Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 64

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Anemometer

Amibottwb inserted this section and a translated version in the german wikipedia ([1]). As the brand (Acu-Res®) is mentioned and also the selling company, i am pretty sure that the user works for this company. Also no sources except a patent are given, probably the technology is “bloody edge“ and thus does not comply to the rule that only well established and sourced information are presented on wikipedia Svebert (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

J. G. Sandom

Reported by

talk
) 13:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC).

The article isn't that bad. The primary problem is the level of detail (for example, all the places the individual lived up to the age 15) that has no sourcing and probably never will, but comes from the individual himself. I'm not sure why there have been repeated attempts to delete the article as non-notable, since notability seems clear enough for me, but that certainly hasn't helped the tenor of the talk page discussion.
I did a quick edit, but didn't improve the article all that much. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

FEI Company

I took a look at this one following a request by the user to OTRS to remove the maintenance templates. I have responded that the tone is still too promotional and non-neutral, and that the article needs to be completely rewritten. I was going to revert it to an earlier, better, version, but there really isn't one. I don't have the time at the moment to take a detailed look. Volunteers? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all the PR-cruft inserted in the lead section (I put it on the talk page), cleaned up the rest of the article, added a COI template to the talk page, and also provided some instructions about only putting information back into the article IF it is supported by cites that meet
WP:RS criteria. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
00:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

RyLaughlin

I noticed the first article at new pages. It is somewhat promotional, and looking at RyLaughlin's other contributions I found similar promotional articles in the same industry. This might be a case of paid editing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a walled-garden of spam. --ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I am attempting to make any edits necessary in response to these flags. However I do dispute the suggestion of a lack of notoriety for my articles.
Studley, Inc. page which had never been flagged in the past. I will now delete that and any other questionable language. I apologize for any inconvenience. RyLaughlin (talk
) 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
All of your edits appear to be to this group of articles so please would you confirm that you are not editing these articles for pay or that you do not have some other conflict of interest? And on the substance, winning industry awards and "notoriety" does not amount to notability nor does doing deals (if it did, I would probably be notable), nor does being featured in industry publications.--ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not being paid to write Wikipedia articles for
Studley, Inc., it is a family business and I am writing these on my own time. Fair enough about industray awards and notoriety not necessarily amounting to notability, I'm aware of that, but Mitchell S. Steir at the very least with his combination of those two things I just mentioned along with historic deals relating to well known landmarks certainly in my opinion make him worthy of an article. I would appreciate it if somebody would review these four articles and remove the flag RyLaughlin (talk
) 21:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

My two cents:

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input John, I will work to address these issues. I would appreciate it if you could review again at a later date. RyLaughlin (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, glad to help - just drop me a note on my user talk page, if you don't mind. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Medicineball (talk · contribs) and Daniel Barwick

I am concerned that ALL significant content for this subject was written by the subject. Medicineball is a thinly veiled alias for Daniel Barwick. Shouldn't at least most of an article be written by a secondary source? Also Barwick heads an academic institution, I find it problematic that he edits his institutions Wikipedia page also. Thank you.--97.96.107.252 (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I'm moving this comment to the
Hot Stop
04:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on my experience with this sort of article, I think the style indicates it is more likely to have been edited by the subject's PR staff than the subject himself. I have warned the editor, and i am rewriting the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Greg Tingle

Purely promotional account. User's sole purpose is to create articles promoting himself, his businesses and his clients. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranian presidential election, 2013

User:Tabarez is a member of

here. Noted that these polls has been chosen randomly by this user, and some of them are close to Mr. Ghalibaf, the hopeful candidate. I tried to request for comment to remove the section which wasn't yet successful since there are few Persian-speakers on the English Wikipedia. Also noted that User:Tabarez were involved in multiple edit wars with different users which you can see on the archive of his/her user page. One of them was with me as he tried to remove some of these candidates from the inbox and put 4 of them including Mr. Ghalibaf as you see here.Farhikht (talk
) 11:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez created a new article about the polls which I added to the list of COI.Farhikht (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Farhikht,
I think keeping such a poll table in the article is not a problem, even if these polls are form the websites which are close to some specific political party. Moreover, in most of the Election articles in Wikipedia such poll tables exist. However, the poll results form different political parties should be considered in the article and not just the ones close to one of the candidates! I created a new topic in the
Talk page of the article and suggest a new poll table which can be updated day by day. I removed all outdated and unreliable-sourced polls. Please contribute in the discussion of the page and if we reach an agreement on that, we can use this new poll table in the article. Regards, Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs
) 12:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I checked that. Now it seems better. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 12:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

SumZero

Re

WP:COI - how can the article be improved? My edits were intended to be objective and informative. Let's get a civil discussion going; any promotional bits, anything not neutral, please point it out. Cheers. 64.134.46.169 (talk
) 18:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I posted a note at
reliable source - either add such a source (immediately after the text it supports), or delete the unsupported text. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
04:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor, User Soosim and others

I believe that Soosim may be Gerald Steinberg himself or very close to Gerald Steinberg, possibly an Employee of NGO Monitor (of which there are more than a few), and has been editing Wikipedia to promote Gerald Steinberg, NGO Monitor and their political aims for a long time:

  1. The two articles, of Gerald M. Steinberg and of NGO Monitor, are highly promotional in character.
  2. The most edits of these two articles are by Soosim
  3. Soosim is the person who introduced Gerald Steinberg's photo into that article
  4. His number of edits on issues of interest to Gerald Steinberg and to NGO Monitor suggests a strong connection between Soosim and Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor
  5. The total of User:Soosim’s edits reflect similar interests to (and sometimes copies of) those of Gerald Steinberg.
  6. Soosim started the article about Amiram Goldblum with the aim to smear him with the “apartheid poll” which was reverted later for being POV of Gerald Steinberg: repeating that old paragraph: “Gerald Steinberg, from NGO Monitor, reviewed the poll’s results and found “manipulative methodology”, “false claims”, and “shallow questions” were used to deceive the participants and subsequently affected their responses, citing Gerald Steinberg at http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2794, a clearly politically motivated newspaper and highly unreliable source for any opinions.
  7. Once this citation was removed, it was transferred to the Gerald Steinberg article (The first line of “Academic publications and op-ed articles”)
  8. As Gerald Steinberg is a major opponent of the New Israel Fund (see Talk:Gerald M. Steinberg) it may be connected to the finding that Soosim is the second largest contributor to the New Israel Fund article as well as the character of his edits and talks . Here’s Gerald Steinberg about NIF: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Repentance-and-atonement-at-the-New-Israel-Fund and http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/israels-new-attack-on-freedom-of-speech
  9. The Lion’s share of edits by Soosim are the main subjects of attacks by Gerald Steinberg: human rights organizations in Israel and Israel related orgs. This aspect is completely missing from the current Gerald Steinberg article
  10. The nature of the edits : frequently Soosim introduces citation, criticisms, op-ed articles by Gerald Steinberg (see for instance the history of Yesh Din or of Ir Amim). Most of Soosim's edits are "his Master's voice" (or, the voice of his own ?)
  11. Is there symbiosis or some other relation between Scarletfire and Soosim ? Scarletfire2112 started editing WP 3-4 days after the creation of the smearing article by Soosim about Goldblum, and all his first attention was drawn to that article. That continues to this very day.
  12. Criticism of NGO Monitor’s activities is downplayed by Soosim and others (see for instance the David Newman article and talk page as well as the “criticism” paragraph on the Monitor’s articles with David Newman’s criticism and the responses of NGO Monitor.
  13. The pages of human rights and peace organizations are loaded with “responses” by NGO Monitor. NGO Monitor personnel, head and president and others may be responsible (paid or other) of POV editing all along, and Soosim is a major agent in that editing.

As a result, most of the articles about Israeli human rights organizations are unbalanced due to the introduction of ideas and criticisms by a clear POV right wing politically motivated organization and persons who are most probably personnel of NGO Monitor, using their own writings and op-eds of their president while not bringing any useful RS. All the above and many more issues that could subsequently be discussed are indicative of a deep relation between Soosim and Gerald Steinberg and NGO Monitor, as well as between Soosim and Scarletfire2112, and demonstrates a highly unblanaced set of articles which promote views of the Israeli right wing in Israel, while criticizing and defaming the activities of human rights and Peace organizations.


Therefore, those articles concerning NGO Monitor, Gerald Steinberg, and others should be tagged accordingly as politically motivated and self promoting, mainly by Soosim, and the issue of
WP:COI is hereby raised. It is also suggested to delete all references to NGO Monitor criticisms in the Israeli human rights organizations’ pages, as they only reflect a politically motivated POV. The place for any remarks by NGO Monitor or by Gerald Steinberg should be on their pages alone, and even that is contested as they should only be mentioned if cited by RS.רסטיניאק (talk
) 06:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
I am sorry to say that I have to concur that based on a survey of Soosim's edits and other easily available information, Soosim - though not Steinberg himself- does indeed have a significant conflict of interest with regard to NGO Monitor and the issues they work on: which includes some living people such as Amiram Goldblum. What do you have to say about this, Soosim? Slp1 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
i have been editing wiki for more than 6 years. i am very active in arbia as are dozens and hundreds of other editors. being active is not coi. ("Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest"). about three years ago, i came across an article that steinberg wrote, i liked it and follow him and his work closely. i also use information from ben dror yemini, but not from gideon levy or caroline glick. when i use material, i am very careful about RS and POV. many editors have helped me over the years to be more accurate and more in line with wikipedia policies. i am more than happy to have my detractors follow my edits and let me know if something is not inline with wiki policy. Soosim (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't really address the question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Soosim is a staffer at NGO Monitor. It's time for him to 'fess up. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:PR. The same question is directed to scarletfire2112 who is clearly associated with Soosim by the timing and nature of most of Scarletfire's edits. As a few editors find evidence on WP that this is so, it should mean that there may be a range of articles in which both you and your follower (an employee in your section of NGO Monitor or PR for Monitor ?) should be advised to discuss on talk pages only. Would you like to suggest which articles ?רסטיניאק (talk
) 01:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
The charges against Soosism that he "may be Gerald Steinberg himself or very close to Gerald Steinberg, possibly an Employee of NGO Monitor" are laughable, and highly irresponsible. There is no evidence presented here, just foolish speculation that could qualify as
WP:COI. Bringing this to the COI board was highly irresponsible and an undue personal attack. Plot Spoiler (talk
) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Go on and laugh, but the truth is that Soosim is paid by NGO Monitor. That presents a clear COI, and it should have been disclosed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
How is that the "truth"? Where is the incontrovertible evidence? As an admin, you should know better than to throw around inflammatory conjecture as truth. That constitutes unacceptable WP:harassment. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Soosim has identified himself on Wikipedia, and he is a paid staffer at NGO Monitor. This isn't conjecture or harassment, it's the truth—and Soosim should be man enough to own up to his conflict of interest. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this information does clear up the matter, but for the sake of
WP:Outing I am concerned you shared it and I hope you will expunge it from this conversation. Plot Spoiler (talk
) 03:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that being opinionated about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict should disqualify a person from participation in articles related to that topic. Our primary concern should be whether policy is adhered to in the addition and removal of material from article space. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
This discovery of
WP:RS should be rejected, in all of the edits, not only Soosim's. Now who is scarletfire2112 ? does he work for Soosim's department ? The mode of operation of NGO Monitor is now partially exposed. Just wonder how far more does it go. Worth a serious investigation. רסטיניאק (talk
) 04:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

