Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleveland Clinic


There's a slowly unfolding trainwreck over at Cleveland Clinic. User:HealthMonitor has a declared COI (see [1]) and has very extensively edited the article. It's nice that they declared the COI, but their version has substantial formatting and style problems. User:Elvey deleted a large (33 kB) chunk of the article as "advocacy" here, which was restored by User:BlueRasberry here with a reasonable explanation that "to remove this much text needs a little more explanation." User:Elvey reverted back. The COI editor then proposed restoring his preferred version on the talk page (how's this for a talk page comment?) and did so after giving all of two days on a rather obscure and little-watched article. I reverted this back, not because I actually care about the article or the content, but because there was not a reasonable time for discussion or objections. (Yes, I know, reverting because of objections to an edit war is like The Fugs' song "Kill for Peace.")

So what to do? WP:TNT comes to mind. The COI editor definitely needs to slow down but so does User:Elvey. Maybe lock down the article pending further discussion? Whoever is willing to do this is welcome to revert my latest change first. Anyway this can't go on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Thanks for noticing this. Your summary is insightful and I agree with it.
Elvey has valid concerns that merit being acknowledged. I asked for a little clarity - I hope that I was not asking too much - because I do think that all of the text has been thoughtfully contributed and deserves more consideration than blanking only on the basis of COI.
I propose to give Elvey time to comment further. Either this person will say something or not, but in either case after they have opportunity, I would like to get more comments from more people. It would be nice if anyone would give some brief comment now to encourage more conversation before I solicit interested WikiProjects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added full protection for two days and asked HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, to refrain from editing the article, except for minor changes. This was the article before HealthMonitor began rewriting it in August. Sarah (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Good. I see HealthMonitor already ignored / did NOT respect the instruction to "avoid editing or creating articles related to ... your organization. So while another warning (this time from an admin) is good, the soft touch rather than am explicit warning that violation could lead to being blocked, (or a block) at this point feels ... insufficient.
Yes, not only do I have valid concerns, but I expressed them on the article talk page (and in edit summaries and on the user's talk page); Not 3-week-old user (!) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris makes no mention of any of that. If the initial notice here had mentioned that, it would feel more neutral. I wrote a response to Blue's latest, but it seems to have been lost (editing error? Browsing crash?) In any case, my concerns which need to be and have yet to be addressed by the COI user include:
I don't dispute that HealthMonitor has made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia rules, however, undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules. (What part of "Revert edits which consist of undisclosed paid/sponsored advocacy. Disclosure within an article is not allowed by Wikipedia policy; authorship attribution is normally limited to edit histories. Undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations" DO you understand?) I would certainly be open to offering deeper criticism - however first the criticism I already offered ought be responded to more substantively by HealthMonitor. Until then, HealthMonitor, you're edit warring by reverting and more importantly, you need to be aware that adding undisclosed paid promo. content that violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules - even if it's you adding the content by reverting my revert. I see you saw my comment on User_talk:HealthMonitor where I've already offered deeper criticism.
Contributions that violate US law are not welcome here. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, HealthMonitor has failed to
  • avoid editing or creating articles related to this organization. And Bluerasberry has edited to perpetuate edits that fail to do that!
  • exercise great caution so that not to violate Wikipedia's content policies.
Finally: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information" rather than content written by a paid advocate such as yourself. That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes. It is essential to achieve consensus on the conflict between this content that I removed and FTC Guide and policy. Understood, HealthMonitor?
-- Elvey( t• c) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the content, since October 1, almost the entire article has been replaced. That's not good. John Nagle ( talk) 07:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this conversation continuing for so long as Elvey insists on talking about how these edits to Wikipedia constitute violation of US Federal Law. If someone's editing is against the law then the illegal activity needs to stop, and if the editing discussed is not against the law then I would like for someone to resolve this point. I started a discussion about legality of editing at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Reversion.3F, where I offered to escalate the situation if that would be useful. Per WP:No legal threats, talk of legal threats are supposed to go to the administrator's board. Slimvirgin - you and I have talked at the "no legal threats" page, and you are an administrator. Are you comfortable giving comment in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Elvey Thanks for trying to reply to my comment at Cleveland Clinic, even if somehow what you wrote was not saved and I could not read it. You deserve clarity on the legality of other users' contributions and you are right to demand disclosure from people with a COI. May I ask, what do you expect in the disclosure process? From the beginning the user in question disclosed a work affiliation. Briefly, could you be explicit about what more you expect when you request disclosure? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about what is happening here. For example, before HealthMonitor's edits, the article included a report from Consumer Reports that the Cleveland Clinic did not rate well when it came to hospital-acquired infections.
    HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, removed this during his rewrite. Elvey restored it. [2] Bluerasberry, who works for Consumer Reports, reverted to HealthMonitor's version. [3] Could someone explain? Is the Consumer Reports material ( here and here) not considered reliable? Sarah (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I am not aware of Consumer Reports content being in dispute here. In the edit you shared I reverted a 40kb change, which is a massive edit to make without explanation. If 0.5kb of that said something about Consumer Reports then I was not aware. The Consumer Reports content is great. Feel free to restore it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not involved in editing the article, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's an RS. Elvey has restored it. I was just puzzled by someone from Consumer Reports helping a Cleveland Clinic employee to remove a Consumer Reports report about the hospital. But if you didn't see it, that explains it.
In general, it's important not to revert to COI editing when an editor in good standing objects to it (not counting libel, copyright, BLP issues and similar), and perhaps especially when it's a health-care issue and there has been such an extensive rewrite. Sarah (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I had been discussing CR rankings with this person - see Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Still, this is a nonissue in the context of the 40kb change.
I reviewed the edits HealthMonitor made and so far as I can see, they have been complying with Wikimedia guidelines. I am pleased with their willingness to go to the talk page and respond to concerns which can be answered. There is a record of that at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#New_First_Paragraph_with_Additional_Data and other conversations elsewhere. So far as I know, no one else has given any criticism of the content they added. So far as I know, Elvey's complaints only are about violation of US and German law, and not that the text is inappropriate for inclusion by content standards. I remain interested in restoring content which has been removed based on judgements other than content quality. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that a wholescale rewrite by an employee wasn't appropriate, so the best way forward is to break the rewrite down into individual edit requests, both removals and additions. The removal of criticism would need to be examined separately and carefully, but the addition of lists of services is problematic too, in that it might make the article appear to be an advertisement, which I believe is what Elvey was arguing.
HealthMonitor can use the {{ edit request}} template to suggest that X be removed or Y added, then other editors can decide whether it's appropriate, and if there's consensus a volunteer editor can make the edit. Sarah (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The content involving the U.S. News & World Report rankings and Consumer Reports rankings is another issue. Those facts are well-sourced and I leave it to others to decide if they belong in the article or not. I have been open about the fact that I work for the subject of the article, and I realize that leaves me open to the charge of COI. All I can say on my side is that I took it upon myself to edit the article, because I thought the incumbent article was skimpy, it had warnings about "weasel words" and promotional copy, and because it's a subject I know lot about, and I believed I could add a ton of objective, sourced facts to the article. (I also thought it could use some better pictures, so I went out and took some with my iPhone). If the edited article was still up there, editors could judge for themselves whether or not the edits met Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing and objectivity. HealthMonitor 18 October, 2015 5:41 pm EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthMonitor ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HealthMonitor, can you say why you removed the Consumer Reports material? Sarah (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an explanation at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any explanation there. Bluerasberry, posting the whole draft again in one diff isn't helpful. It would be better to break the draft down into separate requests, and deal with each one individually out of respect for volunteer time. (See WP:COITALK.) Post one request, gain consensus, close it. Then post a second, and so on. Sarah (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Slimvirgin about the CR content - in the discussion I provided, it begins, "The Rankings section was taken out..." then a discussion follows explaining why. In what way does this not meet your expectation?
I broke the proposal into 10 sections. Are you suggesting that these sections need to be offered piece wise, perhaps 1 every ten days, and then wrap up in about 100 days? What are you requesting? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is becoming fragmented between this noticeboard and the article talk page. The COI issues seem to have been clarified, so might I suggest that further discussion on how to edit the article be centralized at Talk:Cleveland Clinic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline

Hello, this is an account that I have set up to suggest changes and possibly make small, uncontroversial edits to articles related to HeinOnline. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of HeinOnline and in consultation with them, and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to HeinOnline's article, hopefully leading to a much improved article. On any pages where I look for assistance, I will be sure to disclose my relationship to HeinOnline in the interests of transparency. If you would like to help me, please let me know. Thanks, Tak1335 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Tak1335 ( talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Honestly, at this point if the article had been created today it would likely get tagged for speedy deletion under criteria A7; no claim to significance. The article contains only a primary source, that of the organization itself, with no credible claim of significance. That the article has exited for 10 years in such a state is surprising. As is, the article should probably go up for deletion. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Hammersoft, BusterD, and DGG: Before you get your hopes up about speedy deletion, read this proposal to jettison the "suicide pact" and apply g11 more broadly in a similar case, and the responses to it; as well as my comments on g11 failures and responses in the active thread on Jimbo's talkpage. There's something broken when we can't use speedy in cases like this that cry out for it. – Brianhe ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not angling for speedy deletion, and wouldn't do so because the article has been in existence for 10 years. I don't think G11 applies, as it is not promotional. It is neutrally worded. I do think that if it were created today, there's a fair chance someone would tag it A7. That said, I don't think it should be speedied. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • why does this case cry out for speedy deletion? We partner with them and they are mentioned in a number of publications. Often, as you know, the test for deletion as applied is not citations in the article but the possibility for notability. I believe it exists here. As for the COIN, Tak, you should follow the procedures, and make sure that every claim you make is supported by an independent source. I believe that many law school's law libraries will discuss Hein and this will not be difficult. Best of luck. I followed the Hein page, so I will take a look at your work and respond on talk page if I feel so moved. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't care about debates about speedy deletion vis-a-vis this case. My point is the article isn't referenced to anything other than its own entity. FIX it. That's my point. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
All the article on Hein needs is to have suitable refs added. It's one of the two competitive largest legal databases in the world. It should easily pass Afd--so easily that there's no point even bringing it there-- see WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the general matter of deletion,borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason, but not at CSD. G11 is a deletion criterion without clear lines--I use it a good deal, but some of my nominations have been sometimes questioned. AfD always ahas the advantage of preventing re-creation without improvement.FWIW,m I would personally be willing to consider supporting a rule for the deletion of the content added by undeclared paid editors and their socks added before their detection, just as we routinely do for that added afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I misinterpreted your comment, so have struck out two words above. However, the overall sentiment remains that speedy seems to be failing much more than is reasonable. My thoughts on this are on record here among other places. - Brianhe ( talk) 01:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't care about a debate regarding speedy deletion. It's not apropos to this conversation. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline is an extremely important and widely used information resource, and the idea of deleting the article about it is meritless and should not be mentioned again. Using this thread to raise a concern about the current state of the article is especially problematic because according to a widespread, if somewhat simplistic, interpretation of the COI guideline, Tak1335 would surely be criticized if he tried to expand and improve the HeinOnline article, although I certainly agree that somebody should. @ Tak1335: Please feel free to come to my talkpage with any specific questions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sigh. Look, I'm not a lawyer. You are. I have no reason to even know of the existence of HeinOnline, much less its notability. As the article stands, it has been tagged with {{ refimprove}} for six years with no action on it. I make no assertions as to whether the site is notable or not. I don't care. what I DO care is that as the article stands (and has stood since its creation 10 years ago), it is badly in need of secondary sources attesting to its significance. I don't care if you are a lawyer and say it is important. I really don't. I can even agree with you that it is important. Let's just agree it's the most important website that's ever been in existence. It does NOT matter. What matters is the sorry state of the article, a state it has been in for 10 years. If it is that bloody significant, then it should be absolutely trivial to find reliable sources attesting to that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That tag for additional citations for verification on the article should be removed. How many citations are required for a three line, single paragraph, article ? Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
At least one that's not a primary source. Best I could find is this article talking about accessing HeinOnline using Fastcase 7, but it's a passing mention. This database may be important, but it's lacking the depth of coverage necessary to satisfy any sort of notability guideline. clpo13( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
HeinOnline, and the company behind it, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., have a remarkably low profile on the Web. Every major law library has the service, so there are hundreds of pages from law libraries mentioning it. But I can't find many news articles. Nobody seems to write much about the company. LexisNexis is much better known, but they index fields outside the law. Hein is for legal research only. They're privately held, 80+ years old, and the grandson of the founder is the chairman of the board. [4], so there's not much info about them from sources other than the company itself. A developer bought their headquarters building in Buffalo, NY. [5]. They won a Vision Award from Niagara University in Buffalo in 2009, and that article has some background on the company we could use in an article. [6] They have a gallery of black and white building photographs. [7]. A Canadian legal publication had a brief article about them. [8]. They're now mostly online, but they started as a publisher of law books, and still do that, but on a smaller scale. There's about enough here for a company stub. I'd suggest a short company article using the available reliable sources, and a mention of the HeinOnline product. John Nagle ( talk) 08:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest moving this article to "William S. Hein & Co", and converting it to a company article, mentioning Hein Online as a product, and setting HeinOnline as a redirect to the product section of the article. The sources for the company are better than the sources for the product. Comments? John Nagle ( talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OWN TV

Deferring to ANI discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:RobinColclough has replaced the disambiguation page OWN TV with a notice that the trademark for the name belongs to Robin Colclough. Apparently, this has been ongoing since earlier this year, so I thought I would give a heads up to the noticeboard here because of the COI and legal issues. Deli nk ( talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, a discussion was just started at ANI too: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OWN_TV_and_User:RobinColclough. Deli nk ( talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As this is at ANI it's probably easier to discuss it there. SmartSE ( talk) 12:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

YourStory.com

Userspace drafts
NextBigWhat/pluggd.in userspace drafts
#1 suspect articles
editors
editors - second group

YourStory seems to be a PR publishing platform (thinly) masquerading as a legitimate news site. See details at WP:RSN#YourStory.com. There are approx. 200 India business articles using it as a source. The external links search feature can easily discover these and I've indexed many of theseall of them at User:Brianhe/COIbox26. The most pressing are the userspace drafts currently under development using these sources, listed above, with high likelihood to be undisclosed paid editing.

