![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Being edited by the self-professed webmaster of one of the universities also being merged into Trinity St. David. Edits went against the sources, and removed the widely-reported controversies. Have notified the user, but it's worth keeping an eye on the situation. 86.** IP ( talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The slow edit war continues. Recently, an IP that belongs to the University of Wales, made the same problematic edit again. As it's most likely a shared IP, the connection can't be fully assessed (it could be an employee or student). I have attempted to push the editors to the talk page with no luck. I don't like edit warring and could use some more eyes on the article in case the removal happens again. OlYeller21 Talktome 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This seems like a duck COI to me. From the amount of unsourced and unverifiable content, Kudpung and I assumed it was an autobiography although the user claims it's not (see edit summary). The user has removed the maintenance templates from the article three times without addressing the issues although the last time, in good faith, they think they did (see edit summary). I've attempted to engage the user on the talk page of the article, issued the appropriate warnings, and invited the user to have a conversation on the talk page with no luck so far. The IP 81.148.223.103 has also remove the templates but never returned. As I look at their edit summary, it looks like they may have been following my edits and blindly reverting me so it may not be related.
At the heart of the problem, the article is a mess. It's written like a personal essay and has a load of unverifiable information like the unannounced intent of the subject of the article when they were a child. It talks about what social media he liked using and unsourced quotes. I haven't sifted through everything to completely assess notability but there's a claim of notability given the notability artists the subject claims to have worked with. I could use some help. OlYeller21 Talktome 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed an expansion of the article about the businessperson Leslie Bradshaw on the discussion page for the article about her, here. It so happens she is a friend and business associate, and she has asked me to improve the article, so I have a potential COI and am seeking feedback before making any direct edits. If you're interested in reviewing the draft ( in my user space here) and moving it, making edits or offering feedback, I'd welcome any thoughtful responses. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Smarmy fawning biography of Hungarian-born baron, "playboy," artist and sculptor who worked under the pseudonym "Sepy". The article is poorly written by somebody whose native language is apparently not English; it depends very heavily on articles about the subject written by him or by journalists writing for men's magazines where fact-checking was not the core of their mission. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it's still pretty horrid, with lots of duplication and overlinking. Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this for speedy deletion as an article about a non-notable organization. Unsourced, and written as a promotional vehicle, per multiple talk page protestations. User doesn't seem to understand guidelines, or perceive the niceties of spamming. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The userpage of User:Nickyjamz is being used by the editor for self-promotion, in violation of WP:UP#PROMO and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The editor is not here to build the encyclopedia—check the contribution history and you'll see only self promo. I am guessing that this is the best noticeboard for this guy! Binksternet ( talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing because I'm working for a Marketing firm, Right Source Marketing, to try and get a page up for one of our clients, Angel. In 2009, they had an article up that had been salted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) because the person working on it restored it after it had been deleted several times (or something like that). That person is no longer involved on the page, nor an active user on Wikipedia. The page is now userfied at User:Socialmedia2011/Angel.com, and needs a lot of work because Angel has changed significantly since 2009.
I realize that I'm probably being over-transparent by posting here when I'm not even editing a real page yet, but I want to be very clear that I've agreed to work on this page because I believe it meets objective notability standards and that Wikipedia would benefit from having a page about Angel. I would absolutely love any and all help from other editors, as well as advice on how to get the page restored and what might be good to include in the article. I'm extremely open to feedback from the community, and am new at editing, so please assume that my mistakes are from ignorance, not poor intentions.
Socialmedia2011 ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
SPA editor is sole author of article content, claims to be "industry insider" on user page. Article is tagged for GNG and reads like an autobiography. Is it an autobiography? Editor should at least be warned of COI policy. Brianhe ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Brianhe, Atama sent me a link to the page about COI. I can understand why you might have concerns about a conflict of interest. I am interested in writing living biographies of notable Tennesseans. My first article was created under the pseudonyme CMA. The other two (also works in progress) Bill Herzer and [[Bill Taylor (Martial artists) were created under a second pseudonyme, Chromatography. I have a lot to learn. After I started the first article I decided to change my account name to one that reflected my broad range of interests. My error. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia discouraged contributors from having multiple accounts. When I changed my name I didn't think it would be ethical to write the same article under two different account names. I have no problem with deleting CMA.
As far as a COI - I have no financial interest or expect to derive monetary or other benefits from creating the articles (except perhaps the enjoyment thereof). I am open to learning and want to continue to try to work from a neutral point of view. Your suggestions are totally welcome. Now that I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding accounts I will continue to use only one account.... Thanx, Chromatography AKA Country music aficionado ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Two of the authors are strongly involved in the articles theme. See also discussion page and the (origin) german article. One of the accounts is therefore blocked in german WP, just for info. -- Robertsan ( talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
In the German WP there had been a Checkuser. Several Edit-wars, a closed article, a blocked MacWien (because being a man on a mission). You can see where these two accounts do their edits. They try to manipulate the articles, to put their POV in them. Other users tried to find a neutral POV, and we have a very long history in the German Christian Michelides and also the Discussion is. You may see, although without knowledge of the German language, that the users trying to find a POV, are editing a lot in many fields (myself in arts), Oliver SY and Elisabeth are well known proper workers. But these accounts are only editing in CM and in his field (the magazine FORVM he wrote for and so on). The fanclub (some of them is proposed to be CM himself, you find the arguments on the CU), tries to glorify the person. There are no reliable sources for a lot of things, (e.g. exhibition organisation, a lot of studies, but no final degree and so on). and when some accounts try to take them out, the fanclub puts them in again, then the article gets blocked and so on. Realizing, that the German WP administrators do not accept the unsourced things, the fanclub now tries to play that game in English. You can see at what time these accounts were born and where else they work. And the Sphinx is not in German WP but is talking with MacWien in German. The English version is the translation of a former German version, which was corrected ba other users using reliable sources. -- Robertsan ( talk) 18:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to add some searched information about the company "Steinway & Sons" to the article "Steinway & Sons". I am trying to add the goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons and five independent references. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458447959&oldid=458397062). Unfortunately, it is impossible because every time I add the information and references the user named Binksternet deletes what I and other users have added. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458449465&oldid=458447959). It seems that the user named Binksternet has taken ownership of the article and controls everything that various users add to the article. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=history). Does Binksternet work for one of Steinway & Sons' rival companies or is Binksternet a piano tuner - and does he have a conflict of interest? What do I do wrong? The goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons is relevant to the article and I wrote four independent references after the sentence. I see it as a big problem that user Binksternet censors the article and deletes some of the fascinating history of Steinway & Sons that he doesn't like. 195.254.169.226 ( talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
User persistently adds external links to a website with Paul Dettwiler's work, has written an article about this apparently non-notable artist (it's up for discussion as to whether his professional career meets notability guidelines), and continuously adds redlink names to list of Swedish artists. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was patrolling recent changes and came across what looked like promotional edits on a new article about Roger Steare (It is likely he would meet notability). One of the users who was editing the page was also editing User:Lizcable/Ethicability, a book by Roger - as were two other editors. I became suspicious the edits may be being made by a PR company and did a quick google. Searching for combinations of the usersnames leads to a social media company, and so it is likely they are creating promotional edits for a fee. I'm not sure how best to respond to this, so came here. Thanks Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Transparently the university editing its own article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:SPA extensively editing article about themself in violation of WP:COI. — 68.239.65.132 ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Two or three users have been removing a criticism/controversy paragraph from the lead section of the Ave Maria University article. One of those is an anonymous IP editor using an IP registered to the university. The IP editor has been informed on the user talk page of the conflict of interest limitations but has edit warred the paragraph back out with the summary, "it belongs under controversy. Period." I have argued that the lead section should include a summary of critical information that is found in the article body, according to the guideline at WP:LEAD, but the conflicted IP will not accept this. Binksternet ( talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet and I discussed a trimmed down version of the disputed information on the talk page of the article, came to an agreement with no other input over two days. Binksternet made the edit, and mere hours later, an IP registered to Ave Maria University reverted it here with roughly the same edit summary. Now what?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is the Ave Maria University IP address reverting without discussion yet again. Advice?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
and still removing the shared IP address template.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently written a new draft of the article for the non-profit New Leaders (formerly New Leaders for New Schools), on behalf of the organization. This fall, the organization has been renamed and has launched new programs, and asked me to create an updated article to reflect these changes. Due to my conflict of interest, I do not wish to replace and rename the current article myself without seeking input from other editors. I'd like to ask that another editor read through my draft and the explanation I have previously posted on the article's talk page, and offer any feedback you might have. Although I have taken care to write the article from a neutral POV, it may be that other editors have some changes to suggest, and I welcome any constructive comments.
You can see the proposed draft here in my userspace: User:16912 Rhiannon/New Leaders and my full explanation of the draft and requested change of article name on the New Leaders for New Schools talk page.
Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on the draft/change of name. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Crcorrea ( talk · contribs · count) appears to be an single purpose account, with the purpose of promoting a university project PublicMind. While I realize that .edu links are usually fine as a reference, I'd like second opinions on the user's contributions and COI before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. File:C:\Users\Vishal Raj\Documents\bodhi.jpg
This article edited by someone which contradicts the truth and also stirs racism which talks about a higher caste in India. the information was recently updated and semi protected we have the picture evidence how it was manipulated. I don't know the process how to complaint to Wikipedia about this product. Still i am not sure this will reach the right person. This article misguides high time. Sturdyrajesh1 ( talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a smalltime reactionary radio talkshow host who's raised some political stink in Florida. He owns a one-show "radio network" called The Phoenix Network, and the s.p.a. User:Phoenix545 created both the article on Guetzloe and a (since-deleted) advertisement "article" on The Phoenix Network. I've spamblocked the Phoenix account, but would like some eyes on the Guetzloe article, preferably by somebody who despises guys like this less than I do, for NPOV and other edits. I think he (barely) meets WP:N, but am not sure. Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This user self-identifies as Rohner, the psychologist who developed the theory in the article. He (pronoun following self-ID) has nominated this article for deletion, probably through a misunderstanding of normal editing possibilities. I asked him about COI on his talk page, and he mentioned that he has research associates editing under the same username. He hasn't actually edited the article with this username except to nominate for deletion, and he's being quite communicative. I gave him some brief advice on his talk page and also told him that I was going to start a thread here so he could get advice from the experts on how to proceed, since I'm feeling a little out of my depth. Here's the talk page conversation: User_talk:Rohner_Research#Possible_conflict_of_interest_on_Parental_acceptance-rejection_theory. That's it!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
One of the members of this jazz duo has made a complete revamp of the page, introducing significant non neutral information. 76.168.134.217 ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Obvious COI username removed an image concerning anti-feminism. Calabe 1992 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This user has inserted links to jameelaoberman.com here, there, and everywhere over the last few days. Xe has made a few constructive edits, but not many. I'm not bothering to list all the articles above, because would duplicate the user's contribs. There are templates on the user's talk page, and I'm going to leave a note by hand right now. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Now xe is edit-warring over it. I'm at 3RR on Pete and the Pirates, so I'm going to leave this to the professionals now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry? who is user XE? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just come across Sigma0 1 again, who some people might remember was mentioned in this thread at WP:AN about a year ago and here at the start of the year. I can't find any diffs where it is disclosed, but there it was suggested that Sigma0 1 is a paid editor. I've been looking over their contribs and came across a fair few problems. While most of the articles probably meet WP:N, some such as Thom Russo, Bulgarian Bag and Tibbo BASIC(already PRODed) are rather more borderline. In other articles I found problems of OR: 1 and 2. I will try to look over more of them myself, but wanted to post here to see if any one can lend a hand in checking other articles and cleaning up as necessary. SmartSE ( talk) 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tyler. I am here on behalf of my employer, Full Sail University, where I am the Social Media Manager. I'm aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, and in cases where I am discussing content related to the Full Sail University article, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.
Note: I am on a university IP address, shared by thousands of people and it is possible that someone other than myself may make changes and/or edits without my knowing.
I want others to know of this conflict of interest up front, and would like the community's feedback on if this is a sound approach to participate.