Sorry, I'm not following. The statement that "the truth is that Soosim is paid by NGO Monitor" doesn't seem to be supported by an link or other evidence - am I missing something? Also, I'm also not seeing "Soosim has identified himself on Wikipedia" - is there a link (for example, to a diff) for that? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is a diff available: Go to the view history of this section and look at tonights' (May 27) edits from 03:45 onwards. It is clearly linked there, to a self exposure of Soosim. רסטיניאק (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
To Plot Spoiler's comments about harrasment and outing - I'll appreciate if someone will direct me to the proper WP guidelines that warn against self outing or self harassment. If someone exposes one's own name or occupation, or relation to a subject, as Soosim did earlier, does linking to that statement qualify as WP:Outing ? רסטיניאק (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
According to
WP:Outing: "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums." I can't see any reason why the information is not appropriate for discussion on this noticeboard. I should say I have not been involved in any discussion of this kind before, so perhaps an experienced editor or admin in COI issues can give their opinion. Dlv999 (talk
) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Dlv999 for this useful source. Is there anyone who opposes to using Soosims self identification in order to continue this COI discussion and start coming to conclusions regarding all his previous and future edits ?רסטיניאק (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
You say "Is ther anyone who opposes..." I oppose. We should not be attempting to muzzle someone with a politicized point of view in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict due to activities in real life that do not relate to personal aggrandizement. Bus stop (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Editor Soosim has been involved in POV editing of NGO-monitor related articles and BLP articles of individuals and organisations that NGO-monitor have targeted for criticism. It now turns out that they are a staff member of NGO-monitor. רסטיניאק is asking if anyone opposes bringing forward Soosim's on-Wikipedia admission of who they are so that we can have an open discussion of these issues. Your response does not really address that point. Rather you seem to be arguing that editors with a COI should be allowed to continue POV editing in the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is a separate point to whether we can openly discuss the evidence that Soosim is a staff member of NGO-monitor. Dlv999 (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
To
Gerald Steinberg and of their opinions, including the smearing and villifying of their political enemies. Do I have to direct you to the proper WP guidelines, or can you come up with a WP backed argument that will clear Soosim from a very serious COI ?רסטיניאק (talk
) 17:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
A "very serious COI"[2] would involve remuneration for promotion of a product. Sorry but I do not consider political affiliation to represent the most serious of conflicts of interests. Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, the person Soosim has admitted to being does advertise their services as a freelance paid editor on Wikipedia "I am a very experienced Wikipedia editor, with many new entries accepted for publication. Cost for creating new entry and submission: 650NIS + VAT". However I consider their staff position at NGO-monitor combined with the long pattern of POV editing in relation to NGO-monitor related articles and BLP's of individuals and organisations that NGO-monitor have targeted to be the more serious issue. Dlv999 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree that someone who (I now see) is clearly a paid staffer of an organization (in this case,

WP:COI
issue - it's impossible to separate out his paid position (at NGO Monitor) from his Wikipedia editing.

On paid editing, I note that

WP:COI says (at the moment, anyway) "The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic." So I agree with Div999 that the focus of the discussion should be on the employment by NGO Monitor, not Soosim's freelance work. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
18:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Finish this off, please

Now that the evidence is there^, this one needs acting on. In my mind, that means a topic ban, at a minimum for the NGO Monitor and Steinberg articles, and in connection with any NGO Monitor material that Soosim might henceforth want to add to any other page, and for the organizations that NGO Monitor regularly "monitors" (attacks). Can someone please indicate how to make this happen: does it come via a decree of some sort by an admin here, or at ANI, or at AE?
^For some reason, no-one else is linking here to the diff that shows the evidence. I'm not sure why that is: it's a matter of on-wiki self-identification. It took me a fair bit of time to perceive it in the recent history of this noticeboard. If anyone else is still not seeing it, I'd be happy to explain it via email. (But again I don't see why the diff can't be added here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No one responded seriously to the request to provide WP guidelines against publicizing self exposure, so here it is again: Soosim has identified himself on Wikipedia, and he is a paid staffer at NGO Monitor.רסטיניאק (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
And here is the link that shows the NGO-Monitor side of the equation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the provided links, this seems to me to be a self-evident COI. The question then becomes what remedial actions are required. Jusdafax 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest taking it to AE. A single admin could topic ban him here and now using discretionary sanctions, but it is probably worth getting the opinions of several admins about the ban and in particular its scope. Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks -- now at AE [3]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Max von Zedtwitz

Account appears to write solely in autobiographical and COI vein. Edits may be welcome in large part, but I think there are COI issues, particularly in the biography. Further eyes appreciated. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

I believe that user Rastiniak (English and Hebrew versions) is Amiram Goldblum himself, and has been editing Wikipedia since august 2012. the issues:

a) he has two user names - after being warned about this, he chose to use only one account (the Hebrew one) going forward. this is good. but I only mention it so one can review both user accounts, page history and talk page history for each.

b) if indeed user rastiniak is amiram goldblum, he then has a primary conflict of interest, his edits to the page about himself are actual conflict of interest, highly suspect and causing untold grief and effort. in addition to his own page, the other three pages listed above are all directly related to goldblum.

c) efforts made to warn him have included discussion of this on his talk page (both English and Hebrew). he has chosen to delete the information I posted there about this topic (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A7&diff=556065555&oldid=556060761), hence, I am bringing it here for discussion.

d) why do I think that rastiniak English and rastiniak Hebrew are amiram goldblum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiram_Goldblum#Politics shows he is deeply involved in Israeli politics.
goldblum's linkedin profile http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2742298 also mentions that he speaks English/Hebrew/French/Italian.
rastiniak admits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rastiniak that he is an Israeli, speaks the same four languages, lived in paris for two years, likes classical music, and likes politics, and the Hebrew user page says (in english) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A7 that he is very involved in human rights and peace organizations, and likes the physical sciences.
  • rastiniak seems to know quite a bit - intimate information - about goldblum that is no where to be found on line and/or remembers clearly about things which took place more than 20 years ago and/or seems to have a scrapbook about news articles and the like of anything goldblum related and/or responds with such unusual passion (mostly anger, but sometimes it is hard to read into the written word) about anything that remotely might be offensive to goldblum. examples include:
his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rastiniak , particularly entries #9, 10, 11 show his passionate responding and details about goldblum.
he admits that he knows more than anyone will know about goldblum saying "The person who responds to Soosim knows about Prof. Goldblum much more than Soosim can find from "reliable sources"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#Soosim_makes_a_few_mistakes_and_unblanaced_editing
he shows intimate knowledge of a mistake made by the Hebrew university regarding goldblum on their website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#named_chair_issues
entries 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 (and perhaps others) on the goldblum article talk page indicate intimate knowledge of goldblum and unusual passion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum
entry #19 is really intimate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#further_attempts_to_vandalize_the_Goldblum_article_will_increase_in_the_next_few_weeks
he has articles about goldblum from more than 20 years ago: (entry 10 on the goldblum talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#Politics_section:_No_sources_for_any_of_the_claims and (entry 27) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#RS_of_list_serve_quoting_memri_quoting_a_hebrew_local_newspaper and (entry 29) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#Need_to_stop_unjustified_reverts and (entry 32) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#LA_Times_article_which_includes_info_about_goldblum
he has a personal issue with steven plaut, as per that talk page (entries 9, 10, 11 and elsewhere). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Plaut#Political_Views_of_Plaut (and yes, plaut and his students seem to enjoy engaging in battle with rastiniak).

e) lastly, I would like to say that he is also in violation of

WP:SPA
- he has about 230 total edits, almost exclusively all (227) dealing with goldblum over a handful of articles (he did try three edits in classical music but was reverted).