Of note, this source seems to be favored by spammers and socks. For instance, Andrewjohn39 used it at both the KartRocket and POPxo AfDs; Avnish.vikas and Avinash187 used it for indianmoney.com (see User talk:Avinash187); an anon ed. used it for Naveen Tewari, a Paytm board member among other things (see User talk:Davewild, 21 August 2015). The RSN post linked above gives other examples, discovered by four other editors, of it being used to support probable COI articles. – Brianhe ( talk) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to nuke the links, I can probably blacklist it. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do. I'm starting to add some suspicious articles to the list above. Actually they are all suspicious but I'm taking the ones with multiple citations as the top, with the model that each article was probably paid for and is the most conflicted. Brianhe ( talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Three users relates to Rolocule games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), all seem likely to be spammers. 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • plus Added to blacklist, [9]. Guy ( Help!) 11:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Krishsundaram SPA edit history includes editing at User:BrowserStack/sandbox and recently de-prodding BrowserStack. – Brianhe ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another questionable source is nextbigwhat.com. I noticed that ClearTax cited remarkably similar articles at NextBigWhat and YourStory published within a couple of days of each other. Similarities include this verbatim passage from an interview with the company founder:
"We applied to Y Combinator via the standard application process. We filled out the YC application form online. At the time of application, we didn't submit the video (a video of the founders is required as part of the application) as we were in different cities running sales or meetings. We got a message from YC to upload a video to complete the application. We recorded that and later on, we were asked to show up for a ten-minute interview at YC. We flew to California for that and then got in."
If this also turns out to be a shill source, we've got another big problem as ~100 articles are sourced to nextbigwhat.com (see external links search). Many, unsurprisingly, are in the same list given above, including Zomato, Housing.com, TaxiForSure, Bankbazaar. Edited to add Yes, it looks like it's fake also. Opened a new item at RSN including an investigation on their use of vast numbers of fake Twitter followers. Edited once moreThey used to be branded pluggd.in; there are around 50 more articles sourced to this. Brianhe ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: Maybe this is a good opportunity to reopen the discussion around notability & sourcing requirements for startups. Brianhe ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Another probable fake news site: medianama.com. ~300 articles sourcing from it ( links). Linked articles again include Zomato, Housing.com, Bankbazaar. Brianhe ( talk) 21:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggested guidelines on startups: -- material limited to information about motivation for starting an organization & funding prior to the first public offering is not reliable for probing notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Continuing discussion on User talk:DGG. - Brianhe ( talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly related: Annofbigbeach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy ( Help!) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just noticed this and I think the blacklist of yourstory is very wrong. Yourstory.com is now one of most famous news websites in India and writes about VCs, emerging businesses and startups in India. It was recently funded by Ratan Tata, one of India's richest businessmen and chairman of $100B+ Tata Group, Vani Kola of Kalaari Capital, T.V. Mohandas Pai and Qualcomm Ventures. Read the news about it on India's all and major largest newspapers like The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, Financial Express, The Hindu. I am actually surprised that yourstory doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet on its own. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Tinu, you're confusing notability and reliability here. Yourstory may very well be notable but the type of content the push out means that they aren't reliable -- " Yourstory primarily generates revenues from advertisements, events and from start-ups, who pay and get featured, said sources." Brian, Medianama is mostly a single person run blog but he's sort of notable as a tech/communication analyst. It's more of an attributed opinion site for most stuff. — Spaceman Spiff 12:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Appreciate your thoughts, SS. I am not saying the notability of the subject should be judged by (only) one article on yourstory. Having said that, from my experience and knowledge, yourstory is a very credible news portal in India and has very experienced writers/journalists working for them. Unlike mainstream media, this is primarily online based, with special focus on startups and tech space ( like TechCrunch ). Agree partially with your points on medianama, though. Attracting investment from one of India's richest men proves that it is not a fake news site as argued above. I don't think it is fair to conclude the viewpoint of The Hindu business journalist (Sources? who?) that YS is a "your pay, get featured" type of website. Not to forget that the mainstream media competes for space with these new age portals. It is true that these portals generates revenue from advertisements and events. Who doesn't? Even the largest newspaper, TimesofIndia for that matter any MSM works on advertisement model. Blacklisting yourstory.com is an extreme step, IMHO and request everyone to reconsider it -- Tinu Cherian - 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That is exactly the reason why we use The Times of India based on context, there are obvious promo pieces that are definitely not used. The difference is that in ToI's case the news vs promo/paid features is tilted towards news, while in this case it's tilted towards paid features and user submitted content, just look at: yourstory dot com/frequently-asked-questions. — Spaceman Spiff 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, I still feel blacklisting the entire domain of yourstory on wikipedia is still wrong. By the same yardstick, sites like TechCrunch, mashable all must be blacklisted. I have been going through the news references and coverage on yourstory on mainstream media. YS itself deserves a standalone Wikipedia article, given the notability and popularity. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The blacklist can be lifted on a case by case basis but you will have to convince an admin of legitimate need. As for creating an article on YS, knock yourself out, but it really has nothing to do with the discussion of the blacklist. As Spiff pointed out, you're confusing notability and reliability: a thing can be notable enough to have an article, yet not reliable enough to be cited, or even so unreliable, biased, or uncontrolled as to be blacklisted as a source for other articles. Think of Facebook for instance. Brianhe ( talk) 08:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I have to respectfully request you to not compare oranges and apples. Facebook is to be compared with Twitter. Yourstory has to be compared with TechCrunch. Blacklisting YS and not TC is purely systemic bias. To say that YS (in spite of the number of reliable source references to prove its own notability) is not enough world-view -- Tinu Cherian - 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Entirely incorrect analysis Tinu. TechCrunch has editorial control, Yourstory is well your story, period. Crying systemic bias in this case is clearly not right as it only serves to take attention away from real systemic bias problems. — Spaceman Spiff 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Respect your POV, but i still strongly disagree -- Tinu Cherian - 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryptome

See this diff, specifically noting We made a few corrections. An editor using the name John Young (the name of one of Cryptome's founders) has been editing the article to balance out criticism of the site. However, that editor (and an IP which is likely related; see this diff) has also added commentary to the article deriding Wikipedia's coverage of the site. As far as I can tell, neither the account or the IP has discussed this on the talk page. Judging from the history of the talk page, however, accounts and IPs related to Cryptome have been editing this article for a long time ( Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of interest editing & primary sources and Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of Interest). clpo13( talk) 15:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This diff suggests that the IP and the John Young account are one and the same. The IP is still adding commentary to the article without talk page discussion. clpo13( talk) 22:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kathleen Conway

Voluntary disclosure of paid contribution — directed user to the appropriate place for this notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Kalina3112|U1-employer=Hop Online|U1-client=The Scott|U1-}} I am a paid contributor for Kathleen Conway's Wiki page. I have been paid to upload this article by Hop Online.-- Kalina3112 ( talk) 08:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Kalina3112: Thanks for the disclosure. This is not the right place to put this notice. Please add the paid contribution notice to your user page ( User:Kalina3112) and the article's talk page ( Draft talk:Kathleen Conway). -- intgr  [talk] 09:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually advised User:Kalina3112 to post here, per the guidance at Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)#Policy, intgr. Perhaps that essay is out of date? In any case, I'm pleased to say that Kalina has added these notices to her talk page and to Draft talk:Kathleen Conway. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Pisco Sour, Morris Family

I am writing here to ask for help/advice/intervention on how to interact with a user that seems to have a vested interest in the material at the Pisco Sour article. This user claims to have good information available for the article's improvement ( [10]), and I believe it based on recent contributions to Wikimedia ( [11]). However, I am worried that the user's editing behavior, including the deletion of reliable sources as well as what seems to be a legal threat ( [12]), and mildly aggressive interaction with other users ( [13]), might end up getting the user into more trouble than it intends to get itself into. I am not sure how to proceed in this situation without inadvertently losing a potentially valuable contributor; maybe someone can help this user get a good introduction to Wikipedia. Note: I am not notifying the user of this COI request, because I get the sense that it might be interpreted in a negative manner. I really think that this user may just need a hand to guide it in the right direction; unfortunately, my hands are pretty busy at the moment.-- MarshalN20 Talk 05:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@ MarshalN20: Apparently you think a Spanish language website that sells alcohol is a good external link for the article; can you explain? – Brianhe ( talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly appreciate the constant mention of the "Spanish language" as if it were something negative. An article like Pisco Sour, a drink invented in a Spanish-speaking country and popular in a Spanish-speaking region, should be open to Spanish language external links. In addition to presenting different kinds of Piscos, the piscosour.com website also has recipes ( [14], [15]), information about bars selling Pisco Sour ( [16]), and pisco-related articles ( [17]). Anything else? Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not disparaging your fine language, and I wouldn't call one time "constant mention"; however there is a guideline WP:NONENGEL which gives good reasons why we shouldn't use these links without extenuating circumstances. Given your involvement both here and at ANI, do you think perhaps you're jumping into nationalistic debates too soon after expiry of your ban? – Brianhe ( talk) 16:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this all? Derailing the discussion won't make your point correct. Have a good day.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: The original point of this COI request remains ignored. I still need help interacting with Morrisbar. Any help would be appreciated!-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the external links, which appeared to be promotional. That's way too much article for the subject, but that's a content issue. John Nagle ( talk) 18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize now that bringing this up to the COIN was a terrible idea. I'm sure that you all have the best of intentions, but removing external links ( [18]) that were a critical part of the FA review ( [19]) is neither helpful nor addressing the purpose of the request. Instead, not only do I unfairly get baited about a topic ban that has been lifted, but also the user who I wanted others to help get the ropes of working in Wikipedia ended up blocked twice ( [20], [21])—certainly one of the worst newcomer bites on record.
Not only that, but this newcomer was a female editor that had indicated good potential for contributing valuable content to the encyclopedia. I am considering taking this situation to the admin's noticeboard, but given the experience here I don't have high hopes of that working out. What would be the purpose? A warning against behaving like jerks? In lieu of that, I hope all of those who have committed errors in this case do not make the same mistakes again.-- MarshalN20 Talk 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Indian television production and actors PR

Too many COI articles to list here; this is his top 10 creations listed by the contribution surveyor tool (output here).

other


Kunalforyou seems to have a singular interest in Indian television production and actors. His edits include the following:

The editor's article-space contributions are almost entirely centered around actors and production companies related to the following:

Note that every single one of the top 10 articles listed above is either related to Sony, Star or Zee.

This body of work and the specifics shown above strongly at undisclosed paid editing. There is additional off-wiki evidence that ties this account's original username to an amalgam of two PR executives at indiantelevision.com.

Other editors strongly suspected of working with this one include the following.

The editor interaction results are instructive.

And a plethora of other one-time SPA and anon editors can be found as well, but a deeper look will be required to sort the wheat from the chaff. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will say that in this particular case it appears to be more of fan editing than paid editing. The other sockfarm that I keep blocking on this (and for which I've done protections) -- Jaswanthvijay could be paid editing (but not a very high probability). It's extremely unlikely for a paid editing group to overlap across Viacom 18, Sony Entertainment Television (India), Star India, and Zee Entertainment Enterprises as the competition is severe and agencies do not overlap. Agencies will also not subcontract to individuals with conflicting clients, the agencies involved in this are from the big league. I only do some random admin work in the area, but TheRedPenOfDoom and Dharmadhyaksha do editing in this area and may be able to offer more insight.— Spaceman Spiff 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The IP might be a fan but I'm really not so sure about either registered account, especially Kunalforyou. Several counter-indications exist. 1) I found the off-wiki evidence to be a pretty strong indication of linkage to a PR firm to at least one of these accounts. Smartse has seen it too, so I hope we get to hear his opinion as well. The evidence is related to a prior name the person/persons edited under. 2) Fans usually write about actors and shows, not production companies, and I can't see any fan writing what he said about Dillagi, quoted in my opening round. 3) Certain technical evidence I'd rather not discuss in public, but is available to non-admins, indicates a very structured editing pattern unusual for amateurs. 4) Innocent editors usually show up at COIN to discuss what's going on. 5) The editor's use of sources looks more like an insider's industry view, not a fan's. A random example, three sources at ZeeQ, none of which is consumer oriented, all discussing a channel that hadn't even launched at the time of writing. 6) The connection to Everymedia is just too much to take as a coincidence with everything else going on. – Brianhe ( talk) 06:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let me take a deeper look at this. Could be a mix of COI and other editing then. — Spaceman Spiff 06:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
it could be a case of the PR firm contracting out "get this client in Wikipedia" which would account for the cross -company nature of the edits, but fan obsession seems more likely. has there been any check in the other language wikipedias like Hindi and Tamil? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we see Kunalforyou reverting the other registered account [24] which makes collusion sort of unlikely. However his sudden change of behavior in June, 2015 is still of concern. This creation also looks highly unusual for a typical fan. Have you ever heard of a fan of a home shopping channel and its two creators?
Kunalforyou has made just one edit on hi.wikipedia [25] and I found none on any other language. Brianhe ( talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick update, Kunalforyou replied on my talkpage a moment ago that he is a student and not a paid editor. Brianhe ( talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Why mentioned me here? coz i'm just working on indian articles??? Sukriti3 ( talk) 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Granger Smith

SirMoney11 ( talk · contribs) appears to have COI with Granger Smith as many of their edits are in severe violation of WP:NPOV and add what appears to be WP:COPYVIO. Their last batch came right after I scrubbed the article of fan-bloat, see here. Can anyone keep an eye on this? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Granger Smith is supposedly an artist who records with Broken Bow Records, but there's no cite for that, only an uncited mention of a possible future album. SirMoney11 added material about this artist supposedly signing with BBR Music Group. However, the most notable album by the artist (peaked #6 on in Country Music per Billboard, which means the article passes WP:MUSIC) was on Pioneer Music. Unclear who Pioneer Music is. Probably not the British heavy metal booking agency [27] or the US dealer for Japan's Pioneer Electronics. [28]. Not finding them in Google.
The article for Broken Bow Records was created by TenPoundHammer in 2007 [29], and TenPoundHammer appears to continue to maintain the list of artists associated with Broken Bow Records. [30]. SirMoney11 edits only Granger Smith. The article 4x4 (Granger Smith album), apparently the most notable album from this artist and on Pioneer Records, has its own article, created by an editor with a long history of country music articles.
Is this some kind of edit war between reps for competing labels? It may be appropriate to remove all mentions of future labels on which a release might be made, per WP:CRYSTAL. John Nagle ( talk) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Nagle: I do not work for a label. I created the Broken Bow Records article because it is a notable label (it has released several albums by Jason Aldean, to name just one). There are already citations in the Granger Smith article mentioning that the artist is signed with Broken Bow, and this source confirms that "Backroad Song" was released via BBR's "Wheelhouse" label. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. The article, then, should reflect that there's been a release by Broken Bow Records. Mentioning future albums/products is generally undesirable; that's too much like marketing and raises WP:CRYSTAL issues. (See Talk:Better Place for a case when that got completely out of hand.) John Nagle ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is WP:CRYSTAL as far as I can see. "Backroad Song" is on the charts right now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"In 2015, Granger ... will record his first full-length album with the label." is forward-looking and uncited. John Nagle ( talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Imaginationcolors sockfarm cleanup

Extensive article creation by socks of Imaginationcolors (see 2013 SPI) or a lookalike user; never cleaned up. The IPs took over right after or even before he was blocked (e.g. [31]).

