Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 83

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Latin Mass Society of England and Wales

WP:COI policies this editor is still continuing to edit the article. Afterwriting (talk
) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to out myself as the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society. I have updated some factual aspects of the page, added some historical material, and added citations. Please note I am unpaid and most of the material relates to a time before I was born. There should be nothing controversial about my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Thanks for your honesty. I suggest that you should not make any further edits to the article at present and instead wait for responses and discussion by other editors on whether or not your editing of it is a clear violation of COI principles. Afterwriting (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice job everybody involved. New editors with a COI often don't understand that they are harming Wikipedia, and Afterwriting, you did a nice job escalating to the point where Dr Joseph Shaw realized there was a problem. Thanks Dr Joseph Shaw for disclosing your COI.
  • Afterwriting, I'd suggest you review those content changes and take out any promotional content, and anything unsourced, and keep what is good (the sources, if they are useable). Once you have reviewed Dr. Shaw's contributions for NPOV and VERIFY, please remove the COI tag and make a note on the article Talk page that you have reviewed the article.
everybody good with that? (note, I am not an admin, but i work here a lot) Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Poerner Engineering

Poerner Engineering and a page about one of the company's products, Biturox process‎, are the subject of heavily promotional editing by single-purpose editors. ChemNerd (talk
) 13:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

David Laventhol

Resolved
 – Taken care of/nothing left to do. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I am closely related to the subject, a newspaper publisher (LA Times, Newsday) and editor, who has just died. He is clearly notable, and there were existing red links, so I created the article from the many recent obituaries, asked for some criticism on the help chat, and created the page. Declarations of closeness are on the article talk page and my own user page, so it's fully transparent. Adding it here per

WP:COIDEC. Not intending to do much further with the article; trusting the many wiki editors. Regards all. Jonathan Laventhol (talk
) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nature's Harmony Farm

talk
) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I documented my reasons for making that change. I have no conflict of interest, but found the assertion regarding founders to be an assumption rather than fact. As stated, I have searched Georgia Corporate Records and the business website to no avail. - 99.196.157.76 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
talk
) 02:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Daniel K. Inouye College of Pharmacy

Resolved

Editor has disclosed a COI - she works at the college, but is ignoring efforts to get her to stop directly editing the article. Copyvio too. Article has been tagged; is currently partially blanked with a copyvio notice. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Jytdog. It seems that user Lauralibal, after very properly and clearly declaring her COI, has nevertheless painted herself into a corner for now; I don't regard that as a success on my part. The problems are not limited to the pharmacy college but extend to the article on the university as well; there are at least two other connected editors, which I've added above. Between them they've done us a service, however - as a result of their antics a particularly egregious copyvio from 2010 has come to light, which has led to the discovery of several more by the same user. Every cloud ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Viresh Pratap Chaudhry

A recent editor who shares a name with the subject has turned this article into a memorial. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironholds has reverted. I have dropped a note on the editor's page. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC).

Lajosgents

User history and overly promotional tone of his/her creations (example) strongly suggest COI editing. Asked user Lajosgents directly if they were working for hire. Several suspicious

talk
) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Starting to think there's a sockfarm at work here on related jewelry and diamond business articles. Added above. -

talk
) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

this was archived - i just pulled it back out after
Brianhe called my attention to that on my talk page. Jytdog (talk
) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Does this need anything else from me? —
talk
) 23:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with minor spam

Any opinions on how minor spam/promotions should be handled? For example, Special:Contributions/108.6.8.18 and Special:Contributions/206.71.226.12 show a handful of edits, each of which is to add information about a publisher and their current or forthcoming books. The result is junk like "to be published in September 2015 by Seven Stories Press" at the end of the lead at Danny Schechter, and the link spam at Lee Stringer#External links. Should we even bother trying to combat such promotions any more? Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any spam. Just addition of unsourced info. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That might be pushing
WP:AGF a little far because every edit is to publicize a particular publisher. I gave two examples of inappropriate edits, and it would be very time consuming to engage users like this in a discussion about the merits of using Wikipedia to promote a company's products. Quite a lot of this kind of product-placement editing occurs, and it's hard to know how to handle it. Johnuniq (talk
) 11:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Heh. Well. What I'm saying is that I would make those edits myself if I had reliable sources for them. (In fact if I had that kind of time I would go and either find those sources or revert those edits as unsourced.) BUT. The second IP especially seems to be on a mission to make sure this publisher is mentioned in several articles, I think that kind of behavior qualifies as
WP:SPAM
("Spam is the inappropriate addition of ... information to Wikipedia with the purpose of promoting an outside organization..."). I can't think of a user warning template that would be appropriate to use on these IPs so I guess we're just going to have to type up an original warning just for them (including info about spamming/COI editing and adding unsourced content). After they've been warned we can see a bit better what the situation is.
So, to answer your first question, I think that's how this kind of editors should be handled: warn them and see what happens. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That's definitely
bookspam as the main purpose is to promote the books, especially when the edits are in the lead. Ssintern (talk · contribs) and Intern7stories (talk · contribs) give the appearance that interns at the publisher are encouraged to edit WP, which may explain these edits. SmartSE (talk
) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Dare to eat a peach (talk · contribs), EBGraber (talk · contribs), Topknot2 (talk · contribs), SevenStoried (talk · contribs) and Sevenstoryist (talk · contribs) also look suspicious. Whether they're aware of COI or doing this in good faith, this is a concerted effort to add mentions of their books to articles over many years. SmartSE (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the edits I've seen, they typically add info like "this author will publish book Y via publisher Z", in an article about an author this is very relevant information. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the primary purpose is to promote their books, rather than improve articles, hence why it is a COI/spam issue. Some edits are ok, but the vast majority are not. SmartSE (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
there are several problems with the work they are doing:
1/it is not always clear that the author is in fact notable. For the representative of a publisher to start a page on one of their authors in mainspace is improper COI
2/it is not always clear the the book is important enough to be covered in text, rather than just listed in the author's Bibliography section
3/the book should be sourced to WorldCat or LC or a similar site, not the publisher's site, which is as bad as sourcing the information to Amazon.
4/the material is often overlinked, the name of the publisher should be linked, but only once an article.
5/some edits from various places have added a link to the publisher's site as an EL, often to a sample chapter. This is a violation of EL policy.
6/this rarely happens with fiction, but in other subject for the publisher to add a the book to the article on the subject the book covers is improper--they must suggest it on the talk page.
7/Of course, adding a page about the book is wrong; adding simultaneously a page for a new author and their first book is imo always promotional.
8/forthcoming books are like forthcoming films--they need to be actually written and the book under production, and there needs to be a good source. Of course, for a famous author there may be 3rd party RS even beforehand, but the publisher or the author is not a RS that they are in the process of writing a book. A great many people are in the process of writing their next book,; not all of them will get published, or even finished. I normally remove all unsourced mentions of forthcoming books from articles on authors--after first checking in WorldCat that the book is not by some chance actually published.
But it is never wrong to explain to the user why what they are doing is wrong--it's not all that time consumer because the same message can be used repeatedly, and we owe every user even those who do not understand WP the courtesy. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biotecnika Magazine

