Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 57

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Randy Evans

This article has long suffered from puffery and insertion of non-encyclopedic information from a history of single purpose or near single-purpose accounts (see also S3ason (talk · contribs) or IPs in the history). I happen to think that the version of the article I wrote[1] is much better. But, here we have an attempt to verify information with citations (although I haven't checked nearly any of the material currently cited in the article) so I hesitate to revert back to the clean stub version I find appropriate, despite the obvious shortcomings. Perhaps fresh eyes will see a good way forward. Jesanj (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up about half of the article for now and tagged the sections I haven't yet reviewed. Jesanj (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Southville Foreign University

I blocked this user for 3 days for edit-warring to insert another 12kb of grossly promotional material copied from its website; but the existing article is pretty bad, and the history shows that most of it comes from the same author. More eyes needed when his block expires today. I think the institution is probably notable (though calling itself a university doesn't guarantee that), but the article needs a complete rewrite. Unless someone is willing to do that, I am tempted to stub back to this version before Fernanf got to work on it. JohnCD (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chip's Challenge

Hello. I tried to clean up the sub-section for Chuck's Challenge (link), a sequel to the video game Chip's Challenge. Allack has been consistently reverting those edits, reinserting direct links to the game's iTunes site, and added large, uncaptioned screen shots into the section on the game. Allack has openly admitted to being in contact with Chuck Sommerville, the creator of both games, on my talk page. In addition, Allack has been inserting a photo of Chuck in the middle of the lead of the page. The copyright history of the screen shots also points to a COI, at least to my newbie eyes. I made a number of suggestion to him/her, but Allack has mostly just ignored them and kept reverting my edits. Oh, and Allack appears to be an SPA. I'm not sure if this is COI or SPAM, but I do think a brief mention of the game in the article is warranted. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Gray. From my quick assessment, it looks like there's definitely some unneeded pictures in the article and several external links that don't conform with WP:EL. The uploads from Allack have gone through OTRS meaning that the owner of the pictures, presumably someone who can give permission from Chip's Challenge, is in contact with Allack, as you pointed out. It's not definitely a COI; I've worked with the subjects of articles on their articles but I wouldn't consider that a close connection or implicit proof or problematic editing.
Let's get some more eyes on the page and address the issues. If there's a COI, it will become more clear with time. OlYeller21Talktome 00:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This spreads to Wiktionary as well (see here). I don't know the policies and guidelines over there but I can't imagine that it was intended to carry a definition for "fire boots" specific to this game.
Also, I'm not entirely certain that this game is even notable. I'll read more but notability may not have been established. OlYeller21Talktome 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks a lot better now. My main source of suspicion is the consistent reverting of the page, but on the other hand, it doesn't look like Allack is an experienced editor. We'll see what happens. When you say the game may not be notable, are you referring to Chip's Challenge, or Chuck's Challenge? Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I listed Chip's Challenge at AfD (here). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't quite get this at all. First the article is said not to be factual and from an unreliable source. Then when a reliable source does comment it said to be a COI. COI does not mean some one who has first had information cannot post. It means they can not be biased to their point of view. For example a biased point of view would have removed all the community and ‘clone’ software links. All I have done is report on what Chuck is doing now, as this is what he is asked daily and the Chip’s Challenge page is the fans starting point for that information. As unlike games today, 20 years ago game where made by individuals.
Regarding Grayfell comments each time he has made one I done it. Make the images smaller. Make the information factual. Group the images together. Edit the text to a single paragraph. So I have been editing the page as per his suggestions. The text is purely factual when a game was or is being released. There is no ‘Buy X for price Y from Z because it’s the best game in the world ever!!!!!’ Grayfell last comment was 'There are a couple of other points, but that's a good start. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC). So please let me know what you’d like me to do as I have been looking after this page now for 2 year. Allack (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Allack, the edits I made had nothing to do with reliable sources. Secondly, you may be a reliable source but the information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable to anyone at any time. That means that you would need to be published somewhere then that published text can be assessed for its [[WP:|reliability]].
There may or may not be a COI; personally, I don't care either way. My edits were based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that govern the text found in articles. That's why I removed several external links from the body of the article and several more from the external links section that go to unofficial fansites and forums. That was all done per WP:EL, a guideline that governs external links. I then removed a picture from the lead of the article per WP:LEAD and I did not put it elsewhere in the article because I don't believe it has a place in the article about the game (it may in an article about the creator of the game, if he's notable).OlYeller21Talktome 14:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello OlYeller21 your comments are fair and helpful as they explain what needs to be done to make the page better. So I now understand Chuck's photo should not be in the lead, and it should be included later in a simlar style to the Mona Lisa and Leonardo da Vinci. Regarding the external links I did them as people kept on writing not verified so I added them to prove they were true.
Regarding your first point how do I get verifiable as ever time I say I know the source I get shouted at and told I can't write anything due to COI?
Finally why is the page due for deletion? Allack (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Allack. Glad I can be helpful. First off, someone felt that the subject of the article wasn't notable. We have a inclusion guidelines that determine what will be included in the encyclopedia. I wasn't sure at first until I realized what game it was. I wouldn't be too worried about the article being deleted. I feel that it's notable.

Secondly, for your words/opinions/etc. to make their way onto Wikipedia, they'd need to be published. They can be published online, in a book, in a magazine, etc. but the source (whatever you write) will be up for editors to scrutinize and determine if you are a reliable and knowledgeable source. For instance, I can write about My Little Pony but I know nothing about it so my opinions aren't exactly important for an encyclopedia to take note of. Citing yourself on Wikipedia can be tricky and it's something that many people are conflicted over. As with COIs, I feel that focusing on the text and making sure it follows WP's policies and guidelines precludes other issues.

Lastly, the links you added can be in the article as references but most likely can't be used as external links. You can read about how to cite sources at WP:CITE.

If you want, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have either here or on my talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense so how do I go about verifying my user name Allack to my real name. As I am well 'published' on Chip's & Chuck's Challenge? Allack (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Why is the word 'published' in quotes? If these are not articles published in reliable sources such as reputable magazines, newspapers and books, they are not useful or verifiable. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Because published means different things to different people. Outside of Wiki published means you have written a book or released a video game . However to answer your questions I been Wiki published via reputable magazines & gaming websites, along with releasing a video game. Allack (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Annette Betté Kellow

I didn't bring this up before because I didn't think it was a big deal. I still don't think it is, but I just wanted some input from more experienced users to definitively assure me that this doesn't violate policy or something. As I recall, I noticed the creation of this page by the user in question while RC-patrolling a couple months ago. Judging by the username, the user is the subject of the article. To my knowledge, this isn't actually against policy. I've kept the page on my watchlist to ensure that nothing bad went down; so far nothing awful has happened. Edits by the user have been constructive, and none of the content is outright promotional (unsourced and could-be-better-written, maybe, but I think there's some level of lenience called for there, given the new-ishness of the article). In short, I don't think there's any problem here, but I just wanted to double-check. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Numerous problems, mostly with references. Fixed.  Done--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Cool! Thanks for cleaning it up. I had meant to do so myself a while ago but it slipped my mind. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig Graham

Editor is a PR agent (online media speciality) who works with subject of BLP. Lied about COI [2], then admitted it [3]. WP:SPA. Disruptive editing on article - repeatedly removed AfD template despite warnings, refuses to edit other articles despite multiple COI warnings, repeatedly making controversial edits (peacock terms, unverified claims), will not admit to edits as IP (AGF by error) but still no dialogue, so cannot change behaviour. Widefox (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There also is a 24 April 2012 COI report on Craig Graham, et al.[4] The Bigbubblemedia username was blocked 23 April 2012, and editor began editing as User:Sydneysider1979 from then on. The efforts in response to the 24 April 2012 COI do not appear to have been sufficient. I posted a request to join this discussion on Sydneysider1979's talk page.[5] Editor has posted on user talk pages (the last user talk page post being 01:28, 27 April 2012),[6][7] so perhaps he will join this discussion and we can resolve this without having to block the editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP 124.169.7.4 edits are of the same style (multiple changes in close succession, with no edit summary, all from Australia, all WP:SPA, in period when Sydneysider1979 was not editing article, adding bio info not covered by any ref). Similarly the two other IPs 203.45.45.125, 175.38.61.179 . Widefox (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Still refusing to discuss as requested by Uzma Gamal and me, and instead continues to edit COI article (now userfied). Widefox (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
For the record I am not ignoring you. I have been trying to find out where to talk to you all. Whether it be on your own user accounts or on the page that is now deleted, but I've just come across this page. I must say I am a little disappointed with the way this has worked. I have used Wiki in the past and it was never this difficult. I understand you have a site to protect, but to be honest with you I have found the communication strategies stressful. Every time I tried to do something right, I was abused for what I was doing and have now been blamed for stuff I didn't do. I did not come in to this to make your lives difficult, or my own, I came in to this to add valuable content to the Wiki site for someone who I believe deserves recognition for the work they have provided to Australia and Internationally. Regardless of whether I have a connection with this person or not, they deserve to be featured on Wiki. I appreciate your hard work as editors and the site needs editors like you to keep the site clean. I do not want to be banned, I just want to add and edit content. Can you please tell me what the next steps are? As this page has been userfied, does this mean I can correct it and then resubmit? I understand the COI and the NPOV. Can I create a different style of page? Or am I to no longer have anything to do with this article? What happens to the article now? I would appreciate you explaining in words. Thank you Sydneysider1979 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979
You can appeal the AfD deletion of the Craig Graham article by posting a request at WP:DRV. However, a better approach may be to continue to edit the userfied article and then post at Wikipedia:Requested articles. A problem you may be having is because you are writing what you know about a topic first and then trying to find reliable source info to support it, which usually leads to less than satisfactory results. A way to write a Wikipedia article is to gather all your reliable source information first and then develop the article based on that. In other words, reliable sources help build a Wikipedia article. As I posted at the AfD, the name "Craig Graham" is so common in the world, that I am unable to search any reliable source data base and come up with info on this specific "Craig Graham". I can find 1,000+ articles on "Craig Graham", but am not going to read each one looking for info on this specific "Craig Graham". I would be happy to help develop the article once there is sufficient reliable source material links. If you are connected with this specific "Craig Graham," then perhaps you can get a list from Mr. Graham and create a link list in the userfied article. Some other's create a web page (outside of Wikipedia) and include an "in the news" page where they list links to reliable source coverage. Those in the news pages may help Wikipedia editors locate reliable source info. (Note: The article also is at Cat in the Hat/MarkBurberry32 sandbox.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sydneysider1979, glad you have replied. As Uzma Gamal says, it just needs references. Widefox (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

USACK

Removal of templates, ownership of article, introduction of content copied or closely paraphrasing that of organization's website. WP:SPA, with intent only to promote the subject. 99.168.84.134 (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear conflict of interest from Usack-okc's edit summaries.[8] Usack-okc's edits to Wikipedia also were to promote personal and USACK organizations interests. Daniel Case blocked the Usack-okc account from editing Wikipedia indefinitely because of the username and the article has several templates at the top. The USACK topic meets WP:GNG, so AFD is not an option. Hopefully, the article will be cleaned up over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
An OTRS agent, Moonriddengirl, is working with the article. The entire article isn't a copyright violation but I it's probably best to wait until OTRS is done before further investigating/correcting issues that the COI has created. OlYeller21Talktome 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jsteininger

Username indicates that they are the subject of the article. Edits indicate the user has removed sourced information and added unsourced information as well. Devin (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that this has been an issue here before. I'd search and link it but I'm stepping out for dinner. OlYeller21Talktome 23:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
You're correct. It has been brought up before. Devin (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe this issue needs immediate attention. Jsteininger claims to be Jeffree Star and is unhappy with the information presented in the articles about him and his products on Wikipedia (see here for proof). Devin, your reaction has obviously not been productive and I personally believe that failing to mention your previous report in your new report is borderline forum shopping. You were told to use the talk page to discuss the issues with the user and have not once attempted to discuss the issues with the user and have resorted to edit warring. Per WP:BLPEDIT and the Arbitration Committee, "Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns". You have not done this and again, you have not attempted to discuss the issues with the user via talk page. Please explain this. OlYeller21Talktome 23:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jsteininger last edited on 7 April 2012,[9] which was almost a month ago. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Nicole Henderson

Username of article creator (JessicaHendy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) and single purpose edits of creator and suspected sockpuppet Ratfield100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JessicaHendy ) indicate conflict of interest and self-promotion regarding this non-notable subject. COI User Warning left on both editors' talk pages. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Jessica Nicole Henderson article was WP:SNOW deleted at 03:46, 6 May 2012 by DGG[10] per the AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

An editor who openly states on their userpage that they work for the Encyclopedia Of Life is adding EOL external links to quite a few articles. I'm unsure whether this is an issue that needs addressing from a conflict of interest point of view. There is also the issue as to whether such external links are contrary to WP:ELNO; I'm thinking they probably are, which might have some bearing on the COI question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please identify the user in question. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It is User:Csparr. Should she be informed of this question? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are the user links for Csparr:
I have notified User:Csparr, who is Cynthia Sims Parr. She provides a link to her resume on her user page, and she is an actual biologist. The Encyclopedia of Life is connected with the Smithsonian Institution, but I have some doubt on whether it could be used here as a reliable source. Here is Gastropoda at EOL. Compare our Gastropoda article which has a lot more references and is more thorough. In my opinion the links to EOL should not be routinely added, but EOL has a lot of nice images which we unfortunately can't use here. Their copyright policy is explained here. Some of their content is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, which we could use. We can't use CC-BY-NC. There are between 250 and 500 links to EOL already on Wikipedia. I notice that User:Magnus Manske created the {{eol}} template for linking to this Encyclopedia, and I'll notify him of this discussion. There may already be some collaboration between the WMF and the EOL, but I don't know if there is any notion that our articles should link to theirs. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Life appears to be a redundant project to Wikispecies which, along with Wikipedia, is a wiki-based online project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. See Signpost/2008-03-03. Wikipedia Signpost 2010-12-13 notes that the "Encyclopedia of Life (a project to document all known species, announced in 2007 and estimated to cost over $100 million) incorporates Wikipedia articles in its entries, and has them classified as "trusted" or "untrusted"." Also, Wikipedia got $3 million that is connected with Encyclopedia of Life.
Throughout the years, academics working for the Encyclopedia of Life were vetting Wikipedia articles on biological species. See Signpost/2011-01-03. EOL Encyclopedia of Life verbatim copying CC-BY or CC-BY-SA is fine. For example, if a Wikipedia editor is "an expert on a subject" and having trouble getting other Wikipedia editors to accept his original research or even his less than popular point of view on a topic, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent that expert editor from posting the material at Encyclopedia of Life, release it CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, and wait for someone else to verbatim copy it into Wikipedia. Also there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent Wikipedia editors from copying their Wikipedia material into the Encyclopedia of Life -- (content can be copied from Wikipedia into the EOL) -- to give more weight within Wikipedia to their expert opinion on a topic over another Wikipedia's expert opinion on a topic. Wikipedia supposedly isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia article yet, the Wikipedia articles listed at User:Magnus Manske/Books/EOL apparently were posted at and vetted as "trusted" by EOL (see Signpost), and those EOL articles apparently can be used as reliable sources within Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Life actually isn't redundant to Wikispecies as our main focus is on aggregating a wide variety of information (including biological descriptions) about species from a large variety of sources (including scientific databases, Flickr, Wikipedia, and as soon as we can sort through the technical issues, Wikispecies, which focuses most on taxonomy not description). As some have noted, we've brought Wikipedia content onto EOL where our credential curators are (slowly) reviewing it. We're also encouraging people to contribute to Wikipedia. I wondered if my added links would be a problem -- that's why I have done only a few (perhaps ten so far?) mainly as a test to understand how it is done and to see what the impact is. Erik Moeller of WMF is on our EOL Council and has been working with us to establish effective means of interaction between our projects. Csparr (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I understand it, the addition of an external link to the EOL runs counter to the first guideline at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, regardless of any questions concerning whether or not using EOL as a reference involves circularity of source information. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Will try to be a good citizen in the future! I'm assuming that other Wikipedia editors who are not on staff at EOL can cite our pages if they think they are useful. Csparr (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:LINKSTOAVOID appears to apply, yet there are many articles with external links to EOL. See this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
@Csparr - yes, I think that is the recommended procedure. Although it actually might be acceptable for EOL staff to cite EOL pages on Wikipedia (providing they make their EOL connection clear on their userpage, as you have done), but I'm not sure - that was part of my original question. I'm guessing it's probably safer not to. On the question of external links, a lot of editors are completely unaware of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, and of course it takes more effort to read through an external link and cite the information it contains within Wikipedia (rather than just adding it as a link at the article's end), so some articles can end up having 'link farms' at the bottom of their page, which isn't really how an encyclopedia should function, as I'm sure you'd agree. It's good to have you on board as a good citizen! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mercer University School of Medicine