Noormohammed satya was blocked previously for socking, then unblocked. However the extensive and recent involvement of static IPs related to his name seems to indicate something is still going on here. – Brianhe ( talk) 15:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is probably intimately related to #Indian television production and actors PR since these awards are a creature of indiantelevision.com, which is the nexus of that discussion. -- Brianhe ( talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force which might be able to help out here. I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#IndianTelevision.com awards - significant or not?. They may be able to advise on whether all the IndianTelevision articles should be deleted. John Nagle ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That's great, and it looks like an active user talkpage conversation on awards notability, or notability conferred through awards, will also be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards). – Brianhe ( talk) 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The conversation has been moved here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards)#Revival of this guideline – Brianhe ( talk) 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hume-Bennett_Lumber_Company

Came upon this at AfC and placed a COI warning on user's talk page. User removed warning. [32] Could be a serial paid editor, IMO. LaMona ( talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a COI

LaMona, I'm not a paid editor. It's my understanding that it is permissible to archive content on my user talk page. I moved the COI messages from my talk page to the archive page and included a link to our conversation for transparency. Please let me know if I'm out of line here.

I am aware of a COI on the Draft:Cartography (board game) page and I've called it out on the talk page Draft talk:Cartography (board game).

Please let me know if there are any other issues. I've really enjoyed writing the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company article among others and would like to see it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The company went out of business in 1935. It is unlikely that they are employing a Wikipedia editor at this time. John Nagle ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. I was concerned about the creation of numerous pages for commercial entities, which is generally a sign of COI and I see all too many of them at AfC. I didn't read the whole draft, obviously, so mea culpa. But Jon.opus, one usually replies to messages on the talk page, not disappears them quickly, so that rang bells since some COIs try to cover-up queries about their editing. If you'd replied to my notice I would not have brought this here. LaMona ( talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What is our advice to this editor about directly editing board game articles, since they have said they published a board game themselves? Example, Draft:Cartography (board game) and List of board game crowdfunding projects. – Brianhe ( talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope you can see I am trying my best to be transparent. Obviously I'm new to this and apparently not terribly good at it yet. As far as other game related pages I truly only have a COI with my game that I'm aware of. Aside from that I'm not a part of the industry. I only created my game as a hobby. Please do let me know if there is anything else I should know. I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm trying to play by the rules. – Jon Adams ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Implausible non-paid-editing for Mr RD

Mr RD has been an editor here since April 2013. In late 2014, he disclosed that he's a paid editor at least some of the time. There don't seem to be paid disclosures from him for any of the articles above, each of which was created by him. When I asked about one of them he said it was personal interest [33]. This seems implausible for the entire set. It's worth noting in this context that several of the articles created by this editor have significant known COI problems that have been discussed here before. – Brianhe ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any WP:COI with Kunal Shah (entrepreneur) page. I came to know about the person over [34], a YouTube channel, for which I also created a Wikipedia page. I'm a regular viewer of their content and that's how I thought of creating a page for them and many of their performers like Jitendra Kumar, Biswapati Sarkar. Mr RD 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: However, I did contacted Kunal afterwards seeking an image for his Wikipedia page but I NEVER INTENDED TO OR RECEIVED ANY MONETARY OR COMPENSATION IN ANY MANNER. Mr RD 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
So you have a personal interest in plywood companies too? How about this. Have you been compensated for editing any of the articles listed above? Please answer with a simple yes or no. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
NO. If I had, I would have disclosed so. Century Plyboards comes under Wikiproject India and Companies, both among my field of interest. I de-prodded PolicyBazaar as I found enough citations to support its notability. I'm associated with Wikiproject:India and better understand if an Indian company is notable or not. Not everything you see is black & white. Mr RD 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr RD, this isn't my first rodeo. Your claims are implausible. It would go better for you if you just said that you had forgotten to tag some articles. I'm now going to restate some words that I used when having this conversation with another editor who ended up getting blocked because they persisted in the same sorts of claims.
Your editing history is singularly focused on attention-seeking people, whose own careers benefit from the attention you provide them. It looked indistinguishable from paid COI to me (see User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#EBY3221 for clearly parallel cases) and we investigate this sort of stuff day after day, as is appropriate. One additional thing: I write sometimes about authors who probably benefit from attention, and I write sometimes about rocks that don't care if they get attention (my history is also transparently documented at my userpage). But if all I wrote about was attention-seeking people, and never about rocks, it wouldn't be surprising to me if some other editor confronted me about it and at least asked the question "why"? Brianhe ( talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from a suspicious mind I'd say there is nothing else going on. I help those who are notable according to me but lack technical know-how of how to create a Wikipedia page. I disclose the relation with them both on my user page and on the talk page of the subject as per Wikimedia guidelines. Moreover, to improve Wikipedia further, I create Wikipedia pages over subjects which are googled often, are notable also but do not have any Wikipedia page. Is it too hard to believe? You are free to review all my contributions and I believe I have revealed all of them to my knowledge (I removed some of them as when they got deleted or redirected to some other pages). In many of the pages you've mentioned, like Archana Kochhar which you mentioned specifically in your last comment, I have already disclosed my COI. As far as argument of rock goes, there are 7 billion people on earth, not everyone is same. Mr RD 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Full contribution surveyor results are at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor and in addition to the creations listed above, include such things as an in-depth look at the various acquisitions of Irish Car Rentals [35], refspam for pet sitters [36], the notable advertising campaigns of the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau [37], and so on. – Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please give me some time to analyze these. I do not have access to such tool and will happily include all where I have any COI. Thank you. Mr RD 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually you do, http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor which created the results I posted at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor when given your account name as input. But I don't see why you need to analyze your own editing??? By the way when another COI editor dragged things out for over a month and claimed the dog ate his email, things didn't go well for him. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Mr RD: I see you added to your disclosures: [38]. Is that all? I'd also remind you that the client must be disclosed for TOS compliance. What does "wherever information available" mean? Why would you not know who you were working for? Brianhe ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ SpacemanSpiff, Smartse, and DGG: Requesting a temporary block at this time, as the editor resumed editing at Policybazaar India prior to resolution of the disclosure issue. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've disclosed all my paid edits. Mr RD 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Also I'm not connected with PolicyBazaar in any manner. I got to know about it through your activity itself (When you mentioned it beside Oriental Insurance Page). Mr RD 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Mr RD: I see that Century Plyboards has been recreated. Is this or is this not paid editing? – Brianhe ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Unpaid. Mr RD 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ThunderCats

ThunderCats.Org SEO invited on Elance here: [39]. Looks like they might have already had the Wikipedia articles done September [40] [41]. Brianhe ( talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They actually look pretty high-quality and not promotional in tone. — Cirt ( talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Earlier edits to spam thundercats.org [42] [43] and even ensuring their link comes before Warner Brothers' official site [44] suggest something's going on here. Brianhe ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The movie was cancelled, so it's probably not studio-driven PR. I fixed the duplicate ref tag name problem. This looks like Wikia-level fan enthusiasm, not COI. Anything else? John Nagle ( talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Odinist Community of Spain – Ásatrú

This article could use additional watchlisting. It's been largely authored by representatives of the organization. I did a lot of cleanup work on it, and (notwithstanding a question open on its talk page about whether a claim, which pre-dated me, of an organizational name change is accurate) it's in much better shape now. Much of it looked to have been machine translated from the Spanish Wikipedia's version when I arrived at it. At any rate, there seems to be an unwillingness to recognize that previous posters on the talk page have raised concerns that it was overly promotional, plus a suggestion that even mentioning the WP:COI guideline is an accusation of bad faith. The article is not worded promotionally at present, but the overall tenor on the talk page suggests it might turn that way again over time. A new religious movement this small, and from a non-English-speaking country, is on its own unlikely to garner many watchlisters if attention is not drawn to it.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sépage

New content mentioning Sépage

User Milstan, with apparent close connection to Sépage (see founder name) and FullSIX, is inserting content to articles such as Travel Website and E-Commerce as spam vehicles for mentioning Sépage. Vrac ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of the Online Marketing and Recommender systems is extremely poor on Wikipedia, and does not integrate common knowledge available in respectable (online) sources. Yet the Online marketing field is important as it is a growing industry providing more and more jobs. I contributed to pages such as Recommender system, Travel Website, E-Commerce, Ourbrain, Sépage, RichRelevance.... in order to improve wikipedia coverage on this topic. If you don't welcome such content, and consider it biased in any way, then remove it. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and the possibility for people to contribute their (verifiable) knowledge to Wikipedia is weakened considerably which results in such surprisingly poor coverage of important topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milstan ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Milstan: You didn't address the question raised about your apparent close connection to Sépage other than saying you contribute to various topics. Could you clarify for us whether you do in fact have a close connection, and if you intend to make TOS disclosures? — Brianhe ( talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Milstan I have reverted your recent additions to these articles, thank you for your permission. I have also created a deletion discussion for Sépage. While it looks like an interesting concept and may be promising, a company whose product is still in beta and had 50,000 euros in Q1 revenue may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Vrac ( talk) 16:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear @ Brianhe: and @ Vrac:, I have no conflict of interest to declare, and contribute to topics of my knowledge. If you don't like the content that is unbiased and informative, you can remove it; as you did. This is a point in my case that Wikipedia is no longer a quality source for people to learn about encyclopedic topics - many of important ones remain without proper coverage. You seem to have criteria, under which nobody is good enough to write for Wikipedia any longer, and no topic is worthy enough, although it is worthy for high-tirage press. Deletion instead of correction seems to be a rule of thumb. There is no point of me contributing to Wikipedia any longer. Goodbye. -- Milstan ( talk) 17:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear @ Vrac:, please justify where in WP:TOOSOON could be found a notability revenue threshold for companies? This page seems to only establish particular rules for Actors and Films, and requires notable and trustworthy sources to establish notability of other concept types. Since your arguments are not properly sourced, I would prefer if another wikipedia member took further decisions on this issue.-- Milstan ( talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Milstan, are you part of this community or not? Don't think you can just flick a booger on someone on your way out the door. – Brianhe ( talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Raju Kapuria and others

User has not responded to two editors asking on his talkpage whether he is a paid editor. Editing history suggests the answer is positive. In fact user has never posted to his own talkpage, any other user's talkpage, or an article talkpage. – Brianhe ( talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Dabbu Ghosal, apparent associate and creator of probable autobio at Dabbu. Brianhe ( talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Raju Kapuria has not responded to the templated request to stop editing and confirm or deny his paid status. He has edited several India TV related articles since the request was posted on 13 October. - Brianhe ( talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Raju Kapuria replied with a six-word denial of being a paid editor on my talkpage [46]. He also has recreated Dag Creative Media after it was prodded. The article is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Creative Media. Brianhe ( talk) 19:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

COI-related discussion on WP:AN

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN concerning an editor, one aspect of which is in regard to his possible COI. Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest the discussion be kept centralized there, but the denizens of this board might like to bring their experience with COI to the discussion, which is here. BMK ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightbox Ventures

Three distinct groups of SPAs with possible cross-connections. Very likely undisclosed paid editing in some or all of the groups.

group1

This looks like a little walled garden of companies belonging to the investment group Lightbox Ventures, and matching SPAs. One of the Lightbox corps was Furlenco which was just deleted subsequent to AfD.

There is a hint of a link to the Mushroom9 sockfarm via InfernalH through Redbus.in. Strong off-wiki evidence that Sanjit.mca works for Redbus as SEO specialist. Left edit summary "Please feel free to contact us for anything you may feel out of place." – Brianhe ( talk) 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

group 2

MagicBricks/HealthKart SPAs

group 3

This group may be related or may just be opportunistic cross-spammer, not part of their group.