f) I had asked him to please first discuss any edit (except for obvious vandalism, etc as per wiki coi) on the talk page. at this point, maybe he should be blocked from these articles which directly involve him? Soosim (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine that Soosim has filed this report at this noticeboard -- indeed I suggested that he do so, instead of clogging up the article talk pages with accusations of this sort. But the difficulty is that Soosim is a compulsive POV-pusher in the Israel/Palestine topic area and (re)created the article on Goldblum with the evident intention of introducing as many smears as possible into it. So this COI report is obviously intended to tip the balance of interested editors on the article, so that Soosim can have a freer hand in it (given the 1RR constraints). Under the circumstances I think it would be inappropriate to restrict Rastiniak from editing the BLP in question; COI rules do not require such a restriction, and as far as I'm concerned it is a thoroughly political move on Soosim's part. I strongly suggest that other active editors consider it in those terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Nomoskedasticity: We are here to discuss the COI of one editor. Please take up Soosim's motivations and behavior on another appropriate noticeboard. If necessary, one or both editors can be restricted from editing the contentious article in question.
Soosim:
WP:SPA
is neither a guideline nor a policy, therefore there's no "violation". It's just an essay that defines a single-purpose account and gives advice.
There are two questions here:
  • Is Rastiniak Amiram Goldblum?
  • Is Rastiniak and רסטיניאק the same person?
Soosim spends much space proving that Rastiniak is Amiram Goldblum. Nobody would doubt it, he never denied it, and in fact he goes out of is way to identify himself as Amiram Goldblum in a number of comments linked above. However, because the Rastiniak account is no longer editing, there's no current issue with COI anymore, regarding that account. It's been abandoned, and can safely be blocked if needed.
Regarding the second question: The contribution histories of both accounts overlap by only one edit on Rastiniak's part. I see no evidence of deliberately abusing multiple accounts; I would categorize Rastiniak's single edit after רסטיניאק was created as an accident, if they are the same. So here's the evidence I see that the two accounts are the same person:
  • רסטיניאק started when Rastiniak stopped (weak evidence).
  • The SPA nature of the רסטיניאק account suggests that רסטיניאק is the subject of the article.
  • The Hebrew word רסטיניאק translates to "Rastignac" (pronounced Rastiniak), which is about as open an admission as we may get.
I'd still like to see a confirmation from רסטיניאק, however. (Update: provided in diff below)
And if there's a COI, it isn't really a big deal. A COI won't necessarily prevent רסטיניאק from participating at
talk
) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic: My post was (imo) entirely appropriate and indeed essential for providing the context for Soosim's report. I am indeed considering taking it up at a different noticeboard, but I do not regret having done so here. As for the two Rastiniak accounts -- this is an old issue that Soosim keeps dragging up without acknowledging that it has already been dealt with, here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Context is fine, but I wanted to avoid derailing the discussion, if indeed anything needs discussing. Thanks for the SPI report; this diff is confirmation enough. Given that there's no question, what next? Are there any remedies that we should discuss? ~
talk
) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Remedies in regard to what? The two Rastiniak accounts? Given that the last edit by the English-letters Rastiniak account was in March, I don't see a need for action, but on the other hand there's no problem with blocking it indefinitely -- the Hebrew-letters Rastiniak account has made it clear that the English-letters account has been abandoned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need for action on the old account either. As to remedies, since there is no disagreement that either the Hebrew or English spelling Rastiniak is a COI account, the recommended responses are given in the box at the top of this page:
talk
) 18:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Soosim started the Goldblum article with a clear aim to smear the name of Goldblum , using initially the highly unreliable source of NGO Monitor, an organization run by Gerald Steinberg, a long term rival of most Human Rights organizations in Israel. Anyone who follows the history of versions on the Goldblum article may easily identify the attempts of Soosim to use unreliable sources, possibly even to smear Goldblum by using sockpuppets. His involvements in the Goldblum article more than in any other edit proves are clear. As a recent example I suggest that any editor would read on the Goldblum talk page the discussion initiated by Soosim on the Los Angeles Times article about the murder in Baka, which finally ended with a suggestion by slp1 that is not even remotely similar to what Soosim was trying to push in order to harm Goldblum. Soosim has not indicated in his extensive piece here a single non-reliable source, a single violation of WP content policies or any other violation. It seems to me that if anyone has to be blocked from future direct editing of the Goldblum article, it should be Soosim, just as Nataev was recently blocked from any edits of that article. And more: nearly the whole "Politics" section has been written by Soosim, with interventions by myself. He is also the one who introduced the neutrality dispute sign, which may be rejected once Soosim is blocked from malicious editing. רסטיניאק (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
Please remember this discussion is about you and your COI. Soosim's motivations and actions may be relevant background, but please don't drag a discussion about a content dispute here. This isn't the place for it. ~
talk
) 00:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
just to clarify, i want to understand: everyone agrees that rastiniak english and rastiniak hebrew are the same editor, and that this editor is amiram goldblum? and therefore, for now, it is sufficient to tag the relevant articles and user pages to indicate coi issues, yes? also, regarding wp:spa, on the coi page it says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks - i am not asking for a block, just the warning that he discuss edits first on the talk page, and to be cognizant of the consequences for not doing so. is that appropriate? Soosim (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the article was originally produced by Soosim for the single-purpose of smearing Goldblum, which failed due to the deletion of
WP:POV materials that he pushed all along and their replacement by reliable sources. Anyone can check the history and find which editor promoted neutrality. רסטיניאק (talk
) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
This page is not about content disputes or POV pushing. There are other noticeboards for that. This discussion is about your COI. Care to address that? Are you willing to abide by the
talk
) 00:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Rastiniak can of course answer for himself -- but I'll note that it might not be entirely clear what it means to abide by the COI guideline. That guideline does not prevent people from editing articles about themselves. The "in a nutshell" box gives some clarity here: people should not use articles about themselves for the purpose of self-promotion. Rastiniak has not been doing that (Soosim doesn't even try to make the case that he has), and so Soosim's report here is little more than an opportunistic bad-faith move. Amatulic, you appear to be resisting the notion of looking at the big picture here: Soosim has been trying to use Wikipedia to smear Goldblum, and Goldblum quite naturally has been trying to prevent that from happening (though without turning the article into a puff piece). The import of this context, in my view, is that we can advise Rastiniak to abide by the guideline without pretending that this means he cannot edit the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:COI has specific guidelines for what an editor can do in an article about him/herself. The general rule is "Non-controversial edits" -- including reverting unambiguous vandalism and removing content that clearly violates the biography of living persons policy (emphasis added). The guidelines also state: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." It seems to me that a large portion of רסטיניאק's edits on Amiram Goldblum, to this point, have been "controversial" per these definitions. Scarletfire2112 (talk
) 06:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to any editor to view the history of the contribubtions of Scarletfire2112 to Wikipedia, starting three days after the initial smearing attempt by Soosim and failing on most of his comments, citation demands and editings on the Goldblum article. I wonder to what extent there is a similarity or deep symbiosis between those two twin haters of Goldblum, probably belonging to the extremist National Religious sector of Jewish settlers or very close to them (they never edit on Saturdays...), hating Goldblum for his anti-settltments acitivities and having an enormous political conflict of interest with him. More on that soon. רסטיניאק (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
IMO, the reverse of the current discussion should take place here. The editors who should be examined for conflict of interest are Soosim and scarletfire2112, due to their constant and coordinated attempts to smear and defame Goldblum. Soosim is edit warring on political issues on many articles, all reflecting his extreme right wing anti human rights and anti Israeli left wing and liberals positions. The issue is not whether רסטיניאק is or is not Goldblum, but whether the article has been produced and continues to be edited by Soosim/Scarletfire2112 for self promotion of their political point of view. This is one of the main issues on the
WP:COI page: "Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest". The Goldblum article was produced only due to political rivalry. My edits were in line with the issues expressed on the COI page under "Non controversial edits", introducing reliable sources and erasing the many attempts to vilify, smear and vandalize by those right wing highly politically motivated editors. The political views of Soosim are obvious from his hundreds of edits, with the largest relative part focused on Goldblum. In Israel, political rivalry has already led to violent actions that are always from the right and National religious groups against the liberal and the left wing. The way Soosim wishes the article to be is boarderline with incitement, which I will not allow. As slp1 already indicated on the Goldblum talk page, this aspect of attempts by the Israeli right wing to harm verbally and physically the left was missing from the Goldblum article and slp1 suggested to remedy that, constantly opposed by Soosim. Soosim realized his failure to vilify Goldblum, and instead of calling other administrators to get involved in the discussion he moved to this COI notice board. Giving him the ability to block corrections of the smears that he and Scarletfire2112 wish to introduce to the Goldblum article is to give a prize to the scoundrels. In the eyes of Soosim and Scarletfire2112, even writing the correct information about Goldblum having been active in Peace Now and in the New Israel Fund should help smearing him in the eyes of their own groups. It would be interesting to check whether Soosim is associated with the libel suit of Goldblum against a few right wing organizations (including the settlers' main internet site in English) and persons, one of whom (steven Plaut, in his http://www.isracampus.org.il site , go there to learn what a "smear site" of the right wing looks like, in particular the smears of Goldblum as the "enemy of the people) already used a former WP article to demonstrate to the court the "ugly face" of Goldblum hoping to win the Judge's sympathy by doing that. I suggest that administrators would examine this matter with a lot of caution and sensitivity, to continue blocking the Goldblum page indefinitely to non-administrators , and to demand that the currently involved editors would only use the talk page of the article. רסטיניאק (talk
) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק

רסטיניאק: Again, not relevant to this discussion. Start a new COI section.

This discussion is about you. The Amiram Goldblum article is evidently about you. Your responses have constituted only attempts to derail and redirect this discussion.

So far, you have failed to address the direct question posed to you above: Will you, or will you not, abide by the

WP:COI
guideline? That means stop editing the article, and discuss any disagreement or substantial change on the talk page.

