the COI, we can't really admonish the editor, that's a bit too Kafkaesque for my tastes. We do need to avoid outing anyone, though, that's more important than any COI concerns. -- Atama頭 16:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how much we need to worry about that last user: no edits since 2008 and I've found via OldYeller's info the user's CV, which shows that she stopped working for the company in 2010. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
P.Oxy got it right and it's probably nothing to worry about given the ~3 year hiatus. From here, would you like me to create a more thorough list of articles and the accounts that edit them? I can be liberal with the list of editors and include anyone that could possibly be associated with the involved companies (including IPs). OlYellerTalktome 06:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If you don't mind. You've already spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this, and it will help ensure that nobody is spending time trying to gather info that you've already gathered. -- Atama頭 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I should be able to get it all written out by this weekend. Had a busy week. OlYellerTalktome 17:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Almost done. I'll have it up here in an hour or two. OlYellerTalktome 20:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the information I've put together. I made it a subpage of my userspace as it's a rather large report. OlYellerTalktome 22:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about not responding right away. I'm not on Wikipedia much on the weekends, too much else going on. I'm looking it over. -- Atama頭 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I don't think it's an incredibly pressing issue. I posted it over at ANI as well. I hope my report format isn't too eye gouging. OlYellerTalktome 18:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Your report is good. I've blocked Alliance 2010 for having a username in violation of WP:ORGNAME and because all they're doing is trying to promote their company. A couple of others could also be blocked for the same reason but they haven't edited for years so I don't see the point. I'm going to review each article and give a quick blurb about each one, below. -- Atama頭 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, I deleted Alli, the Alliance of Action Sports as G11. Removing the advertising content would leave the article as a very tiny stub, there were no references at all, and just in case I did a search for coverage and the only coverage I could find outside of press releases were just mentions of the company's name ("Alliance of Action Sports") in passing during coverage of sports events. -- Atama頭 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Editors at ANI seems to think they should all just be G11d. I'll go through the articles more carefully and see if there's anything worth saving and tag them as needed unless you have any objections. OlYellerTalktome 19:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
All of the pages, the template, and the category have been deleted. I'll come back here in case reps from Alli Sports come back to edit. OlYellerTalktome 20:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That's the route I was leaning anyway. I was considering a mass AfD but the route you took is much less of a pain. -- Atama頭 23:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quidco

Hi,

I am the creator of the article quidco. I created the article because there was dearth of information on the phenomena of reward websites on wikipedia other than information from large corporations. Sadly the article has turned from a fairly neutral article into one that's more like an advert. Much of this content seems to have been added by the editor Stuartcoggins. Sadly there's a massive conflict of interest with this user editing the article as he appears to be the marketing manager of quidco. I hope this post isn't seen as outing as the users identify is contained in his username. [[45]] Supposed (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING, if an editor reveals their identity on Wikipedia then it's not outing if you use that information to find their affiliations. By placing his info on linkedin.com he volunteered it, so no worries. And this is a common occurrence. -- Atama頭 20:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this does not count as identifying oneself. There's no proof it's the authors real name. If it's the authors name, there's nothing to tell us that it is the same stuart coggins. As a matter of fact there's a company called Coggins claim services that has an office in Stuart, Florida so we don't even know that it's really a name.BETA 15:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't say you're wrong, Ben, but really? I think WP:DUCK can easily be applied here. I'm all for assuming good faith but that doesn't mean ignoring significant evidence to try and find any reason, no matter how small, to assume a user isn't the person whose name they are using as their username. OlYellerTalktome 16:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Was that a joke, Ben? Do you honestly think that it's just a coincidence that an account that matches the name of the marketing manager of Quidco is turning the Quidco article into an advertisement? If you feel a sharp pain, I think you just sat on Occam's razor. :p -- Atama頭 18:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a coincidence, but I can't know that it isn't. It's a slippery slope to go bandying about with things that are unproven. BETA 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Quack quack. We don't know that we actually exist but I can see, hear, touch, taste (ew), and smell (ew) myself. You set your bar for facts very high. OlYellerTalktome 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hrm only when another editors reputation is at stake, ol' boy. (chummy embrace) :o) BETA 22:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think your objections are bizarre and unreasonable. The editor outed themselves, the only way for it to be more clear is for the person to make a definitive declaration of it, which isn't necessary. You should acquaint yourself with WP:REALNAME. Essentially, if this person is not Stuart Coggins, then they should be blocked for impersonation. We're giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the editor is that person. -- Atama頭 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You shouldn't do that either, because in that case you wouldn't know that it isn't Stuart Coggins. But that would be a separate issue from this. BETA 02:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Your suggestion is against policy, as it states, "If you share a name with a well-known person, you need to make it clear that you are not the well-known person of that name. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution, until proof of identity is provided." As I said, by assuming they are who they portray themselves to be, we're giving the editor the benefit of the doubt. -- Atama頭 03:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FXUK