In October 2011, the SPA account Emc7171, created the article. As a patroller, I didn't see that the school was notable independently from the university so I redirected the article to Mercer University#School of Medicine. It also copied most of its text from the University's page. Recently, Emc7171 deleted the redirect and placed a new article which they had been preparing in their sandbox area. I nominated the article for deletion with the intent of merging any new info into the Mercer University article and conclusively redirecting the article until the school itself is found notable. An IP (98.244.183.95) claiming to be Emc7171 responded in the AfD stating that they had added another reference. The IP 198.190.246.25 that made the edit which Emc7171 later signed belong to the hospital where the doctors and students of the school of medicine practice. I'm obviously involved so I think a fresh set of eyes on the article may be helpful. OlYeller21Talktome 14:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a connection between the IP 198.190.246.25 and User:Emc7171 (please post a diff). The IP address 198.190.246.25 is connected with Mercer University School of Medicine (e.g., The IP address 198.190.246.25 belongs to Memorial Health University Medical Center (AKA Memorial University Medical Center[11]). Per the Mercer University School of Medicine article, Memorial Health University Medical Center is one of several teaching affiliates and hospitals of Mercer University School of Medicine.) The IP address 98.244.183.95 belongs to Comcast Cable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm guessing you didnt' read the whole comment from the diff I previously posted. 98.244.183.95 claims to have made an edit to the article, the edit was made by 198.190.246.25 which belongs to the hospital where the doctors and students of the school of medicine practice. OlYeller21Talktome 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't follow the comment. However,
(i) 198.190.246.25 is connected to Memorial Health University Medical Center (see above),
(ii) Memorial Health University Medical Center is connected to the Mercer University School of Medicine topic (see above),
(iii) 198.190.246.25 added a reference to The Journal of Academic Medicine in the Mercer University School of Medicine article,[12]
(iv) User:98.244.183.95 indicated that he was the one to add the reference to The Journal of Academic Medicine in the Mercer University School of Medicine article,[13] and
(v) Emc7171 edited User:98.244.183.95's AfD post in a way that indicates Emc7171 is User:98.244.183.95.[14]
--> Emc7171, 198.190.246.25, and 98.244.183.95 were used by Emc7171 and each has a COI with the topic Mercer University School of Medicine.
I added {{Connected contributor}} to the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller. As there is no argument regarding content or neutrality, and the matter of determining notability is one of policy, WP:N, and is based on community consensus, I don't understand the relevance of your sleuthing. I will happily refrain from any further edits if wikipedia so desires--although I in no way profit from the production of this article--but I think your real issue was originally with notability, and in relation to this issue this has no relevance. emc7171
You're correct that a conflict of interest has no bearing on notability. I never said that the COI has any connection with the notability of the subject. I would appreciate if you would correct yourself or point out where I've implied that a conflict of interest has anything to do with notability in this case or others.
The "relevance of my sluething" is to be determined by others. That's why I brought it here, a noticeboard that assess as deal with conflict of interests, and took no action on my own. OlYeller21Talktome 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That's all fine, just please don't accuse me of bad faith is you did on my talk page. I am unfamiliar with the policy here and was merely expressing my confusion regarding your efforts, not making assumptions regarding your motives, which I believe to be noble. Per WP: Faith "Although the assumption of good faith is dictated by Wikipedia policy, there is no corresponding policy requiring editors to act in good faith. Thus accusations of bad faith serve no purpose. They also can be inflammatory and hence can aggravate a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle." User:emc7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.190.246.25 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait, you didn't make an assumption about my motives? I thought that's what you were doing when you said, "your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller." Being new isn't a crime and I dedicate a large portion of my time to helping new editors learn the ropes on WP. They can be really overwhelming to new editors. Your apparent conflict of interest may or may not prove problematic and it's not place alone to determine that. In fact, because I was involved with the article before discovering the COI, I chose not to determine if the COI is problematic. That's it. My goal is to improve this encyclopedia and that's it. OlYeller21Talktome 21:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, I said "I don't quite understand your goal in attempting to link me with the entity regarding which I published an article OlYeller." There are no assumptions drawn here: in fact, the very nature of the statement implies that I lack an assumption, as I admit that I "don't understand". Assumptions are drawn on conclusions, and thus logically a statement wherein I admit ignorance could not be considered an assumption. I could see how you might "assume" that I was implying something negative regarding your intentions, but I assure you I was not. Again, I feel your motives as an editor here are noble and unbiased. But let's please end this discussion: I appreciate you clarifying why you took the action, and it answers my question as to why you performed it. Again, I'm new here, and am still familiarizing myself with policy. Thanks. emc7171 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.183.95 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I'm sure we can work together amicably in the future, regardless of the outcome of the AfD. OlYeller21Talktome 23:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Mywikipro.com

A NY Daily News article has an interview with the owners of mywikipro.com who apparently charge people $300 to start their Wikipedia articles. The company, run by Erez Safar and Aaron Wertheimer lists some of their clients on has removed their list of clients from their website. The primary editing account seems to be User:Bernie44 and it looks as if Safar has written his own Wikipedia article (Diwon) as well as the article for his record label, Shemspeed. Gobōnobo + c 20:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles created by User:Bernie44:

-- Ocaasi t | c 04:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that User:Bernie44 has a COI. The above noted nydailynews.com article[15] says that Animation Block Party promoter Casey Safron pays mywikipro.com "to update the article about Animation Block Party," Safron's annual animation film festival run out of Fort Greene and that film maker Aaron Wertheimer is the one who "crafts the articles from his living room in Bedford-Stuyvesant." Given what the nydailynews.com says and that User:Bernie44 is the Wikipedia editor with the most contributions to the Animation Block Party article,[16] seems likely that User:Bernie44 is film maker Aaron Wertheimer who has a COI in the Animation Block Party topic and other Wikipedia topics developed by mywikipro.com. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Further, on the above. There is a thread on Jimbo's talk page about MyWikiPro,[17], User:Bernie44 has 26 day old pending request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eli Schwebel, and Diwon is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diwon. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what do you think about this solution? What if we email all known clients and offer to update their pages for free if emailed? Obviously, we'll still have to follow WP's policies and guidelines but showing these companies that people will do this work for free may be the best way to upset the paid editing market. OlYeller21Talktome 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to try that. It might work for some of them. Of course, considering he already updated them, they must have already paid him, so it's not like you'd really be changing anything. I have to say though that he writes some pretty good articles. SilverserenC 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Afte reviewing Diwon, I've come to agree that some of his articles have been hammered into passable shape, but just looking at L'CHAIM Vodka, specifically before it got cleaned up, shows the he is still very much deserving of special scrutiny. Grayfell (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like L'CHAIM is the only article with that issue. It might be because it's about a product, which I also have trouble making sound neutral and not advertisey. SilverserenC 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
For User:Bernie44, I think you can add {{Connected contributor}} to those article talk pages where he contributes edits per the above discussion, if needed. On reviewing some of the articles, it doesn't appear that Bernie44 is predominately using Wikipedia to promote his own interests at the expense of neutrality. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the story was picked up by Time Magazine on their 'Moneyland' blog: [18]. Ocaasi t | c 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

American Legislative Exchange Council

I am not really familiar with how the COI/N works, but am posting a notice here hoping that a neutral editor could take a look at the American Legislative Exchange Council article and suggest action, or take action, regarding the series of edits by user 209.6.69.227 which may be COI editing. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of COI against 209.6.69.227 in the above 2 May 2012 report. There was no evidence of COI in the 17 April 2012 Rush Limbaugh/Conflict of interest report on 209.6.69.227, either. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SaltyBoatr; Just to be clear; filing a COI is an assertion that you know who an editor is, and that the editor has a Conflict of Interest, ie an undisclosed commercial or personal involvement in the subject that precludes that editor from objectively editing. It is true that SOME editors use these filings to harass and try to bully other editors who have differing view off Wikipedia, but that is NOT their proper use. As I understand, you just want someone to intervene in the editing process, because you do not like the way the article is shaping up, and have seen this done in other circumstances. If this is true, PLEASE consider withdrawing this filing before there has to be a debate as to your notice. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems an impossible hurdle to establish evidence of conflict of interest with an anonymous editor. (Maybe that is just the way it is.) That is what I don't understand about this process. 209.9.69.227 seems to exhibit a clear pattern of COI editing, but that is just my opinion based on observation of his/her editing behavior. Plus, the geo-locate seems to include "K Street" as the possible origin. This requirement of 'established evidence' seems to be a catch-22, with anonymous editing easily circumventing the rule. I suspect this issue has been hashed out before, I am just ignorant of the consensus community policy here about anon-COI editing. SaltyBoatr get wet 18:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Salty; I'm not trying to be harsh, but it doesn't seem like you understand what COI is or the ramifications of what you are doing are. Let's back up. What do you mean by "exhibit a clear pattern of COI editing,"; that doesn't make any sense unless you know WHO the editor is. BTW, Wikipedia can easily trace the IP, and does so; unsubstantiated speculation and conspiracy mongering like you just did (K Street) is completely inappropriate behavior. Assuming you are unaware, and again, no real harm done, but don't do it again. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no evidence presented by SaltyBoatr for 209.6.69.227 having a COI. 209.6.69.227 isn't even a WP:SPA . Widefox (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
How is it possible to present COI evidence with an anonymous editor? SaltyBoatr get wet 18:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you ARE stating you had no evidence, correct?. If you have no evidence, you should not file these claims. You have yet to say what or who led you to make a claim that you had no reason to file.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it isn't. I'm sure there are K Street scum editing all over Wikipedia anonymously. All we can do is to keep an eye out for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:UNDUE. Our grim suspicions are not evidence. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Shannon Miller

Ddarty recently added a URL to this article and in the edit summary stated, "Added Shannon's current foundation information and URL to official website. This edit was made by an official Shannon Miller Lifestyle Representative". I see no problem with the edit but as that article has had COI issues in the past, I wanted to make a note of it here. The article carries a COI tag and has had several NPOV, SPA editors make problematic edits over the years. OlYeller21Talktome 16:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll leave the {{COI}} tag on the article page and I'll add {{Connected contributor}} for Ddarty to article talk page. Just so we have everything in one place, there is an old BLPN report and AN report.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Natalia Livingston


Biography is being edited by an account claiming to be the subject, removing sourced content and replacing with unsourced. I've urged them to use the article talk page to discuss this. Conflict of interest appears relevant. Article suffers from several dead link references; though the content doesn't appear controversial, updates from reliable sources would be helpful, otherwise perhaps more content will be removed. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Subject has explained here [19] that she'd like to remove sourced content about a medical event, which was covered in an interview in USA Today [20]; my take is that it's not defamatory, so it stays, but more eyes would be appreciated. As well, she'd like to add unsourced personal content that probably doesn't belong. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm done there--some of the requested changes made sense, others strike me as image micromanagement. Would appreciate other editors taking a moment or two to have a look. Thanks, 99.136.254.195 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be resolved, with the account(s) working in good faith to improve the article. 99.136.254.195 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Freshmobile Conflict of Internet

Issue regarding the Samsung Galaxy S III article

The IP user initially added an external link to "Freshmobile" on the Samsung Galaxy S III article. That external link was removed by me because there was an existing external link that listed the specification of the Samsung Galaxy S III. The existing external link was to gsmarena.com which is considered a reliable source by many technology enthusiast. The IP user also renamed the title of the GSMarena link to another title that does not accurately represent the content of which it holds. The IP user was informally warned in the edit summary statement. Within a 24 hour period, a relatively new user (Freshmobile), removed the GSMarena link and added the freshmobile link. It's obvious that the Freshmobile user should be banned and the IP user should be closely monitored in the future to prevent any further spamming incidents. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Case blocked User:Freshmobile at 14:16, 10 May 2012 due to the similarity between the username and freshmobile.net. The similarity between User:Freshmobile and freshmobile.net plus the edits are enough to declare a COI. Not enough connection between User:Freshmobile and User:202.153.47.235 to declare a COI for User:202.153.47.235 at this time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

LLAuctions and user:Pirateslifeforme

Here's an odd one. New editor today, 16 edits so far and they're all near-enough identical. Removing cited refs that use a commercial auction house http://llauctions.com to source prices for various high-value items. All use the same edit summary, "Section removed because it was used to promote a business. It provided no relevant historical information and used subjective text." Here's one example, for George Nakashima furniture.

Now IMHO, it's entirely appropriate to use a credible auction house as a RS to give an indication of item values like this. Stripping out a section like this is excessive. Doing it repeatedly, with an identical edit summary, is just too suspicious. Doing them all in 20 minutes flat, with an editor who's evidently already experienced, and I can hear quacking too. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They were all self-cited references by the commercial auction house. While it is all well and good for an auction house to add to wikipedia much like any other user, they were using it for advertisement purposes. They used subjective text that presumed the market for items that they sold was growing. That is a conflict of interest. I am in line with the Wikipedia Code of Conduct for removing these sections. They had no relevance at all to the artist, and were used to gather consignors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirateslifeforme (talk • contribs) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely concerns about COI are better - or should at least also be - aimed at the person who added all this material to all these articles, cited to the same auction house and following a familiar format with in-text references to the auctioneer by name, rather than someone removing each example of it, however methodically? The account/editor in question is quite open about what they're doing, which is to be lauded at one level, but it's still feels a little odd. The account removing them may or may not have some interest the other way to hide - such as, say, being from a competitor out to erase all reference to a rival auction house - and notably has indeed made few edits other than removing this material; but prima facie, the COI seems less there, especially in terms of impact on WP content. N-HH talk/edits 21:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
So why no discussion with User:Joe.waddell ? Also, are you an undisclosed sockpuppet and who of?
For that matter, let's all have ourselves a nice little wikilynching on Joe.waddell, who after all has declared an involvement with LL Auctions. Worse than that, the blackguard has been going around adding _content_ and _references_ to articles. You know that's not allowed! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a "wikilynching", just a bid to get a bit of clarity on the issue here and on both of those involved in it; at least that's what I'm looking at. Perhaps User:Joe.waddell is slightly being hoisted by the petard of their own honesty, but, as I said - having only come across this issue when I spotted what I thought was a reasonable removal of their content on an article that I had just edited, and then realising there was a whole swathe of similar additions/removals - the COI here is, prima facie, rather obvious on their part, with or without that admission. I also disagree that someone adding referenced content is necessarily in the right - such content can easily be made-up, partisan POV, copyright infringement, barely disguised advertising or simply crap etc etc. We need to exercise a bit more judgment than that, surely. Equally, being open about what you are doing does not necessarily mean what you are doing is OK. N-HH talk/edits 08:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No evidence has been presented to show that Pirateslifeforme has promoted his/her own outside interests at the expense of neutrality. Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
COI also includes suppressing any mention of potential competitors, not just excessive promotion of one view or outside body.
I see no excessive promotion of LL Auctions, and using them to source prices is reasonable.
I don't believe that Pirateslifeforme is a new editor with no past edit history. As they're hiding their other identity, and their edits under this identity have such an obvious agenda against a particular body, then I'm naturally suspicious that they don't also have some further interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Pirateslifeforme is entitled to the bentifts of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and responded above with a rational basis for his/her actions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
They may or may not be a sock of another user but you can't just assert they must be and then conclude that they are therefore "hiding their other identity". The reason why they might wish to remove a whole bunch of similar additions in this case is rather obvious - they've explained it and others have backed up their argument. Even if you don't agree with their reasoning, you can't just conclude that therefore there must be some more sinister, COI motive. As for the problems with the original auction house additions, see below. N-HH talk/edits 14:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Joe.waddell

Admitted COI[21] and appears to have contributed to Wikipedia[22] to predominately promote/advance the interests of the auction house company at which he works more then the contribution advances the neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia aims of Wikipedia. Another editor observed about Joe.waddell's edits,