Resolved
 – blocked Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen

As the user has not edited any page except their own user page, there is no COI, and thus nothing for this board. I have flagged the user name concerns to the proper location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address (film)

Resolved
 – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the edits at the page are being done by a username that matches that of a director of the film. He is adding unsourced information, including on tie-in products. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

yep. removed all the unsourced junk. went looking for sources and didn't find much. i put it up for speedy delete promo. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
and it was speedy deleted -- see here. That was actually the 2nd time it had been created and then speedied. The COI problem has not really been addressed as the creator never talked to us, but problem solved for now. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was trying to be gentle with him, but things had gone on for long enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for bringing this, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi

Resolved
 – article cleaned; additional eyes on it if the hoards return. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi is a gentleman of many accomplishments. The descriptions of these have over the years been contributed, at considerable length, by near-SPAs Kitabparast and Sarfniazi; and by SPAs Andrewbourgoin, Jachurd, Jachurd2 and Skniazi.

The OTRS notice on the talk page is evidence of the biographee's hand in his article. (I'm not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no idea of what was communicated.)

It's splendid that those in the know can offer readers so much; but I think that much of the material in this article is prolix, hagiographic and unsuitable. However, removals of such material are reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's an impressive resume, but a rubbish encyclopedia article. I'll get my hedge-trimmer out and see what happens next. More eyes would probably not go amiss. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It turned out that a great deal of the content was copied from his personal website. I've removed the worst content, but more unsourced content remains. Given the multiple SPAs that have edited it recently, I'll start an SPI as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts and after some googling, it seems much more likely to be meatpuppetry rather than socking and it is so obvious that SPI is unneccesary. Blocks will be needed if they persist though. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your good work. ¶ Yes, there's one obvious meatperson. As for the others, it wouldn't surprise me if they were all socks of each other. But if they were, so what? As long as they don't support each other in arguments, evade blocks, or similar, they'd be doing nothing wrong. It's not obvious to me that an SPI is called for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I worked this over this morning. interesting guy. sorry if i stepped on your toes there, Smartse - we started going at it at the same time. all clean and sourced now. no puffery or unsourced left, i think. but yeah we should watch out for the pufferiers to come back. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the help Jytdog! SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Good work, chaps -- but please see the talk page, and comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Chu

Recent expansion of biographical article, into a format that looks a bit like a campaign brochure--not every accomplishment here merits encyclopedic mention, nor do we need this many photo ops. Beyond that, now requires removal of a lot of external links. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the excessive images on the page. You are right–the page read like a brochure just by the overwhelming amount of pictures alone. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted their edits as they were clearly promotional and unsourced - the previous version was much better. If they visit this thread, they're strongly advised to follow
WP:BESTCOI. SmartSE (talk
) 11:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Castle Rock, Colorado

An editor is continuously removing an article section critical of the town of Castle Rock, Colorado. The editor has claimed to represent the town, but has failed to disclose any paid editing or COI despite being warned to. Attempts to address the editors concerns with a lack of neutrality in the article have been met with violations of

WP:3RR and removal of the information citing "inaccuracy" despite the information being based upon reliable news reports. Winner 42 Talk to me!
20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, removing content simply because it makes the place look bad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so this is not okay. Joseph2302 (talk
) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please understand this has nothing to do with making the place look bad. My concern is singling out one specific event. There are various stories about Castle Rock that can be sited from news sources. I have no problem including this event if other news stories are also included. Listing only one event makes this article biased by nature. My hope is that we can come to a mutual agreement. talk to me! 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI? If so, you must follow the guidance there. Widefox; talk
10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
User:MelanieN is right - the talk page is the right venue to discuss and reach consensus once any COI has or has not been declared. Widefox; talk 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

John Basedow

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Warnings given [12] [13] etc but no attempt from editor to engage in dialogue, continues to

WP:OWN article and talk page. Widefox; talk
09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Smartse Laddypat has removed tags and AfD [14] after final warning given. Widefox; talk 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm involved now, so I've asked at ANI for someone else to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. I should have used ANI, I filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29. Widefox; talk 13:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Can close. Widefox; talk 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There was a puzzling amount of forum shopping. It is much easier to discuss an article at one noticeboard at a time. As Laddypat (talk · contribs) is now blocked, we can add the article to our watchlists, and continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See
WP:FORUMSHOP. I raised editor / COI here, another editor raised article deletion at AfD. The AfD will be closed as delete and the article and talk deleted. Widefox; talk
10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Owned article for 7 years?