If necessary, you, Soosim, and others may be topic-banned, per the ArbCom sanctions currently in place on that article. Evasions and misdirection are not helping you here. Please answer the question. ~

talk
) 17:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The COI guideline does not say or mean that he may not edit the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic, I'll note again that Soosim has not identified any editing problem of the sort raised in the COI guideline. Rastiniak has not been promoting himself here. Without some evidence that Rastiniak has created an actual problem in the article, this entire discussion is a waste of time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a guideline. It suggests that editors refrain from making substantial changes directly to articles about themselves, instead using the talk page to discuss them. ~
talk
) 16:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Amatulic, if you already have the answer that the Goldblum article is about me, than what is there to discuss ? I abide all along with all Wikipedia guidelines, and use extreme caution and balance in any editing of that article as well as in others (There was a mistake for a while, completely innocent, of using two usernames, which were similar in Hebrew and English). However, I will not accept defamation attempts and vilifications of any kind on that article by the gang of the religious right wing. Just watch how many vandalisms follow the editings of Soosim and Scarletfire2112. I suggested that you use a lot of sensitivity and caution with your judgement on this issue. I repeat that request. רסטיניאק (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
Thank you. As I mentioned above, I don't view your use of two usernames as a problem. You stopped using one account, started using another. Well and good. Your persistent characterization of those you disagree with as "religious right wing" and other personal attacks are not appropriate, though. If you feel that administrative action is warranted against other editors, go to
talk
) 16:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
just to give a bit of attention to Nomo's question: yes, it is often bothersome. if you would like, I can provide those diffs as well. he puts in information that only he knows (about his professional status, his family and personal status, things related to his political activities, etc.). items have been reverted, replaced, edited constantly because of this. the talk page is full of examples which make this clear. but again, I am not asking for a topic ban, nor even an article ban, just that his edits be discussed first on the talk page. and I will even go you one better: I have no problem including information about his daughter, for example, if he would simply say: I am goldblum, I have a daughter who is in the army, etc. (or whatever it was). Soosim (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you didn't address this angle previously speaks volumes about the nature of this report. And if that's all you've got, then it confirms that there's no problem of the sort that the COI guideline is meant to address: no promotional editing resulting in a puff piece, in particular. And if that's not enough: the edits you indicate were common mistakes of a new editor -- and edits of that sort have ceased entirely, now that Rastiniak has become more familiar with how to edit properly. Thanks, Soosim -- a very helpful post. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Amatulić, thanks. I made a suggestion and repeat it: the article may be edited only by administrators for a period of a few weeks or months, and all others (excluding new or unconfirmed) will post on the talk page. Is that acceptable ? Isn't that the essence of the what you suggest ? רסטיניאק (talk
) 13:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
It is not only about promotional editing. It is about standards. I'll repeat here what I noted above:
WP:COI bars him from almost all editing on the Goldblum page. Scarletfire2112 (talk
) 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
So this is really all about you and Soosim being able to add shit like "PLO supporter" and wanting Rastiniak not to be able to revert it. Not going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Armiram Goldblum - proposal

Regarding the last comment made by רסטיניאק to me: I think that's a good suggestion. If the COI guidelines prevent רסטיניאק from making controversial changes (including reverts), and there are other editors intent on making controversial changes that Goldblum might consider disparaging, then the best solution may be to keep the article protected, and have administrators make changes that have achieved consensus. This has been done on other articles under PI arbcom sanctions with some success (Six-Day War comes to mind as an example from a few years ago).

I'm willing to do that for Goldblum's article for a trial period. Basically it would work like this: For any non-controversial changes, or changes that have consensus, use the {{

talk
) 16:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree רסטיניאק (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)רסטיניאק
It's not generally considered good practice to fully protect an article for a long period of time.
WP:FULL doesn't seem to cover a situation where an administrator reviews each proposed edit of editors who strongly disagree. And full protection certainly going to discourage those editors who don't have a very large interest in the article from proposing changes. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
21:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There's enough problems with this article to consider two months or more of full protection. Since the article falls under
Mass killings under Communist regimes. EdJohnston (talk
) 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
fine by me. Soosim (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with others that though it is rare, this BLP probably warrants full protection. Attacks on the subject here on WP have led to multiple revdeleting, and the even talkpage of the article has had to be semiprotected because of BLP violating sockpuppet attacks. Off wikipedia one can also find several retractions of material by individuals and organizations. It also appears that per the report below, Soosim has a significant conflict of interest here. Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd also agree to full protection -- though it's an anomalous action and the underlying problem that has led to it ought to be resolved (perhaps via the section started by Rastiniak below, or perhaps at AE), so that full protection can safely be lifted at some point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so far, about a week since full protection lifted, the edits have been few but constructive. The article is semi- and pending-changes-protected now. I'll keep it on my watch list. If necessary, full protection will return. I won't object if another admin who commented above (Sp1 or Edjohnson) decides to restore full protection, but for now I will hold off on it. ~

talk
) 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DJ Lynnwood

The username is actually "on the fence" of

powwow
) 23:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I've posted
WP:SPI for the IP editor if the evidence is strong enough. --Drm310 (talk
) 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanx, Drm310.
powwow
) 14:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

John Robb (Author)

This article reads like a resume, and John Robb doesn't seem to be a particularly 'noted' author, as far as I can tell. Much of the content is from the "ResilientEditor" user, which resembles his Resilient Communities and Resilient Strategies brands, and the bulk of the remainder is from a single anonymous IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonetblaha (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Qoros

An editor keeps changing the article to add more flattering information about the company. Here the editor claims to be working for Qoros' agency. Valenciano (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

the killgrim

The user is seems to have ownership of this article and not letting other users editing the article. Music80 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that this is more a matter for
WP:ANI - User:Skirisk is repeatedly creating a hoax article. I'll raise the matter there. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 00:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pop_up_canopy

User:Ezupshelters was banned on ~may 31 for being an obvious marketing account, they added marketing like claims to Pop_up_canopy, I reverted the changes. Also on the 31st User:Bellino61 added many of those same claims. I have reverted those additions as they were clearly promotional. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Could also be a case of
WP:SPI if you believe that it's the same person. --Drm310 (talk
) 06:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to clean the article up a bit and will keep working on it. I will also keep it on my watchlist. Happy to take it to
WP:RFPP with you if the spamming continues. Stalwart111
15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks like the issue has resolved itself, but I so have it watchlisted so if further issues occur I will take your suggestions, Thanks Drm310 and Stalwart111 CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Near East University

This editor has registered with his real name. This LinkedIn entry confirms the obvious about his link to the university: he is its Chief Information Officer. Problematic editing consists of excessive use of NEU sources on this and other articles, and creation of multiple separate articles on components of the university (which should be covered, if at all, in the main university article). It is all clearly promotional editing, and I think we would be well served by a restriction to talk pages on any article for which the COI is pertinent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

  • My editings are not promotional, how could you say that? University has 20,000 students (largest university in Cyprus), its the only herbarium in Cyprus, its the only Olympic sized indoor swimming pool in TRNC, its the biggest supercomputer (http://www.top500.org/system/175710) in the region, its the only car museum in Cyprus. I'm also careful my editings, if you please give me specific examples about promotioning I would make corrections. Aekoroglu (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Even your defense serves to promote the subject. LoL. Wikipedia is not a PR tool! Plot Spoiler (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I did not write any thing promotional ! Aekoroglu (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Bytheway I resigned from the university by Tuesday and I'll not edit or add any information about them. For your information.. Aekoroglu (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A few requests

I would like to advertise a few of my COI-related requests here.

  1.  Done I would like to request deletion of the article on Christopher L. Irving. The subject of the article (a PR professional at Publishers Clearing House) is not notable. One of my priorities in supporting the company is to ensure we are acting in a manner more compliant with Wikipedia's policies, so this request is related to cleaning up prior COI editing.
  2. I would like to request consideration of a substantial body of work for the Publishers Clearing House article located at User:CorporateM/Publishers Clearing House. I realize it is difficult to assess such a large body of work at-once, especially where a lot of the material is controversial or negative, but offering a re-write is also the only practical way for me to approach an article where an overhaul is needed. Let me know the best way to proceed.

Appreciate any help in advance. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't delete Christopher L. Irving on request - it will have to be PRODed or taken to Afd.--ukexpat (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I have PRODed it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it would be an A7 speedy delete, but whatever process is preferred is fine. I've marked number 1 as done. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
There are credible claims of importance or significance so it is not an A7 IMO.--ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

With regard to #2, as much as I'd like to help on this, what you're proposing is to replace a fairly long article with another fairly long article. A lot of the content has been changed; some has been moved; the citations are fairly different, etc. Speaking only for myself, I don't have the time to go through the two articles and compare, sentence-by-sentence, what has changed, and then to decide if the change is good or not. And I don't have the inclination to debate with other editors whether what was deleted was important or not, or whether things added to the article were

WP:UNDUE
problems, or whether the reorganization makes sense.

So, more constructively: Since there seems to be other editors interested in this, I suggest you post at the article talk page, inviting them to edit your draft and improve it to the point where they think it's superior to the existing article and (at least as important) no usable source or important issue would be lost if the existing article were overwritten.

Alternatively, you could do this section-by-section: post one proposed section on the article talk page, discuss it, get consensus, change the article, and then take another section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

3.  Done Another request. An article I submitted to AfC a while back on
Qualpro has been marked with an Advert tag. I have asked several editors for feedback on how to address the tag and have implemented every piece of feedback I have received, which were mostly small tweaks. I would like to kindly request someone either remove the tag, address the issues, or provide feedback on how I can address it. Appreciate your time in advance. CorporateM (Talk
) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Maajid Nawaz

Proposed changes to biography section of article that better reflects other sources:

'Maajid Nawaz is co-founder and Chairman of the Quilliam Foundation- a London based think tank focused on the issues of Integration, Citizenship & Identity, Religious Freedom, Extremism, and Immigration. He is also the founder of Khudi, a social movement based in Pakistan that campaigns to create a democratic culture among the youth there. Maajid is a British- Pakistani born in Essex. In his youth, he became heavily involved in a global Islamist group, for which he primarily did work for in the UK , Pakistan, and Egypt. Maajid was arrested in 2002 and spent four years in an Egyptian prison, becoming an Amnesty International “prisoner of conscience.” After his release, he gradually abandoned his Islamist views and resigned from his group in 2007, turning to embrace liberal democratic values. Maajid has become one of the foremost critics of his former Islamist ideology, yet remains a Muslim in faith. His former involvement in the Islamist movement inspired his focus on human rights and individual liberties and in 2008, he co- launched the Quilliam Foundation to promote those values. He works specifically to encourage Western Muslims to find an inclusive identity in their citizenship, while promoting respect for human rights and the protection of civil liberties and fighting extremism. Maajid has spread his message through writing, debating, and acting as a public commentator, as well as speaking on many platforms internationally, from speaking in universities across Pakistan to addressing the U.S. Senate and presenting at a TED conference in Edinburgh. His work has been published in many newspapers including: The London Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, India Times, Dawn Pakistan, and The Guardian, among many others. He has also been profiled by CBS 60 Minutes, Larry King Live, and BBC Newsnight. Maajid’s autobiography ‘RADICAL’ has been released in the UK and is available in most major bookstores. The American version is available for pre- order on Amazon.com. Maajid studied Arabic and Law at SOAS and holds an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics. His personal interests are in Arabic grammar and morphology, Muslim Medieval jurisprudence, scholastics and poetry, and emerging political trends. He speaks English, Arabic, and Urdu. Maajid is a proud father to his young son.'