Thank you. -- Tylergarner ( talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, two additions have been made to the Huawei article, regarding Iran and the Taliban, and I would like to suggest a rewording of each. I have a potential conflict of interest with Huawei as a topic, since I work with the company, and over time this year I have discussed changes with other editors before improving the article. In this case again I have been cautious about making any change to these sentences directly. Recently I made a request on the Huawei talk page regarding the Iran sentence, but I have not received any response. Now that someone has added the incomplete Taliban statement, I decided to come here.
The sentence on Iran was initially added to the introduction of the article and I have moved it into the " Security concerns" section. The sentence on the Taliban was added to this section earlier this week. Both are poorly written, and the first implies that Huawei intentionally aided censorship, when this is not stated in the source article. The second implies that Huawei was shown to have a connection with the Taliban, when this is not the case according to later news articles.
The original wording of the sentence on Iran is:
The wording I propose is:
The original wording of the sentence on the Taliban is:
The wording I suggest is:
It would be greatly appreciated if an editor could review the changes I suggest and make the edits if they seem reasonable. Thank you. -- Bouteloua ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Futura2000 twice added reference to themselves to 'notable alumni' section of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology [2] [3], and once again after being warned of the potential conflict of interest [4]. User seems to have article of same name, Futura 2000, but has not edited it under his user account. User has also made at least two vandalism edits to other articles [5] [6]. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the pornographic actress and film director Nica Noelle. Lately, User:NicaNoelle has been editing, first by strangely removing information ( [7] [8] [9] -- after which s/he was warned ( [10])), and lately just adding non-neutral, unverified information (nine consecutive edits from [11] to [12]). Now, if this really is Nica Noelle, I love her work and I hate to look as though I'm tattling, but s/he just isn't understanding the concept of WP:COI. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting worried that the article, about the subject of a major British educational controvers) is now primarily written by people in that university's administration. Can some people take a look? 86.** IP ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
After looking at it - I completely agree - there is clearly an attempt to bring that article under the control of the university and turn it into a puff-piece. I'd urge editors to watchlist it and resist this stage management. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm here to get feedback and see if there is concensus to remove a tag on the article Migdia Chinea Varela.
This article currently has an autobiography tag at the top of it. I would like to remove it because the editor in question has not edited the page since October 15th. (That edit was reverted soon after.) Also the current article is not her version. Instead the current wording is the work of several other editors including myself. If there is more problematic editing it is easy enough to replace the tag, but for now the connected contributer tag that is on on the talk page seems sufficent to me.
If it's not reasonable to remove it now, what would a reasonable waiting period be? Cloveapple ( talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be associated with the Tales of The Kama Sutra series — Manicjedi ( talk) ( contribs) ( templates) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This user is apparently the subject using the name of her first husband. I informed her of the conflict of interest policy, left tags on her talk page, and she's continued to edit her own page, marking significant changes as minor. [13] JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This user is the "webmistress" for Lauren LeMay, and sometimes uses the above IP. [14] All of her edits relate to subjects with whom she shares a close connection. When I brought to her attention the conflict of interest in authoring pages about Lauren LeMay, her husband Kevin Break, his model Emily Marilyn, and associated articles, she removed her name and contact information from the Lauren LeMay website and denied the relationship on her talk page. Currently, however, a google search still shows results from the cached version: https://www.google.com/search?q=gawel+"lauren+lemay" (a search for: gawel "lauren lemay"; sorry, the quotes are necessary and I can't seem to wikify it properly). She also continued to edit the articles in question while logged out. [15] [16] That second edit was her attempt to stop a current AfD for the Kevin Break article. It seems she understands the situation but won't stop. JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I originally wrote the Scentura article in 2007, as User:Calendar then left for many years. I added that the Illinois Appellate Court ruled Scentura a pyramid sales scheme and 37 other references. I was dismayed, but not surprised, when I returned four years later and every reference was gone and a glowing review of the company was in its place, with plenty of links to Scentura's site.
I do want to police this article alone, so I come here, letting the community be aware of this page, and asking the community to help. If this is the wrong forum, please let me know. Calendar2 ( talk) 21:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
At this point, NickBrunson is mass-reverting without discussion, including removal of the COI tag.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Food Not Bombs? An editor claiming to be the founder of the group has been making changes to the page, pasting information from their website and complaining about inaccuracies. He seems to be somewhat irritated and unfamiliar with our policies. I would work on it, but I'm not quite sure what the best way to proceed would be. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that this user hasn't done much harm, though the user's employer has done some editing as well. I don't have time to go through it now, but the article needs to be cleaned up anyway. Both users need to be more careful about conflict of interest and what it means for Wikipedia's neutrality. The Haz talk 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Braindead2011 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Pre-Certification Video (UK)
I have deleted my sub section on the above article after I was informed that my post is slander and potentially libellous. I had created a small article about the function of a website related to the subject.
The site operates a private members list, and if the police or inland revenue wanted to investigate the site or threads they would have to join and in that time any contiguous material could be deleted. I mentioned that the forum closed its chat room down, how is libel. I did not mention how a member threatened to chase me down with dogs, gut me and finish me off with his shotgun. I was also called a homosexual. I can't prove this happened because the site deleted the posts and banned me.
In the article I mentioned how members have infringed copyright laws on more than one occasion. The members deleting my posts are aware of the facts that I stated and have consistently edited out those facts. Site members have acquired a u-matic disc of a film and have funded an attempt to have the tape played back and obtain member site copies on DVD. I was actually banned from the forum 18 months ago after one of the administrators of the site was outed by another member for requesting copyright material on a home made disc. I did not mention that fact in my post. So have I slandered of libelled the site?
I also pointed out that the site has an anti censorship vibe, members do moan about government bodies censoring films and actively swap and collect illegal copies of films that carry no certificate. I mentioned that in terms of video cassettes banned/censored films can be reviewed on appeal and have a reason why the decision still stands. I pointed out that a banned member does not have the right of appeal to a ban, or is given an explanation for any decision.
On the auction site eBay have a section that deals with pre-certificate sales and this does contravene the Video recording Act, 1994. I noted that the website I discussed does not include a notice informing its members it is against the law to sell or trade those tapes. How is that libel.
I could produce the welcome page of the web site and connect it to a link and prove that the welcom page does not mention this, So how is this libel?
Braindead2011 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Dean Paramor
Promotional username, making a lot of edits to the article. So far editing nothing else. I left a note on user's talk page just now, and haven't had time to look over quality of edits, but wanted to get more eyes on situation. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The XL Recordings article contains a number of factual errors. I am correcting these errors and providing references. User:Xlrecordings 18 November 2011
Two editors who are members of Open PHACTS are editing and promoting their own articles including writing autobiography Antony John Williams adding in external links and. ChemConnector was notified previously for a COI when editing as User:ChemSpiderMan (has also edited as User:Tony27587). These two editors are active in deletion discussions. I am happy to step back from this and let other editors have more say. Widefox ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I deliberately made edits with this account to make my affiliation (and professional identity, stick the user name into Google) clear. I would have had no problem with reversions, or questions, but the process has started on an assumption of bad faith - I have been tagged as a possible sock puppet, undeclared COI (despite username and *explicit* acknowledgement of project involvement in deletion discussions), tagged as possible SPA... The process - started when I reverted a redirect - immediately led to mass tagging of pages for deletion. Less important in my case, I have fewer edits to lose, but my colleague ChemConnector had several major scientist entries tagged for deletion immediately. I think the bad faith assumption has led to a huge overreaction in this case Rsc.kidd ( talk) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
COI article without objective sources, promotional or press-release tone, continued removal of maintenance tags. 99.12.242.97 ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This article has been seen here at COIN once before. It looks like the accounts involved have been blocked for socking and the article hasn't been edited since the end of October. The article is very long and could use some combing through. OlYeller21 Talktome 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A WP:SPA, creating multiple articles about this composer and adding him to numerous others. Subject's significance hasn't yet been established via reliable sources. JNW ( talk) 23:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes see academics adding references to their own works into articles. Sometimes it's appropriate and adds to the article, but other times the usefulness to the parent article is very weak, and it looks like the academic version of linkspam. Does anyone have a suggested way to handle these, especially where some of the editor's contributions are useful? Would it make sense to have a special version of the uw-coi template for this? Cheers A13ean ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Eseschool has edited European School of Economics. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any time now, but could someone take a look at some of these additions? A few of them are OK but others appear not to be constructive, and may need to be reverted or replaced with better refs. A13ean ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
(Copied from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention)
Today, a series of edits have been made by a user editing as User:lilithmag, adding a raft of awards won by Lilith magazine. I assume good faith, but wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for even the most worthy of magazines. David in DC ( talk) 02:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Orchidee3 added "Specialized Cuvettes" section to Cuvette, which primarily serves to advertise "DiluCell(TM)" cuvettes (which are made by Implen). Looking at other contributions, they added the section "Nanospectrophotometry" (later NanoPhotometry), which is also an Implen product, and a suggestion to use the "NanoPhotometer(TM)" on the Cyanine page. The reference (pdf), which is added to most of those pages. I think it reads like an ad. Kjsharke ( talk) 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the third report at COIN regarding this user and article (see here and here). The username Xday allegedly stands for "Vox Day" which is the subject of the article's standard internet handle. I definitely consider the editor's additions/removals to be contentious and I see some strong ownership issues. The article has a good amount of bloat in it and I believe that the issue stem from the subject's strong political views which may be why several editors have voiced a concern. The article could use some eyes on it. OlYeller21 Talktome 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Germany's former finance, then defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg appears to be planning a comeback, as the popular press has simultaneously started to hype him. (The quality press has commented on this.) On the height of the plagiarism affair, he had received an amount of support on Facebook that appeared far out of proportion for any politician however popular, and consequently some people suspected foul play. (It is possible to buy Facebook fans for fake grassroots campaigns.)
User:Dewritech has, since 28 June (4 weeks after interest in Guttenberg had subsided, as witnessed by page views both here and on the German Wikipedia, and by 4 weeks without any edit to the article), consistently and very slowly been moving the article in a more Guttenberg-friendly direction. In many cases his changes were clear corrections and improvements, but for reasons that will be obvious I am a bit suspicious, which made me look at the user's contributions.
The user's first activity was to create an article on a Swiss think tank called "Horasis". An article on Horasis had been deleted in January 2010 after a first AfD. He wrote the new article in his user space [17], then pasted it into article space and blanked the draft. Speedy deletion as recreated deleted article was declined due to new content, but as a result of the second AfD the article was deleted again in May 2010.
In July 2011, User:Dundswk, a single-purpose account that was active only for 4 days, recreated the article and used an image uploaded by Dewritech. The first lead sentences were identical to those of Dewritech's version, although Google does not find these formulations anywhere except in Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article exists to this day under Horasis and still starts with words that were already in Dewritech's version. I cannot see the deleted revisions, so can't check whether they were also in the earliest version, the one that was deleted by the first AfD. It has seen significant activity by red-linked SPA accounts.
There are several dimensions here:
I am documenting this here so that other editors can also have a look, and will now file an SPI on the obvious Horasis socks. Hans Adler 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I see the Johnbkidd ( talk · contribs) account has popped up this afternoon as well, if this is not sockpuppets, on a behavioural level, it certainly looks like Meatpuppets. I think we need to recruit more eyes to start look at the contributions of those accounts in more detail. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
COI, only contribution is to add an eponymous EL to Adamson University. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
User name matches the director of communications for the foundation, article may bear checking. A13ean ( talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the IP's comment here ( "I work for Halo:Faith"), and the promotional nature of Pelletier's article, this needs a look. A lot of sourcing to blogs, puffery, etc. It's unclear to me if Pelletier even meets the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 12:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been working with this editor and they have been very open about their connection to the subject of the article. I don't foresee any problems occurring with this editor. They've been very cooperative.