Reworked layout slightly since this was initially posted. Brianhe ( talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Internshala was not a work for hire although I indeed had WP:COI with this page for which I created it through WP:AFC. I've already mentioned it on my talk page. Regarding the connection with Lightbox Ventures, I do not have any knowledge whether Internshala is connected or not. Also I do not have any other SPA which you may even verify. Hope this helps. Mr RD 09:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The website My Big Plunge is the creature of a company called 10minutesto1, based in Guragon [50]. They advertise themselves as a full-service PR/digital marketing/social media/SEO/crisis communications company. They list My Big Plunge on their own client list/portfolio, so some ethical questions arise. It looks pretty clear from Saptarishi12345's contribs that they've expanded to Wikipedia as a marketing platform. – Brianhe ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Antony Coia

Suspected autobiography from editor and Italian IP. Editor has replaced IP's sig with his own [51]. Editor and IP have both been involved at AfD for subject's website. Brianhe ( talk) 23:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem? There is no COI. I was not logged in. But there isn't any autobiography. Pizzole ( talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The pertinent query is whether you have any personal or business connection with any topic on which you have edited? Collect ( talk) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There were a couple of odd things in the AfD that suggested the site's operators were following along, if not directly involved: the site dropped the affiliate "tag=" portion of its Amazon links around the same time that this was questioned in the AfD (archive.org shows that the tags were dropped between October 6 and October 12; the links were questioned on the 12th), and many of the various blog sources presented by Pizzole were created while the AfD was in progress, a matter of hours before Pizzole presented them.

Assuming good faith: Coia or an employee was following the AfD, editing out potential problems on the site and posting press releases and calling in favours to get writeups in different horror blogs, and Pizzole is just a fan who happened to be searching every day for new sources and finding the blog entries as they appeared. But User:Pizzole did seem oddly certain about the nature of the site's affiliate scheme, saying "No affiliation between the two site. Nothing." and assuring us that they were able to "give you the proofs" that the website neither sold movies nor was affiliated to Amazon. If Pizzole has no connection to Coia's website, I'm not sure how they could be so sure about this, or so confident that they would be able to get their hands on "proof". (I'm a fan of plenty of sites that seem to just use plain Amazon links, but I couldn't tell you with any certainty that they didn't monetise them in certain contexts.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to see that a website without affiliate code is not an affiliate to Amazon. If you really are interested in, you can contact Amazon and ask them. The only way to know the truth is this one. Try it and after that, talk us about the truth. Pizzole ( talk) 10:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that if a commercial website has business with Amazon, it remove tags and lost money for a stupid debat on Wikipedia? Really? Please, talk about what you know certainly. I'm afraid of assumptions and bad faith behavior. Pizzole ( talk) 10:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus, in the debat you talked about press kit and advertising. Do you think that websites are willing to advertise competitors? Really? Pizzole ( talk) 10:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's quite likely that a website that appears to have removed clearly pre-existing affiliate links from its website may restore them at any time, or may only be showing them to logged-out users, or readers in certain countries, or only on certain pages, or might even be missing them due to a temporary bug. (And yes, it seems entirely plausible that if Coia had misunderstood Wikipedia policy and thought the article was at risk of being deleted because of the Amazon affiliacy, he might decide that losing affiliate income was a small price for permanently establishing a promotional Wikipedia entry and increasing overall traffic. Perhaps he'd just add the affiliate tags back after the AfD had closed and editors had forgotten about it.)
I don't understand how you can claim to know the site's affiliate policy with such confidence if you're just a fan of the website and have no professional connection to it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim anything. This debat is sterile. The AfD was closed so there are no reason to talk about it. Am I wrong? Pizzole ( talk) 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong in thinking that this is just about the AfD. This page is "for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article", and we are trying to establish whether you have any possible conflict of interest with regard to the Antony Coia article you have written. -- McGeddon ( talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Pizzole: Here's some friendly, free advice. If you have a COI and own it, there's no problem. There may be some extra steps you go through to get edits made properly on certain articles, which is kind of a pain, but keeps everybody happy. However if you waffle like this and act like we're going through an empty legalistic process, then things won't go so well. Please understand the purpose of this venue: it's not a court of law, and we're not out to get you or even asking you to tell us who you are in the real world. We're trying to create conditions where a diverse community of workers are able to perform together, and that requires transparency and honesty about when we may not be completely impartial on what we're writing about. That's all. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

COI

Andi Stafuka editing his/her own article might be a COI TypingInTheSky ( talk) 01:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Electronic ticket

Resolved: Involved users blocked, got extra help with watching the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Users are always trying to promote the patent US 5724520, and Joel R. Goheen as the inventor. I've explained in my edit summary that WP:PATENTS and WP:USERGENERATED content are not reliable sources, but received no communication from these editors. SecurXX is a company founded by Joel R. Goheen [52].

I think this just needs a bit of banhammer doctoring. -- intgr  [talk] 08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

intgr, have you considered opening an SPI? I think they would probably do a checkuser given this stuff. – Brianhe ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianhe: I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Securxx. -- intgr  [talk] 15:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh, strikeout again. Just goes to show I don't really understand SPI, but I thought I did this time. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I just looked into the underlying content dispute, which involves attempts to add the following to the article:

"A patent application for Electronic Ticketing and Reservation System and Method was filed on Nov 21, 1994, and a Publication Number was issued on March 3, 1998 (US5724520) recognizing Joel R. Goheen as the Inventor."

While researching this, I ran across [ http://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2014/06/07-575.pdf ], which says in part:

"A review of the prosecution history further confirms that Plaintiff's proposed construction is inappropriate. During prosecution, the examiner focused on two pieces of prior art: u.s. Patent No. 6,067,532 issued to Lucas Gebb ("Gebb") and u.s. Patent No. 5,724,520 issued to Joel R. Goheen ("Goheen"). Both Gebb and Goheen pertain to ticketing systems. Gebb discloses that the ticket buyer "can use a ticketless entry into the event, such as, for example, by an e-token on a smart card." (0.1. 51, Exh. B at 7:12-13.) Goheen discloses that airline passengers can access an airplane using "an identification plastic card" that has a "card number encoded onto a magnetic strip at the back" and that, if the card is lost, passengers can gain access to the airplane using identification 'such as a driver's license or the like'"

This calls into question the claim that Joel R. Goheen is the inventor of the electronic ticket. Certainly we need a better source than a patent, which is simply Joel R. Goheen claiming that he invented something.

Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this. [53] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Maus

Issue currently being dealt with at ANI. Vrac ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

(I apologize if this is in the wrong place, this is my first report!).@ Curly Turkey: has insulted and threatened me several times and cursed like a sailor, all while violating many Wiki rules and being antithetical to the spirit of this site. I have attempted to defend my position with objective sourcing, but CT seems to prefer his own ownership of articles and logical fallacies and accusations over truth. All I tried to do was say that, much like Hakuna matata is clarified as not literally meaning "no worries" in Swahili, it is not "righting great wrongs" to put "ethnic groups" instead of "races" in the Maus article, and I already have three non-cherrypicked objective sources defending me. I have more, and he has nothing but being aggressive. I don't know why he's so stubborn when I have more defending me. Please help. I have cited some of the rules CT has violated on his talk page, he also seems to curse and be aggressive a lot to many other users on his talk page. Sığe |д=) 02:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigehelmus This appears to be a user conduct/content dispute, the thread ( WP:ANI#POV-pushing abuse of sourcing at Maus) at ANI is the appropriate place to deal with this. This COI noticeboard would be appropriate if you suspected that Curly Turkey was the author or publisher (for example) of Maus, that is what is meant by conflict of interest. You don't seem to be suggesting anything of the sort so I'm closing this thread for now in deference to the ANI thread (unless you think there is a COI of the type I mentioned, if so let me know). Vrac ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Graduate School

While reading the WP article on the European Graduate School I noticed that a previously-existing paragraph on this institution's lack of academic accreditation in the United States had been deleted with very little explanation. I restored the paragraph in question, which is thoroughly sourced to several government websites indicating that this university lacks accreditation. While reviewing the history of the article and its talk page I discovered that this is not the first time this paragraph or similar lines of text have been deleted. They go back as several years in what seems to be a long-running but slow-moving battle between various editors who add lines about the school's lack of accreditation, followed by mass deletions with what strike me as specious or insufficient explanations. For example, they keep deleting sourced references to this school's inclusion on multiple US government-published lists of unaccredited institutions and replace them with a generic claim about European Union accreditation, which does not automatically transfer over to the US.

It appears that somebody connected to this school is periodically "scrubbing" the article of all information about its lack of academic accreditation in the United States as if to hide what could be potentially unflattering information about its degrees from prospective students. It's a very slow pattern of what appears to be every couple of months, but as you can see on the talk page and in the edit logs it has been going on since at least 2007. I'm flagging it here as one that WP administrators should probably keep an eye on. Kizezs ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctors and surgeons

Consumers' Research Council

This looks like a fake consumer interest group often referenced in promo doctors bios on WP. External links search: [54]. I'm listing here all articles & drafts that use this source without further comment at this time. Brianhe ( talk) 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at its criteria page, [55] it seems to evaluate by adding up the years of experience and number of professional association memberships. Neither correlates well with notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Doc James: There's some unusually aggressive addition in 2014–2015 of what looks like COI material at Sudip Bose from anon editor/s; you have removed some recently with the edit summary "scam per http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.ca/2015/07/how-to-pick-leading-physicians-of-world.html". Could you cast any light on what's going on here?
To all, these IPs are odd in that they're all static IPs from the same provider apparently geolocating to Hyderabad. Static IPs aren't supposed to rotate like this. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: Your speedy of Sudip Bose was quickly contested by 182.156.70.120 and Sitaray calling himself "we". – Brianhe ( talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Sitaray and the IPs have now reintroduced the same fake source "Leading Physicians of the World" identified by Doc James, at least three times over Doc, me and DGG [56] [57] [58] [59]. Anyone else want to take a swing? – Brianhe ( talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianhe: Why "Leading Physicians of the World" is a fake source? See Here. Sitaray ( talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sitaray: You pinged the wrong person. It's Doc James' source that says so. He's a real doctor, by the way. While we are here, do you need to disclose paid editing for this article? Brianhe ( talk) 07:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes a few light searches and lots of refs that they are a scam appear [60]
Yes you can pay people to write good stuff about you on the internet and to tell you how great you are.
Likely efforts to pick up others who are working on this would be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
International Association of Healthcare Professionals
Added SPAs on Devi Nampiaparampil – the article smells like a glorified press release. Note the NYT article is basically a wedding announcement. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Other
I have just made a first pass at editing most of the articles; I think I've removed every use of this source. The very inclusion of it in an article indicates writing by an inexperienced editor here who does not realize what is significant and reliable, or by a press agent or other coi editor adding whatever is available in an attempt to show importance. Most of the physicians in this group actually are notable, as proven by references or positions or citations to their work. Not all of the articles are from the same source--the one on Devi Nampiaparampil is clearly different from the others. But there is in my opinion at least one paid editor or group specializing in physicians. I am currently trying to look critically at all articles in this field, and would appreciate being notified of additional ones that partcularly need checking. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Carmody and others

Looks like a paid editor or a team who's been flying under the radar for a year. Most of the article titles speak for themselves but this one's particularly noteworthy: Bill Carmody (Digital Marketer) is a bio for an SEO consultant. Not sure where even basic bio facts like his birthplace and date came from; appears clairvoyant since the bio sourcing is incredibly weak with stuff like entrepreneurwiki.com. This one's just less than a month old so efforts to remediate maybe should start here. Brianhe ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Kitchen remodeling companies

This whole area is just full of problematic articles, with clear signs of hit-and-run paid editing. It doesn't seem to be related to a specific editor, but just endemic to the category. One article PRODded for starters.

A recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be related.

More input is invited. Brianhe ( talk) 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've speedied Johnny Grey (designer) as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and prodded Kitchen & Bath Industry Show, Binns (company), Dahlia Mahmood and Danny Seo. I left Peter Ross Salerno alone, because he seems to be perhaps notable (the references tend to be dead links, though). Home improvement is indeed a honeypot for linkspam — not a candidate for deletion, of course. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
It should be noted that the recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be unrelated, as well. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D139:E3C0:4FBC:7F82 ( talk) 16:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
IP editor, in reply to your question on my talkpage "I'm curious what you think might be the connection between the recent Reward Board offering ($2) and the home remodeling COI epidemic?". Cash rewards for editing were controversial to start with, and their outright elimination has been discussed. Now you come as an anon editor offering a cash reward to contribute to an area with extensive documented conflicts of interest. Obvious issue to me. You really don't see the problem? - Brianhe ( talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How would posting a "before and after" photo (with no branding mentioned at all) of a home improvement project possibly yield some sort of conflict of interest? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:20B4:1DBF:A120:2522 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I have rewritten National Kitchen & Bath Association, which I believe to be notable. I have no actual COI on the topic although I have attended a few of their events. Opinions of other editors are welcomed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: the IP posting the reward ( User:2001:558:1400:4E:1599:26AF:B1BB:CE4A) was found to be a sock of a blocked editor formerly named MyWikiBiz; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. Brianhe ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Abe Issa

Two SPAs+one company+one CEO=smells like undisclosed paid editing. Compare to this Elance job which is probably not this one but looks really similar, we should be on the lookout for it too.

Was also sourced to entrepreneurwiki.com. Meaningful? – Brianhe ( talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi There Brianhe ( talk), I am still very new to Wikipedia so I actually don't know if this is how I respond. I can assure you that I am not an ELance or other pay to play type job. Again, really new to wiki and definitely thought EntrepreneurWiki was affiliated with actual Wikipedia. If that is indeed suspect I would be more than happy to delete it and anything else that seems suspect. Really just looking for guidance. Thanks!