They were all self-cited references by the commercial auction house. While it is all well and good for an auction house to add to wikipedia much like any other user, they were using it for advertisement purposes. They used subjective text that presumed the market for items that they sold was growing. That is a conflict of interest. I am in line with the Wikipedia Code of Conduct for removing these sections. They had no relevance at all to the artist, and were used to gather consignors.[23]

-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Uzma Gamal, can you show specific edits where something was added inappropriately (ie substandard reference, puffery etc); if Joe.waddell follows Wikipedia's pillar rules you know WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS etc then essentially it does not matter what his motivations are; at WP we can't police motivations as you know.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
After determining a COI, edits by such editors are given special scrutiny under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Joe.waddell admits to having a COI, and my notice board posting then is a request that his edits be reviewed under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as serves as a notice that links to his user page. As for edits, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Local/llauctions.com. Pirateslifeforme appears to have gone through some of the contributions and revised those contributions that advanced outside interests more then the contribution advances the aims of Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Virtually all of Joe.wadell's contributions follow the same format - the addition of a sentence and/or image to a WP page on a wine estate or artist, saying "Recently a painting/photo/case sold at auction for US$xxx.xx" often with the specific addition of "at Leland Little Auction ..", such as this one. While one can argue that there is some encyclopedic interest in knowing the value of certain things, as attested at recent auctions, one-off sales of things are hardly notable per se. If the value of something is of specific relevance to the item or artist in question, whether as a general trend or even as an occasional one-off, this will be recorded - and can be cited to - third-party sources such as media reports. An account that does nothing else but add details of random non-notable one-off auctions run by the same minor, local auction house to a range of pages, adding links to the site of the auction house and usually including the name of the auction company in WP text and image captions - while admitting to working there (something they did not do initally btw, despite their belated openness about it) - is surely ripe at best for COI scrutiny, if not outright reversion of their additions as blatant spam? It's not just their motivations, it's the manifest, cumulative effect of what they are doing. I'm slightly confused as to why someone removing much of this content is the one being singled out, per the above, related section. N-HH talk/edits 14:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Joe.waddell seems well intentioned and should be thanked for disclosing their COI. However, an auction site will never meet our standards for reliable sources and so the content should be removed. It's essentially WP:REFSPAM regardless of the motivation behind it. SmartSE (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Nate Weiss

Saw a report on this at BLPN,[24] and reposted here. "Nswsoccer" matches Nate S. Weiss soccer player. Nswsoccer is the #1 contributor to the article.[25] As noted at BLPN, the Nswsoccer user account is being used to deleted unflattering comments (including referenced ones) and added numerous, sometimes unverified, positive information about Nate Weiss.[26] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User says they are a fan and feels other editors keep adding negative content with undue weight issues. I suggested they review their contribs and consider reinstating negative content with heavy editing for neutrality. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 17:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Butler (music)

Band page is highly promotional. Band member's name is Liam Kelly, so presumably this is the same Liam who wrote this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

COI notice left on user page, article prodded as non-notable.--ukexpat (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per G7 after the author blanked it. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bryan Cave

Cinaweb is a marketer for Bryan Cave and constantly changes revisions to a previous version which a) reads as a marketing tool and b) has numerous errors in the narrative, not least the number of offices for the firm: the detail shows 22 yet through the marketing narrative it will say 25, 26 or 27 depending on the paragraph. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.47.15.10 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I left a message about this discussion on Cinaweb's talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I've done some clean up removing lists of offices and history info that was copy and pasted from the website. I've also blocked Cinaweb as a role/spam only account. What I don't quite understand is that 156.47 is an IP owned by Bryan Cave. How come you're reporting a company that is working for you?! SmartSE (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I looked into Cinaweb and did not find any connection to Bryan Cave (Google Cinaweb and Bryan Cave together), which is why I left a message about this discussion on Cinaweb's talk page. There is a Cinaweb website, but that assists Italian companies in the relationships trades them with China,[27] which doesn't seem to gel with a St. Louis, Missouri, USA based lawfirm like Bryan Cave, even if it is an international law firm. I didn't check OPs IP address and now that we know 156.47.15.10 is owned by Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, it's odd that the law firm's statement "Cinaweb is a marketer for Bryan Cave" doesn't seem to be supported - it seems odd that Bryan Cave would be outing one of the companies it pays rather than instructing them on what they want. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.cinaweb.net/ seemed like a more likely company to me. The combination of a username matching a company, the spamminess and the copyvios made me think that that an indef block was justified. As to why 156.47 posted here about it, who knows?! SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Just realised that that site is down today - it was working before - it said it was a marketing and SEO company. SmartSE (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kingsway Plans

Posting this here. Pretty obvious COI; I would tag it with a speedy for promo, but I don't want to waste time with another editor thinking that it's juuuuuuuust this side of that. Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Layne Hartsell

Appears to be a self-made bio with no cited sources. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's already been deleted per G7. I've nominated the user page for deletion too via MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Hartsellml. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernard d'Abrera‎

Lucilladabrera is a WP:SPA who is very active on her husband's article. Her edits frequently include replacement of well-sourced, well-qualified negative opinions of her husband's work with badly-sourced WP:FRINGE positive opinions, as well as malformed markup. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Heatherwick

Non-evil editing by an account which seems to have a possible COI judging by the (role-based) name (and see also previous edits from CommsHS). Have put Uw-coi-username template on the userpages, not sure what (if anything) to do next. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Indianrailwaysindia

This username is in violation of WP:ORGNAME. The articles mentioned here are created by the user, they are about their trains and appear to be witten in a promotional tone. They have been adding "peacock words" and promotional terms to other articles as well, which are also about their trains, for example [28], and also removing maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}} from such articles even if they do not have enough sources. jfd34 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian Railways is an Indian state-owned railway company headquartered in New Delhi, India and Indianrailwaysindia is editing articles on railways. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
It might be a fan rather than an employee, but no edits have been made for a week, so perhaps the user has moved on to another account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New In Chess

Username is the same as the article, which is a product. New In Chess is a WP:SPA that only edits this one article, or related, usually to add fluff. The user name is a violation, no? Grayfell (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably. Why is the link to their talk page red? --Onorem♠Dil 07:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't really sure what to say, that's why I'm here. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough...and I was just about to strike and reword my comment after reading it again. That probably came off a bit more aggressive than I meant it to be. (My initial reply is probably proof for you to point to about looking for input when you don't know what to say. /whistle) --Onorem♠Dil 07:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Well shucks, text is funny that way, innit? It happens to all of us. My problem is I feel like I've seen a few COIs before, but since I don't know how username issues typically play out, I feel like further input is warranted. Grayfell (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

BullsEye Telecom

SPA for promotion. Seems fairly well-intentioned, but has yet to engage and keeps adding the same stuff. a13ean (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Kings Point, New York

The clear facts of the situation are that Daniel Piedra is the credited author for one of the sources cited in the article, and that an editor named Danpiedra has added a large section of text relying in part on that very source.

Another editor has alleged that Dan Piedra (ostensibly the same person) is the registered owner of a website taking a non-neutral position on issues discussed in the article.

I've restored the text because it does call on other sources. I've commented at the talk page that countering sources should be located to balance the article; I've also advised Danpiedra to use neutral sources whenever possible and to greater extent. However, I think this is the best venue for a wider discussion of whether Danpiedra's edits should be disallowed because of the alleged conflict of interest and non-neutrality. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Help with Bloomberg Television Edits

Hi - I have worked on edits to the Bloomberg Television article and have submitted it to multiple talk pages as well as the WP:Helpdesk for editing help with no luck of assistance. With this in mind, is it an option to post the edits to the article myself? I don't want to violate my conflict of interest, but it seems that no one is interested in editing this topic. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks!--RivBitz (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For convenience, the potential edits RivBitz is referring to are here: User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Television_Sandbox. Thank you, your transparency is very much appreciated. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I posted a response. I suggest you attempt to correct the bias and language of the controversy section rather than simply omitting it. For example it has a lot of editorialized language such as "heavily criticized" or "severely reprimanded." What does severely reprimanded mean? What was the reprimand? The section is almost entirely lacking in WP:RS, but that doesn't mean there aren't sources out there. I also think the quote is of value, but needs a source. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll work with this and get back to you with an updated draft.--RivBitz (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I added the Ofcom info into a newly restored Controversy section, however, I was unable to find any citable sources to back up the claims about Bloomberg Television censoring the Obama speech. Doing a quick search, are you able to find anything notable on the subject? User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Television_Sandbox --RivBitz (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Neotame

The article entitled "neotame" is continually being edited to create what is literally a public relations piece for a product, one which has not been scientifically proven to be safe by any entity in any nation on this planet. At least one editor is guilty of constantly removing (supposedly) controversial content be removing any reference to any possible negative aspect to the product "neotame" created by the Monsanto corporation. This editor insults me, degrades my edits, and constantly removes other editors’ contents if they are not in line with the corporate description of the article. Thinkingman (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm the editor Thinkingman wants to complain about, so to safe you some time I've filled out the templates above. I also invite you to review Thinkingman's comment on my talk, his comment on the article talk page and my reply to see if I've been insulting and degrading. --Six words (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be an issue for the reliable sources noticeboard, unless there is evidence of a COI. The net-net is that if content is "likely to be contested" such as controversial material, it requires a "reliable source" while content that is more basic just requires about any source.
Your discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard needs to be based on whether content on either side of the discussion is likely to be contested, and if it is, whether the sources are deemed reliable. Blogs can be a reliable source, if they are written by an expert and so on. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Von Neumann universal constructor

I came across the page by chance now. The user does edit under his own name and the issue seems to have been on WP:ANI a couple of times. The article tone and content seem to have been "dominated" by William R. Buckley. The article topic is only of passing interest to me and I have not worked on it for years, so I will not bother to go and edit the page. Yet, it seems counter to the spirit of Wikipedia for someone to create their own little fiefdom in some corner. Something may need to be done.... A tag on the article for people no to get intimated if they want to edit it, perhaps? Anyway, this is just a passing comment based on my observation of that page. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like your honest advice. I was recently asked to help guide a paying client through the process of Deletion Review for an article about a regional media figure. The role I would conceivably play is as a consultant--to add and check reliable sources, improve upon a draft, and guide the client through the DR process with full disclosure.

To this point, I've never done any paid editing work before, ever, really.

I have specific and general concerns. What kind of disclosure would be expected on the DR page? What kind of COI disclosure would be appropriate in my userspace? If I did this, I wouldn't be stating a keep or delete position directly in the DR or of course doing any canvassing for it.

The big picture is where I'm more worried. I hope I have maintained a reputation as a neutral and productive editor, though there's been plenty of learning along the way. I have written about both sides of the paid editing debate, praising efforts at cooperation but also detailing the dark history of paid editing. Will doing this one project taint all of that? Will it prohibit me from being seen as a fair judge of articles at AfC or WikiProject's Cooperation's Paid Editor Help board (those I'm not involved with, of course)? Will it impact the community's trust in my ability to one day pursue Adminship? I'm also doing a set of interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost about paid editing that I hope are fair, but this might effect my perception as an interviewer.

I'm really tempted to do the work, because I think I could do a fair job that respects the community's processes and also doesn't involve any direct editing of articles. And I could frankly use the money. But I'm much more concerned about what this would do to my standing and respect in the community going forward. Is this a line that, once crossed, can never be undone? Or am I making too big a deal of it?

Thanks for your thoughts in advance. Ocaasi t | c 19:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Once you start taking money for it, you're a pro; that's one anti-paid editor's opinion, no more. Depending on your preference in analogies, you may think amateur sports or prostitution, as you choose. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think your efforts to do this "on the up and up" will go a long way. Still, I would take a careful look at what they are asking before you agree to anything though. For example, it's one thing to expand a stub on a notable topic in a neutral manner, but another to try to AfC something which clearly is not notable. I think a small note on your user page which indicates exactly what paid projects you have undertaken would be a good idea. a13ean (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to hear the details from you privately. How much money is being offered, which article, etc.? I could offer private advice that way, but it would also be useful to me to know the state of the world a bit better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
A record company once contacted me: could I please write articles for their artists? They offered to pay me. But I felt queasy about such an arrangement because I essentially see Wikipedia as a volunteer project. I like to write about what I choose to write about; still, I wanted to help them. So, I worked out an arrangement such that if the record company would contribute $$ to Wikimedia Foundation, then I'd write articles for their artists. They sent me a check payable to the Wikimedia Foundation, which I forwarded to Wikimedia (that way, I knew they had paid). And I wrote the articles, making sure to explain on each talk page what I was doing, and how the articles deserved no special treatment because of this arrangement. And I think the record company could claim a tax deduction for supporting a charity. I think it worked well all around. Except I never heard from Wikimedia, hey tom, thanks for encouraging the donation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I would love to see more experienced, ethical Wikipedians fill the gap that marketing professionals haven't. I agree with Jimbo that everything depends on the situation. RE being involved in paid editing discussion, after a discussion with Herostratus I figured I would comment on, but not "vote" on issues I have a COI with. I think avoiding "voting" on consensus-based areas you have a COI with is a good approach.
I will caution you one paid editor to another, that - depending broadly on the client - disclosure does not = ethics, nor does bright line. It is a company's nature (rather the whole point of COI) to lobby for bias articles, including creating otherwise complete articles that omit certain facts, selectively improving the article, and so on. In my opinion, our ethical obligation (when writing whole articles as oppose to overt factual corrections) is to disclose all the information available in reliable sources.
I've got quite a bit of practice explaining and educating clients on their ethical responsibilities. Let me know if I can help. Good luck. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
From the debates I've seen on here, I don't see Wikipedia providing any value to an editor who openly declares they do anything Wiki-related for money. There are too many editors that will simply brand you a traitor to the cause and find fault with your work. While I think it is great of you to want to be open and declare this, I think it is a huge mistake given the environment here. Personally, if this were me, I would simply document anything that I felt had a potential bias, and ask other editors to review that edit, not viewing you as a paid editor, but simply as a fellow editor. By doing it this way, you avoid having this silly stigma that people seem to attach to paid editing, and you STILL get consensus and community feedback as a CYA. If someone questions you later, you can simply point to the community reviews of anything you felt you might be questioned on later. As with anything in life, the way people perceive you is important, and if people aren't willing to behave in a NPOV way toward our Civility Policy/Pillar, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be attacked by being too forthcoming. BUT, we can still be honest and forthcoming in the way we approach the work. -- Avanu (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is a significant gap between our words and our deeds. POV pushers don't shy away from using such information as a bludgeon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that undisclosed paid editors will be more effective, but ethical paid editors will sacrifice results, efficiency and the risk of civility violations for ethics. Wikipedians that genuinely care about the project are most likely to make this sacrifice. In the meanwhile, as a project, we should work to turn the tides in the opposite direction. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, I think it is perfectly possible to be completely ethical and at the same time, not shoot yourself in the foot by announcing to the world that you edit for pay. And I outline a way to accomplish that ethically, by essentially following the standards we use for everyone else. -- Avanu (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally, as long as payment didn't hinge on a particular result at DRV, I'd be ok with it. If the deal is that you don't get paid until they get the desired result, then that's a bit shady in my opinion. Particularly, if you're not going to contribute to the DRV at all, I'm not even sure you need to disclose anything. If you're going to contribute but not specifically vote one way or another, I think disclosure would be appropriate and encouraged. You might also want to familiarize yourself with the way DRV works before promoting yourself as a professional (for instance, delete/keep votes are generally not made at DRV's). -Scottywong| verbalize _ 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
My sense is whether to accept payment for contributions to Wikipedia is a personal matter. I contribute on a volunteer basis but others may feel differently. The way Wikipedia works is that contributors can not police the motivations of other contributors; rather, Wikipedia works by users following its excellent rules which bind all of us -- paid contributors as well as volunteer contributors. So, we check each other by asking: did a particular contribution follow the rules? That is my two cents.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cerberus Capital Management

User has disclosed and appears to be trying to do the right thing (see request edit), but has made massive direct edits. At a glance they appear to have removed large volumes of controversial content and added material with copyright symbols and such. I've been going through the request edit queue but sticking to the Talk page aspect of helping COIs improve their request so I didn't want to perform any edits or reverts myself. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I helped out here and believe it's ready for a merge if someone else wants to take a look at it. Original was solid, my edits were mainly tweaks for encyclopedic tone. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 19:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg Global Identifier

I just wanted to post notice that I have updated my user page to indicate I am a Bloomberg L.P. employee. I am a subject expert in certain areas in which articles are either lacking entirely or article quality could be improved while maintaining a NPOV.