They have asked that the article be assessed so that the COI tag can be removed from the article. I'm stepping out and don't have time to check right now. Is anyone able to check the article for issues and remove the tag if there are no issues (related to a COI)? If not, I'll do it sometime this weekend. OlYeller21 Talktome 21:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Charliehertz ( talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
While the username is immediately suspect of being from an organisation to promote its website/agenda, the 2 edits he made to the article ( [19] [20]) link directly back to his site. Lihaas ( talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just posted an explanatory note and {{request edit}} template on the article of former White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers, seeking consenus to replace the mostly-unsourced, low-quality current article with a better-researched, better-written version. That version is available in my user space here—prepared by myself at the request of Ms. Myers' current firm—and I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone here will take the time to review it and perhaps move it over. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Woodward21 is a longstanding WP:SPA on this article, who shows considerable WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Based upon the similarity between his nick, and the name of the Communications Manager at the zoo, I suspect there may be a conflict of interest here. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some promotional editing (on multiple Wikipedias) around Nyckelharpa and Nyckelharpa players. Also some dubious sources (e.g. a talk page at the German Wikipedia) seem to be used in the article. — Ruud 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The author of this article, User:Gk00900, has made no other contribution (ever since creation of the user account in 2007) other than authoring this article. The only other page edited by User:Gk00900 is List of people from Kerala to insert this very article in it. Hence it is obvious that User:Gk00900 is either 'Sreelakshmi Suresh' or a promoter of the 'subject'. The article itself is obviously self promotional, hence has been suggested for deletion (AfD) twice, the third discussion is going on. Thanks. Austria156 ( talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
These edits are unsourced. Please review them to see why I'm posting my concern on this board. David in DC ( talk) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As the Digital Communications Officer for Heriot-Watt University I've become concerned that the Wikipedia article for the institution is not of as high a standard as it could be, being poorly organised, badly referenced, out-of-date and in some places factually inaccurate. I've left a proposed rewrite of the article in my userspace which I'd be grateful if neutral editors could look over- I've attempted to be as neutral as possible, but appreciate as per WP:COI and WP:SCOIC that review of what I've written is still required.
Thanks,
Robert HW ( talk) 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Greyhood ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed information and edited the article in ways supportive of the Russian government. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how this is a COI. Not a single piece of evidence of a close connection has even been presented let alone verified. All I've seen is involved editors going on a hunch and while those hunches may very well be right, luckily, we don't act on only hunches of involved editors. If anyone feels that another editor is being intentionally disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI. If you feel that the article isn't neutral which seems to be the consensus, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article and/or at WP:NPOVN. If you feel that someone is here to push a candidate they like or the inverse, I hope someone can finally present some evidence of a close connection. Personally, it seems to me that the issue is that the Russian government can/does manipulate the Russian media making sources used in the article unreliable which would make this a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It might not even be a case for WP:NPOVN as it seems that the base of this problem is the reliability of sources and not someone explicitly trying to push a non-neutral point of view. OlYeller21 Talktome 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
To any editor who happens to be watching this page: I have written a draft that I would like to see replace the current Moody's article, and am now seeking to organize a discussion about how best to do that (as I have a COI with the topic) on the Moody's discussion page. If anyone here is interested to get involved, your input would be very welcome. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
While this is an AfC, the original article was written like a promotional resume. What I neglected to detect the first time around was that the name of the user editing the account is also the name of a marketing firm that specializes in promoting people in order to bring in more customers. They did edit the article to make it less promotional but there's still a big conflict of interest going on here, especially if they were potentially hired by Patel to create the article. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Since at least 2008, User:EdQuine has been posting messages to talk pages about books, with a link to a website "the World Book Club homepage" (run by the BBC) and promoting opportunities to get involved in events about each individual book.
The first request for him to desist seems to have been in 2008. There have been several such requests since then.
In 2009 he was asked to make clear whether he had any potential conflict of interest, and declined.
The talk page messages sent by EdQuine have continued at a steady pace, the latest on 17th October includes an attempt to suggest talk page relevance by including the text "A chance to ask questions to improve this article!" although that's quite clearly not the intention of the edit, since there is no mechanism for information discovered by the World Book Club to be fed back into Wikipedia articles by the organisation. (EdQuine does not appear to do any improvement of the articles whose talk pages he posts these advertisements on.)
EdQuine's most recent edit, 9th December, was to add information, albeit properly sourced and possibly useful information, to the biography of someone who is employed by the BBC working on the World Book Club program.
Finally, EdQuine is the primary, in fact almost the only, contributor to the article World Book Club.
I'm wondering if any steps should be taken to deal with these messages on book talk pages, or other aspects of the editing. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me to be a straight forward spammer to me - the posts on the talkpages should be deleted on sight. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Last month, I arranged for the placement of a new draft of the article about Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which I had researched and written on behalf of Cracker Barrel. I disclosed the fact, in no uncertain terms, on the article's Talk page when I first posted the request and again when I asked for assistance at WikiProject Food and drink. An editor from that project reviewed the article, agreed it was a significant improvement, and moved it into place.
Just yesterday, Orangemike (whom I know sometimes participates on this noticeboard) placed a COI tag on the article, implying that the article "may require cleanup", etc., but did not leave a note on the Talk page explaining what is wrong with it now. This is perplexing; I couldn't have done this more by-the-book (per WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI, &c.), and I think a comparison between versions shows plainly that my version is much better—I'd go so far as to say it's now GA level. Of note, there is actually more information about the company's 1990s discrimination controversies in the draft I prepared than there was before.
Anyway, 24 hours have passed since I posted a note on Orangemike's Talk page asking him to reconsider. Since he has been active on-site since then, but has not responded, it's my assumption that he doesn't intend to do so. Would someone else here be willing to review the situation and perhaps remove the template? Thanks for your consideration, WWB Too ( talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Mikepabell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user (who appears to have a glaring COI) has created a series of related articles, the subjects of which do not appear to be notable and which I have either tagged for speedy deletion or PRODded. Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Referenced material has been removed by coi editor without discussion, what are other editors thoughts? Theroadislong ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note Talk:Roger Steare#Declaration of interest. The article was discussed here in November. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLP, although largely uncontroversial. By the user name, we can assume that the main editor is the subject. Removes tags, and adds links to Amazon. The JPS talk to me 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A close relative of mine worked as a research scientist on Mars Pathfinder, and I'm interested in both contributing to the main article here and creating new pages for the scientific equipment aboard Pathfinder's lander and the Sojourner rover. I don't think this is a conflict of interest because my relative no longer has a pecuniary interest in the project, and I never worked on it myself. Even if these are problems, I think my access to scholarly information about the project and its various experiments is grounds to mitigate any COI that might exist, and I'll be sure to cite the information I contribute. May I ask what this group thinks? Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question; I'm still learning the ropes.
I am concerned that the basis (please see here for details): [21] for the above article which is on the current Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, has been put in place by the PR representative of the Central Bank who I believe to be user:Kyproula, if you look at her postings here: [22] they only relate to this article, my concerns arise from the fact that there is a conflict of interest. The article, apart from reading a lot like a CV, only mentions the subject's research contributions prior to 2007, which is the year he took up his public office position as governor, in order to portray him in a more favourable light, whilst ignoring his term as governor, no mention of what he has acheived during those years is made.
I would have expected some critical presentation of the Governor's time in office and his policies etc. Also, if you look at the article's discussion page another user tried to add a section on the subject's time as governor with criticism based on his policy of regulating Cypriot banks, but it was removed as undue weight. I think, there is a case for an independent editor to look at the article and add a section about recent events i.e. the subject's term as governor between 2007-2012 in a way that is objective and not biased. Thanks 212.31.115.186 ( talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
All of these are apparently either Werner or his socks/meatpuppets. All are s.p.a.s editing only the article about him. I've just had to stub the article, which mostly consisted of a big fat copyright violation (cut and paste from his ASU profile, which [contrary to assertions of his in the past], is copyrighted by the Arizona Board of Regents). Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor with lots of experience in COI issues suggested I post here. I am concerned that Rogerfgay is editing in a self-promotional manner, and that I have not been able to adequately explain Wikipedia policies to him in this area. Here are a few diffs showing self-promotion on his part:
I believe he is editing in good faith and is not intentionally violating Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, he seems to have come to the conclusion that I am on a personal vendetta to block his additions, so I think it would be best if I stepped back at this point. If other editors could do a more effective job at guiding him through the ins and outs of WP:COI, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks. Ebikeguy ( talk) 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this needs some discussion. Mr. Gay has a long history of writing articles about which he has a strong connection: he is quite upfront about his identity so there is no outing here. He created the articles on his colleague/boss Peter Nordin, the Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB, the company where he is/was employed as vice president of business development, and The Humanoid Project, one of Nordin' projets [23] [24]. He has repeatedly added links and information to other articles about this business. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. He also created the article on Men's News Daily, since deleted as a non-notable website [30] [31], where many of Mr. Gay's articles are hosted. He has created WP articles (later determined as POV forks... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Support Policy) which cited his own (self-published) writings, and made other edits citing himself [32] [33] [34] even after he was aware that WP did not regard Men's News Daily as a reliable source [35] He was blocked for disruptive, POV editing and a pointy AFD nomination of Child Support. [36] [37].
Now all this was a long time ago, but I do think it useful to point that most of Mr. Gay's contribution in Wikipedia has been to connected to advocacy, either of his work or of his strongly held views about men's rights issues. I was very sorry to see that he had returned to engage in more of the same, in this case to insert himself as a notable writer about Father's rights, first as an IP and then logged in. [38] [39] [40] [41]. On the plus side, he did eventually ask, as appropriate, for consensus to for the addition of his name on the talkpage. The proposal hasn't received any support, because it doesn't seem that there is any sign that he is a notable writer per reliable secondary sources. On the downside, I am also sorry that Mr. Gay has returned to guessing at motivations of other editors, including opining that "opposition activists" and "activist trolls" have been thwarting him, and commenting on Ebikeguy above and elsewhere. I have a pretty high threshold for COI editing, and I am sure all the editors are contributing in good faith, but I do think User:Rogerfgay needs to be considerably more careful about promoting himself, his business and advocacy interests on WP. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NIS Outreach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has created Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. Since this government agency is known as NIS, the username violates policy as it appears to represent the organization. Further, some of the text of the article is copied from the agency's website. Since its a government agency, copyright is not an issue, but plagiarism and COI are still relevant concerns. GabrielF ( talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Iueweb ( talk · contribs) created an article about Indiana University East's Chancellor (Nasser Paydar) which was deleted as a copyvio. The account name gives the appearance of representing the university. GabrielF ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Amandatindersmith ( talk · contribs) claims to be Mr. Lamb's assistant, and is making changes to the article which do not meet Wikipedia formatting and sourcing requirements. I've asked her to read COI, OWN and BLP, but she continues to make the unsourced changes. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
JessicaZaluzecCM appears to represent the company Classical Movements (cf her username) and has created the article Classical Movements. Despite several editors strongly advising her to stop editing the article, she persists in doing so, adding unsourced promotional material. I am attempting to rescue the article as I think the company is probably notable, but am being frustrated by the editor's lack of communication and insistence on adding inappropriate material to the article. Would appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks, Sparthorse ( talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The user's very first edit to their user page says it all "Loquar is a marketing company specializing in viral and meme marketing. Founded in 2010 based in Palo Alto." Yworo ( talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to be the target of a multi-year effort by the company to promote itself. There appears to be a once yearly update by the company, with promotional wording mixed into the updates, which though most edits may not constitute a gross violation of wikipedia policy, does look unbalanced. An examination of Fasha Mahjoor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may also be in order, considering that two of the aforementioned editors edited both articles, and the latter subject is the CEO of the former subject. This article has been spam-clean-up'd atleast once before after promotional material was added. 70.24.244.248 ( talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
User appears to represent the music group The Rej3ctz, as their management company, based on this message. Seems to be violative of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hbuckner has created and recreated the article International Acquisition Group which is clearly promotional. From his userpage he is a "Business Analyst for International Acqusitions Group (IAG)" Sparthorse ( talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Only purpose of this account is apparently to publicize this organization and its Dear Leader Michael Davidson; all edits are to that purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Please canyou help? A COI tag was put on this article originally, but after being raised here by Moonriddengirl in September it was removed. I now see another editor has replaced it last month. Can I seek approval to remove, having done so much to clean up the piece earlier? Paul Stephen Farmer ( talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks all for your time and advice. I'm still learning. I have just reviewed Dick Sheppard School and removed two sentences which had no citation/reference. Do I wait for further comment before removing COI tag for Paul S Farmer or does someone else do it?