Hyperlinks are embedded as citations for sources.

A satisfactory discussion has been going on at Talk:Maajid Nawaz#Edit request on 3 June 2013; there doesn't seem to be any reason to discuss the matter here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Danpiedra

User:Danpiedra, who uses his real name as his WP username, appears to use WP solely for the promotion of his employer, the "American Freedom Law Center," and individuals associated with it such as David Yerushalmi. Previously, he used it to promote another employer, the Thomas More Law Center. I've warned him about COI editing, but he continues to remove unfavorable information from, and to insert non-neutral language into, these articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How can information be both unfavorable yet non-neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpiedra (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@
reliable sources
to demonstrate that it is in fact true. Similarly, someone who inserts positive information into an article without an appropriate reliable source to support that is violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.
Much of this is about the choice of words. As the policy I linked to says, "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Introducing myself

Hello, my name is Anna Timms. I am Senior Manager, Social Media, for Johnson Controls.

I am on this noticeboard to introduce myself. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies on conflict of interest and I will not edit any articles related to my employer. Instead, I will limit myself to proposing changes to articles relating to Johnson Controls using Talk Pages.

Please note that a few years ago, before I was aware of these policies, I attempted to make some direct edits to the Johnson Controls article. I am now aware of these policies so will not make any direct edits.

If you have any questions or feedback for me, please let me know. --Anna C Timms (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The critical thing is that this information be posted at the User:Anna C Timms page, and it is so posted. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

National Science Board - COI and POV Question

Hello. I apologize in advance if I'm not in the right place. I created the National Science Board page a few years ago. I was an intern at NSF in the office that serves the National Science Board when I created the article. At the time I asked the Wiki community if this was permissible as I had a conflict of interest (my employer) but there was no article on this US federal government entity. The community advised me to create the page and disclose my conflict on the talk page, which I did.

Since then my edits have focused on keeping the page up-to-date, improving organization and clarity, and other minor things of that sort. However, recently, an anonymous user added a section to the page under the subheading "Controversy" under the major heading "Activities as Policy Advisers to Congress and the President." I have no issues that an editor thought this was an important piece of information to add to the page. The page belongs to the community. My concern is that some of what is written is opinion/non-neutral/point-of-view. There are also a few minor factual errors in the section.

My question for you all is how you think I should handle this? I am still in the employ of the National Science Board and so I have a clear conflict of interest. I'd like to be 100% transparent about that. Minimally, I'd like to correct the few factual errors in the section. Ideally, I think the quality of the page would be improved if the non-neutral content was removed. I have drafted (but not posted anywhere yet) a new version of the "controversy" section that keeps the spirit and intent of the original author, but removes some of the point of view remarks. I could post it here for you to look at and see what you think; I could post it to the talk page and invite commentary; I could just leave the article untouched. Other options?

My main concern is with doing things the right way, being fully transparent, and maintaining the integrity and quality Wikipedia. I defer to your judgement.

(One example of POV: The suggestion that the NSB "hid" the material because they were embarrassed by the results. Certainly some suggested that at the time--see the Science article quoted--but the Wiki page editor seems to make the same suggestion).

Mbwfellow (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This appears based closely on this scienceinsider article from 2010, although it did not cite it. As it doesn't appear in any other reliable sources, I have removed it as undue. In general, you can post this sort of thing on the article talk page and see if you get a response there first. a13ean (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@Mbwfellow: More generally, this flowchart of possible actions might be helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dspuller and NC politics

A user who's name matches Pat McCrory's spokesman has posted a large amount of material promoting some candidates and attacking others. Much of it is low level NPOV violations like this. There may also be image issues at commons. Compounding the issue is that many of the edits are direct copy and paste copyvios (I already filed a CCI). a13ean (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that the last time this user edited was in February, it seems that the main problem would be copyright issues. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Marianna Palka and Good Dick ‎

see this diff , it appears as though Marianna Palka is associated with MorningKnight production company and that company is editing her page. Also reporting to Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@
WP:UAA. I've posted the requisite request in this case, at User talk:MorningKnight. -- John Broughton (♫♫)
00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@John Broughton: It dosn't matter if the account is renamed, the person is still closely associated with the Good Dick and Marianna_Palka and therefore have a conflict of interest. There are two, linked, issues here. First the username is a policy violation as a promotional or group account. The second is conflict of interest that arises by being employed by the company founded by Marianna_Palka and that made the movie Good Dick. From the page on conflict of interest "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest." CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

WP:COI vein. 76.248.151.159 (talk
) 17:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor's user talk page now has a COI warning and a separate posting that s/he should change the username because it currently represents an organization. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Scott L. Klug

Scott Klug edited his own article anonymously: [4] After his edits were reverted because of a conflict of interest, he reprised his edits: [5] 71.139.156.41 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, highly problematical. It would have been one thing if he just added promotional material, but instead he twice (once via IP, once via registered useraccount) removed large chunks of a not-that-big article as he was adding lots of positive (unsourced, relatively trivial) stuff.
Kudos to User:RFD, User:Drm310, and most of all to User:TheRedPenOfDoom for improving the article; I've also done some improving. The article is now about 75% larger than when Mr. Klug started "enhancing" it. Hopefully it will be monitored for a bit to see that editor needs further guidance. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bobby fletcher

  • Articles under the falungong topic area are subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which state that the space is not to be used for as a "soapbox for propaganda or activist editing."
  • Bobby fletcher is a prolific online activist whose two main preoccupations include propagandising against falungong (which is persecuted by the Chinese government) and defending the Chinese government's actions in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He is also very active in seeking to discredit human rights activists who have attached themselves to the Falun Gong cause, specifically on the issue of the Chinese government's alleged organ harvesting.
  • He maintains several personal blogs through which he carries out this activism, and is a regular contributor to comment boards all over the internet on these same subjects
  • His edits to these topics on Wikipedia are an extension of his anti-falungong, pro-Chinese government activism. He edits from a single point of view.
  • News articles have been written exploring Bobby fletcher's online activism against falungong / for the Tiananmen Square massacre. This one is illuminating[6] (It notes that Bobby fletcher is an alternate handle of a man named Charles Liu)
  • One of the most disturbing parts of this article is at the end. There, Canadian human rights lawyer David Matas (who works on the Falungong issue) says that Bobby fletcher/Charles Liu would email the offices of Congressmen and their staff just before Matas was scheduled to meet with them. Matas notes "The only people who would have that information [on the meetings] would potentially be the Chinese government. I can't imagine how Liu would know we were meeting with those people."

In summary, Bobby fletcher interests in editing these articles is to advance his activism. And, to preempt accusations of 'outing', all of this is based on public information which Bobby fletcher has voluntarily disclosed.—Zujine|talk 12:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

My evaluation of Bobby's pattern of editing has been that he is already following COI guidelines by making extensive use of the talk page and deferring to the judgment of other editors, in both areas of interest.
In the case of Falungong articles, nearly everyone jumping down Bobby's throat (Zujine excepted) is a single-purpose pro-Falungong editor with likely undisclosed COIs. The difference is that, there's no counterpart to a Falungong newspaper doxxing you like they did Bobby, because anti-FLG activists simply don't have those kinds of resources.
We can pretty much throw out the Matas accusations without corroborating evidence. FLG's trademark method of discrediting dissenters and defectors is to accuse them of being Chinese spies.
talk
) 20:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Western Standard is now a FG newspaper? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
OK.
An obscure webmagazine was merely "reporting" on the accusations against Bobby by Falungong reporter Shearer from the Falungong-owned Epoch Times newspaper. Totally not sketchy. If Zujine had linked to a Tianya thread in where somebody posted a Sina story that reported on Xinhua information... well that just muddies the waters, doesn't it? We couldn't call it "Chinese state media" after passing through so many filters! Reminds me of how the Soviet Union would plant stories in Indian newspapers about the US spreading AIDS, and then "report" on the Indian report to give itself more credibility.
talk
) 02:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Comments like those above are what muddy the water. The Western Standard is not a falungong magazine, and David Matas is not a falungong practitioner, so it's strange that you would attempt to discredit them on those grounds. Anyway, Bobby fletcher does have a conflict of interest. His anti-falungong activism is well documented, and here we have an independent, reliable source that has raised questions around his affiliations that are relevant to his participation on wikipedia. It is true that he has made use of talk pages, but he has also edited these articles directly and with content that is questionable at best. —Zujine|talk 03:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to refer everyone to this talk message from another editor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Greetings
Also, allow me to elaborate on Falun Gong's principle of forebearance and "De". When people attack me, their De leaves their body and enters mine, which is a blessing. But be warned, spinning the Law Wheel the wrong direction will lead one down the slippery slope of darkness. Thank you this only my personal understanding.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bruce Rauner potential COI

It appears that this account in a single user account solely for creating and maintaining the Bruce Rauner page on wikipedia. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been warned and has not made any edits to the article in question since May 23. I do have concerns about possible sockpuppetry, though, given the more recent IP edits to the article. I'll watchlist it and see what happens. Andrew327 15:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the article a bit. I'm still concerned about the "Philanthropy" section being so long, but I'll leave it to others to reduce it in size, if they so choose. I also think the COI tag/template can come off of the article, but I'll also leave that to someone else to do that, if they agree. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

<redacted>

This thread has been redacted, per

[•]
18:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian Hindi television serial paid editing, COI investigation request

And many more...