Of general COI note...how we can have such a poor indef semi-protected (BLP) article,

WP:SPA with minor edits since 2008? Seven years! Several editors have remarked about the state of the article at Talk:John Basedow but for years their comments were just removed. Widefox; talk
09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This happens quite easily I think: a low traffic article has few people watching it. I am a little disappointed the recent changes patrol didn't notice the edit wars were part of a pattern, nor the talk page vandalism. It leads to a bad experience all round. What can we do to improve that? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the talk page vandalism (and marking edits as minor). A BLP too. Seems noteworthy. Widefox; talk 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There are probably thousands of articles like this unfortunately. Even articles that are tagged with {{
coi}} or {{autobiography}} can go years before they are cleaned up. Look at Marjan Šetinc for example, tagged as an autobiography for 7 years with no substantial changes! SmartSE (talk
) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Marjan Šetinc is a former MP, so IIRC inherently notable. Another example? I was thinking more with an aggressive owner removing talk. All the red lights flashing but nobody batting an eyelid. Widefox; talk 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Nossiter

The user has claimed to be Jonathan Nossiter's assistant here. Despite discussion on their talkpage, they continue to make edits which break

WP:MOS, and add in POV content. Joseph2302 (talk
) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I've tagged the talk page of the article accordingly and left some explanation there, including the Terms of Use requirement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I love the username. must not be a nice person to work for. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear All,

I'm appalled by the snide, gratuitous and uncivil comment from jytdog (above). (in fact the production company is called Goatworks films and I am an assistant!) Surely this sort of sophmoric commentary is unwelcome on your board. 

Wikipedia is taken seriously and that's why the innacuracies and lacunae on the Jonathan Nossiter page needed adressing.

Never having done this before I understood that I made several errors of judgement, but I corrected them swiftly. If there are others, thank you, those who wish to help in a constructive way, for your comments. However, would you kindly restore the factual emendations (including that Nossiter is a Brazilian and American citizen inter alia)? And while I fully understand and respect that flattering comments about a given work are as unwelcome as spurious criticism, how can you justify leaving the only comment about a book that has been published in 8 countries and has won two awards as that posted by a partisan wine writer close to Robert Parker, one of the targets of the book's attacks with a vile, anti-semitic slur (Parker, not Jewish, accused Nossiter, who is Jewish, of Gestapo techniques...and all of this in a blog comment!)?. There are significant reviews from many of the world's major newspapers. Why include a wholly unrepresentative and specious blog attack as the only opinion about this book? And you say you wish for balance? Surely this is anything but neutral and encyclopedia-like. At any rate, thank you for restoring what is factual and neutrally descriptive so that you have a more complete and accurate page rather than an incomplete and misleading one. Your sincerely Alberto Rigno Assistant at Goatworks Films (!!!) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatassistant (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

my apologies, i agree that was snarky and i should not have written that. struck - my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
that said, the article as it stands has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. please do not edit it going forward, per
WP:COI, but instead use the "edit request" function on the Talk page going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk
)
@Goatassistant: If you can provide corrections in the format below, then ping me on my Talk page, I will review them.

In the ___ paragraph of the ____ section it says "_______________" [http://www.example.com The source] does not actually support this and/or is not an authoritative source for this information. In [example.com this] credible, independent source from an authoritative news publication, book, academic, etc. (not his website) you can find the correct information about ____-way down the article

I'm afraid this is time-consuming and we shouldn't make it so difficult to correct errors, but inevitably editors that work on behalf of the article-subject tend to attempt to correct errors, and in the process add promotion, then get their edits reverted and the whole process is very frustrating, so it is better to explain the errors clearly and make it easy for us to correct them.
CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju

Came across this article, which contains unusually flowery prose ("pre-eminent computer scientist" etc.). Did some digging, and it reeks strongly of COI (self-promotion).

The primary user Suo motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA created just for editing this article. The other user who edited the article, Esobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of the department to which this person belongs: see here. This is not an "outing", just obvious information from the Internet.

If the IP addresses of the users are analyzed, you will most likely see that they belong to the University of Buffalo (IP address range: 128.205.*.* ; see the 128.205.0.0 line here). In short, it appears that persons affiliated with the subject of this article and/or the University of Buffalo are editing this article, which is a violation of the TOS of Wikipedia.