Whilst I'm here I should explain that I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated. -- Paul Stephen Farmer ( talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there are a few editors active] who, with intervals, try to add marketing material (which I deleted [44] [45] [46]) or delete criticism [47] (which was added by me). They don't respond on Talk pages and they may well be different people (except Elfibon/Lara.hastens). I'm not sure how to deal with this. It seems that I'm the only one watching that article, but I don't want to be watching this article for eternity since I'm not really that interested in the subject. Han-Kwang ( t) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Ngunasekera recently made some sizable changes to the article. I believe that they are [Outing redacted], an employee of Texas Instruments. LMB caught the edits and said, "We may have been raided by TI's PR department -> PR style into Wikipedia style". Ngunasekera submitted a PandaBoard article to AfC and shortly after its rejection, it was created in mainspace by Dingo aus. Since then, the two accounts have edited most of the same articles. I can not find any solid indication that Dingo aus is linked to TI or Ngunasekera but I thought it was worth noting given the odd way that the article was created.
I feel that the PandaBoard article is fine as it stands but felt that a report needed to be made as the link between the user and TI isn't that easy to find and the two user's edit history may need checked. I would do it myself but I'm heading out now to make a delivery. OlYeller21 Talktome 15:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.230.113.150
has been systematically removing my research from the above articles, and also has removed a comment I made from a talk page. (Contributions posted above shows this.)
I have flagged the two articles as COI-check, as I am the author of the materials removed. There are so few researchers in adaptive grammar that COI on the topic area at least to get an article up and running is nigh-impossible.
My thinking is to just sit back and let the wheels-of-wiki deal with this now that I've COI'd the articles in question. Any other suggestions? (Moving this from another page to here.)
QTJ ( talk) 22:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I self-flagged AS COI to avoid going back into the article and perpetuating an unsightly self-concerned back-and-forth. The rest I now leave to the natural processes here at WikiPedia. Cheers. QTJ ( talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks 174.138.162.218 ( talk) 09:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This user is editing these two articles (several edits to chess today) and adding as a reference a paper written by himself/herself. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm accused of COI regarding the xxxterm article as I've written a review of the xxxterm browser (article's topic). The review was submitted to OSNews site, where it got published after editor's overview. I properly disclosed the fact of my authorship both in the article (by (1) replacing the nickname I was credited with on the OSNews site with my name as it is displayed in my Wikipedia signature and (2) specifically starting the WP:RS/N#xxxterm draft sources discussion on the topic). As I don't believe the accusations of COI have proper grounds, I would like to ask the community to either confirm or reject my opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am another editor on the talk page trying to establish consensus. Dmitrij is acting in good-faith but fails to understand certain wikipedia policies and guidelines. I encourage any interested editors to refer to the talk page where numerous editors have have noted a POV issue. I also encourage editors to refer to the page history where even more editors have noted a POV problem. To offer a brief history on the issue:
I believe that this pattern (starting with the POV problems) demonstrates a conflict of interest because the user has stated and has accomplished outside promotion of the subject. Note also that I am not arguing the article is not notable, but that I'm providing background on a suspected COI problem. Thanks for taking the time to read. Johnathlon ( talk) 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly; a disclosure. Leitmotiv and I are already in dispute over this issue. Leitmotiv is actively engaged in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about the above system ( 1; 2) and other caves (links below) on Wikipedia. His user page says:
One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.
and has previously said:
That's [controlling the publication of inappropriate [sic] coordinate information] why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud
I believe that he therefore has a clear conflict of interest; not least since his books will lose exclusivity if that information is published in Wikipedia. The book is advertised as including maps.
Prior discussion is at:
The issue of CoI was also raised by other editors in the above TfD; in which Leitmotiv himself referred to an "obvious conflict of interest" and "conflict in interest". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a self-disclosed COI on this article. I corrected a recent edit which contained a negative accusation (which is true) to be more factual using a better reference regarding dates and the responsible party. I believe I corrected the accusation using neutral wording but I would like the diff examined: [48] SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 01:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Jaimi090 declares his COI with this edit: "I am writing up a new page for the ceo of the Eidos Institute".
The other users appear connected; it seems likely the IP will be linked to one or both of the above users. Note these are the three main editors of the article.
The article does not appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G11; I have proposed deletion. I also note that a similarly named article was deleted before after AfD. I do not have priveleges to verify if the article qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. I am reporting this clear case of COI so that those more experienced in dealing with these matters can advise on or themselves take appropriate action.
Thank you -- MegaSloth ( talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Aweaver2 admits to being Mary Cassini, originator of this concept. Either while logged in or (I believe) under various IP addresses while not logged in, she has been carefully maintaining this article to reflect the ideals of her movement, rather than NPOV. Now she is asking that it be prettied up because she is planning to send out press releases thanking Wikipedia for our "cooperation" in publicizing her concept!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This is my first time reporting anything at this Noticeboard, so if this is the wrong place I apologize.
It appears this is a single-use account for editing an article about that person, which most likely is a conflict of interest. Lord Roem ( talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This was written by a company selling door hangers and included links to pricing pages on their site... 184.10.247.4 ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is time someone else looks at the contributions that Davidhar has made, and his reason for editing WP. He edits mainily on the subject of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York in a way I think is designed to promote the university he attends, he has made a number of statements to that effect :
He has also uploaded numinous copyvio images here and at commons to make the article look better, in one case going as far as submitting a WP:ORTS ticket claiming to release images on belaf of the university (see commons:User talk:Adrignola/Archive 4#File:South Campus architecture close up.jpg).
Thanks Mt king (edits) 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
Article about a student organization whose significance has not been established, written by a single purpose account, acronym implying COI. 76.248.147.199 ( talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The username sounds promotional but the admin, Daniel Case referred me here. He created two promotional articles out of which 1 is already deleted and the other one tagged for deletion. Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to place balanced, logical, true information on this page, only to get it removed multiple times by what appear to be to be very rude users. They advise me to place information on this page that is based on science, is referenced by multiple sources, etc. etc. When I do so, they refuse to read or admit the information is true and just abuse me. What can I do to publish this information? Solmil ( talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom Watson M.P. has made some observations about Portland Communications' alleged activities on Wikipedia at his blog William Avery ( talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Conflict appears self-explanatory. 76.248.147.199 ( talk) 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jmtucci's user page claims she works for The Lubrizol Corporation, the parent company of Blazemaster. Sparthorse ( talk) 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I am confused by all of this. How are other company's allowed to put all their information out there an it is okay? This is a learning experience for me, so I'm not trying to be difficult. I added to Lubrizol's page with cited information. I was advised by my legal team to disclose that I worked for the company in order to be in compliance with FTC regulations. We are trying to put factual information about our company on the website and I think it's more factual coming from us than a third party. When I was creating the Blazemaster page, I knew how to use Wikipedia, but I was having problems with the templates, so I saved before I was done. I didn't have a second to go back in and change before I was up for deletion. Please advise how other companies can manage / edit their Wikipedia site without being flagged.
User self-identifying as subject is disruptively editing e.g. legal threat and recent 3 R R blanking. User is apparently not responsive to talk page messages, particularly WP:COI issues and WP:V requirements. WP:BLP cleanup may be warranted, but seems difficult to engage on this e.g. edit summary from another editor. Dl2000 ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Various assertions on Twitter that PR and lobbying firm Qorvis is engaging in "wiki-washing" for clients. (This is just a heads-up — I've no personal knowledge of the organisation and its activities, but thought I ought to raise this here in case people are unaware.)— A bit iffy ( talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In this edit I decided to remove a WP:BLP issue I felt was WP:UNDUE for an article on the wing. For full disclosure, I am assigned to this Wing, however I am not assigned to this Group and I have never met no care about this Colonel. There is an article about him at Joseph L. Romano and it is well sourced. The reason I removed it from the article, though, is because he was not assigned to the 37 Training Wing when the crime was comitted and the Wing was completely uninvolved. Also, upon this guy's future reassignment or retirement, there will be zero connection to the wing. It just doesn't belong in the article about the Wing, unless there is some sort of unique notability about him being assigned and that should be sourced. At most, I think a "See Also" might be warrented. I don't feel I have a WP:COI because I don't work for the Colonel and wasn't even aware of him until reading that blurb on this article, so I boldly did what I felt was correct, but I understand how someone could reasonable assume I do have one so I'll leave it for ya'all to decide whether to revert or not.--v/r - T P 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A series of edits over more than two years have added material that is neither encyclopedic nor sourced and which seems close to self-advertisement or autobiography. Johnlp ( talk) 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The user has a name which appears to be the same as a minor writer in the Telugu language. Almost every single edit that they have made has been to insert that author in various articles, usually with a link to the author's website. The author does not have a WP article and the insertions have continued today despite warnings about COI and edit warring. They're very sporadic in their contributions, and I have just cleaned up all but the Telugu literature article itself. (I am close to 3RR on that one.) Given their sporadic history, what if anything can be done? The possibility of COI appears high, the nature of the contributions is POV-y, and if it is not COI then probably the username gives cause for concern. Sitush ( talk) 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Steveadcuk ( talk · contribs) who self-identifies at Talk:ADC Bioscientific as an employee of ADC Bioscientific has contributed significantly to the article ADC Bioscientific and has added content to anthocyanin which appears to promote ADC Bioscientific and its products. I reverted once at anthocyanin, and so has another editor, but Steveadcuk has simply re-added the promotional content both times. I'm not sure what do, so I'm reporting here so others can investigate and take appropriate actions themselves. Thanks. Peacock ( talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wikipedia! Just thought I should bring to your attention Mr David Westin (former ABC News president) who's been editing his own page. Most of his edits seem not to violate policy, but I'm filing this report so that users experienced in dealing with COI can watchlist this page for future potential problems. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Previously AfD, had some copyvio issues and appears to be largely autobiographical. a13ean ( talk) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The user recently created this autobiographical article that appears to have been copied and paste, though I haven't yet located the original. Clear COI based on username. Sparthorse ( talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Company seems to have replaced entry with marketing material, violating NPOV. 198.228.196.183 ( talk) 22:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Article nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Buchmann. Zzarch ( talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Editor has repeatedly removed information about article subject's positive test for metenolone. Test results are both relevant to the biography and referenced to reliable sources (well-respected newspapers in Milan and Sofia and a Bulgarian news agency). References have been removed as well. NellieBly ( talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
...and possibly more
User:Polarman, as you can see from his contribution history, has been quite prolific in adding links to a website entitled Playerhistory.com. By his own admission, Polarman is Hakon Winther, the founder of Playerhistory.com, which presents a massive conflict of interests. I would like an admin to intervene here so that Polarman is made properly aware of Wikipedia policy regarding self-published content and self-advertisement (and any other policies that may relate to WP:COI). – Pee Jay 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that, but i just think it's fair that playerhistory share same info as soccerway and soccerbase. Who do you think add their links. We have gone from paysite to a public site so i don't really see the problem Polarman ( talk) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman
If i have to stop you just say so. Are contributors to playerhistory allowed to add links? Polarman ( talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Being edited by the self-professed webmaster of one of the universities also being merged into Trinity St. David. Edits went against the sources, and removed the widely-reported controversies. Have notified the user, but it's worth keeping an eye on the situation. 86.** IP ( talk) 18:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The slow edit war continues. Recently, an IP that belongs to the University of Wales, made the same problematic edit again. As it's most likely a shared IP, the connection can't be fully assessed (it could be an employee or student). I have attempted to push the editors to the talk page with no luck. I don't like edit warring and could use some more eyes on the article in case the removal happens again. OlYeller21 Talktome 15:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This seems like a duck COI to me. From the amount of unsourced and unverifiable content, Kudpung and I assumed it was an autobiography although the user claims it's not (see edit summary). The user has removed the maintenance templates from the article three times without addressing the issues although the last time, in good faith, they think they did (see edit summary). I've attempted to engage the user on the talk page of the article, issued the appropriate warnings, and invited the user to have a conversation on the talk page with no luck so far. The IP 81.148.223.103 has also remove the templates but never returned. As I look at their edit summary, it looks like they may have been following my edits and blindly reverting me so it may not be related.