Vinny009 ( talk) 15:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Saint Mary's College of California

Hi, Saint Mary's College of California appears to be mostly/somewhat maintained by User:SMCOCC ( contribs). Check that acronym :). I left a message on their talk page but I thought it'd be best to inform here as well. Advice/assistance welcome (it's my first time helping with COI issues really). Thanks! Greg G ( talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some of the brocure-like material. The part about being near a Safeway was a bit much. John Nagle ( talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirtida Gautam

Series of promotional edits by single-purpose accounts, on behalf of the eponymous author and her new book. Articles on both the writer and the publication have been nominated for deletion via AfD process. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The first two articles are at AFD and heading for deletion. The other edits have been reverted and the accounts were all blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kirtidagautam. Thanks for posting, but I don't think there's anything left to do. SmartSE ( talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:cdrtools

Came across this while dealing with an administrative matter around this article. Everybody is accusing everybody of COI and bias. Could use some fresh eyes. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Batteriser

LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser clearly wants us to believe that the account has a conflict of interest given the username. I don't think this new editor is aware of WP:COI or the messages about it on the editor's talk page.

The edits from this editor look like cut-and-paste from some marketing copy, violating WP:SOAP. Ronz ( talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is (thankfully honestly) representing themselves as a COI account. A quick search on Google for Lakshmi Narasimhan batteriser will verify. I believe that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked permanently. SageGreenRider ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing

Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing:

Please see sock investigation, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT.

Any help with article cleanup and/or sock investigation would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

— Cirt ( talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Popping in from my wikibreak—checkuser confirmed, listed above. Interesting personas they created, reminiscent of a past case; one described self as "Soccer mom with a Fashion Merchandising degree." Also performing "good hand" edits at Zaqistan, displaying more sophistication than usual. This, plus high degree of English proficiency, plus geolocation of User:108.195.157.94 may be useful clues to the nature of the COI here. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
More Checkuser confirmed: Checkuser confirmed socking at this page: David Gandy (likely many other articles) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walterlan Papetti/Archive. Likely related to promotional / paid editing. Result is violations of WP:NPOV. — Cirt ( talk) 07:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding more to above list, all confirmed by Checkuser as socks of LauraLeeT ( talk · contribs), the sockmaster account which has a self-disclosed conflict of interest per DIFF, thus, they all do. — Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Above are a handful of the articles created and/or maintained by the above Checkuser confirmed socks. — Cirt ( talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucas Secon

The subject of this article uses this page as their personal vanity page. I have tried to wikify it many times in the past - i.e. introduce a neutral tone, focus on referenced and encyclopaedic facts, have some structure and format to the article, including aesthetic presentation and so on. These changes have been constantly resisted in a variety of ways (mainly unregistered IPs or SPAs with no other edits reverting my edits). I have posted on here about 2.5 years ago and they rode out the storm then. I raised the concern of lack of references, and they've just added a blanket, cover-all link to a page they control. Statements such as 'is a Grammy Award, MTV Award and Emmy Award-nominated record producer, songwriter, Golden Poets Award winner, DJ, rapper, singer and artist/conceptualist.' is straight off a press release and not a valid introduction for wiki once you understand the person's true achievements (there is too much fluff to give the illusion of grandeur, and the very fact that it exists here gives it some false credibility). 'countless multi-platinum, platinum and gold singles and albums' is not a wiki style statement. The thumbnail violates copyright issues. The discography is excessively long, relies on a single reference from the subject's website (one controlled by a party close to them), is of a poor format, does not accurately detail subject's involvement, and includes statements like 'Alex Newell upcoming single Deep Well Music/Atlantic Records US & The Gabriellas upcoming single "Lookalike" RE:A:CH Records 2015' as though this website is a cheeky radio plug for someone's future releases. This subject is in the habit of jumping on any computer (i.e. diverse IP contributors) but only ever interested in this article and entering their involvement in the corresponding article (e.g. if they produced a britney song, they'd add it to their personal discography, then add themselves to the britney page, the album page and the single page). Whilst some of these edits may be factually correct, away from the COI issue, there is an issue with the manner in which they're done - often not following formatting guidance so the overall look of the articles doesn't look up to standard. Most of the info comes from this source https://milocostudios.com/client/lucas-secon/ as you can see, subject is a client of theirs and is therefore able to manipulate the content of that page. This page is the predominant source of info for the wiki page (9 out of 10 references used link back to this page). This page appeared and was referenced to after the last challenge to this page in early 2013. Subject also uses their wiki page for self-promotion by linking to it on their twitter bio https://twitter.com/lucasproduction Rayman60 ( talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As with the above, I share your concerns and am unable to find any sources providing substantial coverage. I'm not so familiar with the ins and outs of WP:NMUSIC for producers and songwriters, but this also looks like an AFD candidate to me. SmartSE ( talk) 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
He did have a song which charted on the Billboard Top 100, which is notable per WP:MUSIC. I took out much of the peacocking and the list of projects with which he was associated in an unspecified capacity. John Nagle ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he's also had a top 5 album in the US, so there is definitely enough notability to make this article a keep. It does need better referencing though, most of the text is lifted wholesale from a biography on the website of a recording studio, not the best RS. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm now satisfied the article content is suitable. In my past experience, the subject or their lackey has returned at various intervals and resisted change/reverted edits stubbornly. *hopefully* this won't be the case this time, however I'll continue to monitor the article if it does happen. Rayman60 ( talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Serban Ghenea

For a long time, I have been trying to fix this article which is presented as nothing more than PR fluff for a music artist. The article is very poor - there is no neutral tone, and many edits are made by unregistered users and a SPA account. One particularly bad issue is the format of the selected discography. There is no consistency to it and it just has splattering of various different accolades to present the subject in an inappropriately positive light (e.g. whichever Billboard chart makes the achievement look most favourable). The editor above makes no other contributions to wikipedia and refuses to engage with any policies about SPA and COI. The wikipedia page is used for self-promotion here: http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/serban_ghenea Rayman60 ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cavalino's edits are indeed problematic and it is always worrying to see people linking to Wikipedia articles from their website. I'll need to look at it further, but at first glance it looks like a candidate for AFD since there don't appear to be any sources discussing the subject in detail. SmartSE ( talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serban Ghenea. SmartSE ( talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Also adding this article and user. Hannahgracevc stated they work for AAM here. SmartSE ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Shane Stevens (songwriter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannahgracevc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Looking through a random selection of their other clients there are also a large number of SPAs over the years with similar editing habits e.g:
I'll try to get some input from WT:MUSIC. SmartSE ( talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. There's severe ownership going on here and a new user who's admitted a COI is reverting our attempts to clean up: Johnhanes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anyone care to assist? @ SpacemanSpiff: SmartSE ( talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Two accounts are blocked now. I think the corporate IP range is quite small, if anything further comes up an IP block is also an option. — Spaceman Spiff 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Taken from my post at the sockpuppet investigation, I've been informed it's more appropriate here:

With regards to the third editor Hannahgracevc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have declared that they work for the management company. You can google the company and see the list of artists - she has made some edits on other artists' page in what is clearly a paid advocacy role. You can google her and the company's name to get her role (presently Director of Communications at said management company). There is a serious COI issue with her edits too, and I also believe she was alerted and entered this debate by the same person who recruited the new editor John Hanes. If you look at her past edits - Shane Stevens is a client of AAM. The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories etc. Andros Rodriguez and Mozella are also clients. The only other edits are to insert Trion (another client of theirs) into the credits of other pages. This editor has not made a single edit that isn't related to clients of her employer. There is no doubt in my mind that this person has flagrantly, knowingly and willingly breached several serious rules on COI and paid advocacy over the course of 2015 and has no intention of making any positive contributions to the project other than those that result in direct financial benefit to themselves and/or their paymasters. I fully support extending the ban to this person and warning them not to attempt to edit related articles in the future. Rayman60 ( talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rayman60 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was not aware of the strict COI policy, but I can assure you I only added factual information. I did not knowingly and willing breach these rules. That is your opinion, however, that is my error for not doing further research.
Regarding Shane Stevens account, everything was factual and cited, so no need for your harsh opinions. I put it up for review and it was approved. It was not a PR move, just simply to create a Wikipedia page for a notable person. If you don't think a songwriter for Selena Gomez is notable, then you are ridiculous.
Your opinion is spewed all over anything you touch and this is a prime example: "The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories." All of this information was factual, so your opinion is irrelevant.
To go as far as look at my LinkedIn page and report about this is completely uncalled for and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. You already knew I worked for the management company, no need for your further "investigation" and report my job title. My job title was never discussed on Wikipedia therefore is a violation of my privacy. According to WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... job title and work organisation..."
By the way, I was not instigated by anyone to comment on Serban Ghenea's page. I did that on my own free will. So again your "opinion" is incorrect.
I apologize for being unclear of the guidelines but I can assure you I only put out factual information. For me violating these rules without proper knowledge, I'm going to back down. Please, do not write information you have found about me outside of Wikipedia ever again.
You have made me lose all faith in Wikipedia. Try saying your opinion less, constructive edits more, and stop harassing editors. No need to waste anyone's time with this issue and no need to comment back as I will never be using Wikipedia ever again. -- Hannahgracevc ( talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

82.3.238.241 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring over the page Mudar Zahran for several months now. They have been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and the article in question was protected for one week at one point. Despite this, the user continues to edit the page by removing information about the subject, claiming that it is defamatory. Their latest revision was annotated with the following claim: "Legal Warning to Wikipedia: You are using an untrusted source to describe me as a Mossad agent which could get me killed. You are inciting against me and I am considering legal action." Given the pronoun usage, this editor is clearly violating WP:SELFPUB and should be blocked from editing this page. ♜♞ parrotz1461 ♞♜ 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He has a potential sockpuppet account if anyone's interested InternetNavegadora -- Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Clear legal threats and should be reported to ANI. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This is really a biography of a living person WP:BLP issue. Moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mudar_Zahran. The biography noticeboard is better at dealing with defamation-type issues. John Nagle ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Verona Area School District / Verona Area High School

Based on edit summaries and wording of edits, Kkloepping / Kelly.kloepping appears to be affiliated with the Verona Area School District. Edit summaries and edits have included wording such as: " adding our mission and supporting action goals", " added two programs we are offering", and " 69% of our population is white/caucasion" (sic).

After Kkloepping's first two edits, (adding an inappropriate mission statement to Verona Area School District), the editor was warned about conflict of interest and the need to disclose any paid affiliation with the school district. The editor simply opened a new account ( Kelly.kloepping) and reverted the removal of the inappropriate mission statement. The user was warned again, this time about sockpuppetry. An additional talk page message stressed the importance of following WikiProject Schools guidelines, of heeding policies regarding conflict of interest and disclosure when doing paid editing, and of sockpuppetry. The editor continues unabated, adding unsourced and inappropriate content to Verona schools' articles.

Please help in dealing with this. 32.218.41.143 ( talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, most of their additions were copyvios from this. Vrac ( talk) 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch! Still, the edit summaries ("our mission", "we are offering") suggest a connection to the school district. 32.218.32.45 ( talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt the connection. Copyvio is an easy angle to pursue if they keep it up though. Vrac ( talk) 19:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

dogfoodselector.com

Content cleaned, editor in question has not reappeared. Vrac ( talk) 15:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Dora Mancha Vet is repeatedly adding links to dogfoodselector.com. All content added is referenced to blog-like posts on this website. The website appears to be a self-published site and all articles are written by "Dora Mancha". This appears to be a case of editing Wikipedia to promote one's own external website. The edits to Dog have been reverted, but all others remain. TimBuck2 ( talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding well founded information to Wikipedia. I'm a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and I write to the Dog Food Selector page, but I don't own the web page. I always add other valid references to my contributions to Wikipedia. I even wrote a complete article about dog food allergies and my intention is to complete it in a near future. I add references from Dog Food Selector because I write the articles and they are reliable and contain scientific information that can help people. If Wikipedia decides this is a conflict of interest, please tell me what shall I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora Mancha Vet ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dora Mancha Vet Yes, adding links to blogs that you yourself have written is a conflict of interest, such links are considered spam. The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. See also WP:RS, I don't see how dogfoodselector.com could qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, although if you feel strongly that it should be considered a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN which will offer an opinion. What you should do is stop adding such links to Wikipedia articles. Regards, Vrac ( talk) 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Ironically I just came across this quote from Wikipedia's founder last night:

Wikipedia for a lot of people hearkens back to what we all thought the Internet was for in the first place which is, you know, when most people first started the Internet they thought oh, this is fantastic, people can communicate from all over the world and build knowledge and share information. And then we went through the whole dot-com boom and bust and the Internet seemed to be about pop-up ads, and spam, and porn and selling dog food over the Internet.

— Jimmy Wales on C-Span, 2005
I guess now you don't have to choose between the two. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Some things (like dog food and porn) are just too important to let speed bumps like ideals or ethics get in the way... Vrac ( talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Dora Mancha Vet, if you have a science background, then you'll know that if you are writing scientific articles your references need to be from publications considered to be reliable and trustworthy, such as peer-reviewed scientific journals... you wouldn't reference a blog in your PhD thesis, would you? Richard3120 ( talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investor Application

Query answered, article cleaned by 1Wiki8... – Brianhe ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 204.148.13.62 ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am the owner of a business that would like to be listed along with other similar businesses in a section of Wikipedia called Investor Application. I will not be promoting our compnay, rather just adding its name and description, similar to how the other businesses are presented.

Is this possible? Am I keeping inside th COI boundries set by Wikipedia?

Regards

Chris Muldoon ShareholderApp

Wow, I think the article Investor Application needs to be looked at urgently. I'm sure when it was created in 2012 it was with good intentions to explain the various types of applications, but it seems to have grown since into a list of every man and his dog adding essentially to long lists of companies who have iPhone or Android apps, which is effectively promotional content. I think all the lists should go and just leave the text. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone just deleted the list of apps. The article probably should stay that way, per WP:NOTCATALOG. John Nagle ( talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93&oldid=1136101220"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleveland Clinic


There's a slowly unfolding trainwreck over at Cleveland Clinic. User:HealthMonitor has a declared COI (see [1]) and has very extensively edited the article. It's nice that they declared the COI, but their version has substantial formatting and style problems. User:Elvey deleted a large (33 kB) chunk of the article as "advocacy" here, which was restored by User:BlueRasberry here with a reasonable explanation that "to remove this much text needs a little more explanation." User:Elvey reverted back. The COI editor then proposed restoring his preferred version on the talk page (how's this for a talk page comment?) and did so after giving all of two days on a rather obscure and little-watched article. I reverted this back, not because I actually care about the article or the content, but because there was not a reasonable time for discussion or objections. (Yes, I know, reverting because of objections to an edit war is like The Fugs' song "Kill for Peace.")