ADrakken (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind

Had multiple discussion with editors, especially @NeilN: about how they must be right because their edits are "what Kent wants" or "Kent says this correct", although they don't seem to have given a proper explanation of their COI. Multiple edit wars on that page too. Tagged the article as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What Kent wants and discussion on my talk page --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better dealt with at
WP:BLPN if the subject has concerns about the article. The use of primary court-related sources suggests that they might at least have some point (not that I've spent an hour listening to that video). SmartSE (talk
) 11:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of the primary sources are backed by secondary sources, no? --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

Hi all, I've suggested a few additions to Dow Corning on the article's talk page, here. I have a COI - I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning - so I would tremendously appreciate any feedback or assistance anyone here can offer. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Nature

User:Onjohn is a declared COI of this page (on their userpage), but continues to edit.
User:Jghassell is a new account that has been removing maintenance templates from the article, despite the fact they still apply. The edit summary here says "Issues we address: references provided, information verified, meets Wikipedia criteria of impartial content"- implying that they have a COI too. Now declared here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I've also tagged the article talkpage as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gračanica, Kosovo

not a matter for COIN Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

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

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Zoupan
16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for move Zoupan. Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Republic of Kosovo and include their official websites with Albanian and Serbian See. And there is also other cities
talk
) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this actually a COI issue? What is their conflict of interest, other than "They're Turkish"? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is extremely
Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see your connection with Armenian place names (though your comment again shows your Turkish POV).--Zoupan
17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Maurice has a point, Turkish is a recognized minority language in Kosovo so there is no obstacle to add Turkish name of these cities. If Turkish wasn't offiially recognized, then i would be supporting you Zoupan.
kazekagetr
 06:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with the user boxes, my personal opinion or Turkish origin!! Well, lets we judging for the contributions of
talk
) 11:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lawrence L. Langer

Lawrence L. Langer. Now they are blanking the page and here there are requesting deletion as "Lawrence L. Langer emailed us and wants to make his own change before putting the page back up", same message in the talkpage here. They have a clear, undisclosed COI. Joseph2302 (talk
) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ketel One

Hi, I wondered if anyone could help.

I'm a communications professional working with Ketel One Vodka, which is a COI, and I'd like to suggest some changes to our Wikipedia page to add more insight and information.

Following the feedback and recommendations I received above, which was much appreciated, I'd like to suggest some revised changes to our Wikipedia page, which are now sourced. The following changes I wish to be made are:

Timeline

I hope are suggested amends are suffice. Please do let me know if you require anything else. Thank you! AdamF Grayling (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Karim Abouelnaga

Both users are adding very similar promotional content to

Karim Abouelnaga. User:Karmisassistant's name implies COI, as confirmed here, and almost straight after I removed the promotional text they had added, User:KarlaP.Uassist starts adding similar material. Joseph2302 (talk
) 16:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've put the article up for deletion, as non-notable person, and adding COI tag to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, here,
Karim Abouelnaga. I've struck their name from the list. Joseph2302 (talk
) 17:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I believe that. I count four different accounts that appear to exist soleley to edit this article.
talk
) 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I'm not sure either, but for now I'm going to
assume good faith that they aren't lying. Joseph2302 (talk
) 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ty Cox

Paid editor to create the page, declared here. Article is probably getting deleted, but might get recreated multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Menhaden

Tzjones works for Saving Seafood (see the editor's user page), a fishing industry trade organization, and recently joined WP and has been directly editing the articles listed above. I've handled some of them, and tagged the rest for COI on the article page, and listed connected contributor on the talk page of all, and placed the COI edit notice on the talk page of all. I gave the user the COI user warning and asked them not to directly edit going forward. Some cleanup to do. I think this is the first trade organization rep I have seen on Wikipedia. I think the determination of COI/paid editing is pretty clear (especially after reviewing edits). Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Senpion

This has to do with all of this user's edits, mainly on

Asperger's Syndrome as well. Given the focus of the edits on one researcher, and an uploaded photo credited that researcher, coupled with no other edit focus whatsoever, I think it's a pretty good assumption that the editor is the researcher publicizing himself and his company. I have notified the editor, but the edits are stale, and I don't expect the editor to return. I'd like someone simply to police the edits, because no one else seems to consider his work notable. MSJapan (talk
) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There are a range of technologies being used in autism, and Google Glass is simply one of them. Please feel free to check all my references. They include Autism Speaks, the worlds most prominent autism charity, and TechCrunch, one of the most prominent technology reporting websites. Also, I would have liked to have been messaged directly about your concerns, as recommended by Wiki guidelines. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note - i just dearchived this. i noticed that it MSJapan went to ANI (here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresolved_COI) when we took no action here. Sorry about that to both you and Senpion. I'll comment there and leaving this open here for now. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

No COI in Draft space?

I was surprised at the advice given in response to

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links? Is there some sort of unwritten agreement that our guidelines do not apply there? And what happens to those COI pages when they hit mainspace? Justlettersandnumbers (talk
) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