At the heart of the problem, the article is a mess. It's written like a personal essay and has a load of unverifiable information like the unannounced intent of the subject of the article when they were a child. It talks about what social media he liked using and unsourced quotes. I haven't sifted through everything to completely assess notability but there's a claim of notability given the notability artists the subject claims to have worked with. I could use some help. OlYeller21 Talktome 14:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I have proposed an expansion of the article about the businessperson Leslie Bradshaw on the discussion page for the article about her, here. It so happens she is a friend and business associate, and she has asked me to improve the article, so I have a potential COI and am seeking feedback before making any direct edits. If you're interested in reviewing the draft ( in my user space here) and moving it, making edits or offering feedback, I'd welcome any thoughtful responses. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 18:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Smarmy fawning biography of Hungarian-born baron, "playboy," artist and sculptor who worked under the pseudonym "Sepy". The article is poorly written by somebody whose native language is apparently not English; it depends very heavily on articles about the subject written by him or by journalists writing for men's magazines where fact-checking was not the core of their mission. I've cleaned it up a bit, but it's still pretty horrid, with lots of duplication and overlinking. Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've tagged this for speedy deletion as an article about a non-notable organization. Unsourced, and written as a promotional vehicle, per multiple talk page protestations. User doesn't seem to understand guidelines, or perceive the niceties of spamming. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The userpage of User:Nickyjamz is being used by the editor for self-promotion, in violation of WP:UP#PROMO and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The editor is not here to build the encyclopedia—check the contribution history and you'll see only self promo. I am guessing that this is the best noticeboard for this guy! Binksternet ( talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing because I'm working for a Marketing firm, Right Source Marketing, to try and get a page up for one of our clients, Angel. In 2009, they had an article up that had been salted by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) because the person working on it restored it after it had been deleted several times (or something like that). That person is no longer involved on the page, nor an active user on Wikipedia. The page is now userfied at User:Socialmedia2011/Angel.com, and needs a lot of work because Angel has changed significantly since 2009.
I realize that I'm probably being over-transparent by posting here when I'm not even editing a real page yet, but I want to be very clear that I've agreed to work on this page because I believe it meets objective notability standards and that Wikipedia would benefit from having a page about Angel. I would absolutely love any and all help from other editors, as well as advice on how to get the page restored and what might be good to include in the article. I'm extremely open to feedback from the community, and am new at editing, so please assume that my mistakes are from ignorance, not poor intentions.
Socialmedia2011 ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
SPA editor is sole author of article content, claims to be "industry insider" on user page. Article is tagged for GNG and reads like an autobiography. Is it an autobiography? Editor should at least be warned of COI policy. Brianhe ( talk) 22:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Brianhe, Atama sent me a link to the page about COI. I can understand why you might have concerns about a conflict of interest. I am interested in writing living biographies of notable Tennesseans. My first article was created under the pseudonyme CMA. The other two (also works in progress) Bill Herzer and [[Bill Taylor (Martial artists) were created under a second pseudonyme, Chromatography. I have a lot to learn. After I started the first article I decided to change my account name to one that reflected my broad range of interests. My error. I wasn't aware that Wikipedia discouraged contributors from having multiple accounts. When I changed my name I didn't think it would be ethical to write the same article under two different account names. I have no problem with deleting CMA.
As far as a COI - I have no financial interest or expect to derive monetary or other benefits from creating the articles (except perhaps the enjoyment thereof). I am open to learning and want to continue to try to work from a neutral point of view. Your suggestions are totally welcome. Now that I understand Wikipedia's policy regarding accounts I will continue to use only one account.... Thanx, Chromatography AKA Country music aficionado ( talk) 15:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Two of the authors are strongly involved in the articles theme. See also discussion page and the (origin) german article. One of the accounts is therefore blocked in german WP, just for info. -- Robertsan ( talk) 18:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
In the German WP there had been a Checkuser. Several Edit-wars, a closed article, a blocked MacWien (because being a man on a mission). You can see where these two accounts do their edits. They try to manipulate the articles, to put their POV in them. Other users tried to find a neutral POV, and we have a very long history in the German Christian Michelides and also the Discussion is. You may see, although without knowledge of the German language, that the users trying to find a POV, are editing a lot in many fields (myself in arts), Oliver SY and Elisabeth are well known proper workers. But these accounts are only editing in CM and in his field (the magazine FORVM he wrote for and so on). The fanclub (some of them is proposed to be CM himself, you find the arguments on the CU), tries to glorify the person. There are no reliable sources for a lot of things, (e.g. exhibition organisation, a lot of studies, but no final degree and so on). and when some accounts try to take them out, the fanclub puts them in again, then the article gets blocked and so on. Realizing, that the German WP administrators do not accept the unsourced things, the fanclub now tries to play that game in English. You can see at what time these accounts were born and where else they work. And the Sphinx is not in German WP but is talking with MacWien in German. The English version is the translation of a former German version, which was corrected ba other users using reliable sources. -- Robertsan ( talk) 18:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to add some searched information about the company "Steinway & Sons" to the article "Steinway & Sons". I am trying to add the goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons and five independent references. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458447959&oldid=458397062). Unfortunately, it is impossible because every time I add the information and references the user named Binksternet deletes what I and other users have added. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=historysubmit&diff=458449465&oldid=458447959). It seems that the user named Binksternet has taken ownership of the article and controls everything that various users add to the article. (See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steinway_%26_Sons&action=history). Does Binksternet work for one of Steinway & Sons' rival companies or is Binksternet a piano tuner - and does he have a conflict of interest? What do I do wrong? The goal of the founder of Steinway & Sons is relevant to the article and I wrote four independent references after the sentence. I see it as a big problem that user Binksternet censors the article and deletes some of the fascinating history of Steinway & Sons that he doesn't like. 195.254.169.226 ( talk) 16:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
User persistently adds external links to a website with Paul Dettwiler's work, has written an article about this apparently non-notable artist (it's up for discussion as to whether his professional career meets notability guidelines), and continuously adds redlink names to list of Swedish artists. 76.248.149.98 ( talk) 00:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was patrolling recent changes and came across what looked like promotional edits on a new article about Roger Steare (It is likely he would meet notability). One of the users who was editing the page was also editing User:Lizcable/Ethicability, a book by Roger - as were two other editors. I became suspicious the edits may be being made by a PR company and did a quick google. Searching for combinations of the usersnames leads to a social media company, and so it is likely they are creating promotional edits for a fee. I'm not sure how best to respond to this, so came here. Thanks Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 11:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Transparently the university editing its own article. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:SPA extensively editing article about themself in violation of WP:COI. — 68.239.65.132 ( talk) 16:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Two or three users have been removing a criticism/controversy paragraph from the lead section of the Ave Maria University article. One of those is an anonymous IP editor using an IP registered to the university. The IP editor has been informed on the user talk page of the conflict of interest limitations but has edit warred the paragraph back out with the summary, "it belongs under controversy. Period." I have argued that the lead section should include a summary of critical information that is found in the article body, according to the guideline at WP:LEAD, but the conflicted IP will not accept this. Binksternet ( talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Binksternet and I discussed a trimmed down version of the disputed information on the talk page of the article, came to an agreement with no other input over two days. Binksternet made the edit, and mere hours later, an IP registered to Ave Maria University reverted it here with roughly the same edit summary. Now what?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is the Ave Maria University IP address reverting without discussion yet again. Advice?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 01:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
and still removing the shared IP address template.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 01:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently written a new draft of the article for the non-profit New Leaders (formerly New Leaders for New Schools), on behalf of the organization. This fall, the organization has been renamed and has launched new programs, and asked me to create an updated article to reflect these changes. Due to my conflict of interest, I do not wish to replace and rename the current article myself without seeking input from other editors. I'd like to ask that another editor read through my draft and the explanation I have previously posted on the article's talk page, and offer any feedback you might have. Although I have taken care to write the article from a neutral POV, it may be that other editors have some changes to suggest, and I welcome any constructive comments.
You can see the proposed draft here in my userspace: User:16912 Rhiannon/New Leaders and my full explanation of the draft and requested change of article name on the New Leaders for New Schools talk page.
Please let me know if you have any questions or feedback on the draft/change of name. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon ( talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Crcorrea ( talk · contribs · count) appears to be an single purpose account, with the purpose of promoting a university project PublicMind. While I realize that .edu links are usually fine as a reference, I'd like second opinions on the user's contributions and COI before taking further action. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. File:C:\Users\Vishal Raj\Documents\bodhi.jpg
This article edited by someone which contradicts the truth and also stirs racism which talks about a higher caste in India. the information was recently updated and semi protected we have the picture evidence how it was manipulated. I don't know the process how to complaint to Wikipedia about this product. Still i am not sure this will reach the right person. This article misguides high time. Sturdyrajesh1 ( talk) 18:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This is a smalltime reactionary radio talkshow host who's raised some political stink in Florida. He owns a one-show "radio network" called The Phoenix Network, and the s.p.a. User:Phoenix545 created both the article on Guetzloe and a (since-deleted) advertisement "article" on The Phoenix Network. I've spamblocked the Phoenix account, but would like some eyes on the Guetzloe article, preferably by somebody who despises guys like this less than I do, for NPOV and other edits. I think he (barely) meets WP:N, but am not sure. Orange Mike | Talk 15:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This user self-identifies as Rohner, the psychologist who developed the theory in the article. He (pronoun following self-ID) has nominated this article for deletion, probably through a misunderstanding of normal editing possibilities. I asked him about COI on his talk page, and he mentioned that he has research associates editing under the same username. He hasn't actually edited the article with this username except to nominate for deletion, and he's being quite communicative. I gave him some brief advice on his talk page and also told him that I was going to start a thread here so he could get advice from the experts on how to proceed, since I'm feeling a little out of my depth. Here's the talk page conversation: User_talk:Rohner_Research#Possible_conflict_of_interest_on_Parental_acceptance-rejection_theory. That's it!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
One of the members of this jazz duo has made a complete revamp of the page, introducing significant non neutral information. 76.168.134.217 ( talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Obvious COI username removed an image concerning anti-feminism. Calabe 1992 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This user has inserted links to jameelaoberman.com here, there, and everywhere over the last few days. Xe has made a few constructive edits, but not many. I'm not bothering to list all the articles above, because would duplicate the user's contribs. There are templates on the user's talk page, and I'm going to leave a note by hand right now. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 22:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Now xe is edit-warring over it. I'm at 3RR on Pete and the Pirates, so I'm going to leave this to the professionals now.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry? who is user XE? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've just come across Sigma0 1 again, who some people might remember was mentioned in this thread at WP:AN about a year ago and here at the start of the year. I can't find any diffs where it is disclosed, but there it was suggested that Sigma0 1 is a paid editor. I've been looking over their contribs and came across a fair few problems. While most of the articles probably meet WP:N, some such as Thom Russo, Bulgarian Bag and Tibbo BASIC(already PRODed) are rather more borderline. In other articles I found problems of OR: 1 and 2. I will try to look over more of them myself, but wanted to post here to see if any one can lend a hand in checking other articles and cleaning up as necessary. SmartSE ( talk) 22:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Tyler. I am here on behalf of my employer, Full Sail University, where I am the Social Media Manager. I'm aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, and in cases where I am discussing content related to the Full Sail University article, I will limit myself to proposing changes as opposed to making the changes myself. I've made this declaration on my user page as well.
Note: I am on a university IP address, shared by thousands of people and it is possible that someone other than myself may make changes and/or edits without my knowing.
I want others to know of this conflict of interest up front, and would like the community's feedback on if this is a sound approach to participate.
Thank you. -- Tylergarner ( talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Recently, two additions have been made to the Huawei article, regarding Iran and the Taliban, and I would like to suggest a rewording of each. I have a potential conflict of interest with Huawei as a topic, since I work with the company, and over time this year I have discussed changes with other editors before improving the article. In this case again I have been cautious about making any change to these sentences directly. Recently I made a request on the Huawei talk page regarding the Iran sentence, but I have not received any response. Now that someone has added the incomplete Taliban statement, I decided to come here.
The sentence on Iran was initially added to the introduction of the article and I have moved it into the " Security concerns" section. The sentence on the Taliban was added to this section earlier this week. Both are poorly written, and the first implies that Huawei intentionally aided censorship, when this is not stated in the source article. The second implies that Huawei was shown to have a connection with the Taliban, when this is not the case according to later news articles.