So what to do? WP:TNT comes to mind. The COI editor definitely needs to slow down but so does User:Elvey. Maybe lock down the article pending further discussion? Whoever is willing to do this is welcome to revert my latest change first. Anyway this can't go on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris Thanks for noticing this. Your summary is insightful and I agree with it.
Elvey has valid concerns that merit being acknowledged. I asked for a little clarity - I hope that I was not asking too much - because I do think that all of the text has been thoughtfully contributed and deserves more consideration than blanking only on the basis of COI.
I propose to give Elvey time to comment further. Either this person will say something or not, but in either case after they have opportunity, I would like to get more comments from more people. It would be nice if anyone would give some brief comment now to encourage more conversation before I solicit interested WikiProjects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added full protection for two days and asked HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, to refrain from editing the article, except for minor changes. This was the article before HealthMonitor began rewriting it in August. Sarah (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Good. I see HealthMonitor already ignored / did NOT respect the instruction to "avoid editing or creating articles related to ... your organization. So while another warning (this time from an admin) is good, the soft touch rather than am explicit warning that violation could lead to being blocked, (or a block) at this point feels ... insufficient.
Yes, not only do I have valid concerns, but I expressed them on the article talk page (and in edit summaries and on the user's talk page); Not 3-week-old user (!) Shock Brigade Harvester Boris makes no mention of any of that. If the initial notice here had mentioned that, it would feel more neutral. I wrote a response to Blue's latest, but it seems to have been lost (editing error? Browsing crash?) In any case, my concerns which need to be and have yet to be addressed by the COI user include:
I don't dispute that HealthMonitor has made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia rules, however, undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules. (What part of "Revert edits which consist of undisclosed paid/sponsored advocacy. Disclosure within an article is not allowed by Wikipedia policy; authorship attribution is normally limited to edit histories. Undisclosed paid promo. content violates FTC regulations" DO you understand?) I would certainly be open to offering deeper criticism - however first the criticism I already offered ought be responded to more substantively by HealthMonitor. Until then, HealthMonitor, you're edit warring by reverting and more importantly, you need to be aware that adding undisclosed paid promo. content that violates FTC regulations and thereby conflicts with Wikipedia rules - even if it's you adding the content by reverting my revert. I see you saw my comment on User_talk:HealthMonitor where I've already offered deeper criticism.
Contributions that violate US law are not welcome here. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, HealthMonitor has failed to
  • avoid editing or creating articles related to this organization. And Bluerasberry has edited to perpetuate edits that fail to do that!
  • exercise great caution so that not to violate Wikipedia's content policies.
Finally: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information" rather than content written by a paid advocate such as yourself. That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes. It is essential to achieve consensus on the conflict between this content that I removed and FTC Guide and policy. Understood, HealthMonitor?
-- Elvey( t• c) 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the content, since October 1, almost the entire article has been replaced. That's not good. John Nagle ( talk) 07:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with this conversation continuing for so long as Elvey insists on talking about how these edits to Wikipedia constitute violation of US Federal Law. If someone's editing is against the law then the illegal activity needs to stop, and if the editing discussed is not against the law then I would like for someone to resolve this point. I started a discussion about legality of editing at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Reversion.3F, where I offered to escalate the situation if that would be useful. Per WP:No legal threats, talk of legal threats are supposed to go to the administrator's board. Slimvirgin - you and I have talked at the "no legal threats" page, and you are an administrator. Are you comfortable giving comment in this case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Elvey Thanks for trying to reply to my comment at Cleveland Clinic, even if somehow what you wrote was not saved and I could not read it. You deserve clarity on the legality of other users' contributions and you are right to demand disclosure from people with a COI. May I ask, what do you expect in the disclosure process? From the beginning the user in question disclosed a work affiliation. Briefly, could you be explicit about what more you expect when you request disclosure? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about what is happening here. For example, before HealthMonitor's edits, the article included a report from Consumer Reports that the Cleveland Clinic did not rate well when it came to hospital-acquired infections.
    HealthMonitor, who works for the Cleveland Clinic, removed this during his rewrite. Elvey restored it. [2] Bluerasberry, who works for Consumer Reports, reverted to HealthMonitor's version. [3] Could someone explain? Is the Consumer Reports material ( here and here) not considered reliable? Sarah (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I am not aware of Consumer Reports content being in dispute here. In the edit you shared I reverted a 40kb change, which is a massive edit to make without explanation. If 0.5kb of that said something about Consumer Reports then I was not aware. The Consumer Reports content is great. Feel free to restore it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not involved in editing the article, so I'll leave it to others to decide whether it's an RS. Elvey has restored it. I was just puzzled by someone from Consumer Reports helping a Cleveland Clinic employee to remove a Consumer Reports report about the hospital. But if you didn't see it, that explains it.
In general, it's important not to revert to COI editing when an editor in good standing objects to it (not counting libel, copyright, BLP issues and similar), and perhaps especially when it's a health-care issue and there has been such an extensive rewrite. Sarah (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
SlimVirgin I had been discussing CR rankings with this person - see Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Still, this is a nonissue in the context of the 40kb change.
I reviewed the edits HealthMonitor made and so far as I can see, they have been complying with Wikimedia guidelines. I am pleased with their willingness to go to the talk page and respond to concerns which can be answered. There is a record of that at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#New_First_Paragraph_with_Additional_Data and other conversations elsewhere. So far as I know, no one else has given any criticism of the content they added. So far as I know, Elvey's complaints only are about violation of US and German law, and not that the text is inappropriate for inclusion by content standards. I remain interested in restoring content which has been removed based on judgements other than content quality. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that a wholescale rewrite by an employee wasn't appropriate, so the best way forward is to break the rewrite down into individual edit requests, both removals and additions. The removal of criticism would need to be examined separately and carefully, but the addition of lists of services is problematic too, in that it might make the article appear to be an advertisement, which I believe is what Elvey was arguing.
HealthMonitor can use the {{ edit request}} template to suggest that X be removed or Y added, then other editors can decide whether it's appropriate, and if there's consensus a volunteer editor can make the edit. Sarah (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: The content involving the U.S. News & World Report rankings and Consumer Reports rankings is another issue. Those facts are well-sourced and I leave it to others to decide if they belong in the article or not. I have been open about the fact that I work for the subject of the article, and I realize that leaves me open to the charge of COI. All I can say on my side is that I took it upon myself to edit the article, because I thought the incumbent article was skimpy, it had warnings about "weasel words" and promotional copy, and because it's a subject I know lot about, and I believed I could add a ton of objective, sourced facts to the article. (I also thought it could use some better pictures, so I went out and took some with my iPhone). If the edited article was still up there, editors could judge for themselves whether or not the edits met Wikipedia's criteria for sourcing and objectivity. HealthMonitor 18 October, 2015 5:41 pm EST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HealthMonitor ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

HealthMonitor, can you say why you removed the Consumer Reports material? Sarah (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
There is an explanation at Talk:Cleveland_Clinic#Rankings. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't see any explanation there. Bluerasberry, posting the whole draft again in one diff isn't helpful. It would be better to break the draft down into separate requests, and deal with each one individually out of respect for volunteer time. (See WP:COITALK.) Post one request, gain consensus, close it. Then post a second, and so on. Sarah (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Slimvirgin about the CR content - in the discussion I provided, it begins, "The Rankings section was taken out..." then a discussion follows explaining why. In what way does this not meet your expectation?
I broke the proposal into 10 sections. Are you suggesting that these sections need to be offered piece wise, perhaps 1 every ten days, and then wrap up in about 100 days? What are you requesting? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is becoming fragmented between this noticeboard and the article talk page. The COI issues seem to have been clarified, so might I suggest that further discussion on how to edit the article be centralized at Talk:Cleveland Clinic. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline

Hello, this is an account that I have set up to suggest changes and possibly make small, uncontroversial edits to articles related to HeinOnline. I'm aware that there are guidelines about editing pages if there is a potential conflict of interest, so I would like to disclose here that these contributions are made on behalf of HeinOnline and in consultation with them, and I intend to follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines, including those on WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV, very closely. My aim is to work with and seek advice from impartial editors to make positive contributions to HeinOnline's article, hopefully leading to a much improved article. On any pages where I look for assistance, I will be sure to disclose my relationship to HeinOnline in the interests of transparency. If you would like to help me, please let me know. Thanks, Tak1335 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Tak1335 ( talk) 15:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Honestly, at this point if the article had been created today it would likely get tagged for speedy deletion under criteria A7; no claim to significance. The article contains only a primary source, that of the organization itself, with no credible claim of significance. That the article has exited for 10 years in such a state is surprising. As is, the article should probably go up for deletion. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Hammersoft, BusterD, and DGG: Before you get your hopes up about speedy deletion, read this proposal to jettison the "suicide pact" and apply g11 more broadly in a similar case, and the responses to it; as well as my comments on g11 failures and responses in the active thread on Jimbo's talkpage. There's something broken when we can't use speedy in cases like this that cry out for it. – Brianhe ( talk) 19:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not angling for speedy deletion, and wouldn't do so because the article has been in existence for 10 years. I don't think G11 applies, as it is not promotional. It is neutrally worded. I do think that if it were created today, there's a fair chance someone would tag it A7. That said, I don't think it should be speedied. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • why does this case cry out for speedy deletion? We partner with them and they are mentioned in a number of publications. Often, as you know, the test for deletion as applied is not citations in the article but the possibility for notability. I believe it exists here. As for the COIN, Tak, you should follow the procedures, and make sure that every claim you make is supported by an independent source. I believe that many law school's law libraries will discuss Hein and this will not be difficult. Best of luck. I followed the Hein page, so I will take a look at your work and respond on talk page if I feel so moved. -- JumpLike23 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Look, I don't care about debates about speedy deletion vis-a-vis this case. My point is the article isn't referenced to anything other than its own entity. FIX it. That's my point. Thanks, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
All the article on Hein needs is to have suitable refs added. It's one of the two competitive largest legal databases in the world. It should easily pass Afd--so easily that there's no point even bringing it there-- see WP:BEFORE. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As for the general matter of deletion,borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is a good reason, but not at CSD. G11 is a deletion criterion without clear lines--I use it a good deal, but some of my nominations have been sometimes questioned. AfD always ahas the advantage of preventing re-creation without improvement.FWIW,m I would personally be willing to consider supporting a rule for the deletion of the content added by undeclared paid editors and their socks added before their detection, just as we routinely do for that added afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Hammersoft, I misinterpreted your comment, so have struck out two words above. However, the overall sentiment remains that speedy seems to be failing much more than is reasonable. My thoughts on this are on record here among other places. - Brianhe ( talk) 01:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't care about a debate regarding speedy deletion. It's not apropos to this conversation. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

HeinOnline is an extremely important and widely used information resource, and the idea of deleting the article about it is meritless and should not be mentioned again. Using this thread to raise a concern about the current state of the article is especially problematic because according to a widespread, if somewhat simplistic, interpretation of the COI guideline, Tak1335 would surely be criticized if he tried to expand and improve the HeinOnline article, although I certainly agree that somebody should. @ Tak1335: Please feel free to come to my talkpage with any specific questions. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Sigh. Look, I'm not a lawyer. You are. I have no reason to even know of the existence of HeinOnline, much less its notability. As the article stands, it has been tagged with {{ refimprove}} for six years with no action on it. I make no assertions as to whether the site is notable or not. I don't care. what I DO care is that as the article stands (and has stood since its creation 10 years ago), it is badly in need of secondary sources attesting to its significance. I don't care if you are a lawyer and say it is important. I really don't. I can even agree with you that it is important. Let's just agree it's the most important website that's ever been in existence. It does NOT matter. What matters is the sorry state of the article, a state it has been in for 10 years. If it is that bloody significant, then it should be absolutely trivial to find reliable sources attesting to that. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment That tag for additional citations for verification on the article should be removed. How many citations are required for a three line, single paragraph, article ? Richard Harvey ( talk) 16:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
At least one that's not a primary source. Best I could find is this article talking about accessing HeinOnline using Fastcase 7, but it's a passing mention. This database may be important, but it's lacking the depth of coverage necessary to satisfy any sort of notability guideline. clpo13( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
HeinOnline, and the company behind it, William S. Hein & Co., Inc., have a remarkably low profile on the Web. Every major law library has the service, so there are hundreds of pages from law libraries mentioning it. But I can't find many news articles. Nobody seems to write much about the company. LexisNexis is much better known, but they index fields outside the law. Hein is for legal research only. They're privately held, 80+ years old, and the grandson of the founder is the chairman of the board. [4], so there's not much info about them from sources other than the company itself. A developer bought their headquarters building in Buffalo, NY. [5]. They won a Vision Award from Niagara University in Buffalo in 2009, and that article has some background on the company we could use in an article. [6] They have a gallery of black and white building photographs. [7]. A Canadian legal publication had a brief article about them. [8]. They're now mostly online, but they started as a publisher of law books, and still do that, but on a smaller scale. There's about enough here for a company stub. I'd suggest a short company article using the available reliable sources, and a mention of the HeinOnline product. John Nagle ( talk) 08:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I suggest moving this article to "William S. Hein & Co", and converting it to a company article, mentioning Hein Online as a product, and setting HeinOnline as a redirect to the product section of the article. The sources for the company are better than the sources for the product. Comments? John Nagle ( talk) 06:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OWN TV

Deferring to ANI discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User:RobinColclough has replaced the disambiguation page OWN TV with a notice that the trademark for the name belongs to Robin Colclough. Apparently, this has been ongoing since earlier this year, so I thought I would give a heads up to the noticeboard here because of the COI and legal issues. Deli nk ( talk) 12:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI, a discussion was just started at ANI too: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#OWN_TV_and_User:RobinColclough. Deli nk ( talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
As this is at ANI it's probably easier to discuss it there. SmartSE ( talk) 12:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

YourStory.com

Userspace drafts
NextBigWhat/pluggd.in userspace drafts
#1 suspect articles
editors
editors - second group

YourStory seems to be a PR publishing platform (thinly) masquerading as a legitimate news site. See details at WP:RSN#YourStory.com. There are approx. 200 India business articles using it as a source. The external links search feature can easily discover these and I've indexed many of theseall of them at User:Brianhe/COIbox26. The most pressing are the userspace drafts currently under development using these sources, listed above, with high likelihood to be undisclosed paid editing.