I have created a new article Bloomberg Global Identifier, which documents a widespread security identifier in the financial sector. There is a clear precedent for articles on security identifiers such as ISIN, SEDOL, CUSIP, RIC. I have tried to list all relevant facts taken from public sources and news articles to provide a similar quality level found in the other articles. BBGIDs are released into the public domain.

I have also made a few changes to the Bloomberg Terminal article in the section regarding the application programming interface. I felt the quality of the writing could be improved to be more clear. I wanted to refer to the MIT-licensed SDK to make it clear that the API can be used by any customer to build custom software and is not limited to Excel or other shrink-wrapped software.

I want to make sure I follow all guidelines so I can help lend a hand as a subject-matter expert to improve quality. If any editors can review what I mentioned above for NPOV or give me tips, I'd appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewmp (talk • contribs) 23:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Jon Wiener

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Collect (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP appears to be heavily edited by a person with the same name. I suggested there might be a COI, and the person re-added what may be puff. [29] has assertion: update publication information with 2012 book -- no violation of NPOV or COI. ok?) . I think a second set of eyes might help here. Collect (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Redroar75

The only edits of Redroar75 is dumping polls from YouGov on many pages(Redroar75 [30]), appears to be an employee of/ or affiliated with the YouGov, working as a PR person, and all he does in Wikipedia is link-dumping as free advertisement and publicity for YouGov marketing firm. Just a quick examination of his contributions, show that every single one of his edits is linking to this not-so-notable company as a reference, creating and devoting an entire section to this company on various pages, in order to advertise and promote them. Most of the edits are even promotional/business-like in tone too, just take a look at these examples. [31][32]Penom (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Chauncey Crandall

Article is essentially just a C.V. for Chauncey Crandall. Chaunceycrandall is a single purpose account.JoelWhy (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

X-Men: First Class

I'm sure there's very few COIN reports where someone requests analysis of their own edits but as it has been repeatedly levelled against me at the talk-page of the above article, I seek some neutral analysis of my editing. I have declared on my talkpage, that in 2006 I did some work on the film set of Stardust The work I did there, I did for a logistical firm contracted to the film makers Marv Films - I didn't work directly for that logistical firm either but within my employer's own management structure. I never directly met with or spoke to anyone from Marv Films (nor do I believe did any of my employers) and I declare it on my talk page only because I regularly watch the article for the film. There has been since September 2010 consensus in the listed article above that Marv films was involved in the production of the X-men first class film - due to the fact that Marv corporate directors Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman worked on the film. An editor has recently removed this claim as Marv is not listed in the film credits, I mentioned that I had worked on Stardust and questioned this on the talkpage as a number of primary and secondary sources say otherwise despite the lack of credit - yet I have been repeatedly accused of having a COI and attempting to insert information because of the COI. I do not believe this to be true and believe I am simply debating maintaining the existing consensus due to the secondary sources that support it, but would like an honest neutral assessment of the situation in regard to my editing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed your specific edits, so I can't comment as to whether they are NPOV or not. But, COI? Seriously? The "conflict" here appears to be so tenuous as to barely exist. Plus, you've revealed your pseudo-conflict, and there's no strict ban on engaging in COI editing, especially if it's disclosed. This just seems like a non-issue, IMO.JoelWhy (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I would normally agree Joel, and while my very first edit to wikipedia was a little OR on this subject, later edits once I'd become aware of policies and guidelines avoided this; but in relation to the allegations I thought it best to get outside input. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of correcting a factual inaccuracy in Stuart.Jamieson's claims: In the most recent version of the page, from March up through May 17, there was no consensus to include Marv Films — for which there had never been any sources given whatsoever, so it had never been a legitimate, substantiated edit in the first place. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting obviously a mistake in how I used WikiBlame that I missed that. still it's irrelevant to the question of whether I have a COI.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Type-0

I think this one is relatively self-explanatory. User Salvidrim has insistently been editing in purely speculative information regarding the game's pending Western release, from a dubious source at best by an author whom he claims is reputable. First off... This reputable author of his has not once been cited on Wikipedia for any occasion or page. Secondly, I really don't need to mention the lack of procedure in terms of posting pure, outside speculation by a random journalist under potential release information. If even the slightest hint came from an official source (either Sony or Square Enix), then there could be some potential merit to this. There isn't. Boiled down, it comes down to this: "This game has not yet been confirmed for a release outside of Japan, but some random guy on 1Up thinks it might end up on the Vita." I believe I've made my point? --68.230.252.5 (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There are many, MANY things wrong here, but most notably the fact that this is not in any sort of way a conflict of interest, as Salvidrim has no apparrent ties to Final Fantasy or Sony. This is a very minor content dispute, where several users have opened a discussion on the articles respective talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Final_Fantasy_Type-0#PS_Vita_release in which this IP has yet to comment in. So yeah...sorry for the disruption... Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I should even bother dignifying this with a reply, especially considering I wasn't notified by the poster...
  1. I have no idea what this is doing on the COI noticeboard.
  2. I don't see anything even remotely "self-explanatory".
  3. I doubt it is reasonable to qualify a single revert as "insistently editing".
  4. This report itself is dubiously formatted as it seems to indicate 68.230.252.5 is reporting himself for conflict of interest.
So... yeah. However if there is reasonable dispute I am obviously open to discussin on the article's talk page. :| Salvidrim! 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've told you TWICE in the edit history.--68.230.252.5 (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to insist, but edit summaries aren't discussions. They're suppose to summarize the changes, no present an argument; talk pages are there for that reason. :) Salvidrim! 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The next thing that needs to happen with this conversation is that someone needs to show some sort of proof that there's a close connection between any editor discussed here and the subject if the article. If not, this discussion belongs elsewhere. If there's a POV issues, WP:NPOVN would be a good place to start. OlYeller21Talktome 19:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This discussion has never belonged on the COI noticeboard in the first place, it was the original poster's mistake in his choice of venue to hold the discussion. Sorry for the bother! Salvidrim! 19:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Mary's High School (Manhasset, New York)

Adding overtly promotional content to article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and removed the advert tag. I'll leave the COI tag until we can make sure that the editor in question understands the issues with the edits they made or discontinues editing. The username may be a WP:USERNAME violation but I'm not sure that blocking them outright is the best way to solve the problem (problematic editing habits). OlYeller21Talktome 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Joel Hunter

Robert Andrescik is the public relations person for the church of which Joel Hunter is the paster. http://www.northlandchurch.net/staff/robert_andrescik/. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

GI FORGOTTEN WAR ORPHANS

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Monica Kwon Banks 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC) THIS PAGE SHOULD NOT BE OF SPEEDY DELETION, IT IS NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY, BUT MORE OR LESS, USING MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE TO SHOW EXPERIENCE, OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, OF WAR BABIES AND WAR CHILDREN BEING BORN DUE TO CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS BETWEEN NATIONS. HOW HUMANITARIANS AND SOCIOLOGIST, NEED TO INVESTIGATE AND STUDY THE STATICTICAL WELL BEING OF THESE CHILDREN, AND ORPHANAGES, BLACKMARKETING BABIES TO GLOBAL PARENTS WHO DESPERATE IN ADOPTING A CHILD, AND WILLING TO PAY OVERSEAS ORPHANAGES, EXPENSES IN ORDER TO RECEIVE ONE, FOR A FASTER ADOPTION PROCESS. THESE WAR CHILDREN BEING BORN DUE TO MILITARY SOILDERS, BEING IN THE WAR ZONE AT THE TIME, INTERNATIONALLLY ARE NEVER HEARD ABOUT ON TELEVISION OR NEWS ARTICLES, LIKE OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE HUNGRY AND NEED MEDICAL , SHELTER AND DONATION ATTENTION. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BABIES AND TODDLERS WHO ARE NOT ACCEPTED INTO ORPHANAGES, AND ARE LEFT ON THE STREETS IN A COUNTRY, THAT IS AT WAR WITH THEIR GENETIC MIXTURE. THIS IS TRUE LIFE FACTS. YES, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT CARE, NEVER HAVE , NEVER WILL IT IS NOT THERE CHILDREN, NEWPHEWS, NEICES , OR ANY OTHER FAMILY MEMBER, AS THEY KNOW OF. THIS IS NOT FICTIONAL, AND USING MYSELF AS AN EXAMPLE TO REPRESENT THESE WAR ORPHANS, IT NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. HUMANITARIANS AND SOCIOLOGIST, PLEASE SPEAK UP. I AM NOT RE-WRITING OR COPYWRITING RESEARCH FROM ANOTHER AUTOBIOGRAPHY BOOK, OR ENCYCLOPEDIA, OR RESEARCH REFERENCE BOOK, NOR PAPERS. MANY OF THESE SHOULD BE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS IF I WAS AN PROOFREADER, OR DEBATE WRITER ON WIKIPEDIA, UNDER COPYWRIGHT LAWS. MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO CONTEST THIS OR MAKE CHANGES OR READY FOR SPEEDY DELETIONS, SEEM TO OVERLOOK THESE WRITINGS, UNDER RESEARCH FROM THE INTERNET, WHICH IS ARTICLES FROM OTHER INTERNET WRITERS. MONICA KWON BANKS FORGOTTENWARORPHANS/THE GOLDEN CHILD TALK PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monybanks123 (talk • contribs)

I'm guessing those are the relevant links. No idea why it's being posted here, other than the OP having a COI on wanting to post an article about a situation they are apparently first hand familiar with... --Onorem♠Dil 15:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that there's an obvious misunderstanding as to what the user believes WP to be. I've left a message with the user on their talk page. It seems that they've run into some trouble in the past but as you can see, their messages are somewhat difficult to comprehend. I've explained a bit and offered my assistance. I'll report back if I feel like I need help with the apparent COI. OlYeller21Talktome 19:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Workers' Youth League (Norway)‎‎

This editor has edited this Wikipedia since 2005 but only has some 600 edits. He has declared his affiliation with the subject, i.e. he is a local chapter leader of this organization. The organization, known as AUF in Norway, has been embroiled in controversy earlier and it is at present in the spotlight due to it being the main target of the 2011 Norway attacks, where the 69 people shot dead at the Labour Party youth camp were all members of this organization. In the midst of these issues Toresbe enters wanting to rid the article of unfair and biased edits. There have been attempts at dialog on his talk page that as far as I can see have not led to the user acknowledging any COI issue existing at all. He is currently engaged in contentious edits and I would like him to receive an unambiguous message from the Wikipedia community that his interpretation of what conflict of interest means is simply wrong by WP standards. __meco (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Toresbe posted on his/her Userpage, "I am an active democratic socialist in the Workers' Youth League (Norway), and hold the post of local ward leader in Frogner AUF."[33] If Toresbe were connected to Eskil Pedersen, current leader of the Workers' Youth League (Norway), its central office, or something of that nature, it would be straight forward and we could declare a COI and the procedures at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest kick in. However, being a member or even holding a post in an organization usually isn't enough to declare a COI. Most of the Wikipedians' in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting are in scouting and hold posts in scouting. Being a member of an organization might give you a bias, but you need to have something like a connection to the upper decision making in the organization to additionally have a COI. Toresbe says on his userpage that his involvement with Workers' Youth League (Norway) is a hobby. It might help to resolve the COI issue here with a discussion and resolve the bias and editorial decisions elsewhere (instead of all three together). I'll invite Toresbe to this discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I have been a rare-to-occasional contributer since I signed up. Yes, I have been making edits to the Labour Youth page. Some of those edits were even edits which removed criticism or negative statements about the organization. However, I believe the edits all seem reasonable to independent viewers. One example of my removing what I percieved to be undue weight, was the listing of a 1998 membership scandal in which four individuals were found guilty of membership fraud. I felt listing this event as one of two paragraphs of an organization that has been a fairly significant element of Norwegian politics from the 1930s until the present day was assigning undue weight. I had my doubts about this, and If people feel that I am wrong about that, I truly welcome discussion about my edits, but so far, with all discussions, I have not been met with anything but COI allegations - not rarely allegations that make very clear that they do not, in fact, understand the COI rules. The majority of my edits should be uncontroversial for all but those people who strongly dislike the organization (conspiracy theorists, etc). I have understood the COI guidelines to mean that I do not have a conflict of interest as long as my edits are motivated by an interest in improving Wikipedia stronger than the interest to improve the image of my organization. I strongly believe this to be the case with me. I edit the articles on the subject of Norwegian politics not because I wish to present my view, but I wish to give some much-needed love to insufficient articles. Since I so openly declare my bias, I very very frequently am target of people using conflict of interest allegations to gain the upper hand in straightforward disputes concerning this article. Indeed, I even get COI allegations for completely uncontroversial edits; in the Norwegian wikipedia, which does not have CoI rules, I was even suggested blocked for COI edits - when updating the membership count in a competing organization's article from that published in 2010 to that published in 2011! This current round looks like it has begun as a concequence of my believing that starting a "members" list for an organization of 14 000 is not going to be a useful excersize - I welcome the discussion but I don't even see it as a potential matter for a COI question anyway. I very much welcome any content discussions - eagerly! - but I wish more of them were not based exclusively around ad-hominems. If my attempts to actually discuss the matter with anyone is met with this spiel over and over again, I have to say I feel bullied by a group of wikipedians for my political views, pressured from disclosing them, and I sincerely hope this is not considered desirable by the community. toresbe (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose the group of editors attempting to intimidate you for your political views must not be including me since I haven't been active in editing the article in question beyond intervening in the recent war edits stating that you should choose a completely different strategy vis-á-vis this article considering you are a leading member of this organization? Or should I count myself among your persecutors of that ilk? Would it perhaps be appropriate that you named the editors whom you consider to be bullying you over your political views? It is of course always fascinating when an active member of the incumbent political party plays the martyr card, so I suggest it might be constructive that we address this angle head on and principally! Or are we getting off-topic for this particular noticebaord? __meco (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
So you're saying you intervened in an edit war (where I am, after all, in the right) you had no interest in, and reported me as having a COI because you saw I was an AUFer? And that it's absurd to label this as bullying over political beliefs? And are you also saying that no matter how frequent those allegations are, I'd still be the agressor because the parent organization to the one I am a local branch leader of is part of a ruling coalition? Would I suddenly be in the right if we (goodness forbid! ;)) lost that majority? I'm not taking on any martyr role here, I'm asking you and the other people who insist on making COI allegations when they so clearly demonstrate they do not understand how COI allegations work to stop - for example your revert with the text "Reverting on principle. Such edits should not be made by an AUF member! Use the talk page to voice your grievances!". toresbe (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asserting that your impression of being bullied is without merit. I haven't followed this matter from the beginning. Consequently I am not saying that you must be at fault since you are a member of the incumbent party. I wrote that it was remarkable and for that reason we ought perhaps to address your claims of being bullied first and foremost. We cannot do that unless you are willing to provide the names of the people who are bullying you instead of referring to the nebulous "other people". I grant you I have been mentioned by you explicitly, which is fine, since you have also provided an example of what I have written which I take it you consider to be bullying. And the answer to your first question is yes (although I am not siding one way or the other on your parenthetical assertion). __meco (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not speaking about your action in isolation. I'm speaking about the constant flow of people who accuse me of COI without even bothering to figure out what a COI actually is. toresbe (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia's notice board to handle bias is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. This board handles Conflicts of Interest, which is a different issue from bias. I don't know what "hold the post of local ward leader in Frogner AUF" means. Are you paid by AUF for this? Is it a publically elected office? Are you on the board of directors for Workers' Youth League (Norway) or give advise/options to any of its members who, in turn, express their aspirations, etc. to you? Rather than describing your edits on Wikipedia, please describe in detail your connection with Workers' Youth League (Norway). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a position elected by the members of a local ward (that of the Frogner borough of Oslo). It is not a public office, it is not paid, and I am not on the board of directors. That is where my formal connections with the organization end. There are of course informal ones, and I do have friends in the central board. However as long as I keep getting COI allegations for completely uncontentious edits, I believe that the edits are relevant in showing that the allegations are unsubstantiated. (Indeed, see above where meco admits reverting my edits "on principle" simply because I am a member of AUF). toresbe (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Now you are misrepresenting my edit summary. As is clearly shown in the quoted text from one of my edit summaries reverting you, I state that someone with your affiliations to the organization should not make such edits, i.e. contentious edits. They were not uncontroversial edits. You were clearly involved in a content dispute with another user. __meco (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes they were contentious, but the inclusion or absence of a list of members were not contentious on an axis of whether or not the organization is shown in a good light. It was just contentious because someone had the idea of including a list of members in the article, which is a Bad Idea. toresbe (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 
A concern I have is that Wikipedians' in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, etc could be held to the same restrictions for being members of scouting, a military organization, etc. The same is true for a bunch of other WikiProjects, where members of those WikiProjects also are members in organizations that are the subject of those WikiProjects. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I personally see a clear and significant difference between just any member of any group wanting their organization's article to look good and present the organization in the best possible light, and the same situation with relation to a preeminently political organization, the pivotal objective of which is to vie for power and influence. I do find it a bit peculiar that as a counter-example to the youth wing of a ruling political party which has recently been the object of a fierce terrorist attack you pick the scouts, which by most people would seem the pinnacle of uncontroversiality. Or do you contend that such considerations are simply irrelevant and that we might just as well deliberate the matter with placeholder names for the group and the possibly conflicted user? __meco (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
The main point is whether group membership does constitute a conflict of interest. Of course there are significant differences between the modus operandi of scouts or the military of a given nation and AUF, but the concept of COI is whether or not the desire of an editor to paint his or her organization in a good light, is judged to exceed the desire to make Wikipedia more betterer. What kind of organization this is, is secondary. toresbe (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I think if you paint a more detailed picture, it might help. For example, are you a youth member of a local ward of about 30 kids in an organization of about 14,000 kids? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Our ward represents 103 members last count. If you're wondering if I am a person with formal power in the organization above my vote as member, then I am not. I am one of what must be at the very least a hundred local ward leaders around Norway. toresbe (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Scouting is uncontroversial?  See Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Scouting sex abuse cases, a dozen notable lawsuits, etc. 