The original wording of the sentence on Iran is:
The wording I propose is:
The original wording of the sentence on the Taliban is:
The wording I suggest is:
It would be greatly appreciated if an editor could review the changes I suggest and make the edits if they seem reasonable. Thank you. -- Bouteloua ( talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Futura2000 twice added reference to themselves to 'notable alumni' section of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology [2] [3], and once again after being warned of the potential conflict of interest [4]. User seems to have article of same name, Futura 2000, but has not edited it under his user account. User has also made at least two vandalism edits to other articles [5] [6]. Bakkster Man ( talk) 19:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the pornographic actress and film director Nica Noelle. Lately, User:NicaNoelle has been editing, first by strangely removing information ( [7] [8] [9] -- after which s/he was warned ( [10])), and lately just adding non-neutral, unverified information (nine consecutive edits from [11] to [12]). Now, if this really is Nica Noelle, I love her work and I hate to look as though I'm tattling, but s/he just isn't understanding the concept of WP:COI. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting worried that the article, about the subject of a major British educational controvers) is now primarily written by people in that university's administration. Can some people take a look? 86.** IP ( talk) 00:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
After looking at it - I completely agree - there is clearly an attempt to bring that article under the control of the university and turn it into a puff-piece. I'd urge editors to watchlist it and resist this stage management. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm here to get feedback and see if there is concensus to remove a tag on the article Migdia Chinea Varela.
This article currently has an autobiography tag at the top of it. I would like to remove it because the editor in question has not edited the page since October 15th. (That edit was reverted soon after.) Also the current article is not her version. Instead the current wording is the work of several other editors including myself. If there is more problematic editing it is easy enough to replace the tag, but for now the connected contributer tag that is on on the talk page seems sufficent to me.
If it's not reasonable to remove it now, what would a reasonable waiting period be? Cloveapple ( talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Appears to be associated with the Tales of The Kama Sutra series — Manicjedi ( talk) ( contribs) ( templates) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This user is apparently the subject using the name of her first husband. I informed her of the conflict of interest policy, left tags on her talk page, and she's continued to edit her own page, marking significant changes as minor. [13] JFHJr ( ㊟) 04:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
This user is the "webmistress" for Lauren LeMay, and sometimes uses the above IP. [14] All of her edits relate to subjects with whom she shares a close connection. When I brought to her attention the conflict of interest in authoring pages about Lauren LeMay, her husband Kevin Break, his model Emily Marilyn, and associated articles, she removed her name and contact information from the Lauren LeMay website and denied the relationship on her talk page. Currently, however, a google search still shows results from the cached version: https://www.google.com/search?q=gawel+"lauren+lemay" (a search for: gawel "lauren lemay"; sorry, the quotes are necessary and I can't seem to wikify it properly). She also continued to edit the articles in question while logged out. [15] [16] That second edit was her attempt to stop a current AfD for the Kevin Break article. It seems she understands the situation but won't stop. JFHJr ( ㊟) 00:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I originally wrote the Scentura article in 2007, as User:Calendar then left for many years. I added that the Illinois Appellate Court ruled Scentura a pyramid sales scheme and 37 other references. I was dismayed, but not surprised, when I returned four years later and every reference was gone and a glowing review of the company was in its place, with plenty of links to Scentura's site.
I do want to police this article alone, so I come here, letting the community be aware of this page, and asking the community to help. If this is the wrong forum, please let me know. Calendar2 ( talk) 21:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
At this point, NickBrunson is mass-reverting without discussion, including removal of the COI tag.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 16:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Food Not Bombs? An editor claiming to be the founder of the group has been making changes to the page, pasting information from their website and complaining about inaccuracies. He seems to be somewhat irritated and unfamiliar with our policies. I would work on it, but I'm not quite sure what the best way to proceed would be. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that this user hasn't done much harm, though the user's employer has done some editing as well. I don't have time to go through it now, but the article needs to be cleaned up anyway. Both users need to be more careful about conflict of interest and what it means for Wikipedia's neutrality. The Haz talk 05:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Braindead2011 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Pre-Certification Video (UK)
I have deleted my sub section on the above article after I was informed that my post is slander and potentially libellous. I had created a small article about the function of a website related to the subject.
The site operates a private members list, and if the police or inland revenue wanted to investigate the site or threads they would have to join and in that time any contiguous material could be deleted. I mentioned that the forum closed its chat room down, how is libel. I did not mention how a member threatened to chase me down with dogs, gut me and finish me off with his shotgun. I was also called a homosexual. I can't prove this happened because the site deleted the posts and banned me.
In the article I mentioned how members have infringed copyright laws on more than one occasion. The members deleting my posts are aware of the facts that I stated and have consistently edited out those facts. Site members have acquired a u-matic disc of a film and have funded an attempt to have the tape played back and obtain member site copies on DVD. I was actually banned from the forum 18 months ago after one of the administrators of the site was outed by another member for requesting copyright material on a home made disc. I did not mention that fact in my post. So have I slandered of libelled the site?
I also pointed out that the site has an anti censorship vibe, members do moan about government bodies censoring films and actively swap and collect illegal copies of films that carry no certificate. I mentioned that in terms of video cassettes banned/censored films can be reviewed on appeal and have a reason why the decision still stands. I pointed out that a banned member does not have the right of appeal to a ban, or is given an explanation for any decision.
On the auction site eBay have a section that deals with pre-certificate sales and this does contravene the Video recording Act, 1994. I noted that the website I discussed does not include a notice informing its members it is against the law to sell or trade those tapes. How is that libel.
I could produce the welcome page of the web site and connect it to a link and prove that the welcom page does not mention this, So how is this libel?
Braindead2011 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Dean Paramor
Promotional username, making a lot of edits to the article. So far editing nothing else. I left a note on user's talk page just now, and haven't had time to look over quality of edits, but wanted to get more eyes on situation. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
The XL Recordings article contains a number of factual errors. I am correcting these errors and providing references. User:Xlrecordings 18 November 2011
Two editors who are members of Open PHACTS are editing and promoting their own articles including writing autobiography Antony John Williams adding in external links and. ChemConnector was notified previously for a COI when editing as User:ChemSpiderMan (has also edited as User:Tony27587). These two editors are active in deletion discussions. I am happy to step back from this and let other editors have more say. Widefox ( talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I deliberately made edits with this account to make my affiliation (and professional identity, stick the user name into Google) clear. I would have had no problem with reversions, or questions, but the process has started on an assumption of bad faith - I have been tagged as a possible sock puppet, undeclared COI (despite username and *explicit* acknowledgement of project involvement in deletion discussions), tagged as possible SPA... The process - started when I reverted a redirect - immediately led to mass tagging of pages for deletion. Less important in my case, I have fewer edits to lose, but my colleague ChemConnector had several major scientist entries tagged for deletion immediately. I think the bad faith assumption has led to a huge overreaction in this case Rsc.kidd ( talk) 09:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
COI article without objective sources, promotional or press-release tone, continued removal of maintenance tags. 99.12.242.97 ( talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
This article has been seen here at COIN once before. It looks like the accounts involved have been blocked for socking and the article hasn't been edited since the end of October. The article is very long and could use some combing through. OlYeller21 Talktome 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
A WP:SPA, creating multiple articles about this composer and adding him to numerous others. Subject's significance hasn't yet been established via reliable sources. JNW ( talk) 23:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I sometimes see academics adding references to their own works into articles. Sometimes it's appropriate and adds to the article, but other times the usefulness to the parent article is very weak, and it looks like the academic version of linkspam. Does anyone have a suggested way to handle these, especially where some of the editor's contributions are useful? Would it make sense to have a special version of the uw-coi template for this? Cheers A13ean ( talk) 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
User:Eseschool has edited European School of Economics. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have any time now, but could someone take a look at some of these additions? A few of them are OK but others appear not to be constructive, and may need to be reverted or replaced with better refs. A13ean ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
(Copied from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention)
Today, a series of edits have been made by a user editing as User:lilithmag, adding a raft of awards won by Lilith magazine. I assume good faith, but wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for even the most worthy of magazines. David in DC ( talk) 02:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Orchidee3 added "Specialized Cuvettes" section to Cuvette, which primarily serves to advertise "DiluCell(TM)" cuvettes (which are made by Implen). Looking at other contributions, they added the section "Nanospectrophotometry" (later NanoPhotometry), which is also an Implen product, and a suggestion to use the "NanoPhotometer(TM)" on the Cyanine page. The reference (pdf), which is added to most of those pages. I think it reads like an ad. Kjsharke ( talk) 22:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the third report at COIN regarding this user and article (see here and here). The username Xday allegedly stands for "Vox Day" which is the subject of the article's standard internet handle. I definitely consider the editor's additions/removals to be contentious and I see some strong ownership issues. The article has a good amount of bloat in it and I believe that the issue stem from the subject's strong political views which may be why several editors have voiced a concern. The article could use some eyes on it. OlYeller21 Talktome 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Germany's former finance, then defence minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg appears to be planning a comeback, as the popular press has simultaneously started to hype him. (The quality press has commented on this.) On the height of the plagiarism affair, he had received an amount of support on Facebook that appeared far out of proportion for any politician however popular, and consequently some people suspected foul play. (It is possible to buy Facebook fans for fake grassroots campaigns.)
User:Dewritech has, since 28 June (4 weeks after interest in Guttenberg had subsided, as witnessed by page views both here and on the German Wikipedia, and by 4 weeks without any edit to the article), consistently and very slowly been moving the article in a more Guttenberg-friendly direction. In many cases his changes were clear corrections and improvements, but for reasons that will be obvious I am a bit suspicious, which made me look at the user's contributions.
The user's first activity was to create an article on a Swiss think tank called "Horasis". An article on Horasis had been deleted in January 2010 after a first AfD. He wrote the new article in his user space [17], then pasted it into article space and blanked the draft. Speedy deletion as recreated deleted article was declined due to new content, but as a result of the second AfD the article was deleted again in May 2010.
In July 2011, User:Dundswk, a single-purpose account that was active only for 4 days, recreated the article and used an image uploaded by Dewritech. The first lead sentences were identical to those of Dewritech's version, although Google does not find these formulations anywhere except in Wikipedia and its mirrors. The article exists to this day under Horasis and still starts with words that were already in Dewritech's version. I cannot see the deleted revisions, so can't check whether they were also in the earliest version, the one that was deleted by the first AfD. It has seen significant activity by red-linked SPA accounts.
There are several dimensions here:
I am documenting this here so that other editors can also have a look, and will now file an SPI on the obvious Horasis socks. Hans Adler 11:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I see the Johnbkidd ( talk · contribs) account has popped up this afternoon as well, if this is not sockpuppets, on a behavioural level, it certainly looks like Meatpuppets. I think we need to recruit more eyes to start look at the contributions of those accounts in more detail. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
COI, only contribution is to add an eponymous EL to Adamson University. Itsmejudith ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
User name matches the director of communications for the foundation, article may bear checking. A13ean ( talk) 04:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the IP's comment here ( "I work for Halo:Faith"), and the promotional nature of Pelletier's article, this needs a look. A lot of sourcing to blogs, puffery, etc. It's unclear to me if Pelletier even meets the GNG. The Interior (Talk) 12:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I've been working with this editor and they have been very open about their connection to the subject of the article. I don't foresee any problems occurring with this editor. They've been very cooperative.