Of note, this source seems to be favored by spammers and socks. For instance, Andrewjohn39 used it at both the KartRocket and POPxo AfDs; Avnish.vikas and Avinash187 used it for indianmoney.com (see User talk:Avinash187); an anon ed. used it for Naveen Tewari, a Paytm board member among other things (see User talk:Davewild, 21 August 2015). The RSN post linked above gives other examples, discovered by four other editors, of it being used to support probable COI articles. – Brianhe ( talk) 21:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to nuke the links, I can probably blacklist it. Guy ( Help!) 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do. I'm starting to add some suspicious articles to the list above. Actually they are all suspicious but I'm taking the ones with multiple citations as the top, with the model that each article was probably paid for and is the most conflicted. Brianhe ( talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Three users relates to Rolocule games (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), all seem likely to be spammers. 11:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • plus Added to blacklist, [9]. Guy ( Help!) 11:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Krishsundaram SPA edit history includes editing at User:BrowserStack/sandbox and recently de-prodding BrowserStack. – Brianhe ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another questionable source is nextbigwhat.com. I noticed that ClearTax cited remarkably similar articles at NextBigWhat and YourStory published within a couple of days of each other. Similarities include this verbatim passage from an interview with the company founder:
"We applied to Y Combinator via the standard application process. We filled out the YC application form online. At the time of application, we didn't submit the video (a video of the founders is required as part of the application) as we were in different cities running sales or meetings. We got a message from YC to upload a video to complete the application. We recorded that and later on, we were asked to show up for a ten-minute interview at YC. We flew to California for that and then got in."
If this also turns out to be a shill source, we've got another big problem as ~100 articles are sourced to nextbigwhat.com (see external links search). Many, unsurprisingly, are in the same list given above, including Zomato, Housing.com, TaxiForSure, Bankbazaar. Edited to add Yes, it looks like it's fake also. Opened a new item at RSN including an investigation on their use of vast numbers of fake Twitter followers. Edited once moreThey used to be branded pluggd.in; there are around 50 more articles sourced to this. Brianhe ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: Maybe this is a good opportunity to reopen the discussion around notability & sourcing requirements for startups. Brianhe ( talk) 20:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Another probable fake news site: medianama.com. ~300 articles sourcing from it ( links). Linked articles again include Zomato, Housing.com, Bankbazaar. Brianhe ( talk) 21:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Suggested guidelines on startups: -- material limited to information about motivation for starting an organization & funding prior to the first public offering is not reliable for probing notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Continuing discussion on User talk:DGG. - Brianhe ( talk) 15:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly related: Annofbigbeach ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy ( Help!) 08:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just noticed this and I think the blacklist of yourstory is very wrong. Yourstory.com is now one of most famous news websites in India and writes about VCs, emerging businesses and startups in India. It was recently funded by Ratan Tata, one of India's richest businessmen and chairman of $100B+ Tata Group, Vani Kola of Kalaari Capital, T.V. Mohandas Pai and Qualcomm Ventures. Read the news about it on India's all and major largest newspapers like The Hindu, Business Standard, The Economic Times, Financial Express, The Hindu. I am actually surprised that yourstory doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet on its own. -- Tinu Cherian - 10:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Tinu, you're confusing notability and reliability here. Yourstory may very well be notable but the type of content the push out means that they aren't reliable -- " Yourstory primarily generates revenues from advertisements, events and from start-ups, who pay and get featured, said sources." Brian, Medianama is mostly a single person run blog but he's sort of notable as a tech/communication analyst. It's more of an attributed opinion site for most stuff. — Spaceman Spiff 12:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Appreciate your thoughts, SS. I am not saying the notability of the subject should be judged by (only) one article on yourstory. Having said that, from my experience and knowledge, yourstory is a very credible news portal in India and has very experienced writers/journalists working for them. Unlike mainstream media, this is primarily online based, with special focus on startups and tech space ( like TechCrunch ). Agree partially with your points on medianama, though. Attracting investment from one of India's richest men proves that it is not a fake news site as argued above. I don't think it is fair to conclude the viewpoint of The Hindu business journalist (Sources? who?) that YS is a "your pay, get featured" type of website. Not to forget that the mainstream media competes for space with these new age portals. It is true that these portals generates revenue from advertisements and events. Who doesn't? Even the largest newspaper, TimesofIndia for that matter any MSM works on advertisement model. Blacklisting yourstory.com is an extreme step, IMHO and request everyone to reconsider it -- Tinu Cherian - 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
          • That is exactly the reason why we use The Times of India based on context, there are obvious promo pieces that are definitely not used. The difference is that in ToI's case the news vs promo/paid features is tilted towards news, while in this case it's tilted towards paid features and user submitted content, just look at: yourstory dot com/frequently-asked-questions. — Spaceman Spiff 03:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, I still feel blacklisting the entire domain of yourstory on wikipedia is still wrong. By the same yardstick, sites like TechCrunch, mashable all must be blacklisted. I have been going through the news references and coverage on yourstory on mainstream media. YS itself deserves a standalone Wikipedia article, given the notability and popularity. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The blacklist can be lifted on a case by case basis but you will have to convince an admin of legitimate need. As for creating an article on YS, knock yourself out, but it really has nothing to do with the discussion of the blacklist. As Spiff pointed out, you're confusing notability and reliability: a thing can be notable enough to have an article, yet not reliable enough to be cited, or even so unreliable, biased, or uncontrolled as to be blacklisted as a source for other articles. Think of Facebook for instance. Brianhe ( talk) 08:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. I have to respectfully request you to not compare oranges and apples. Facebook is to be compared with Twitter. Yourstory has to be compared with TechCrunch. Blacklisting YS and not TC is purely systemic bias. To say that YS (in spite of the number of reliable source references to prove its own notability) is not enough world-view -- Tinu Cherian - 14:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Entirely incorrect analysis Tinu. TechCrunch has editorial control, Yourstory is well your story, period. Crying systemic bias in this case is clearly not right as it only serves to take attention away from real systemic bias problems. — Spaceman Spiff 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Respect your POV, but i still strongly disagree -- Tinu Cherian - 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Cryptome

See this diff, specifically noting We made a few corrections. An editor using the name John Young (the name of one of Cryptome's founders) has been editing the article to balance out criticism of the site. However, that editor (and an IP which is likely related; see this diff) has also added commentary to the article deriding Wikipedia's coverage of the site. As far as I can tell, neither the account or the IP has discussed this on the talk page. Judging from the history of the talk page, however, accounts and IPs related to Cryptome have been editing this article for a long time ( Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of interest editing & primary sources and Talk:Cryptome#Conflict of Interest). clpo13( talk) 15:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This diff suggests that the IP and the John Young account are one and the same. The IP is still adding commentary to the article without talk page discussion. clpo13( talk) 22:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Kathleen Conway

Voluntary disclosure of paid contribution — directed user to the appropriate place for this notice
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Kalina3112|U1-employer=Hop Online|U1-client=The Scott|U1-}} I am a paid contributor for Kathleen Conway's Wiki page. I have been paid to upload this article by Hop Online.-- Kalina3112 ( talk) 08:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@ Kalina3112: Thanks for the disclosure. This is not the right place to put this notice. Please add the paid contribution notice to your user page ( User:Kalina3112) and the article's talk page ( Draft talk:Kathleen Conway). -- intgr  [talk] 09:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually advised User:Kalina3112 to post here, per the guidance at Wikipedia:Paid editing (essay)#Policy, intgr. Perhaps that essay is out of date? In any case, I'm pleased to say that Kalina has added these notices to her talk page and to Draft talk:Kathleen Conway. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Pisco Sour, Morris Family

I am writing here to ask for help/advice/intervention on how to interact with a user that seems to have a vested interest in the material at the Pisco Sour article. This user claims to have good information available for the article's improvement ( [10]), and I believe it based on recent contributions to Wikimedia ( [11]). However, I am worried that the user's editing behavior, including the deletion of reliable sources as well as what seems to be a legal threat ( [12]), and mildly aggressive interaction with other users ( [13]), might end up getting the user into more trouble than it intends to get itself into. I am not sure how to proceed in this situation without inadvertently losing a potentially valuable contributor; maybe someone can help this user get a good introduction to Wikipedia. Note: I am not notifying the user of this COI request, because I get the sense that it might be interpreted in a negative manner. I really think that this user may just need a hand to guide it in the right direction; unfortunately, my hands are pretty busy at the moment.-- MarshalN20 Talk 05:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@ MarshalN20: Apparently you think a Spanish language website that sells alcohol is a good external link for the article; can you explain? – Brianhe ( talk) 15:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't particularly appreciate the constant mention of the "Spanish language" as if it were something negative. An article like Pisco Sour, a drink invented in a Spanish-speaking country and popular in a Spanish-speaking region, should be open to Spanish language external links. In addition to presenting different kinds of Piscos, the piscosour.com website also has recipes ( [14], [15]), information about bars selling Pisco Sour ( [16]), and pisco-related articles ( [17]). Anything else? Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Not disparaging your fine language, and I wouldn't call one time "constant mention"; however there is a guideline WP:NONENGEL which gives good reasons why we shouldn't use these links without extenuating circumstances. Given your involvement both here and at ANI, do you think perhaps you're jumping into nationalistic debates too soon after expiry of your ban? – Brianhe ( talk) 16:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this all? Derailing the discussion won't make your point correct. Have a good day.-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: The original point of this COI request remains ignored. I still need help interacting with Morrisbar. Any help would be appreciated!-- MarshalN20 Talk 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the external links, which appeared to be promotional. That's way too much article for the subject, but that's a content issue. John Nagle ( talk) 18:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize now that bringing this up to the COIN was a terrible idea. I'm sure that you all have the best of intentions, but removing external links ( [18]) that were a critical part of the FA review ( [19]) is neither helpful nor addressing the purpose of the request. Instead, not only do I unfairly get baited about a topic ban that has been lifted, but also the user who I wanted others to help get the ropes of working in Wikipedia ended up blocked twice ( [20], [21])—certainly one of the worst newcomer bites on record.
Not only that, but this newcomer was a female editor that had indicated good potential for contributing valuable content to the encyclopedia. I am considering taking this situation to the admin's noticeboard, but given the experience here I don't have high hopes of that working out. What would be the purpose? A warning against behaving like jerks? In lieu of that, I hope all of those who have committed errors in this case do not make the same mistakes again.-- MarshalN20 Talk 19:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Indian television production and actors PR

Too many COI articles to list here; this is his top 10 creations listed by the contribution surveyor tool (output here).

other


Kunalforyou seems to have a singular interest in Indian television production and actors. His edits include the following:

The editor's article-space contributions are almost entirely centered around actors and production companies related to the following:

Note that every single one of the top 10 articles listed above is either related to Sony, Star or Zee.

This body of work and the specifics shown above strongly at undisclosed paid editing. There is additional off-wiki evidence that ties this account's original username to an amalgam of two PR executives at indiantelevision.com.

Other editors strongly suspected of working with this one include the following.

The editor interaction results are instructive.