I don't see any conflict in our interests here.  Toresbe wants (according to Meco) "to rid the article of unfair and biased edits".  So do we.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do. If he would only perform uncontroversial edits like updating the membership count there wouldn't be any conflict-of-interest; however, this is not the case. Please have a look at these edits:  
So I looked at the first three:  In the first, he removes a claim that the party is libertarian, which is "sourced" in a {{Failed verification}} kind of way, to a page on which the word libertarian does not appear even once.  In the second, he tags the article as being biased, which any editor is entitled to do.  In the third, he removes an {{unsourced}} claim that their economic policies are Keynesian; the WP:BURDEN is on someone who wants to include that to name an actual reliable source to back it up.  
So far, that's three acceptable edits out of three.  You apparently disagree, but I'm not seeing an actual problem here.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I certainly do disagree: the first three edits (which are actually the most innocuous of the 44 edits) are certainly not 'acceptable'. He uses profane language ('hell' and 'WTF'), removes sourced content that does not suit his own POV, whilst offering no other reason than 'because I say so'; and requests a criticism section in an article about a political party that competes with the mother party of AUF.

But let us now say that those three edits are 'acceptable' (I'm sorry Mam, but I don't think they are): doesn't the fact that you only picked the first three out of 44 diffs suggest that you might have a very tiny confirmation bias? I would love to hear your comments on edits like this one, where toresbe adds unsourced, unsavory POV to an article about a political youth wing that competes with his own. I'd like to challenge you, or anyone else on this noticeboard, to take a look at least ten more diffs, and then tell me what you think. I'll hold my breath. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's back up.  You say that he removed sourced information in those first three edits.  I say he didn't.  Can we get some agreement on whether the word libertarian is "sourced" in the first edit (the named source is the statement of principles on the party website, which specifies classical liberalism, not libertarianism), and keynesian is "sourced" in the third (zero citations present at the end of the sentence or paragraph)?  
We're both reasonable people.  I've told you why I believe these are unsourced.  Can you tell me why you believe they are reliably sourced?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You may have a point wrt sourcing. But Toresbe didn't remove the 'sourced' info because of that. He didn't even mention it in the edit summaries.

Also, this is just a very minor detail in the larger picture. You have yet to defend his use of a) profane language in edit summaries; b) his additions of unsourced POV to competing youth organisations and right-wing topics; and c) his removal of sourced text that puts his erstwhile boss/leader in a negative light (starting at diff #25 above). Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Toresbe is not required to give any reason for removing unverifiable and inaccurate information.  He told you that he was removing it because it was wrong.  In wikijargon, he issued a WP:CHALLENGE for that information, and you have (so far) utterly failed to meet the WP:BURDEN required of you to restore that information.
At diff 25, I see him removing an unsourced claim that the party is "more liberal" on social issues.  He gives a good, factual reason for doing so.  
You are basically trying to defend the indefensible here.  WP:V gives him an absolute right to challenge (e.g., by removing) unsourced text.  If you want to include this material, then you need to actually get your sources lined up.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I am baffled as to why you keep dodging very simple questions. Could you point me in the direction of a guideline that approves of obscenities in edit summaries when editing contentious topics ('hell', 'WTF' and 'sucks' are not the only ones, you also have 'Swedish bastards')?

To be accurate, I didn't mean to point you towards the diff assigned to the number '25', but rather no. 25 in my row of diffs (the numbers displayed on diffs change every time a new diff is added above them). Actually, you could take a look at the last ten diffs, excluding the last one, and be enlightened. Then you'll see that he remorselessly and uninhibitedly removes sourced text that criticizes the former leader of AUF (a youth wing of which Toresbe is a member). Not even once did he add a reference. His modus operandi is rather simple: either he adds unsourced text, or he removes sourced text (the few removals of unsourced text from the Progress Party topics form the exceptions, rather than the rules). Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 20:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are going about this the wrong way. This is not WP:NPOV/N, where the discussion which is currently going might reach a more attentive audience. This noticeboard's only purpose is to investigate whether a user violates the rules on conflict of interest. That focus seems to get drowned out in your current presentation of evidence. __meco (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not NPOVN; it is also not WP:WQA, which is the place to complain about profanity and other incivilities.  Unless you are prepared to argue that only someone who is trying to promote his personal interests by harming Wikipedia would use inappropriate language, then that's not an issue for this page.  (NB that I do not say that complaining at WQA will do any good, only that it is the designated noticeboard for complaints about profanity.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about which user you are responding to. __meco (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I do see a potential conflict of interest. It is not unreasonable to believe that Toresbe is a former delegate to the National Conference of AUF (Landsmøte), and a potential delegate to the upcoming one. It is not unreasonable if anyone would suspect Toresbe of trying to become known as the AUF member who is able to manipulate (or spin doctor) a wikipedia article about an organization—where it is not unreasonable to believe that he would not mind an appointment to the Central Committee (Sentralstyret).
I hear Toresbe saying that he does not know Eskil Pedersen. (Do I smell an impartiality moment here—similar to that of Jonas Gahr Støre and Felix Tschudi—"I have a standing invitation to his parties on independence day", but "I don't know him, because I feel only a low degree of confidentiality in our conversations".
Do we have to wait for AUF's deputy leader to endorse Toresbe candidature for the Central Committee, before there is a COI? --No parking here (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
[The previous edit is in response to there being a discussion about Workers' Youth League and Toresbe and COI. --No parking here (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)]
As the first editor who put the COI-template on Toresbe's talk page, I feel that I just express my opinion on this. First off - Toresbe have done a magnificent job removing unsourced and false information from the articles in question. But, I felt that he was violating COI when he removed sourced information that might have put Eskil Pedersen in bad light (here, here and here), and if you actually press the links provided by Eisbfnore you'll see this and other inapropiate edits. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You evidently do not understand what a COI is. I think if you're going to claim I have something, finding out what that something means beforehand is common courtesy. It is different from NPOV. Please read the description on the COI page, as I did when I saw the potential problems. 
Secondly: As I point out in the edit diff, and as damned near anyone who speaks Norwegian will back me up on, this is not "sourced information". This is blatant nonsense with a cite next to it, which does not back up the content. I didn't remove it because it was «putting Eskil Pedersen in bad light», I removed it because it was false. toresbe (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Mentoz, I had a look at the three links.  In the first, he removes quotations from people who do not mention Eskil.  This information is irrelevant.  Perhaps it belongs in the main article about the shooting, but it has nothing to do with Eskil.  Multiple changes are made in the second, but the point of contention seems to be whether or not hyperbolic character defamation from political opponents needs to be included.  I don't think it's very important either way.  In the third, there is an assertion that the supposed direct quotation is not actually in the source, but even if it were (and if it correctly followed our best practice for direct quotations in non-English languages, which is to quote the original Norwegian), I can't see that it would really put him in a bad light.  The subject explains his thoughts at the time, and being confused and frightened is a perfectly normal state.
And, again, I'm having trouble seeing how this would benefit Toresbe.  I don't think that the speculation about political advancement is convincing.  Consequently, while we may have some bias, I don't think it's COI.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted this [78] edit by Toresbe. There is a COI, in that he is removing mention of his opponent (Tonje Brenna) for higher offices within AUF and possible within the Labour Party in the future. (Though, I reverted his edit  for reasons other than COI.)--No parking here (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
If I'm removing critical text then I'm either doing it to present AUF in a positive light or to suck up to some big-wig; but if I'm removing adulation then I'm doing it to eliminate competition? I don't even know where to begin in pointing out how little sense that makes... I am removing the text for exactly the reason I have been forced to reiterate for you constantly: If you want to write an article about Tonje Brenna, then write an article about Tonje Brenna and stop inlining it in the main article. Then we can begin to discuss the content. I'm fascinated by this line of reasoning you're using. toresbe (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Tonje Brenna and you are competitors within AUF. There is a conflict of interest, when you remove notable mention of her. (It would also be a COI, if Obama or Romney, were removing notable mention of the other one.) It is also a conflict of interest, if you type in your boss' name (Eskil Pedersen) at the beginning of a section, and in that way give him undue weight.) I would like to see that the verdict of this discussion is that you are directed to stay on the talk page (and out of the articles), in regards to the mention of your current competitors in AUF, and your potential future competitors in the Labour Party—which includes Øystein Mæland. --No parking here (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, you have not addressed my point - people in my organisation are competitors when it suits your argument in a content dispute, and comrades when that suits it. You are blatantly using false COI allegations in order to completely ignore the points I'm making about your deleterious edits to the article. toresbe (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Alleged COI edits

This is the latest COI edit [79]. Names and notable mention of present competitors and potential future competitors (of Toresbe) have been removed: Tonje Brenna and Øystein Mæland. --No parking here (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Giarratano

User:Barbaranelsonnelson wrote on Sunray's talk page that the material he had added to the Joseph Giarratano article was written by Joseph Giarratano himself: "I would appreciate your help to get the text I wrote on Wikipedia. It was written by Joe and sent to me from prison. Thank you"

I am flagging this as a possible conflict of interest so that more experienced editors can take suitable action. Oguk (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The links probably meets WP:RS, but given that nearly 100% of the author's contributions are related to adding it, I suspect a COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Gerry Joe Weise

These 5 users have only edited the "Gerry Joe Weise" page, they are the most frequent contributors to the page. Gerry Joe Weise is an Australian musician with a very low profile in Australia, his most popular Youtube clip has 3000 hits, yet his page is considerable and the number of categories he seems to be notable in is quite large. The references used are exclusively his own web page or pages noting participation, there is no press or other 'external' assessment. I suspect COI Brunswicknic (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The user TomZiemba keeps adding the statement, " It has been claimed that Vickie Milazzo pioneered the field." and a reference link. It is a conflict of interest that he post that due to his relationship with Vickie Milazzo. Can any steps be taken to address this conflict of interest? Rsanch (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll search on my own but how do you know that Tom Ziemba has a connection to Vickie Milazzo? OlYeller21Talktome 21:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not sure about a connection but the claim that Vickie pioneered the field was a claim made by the NYT. I'm not sure that constitutes inclusion of the opinion but it's something to consider though ultimately, that's a content issue. OlYeller21Talktome 21:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Rsanch, after seeing your very short edit history and the sockpuppetry that's been used on the page you've linked, I have to ask, what's your connection with this subject or what brings you here? I'm not looking to scrutinize. I'm basically curious if you're evading a block or have created this account to appear as if you are multiple people. If not, please accept my apology.

The sentence in question is an opinion. Including opinions in articles can be difficult but Wikipedia is not devoid of opinions. The opinions covered simply need to be well sourced to prove that the opinion isn't a fringe opinion and is held by a significant number of people ("significant" being up for interpretation). Ultimately, that's a content issue and not exactly an issue for this noticeboard. WP:NPOVN would be a good place for that issue.

As for the COI, from what I can tell, Tom Ziemba is a writer for "Vickie's Legal Nurse Consulting Blog" at http://www.legalnurse.com/vickiesblog/. I'm going to invite TomZiemba here to comment. If there is a COI, we can help the user understand our COI guideline to avoid issues and deal with the sentence in question. OlYeller21Talktome 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sabin Cutaş

The article was created by single-purpose account Acernea. Cutaş has someone in his office named Ana Cernea. I then created a drastically shortened article, but one that cited its sources and was free of promotion. Then the IP user, registered to the European Parliament, came and reverted me. I think it's pretty clear that Cutaş's office is using Wikipedia to promote him, and equally clear we should not allow that to happen. Thoughts on how we should proceed? - Biruitorul Talk 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Quinn Bradlee


Both editors appear to be the same person. He has made numerous edits to his own biography and those of his parents, as well as other family-related articles (I didn't indicate all of them above). There may be other usernames or IPs involved. I have templated the user talk pages and the articles above. So far I don't see any overt bias, but I think there needs to be more eyes on these and related articles. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Cresix (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maison Martin Margiela

Hi, I'm a wee bit unsure that this is the right place for this, but a couple years ago I created a redirect for Maison Martin Margiela to Martin Margiela as it seemed logical at the time. Recently, an user called Margiela (which obviously suggests someone connected to the brand) has seemingly copy-pasted a press release or ad copy into the article overwriting the redirect. I've searched but can't find the source of the apparent copyvio (which makes me wonder if it is actually a directly translated French press release which wouldn't show up in searches for translated key phrases...) My French is not great but after they reinstated it, I think they were saying the article was for the company rather than the person, whose bio is on Martin Margiela. This I can accept, and I think there's a case for Maison Martin Margiela becoming an article about the company, (although Martin Margiela does contain company history and is an appropriate target for the redirect for the time being, IMO) although I doubt USER:Margiela is going about it the right way. Please could someone who speaks French help explain to this editor about self promotion/conflict of interest concerns? Thanks so much Mabalu (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The current status is I deleted the promotional article that the redirect had turned into. A new redirect has been created, but there is possibility of a neutral expansion. Normally the best course is to have a neutral article present that can be reverted to in case of problems. I shall warn the promotional editor against further interference. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait/walk_dilemma

Article may be self-promotion, particularly since a number of edits have come from Harvard University and MIT IP addresses. The person most mentioned in the article is from Harvard, his brother (with whom he has co-authored) is at MIT, and he is from Maryland. While the subject of the article may have garnered some attention, the lack of referencing articles and the heavy focus on one person makes me wonder if this article really should exist. Furthermore, the fact that over half of the edits are from these users increases the appearance of self-promotion. Cumulant (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Cases like this can be difficult since anyone could be using those IP address. Obviously, they're most likely students/faculty/staff at that school but it doesn't indicate who it is or if they have any connection with the subject of the article. The problem still stands so I think this those who watch this noticeboard can help out. WP:NPOVN would also be a good place to seek help. In any case, if anyones edits aren't conforming with WP's policies and guidelines, they need to be corrected and determining who has a COI is probably counterproductive in this scenario. Even if we did, I doubt we're going to start blocking IP ranges owned by MIT and Harvard, if it got to the point of blocking.
I'll attempt to inform all IPs about the COI policy and take a look at the article. OlYeller21Talktome 16:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I notified the involved editors regarding our COI guideline but the article itself has only been edited twice this year and 9 times since 2009. Since 2009, there's only been one questionable edit, in my opinion, and it was reverted less than an hour later. This issue seems to be very stale. The contents of the article mention a study that may not belong notable enough to include in the article. That's probably a better case for WP:NPOVN but if anyone here wants to tackle it, by all mean. OlYeller21Talktome 16:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Bell's theorem