They have asked that the article be assessed so that the COI tag can be removed from the article. I'm stepping out and don't have time to check right now. Is anyone able to check the article for issues and remove the tag if there are no issues (related to a COI)? If not, I'll do it sometime this weekend. OlYeller21 Talktome 21:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Charliehertz ( talk) 21:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
While the username is immediately suspect of being from an organisation to promote its website/agenda, the 2 edits he made to the article ( [19] [20]) link directly back to his site. Lihaas ( talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I've just posted an explanatory note and {{request edit}} template on the article of former White House spokesperson Dee Dee Myers, seeking consenus to replace the mostly-unsourced, low-quality current article with a better-researched, better-written version. That version is available in my user space here—prepared by myself at the request of Ms. Myers' current firm—and I'd appreciate it greatly if anyone here will take the time to review it and perhaps move it over. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 15:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Woodward21 is a longstanding WP:SPA on this article, who shows considerable WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Based upon the similarity between his nick, and the name of the Communications Manager at the zoo, I suspect there may be a conflict of interest here. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some promotional editing (on multiple Wikipedias) around Nyckelharpa and Nyckelharpa players. Also some dubious sources (e.g. a talk page at the German Wikipedia) seem to be used in the article. — Ruud 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The author of this article, User:Gk00900, has made no other contribution (ever since creation of the user account in 2007) other than authoring this article. The only other page edited by User:Gk00900 is List of people from Kerala to insert this very article in it. Hence it is obvious that User:Gk00900 is either 'Sreelakshmi Suresh' or a promoter of the 'subject'. The article itself is obviously self promotional, hence has been suggested for deletion (AfD) twice, the third discussion is going on. Thanks. Austria156 ( talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
These edits are unsourced. Please review them to see why I'm posting my concern on this board. David in DC ( talk) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
As the Digital Communications Officer for Heriot-Watt University I've become concerned that the Wikipedia article for the institution is not of as high a standard as it could be, being poorly organised, badly referenced, out-of-date and in some places factually inaccurate. I've left a proposed rewrite of the article in my userspace which I'd be grateful if neutral editors could look over- I've attempted to be as neutral as possible, but appreciate as per WP:COI and WP:SCOIC that review of what I've written is still required.
Thanks,
Robert HW ( talk) 12:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Greyhood ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed information and edited the article in ways supportive of the Russian government. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how this is a COI. Not a single piece of evidence of a close connection has even been presented let alone verified. All I've seen is involved editors going on a hunch and while those hunches may very well be right, luckily, we don't act on only hunches of involved editors. If anyone feels that another editor is being intentionally disruptive, you should take it to WP:ANI. If you feel that the article isn't neutral which seems to be the consensus, you need to discuss it on the talk page of the article and/or at WP:NPOVN. If you feel that someone is here to push a candidate they like or the inverse, I hope someone can finally present some evidence of a close connection. Personally, it seems to me that the issue is that the Russian government can/does manipulate the Russian media making sources used in the article unreliable which would make this a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It might not even be a case for WP:NPOVN as it seems that the base of this problem is the reliability of sources and not someone explicitly trying to push a non-neutral point of view. OlYeller21 Talktome 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
To any editor who happens to be watching this page: I have written a draft that I would like to see replace the current Moody's article, and am now seeking to organize a discussion about how best to do that (as I have a COI with the topic) on the Moody's discussion page. If anyone here is interested to get involved, your input would be very welcome. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
While this is an AfC, the original article was written like a promotional resume. What I neglected to detect the first time around was that the name of the user editing the account is also the name of a marketing firm that specializes in promoting people in order to bring in more customers. They did edit the article to make it less promotional but there's still a big conflict of interest going on here, especially if they were potentially hired by Patel to create the article. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Since at least 2008, User:EdQuine has been posting messages to talk pages about books, with a link to a website "the World Book Club homepage" (run by the BBC) and promoting opportunities to get involved in events about each individual book.
The first request for him to desist seems to have been in 2008. There have been several such requests since then.
In 2009 he was asked to make clear whether he had any potential conflict of interest, and declined.
The talk page messages sent by EdQuine have continued at a steady pace, the latest on 17th October includes an attempt to suggest talk page relevance by including the text "A chance to ask questions to improve this article!" although that's quite clearly not the intention of the edit, since there is no mechanism for information discovered by the World Book Club to be fed back into Wikipedia articles by the organisation. (EdQuine does not appear to do any improvement of the articles whose talk pages he posts these advertisements on.)
EdQuine's most recent edit, 9th December, was to add information, albeit properly sourced and possibly useful information, to the biography of someone who is employed by the BBC working on the World Book Club program.
Finally, EdQuine is the primary, in fact almost the only, contributor to the article World Book Club.
I'm wondering if any steps should be taken to deal with these messages on book talk pages, or other aspects of the editing. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 07:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me to be a straight forward spammer to me - the posts on the talkpages should be deleted on sight. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Last month, I arranged for the placement of a new draft of the article about Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, which I had researched and written on behalf of Cracker Barrel. I disclosed the fact, in no uncertain terms, on the article's Talk page when I first posted the request and again when I asked for assistance at WikiProject Food and drink. An editor from that project reviewed the article, agreed it was a significant improvement, and moved it into place.
Just yesterday, Orangemike (whom I know sometimes participates on this noticeboard) placed a COI tag on the article, implying that the article "may require cleanup", etc., but did not leave a note on the Talk page explaining what is wrong with it now. This is perplexing; I couldn't have done this more by-the-book (per WP:SCOIC, WP:PSCOI, &c.), and I think a comparison between versions shows plainly that my version is much better—I'd go so far as to say it's now GA level. Of note, there is actually more information about the company's 1990s discrimination controversies in the draft I prepared than there was before.
Anyway, 24 hours have passed since I posted a note on Orangemike's Talk page asking him to reconsider. Since he has been active on-site since then, but has not responded, it's my assumption that he doesn't intend to do so. Would someone else here be willing to review the situation and perhaps remove the template? Thanks for your consideration, WWB Too ( talk) 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Mikepabell ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user (who appears to have a glaring COI) has created a series of related articles, the subjects of which do not appear to be notable and which I have either tagged for speedy deletion or PRODded. Further eyes on these articles would be appreciated. – ukexpat ( talk) 20:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Referenced material has been removed by coi editor without discussion, what are other editors thoughts? Theroadislong ( talk) 22:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Please note Talk:Roger Steare#Declaration of interest. The article was discussed here in November. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLP, although largely uncontroversial. By the user name, we can assume that the main editor is the subject. Removes tags, and adds links to Amazon. The JPS talk to me 23:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
A close relative of mine worked as a research scientist on Mars Pathfinder, and I'm interested in both contributing to the main article here and creating new pages for the scientific equipment aboard Pathfinder's lander and the Sojourner rover. I don't think this is a conflict of interest because my relative no longer has a pecuniary interest in the project, and I never worked on it myself. Even if these are problems, I think my access to scholarly information about the project and its various experiments is grounds to mitigate any COI that might exist, and I'll be sure to cite the information I contribute. May I ask what this group thinks? Apologies if this isn't the place to ask this question; I'm still learning the ropes.
I am concerned that the basis (please see here for details): [21] for the above article which is on the current Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, has been put in place by the PR representative of the Central Bank who I believe to be user:Kyproula, if you look at her postings here: [22] they only relate to this article, my concerns arise from the fact that there is a conflict of interest. The article, apart from reading a lot like a CV, only mentions the subject's research contributions prior to 2007, which is the year he took up his public office position as governor, in order to portray him in a more favourable light, whilst ignoring his term as governor, no mention of what he has acheived during those years is made.
I would have expected some critical presentation of the Governor's time in office and his policies etc. Also, if you look at the article's discussion page another user tried to add a section on the subject's time as governor with criticism based on his policy of regulating Cypriot banks, but it was removed as undue weight. I think, there is a case for an independent editor to look at the article and add a section about recent events i.e. the subject's term as governor between 2007-2012 in a way that is objective and not biased. Thanks 212.31.115.186 ( talk) 13:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
All of these are apparently either Werner or his socks/meatpuppets. All are s.p.a.s editing only the article about him. I've just had to stub the article, which mostly consisted of a big fat copyright violation (cut and paste from his ASU profile, which [contrary to assertions of his in the past], is copyrighted by the Arizona Board of Regents). Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
An editor with lots of experience in COI issues suggested I post here. I am concerned that Rogerfgay is editing in a self-promotional manner, and that I have not been able to adequately explain Wikipedia policies to him in this area. Here are a few diffs showing self-promotion on his part:
I believe he is editing in good faith and is not intentionally violating Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, he seems to have come to the conclusion that I am on a personal vendetta to block his additions, so I think it would be best if I stepped back at this point. If other editors could do a more effective job at guiding him through the ins and outs of WP:COI, I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks. Ebikeguy ( talk) 19:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this needs some discussion. Mr. Gay has a long history of writing articles about which he has a strong connection: he is quite upfront about his identity so there is no outing here. He created the articles on his colleague/boss Peter Nordin, the Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia AB, the company where he is/was employed as vice president of business development, and The Humanoid Project, one of Nordin' projets [23] [24]. He has repeatedly added links and information to other articles about this business. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. He also created the article on Men's News Daily, since deleted as a non-notable website [30] [31], where many of Mr. Gay's articles are hosted. He has created WP articles (later determined as POV forks... see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child Support Policy) which cited his own (self-published) writings, and made other edits citing himself [32] [33] [34] even after he was aware that WP did not regard Men's News Daily as a reliable source [35] He was blocked for disruptive, POV editing and a pointy AFD nomination of Child Support. [36] [37].
Now all this was a long time ago, but I do think it useful to point that most of Mr. Gay's contribution in Wikipedia has been to connected to advocacy, either of his work or of his strongly held views about men's rights issues. I was very sorry to see that he had returned to engage in more of the same, in this case to insert himself as a notable writer about Father's rights, first as an IP and then logged in. [38] [39] [40] [41]. On the plus side, he did eventually ask, as appropriate, for consensus to for the addition of his name on the talkpage. The proposal hasn't received any support, because it doesn't seem that there is any sign that he is a notable writer per reliable secondary sources. On the downside, I am also sorry that Mr. Gay has returned to guessing at motivations of other editors, including opining that "opposition activists" and "activist trolls" have been thwarting him, and commenting on Ebikeguy above and elsewhere. I have a pretty high threshold for COI editing, and I am sure all the editors are contributing in good faith, but I do think User:Rogerfgay needs to be considerably more careful about promoting himself, his business and advocacy interests on WP. -- Slp1 ( talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
NIS Outreach ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has created Office of Nonproliferation and International Security. Since this government agency is known as NIS, the username violates policy as it appears to represent the organization. Further, some of the text of the article is copied from the agency's website. Since its a government agency, copyright is not an issue, but plagiarism and COI are still relevant concerns. GabrielF ( talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Iueweb ( talk · contribs) created an article about Indiana University East's Chancellor (Nasser Paydar) which was deleted as a copyvio. The account name gives the appearance of representing the university. GabrielF ( talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Amandatindersmith ( talk · contribs) claims to be Mr. Lamb's assistant, and is making changes to the article which do not meet Wikipedia formatting and sourcing requirements. I've asked her to read COI, OWN and BLP, but she continues to make the unsourced changes. The Mark of the Beast ( talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
JessicaZaluzecCM appears to represent the company Classical Movements (cf her username) and has created the article Classical Movements. Despite several editors strongly advising her to stop editing the article, she persists in doing so, adding unsourced promotional material. I am attempting to rescue the article as I think the company is probably notable, but am being frustrated by the editor's lack of communication and insistence on adding inappropriate material to the article. Would appreciate further opinions on this. Thanks, Sparthorse ( talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The user's very first edit to their user page says it all "Loquar is a marketing company specializing in viral and meme marketing. Founded in 2010 based in Palo Alto." Yworo ( talk) 02:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to be the target of a multi-year effort by the company to promote itself. There appears to be a once yearly update by the company, with promotional wording mixed into the updates, which though most edits may not constitute a gross violation of wikipedia policy, does look unbalanced. An examination of Fasha Mahjoor ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) may also be in order, considering that two of the aforementioned editors edited both articles, and the latter subject is the CEO of the former subject. This article has been spam-clean-up'd atleast once before after promotional material was added. 70.24.244.248 ( talk) 08:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
User appears to represent the music group The Rej3ctz, as their management company, based on this message. Seems to be violative of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. GrayFullbuster ( talk) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Hbuckner has created and recreated the article International Acquisition Group which is clearly promotional. From his userpage he is a "Business Analyst for International Acqusitions Group (IAG)" Sparthorse ( talk) 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Only purpose of this account is apparently to publicize this organization and its Dear Leader Michael Davidson; all edits are to that purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 19:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Please canyou help? A COI tag was put on this article originally, but after being raised here by Moonriddengirl in September it was removed. I now see another editor has replaced it last month. Can I seek approval to remove, having done so much to clean up the piece earlier? Paul Stephen Farmer ( talk) 15:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks all for your time and advice. I'm still learning. I have just reviewed Dick Sheppard School and removed two sentences which had no citation/reference. Do I wait for further comment before removing COI tag for Paul S Farmer or does someone else do it?