We feel paid editing and/or bad kind of CoI is happening in these articles. Editing trends include: a) removing all maintenance templates, b) writing very lengthy plot, every possible details about the show (marketing strategy? since Wikipedia results come at the top of the search result page)
Please see the initial discussion here Tito Dutta (contact) 15:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please give diffs to where this is happening. The usual rule for posting at COIN that you should name the editor who you think has a COI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Mostly IPs.. many IPs.. and there are 10—11 registered accounts too! It is very difficult to make a list without doing a thorough investigation!
223.178.125.32 (talk · contribs)
223.178.121.95 (talk · contribs)
223.230.116.198 (talk · contribs)
223.232.250.187 (talk · contribs)
115.242.171.19 (talk · contribs)
115.241.128.254 (talk · contribs)
223.178.121.95 (talk · contribs)
62.162.213.111 (talk · contribs)
171.77.215.38 (talk · contribs)
106.211.247.160 (talk · contribs)
106.214.88.190 (talk · contribs)
106.212.211.139 (talk · contribs)
Tar89 (talk · contribs)
SachinGautam100 (talk · contribs)
Shashikant23 (talk · contribs)
TheUltimateArabianKnight (talk · contribs)
Yadav eklavya (talk · contribs)
Manu2amaljith (talk · contribs)
Sriram Vikram (talk · contribs
)
Aakash789 (talk · contribs)
Raya n peehu 2001 (talk · contribs)
Uday375 (talk · contribs)
Home2593 (talk · contribs)
Pranita sudarshni (talk · contribs)
Singhatul001 (talk · contribs)
Mazare12 (talk · contribs)
And there may be more.. --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I added 'user' templates to the above entries to allow displaying contributions. It is not likely that all of them could be blocked, so it would be helpful for you to say which ones have removed maintenance templates or references. If you believe any articles need semiprotection, you could mention that. Evidently Pavitra Rishta has recently been semied. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vibhas Kashyap/Archive which concerns Indian TV shows. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Blocking so many accounts might be very difficult. Worse than that the above one is an incomplete list! The request was to perform a CoI/Paid editing investigation, the worst thing might be something like this
    Conflict_of_interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#United_States_Congressional_staffers. I'll ask Psychonaut (the SPI reporter) to check this discussion! --Tito Dutta (contact
    ) 00:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Per Psychonaut, there's little evidence of an organized COI campaign. Rather than blocking accounts, we might be able to justify semiprotection for some articles. Who wants to propose a list? EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to Titodutta for assembling a list. I've semiprotected each article listed for at least two months, unless it was currently semied, with the exception of Parichay (TV series) where all the IP edits appeared to be good. Let me know if there are any more. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I had just been noticing that while the Bollywood/Kollywood/Tollywood film articles have a good core of experienced editors keeping them in shape (or at least able to keep many of them from degenerating too badly), when you look at the history of most of the Indian TV articles, there's nada but IPs, probably most of whom believe that Wikipedia is a place that "anyone can edit" anything in any manner they want. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hope to see few registered editors now. --Tito ↂ Dutta 02:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • See this post --TitoↂDutta 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was recently contacted on my user talk page by an anonymous IP editor who claims that some or all of the awards listed at Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai are fictitious. I have moved the discussion to Talk:Yeh Rishta Kya Kehlata Hai#Hoax awards but I'm noting it here as well in case the problem extends beyond this particular article. Someone with more time should probably find out who inserted these fictitious awards. If they did so to other articles for television shows from the same producers, then that could be evidence of paid editing. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:RCFrancis

User RCFrancis appears to be affiliated with Copper Canyon Press. Almost all edits the user makes are to the press itself or to the pages of poets published by the press. Although some of the user's edits provide useful, neutral biographical information, the user often provides links to where one can buy books from Copper Canyon's website. I tried to engage the editor a week ago [[7]] but received no response, although the user has continued to edit. I'm not used to dealing with COI stuff, so I thought I would come here to find people who know what to do better than I do. Tdslk (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a tough one. I've looked at a number of articles that RCFrancis created (of various poets), and I don't see issues with notability. (Per the user's talk page, less than a dozen articles have been challenged, and only a couple ended up deleted.) While the poets are (mostly?) not major ones, there is at least one Pulitzer Prize winner, and reviews in the NYT of books the press has published - in short, the articles do add value to Wikipedia. The citations are typically limited to naked urls, but they are there. And links to the Copper Canyon website are not in the EL section (if they were, I'd ask WikiProject Spam to hunt them down), but rather occur - in some but not all articles - as a citation. (And yes, I know that this is undesirable, though not absolutely forbidden.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, RCFrancis added several more links to the Copper Canyon website today. I agree that some of the editor's work is acceptable, but a large number of the edits consist of nothing more than after the mention of a book published by the press, adding a citation that just so happens to be the place on Copper Canyon's website where one can buy that book. While technically the citation does prove that the book exists, it strikes me as nakedly commercial and a clear COI. Tdslk (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WSHE-FM

In the article for WSHE-FM there is a user which seems to be doing nothing more than promoting their internet radio station which is named after the previous WSHE-FM's rock format. About 2/5 of the article was devoted to promoting the internet station and which bands it has premiered. This is not the first time the editor has been warned about a conflict of interest. I have deleted the COI section. I have also not said which user it is but it is available in the History section due to the multitude of edits made. This is my 1st report and I don't want to run afoul of the outing policy. If it is OK to name the editor, I will.Stereorock (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

They reverted my edit which I re-reverted. Where do I get the page locked?Stereorock (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I see this has now migrated to
WP:SPI. --Drm310 (talk
) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

International Federation of Cheerleading

Ifc-international (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • It would appear as if the article on the
    WP:NPOV
    in order to push its own points.

155blue (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Belkin555

New York magazine has published an article which contains the claim that Belkin555 is a professional reputation management consultant who has edited his client's wikipedia articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.207.117 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing particularly problematic when looking at
WP:BLP. If someone were to edit a bio to remove some alleged slapping incident in a restaurant then we (generally and with some exceptions) have no problem with that. Of course we get into problems when the scrubbing includes factual and important negative information - BLP is not a blank check to whitewash stuff subjects don't like. Anyway, just musing. Thanks for sharing this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak
17:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The New York article could imply a connection between this editor and the person mentioned. But there's no immediate evidence to link the two together. I haven't examined this editor's history yet, but I would have these questions. Was he or she:
Removing properly sourced, negative coverage or adding positive coverage that is unsourced or from unreliable sources?
Giving undue weight to positive facts and/or downplaying negative ones?
If the edits are whitewashing the articles in that manner, then there may be a basis for further investigation and action. --Drm310 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeing all of 31 edits, 13 in the last 12 months, and the most recent don't seem problematical. Belkin555 actually seems more like the kind of PR editor we do want - includes (good) citations, and posts on article talk pages (for the major work he did on the Joe Ricketts article. There isn't much "there" there, if any at all. (I'm not saying that Belkin555 has no sock puppets, just that this particular account looks okay to me.)
One of the interesting things about the New York magazine article is that it has a lot of (unfavorable) information about Metal Rabbit Media (a PR firm) and its owner, Bryce Tom, who (it turns out) has a Wikipedia account: User:Brycetom. (That account hasn't been active since October 2011.) Here's part of what Metal Rabbit Media says about its reputation management services:
"Metal Rabbit Media has built a top-tier Wikipedia practice with a trusted track record of high profile edits. Having amassed a long history of engagement within the fickle Wikipedia community, we possess first-hand knowledge and expertise. Our Wikipedia services include content development, profile management, profile monitoring, and conflict resolution." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
From what I see of User:Brycetom's edits, he disclosed potential COIs, frequently used talk pages and had a user talk page with no warnings or concerns from other editors. I won't comment on his business activities in the New York article, but his conduct here seems beyond reproach.
I think it's fair to say we can close this discussion. No COI happening here. --Drm310 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Since when did COI require a track record of improper editing? I thought the whole point of this noticeboard was to identify COIs so that other editors could apply appropriate scrutiny to COI editing. --

talk
) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry... I should have said no problematic COI happening in this case. Yes, the purpose of this noticeboard is as you mentioned... and it worked. Scrutiny was applied to an editor with an apparent COI, his edits were determined to be in good faith and following COI guidelines. Positive outcome. --Drm310 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No, I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to identify COIs so that other editors (who don't frequent this page) can apply appropriate scrutiny to COI editing on an ongoing basis. If the consensus is that the editor has a COI, problematic at this point or not, then per
talk
) 17:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

List of UFO-related hoaxes

I'm asking for a bit of assistance here at the direction of Huon (thanks btw Huon!). I am not an authority on the material in the article, but I've done a bit of reading and it looks like the entire section is an opinion piece by a well named source tied to the case. The author willingly states his name in the talk page. However he is vehemently opposed to incorporate other points of view to make the article NPOV (reply, diff). I am at a loss of how to reply to the author because he seems to think I am someone else? Also the underlying proposition that the event is a hoax seems to be actively contested (ex. 1, 2) There's also a lot of ad hom's that get thrown back and forth. Frankly I am not sure how to fix it because I don't see how anything in the story is verifiable (there are numerous primary source interviews but each of the vested parties niggles over interpretation). I also see no reputable 3rd party sources. Should the section just be deleted? At this point I'd rather not get involved any further. The threatening replies kind of creep me out. However I felt someone should be notified. —Xtraeme (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

the only two reliably published sources do not call anything a hoax. i have removed the whole section. no comment on any potential COI or actions that should be taken if there is one.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lyle Goodhue

In a new article on Lyle Goodhue, the article was created by User:Jackson Goodhue, and almost all of the edits to the article were made by Jackson Goodhue. It's fairly obvious that Jackson Goodhue is a relative of Lyle Goodhue. It violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy to write an article about a relative. 64.149.37.177 (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No, it doesn't. In a perfect world it might be better if someone else had written the article, and the article could use some editing for consistency with our content guidelines, but there are very few things the COI policy forbids, and writing a biographical piece about an ancestor is not one of them, especially not when it includes 30+ sources. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Warner Norton Grubb III

Would appreciate further opinion; account may have COI issues, as suggested by name and some of the content of this most recent article. On balance this appears to be a good contributor, but I'm wondering if proximity to the subject is a concern. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's always a concern, but I think the good (in this case, a good start to an article) significantly outweighs the bad (lack of truly good citations; that the individual isn't notable enough for someone else to have written the article). I've done some article cleanup, and encouraged the editor to add more (reliable) sources, even if only on the article talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not tied to the COI template I added to the article--if it seems excessive or unwarranted please remove it. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I think, given my edits and the current tone of the article, that it does seem right to take down the template, so I've done that. But I still remain concerned about the sources, so I've left that top template as is, in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