The account of User:Interintel seems to focus on that page as a WP:SPA and promote a specific book. I have not been involved in editing that page, but know the topic and the Interintel account seems to be repeatedly promoting less than mainstream views and promoting a specific book. The user was notified about this thread. History2007 (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This ip as well: User:86.148.6.36 and possibly this account User:FrediFizzx as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks like User:86.148.6.36 is Joy Christian author of the book mentioned. its worth mentioning that this seems to be part of a long running debate between Joy Christian and User:Gill110951 (Richard Gill) this arxiv paper explicitly mentions Gill so we have COI on both sides. --Salix (talk): 00:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We are getting a few more SPAs appearing out of the woodwork: User:173.162.53.225,User:Thomas_h_ray, User:DrChinese. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
SPI [80]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
And I think Dr Chinese pointed out on the talk page that he has his own website. And Gill further stated on the SPI page that FrediFizzx and Thomas_h_ray also have their own personal theories that may partly coincide with J. Christian and are partly different. Are those also WP:COI cases? History2007 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't think merely having an opinion is a conflict of interest, but where that opinion gets in the way of writing the article in as encyclopedic a way as possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Sasanack has a COIN declared conflict of interest. Tlig.org is "true life in god - vassula ryden - official website."[81] Sasanack indicated that his/her email address includes @tlig.org and his real name[82] is listed as the Owner Name[83] for Tlig.org. Talk:Vassula Ryden tagged with {{Connected contributor}}. Not enough evidence for Kovak (report at WP:SPI if warranted). Closed by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack started editing recently Special:Contributions/Sasanack. Sasanack has been very active on the topic trying to have more favourable content about prophecy [84] and other things about Ryden included. He also mentioned an intention to coordinate meat puppets for the article: [85]. Soon after a new editor Kovak appeared and left a comment. Since Sasanack has self-outed, I can say more: Sasanack [86] is the registrant for Vassula Ryden's website: [87]. He has been recently very active trying to have favourable content hinting at support from the catholic church (although this does not appear consistent with RS), i.e the subject of this DRN: Wikipedia:DRN#Vassula_Ryden. I think the strong personal involvement of this individual with Ryden leads to a strong conflict of interest. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to effectively be a declaration of a conflict of interest: [88]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Guys, perhaps I should draw your attention to this warning from the top of this page: "Furthermore, 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."--Sasanack (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is just a post to notify everyone that I am watching this COIN since LuckyLouie has decided to involve me in it, without informing me. I have linked a part of Sasanacks text for the perusal of everyone monitoring this thread. Arkatakor (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment While unwilling to comment on the content issue, the self-outting does appear to make this a fairly certain case of COI - what's the normal acction here - to tag the page with the relevent banner? Fayedizard (talk)
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.

Shopcade

IP edited article 4 times and states in an edit summary, "Clarified the mechanics that make Shopcade special as well as including a new feature- FYI I'm the creative director of shopcade." I'd clean up myself but I'm walking out the door. OlYeller21Talktome 21:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've put some edits in to clear up and balance. Also to be noted is that the name of the article creator is the same as the name of an Editorial/Marketing Assistant at Shopcade. Fayedizard (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Science 2.0

This February editor Science 2.0 appeared - this diff shows the major change between the version before Science 2.0 began to edit the article and today[89] The lead was changed from
"Science 2.0 uses the technologies of Web 2.0 to directly communicate with the public, to enhance conversations between researchers, let them discuss data and also connect with other data that might be relevant. Blogs, wikis and other tools permit users to make information available in ways that create a conversation. Web 2.0 technology permits scientists to create digitized conversations that provide context for the data" to
Science 2.0 is the registered trademark representing a brand of commercial products which an American company named Ion Publications markets to promote science-themed websites. The name is derived from the term Web 2.0 and the brand uses aspects of Web 2.0 philosophy to promote their products and science communication. The Science 2.0 product line was created in 2006.

The rest of the article shows no major changes although it appears to be in a large part original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Still issues with this editor, who is making basic changes in the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
So - to ask a silly question - is this not a straightforward CoI based on username? Fayedizard (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and possibly affiliation with the company that owns the trademark for Science 2.0 - but this editor seems to think the COI lies with - I'm not sure, seems to be Science 1.0, in other words ordinary science. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong Conflict of Interests in the Michael Servetus article

One user has strongly changed all the article to his own benefit. Also another is suggesting big changes. Both are in the board of trustees of the MSI ( michael servetus institute, in Villanueva de Sijena, Aragon) and they are clearly trying to change the whole article for their own benefit, birthplace of Servetus to Villanueva, and name, proved in the International Society for the History of medicine to be anther. They also tried to remove proofs and primary sources the article contained, even a falsification they defend on a protocol of 1504. Both important members of that institution in Villanueva de Sijena itself. ( besides, user baches opi just appeared, right after jaume de marcos would comment the suggested modifications, and it is the first time he edits, what an interesting detail) http://www.miguelservet.org/servetus/board.htm There is a consensus of editors and also a source of primary documents, every editor can check. We don't accept patriotisms nor to look for self benefit with wikipedia. I will require semiprotection (Just if it goes on, evidently). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Spell out specific inaccuracies which you think happened. Show diffs (links to diff pages where you think erroneous information was added). When was the last version which you felt was good. Make it easy for people to help.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
The name of Michael, the birthplace of Michael, modification of his education, all the editions carried out by bachesopi. All from yesterday. All against consensus. The version before the editions of yesterday by bachesOpi is supported by the editors.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Anglia Ruskin University

Copying and pasting large chunks of promotional material from University's website. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey_Carney

The article is exposed to some disunited editors.

  • 1. there is dispute wether apprehending a person without jurisdiction (US agents in Germany which was a sovereign state at this time) is kidnapping. see here and here. It was changed back here and here
  • 2.Even the weaker formulation: "Carney was apprehended, possibly in violation of international law, by agents" was removed and replaced with some homophobic references. here
  • Is there any connection between being homosexual and being a spy?

Wikipedia should stay with formulations other sources use, such as the referenced DER SPIEGEL : 85.179.129.230 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that one of these mentioned editors has a close connection with the subject of the article, this isn't the right noticeboard for this issue. I'd report this at WP:NPOVN. OlYeller21Talktome 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Asinari

Subject of article has a son named Teo and the account in question says, "I'm writing a wikipedia article about my father. As it stands, I will be adding references to article over the course of the next few hours." The article has some issues and notability of the subject is not well established. I won't be able to do much with it today. OlYeller21Talktome 14:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I have cut out the most obvious spam, trivia and unsourced BLP material. Notability still an issue IMHO.--ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

PowerShares

This is beginning to read like an advert. And guess what the user account modifying it is called? Yes, user:PowerShares is the account, and it was notified of this thread. I started that page a while ago, but this account is making it look like a product handout. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

User name reported to WP:UAA and article reverted back to non-spamfest stub.--ukexpat (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I think about 20% of the material he added may be ok, but 80% was promotional, for sure. I had forgotten about that page, but in a few days I may go back and touch it up now that there is some material to use. History2007 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
User name now spamblocked.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And a new SPA adding the spam back, which I have reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes there we go again... But there are 2 of them now. I guess they are "power users"....History2007 (talk)
Sockpuppetry at work?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Either that, or these accounts were formed within an hour of the incident by "pure chance".... There is little chance of pure chance here. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/PowerShares has started. History2007 (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you guys have or are getting things under control. For what it's worth, I added the page to my watchlist to watch for future issues. OlYeller21Talktome 18:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The fact that they started with that obvious user name made it easier, else I have a feeling it would have taken debate. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

69.143.14.13

The user is the editor of FishbowlDC and is trying to promote her article. Liberty0013 (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The IP seems very determined, and a likely sock puppet. I notified it. History2007 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have any diffs that establish 69.143.14.13 as the editor of FishbowlDC? Also, why would that matter. There's nothing within Michelle Fields about FishbowlDC. OTOH, the Michelle Fields article mostly is sourced to The Daily Caller, which is where she works and is not coverage in reliable sources that is WP:GNG independent of the subject. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

John D'Acquisto

Mr. D'Acquisto is a former Major League Baseball player and appears to be the owner of these three accounts. He has used them to edit his wikipedia article.

After D'Acquisto's baseball career was over, he was twice sentenced to prison for financial crimes. There are news sources for this no problem. At the moment the article contains three of them. Click here[90] and here[91] for example.

The accounts I listed above began editing the account as far back as July 2008[92] and as recently as March 2012[93]. In his edits, Mr. D'Acquisto has claimed he has been exonerated of the above crimes. He has given a link[94] to google documents as proof and this source[95]. None of these links work at this time.

I have access to High Beam Research and have conducted a search of Google news article. There is only one article[96] that makes any mention of D'Acquisto being exonerated. It's a interview from 2011 after D'Acquisto edited his article.

As for the 2011 news article, claims about his baseball playing that don't match the facts. He didn't throw 3 complete games in Richmond, didn't allow no runs in 11 games while with Oakland, and a few other tall tales. The reporter was clearly reporting IMHO things Mr. D'Acquisto was saying as fact without doublechecking anything. That makes me think the part about Mr. D'Acquisto being exonerated is also based just on what Mr. D'Acquisto said and not on any other proof.

I was advised[97] to come to this board with my discoveries. Without knowing what WP considers a COI or not, the above does seem like one to me. What should be done if anything, I'll leave to others....William 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Safetray

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetray (2nd nomination). User admits to being employed by Safetray Products and creator of a Wikipedia article on the product subject. Company has announced on Twitter and Facebook the promotion page had been created. Article inexplicably made it out of AfC into mainspace, was speedied as promotional, then recreated with an AGF assist from the deleting admin. As of this datestamp a deletion discussion is ongoing, yet I see no history of this issue being raised at this board. Curious. Some may think my posting here is forum shopping, but I'm concerned about the small number of eyes in this discussion, given the social networking connection. Do we wish to reward a company for COI editing after they've bragged about it? BusterD (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with viewing retaining articles at AfD as rewarding contributors, any more than I would be comfortable with viewing the deletion of an article as a punishment. It doesn't seem that the issue is whether or not the article was created by someone with a COI, but simply whether or not it meets our standards for inclusion - and whether the current state reflects the POV of the original author. - Bilby (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
As already stated here, AFD results are not punishment, nor are they rewards. While it's nice you want more eyes on the situation, you do a great disservice to Wikipedia to imply that a keep result will be a 'reward'. Please be more careful with your COIN postings. And as always, at AFD please concentrate on the articles, not the editors. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert Blazek

Article is being written by one or two people who are apparently related to the subject of the article. They're slowly constructing so I haven't jumped on them or the articles with tags or warnings yet. They obviously know a lot about the subject and are doing a good job of creating the article but there's a bit of fluffery in the text. It's no where near qualifying for G11 in my opinion. They and the article could use some help but I'd like to make sure we don't bite and scare them off as I believe we can get a pretty great article in the end, with their help. OlYeller21Talktome 13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx

Article is being edited by (based on username alone) a close relative/father of the subject. While I believe some of the content is fine, much of it is a copy and paste from their personal website. I made edits, but they were reverted, as were another user's edits. Rainbowsprinkles (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed it - as a BLP article if people (connected or otherwise) persist in adding unsourced material it should be locked. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Blaming Japhy Rider

This is concerning my interest in submitting an article concerning the recent publication of a personal memoir. I feel it is not self-serving as it touches on important topics surrounding the Beat Generation, Jack Kerouac, the Dharma Bums, and the soon to be released movie _On the Road_. I feel it provides elucidation to many controversial topics surrounding the Beats and their involvement in Buddhism.

I have not yet written the article as I want to clear it first. The press release at 

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9209654.htm

gives a good idea of what I am talking about but will modify this and other materials to create an article that satisfies Wikipedia guidlines.

Thank you. Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.

Thank you for your message. The article would presumably be about your book, right? Wikipedia:Notability (books) is the basic standard for encyclopedia articles about memoirs, autobiographies, and other books. I would estimate that more than 90% of them do not meet the minimum standards before publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

African Wildlife Foundation

User AfricanWildlifeFoundation started a long series of edits with the summary "We here at AWF want to update a few of the sections on our page. We intend on revising one section completely and adding a whole new section at the end." I soft-blocked the account, inviting them to set up an individual account and explaining WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI; they quite properly set up Cheetah61 but, in spite of my explaining COI again, continued to edit at a rapid rate. I have therefore semi-protected the article for 24 hours, expiring 21:18 UTC 23 June.

Many of the changes are evidently useful updates, but many are also new unreferenced passages, promotional not so much of the organization as of its aims. I am undecided whether it will be best to roll back the article to its state before they started on it, or to try to pick through the (70+) edits and undo only those that do not seem helpful. I am out of time tonight and will not have much time tomorrow. Uninvolved eyes and hands needed to sort the article now, and to conduct a dialogue with Cheetah61 about any further changes. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I recommend, reluctantly but strongly, rolling back all the edits. I see nothing but good faith and some edits do add useful information. The lack of references is a problem. Far more important, a Wikipedia article like this should depict the organization as it is seen from outside. It is not a vehicle for the organization to present itself as it sees itself from the inside. A rollback is correct, with a friendly note inviting addition of information from reliable independent sources, with each source cited. We have to be consistent with the treatment of all organizations. Drop me a note if you feel I should do it as the editor who started the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I had overnight reached the same conclusion. I will do the rollback, before the semi-protection expires; that may make it easier for you to help with introducing any changes. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I left Cheetah61 a note offering to help. I start and watch a lot of pages, and quite often have to undo attempts to whitewash articles on politicians or organizations (yes, he really was convicted of corruption, as reported by all the newspapers). Compared to 99% of those, this one is so well-meaning! Oh well... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Tech Coast Angels et al.

Section 1

This case is rather far reaching so I've attempted to organize it a bit to make things easier to understand.

Tech Coast Angels is an investment company started by several people including Bill Payne (investor) (see section 3). The company has invested in several companies (see section 2), most of them near San Diego, California and their notability is not always well established (articles used as references are usually from regional or local news orgs which doesn't fully satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH). Ultimately, I think most of the subjects are notable and only one of the listed accounts is still editing the articles in question but the articles need attention for issues caused by the COIs. Wikitomando's goal seems to be the promotion of Tech Coast Angels and is the only account that is actively attempting to promote Tech Coast Angels and any of its investees or members. They are a member of Tech Coast Angels. There may be more to this than what I've found as Tech Coast Angels's portfolio is dauntingly large. In no way do I believe that anyone has intentionally tried to mislead or intentionally subvert any of WP's policies or guidelines but the situation still needs attention. OlYeller21Talktome 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 2

These are the companies that Tech Coast Angels has invested in that I could find WP articles for. I've listed the company first then the user that I believe has a connection to the subject of the article. I'll discuss each, one-by-one.

MicroPower Technologies was created by Wikitomando. WiSpry was created by Wikitomando and edited by SPA PorterCreativeGroup (WiSpry's PR company). Vokle was created by SPA 76.173.243.84 an IP from the company's city (doesn't mean it's a COI), Rsnoopyb (not quite an SPA but close) who states, "Now we've gained a lot more press exposure" ("we" meaning a possible connection) in an attempt to get the once deleted Vokle article userfied. Wikitomando edited Vokle once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. ElephantDrive is a company that Tech Coast Angels has invested in but has no edits from any of these users but I decided to include it for watchlisting. Green Dot Corporation has been edited by SPA Phreadriq who added promotional material but who has no clear connection to the company that I can find. SodaHead.com was created by SPA Qotsafan and edited by Wikitomando once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. The article was edited by several other SPAs with no apparent connection but did include the addition of copyrighted material owned by SodaHead.com. HitFix was created by SPA Dave1279 and edited by Wikitomando once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. OlYeller21Talktome 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeez. What a mess. I'm working my way through the articles - at first glance many of the companies appear not to be notable. I've already PRODed ElephantDrive and others will probably need to go to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how they are linked to TCA, but Jason Nazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PRODed already) and Docstoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be added to the list, having both been edited by User:Rsnoopyb. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I get the feeling that Jason Nazar is a contributing member to TCA or has obtained contributions from TCA. I have no concrete evidence to support that but a simple search of the two shows that there's some connection. OlYeller21Talktome 01:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 3

Bill Payne is a founder of Tech Coast Angels. Two of the accounts listed are duck worthy, in my opinion. The other, Cliu099, is an WP:SPA who has only edited Bill Payne related articles including ICEHOUSE (incubator), a company Bill Payne is a leading investor of (stated in article). A portion of the text added by Cliu099, in the Bill Payne article is taken directly from his website. Emmya557 is an SPA who briefly attempted to promote/add info for Bill Payne to Wikipedia but I see no connection. OlYeller21Talktome 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted Bill Payne (investor) as a copyvio, it could have been deleted as spam also. ICEHOUSE is notable. I've removed the worst spammy content from it and will watch it. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Planet Cazmo

Article has been created and substantially edited by users whose names appear to imply a connection to the company or the product, who do not edit any other articles, and who in some cases assert a connection to the company.

Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Island Inkjet

List of world records in canoeing

It seems they are having a pissing match on wikipedia. I have reverted a few edits. Some don't like COI editing the page. IMHO we should just delete the whole article or put a {cn} tag on each entry. Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Durdans Hospital

  • These s.p.a.s and IPs have created and maintained this article in a high state of spamminess. Since I stubbed it and one of them reverted, I am asking that some uninvolved admin take a look at it and (if they concur with my analysis) protect it in a spam-free version. Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sister Roma

I have added several news reports and NEUTRAL content. Could someone please see if the COI or references needed tags need to remain. If so what has to be done to have them removed. Panther Pink (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

FindTheBest

I was told by several administrators to submit an article here to be reviewed for COI. Please find the article in my user sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evanthomas1/sandbox Could an admin or editor review the article for COI? Thanks for your time and help!Evan (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

From my read-through, it looks to be non-POV. It may contain some unneeded information like the product categories. The See Also section should only contain links to articles that exist unless you plan on creating them. The last issue would be that of notability. The articles contains several references and not all of them are independent and significant coverage - that's OK but it means that not all of them can be used to establish notability. As a regular page patroller, the Alexa ranking would sway most of my doubt and I'd maybe leave a {{notability}} template until I or someone can go through each reference. That so many references come from the same source is a flag for patrollers as well.
Ultiamtely, I think it's ready for mainspace. Thanks for being forthcoming about your connection, it really makes things easier for everyone. I don't endorse it idly; if you run into issues with it, please let me know and I'll do my best to help you with the article. OlYeller21Talktome 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Per request by Evan I'm reposting my comment from OlYeller's Talk page here:
I'll chime in on VentureBeat, being intimately familiar. They're a big deal for anyone in the Silicon Valley tech startup scene. VentureBeat crushes quite a few household names in the Techmeme leaderboard. It was started by a former SJ Merc journalist. Should be a quality source.
As a former Silicon Valley tech PR pro, my experience has been that VentureBeat is a respectable publication - one of the top reliable sources we would expect from a startup. User:King4057 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
One thing though: I wonder if we can find better language for "interactive platform which drew inspiration." I fixed the See Also links. They are cap-sensitive. User:King4057 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That line did catch my eye. I assumed the reference at the end of the sentence backed up that claim. I probably shouldn't have assumed.
I think the article is probably ready for mainspace. I don't believe that it qualifies for any speedy deletion criteria being in mainspace may bring some constructive criticism. I'd like to help ensure that the article is safe in that any issues brought up can be addressed by a neutral editor but I'm leaving in about 2 hours on vacation and won't be able to do much on WP until probably 7/7 or later. OlYeller21Talktome 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have rewritten that line to read "Products and services are presented in a search results page (SRP) similar to Kayak.com's flight finding platform" and with a reference to the correct GigaOm article. There was an error in the previous reference and it was directing to Alexa.com's traffic report, not the GigaOm article.
Thank you User:King4057 for fixing the "see also" links.
OlYeller21, thank you for recommending this article for the mainspace. What are the next steps in moving forward? Do I move the article to the main space or should I wait for an admin to move it? Have a nice vacation! Evan (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please disregard my previous questions OlYeller21, I just saw your edits on my user page. Evan (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist)

First attempts at this article were created about four days ago, but Wxextreme never got anything more than the subject's name into the article, so I deleted them CSD A3. A new version was started about three days ago and worked on more yesterday by Wxextreme.

After Wxextreme asked me to review the article, I looked through it. There were no references to newspaper articles or independent sources; the references that were to third-party sources were only to the front page of, for example, a college's website—Austin was never mentioned on that page or anywhere readily searchable. The one exception was that Austin is chair of the Board of Certified Consulting Meteorologists, which was verifiable from the CCM website, so I didn't delete the article A7; I did start discussion on the article talk page about her lack of notability and COI concerns.

My COI concerns at that point were because the account editing the article, Wxextreme (talk · contribs), shared its name with Austin's company, WeatherExtreme. This morning, though, I got a message from Elizabeth Austin (talk · contribs), apparently the subject of the article. It read in part:

I read with great concern that you have "Grave Concerns" about my c.v. I have absolutely no idea how others prove their resume but I am going to find other similar wikipedia sites and see if/how they are verified. I do not see the amount of references that are obviously required for this site as many others that are currently posted. How does one verify a c.v.
By the way, I am cc'ing the following on this thread of conversation and will do in all future conversations also (their emails are not included below for privacy reasons but you will be receiving the email separately).
Ed Warnock, CEO, Perlan Project Einar Enevoldson, President, Perlan Project Doug Perrenod, Perlan Project Ed Teets, Jr, NASA Dennis Tito, Perlan Project Michael Starler, Esq., Greenberg Traurig Gene Schwaum, Hanson & Schwam
full diff of message

My main concern is still the article. I don't see where the subject is notable, nor do other editors who have commented at Talk:Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist). I've tried to explain WP:V and WP:Secondary sources to Wxextreme, but I don't think the idea has sunk in.

My secondary concern is the email carbons that the Elizabeth Austin account is claiming to send (though I have not received an email from her yet), from the standpoint that it may lead to an influx of single-purpose accounts.

In any case, what I'd like is assistance from the community, either to find the secondary sources about Austin so that we can establish notability for her per Wikipedia guidelines and have the article edited neutrally so everything's good, or to explain to Austin and her colleagues our rules on independent/secondary sources and why her article doesn't, in its current condition, meet Wikipedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few changes and added some citation requests, two of the references fail verification and I'm struggling to see how this would survive an afd at the moment.Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Cornell du Houx

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed. User:Paul Cornell du Houx, the father of Alexander Cornell du Houx,[98] has a conflict of interest and is subject to the terms of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. The edits of Paul Cornell du Houx have not been contrary to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline, particularly in view of the ongoing BLP issue. I posted {{uw-coi}} on Paul Cornell du Houx's talk page. There is no basis to additionally use either {{Connected contributor}} or {{COI}}. The matter is referred to WP:BLPN.[99] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Sorry to come back again, after the last notice, the article was stubbed and reworked. The user in question (presumably, the father of the subject from his username) has repeatedly deleted sections of the article which source back to newspaper articles. In the talk section, it is very clear he has a conflict of interest. He has not responded to requests to find neutral language. Rainbowsprinkles (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"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." (Please see above) In comments (which I believe to be fair), I have made it clear on Alex Cornell du Houx's Talk page why I am writing under my own name and why other editors in this dispute should as well. Or they should declare why they are seemingly fixated on this local issue, among the long list of my son's accomplishments. This narrow focus of those who created the Wikipedia page is evidence of bias, as described in my recent Talk comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Cornell_du_Houx. (I think the rules suggest a link rather than re-posting comments.) Btw there is a lot of reading to comply with the rules and spirit of Wikipedia, and I'm not sure everyone has done their homework. In any case, my point is that there is no valid reason for an Alexander Cornell du Houx Wikipedia page at all. Maybe someday, but meanwhile his rivals should wait for something encyclopedic to react to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Cornell du Houx (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
You did not discuss the edits you made or, for that matter, source your original edits/content. I attempted to ask you to come to neutral language (eg - not copied and pasted from press releases), but you just deleted my edits and the edits of others. To be clear, you are able to make edits (see above), but the edits that you've made so far have not been neutral or used any citations. Rainbowsprinkles (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing, the influence of a COI is not well established. To summarize what I've read, the article included an incident where a women was granted "a temporary protection from abuse order from a Belfast District Court judge alleging that Cornell du Houx, her former boyfriend, had taken photos of her while she slept and had acted in a threatening manner." (quote found here). From what I understand, a temporary protection order is granted based on charges and is extended after a hearing. A settlement was reached before the hearing so no actual evidence was presented. It's a sticky situation as is usual with such quick settlements because no evidence is ever publicly presented leading to much speculation. He's innocent until proven guilty in court. He's apparently guilty by way of settlement in the court of public opinion.
Rainbowsprinkles, you're pushing it. Saying, "when you posted material from his website (against wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality)" is not entirely accurate. In fact, unless he was using his son's website to back up "widely held opinions" that aren't actually "widely held", citing his own website violates no guidelines or policies. Also, he did discuss his edits after he made them. That's how we do things: edit, revert, discuss. From what I'm seeing, both sides have a legitimate argument regarding the inclusion of content and you're quick to jump on the COI gun to discount his arguments.
Paul Cornell du Houx, thank you for being forthcoming about your connection. It usually makes things much easier for everyone involved. Questioning the attention being paid by others here at WP doesn't usually end well, in my opinion. After all, we're all here donating countless hours to create and manage content for free so the intent of all editors could be easily questioned. In my opinion, it's best to assume good faith and focus on the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As I mentioned above, everyone is welcome to edit without discussion but if the edit is determined to be controversial (via revert), a discussion should be had before more reverts are made and things degrade into an edit war.
As is usual with such cases, Wikipedia is not a court and if there's a controversy about what is to be covered, cover the controversy. Of course, reliable and independent sources would need to be used to show that such a controversy exists.
In my opinion, this is being way overblown. I usually try to avoid jumping into a content dispute via this noticeboard but it seems to me like this issue can be easily covered with a single sentence, three tops. The current content eclipses the entire content for a state representative which to me is a huge red flag for undue weight being given to a topic.
Let's see what others think. OlYeller21Talktome 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I endorse OlYeller21's analysis. Undue weight is being given to the protection order issue, but it is an issue which appears to have enough coverage to be notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tagishsimon's view here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have edited the paragraph and removed the COI template from the article. I also left a message on the talk page explaining my actions. Unless anyone feels that the issue still needs attention besides watchlisting, I consider this issue resolved. OlYeller21Talktome 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adverse effects to CT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed. The request fails to identify a specific editor. No diffs posted to establish a close connection external to Wikipedia between any specific editor and the Adverse effects to CT topic. This discussion has not and will not result in COIN determining whether a specific editor has a COI. This discussion has not and will not result in COIN determining whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet the requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Closed by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Adverse effects to CT is a subject in which there is conflict of interest between the public right to know of every adverse effect that was determined, or that is suspected, and the industry's interest to minimize knowledge of the public of such adverse effects for various reasons, that may include profit, habits of practice, guilt, legal reasons, or other reasons. Recently, an attempt was made to edit the adverse effect section of X-ray_computed_tomography, however the attempt was resisted, and the edits were reverted for a variety of excuses. Due to the nature of the issue, and the possibility that a conflict of interest is involve, I am opening this discussion here, where the discussion of the matter is most appropriate. I invite the people who has participated in the edits and discussion before, to read the WP:COI guideline, and declare any proximity to the subject that they have, because it could affect their point of view regarding the issue, whether they are aware of it or not. --Nenpog (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Being part of "the industry" is not a conflict of interest in Wikipedia's terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."WP:COI --Nenpog (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
All the was ever asked of the editor in question is that they use 1)high quality sources 2) sources that discuss CT scans 3) use due weight. These have not yet been done. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not been accused, but I guess I do have a COI. My wife has cancer and benefits from CT scans as a patient. On the whole, I think I've been following the COI policy anyway, but I welcome feedback.--Yannick (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am one of the editors that Nenpog is accusing of having a COI:
--Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is what is troubling about this case. I am a regular volunteer at WP:DRN, helping out with whatever cases come in. We deal with a wide variety of topics; right now we are working on disputes about BP (the oil company), The Beatles, Cognitive behavioral therapy, American Staffordshire Terriers, The Streisand effect... and X-ray computed tomography. I didn't go to Nenpog. Nenpog came to me. What Nenpog is asking you to believe is that he chose to open a discussion about CT scans at WP:DRN only to find that by an amazing coincidence the dispute resolution volunteer working on the case just happens to be someone who secretly wants to expose people to dangerous radiation from CT scans. Apparently I have spent six and a half years editing Wikipedia without ever editing anything related to CT scans, all the while waiting and lurking for Nenpog to file a DRN case so that I can do my Evil Deeds and collect a paycheck from the CT Cartel. Furthermore, Nenpog wants to declare another editor to have a COI simply because he is a Canadian ER Doctor. Now one would think that a Canadian ER Doctor would have an interest in helping his patients -- ordering a CT scan when he believes the results are worth the risk of increased radiation exposure and not ordering them when they aren't worth it. But Nenpog -- without s shred of evidence -- is claiming that the doctor really wants his patients to get cancer, and that, despite everything we know about Canada's health cares system, somehow he has a financial interest in promoting these unnecessary CT scans. I do suspect a COI here. It is easy to figure out the motivations of everyone but Nenpog himself. His behavior has been to attempt to turn the page into an attack piece against CT scanning. Again and again he has inserted material about how dangerous CT scans are, Typically, he inserts the negative material without any sources, then when challenged on it, adds primary sources, sources that require synthesis, sources that don't actually say what he claims they say, etc. In all of this he has achieved 100% consensus against the changes he want to make -- not a single editor agrees with him. I have to wonder why someone would behave in such a manner. In my opinion, the only solution here is a topic ban. Nenpog has proven that he is not capable of cooperating with other editors on this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In contrary to what Guy Macon wrote, I did not write who has a COI, and thus didn't accuse any specific someone. I assumed that everyone acted in good faith, even people with a COI. Meaning - perhaps the people with a COI are not aware that they should disclose their COI, so I wrote to everyone about the WP:COI guideline, and waited for them to disclose their COI on their own, because according to the WP:COI "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing.", so I let everyone the opportunity to act in a way that can be assumed as doing the right thing. I also thought, that perhaps the people with a COI think that their actions are objective despite of their COI, and they are not aware how their COI can affect their judgment and make them think less about the quality of sources that are against their COI, or make them fail to see obvious relation of sources to the article, or make them think that the matter that is against their COI is not important, and thus that its weight is low. Their COI might even make them think that anything that is against it is written in a way that isn't aesthetic, and cause them to rewrite material that is against their COI, in attempt to make it more pleasing for them, thereby toning down anything that is against their COI, and if that doesn't work, then make the article more aesthetic by hiding what seem to them as not aesthetic by putting it under wrong titles, or even in the wrong section, or even shove it down to the bottom of the article, where readers of the article, who read it sequentially, will not be exposed to it, if they will stop reading in the middle. Yes, I think that all of that could happen to someone with a COI, who edit in good faith, and therefor I leave the opportunity open for people to do the right thing and disclose their COI on their own. --Nenpog (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am Canadian ER doc as mentioned and thus for those who know how socialized medicine works none of my income depends on the existence of CTs. My health region actually prefers if I do not order CT scans but of course sometimes people need them. Anyway back to editing content. Would like to note that Guy Macon has been trying to mediate this current disagreement regarding what is a suitable sources. And many other people have provided extensive feedback already.Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Nenpog's specific accusations (and arbcom member Elen of the Roads warning that they violate WP:NPA) may be found at the links I provided above. That being said, in the above statement Nenpog claims to not have listed any editors for COIN to evaluate for a possible COI, and indeed he has posted no user notifications. If he has no COI to report, why are we here? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
One would not find specific accusations in the links Guy Macon provided above. We are here, because while discussing at the DRN, a volunteer there (TransporterMan) has demanded to stop discussing COI related issues at the DRN, and has suggested to discuss COI related issues at the COIN. --Nenpog (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

N4G

I have posted an accurate & genuine synopsis of factual issues affecting N4G which is being removed, and effectively censored, on a regular basis by people who want to hide the truth for commercial reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElderScrolls6 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC+0)

The above comment appears to be about an entirely different case. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It appear to be about N4G, where that editor (ElderScrolls6) seem to edit. How about moving it to its own section? --Nenpog (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Randy Wayne (biologist)