Whilst I'm here I should explain that I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although User: Moonriddengirl kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any advice appreciated. -- Paul Stephen Farmer ( talk) 18:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that there are a few editors active] who, with intervals, try to add marketing material (which I deleted [44] [45] [46]) or delete criticism [47] (which was added by me). They don't respond on Talk pages and they may well be different people (except Elfibon/Lara.hastens). I'm not sure how to deal with this. It seems that I'm the only one watching that article, but I don't want to be watching this article for eternity since I'm not really that interested in the subject. Han-Kwang ( t) 13:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Ngunasekera recently made some sizable changes to the article. I believe that they are [Outing redacted], an employee of Texas Instruments. LMB caught the edits and said, "We may have been raided by TI's PR department -> PR style into Wikipedia style". Ngunasekera submitted a PandaBoard article to AfC and shortly after its rejection, it was created in mainspace by Dingo aus. Since then, the two accounts have edited most of the same articles. I can not find any solid indication that Dingo aus is linked to TI or Ngunasekera but I thought it was worth noting given the odd way that the article was created.
I feel that the PandaBoard article is fine as it stands but felt that a report needed to be made as the link between the user and TI isn't that easy to find and the two user's edit history may need checked. I would do it myself but I'm heading out now to make a delivery. OlYeller21 Talktome 15:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.230.113.150
has been systematically removing my research from the above articles, and also has removed a comment I made from a talk page. (Contributions posted above shows this.)
I have flagged the two articles as COI-check, as I am the author of the materials removed. There are so few researchers in adaptive grammar that COI on the topic area at least to get an article up and running is nigh-impossible.
My thinking is to just sit back and let the wheels-of-wiki deal with this now that I've COI'd the articles in question. Any other suggestions? (Moving this from another page to here.)
QTJ ( talk) 22:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I self-flagged AS COI to avoid going back into the article and perpetuating an unsightly self-concerned back-and-forth. The rest I now leave to the natural processes here at WikiPedia. Cheers. QTJ ( talk) 02:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Could someone have a look into the way that User:TopGun has been aggressively adding propoganda to articles on India and Afghanistan, in particular Indians in Afghanistan? Thanks 174.138.162.218 ( talk) 09:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This user is editing these two articles (several edits to chess today) and adding as a reference a paper written by himself/herself. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm accused of COI regarding the xxxterm article as I've written a review of the xxxterm browser (article's topic). The review was submitted to OSNews site, where it got published after editor's overview. I properly disclosed the fact of my authorship both in the article (by (1) replacing the nickname I was credited with on the OSNews site with my name as it is displayed in my Wikipedia signature and (2) specifically starting the WP:RS/N#xxxterm draft sources discussion on the topic). As I don't believe the accusations of COI have proper grounds, I would like to ask the community to either confirm or reject my opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 14:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I am another editor on the talk page trying to establish consensus. Dmitrij is acting in good-faith but fails to understand certain wikipedia policies and guidelines. I encourage any interested editors to refer to the talk page where numerous editors have have noted a POV issue. I also encourage editors to refer to the page history where even more editors have noted a POV problem. To offer a brief history on the issue:
I believe that this pattern (starting with the POV problems) demonstrates a conflict of interest because the user has stated and has accomplished outside promotion of the subject. Note also that I am not arguing the article is not notable, but that I'm providing background on a suspected COI problem. Thanks for taking the time to read. Johnathlon ( talk) 21:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Firstly; a disclosure. Leitmotiv and I are already in dispute over this issue. Leitmotiv is actively engaged in trying to prevent the publication of information (namely coordinates) about the above system ( 1; 2) and other caves (links below) on Wikipedia. His user page says:
One of my personal projects is the Horse Lava Tube System, which starts in the Deschutes National Forest and runs through the east side of Bend, through Redmond, and beyond. It contains over 100 caves of varying sizes. My goals are to survey the remaining caves in the system and publish a book (not for public consumption) on it. I currently have a good draft. Another companion book which is a bibliography on the Horse Lava Tube System is nearly complete at almost 100 pages in length, but still a work in progress.
and has previously said:
That's [controlling the publication of inappropriate [sic] coordinate information] why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud
I believe that he therefore has a clear conflict of interest; not least since his books will lose exclusivity if that information is published in Wikipedia. The book is advertised as including maps.
Prior discussion is at:
The issue of CoI was also raised by other editors in the above TfD; in which Leitmotiv himself referred to an "obvious conflict of interest" and "conflict in interest". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a self-disclosed COI on this article. I corrected a recent edit which contained a negative accusation (which is true) to be more factual using a better reference regarding dates and the responsible party. I believe I corrected the accusation using neutral wording but I would like the diff examined: [48] SchmuckyTheCat ( talk) 01:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Jaimi090 declares his COI with this edit: "I am writing up a new page for the ceo of the Eidos Institute".
The other users appear connected; it seems likely the IP will be linked to one or both of the above users. Note these are the three main editors of the article.
The article does not appear to qualify for WP:CSD#G11; I have proposed deletion. I also note that a similarly named article was deleted before after AfD. I do not have priveleges to verify if the article qualifies for WP:CSD#G4. I am reporting this clear case of COI so that those more experienced in dealing with these matters can advise on or themselves take appropriate action.
Thank you -- MegaSloth ( talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Aweaver2 admits to being Mary Cassini, originator of this concept. Either while logged in or (I believe) under various IP addresses while not logged in, she has been carefully maintaining this article to reflect the ideals of her movement, rather than NPOV. Now she is asking that it be prettied up because she is planning to send out press releases thanking Wikipedia for our "cooperation" in publicizing her concept!!!! Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This is my first time reporting anything at this Noticeboard, so if this is the wrong place I apologize.
It appears this is a single-use account for editing an article about that person, which most likely is a conflict of interest. Lord Roem ( talk) 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
This was written by a company selling door hangers and included links to pricing pages on their site... 184.10.247.4 ( talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is time someone else looks at the contributions that Davidhar has made, and his reason for editing WP. He edits mainily on the subject of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York in a way I think is designed to promote the university he attends, he has made a number of statements to that effect :
He has also uploaded numinous copyvio images here and at commons to make the article look better, in one case going as far as submitting a WP:ORTS ticket claiming to release images on belaf of the university (see commons:User talk:Adrignola/Archive 4#File:South Campus architecture close up.jpg).
Thanks Mt king (edits) 06:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC).
Article about a student organization whose significance has not been established, written by a single purpose account, acronym implying COI. 76.248.147.199 ( talk) 15:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The username sounds promotional but the admin, Daniel Case referred me here. He created two promotional articles out of which 1 is already deleted and the other one tagged for deletion. Ankit Maity Talk • contribs 16:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I have repeatedly tried to place balanced, logical, true information on this page, only to get it removed multiple times by what appear to be to be very rude users. They advise me to place information on this page that is based on science, is referenced by multiple sources, etc. etc. When I do so, they refuse to read or admit the information is true and just abuse me. What can I do to publish this information? Solmil ( talk) 05:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Tom Watson M.P. has made some observations about Portland Communications' alleged activities on Wikipedia at his blog William Avery ( talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Conflict appears self-explanatory. 76.248.147.199 ( talk) 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Jmtucci's user page claims she works for The Lubrizol Corporation, the parent company of Blazemaster. Sparthorse ( talk) 21:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I am confused by all of this. How are other company's allowed to put all their information out there an it is okay? This is a learning experience for me, so I'm not trying to be difficult. I added to Lubrizol's page with cited information. I was advised by my legal team to disclose that I worked for the company in order to be in compliance with FTC regulations. We are trying to put factual information about our company on the website and I think it's more factual coming from us than a third party. When I was creating the Blazemaster page, I knew how to use Wikipedia, but I was having problems with the templates, so I saved before I was done. I didn't have a second to go back in and change before I was up for deletion. Please advise how other companies can manage / edit their Wikipedia site without being flagged.
User self-identifying as subject is disruptively editing e.g. legal threat and recent 3 R R blanking. User is apparently not responsive to talk page messages, particularly WP:COI issues and WP:V requirements. WP:BLP cleanup may be warranted, but seems difficult to engage on this e.g. edit summary from another editor. Dl2000 ( talk) 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Various assertions on Twitter that PR and lobbying firm Qorvis is engaging in "wiki-washing" for clients. (This is just a heads-up — I've no personal knowledge of the organisation and its activities, but thought I ought to raise this here in case people are unaware.)— A bit iffy ( talk) 15:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
In this edit I decided to remove a WP:BLP issue I felt was WP:UNDUE for an article on the wing. For full disclosure, I am assigned to this Wing, however I am not assigned to this Group and I have never met no care about this Colonel. There is an article about him at Joseph L. Romano and it is well sourced. The reason I removed it from the article, though, is because he was not assigned to the 37 Training Wing when the crime was comitted and the Wing was completely uninvolved. Also, upon this guy's future reassignment or retirement, there will be zero connection to the wing. It just doesn't belong in the article about the Wing, unless there is some sort of unique notability about him being assigned and that should be sourced. At most, I think a "See Also" might be warrented. I don't feel I have a WP:COI because I don't work for the Colonel and wasn't even aware of him until reading that blurb on this article, so I boldly did what I felt was correct, but I understand how someone could reasonable assume I do have one so I'll leave it for ya'all to decide whether to revert or not.--v/r - T P 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
A series of edits over more than two years have added material that is neither encyclopedic nor sourced and which seems close to self-advertisement or autobiography. Johnlp ( talk) 23:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The user has a name which appears to be the same as a minor writer in the Telugu language. Almost every single edit that they have made has been to insert that author in various articles, usually with a link to the author's website. The author does not have a WP article and the insertions have continued today despite warnings about COI and edit warring. They're very sporadic in their contributions, and I have just cleaned up all but the Telugu literature article itself. (I am close to 3RR on that one.) Given their sporadic history, what if anything can be done? The possibility of COI appears high, the nature of the contributions is POV-y, and if it is not COI then probably the username gives cause for concern. Sitush ( talk) 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Steveadcuk ( talk · contribs) who self-identifies at Talk:ADC Bioscientific as an employee of ADC Bioscientific has contributed significantly to the article ADC Bioscientific and has added content to anthocyanin which appears to promote ADC Bioscientific and its products. I reverted once at anthocyanin, and so has another editor, but Steveadcuk has simply re-added the promotional content both times. I'm not sure what do, so I'm reporting here so others can investigate and take appropriate actions themselves. Thanks. Peacock ( talk) 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey Wikipedia! Just thought I should bring to your attention Mr David Westin (former ABC News president) who's been editing his own page. Most of his edits seem not to violate policy, but I'm filing this report so that users experienced in dealing with COI can watchlist this page for future potential problems. — Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 23:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Previously AfD, had some copyvio issues and appears to be largely autobiographical. a13ean ( talk) 04:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The user recently created this autobiographical article that appears to have been copied and paste, though I haven't yet located the original. Clear COI based on username. Sparthorse ( talk) 15:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Company seems to have replaced entry with marketing material, violating NPOV. 198.228.196.183 ( talk) 22:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Article nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainer Buchmann. Zzarch ( talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Editor has repeatedly removed information about article subject's positive test for metenolone. Test results are both relevant to the biography and referenced to reliable sources (well-respected newspapers in Milan and Sofia and a Bulgarian news agency). References have been removed as well. NellieBly ( talk) 03:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
...and possibly more
User:Polarman, as you can see from his contribution history, has been quite prolific in adding links to a website entitled Playerhistory.com. By his own admission, Polarman is Hakon Winther, the founder of Playerhistory.com, which presents a massive conflict of interests. I would like an admin to intervene here so that Polarman is made properly aware of Wikipedia policy regarding self-published content and self-advertisement (and any other policies that may relate to WP:COI). – Pee Jay 18:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that, but i just think it's fair that playerhistory share same info as soccerway and soccerbase. Who do you think add their links. We have gone from paysite to a public site so i don't really see the problem Polarman ( talk) 20:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman
If i have to stop you just say so. Are contributors to playerhistory allowed to add links? Polarman ( talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC) Polarman