COI is COI, but part of meeting our guidelines is to go through draft for review. If and when they hit article space then any edits should conceivably be done via edit requests, not directly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know how things away back at AfC. Joseph2302 works a lot there and picks up COI there - I don't know how he handles thing. For my part, my wish would be that if it seems pretty clear that the person creating has a COI, that folks working with them, would:
a) call their attention to
WP:COI
and the Terms of Use, nicely, and ask them to disclose any relationship they have with the subject of the article.
b) put the connected contributor tag on the Talk page and a COI tag on the article itself, with a section on the talk page noting the COI and tagging.
(pause) it is pretty clear to me that the part of
WP:COI
since it is ignored in practice. But it would be very good if folks working at AfC would:
c) inform the conflicted creator (that could be a useful term if we do amend) needs to be ready to step away from the article once it goes live
d) move the article to mainspace only after it has been carefully reviewed for NPOV and decent sourcing (per the COI tag). the tag should be taken off and a note put on the Talk page in the COI section, that the article was reviewed by whoever took the tag off and moved it to mainspace.
that seems workable - it manages the COI but allows new article creation.... what do you all think?
i wonder if we should somehow have a chat with the folks who work at AfC and see what we can agree on. (i have no idea how much of a community those folks have) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not an expert, I've only been doing AfC 2 days, and so far, I've seen 1 or 2 COI articles only, and they were way short of being accepted- massive POV/advert issues (so won't get accepted until NPOV). If there's a clear COI, then I've left the COI notice on their user talk, and tagged the draft talkpage. Suggestions c) and d) seems sensible though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, giving my own personal view, Draft space is exactly the way a COI editor should proceed. It is the advice I have always given, and the advice I have always seen given by volunteers at OTRS. As long as the COI is clearly declared accourding to our Terms of Use, there will no confusion about the nature of the edits. Draft space is not indexed in the googles. It does not work for publicity purposes until it is moved to mainspace.
Obviously, the reviewers moving it to mainspace have the responsibility for ensuring the article complies with the basic requirements. Many of them have not done so in the past, but that's another problem. These reviews do not I think bypass NPP (at least, they certainly should not), and all articles actually submitted get scrutiny by the same standards. When a page is moved, it should carry the possible COI tag, and I think it should continue to carry it, whether or not it is judged that the article is currently actually npov. I have no hesitation listing a page moved from draft space for speedy or prod or afd as appropriate.
As I personally understand it, there is no policy that people with COI in general are forbidden to contribute to the encyclopedia, and there is no policy that paid editors or those with a financial conflict of interest are forbidden to contribute. Whether or not there should be is another question, but proposals to that effect have never attained consensus.
I think the only practical solution at this time is to actively follow individual articles and to actively participate in afd discussions , to prevent items brought there being closed as no-consensus or even keep because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No part of WP:COI says "you should not create or edit if you have a COI". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing - please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work, the very first sentence of which says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends.". Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I find {{Connected contributor}} to be very helpful in flagging COI on a draft's talk page. I am also usually easily able to suggest that the COI editor self identifies and deploys it themselves.
What I would like to see is a formal policy statement that sets out the difference between Draft: and main namespaces and the different ways COI editors may/should behave in each.
I should state that I am in favour of good quality paid and COI editing, via the
WP:AFC route, and am wholly opposed to bad editing from whatever source. I most assuredly feel that COI editors must disclose. It annoys me to discover one masquerading as a bona fide unpaid/non COI editor. IN this I do not include those who genuinely do not know we deprecate main name space COI edits. Fiddle Faddle
23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to paid COI editing, partly because the 2013 BP controversy shows that it can turn out bad for the subject, and bad for PR professionals, even if it takes place, disclosed, away from main article space (that is in Talk and Draft pages.) Yet, there is no overwhelming clamour to ban it, so I think it says for now.
  • Our current possible COI tag for articles is intended to be removed when editors agree that the article is neutral again.
  • Since we won't ban COI contributions making their way into articles, I think we need to disclose where this text from in the article itself. Most readers don't read talk pages. I think we need a new banner, topnote or form of words that remains for the life of the article, so the reader knows where (part of) the article came from. I think the form of words can be similar to the talk page {{Connected contributor}} template.
  • I suggest

Someone personally or professionally connected to the subject has contributed to this article.

I don't know if I have that wording quite right, as I wouldn't want the text to be shown if a physician or an acupuncturist ever edited the Acupuncture article. That would devalue the idea.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • note - I provided a notice of this at the AfC project and asked folks there to comment here (see here) Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is the least worse option considering the alternatives (AfC, draft, userspace, or articlespace)? Personally AfC. Currently, the wording of the COI guideline uses "should not" (and I'm assuming that technically that applies mainly to articlespace). Clearly if the common practice is to advise AfC (or draft) per
WP:SPA. That minor change will be very useful! The question of under what circumstances any COI tag must be removed from such an article is important. No 'badge of shame'/'tags are for maintenance only' specifies removal as soon as the issue is resolved. Surely when AfC moves to articlespace the guideline should state the {{Connected contributor}} is placed and must remain, but the COI tag should go when the issue is resolved. That moment may be more subjective. Widefox; talk
11:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Widefox, COI should be allowed to use AfC, since it's much better than them using userspace or articlespace. If I notice a COI at AfC, I usually add the generic Twinkle COI notice to their userpage, but apart from that, there doesn't seem to be anything else to do. Wikipedia allows COI editors, and the best place for them to write articles is AfC. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree about userpage notification. Also, if appropriate at AfC, placing the {{Connected contributor}} on the talk as soon as possible would be most desirable. Widefox; talk 18:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Americord Registry

Resolved
 – cleaned Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bunch of IP addresses have been editing this. page has been protected; I have tagged it for COI; needs to be reviewed for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to cleanup the page and removed a promotional claim pulled from a self-publsihed press release. Other than that, the page looks neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
great. i did some cleanup too. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whigfield

Resolved
 – blocked for making a legal threat. pages have been cleaned. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The user is claiming to be Sannie Carlson's management is removing sourced content, trying to remove all links between Carlson and Ann Lee. Disclosure here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

articles have been cleaned up and COI editor blocked for making a legal threat. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nest of COI editing






Other solely MSKCC editors



Adding


COI Statement
21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearanne of MSK was trying to recruit editors to write articles back in 2013 here. so this was intentional. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I worked over all the articles. roughly clean. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock

Resolved
 – user blocked; I tagged and cleaned up the two articles Jytdog (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate

Resolved
 – done for now. will probably continue to be issues like other internet-based businesses. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting here. I listed connected contributors on the talk page and placed a COI edit notice, reviewed the article, and have watchlisted it. Seems OK now. It will probably continue to be subject to COI editing as many of these internet-based companies are. Done for now. Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lorenza Colzato

Editor started by revising subject article, then per his/her contribs added a bunch of content about work by Colzato to several articles. Have reverted additions to other articles per

Alexbrn caught another in the course of regular page-watching, apparently. I don't have time to review the subject article now, so I tagged it and its talk page. Needs a review. Have notified the editor. No disclosure at this point, that i have seen. Jytdog (talk
) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know about the subject, but this looks like it should be reverted- replacing sourced content with unsourced content. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain Farm

Resolved
 – as much as we can here. both editors have COI. article has been cleaned and admins are watching and working there. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pubwvj is the self-declared owner/operator of the business described by this article. After apparently authoring and editing the article for a period of years he did declare his ownership of the business a few days ago. Has ignored efforts to get him to stop directly editing the article. Has disruptively and repeatedly asked/demanded that only editors he approves edit the article. Bruceki (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bruceki:, when you report someone here, you must inform them that you've done so. I've informed them now, but if you report people here again, you must notify them ASAP- the easiest way is to add {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@
WP:3O and suggested these two users come here. Bruceki did notify Pubwvj (Albeit not on their talk page) when he posted the notice on the article talk page and pinged Pubwvj [15]. As to the case I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of it but I do believe both of these editors are way to close to the subject to be neutral. Although I do believe they are both have good intentions. Jbh (talk
) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I looked on the user talkpage and couldn't find it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm gives good examples of the issues here. These two users seem not to get along at all and know each other in real life. Pubwvj has been using edit requests since I told him about them but wants Bruceki to be required to do the same. There are also a lot of accusations going back and forth loaded with a lot of off-wiki baggage that I have no real clue about. Jbh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that neither Pubwvj or Bruceki should be editing the article. They appear to have been involved in a real-world dispute for years (see for example this 2009 blog post by Bruceki who outs themselves on their userpage). Pubwvj is right to be agrieved by Bruceki's harrassment here and it needs to stop now. Hopefully now that there are more eyes on the article, they can both sit back and let us edit it instead. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that talkpage, I strongly agree that neither should edit- one has a massive positive COI towards the company, and one a massive negative COI towards the company. I've added @Bruceki: to the COI editors list above because of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
aren't you supposed to put something on my user talk page @Joseph2302:? Per this discussion I will restrict my input on that article to the talk page. Thank you all for your time. Bruceki (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite clear from the start of who I am and my relationship to my farm. Bruceki on the other hand has hidden that he has a massive negative COI which he fails to mention which stems from his years of attacking me. Examples of his behavior are widely available on the web should references be necessary. Contrary to what Bruceki misstates above, I have been working with JBH and OhNoItsJamie on the talk page and they have been making the edits to the article. Bruceki has a history of being warned against doing
WP:SYNTH and of attacking other farms. Additionally, Bruceki lacks knowledge about the topic and has been repeatedly written false statements in to the discussion and page be it that these falsities arrive from his purposeful choices or simply he doesn't know what he is talking about is moot. Bruceki should stick to talk at most and not be making edits. The page in question is long supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I have received guidance from people over the years to improve the page and I look forward to the help that people can give to further improve it to make it be a better part of Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have never disclosed your connection to the farm on the sugar mountain farm wiki entry. I did that. You did not change your user page entry to disclose your connection to the farm until april 19th 2015.[1], 6 days ago. When you created your account in 2008 you were explicitly warned about COI issues[2] but chose to ignore that and edited the entry for the next 7 years. During that time you were repeatedly warned about adding links to your blog and various content issues but continued to edit it despite a fairly clear COI; which has been supported by the comments here. I'm glad that you now recognize that you have a COI and hope that you agree with the conclusion here that you should not be editing that page from here on. Bruceki (talk

) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagree wtih a statement or content and a person. Some of your statements about farm operations appear to be exceptional (as per

WP:EXCEPTIONAL , and I've pointed that out where you've made them. That has nothing to do with you as a person; you are probably a fine fellow who kisses your wife and doesn't kick puppies every often. Bruceki (talk
) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pubwvj&diff=658463771&oldid=657147263
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pubwvj&diff=658973509&oldid=211296194

Break: Notability

I've culled through the article's sources (all 30 or so) and found almost none that were acceptable. Most of them were blogs, primary sources, advertisements, brief mentions, did not mention the article-subject, or did not actually directly support the article text. Some were from credible news outlets, but just linked to the front page of the news site, not to an actual news article about the farm. What was left after my culling were local sources and Voice of America, which RSN archives suggest is a questionable source. Typically we expect at least one strong national level source to verify notability.