TaylorLikesDogs93 and Ironshorepost

Users' only purpose is to push for the creation of a promotional Ironshore article. Appears to be an individual user using differently-named accounts as a thin disguise of COI nature. LukeSurl t c 14:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! awkward... but just trying to create a post... my other account got messed up so i tried to delete it and it didn't work. No one at wikipedia is helping me so i made a new account... can anyone help me? i'm not tech savvy and i don't get this website at all. help. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.219.244 (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The company (Ironshore) is notable - it's a big company. Wikipedia should have an article about that company, and I think we should try to help get this submission (post) to be acceptable.
So, some advice: (1) Edit the first attempt, not the second (anyone can edit either; I've done a fair amount of cleanup on first, and editors at AFC have said that they will ignore the second. (2) Take a look at
WP:CORP. (7) Look at similar articles to get ideas - in particular, look at pages at Category:Reinsurance companies. (Some of those won't be very good; generally the more footnotes, the better, and the longer, the better, but there are exceptions.) -- John Broughton (♫♫)
22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

QRpedia

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) lists himself as a "team member" of QRpedia on his LinkedIn page. He also undertakes paid contract work on QRpedia projects. He has been asked to stop directly editing QRpedia, but persists. What can be done in such a case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This series of edits seems problematical. [8][9][10][11]. They're removal of well-sourced and pertinent critical stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The first was not in the cited source; when it was restored with the correct source, I left it there. The other three included claims not in the sources given, mostly also being BLP violations, each discussed on the talk page. In the comment here which you recently self-reverted you asked "Is he misrepresenting sources, biasing the article,
WP:OWNing, or breaking any other policies or guidelines?". The answer is "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you about 1. 2, though, was what the source said, and pertinent. Your claim that COATRACK or BLP applied was wrong. Three was 2 again with the added wrong claim that the trustee resigned over the ownership of QRpedia. Again, reverting the claim contained in 2 was not warranted, however you were right to revert the resignation claim. 4, on reflection, is well-justified by you on the talk page, and I've proposed wording for that on the talk page. So, my only problem is the Bamkin content you reverted on BLP and COATRACK grounds. I don't think that's egregious. That you were over-cautious on a BLP issue isn't a problem IMO.
So, what's the problem DC? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
In February, Mabbett deleted a sourced statement with the edit summary of "Not in cited source; WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP". None of these was true. The material removed accurately reflected the source and was not a violation of
WP:COATRACK means). Mabbett was asked by another user to avoid editing the article and take any issues to ANI. He has ignored this advice. The most recent revert follows the same pattern. Removing what he probably sees as negative information he removed a statement which accurately recounted what a source said. I still have not been able to understand what part of the statement he dislikes, but it is not clear why he did not reword it instead of removing it. I have had little success getting sense out of Mabbett in the past, so I would prefer to hand this off to someone with more experience in dealing with tendentious COI editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk
) 22:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I addressed your first link above - my third link [18]. I agree the Bamkin stuff was not COATRACK or BLP, but I'm always willing to grant a lot of slack to people who have BLP concerns. The second part of that edit was factually wrong. The source did not say the dispute over ownership of QRpedia led to the resignation of Joscelyn Upendrian.
Andy had DUE concerns with regard to your second diff, (my fourth diff). Since it became clear on the talk page that consensus supported mention of the separate company, he's respected that consensus - just making a minor accuracy tweak that I suggested. I agree with his wish to include WMUK's sanguine attitude toward the prospect of litigation, and have modified the entry accordingly. So far, DC, I don't see a problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

A person exists (i.e. BLP applies), by the name of

Alexander Montagu. He is the son and heir of the deceased Angus Montagu, 12th Duke of Manchester
. This much is uncontroversial.

He may, or may not, be the 13th Duke of Manchester. This is controversial. He is recognised as such by some sources (Debrett's, Burke's, Who's Who, The Telegraph), but does not appear on the 2004 Roll of the Peerage. It is alleged that he has chosen to not be recognised as the duke. His precise intermediate status is thus unknown to me. He denies this title at times, but has also used it himself.

(Disputed BLP material courtesy blanked. Available in page history if needed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

The Afd article is ostensibly about notability. Personally I consider that he is, because dukes (a very senior rank in the British peerage) and their heirs apparent are (IMHO) implicitly notable. Even if they were to renounce the title.

Why is this raised here? Wikipediocracy. This thread is raised by someone claiming to be Alexander Montagu, and the other two main contributors to that thread are the WP editors raising this AfD, and being the most vociferous in calling for its deletion. Clearly this is an embarrassing article to have to your name (even in its current truncated form - looking at its history can be illuminating too), but are we reduced to now deleting BLPs on demand, if they are first canvassed through Wikipediocracy? I see this as a substantial COI and a very bad precedent to set for BLPs in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, calling Wikipediocracy a "hate site" isn't very polite is it? --
Hillbillyholiday
I am a "trustee" at Wikipediocracy which means... well, I'm somewhat involved in editorial decisions there. "Orangmike" writes: "Any site which permits Greg Kohs to participate is obviously bound to be branded a hate site." That is a vicious slander, something presumably against Wikipedia's "rules." I don't always see eye-to-eye with Mr. Kohs, but he is not a purveyor of "hate," nor am I a member/trustee of a hate site. You've not only directly slandered Kohs, but indirectly slandered dozens of people, me among them.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
"A hate site"? Well I certainly don't appreciate being described as "a nasty little scumbag" by you. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
It's like the good book says kiddo: You shall know them by their fruits.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is an element of confusion here concerning policy. I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that suggests that mere membership of a forum constitutes a COI. There may possibly have been off-Wikipedia canvassing going on (I don't know one way or another), but that isn't in itself evidence that the guideline was breached. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nayef Al-Rodhan

This article seems to be written by someone close to the topic, probably the subject himself, in order to publicize or self-aggrandize. To the best of my knowledge, and speaking as a graduate student of international relations, this subject does not warrant the prominence it is currently given on Wikipedia, and as such, threatens to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Akafd76 03:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv Solution

I've helped Proactiv put together some content for consideration by Wikipedia's editors at:

Talk:Proactiv_Solution#Second_draft
, which implements some feedback SmartSE had on the first draft in February. Smart is now busy IRL, so I thought I would advertise the request here.

The proposed article would change an 8-cite, 3 paragraph stub into a 40+ cite article that may be getting close to a GA, including expanding and adding several controversies and criticisms. I appreciate your time in advance in considering our content. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would point out that one of the first Google hits on "practiv" is this article on Slate, which in turn leads to this piece from Jezebel. I'm not familiar with this product and I've never used it (thankfully I guess) but I do remember family members not being very happy with it. My anecdotal recollections aside, I think there are some obvious negative coverage about the effectiveness of the product and how the company operates (inappropriately billing people's credit cards and so on), and you seem to be missing a lot of it. These articles might not be appropriate, but as my grandpappy used to say, where there's fire there's smoke. I'm sure others can be found. I'd definitely look for some that in any proposed draft. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The draft does contain criticisms that the product is more expensive, but equally as effective as over-the-counter products. I did a quick Google News search for articles containing the keywords "billing" "proactiv" and "Acne" and didn't turn up anything in terms of appropriate sources, but if you turn anything up, let me know (or just put it in). CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, here it is (I think). This did sound somewhat familiar and I culled through Talk and realized SmartSE had pointed it out with a source. The issue being that once you order, it's on a subscription, and they will keep charging and shipping product until the subscription is cancelled. I have added it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I posted the draft to the Proactiv Solution. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

More eyes at Care Net

I would appreciate more eyes at our article on Care Net. A single-purpose account has recently overhauled the article in order to promote the organization (abuse of SPS, misrepresentation of proper sources with the aim of censoring unfavorable information, etc.) I think it's possible that the user may be financially affiliated with the organization, but either way, these promotional edits need to be reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Review and Assistance: Chevron Corporation Page- Section 6.4

Hello everyone – My name is Justin (I work for Chevron) and over the last few years I have been openly and constructively working to update the Chevron Corporation page. Recently, I have reached an impasse over my proposed changes to a particularly outdated and biased section of the page – a section about a lawsuit in Ecuador. As you'll see by my long history of transparent and facutal proposals, I have been working with editors in good faith to update the section and, in doing so, have proposed several factual revisions based on independent third-party sources. User:Chevron_justinh/sandbox I have worked to ensure that my suggestions match the Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. However, the process is currently at an impasse after User:Coretheapple has failed to provide constructive feedback or propose alternative content for the section. This lack of constructive feedback leaves the section outdated and inaccurate and appears to have deterred other editors from working on the section in question. I am reaching out to this board in the hopes that one or more editors can review the discussion, recommendations, and ultimately work to update the accuracy of the section. Thank you for your time Chevron justinh (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Putting aside from a moment that this request does not belong here:
This editor, who is a Chevron employee, has proposed text for the article in his sandbox[12]. No editor has seen fit to insert these changes into the article. At this point in time, the majority of the Chevron talk page consists of requests from the company and responses. As I explained on the Chevron talk page, I believe that Chevron should not be drafting article text for Wikipedia. I think that this is especially true for sensitive issues such as this, in which Chevron is a litigant. As a general proposition, companies involved in litigation, in my view, should not become involved in drafting text describing the litigation. However, there is nothing to prevent editors from doing what Chevron wants it to do in this instance. Volunteer editors failure to do so is not an "impasse" but rather, I suspect, a tacit rejection of Chevron's request. For Chevron to complain that its wishes aren't being fulfilled, and to do so on the COI noticeboard (as opposed to, say, the energy wikiproject) is really amazing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
For content disputes please use
talk
) 05:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