User has edited recently the FX UK tv channel wikipedia page, from the username they have chosen there may be a conflict of interest. Surly the username violates username policy as wellRuth-2013 (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As this was a a username violation, I reported the name at UAA and the account has since been blocked. There don't appear to be any blatant COI issues on the article since then by new accounts or anons, either. OlYellerTalktome 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

discounts

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 75.15.150.190 (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC) why do you not give military discounts to the poeple that are giving their lifes for you?

This user has no other edits besides this edit. They either changed IPs or logged out of their account to complain. Regardless, the question posed isn't something that can be solved by editors here. OlYellerTalktome 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Approach to Bloomberg articles

As is explained on my User Page, I work with the communications department at Bloomberg L.P. I'm familiar with the WP:COI as well as Wikipedia's content policies. I've read the prior discussions about Bloomberg on WP:COIN (here in November 2010 and here in July 2010) and I understand that these attempts fell short of appropriately editing articles with a Conflict of Interest. The reason I am here is not to edit Bloomberg-related articles directly, but to go to the Talk pages of these articles and propose edits for discussion. Several of these articles currently fail to meet basic standards, e.g. Dan Doctoroff, which is clearly cut and pasted and is a WP:COPYVIO. I've begun to put together working drafts in my own Sandboxes and I plan on proposing these changes gradually on each of the articles' Talk pages once I feel they are ready for others to consider. I welcome any thoughts about this approach. Thank you. Ordwayen (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This sounds perfectly fine to me, Ordwayen. I'd be glad to help out if you need. I'm especially interested in getting the copyvio removed as soon as possible. OlYellerTalktome 14:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I've started a draft of the Doctoroff article to address the WP:COPYVIO on my User Page, and plan to share the draft once its ready for review by others. Will keep you updated with my progress. Cheers, Ordwayen (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kayakmusic

Created promotional article for their client - relationship noted on their website. Constantly removed COI tags from the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me there was a WP:UAA entry on this username a month or so ago... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I doubt it, the user account was created 3 days ago. -- Atama頭 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
You were right. I was thinking of User:Kallistimusic. Lesson: don't rely on memory. Especially at my age. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Two more things... I blocked the editor. Besides the username issue, the paid editing, conflict of interest, and spam, the editor chose to delete notices warning of her misbehavior (if she was more cooperative I would have just discussed things with her). On another note, Mike, there was no need to restore the warnings, per WP:BLANKING she was fully within her rights to do so (deleting a message on your user talk page is considered an acknowledgement of the message). Only a very limited number of user talk page messages can't be deleted by the user. -- Atama頭 16:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Atama, do you want to have another go at that message? It appears to say (1) that the user is absolutely allowed to delete warnings and (2) you blocked her for doing what she's absolutely allowed to do. I'm sure that you didn't mean that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It does if you ignore where I mentioned "the username issue, the paid editing, conflict of interest, and spam". ;) But generally, it wasn't deleting the warnings that was problematic (because yes people can do that), it was ignoring them; not responding to them in any fashion. Doing so isn't likely to make an administrator more lenient. -- Atama頭 18:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert William Taylor (baseball)

The article was created by User: Theoriste2, who used to use the account User:Theoriste. The name on Theoriste's user page matches that of Robert Taylor's daughter.[46]. Theoriste2's creation of this page and her participation in its AfD appear to violate the conflict of interest guidelines. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A few things. Yes, there is almost surely a COI here. That doesn't make any of Theoriste2's actions incorrect, we caution people against creating or editing articles where they are connected to the subject, but don't disallow it. But your claim of COI seems valid. Another thing, I don't see where anyone has simply asked Theoriste2 whether or not she is who you suspect she is, or let her know about our COI guideline. And finally, I'd like to note that the participation at AfD has been pretty tame, she has made a couple of comments but hasn't even placed a "keep" !vote, so she has been pretty restrained there. I don't see that there is a problem with the COI, but it's worth bringing it up with her. -- Atama頭 18:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Xjrzqung is astroturfing for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