I'd encourage that in circumstances like this, notability needs to be considered before other issues; otherwise editors waste a lot of time, energy and emotional investment into an article ultimately headed for the trash bin. In a large number of articles where a COI is involved, this is the first thing we should look at. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Noel Cox

Resolved
 – Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Page is being edited by the named user, and information cited with a news article is being replaced by sources which cannot be verified. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. editor is now aware of his COI and is making edit requests on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


David B. Samadi

Resolved
 – worked over; monitoring by several editors Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is / was fairly spammish. Others thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd take a real close look at
COI Statement
09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. boatloads of COI editing on that article. i worked it over.
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
  • C
    14:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

    Judging by the later discussion on the article talk page, it looks as if the editor is now working in good faith to help update the article.  —SMALLJIM  22:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    Green Cardamom thanks for bringing this here. Looks like the user is playing ball better. nice work there, talking with the conflicted editor. I've tagged the account for a username violation and provided them more formal COI notice, and also tagged the article Talk page and provided the "edit request" box in the Talk header. marking this resolved. Jytdog (talk
    ) 11:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    C
    14:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    yeah bringing things to the community is so, so important to avoid the risk of it getting personalized. you nailed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing

    This page was created by LichfieldCC (now softblocked for username vio), and is being maintained by SPA Dartman1001. I've made my views on the article clear, but would like other users to look over the article- note I've put it up for AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    The Chauntry Cup What do you mean by a conflict of interest? I personally have nothing to gain by editing The Chauntry Cup page. I have only ever been to one cricket match in my life and I'm 53 years old. I am not a member of any club and never have been, and have no interest in the game. I think the Chauntry Cup should be recognised. That is my only wish. I have no interest other than that. Dartman1001 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    Friends of Coal

    Headley declared himself the "official representative" of the organization, and made an extensive edit. Orange Mike | Talk 17:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    Aricent

    Disclosed paid editor, disclosed here. They haven't been directly editing, but it's still good for other people to be aware. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

    They're also repeatedly suggesting the same edits, not discussing properly, and removed my talkpage comments. Can some other users get in on this please? The article is currently fine, but they're threatening to edit on 20 May. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    Martin Bandier

    SPA edits only Martin Bandier article. Attempted talk page discussion. Still makes changes based on "this edit has come directly from Martin Bandier himself". Maybe someone else needs to talk to him -- I've tried, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    thanks. tagged, and am watching.
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
  • talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
    )
  • Michael Peter Bundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • The article is being updated only by 2 SPA. Tarik "RVSSIAN" Johnston name suggests they are the person themselves, and Michael Peter Bundi has done most of the editing, and listed it as a B-grade biography (which I edited to C-grade). Just come across this article, but there's already a COI tag on it, and looks like advert tags have been removed as well. Would appreciate other users looking at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    I had added those tags and a speedy deletion tag (which another user removed--one of the SPAs). The thing is I don't particularly want to do the afd as even though it meets speedy deletion criteriion, I'm not exactly sure if the sources themselves are reliable. They are surely not diverse. All of the poses, pictures, and wordings are promotional. If you would nominate it I would !vote delete. Tutelary (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    So according to
    Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, both users are the same person (which I suspected might be the case), but they claim not to have COI. They're still working on the article, and removing some of the puffery, so I'm currently willing to accept that it could just be a newbie fan. Also, some of the references look okay (Jamaican newspapers), and so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD right now. Joseph2302 (talk
    ) 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    if they are not him, they are violating "impersonate" whatever that link is... so either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    According to
    Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, they ditched that account and made the "Michael Peter Bundi" account instead. It's basically a case of whether you believe them or not. Joseph2302 (talk
    ) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, so they've started using both accounts simultaneously (and renamed the Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston one), so I've opened up a SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    User:Karlhard

    Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

    These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

    All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

    @Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    (refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    thanks Widefox! am marking this resolved; seems all done. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    erm thanks Jytdog but not resolved (commented out resolved). My point is the other accounts aren't blocked, and I can't SPI them as the evidence is in the deleted articles that requires admin rights to access. So without SPI, I've listed here to get some suggestion. Widefox; talk 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    oh, sorry. removed the resolved tag. Harshul88 has not edited since sept 2014; and Carlossilva1971 and Fatkarl27 have not edited since Feb 2015. I can tell you that SPI would not have taken action on them anyway, even if the article still did exist. i had something like this where they wouldn't act when accounts had only been inactive for 2 weeks. We have 2 months of inactivity here. They seem quiet now. The articles are deleted. I don't think there is anything left to do. I understand the desire to prevent future problems but they have probably walked away and forgotten the account names even by now.... Or is there some active problem I am missing? (real question, not sarcastic) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    Added a draft at MfD. Yes, agree about SPI. They can all be blocked NOTHERE, but as dormant accounts is there any motivation from passing admins here?
    kinda doubtful. Smartse might care.... Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    I already checked these accounts but they look like throwaways so it's a bit pointless blocking them now. There looks to be some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota/Archive based on the Furvah draft but I can't find any links to active accounts. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    We got / asked for any tools to help us out here? A single SPA is one thing, a cluster of SPA /socks is another. A tool to cluster these SPAs so we can flag up a sockfarm. Ultimately, similar to anti-vandal tools. Are there any tools? Catching them during editing rather than after they've given up would improve live articles. Widefox; talk 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    Not really other than detective work, and it might not be
    so wise to explain here, so email me if you want some tips. Admin rights are very useful too. Is there any reason for you not to have them? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    Bellarmine University

    )
  • Dbilodeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • Paid editor, disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

    United Nations Population Fund

    Eyes on this one please.--ukexpat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

    @Ukexpat: there are definitely potential copyvio problems with the article, but can you explain where the COI is here?  —SMALLJIM  20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

    Jiří Kylián

    Adding unsourced promotional content on behalf of Jiří Kylián, as disclosed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    I understand and have added a complete list of works and some awards to the Article, the other changes are now posted as suggestion to the Jiří Kylián talkpage. kind regards RobBothof (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    Martin Bandier