This seems to be self-promotion of a non-notable crackpot claiming to describe Special Relativity with fluid dynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.61.102 (talk • contribs)

Yes many problems with the article. I tagged it; if problems can not be fixed, we should consider PRODing it or trimming it substantially. Also I suggest removing or changing the word above after "non-notable" in the post above mine -- good idea to be polite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
BinaryPhoton is clearly Randy Wayne, as evidenced by (for example) his peculiar overuse of italics and quotations in both his "academic" papers and Wikipedia articles. I doubt that Wayne meets our notability requirements; the article claims that he is "known" for work in biology and physics, but all references given are to his own papers, and not to third-party sources which claim that the research described in these papers is of any significance. Most of the "Career" and "Education" sections is overly detailed, and reads more like an academic CV than an encyclopedia article. The lengthy bibliography includes many opinion pieces, book reviews, one-paragraph encyclopedia articles, and papers in journals where the publication bar is obviously very low. All this betokens a very low-impact researcher trying to underhandedly give himself the appearance of importance. I suggest sending it directly to AfD. (PRODding it will just result in BinaryPhoton contesting it, even though that account is likely a sock of Photontoo, the SPA which created the article.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks like someone has CSD'd it on the grounds of no assertion of notability. It was promptly recreated by BinaryPhoton, then PRODed by another editor, and then the PROD message removed by BinaryPhoton. Further discussion is developing on the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Just as a head's up, most of the COI stuff was taken care of, but it still looks (to me) that he doesn't make notability, and I have nominated for AfD. a13ean (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Retta Rizzo‎ and others

In the discussion page of Retta Rizzo‎, the principal editor (User:RettaRoxx/Anthony Joseph) appears to have outed himself (although that is far from certain) and then asserted

I did write it but because of lack of experience, my office hired someone else to make edits. He worked on the article at some point over the past week, right before the deletion message was added.[100]

The only editor that can be referenced by that comment is User:Ultimatedriver, who has very recently been blocked. However, before the block he was a very active editor for the three weeks his account existed with many edits to autobiographical articles.[101] My concern is the reference to "someone else at the office" from which I took the inference that there is a business here turning out biographies, presumably on a paid basis. Whilst that of itself is not a great problem, the lack of declaration of COI is. I would appreciate an experienced admin casting an eye over this to see whether there is an undeclared writing school at work here. Thanks. --  Velella  Velella Talk   13:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is a repost of the 23 June to 24 June 2012 discussion at Talk:Retta Rizzo:
Discussion at Talk:Retta Rizzo from 23 June to 24 June 2012

Am new to editing, but as for deletion of this page? There was a person hired to edit this page and they apparently didn't know what they were doing. The page has been up, successfully for almost a year until now. Retta Rizzo *is* notable. A lot of the publicity she is receiving is currently under way, including but not limited to an article on the CrazyPellas There is also an interview with Retta Rizzo scheduled for the July edition of Rock Thiz Magazine. She is receiving air play and has made international TV shows, but we are not sure how to prove that on the Wiki page. Any suggestions? Anthony Joseph 15:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Before making any comment can you please confirm whether you are or are not RettaRoxx and whether you are or are not Retta Rizzo. The similarity in the names seems to be far to great a coincidence and the article reads like an autobiography. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Also for the record the article was created on 14th January 2012 ( about 6 months ago) by the same user that posted the original comment above. Does this mean that you, Anthony Joseph, are indeed the paid writer who wrote the article ?  Velella  Velella Talk   17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am Anthony Joseph but I was not paid to write the original article. I did write it but because of lack of experience, my office hired someone else to make edits. He worked on the article at some point over the past week, right before the deletion message was added. I am not Retta Rizzo. Sorry I miscalculated. I thought I had done the article before the new year, before the release of Retta Rizzzo's last song. Anthony Joseph 03:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs) Also for the record, the article will not be biased. It will have all information regarding Retta Rizzo; good and bad. It's just taking longer to add everything due to not being able to find a writer/editor who understands the Wiki ways. Anthony Joseph 03:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs)
That would be User:Ultimatedriver would it? That is the only editor who added any meaningful content, just before he/she was blocked for disruptive editing. Sounds most unlikely to me. I still see nothing of value in the article and a great deal of concerns and real issues in this discussion.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that would be the editor/writer who was hired. The entire article, with links has not been completed yet. May I ask what your concerns and real issues are with this discussion? Anthony Joseph 14:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs)
  • Not sure how to enter conversation at the other area for the conflict of interest but I wanted to clarify that I am not an office for writing school nor is the person hired to finish the article. He was hired because he presented himself as one knowing how to edit according to Wikipedia standards, for tables and linking to articles proving notability. There are other names that Retta Rizzo preformed under and will be included in article, to show we are not being biased. Anthony Joseph 20:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs)
COIN probably should take some time to look into this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is where we found the other editor (Ultimatedriver) Anthony Joseph 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs)

The Buried Life COI

Based on the below - PeterJensen007 "works directly with these guys" and has access to a "theburiedlife.com" email.[102] --> PeterJensen007 has a COI with the The Buried Life television show topic and the above four named actor topics and is subject to the terms of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the topics The Buried Life, Ben Nemtin, Dave Lingwood, Duncan Penn, and Jonnie Penn. I'll tagged User talk:PeterJensen007 with {{uw-coi}}. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this comment at Commons by PeterJensen007 it is clear that a strong COI exists for these articles. It's also likely that these people do not meet WP:N, some of the images uploaded by this user are suspect that he himself shot them (as is claimed) (Like This one). Just noticed the comment on Commons and don't have the time this evening to sort everything out, so I brought it here. — raekyt 22:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, what seems to be the issue with these articles and photos I have submitted? I am more than happy to help get this sorted out. I have used multiple references on the articles i submitted, but still it seems they are in question. It is difficult to know what is needed when there is no sort of assistance. I work directly with these guys and all content i submitted I do own and have complete authorization to use. As previously, stated, would love to get this figured out. Can work via email on sorting this out as well. Thanks! PeterJensen007 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
A fairly big problem is that you have a conflict of intrest with these articles. We have some fairly strict policies of people who are closely connected to the subject editing the articles. You need to read over that link CLOSELY, and make sure your not adding/removing anything that can be considered promotional or contraversial, and everything you add needs to be strongly supported by reliable 3rd party sources (read WP:RS). For the images, we have mechanisms for handing images that look like you don't have rights to use, it's the OTRS program at wikimedia Common's. You'll need to make sure they're sourced correctly, if you yourself physically didn't take the photograph you HAVE to list the photographer and then provide via e-mail the actual proof, scans or whatnot of release forms, that you OWN the copyright of the images or that the photographer released them under the listed licenses. For the articles on the actors of The Buried Life, it's very possible they do not meet our basic notability guidelines for inclusion. If the show hasn't won multiple notable awards, or the actors themselves haven't won notable awards, and if they haven't been subject of significant news coverage of them as an individual, not as a mention of the tv program, then they're probably not able to have a wikipedia article. These are the major concerns. — raekyt 02:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The actors Nemtin, Lingwood, and the two Penns appear to have been generating news coverage together as a troupe since at least since 2006,[103] and I found 100+ articles mentioning Ben Nemtin, so they each may meet WP:N (someone else can confirm). I'll post article advise on PeterJensen007's talk page (e.g., use source material for the article that is independent of the subject, not connected to the subject.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sasanack

This editor is still involved in pushing content (with the help of two other WP:SPA editors). Sasanack has an already established conflict of interest Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_57#Sasanack, see contribs for recent pushing, for example [104]. The editor also has publicly stated views on the specific subtopic: [105]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor is currently pushing his point of view on the article by reverting edits which conform to the sources: [106]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Conflicted editors should not revert anything except obvious vandalism from the article. My addition to the lead section followed the WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV guidelines. Sasanack's revert was against policy; he should make his case on the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Tim Michels

Wikimichels has been making a large number of edits to the Tim Michels article. This includes reverting other editors' neutral edits and additions. As Michels is a politician, and a potential candidate for office, this is a serious concern. Wikimichels has twice been warned about conflicts of interest, by two different editors, the first time over a year ago. Perhaps a cooling off period is in order. Mesconsing (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

3162

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 41.196.218.247 (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lynngilbert

User is adding "See also" link to their books and self-publishing company, Lynn Gilbert, Inc. — 71.166.139.215 (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

National Youth Music Theatre

Long term ownership of the article, from an account professing to be the theatre's producer. As a result the article has long been an intermittently sourced promotional piece, with passages taken directly from its website. I've done some cleanup, but there's strong pushback from this account, with a clear sense of WP:OWNERSHIP; not surprising, given that they've edited the article virtually unchecked for several years. I've attempted to explain the concerns at user's and article talk page. A good copy editing to ascertain and remove further copyright problems would be appreciated. 99.11.4.60 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa

I have been trying to include some material into the article by Rep. Issa. One user seems to be a guard against including negative material. I started to take a look at the edit history and he seems to be acting as almost a guard for Rep. Issa to stop any negative material. Also, I found this interesting:

"[Issa] noted that after Christmas his Wikipedia page was rewritten to highlight many of the old controversies. “Fixing Wikipedia is a full-time thing when you’ve got people hacking it, or editing it, in a rather slanted way.” He added that in most areas of knowledge Wikipedia works well."Lizza, Ryan. "DON'T LOOK BACK". The New Yorker. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help) (Computer crashing URL link removed from cite. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC))

I am not sure if Bbb23 is trying to slant the article to be positive for Issa. However, his edit history makes me wonder if he is bring a COI to this article. Casprings (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See BLPN discussion. Casprings has a problem because I don't agree with him. Indeed, no one thus far agrees with him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a BLP volunteer and I've commented on the BLP thread linked above. As far as COIN, this thread should be closed. This is an improper forum for a dispute that properly belongs at BLPN: Bbb23 has never stated an affiliation with or conflict in regards to Darrell Issa; Casprings hasn't even alleged an actual conflict of interest or anything coming close. He is complaining about editing history, from which he would extrapolate a bias. A bias is not a conflict of interest, nor is a bias indicated by simply removing questionable negative material per WP:BLP. To cry COI is demonstrable of a need to re-read WP:AGF and WP:COI for that matter. JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Casprings, why did you omit the '|date= January 24, 2011' publication date from your cite to the above quote from Rep. Issa? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously a lack of temporal context adds flavors of relevance and alarm. Putting the quote beside the accusation is meant to prod readers into identifying a particular editor with undated statements: this is at best disingenuous. There's no actual relevance between that year-and-a-half-old quote and what's going on at the article — nobody anywhere agrees with Caspring's proposed edits. Most importantly, there's been no allegation of an actual WP:COI, or any association or relation that might raise any sort of reasonable question. Please, someone, mark this closed. JFHJr (㊟) 18:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment HUH? What COI? Seems that you are complaining that Bbb23 brings a POV to his editing, which may be true or may not. You are editing with a clear POV, and this is being balanced, which may mean someone with a POV or someone wanting to eliminate POV. COI implies you know who and why an editor is and that the style of editing belies an inappropriate commercial or personal interest (ie works on the campaign, is employed by the campaign, knows the individual personally) ; there is no evidence of that. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Harris & Harris Group

A user with an apparent COI username is adding lots of promotional materials to this page, and hasn't responded to any talk page messages. Can someone who has a few min take a look at this? Busy atm. a13ean (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Two users with the same COI adding promotional material to the same article? Both are blocked until they care to discuss the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

YSR Congress Party

This is a major splinter party in one of India's largest states. The leader is Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, a guy known to his fanbase as "Jagan"; and the editor has a name which pretty much predicts the kind of edits he/she is making, on this and related articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for a Wikipedian who wants to create an article on myself

I am trying to find a fair Wikipedian to create an article on myself by using my publications in my user ID: PLee223 . Please talk to me if there is Wikipedian who wants to help me out. Thank you! Plee223 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Plee. Thank you for coming here to ask for help. There are a few issues that will need to be addressed. Most importantly, one needs to be "notable" to be included in the encyclopedia. "Notable" is defined a little differently on Wikipedia than it is in Webster's, Oxford, etc. and the definition can be found here. Secondly, much of the information found in a biography of a living person much come from independent source but you can find more information on that here. Lastly, if a user helps you, they'll need to do so from their own account and the content they create will still need to satisfy all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I'm not suggesting that you wish to promote yourself or do anything but create an encyclopedic article but it can sometimes be hard to write an article or help write an article about yourself that doesn't show some point of view. WP:COI is our guideline regarding conflicts of interest and covers this concept thoroughly although it's based on the basic concept of a conflict of interest.
Based on your edits at AfC, I'm assuming that you're Paul Lee. I see that you have links to lists of books/poems you have written but the pages are in Korean and in forms that can't be translated by Google Translate. I did my own search on Amazon.com but can find none of your publications (only Paul Lee the comic book writer). I also see that you write your OhmyNews which is a website that publishes articles written by anyone who submits an article. Being published by OhmyNews on its own would not make you notable. Your publications are most likely the only way that notability can be established and I can't assess that. You can help by providing a list of the most widely distributed or most notable books that you've written as well as the company that published those books. From there, we can assess notability and determine if an article should be created or not. OlYeller21Talktome 16:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Also try to provide any independent secondary sources which mention you detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi 01Yeller21 & IRWolfie, thank you for your help. I am trying more and more to make my bio-article come true praying "Help me, God!" Thank you again... your talks are very helpful! I will let you know when I have notable sources on my publications such as reviews, publishing companies and book stores. By the way, if I provide you Korean sources, can you read and search them for verification? I have some Korean sources on my publications. Please advise me... Plee223 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to help you out, but I'm seeing a few troubles with your request. First, your name Paul Lee is sooo common that I (or anyone) would not be able to search a news database to find source material for the article. A second problem I'm seeing (from your talk page) is that you also go by Poong Ho Lee, making it harder to find reliable sources on you. You would have to be able to supply the reliable source material from which the article would be developed. Those supplied sources would have to be independent of you (not connected to you in any way) per WP:GNG. Third, you appear to be looking for someone to write a Publications of Paul Lee article instead of a Paul Lee (author) biography article. Wikipedia only has a few "Publications of" articles and those appear to be redirects to biography articles. A fourth problem I'm seeing is that the sources you want to supply are in Korean. We could try to use Bing translator, but the output sometimes isn't so clear. You might want to get your biography article developed on Korean Wikipedia first and then have that foreign-language Wikipedia article translation into English at Wikipedia:Translation. There's something at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Lee (author, poet, engineer), but you might be better off drafting the article at User:Plee223/Paul Lee (author). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

SolveIT_Software

User Trident13 is the creator and primary editor of the SolveIT page. He also heavily edited and flagged with a COI the Quintiq page - Quintiq is SolveIT's direct competitor in APAC. I have requested clarification on whether Trident13 and Michael.Davies have a conflict of interest in their involvement in the Quintiq and SolveIT pages - Michael.Davies is also the name of a senior employee of SolveIT, as is Imran.Sarwar. I've yet to receive a response from users Trident13 and Michael.Davies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trident13 KMMelvin (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)KMMelvin

Melodic (Musician)

I have been compiling information on how to build this article as well as to try and make it better than when I first created it for Melodic. I do not know him personally, and I am not in contact with him, and this is my first page I have ever created. I'm simply trying to do everything in the guidelines, but I keep messing up I have been editing it from the same computer logged in and logged out. I actually didn't know I was logged out at first because it still let me edit. When there seemed to be a problem I checked and saw that I wasn't logged in, so then I logged in and continued to contribute to the page. I am making no more contributions because I wouldn't want the article to be deleted. Please understand this is my first article. 68.82.183.35 (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Editting without logging isn't a problem as long as you are not pretending to be different people.
The page is being proposed for deletion because there is some doubt as to whether Melodic is sufficiently notable. There are a lot of musicians who would like a page on Wikipedia so we are careful to limit it to musicians who are notable. Read the deletion banner on the page and check out the links to see what we mean by 'notable'.
Editting a page where you have a conflict of interest and your edits may be deleted. In this case, where the only page you have ever editted is about this musician, it looks a bit like someone writing their own page, especially as it has info that someone who doesn't know him probably wouldn't know. That's why we thought you might be Melodic himself.
If the page gets deleted then maybe Melodic isn't ready for his own Wikipedia page. Leave it for a bit and edit some other pages. You can always recreate the page for Melodic when he ticks some more of the notability boxes. filceolaire (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_57&oldid=1142499072"