I came across one his articles on speedy deletion patrol, but I didn't know the problem was that bad. Per previous precedent at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, there obviously should be some consequences for this mass creating articles for non-notable politicians; I suspect the user is an employee of the party. Should a CheckUser investigation be conducted to punish the party involved? Thanks. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Astroturfing" is the wrong term here; what we've got is garden-variety promotion and a strong smell of COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I only have admin tools; can anything be done to punish the party involved for their actions IRL, starting with CheckUser? This is often the case with many parties or politicians who hire help to correct their image online. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 21:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Has anybody even attempted to discuss this issue with Xjrzqung yet? I've opened discussion on his user talk page. I've also pointed him to WP:COI and advised him of this discussion.
With respect to "punish"ing the party "for their actions IRL", that seems outside the scope of this noticeboard or Wikipedia administrators and bureaucrats. I don't think we should be doing anything beyond blocking the user, and even then, only after they've been told why the article creations are problematic and keep creating them in spite of that advice. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

L3C

Can I get another set of eyes to take a look at this article? A user who is apparently Robert Lang is deleting references in the article with the claim "Deleted Credit to Lane. Robert Lang stated this in documents and he copied it from Langs information" and similar.[47] The editor has refused to discuss it other than in edit summaries, even though I've invited him to discuss the matter at the article talk page. He's deleted other references and links from the article. There may be other issues with the sources cited; however, the basis of his edits smacks of a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I asked the user to either identify themselves per WP:REALNAME on their talk page. OlYellerTalktome 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Things have turned fairly nasty on his talk page. He seems to feel rather attacked ("I have to say I very much resent the implications and insinuations made here.") and feels that he should be able to post what he wants here because its his own voice. He's also mentioned that, "Please call me at [redacted] if you wish to discuss. I do not have time for a protracted email exchange and if you put me into that space I will merely turn it over to one of our attorneys." Not a legal threat exactly but not exactly a good start. OlYellerTalktome 18:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The article is currently a copyright violation. In an attempt to convince the author and movement/organization creator to talk with us, I've let him know that the article will be deleted soon if the copyright violation is addressed. I gave him a link to WP:DCM. I'm going to wait to see what happens. OlYellerTalktome 20:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Miami Vice

I have added links to a Miami Vice website that contains valuable information for all fans of the show. (miamiviceonline.com) I am an administrator of this site. My link is repeatedly removed by srobak. srobak was banned from other Miami Vice sites in the past by me and his deletion of my information is clearly an act of revenge against me. I request that my account be unblocked and my links reinstated. I would also request that some type of action be taken against srobak. A look at his user talk page will show his repeated acts of bullying and editing other members. Ferrariman1954 (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Edited EyeSerenetalk 11:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at our Miami Vice article, or at the article history - I'll leave it for others to comment on whether srobak has done anything wrong. I will point out however that Wikipedia:External links policy, in particular WP:FANSITE, would suggest that your website should not be linked too in our article: we aren't here to provide a directory to other websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Andy's right, and if you want a third (fourth?) opinion on the matter, you might want to post at WP:External links/Noticeboard, which specializes in evaluating links like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
As you have indicated here that you are the administrator of the fan forum, it appears that by linking to it that you are also violating WP:COI, in addition to WP:FANSITE, WP:ELNO and WP:PROMO. Add to that you have now also violated WP:OUTING for A SECOND TIME. This continued conduct needs to cease. Srobak (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
To further your own COI, you have now initiated a call for coordinated attack of WP at the site. This is a clear violation of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT and has resulted in other edits being reverted, users being blocked, and now the page being protected from your further coordinated attacks. Your COI is apparent in this instance, as are your continued efforts to invoke disruptive editing at WP to make a point. Srobak (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Has this "call for action" resulted in anything? Ferrariman1954 is on the edge of an indefinite block, from where I'm standing, but since the most recent warning for outing I see no action taken on-wiki. If his off-wiki actions lead to disruption here then I'll block without hesitation. -- Atama頭 16:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I see that it probably has... I'll wait for the protection to go and if it starts up again, then I'm blocking. -- Atama頭 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You may wish to also take a look at this. Search for "Outing Violation". Srobak (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Disregard, I have now refreshed the original ANI here as he has now OUTed for a 3rd time. Srobak (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
EyeSerene blocked Ferrariman1954 indefinitely, and beat me to it in the process. -- Atama頭 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
More