More eyes and editors needed at Sathya Sai Baba movement

I am a former follower of this movement and I think I am the only one who made many significant contributions to this article. I plan to use a scholarly book that also describes former followers. This book 'Winged Faith' by Tulasi Srinivas is in my opinion and in the opinion of other (former) devotees marred by quite a lot of factual errors. Ironically the author writes that (former) devotees have an near-obsession for factual accuracy. Please note that current devotees and former devotees only very rarely agree about things, so if they agree about something then this is quite remarkable. The book was well received in academic circles. Articles related to this subject were twice in arbitration and if you contribute then you may get topic banned by any admin without prior warning. Andries (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I propose to use this book in spite of the factual errors is that it describes the internet dynamics and some aspects of the
Sathya Sai Organization (secrecy) that have not been published elsewhere. Andries (talk
) 09:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Philip N. Diehl

User has acknowledged at Talk:Philip N. Diehl that they are editing on behalf of the subject.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest as stated before. If you read the page it is not bias. It simply is the history of Mr. Diehl’s service and career. There were inaccurate statements on the page and I am simply helping to bring the page current. I have recived information JUST TO CORRECT WHAT WAS NOT NEEDED and to make the page more current. Mickeyp2814
There definitely is a conflict of interest. Mickey should read
WP:OWN until he understands why a statement like "Please do not make changes to Mr Diehl's page. It is in the process of revision per his staff. If you have remarks please add them here for review" (3 July 2013) is against our rules. "Bias" can depend on your point of view, we'd prefer multiple independent points of view weighted by their prominence in the sources, rather than Diehl's pov. Diehl may be a great PR guy, but we don't want PR in the article. If you see what you consider to be inaccuracy, please note them on the article's talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk
) 18:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Fairleigh Dickinson University

First let me say that I'm not a fan of the noticeboards; I consider administrative action as a last resort.

I've made sporadic edits to

PPACA, where Mfuzia engaged in more edit-warring to add the same material. I warned him that his behavior may be sanctionable here
.

Meanwhile, I did some research and determined, through publicly available offsite information, that Mfuzia is an employee of FDU and is specifically tasked with working with its public relations department to maintain the

WP:DE
.

I initiated a discussion with Mfuzia over his COI that started

WP:ANI
but I'd prefer to go the low-key route.

Mfuzia has repeatedly asked me for evidence of his COI, but for me to produce it I'd have to reveal his identity, which could be seen as

talk
) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that your new found obsession with me and my edits is far over the top, and also, you are incorrect on many counts. I did not partake in edit warring with you (I re-added something you deleted before knowing your justification, and upon it being justified I left it alone, for that I was mistaken); your requests have not been polite, and I can provide evidence of your threatening and condescending attitude. Also, I am not an employee of Fairleigh Dickinson University, and the pretentious air with which you write makes clear you do not contain the ability to accept a mistake on your part. I have retained a very polite nature in our conversation, however, your aggressive, obsessive attitude has made me quite uncomfortable, and I would appreciate if you would cease your actions that put me at the center of your attention. I am a student at Fairleigh Dickinson University, but I am not a school employee; I am the equivalent of a football fan writing on his favorite teams page. If you could be so kind as to leave me alone and stop searching for my personal information, however public it may be, I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfuzia (talk • contribs) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) I encourage both of you to keep cool heads about this situation. Is there specific content over which you two disagree? If so, you can request a third opinion or RFC. Nstrauss, remember that tone is important, and messages like this one do not assume good faith. Mfuzia, I'm glad that you are enthusiastic about your alma mater (as I am about mine), but some of the content that you have added to pages strikes a promotional tone and focuses too much on details. Would you be willing to discuss large changes to FDU's Wikipedia article on its talk page before implementing them? That would be a temporary measure to help you better understand writing in encyclopedic tone.Andrew327 20:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Andrewman327, I'm not sure how the edit you point to violates
WP:BRD works. I had also just accused
him of the COI and I was afraid he was behaving in reaction to that. But, no matter. I think I've handled this appropriately so far -- and if I haven't, I certainly apologize.
In addition I don't think this dispute can be resolved through
talk
) 23:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to your tone, not the warning itself. I propose that the editor in question should suggest changes to the Wikipedia page for which you propose he has a COI, and I believe that that should be extended to all of the pages you name. It would be a voluntary solution that would settle the potential COI problems without having to out anybody. Andrew327 01:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
That would be necessary but not sufficient. Mfuzia's COI must be prominently disclosed on both his user page and on the FDU talk page. --
talk
) 05:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
And I believe a {{COI}} tag on the FDU article page is appropriate as well. --
talk
) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To uphold the

WP:OUTING policy, I see little choice but that you privately contact a Wikipedia administrator. --Drm310 (talk
) 20:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mfuzia, please stop the personal attacks. Please read
talk
) 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break 1

  • COI is judged by the results. The additions of reference to the university's PublicMind survey research center at [13] was done inappropriately. The study was published by 2 individual authors in a non-FDU journal, and the authority is derived from the journal, not the center. (If the center is notable, it can best be shown by trying to write a WP article about it--this is a practical way to establish any source.) The name of the center is highlighted, complete with a ™ symbol. One of the authors is linked to his home p., in a manner that might imply he is notable enough for a WP article, but there is no such article. The entire section is added in the wrong place, under "academic commentary" -- but it is not academic commentary about the decision, but a report of public views about it. I have not yet examined the other examples. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
At [14], a similar section is added. It is added as abov e, except in a new subsection "Public opinion summary" , which is appropriate, but it should not be the only such summary used--and that subsection is still put in "Academic Commentary" where it does not belong.
In [15] similarly, except special emphasis is given to the fact that the people are at FDU, including a book one of them has written and the center is mentioned in the edit summary.
At [16], the section was added a year ago by User:Crcorrea, in exactly the same wording and manner as the other sections. that editor also has almost exclusively worked on FDU, and in adding almost identically organized sections to other articles on a range of subjects of public interest: [17], [18], [19],[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. I assume this is the same editor, so besides COI, we have sockpuppettry.
There's also some minor edit warring over style, such as using capitalized words in headings, which is not our usual style, and revert the removal of capitals.
This reminds me of situations involving other universities, where obviously and blatantly promotional editors insisted they were only alumni or students. In all cases, they may be right, but it doesn't matter. Most of our material on colleges is added by students or alumni, as is to be expected --I have added material myself to the ones I have attended. Some of it is good, some of it is inappropriate. When it is inappropriate, we can call it COI, but the real problem is the inappropriateness. (there's no point in even declaring the COI, because about 95% of content on these subjects is added by people with some degree of COI--there are a few editors such as myself interested in university articles generally, but most people very reasonably edit on the ones they know.) When it is a paid staff member, then we assume the COI is so great as to make it likely that the material is inappropriate, and that is almost always the case.
I am prepared to block both editors for an extended period, and review critically the material. (Much of it can be used, though all of it needs to be reworded to decrease the promotional emphasis) I shall do so unless some other admin objects. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Issuing blocks sounds reasonable, but it is best if you will first explain on their talk pages what the concern is. Then if you get no appropriate response, go ahead with the blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
DGG, thank you very much for your diligent response. Wow, I had no idea about Crcorrea, great find. I have two conflicting reactions to your proposal, however:
  1. Even if Mfuzia's edits were appropriate, I don't think one can explain them away as those made by an enthusiastic student. That's certainly the position Mfuzia is taking in this dispute, but there's pretty conclusive offsite evidence that he's working for FDU's public relations department and not just a student. As such
    WP:NOPAY
    certainly applies.
  2. If your decision for a long-term block is based on sockpuppetry, this seems like possible overreach to me. If I had to guess I'd say Mfuzia probably took over Crcorrea's rule on FDU's public relations team. That doesn't seem like sockpuppetry. On the other hand the similarity in the PublicMind language suggests that the true strings are being pulled by their boss, who probably supplied them both with the same language. I don't know if that violates any rules. Is there anything wrong with teams of editors working together? If not then a public declaration of both editors' COI seems like the remedy that best fits the policy. --
    talk
    ) 22:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
My own guess is that if they are two people, that one simply copied the other. But if they are different people, it's meatpupettry, which we deal with the same way as sockpuppettry. (If their boss is the master, we can't block him unless he tries to edit here.) But I wouldn't be blocking chiefly for that, but for primarily promotional editing. I was thinking of 6 months; if it were purely promotional editing, we usually block indefinitely. And in general, I continue to think with respect to COI that our proper concern is the editing, not the person doing it. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I've wondered what meatpuppetry was. Thanks for illuminating. --
talk
) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Section break 2

I would just like to start by saying that although

Nstrauss seems determined to acquire as his obsessive nature about this matter has made me quite uncomfortable. I have already apologized for my "edit warring"; I am not extremely well versed in Wikipedia relations so I just assumed that my posts were being removed without just cause, and upon it being made clear to me that their was reason for their deletion, I ceased posting them. I understand that things I posted may have been a off-topic or not relevant, and if I am mistaken in posting I can accept that. I have no desire to be a part of a Wiki conflict, I just want to continue expanding information and my own knowledge. If it is completely vital, in the future I will make use of the talk page on Fairleigh Dickinson University before making major edits, to avoid any conflicts of interest. I appreciate the opportunity to express myself, and if their are any further questions I will continue to answer them honestly as I have been this entire time. Matthew Fuzia (talk
) 16:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are no continuing problems, there's no need to block. And as I said, I judge by what people do, not by who they are. Our continuing problem at COI is to reconcile our need to deal with it, with our need for anonymity. Whatever the future may bring, I see no need for eliminating anonymity, and therefore nobody should ever be pressed to declare their identity, even if it looks like a tempting shortcut. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you saying you've changed your mind on the block? --
talk
) 04:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR. In fact, Mfuzia has not posted at all to Talk:Fairleigh Dickinson University in 2013. His inappropriate editing of the FDU article (as noted above by User:DGG at #Section break 1 is still there. In my opinion, if Mfuzia will agree to take a complete break from all FDU-related edits he can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk
) 16:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I support this. If it were possible to impose an FDU-related
talk
) 16:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss as much as we have butted heads on here, I do appreciate your compliments of my writing ability, sincerely. Matthew Fuzia (talk
) 19:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So where do we stand? --

talk
) 22:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_64&oldid=1138419025"