    SPA edits only Martin Bandier article. Attempted talk page discussion. Still makes changes based on "this edit has come directly from Martin Bandier himself". Maybe someone else needs to talk to him -- I've tried, to no avail. Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    thanks. tagged, and am watching.
    talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
    )
  • talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
    )
  • Michael Peter Bundi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • The article is being updated only by 2 SPA. Tarik "RVSSIAN" Johnston name suggests they are the person themselves, and Michael Peter Bundi has done most of the editing, and listed it as a B-grade biography (which I edited to C-grade). Just come across this article, but there's already a COI tag on it, and looks like advert tags have been removed as well. Would appreciate other users looking at it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

    I had added those tags and a speedy deletion tag (which another user removed--one of the SPAs). The thing is I don't particularly want to do the afd as even though it meets speedy deletion criteriion, I'm not exactly sure if the sources themselves are reliable. They are surely not diverse. All of the poses, pictures, and wordings are promotional. If you would nominate it I would !vote delete. Tutelary (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    So according to
    Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, both users are the same person (which I suspected might be the case), but they claim not to have COI. They're still working on the article, and removing some of the puffery, so I'm currently willing to accept that it could just be a newbie fan. Also, some of the references look okay (Jamaican newspapers), and so I'm not going to nominate it for AfD right now. Joseph2302 (talk
    ) 14:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    if they are not him, they are violating "impersonate" whatever that link is... so either way, not good. Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    According to
    Talk:Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston, they ditched that account and made the "Michael Peter Bundi" account instead. It's basically a case of whether you believe them or not. Joseph2302 (talk
    ) 14:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    Okay, so they've started using both accounts simultaneously (and renamed the Tarik "Rvssian" Johnston one), so I've opened up a SPI. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    User:Karlhard

    Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

    These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

    All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

    @Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    (refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    thanks Widefox! am marking this resolved; seems all done. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    erm thanks Jytdog but not resolved (commented out resolved). My point is the other accounts aren't blocked, and I can't SPI them as the evidence is in the deleted articles that requires admin rights to access. So without SPI, I've listed here to get some suggestion. Widefox; talk 22:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    oh, sorry. removed the resolved tag. Harshul88 has not edited since sept 2014; and Carlossilva1971 and Fatkarl27 have not edited since Feb 2015. I can tell you that SPI would not have taken action on them anyway, even if the article still did exist. i had something like this where they wouldn't act when accounts had only been inactive for 2 weeks. We have 2 months of inactivity here. They seem quiet now. The articles are deleted. I don't think there is anything left to do. I understand the desire to prevent future problems but they have probably walked away and forgotten the account names even by now.... Or is there some active problem I am missing? (real question, not sarcastic) Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    Added a draft at MfD. Yes, agree about SPI. They can all be blocked NOTHERE, but as dormant accounts is there any motivation from passing admins here?
    kinda doubtful. Smartse might care.... Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    I already checked these accounts but they look like throwaways so it's a bit pointless blocking them now. There looks to be some crossover with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr.sahota/Archive based on the Furvah draft but I can't find any links to active accounts. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    We got / asked for any tools to help us out here? A single SPA is one thing, a cluster of SPA /socks is another. A tool to cluster these SPAs so we can flag up a sockfarm. Ultimately, similar to anti-vandal tools. Are there any tools? Catching them during editing rather than after they've given up would improve live articles. Widefox; talk 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    Not really other than detective work, and it might not be
    so wise to explain here, so email me if you want some tips. Admin rights are very useful too. Is there any reason for you not to have them? SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    Paul Levine

    )
  • Solomonandlord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • This account, named after two of his main characters, seems to be either Levine himself or somebody acting on his behalf. It adds him to alumni lists, articles tangentially related to his works, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 21:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

    Naam yoga

    ) 17:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for declaring your coi.
    I'm trying to help with the article, but we certainly could use more. The school recently went through a merger/acquisition (I'm still not clear what happened), and there's much to be updated and reviewed. --
    talk
    ) 23:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

    Emmanuel Lemelson, Lemelson Capital Management

    User has said they have COI, so this discussion doesn't need to happen here. Seems it's gone to ANI instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

    Would appreciate your assistance. I have been an editor for a year and created the two articles above last year,

    Lemelson Capital Management. I recently moved both to my sandbox so that I could make some modest improvements to both, including potentially restoring some content that was deleted for reasons largely unexplained and to potentially make other improvements, such as possibly adding new information in the year since I created both articles. Almost as soon as I moved both articles to my sandbox a few days ago, however, User:Smalljim began criticizing my involvement in the pages and saying that my contributions should be confined to the talk page. He has alleged that I have a conflict of interest, presumably because I dived into these two articles pretty aggressively and really have not had time yet to contribute much else to Wikipedia. In reading Ignoring all rules--a beginner's guide and be bold
    , however, my approach seems permissible and encouraged. I have no conflict of interest and nothing about my edits has been unjustly critical or embellishing of the subject. In fact, despite review of both articles by multiple editors, the changes to my original drafts have been very modest and mostly cosmetic.

    A lengthier exchange regarding all of this exists on my

    ownership to the pages and am just looking to perfect what I believe to be two decent article contributions. Thanks very much for your attention and assistance. Orthodox2014 (talk
    ) 21:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

    I'm confused, do you actually have a COI or not? Because if there isn't a COI, then it's not relevant to this noticeboard. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    I have no conflict of interest at all. Let me see if I can find a more appropriate place for it. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    Closing this thread, as the text above has gone to
    WP:ANI now, and the user has claimed they don't have COI. Joseph2302 (talk
    ) 22:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Multiple article COI

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83&oldid=1084318698"