And a plethora of other one-time SPA and anon editors can be found as well, but a deeper look will be required to sort the wheat from the chaff. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will say that in this particular case it appears to be more of fan editing than paid editing. The other sockfarm that I keep blocking on this (and for which I've done protections) -- Jaswanthvijay could be paid editing (but not a very high probability). It's extremely unlikely for a paid editing group to overlap across Viacom 18, Sony Entertainment Television (India), Star India, and Zee Entertainment Enterprises as the competition is severe and agencies do not overlap. Agencies will also not subcontract to individuals with conflicting clients, the agencies involved in this are from the big league. I only do some random admin work in the area, but TheRedPenOfDoom and Dharmadhyaksha do editing in this area and may be able to offer more insight.— Spaceman Spiff 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The IP might be a fan but I'm really not so sure about either registered account, especially Kunalforyou. Several counter-indications exist. 1) I found the off-wiki evidence to be a pretty strong indication of linkage to a PR firm to at least one of these accounts. Smartse has seen it too, so I hope we get to hear his opinion as well. The evidence is related to a prior name the person/persons edited under. 2) Fans usually write about actors and shows, not production companies, and I can't see any fan writing what he said about Dillagi, quoted in my opening round. 3) Certain technical evidence I'd rather not discuss in public, but is available to non-admins, indicates a very structured editing pattern unusual for amateurs. 4) Innocent editors usually show up at COIN to discuss what's going on. 5) The editor's use of sources looks more like an insider's industry view, not a fan's. A random example, three sources at ZeeQ, none of which is consumer oriented, all discussing a channel that hadn't even launched at the time of writing. 6) The connection to Everymedia is just too much to take as a coincidence with everything else going on. – Brianhe ( talk) 06:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, let me take a deeper look at this. Could be a mix of COI and other editing then. — Spaceman Spiff 06:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
it could be a case of the PR firm contracting out "get this client in Wikipedia" which would account for the cross -company nature of the edits, but fan obsession seems more likely. has there been any check in the other language wikipedias like Hindi and Tamil? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Here we see Kunalforyou reverting the other registered account [24] which makes collusion sort of unlikely. However his sudden change of behavior in June, 2015 is still of concern. This creation also looks highly unusual for a typical fan. Have you ever heard of a fan of a home shopping channel and its two creators?
Kunalforyou has made just one edit on hi.wikipedia [25] and I found none on any other language. Brianhe ( talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick update, Kunalforyou replied on my talkpage a moment ago that he is a student and not a paid editor. Brianhe ( talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Why mentioned me here? coz i'm just working on indian articles??? Sukriti3 ( talk) 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Granger Smith

SirMoney11 ( talk · contribs) appears to have COI with Granger Smith as many of their edits are in severe violation of WP:NPOV and add what appears to be WP:COPYVIO. Their last batch came right after I scrubbed the article of fan-bloat, see here. Can anyone keep an eye on this? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Granger Smith is supposedly an artist who records with Broken Bow Records, but there's no cite for that, only an uncited mention of a possible future album. SirMoney11 added material about this artist supposedly signing with BBR Music Group. However, the most notable album by the artist (peaked #6 on in Country Music per Billboard, which means the article passes WP:MUSIC) was on Pioneer Music. Unclear who Pioneer Music is. Probably not the British heavy metal booking agency [27] or the US dealer for Japan's Pioneer Electronics. [28]. Not finding them in Google.
The article for Broken Bow Records was created by TenPoundHammer in 2007 [29], and TenPoundHammer appears to continue to maintain the list of artists associated with Broken Bow Records. [30]. SirMoney11 edits only Granger Smith. The article 4x4 (Granger Smith album), apparently the most notable album from this artist and on Pioneer Records, has its own article, created by an editor with a long history of country music articles.
Is this some kind of edit war between reps for competing labels? It may be appropriate to remove all mentions of future labels on which a release might be made, per WP:CRYSTAL. John Nagle ( talk) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Nagle: I do not work for a label. I created the Broken Bow Records article because it is a notable label (it has released several albums by Jason Aldean, to name just one). There are already citations in the Granger Smith article mentioning that the artist is signed with Broken Bow, and this source confirms that "Backroad Song" was released via BBR's "Wheelhouse" label. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. The article, then, should reflect that there's been a release by Broken Bow Records. Mentioning future albums/products is generally undesirable; that's too much like marketing and raises WP:CRYSTAL issues. (See Talk:Better Place for a case when that got completely out of hand.) John Nagle ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Nothing is WP:CRYSTAL as far as I can see. "Backroad Song" is on the charts right now. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 04:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
"In 2015, Granger ... will record his first full-length album with the label." is forward-looking and uncited. John Nagle ( talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Imaginationcolors sockfarm cleanup

Extensive article creation by socks of Imaginationcolors (see 2013 SPI) or a lookalike user; never cleaned up. The IPs took over right after or even before he was blocked (e.g. [31]).

Noormohammed satya was blocked previously for socking, then unblocked. However the extensive and recent involvement of static IPs related to his name seems to indicate something is still going on here. – Brianhe ( talk) 15:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is probably intimately related to #Indian television production and actors PR since these awards are a creature of indiantelevision.com, which is the nexus of that discussion. -- Brianhe ( talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force which might be able to help out here. I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#IndianTelevision.com awards - significant or not?. They may be able to advise on whether all the IndianTelevision articles should be deleted. John Nagle ( talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
That's great, and it looks like an active user talkpage conversation on awards notability, or notability conferred through awards, will also be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards). – Brianhe ( talk) 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The conversation has been moved here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards)#Revival of this guideline – Brianhe ( talk) 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Hume-Bennett_Lumber_Company

Came upon this at AfC and placed a COI warning on user's talk page. User removed warning. [32] Could be a serial paid editor, IMO. LaMona ( talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a COI

LaMona, I'm not a paid editor. It's my understanding that it is permissible to archive content on my user talk page. I moved the COI messages from my talk page to the archive page and included a link to our conversation for transparency. Please let me know if I'm out of line here.

I am aware of a COI on the Draft:Cartography (board game) page and I've called it out on the talk page Draft talk:Cartography (board game).

Please let me know if there are any other issues. I've really enjoyed writing the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company article among others and would like to see it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The company went out of business in 1935. It is unlikely that they are employing a Wikipedia editor at this time. John Nagle ( talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. I was concerned about the creation of numerous pages for commercial entities, which is generally a sign of COI and I see all too many of them at AfC. I didn't read the whole draft, obviously, so mea culpa. But Jon.opus, one usually replies to messages on the talk page, not disappears them quickly, so that rang bells since some COIs try to cover-up queries about their editing. If you'd replied to my notice I would not have brought this here. LaMona ( talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
What is our advice to this editor about directly editing board game articles, since they have said they published a board game themselves? Example, Draft:Cartography (board game) and List of board game crowdfunding projects. – Brianhe ( talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope you can see I am trying my best to be transparent. Obviously I'm new to this and apparently not terribly good at it yet. As far as other game related pages I truly only have a COI with my game that I'm aware of. Aside from that I'm not a part of the industry. I only created my game as a hobby. Please do let me know if there is anything else I should know. I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm trying to play by the rules. – Jon Adams ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Implausible non-paid-editing for Mr RD

Mr RD has been an editor here since April 2013. In late 2014, he disclosed that he's a paid editor at least some of the time. There don't seem to be paid disclosures from him for any of the articles above, each of which was created by him. When I asked about one of them he said it was personal interest [33]. This seems implausible for the entire set. It's worth noting in this context that several of the articles created by this editor have significant known COI problems that have been discussed here before. – Brianhe ( talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any WP:COI with Kunal Shah (entrepreneur) page. I came to know about the person over [34], a YouTube channel, for which I also created a Wikipedia page. I'm a regular viewer of their content and that's how I thought of creating a page for them and many of their performers like Jitendra Kumar, Biswapati Sarkar. Mr RD 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: However, I did contacted Kunal afterwards seeking an image for his Wikipedia page but I NEVER INTENDED TO OR RECEIVED ANY MONETARY OR COMPENSATION IN ANY MANNER. Mr RD 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
So you have a personal interest in plywood companies too? How about this. Have you been compensated for editing any of the articles listed above? Please answer with a simple yes or no. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
NO. If I had, I would have disclosed so. Century Plyboards comes under Wikiproject India and Companies, both among my field of interest. I de-prodded PolicyBazaar as I found enough citations to support its notability. I'm associated with Wikiproject:India and better understand if an Indian company is notable or not. Not everything you see is black & white. Mr RD 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Mr RD, this isn't my first rodeo. Your claims are implausible. It would go better for you if you just said that you had forgotten to tag some articles. I'm now going to restate some words that I used when having this conversation with another editor who ended up getting blocked because they persisted in the same sorts of claims.
Your editing history is singularly focused on attention-seeking people, whose own careers benefit from the attention you provide them. It looked indistinguishable from paid COI to me (see User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#EBY3221 for clearly parallel cases) and we investigate this sort of stuff day after day, as is appropriate. One additional thing: I write sometimes about authors who probably benefit from attention, and I write sometimes about rocks that don't care if they get attention (my history is also transparently documented at my userpage). But if all I wrote about was attention-seeking people, and never about rocks, it wouldn't be surprising to me if some other editor confronted me about it and at least asked the question "why"? Brianhe ( talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from a suspicious mind I'd say there is nothing else going on. I help those who are notable according to me but lack technical know-how of how to create a Wikipedia page. I disclose the relation with them both on my user page and on the talk page of the subject as per Wikimedia guidelines. Moreover, to improve Wikipedia further, I create Wikipedia pages over subjects which are googled often, are notable also but do not have any Wikipedia page. Is it too hard to believe? You are free to review all my contributions and I believe I have revealed all of them to my knowledge (I removed some of them as when they got deleted or redirected to some other pages). In many of the pages you've mentioned, like Archana Kochhar which you mentioned specifically in your last comment, I have already disclosed my COI. As far as argument of rock goes, there are 7 billion people on earth, not everyone is same. Mr RD 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Full contribution surveyor results are at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor and in addition to the creations listed above, include such things as an in-depth look at the various acquisitions of Irish Car Rentals [35], refspam for pet sitters [36], the notable advertising campaigns of the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau [37], and so on. – Brianhe ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please give me some time to analyze these. I do not have access to such tool and will happily include all where I have any COI. Thank you. Mr RD 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually you do, http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor which created the results I posted at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor when given your account name as input. But I don't see why you need to analyze your own editing??? By the way when another COI editor dragged things out for over a month and claimed the dog ate his email, things didn't go well for him. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Mr RD: I see you added to your disclosures: [38]. Is that all? I'd also remind you that the client must be disclosed for TOS compliance. What does "wherever information available" mean? Why would you not know who you were working for? Brianhe ( talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@ SpacemanSpiff, Smartse, and DGG: Requesting a temporary block at this time, as the editor resumed editing at Policybazaar India prior to resolution of the disclosure issue. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I've disclosed all my paid edits. Mr RD 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Also I'm not connected with PolicyBazaar in any manner. I got to know about it through your activity itself (When you mentioned it beside Oriental Insurance Page). Mr RD 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Mr RD: I see that Century Plyboards has been recreated. Is this or is this not paid editing? – Brianhe ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Unpaid. Mr RD 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ThunderCats

ThunderCats.Org SEO invited on Elance here: [39]. Looks like they might have already had the Wikipedia articles done September [40] [41]. Brianhe ( talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They actually look pretty high-quality and not promotional in tone. — Cirt ( talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Earlier edits to spam thundercats.org [42] [43] and even ensuring their link comes before Warner Brothers' official site [44] suggest something's going on here. Brianhe ( talk) 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The movie was cancelled, so it's probably not studio-driven PR. I fixed the duplicate ref tag name problem. This looks like Wikia-level fan enthusiasm, not COI. Anything else? John Nagle ( talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Odinist Community of Spain – Ásatrú

This article could use additional watchlisting. It's been largely authored by representatives of the organization. I did a lot of cleanup work on it, and (notwithstanding a question open on its talk page about whether a claim, which pre-dated me, of an organizational name change is accurate) it's in much better shape now. Much of it looked to have been machine translated from the Spanish Wikipedia's version when I arrived at it. At any rate, there seems to be an unwillingness to recognize that previous posters on the talk page have raised concerns that it was overly promotional, plus a suggestion that even mentioning the WP:COI guideline is an accusation of bad faith. The article is not worded promotionally at present, but the overall tenor on the talk page suggests it might turn that way again over time. A new religious movement this small, and from a non-English-speaking country, is on its own unlikely to garner many watchlisters if attention is not drawn to it.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sépage

New content mentioning Sépage

User Milstan, with apparent close connection to Sépage (see founder name) and FullSIX, is inserting content to articles such as Travel Website and E-Commerce as spam vehicles for mentioning Sépage. Vrac ( talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of the Online Marketing and Recommender systems is extremely poor on Wikipedia, and does not integrate common knowledge available in respectable (online) sources. Yet the Online marketing field is important as it is a growing industry providing more and more jobs. I contributed to pages such as Recommender system, Travel Website, E-Commerce, Ourbrain, Sépage, RichRelevance.... in order to improve wikipedia coverage on this topic. If you don't welcome such content, and consider it biased in any way, then remove it. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and the possibility for people to contribute their (verifiable) knowledge to Wikipedia is weakened considerably which results in such surprisingly poor coverage of important topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milstan ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Milstan: You didn't address the question raised about your apparent close connection to Sépage other than saying you contribute to various topics. Could you clarify for us whether you do in fact have a close connection, and if you intend to make TOS disclosures? — Brianhe ( talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Milstan I have reverted your recent additions to these articles, thank you for your permission. I have also created a deletion discussion for Sépage. While it looks like an interesting concept and may be promising, a company whose product is still in beta and had 50,000 euros in Q1 revenue may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Vrac ( talk) 16:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear @ Brianhe: and @ Vrac:, I have no conflict of interest to declare, and contribute to topics of my knowledge. If you don't like the content that is unbiased and informative, you can remove it; as you did. This is a point in my case that Wikipedia is no longer a quality source for people to learn about encyclopedic topics - many of important ones remain without proper coverage. You seem to have criteria, under which nobody is good enough to write for Wikipedia any longer, and no topic is worthy enough, although it is worthy for high-tirage press. Deletion instead of correction seems to be a rule of thumb. There is no point of me contributing to Wikipedia any longer. Goodbye. -- Milstan ( talk) 17:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear @ Vrac:, please justify where in WP:TOOSOON could be found a notability revenue threshold for companies? This page seems to only establish particular rules for Actors and Films, and requires notable and trustworthy sources to establish notability of other concept types. Since your arguments are not properly sourced, I would prefer if another wikipedia member took further decisions on this issue.-- Milstan ( talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Dear Milstan, are you part of this community or not? Don't think you can just flick a booger on someone on your way out the door. – Brianhe ( talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Raju Kapuria and others

User has not responded to two editors asking on his talkpage whether he is a paid editor. Editing history suggests the answer is positive. In fact user has never posted to his own talkpage, any other user's talkpage, or an article talkpage. – Brianhe ( talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Added Dabbu Ghosal, apparent associate and creator of probable autobio at Dabbu. Brianhe ( talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Raju Kapuria has not responded to the templated request to stop editing and confirm or deny his paid status. He has edited several India TV related articles since the request was posted on 13 October. - Brianhe ( talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Raju Kapuria replied with a six-word denial of being a paid editor on my talkpage [46]. He also has recreated Dag Creative Media after it was prodded. The article is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Creative Media. Brianhe ( talk) 19:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

COI-related discussion on WP:AN

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN concerning an editor, one aspect of which is in regard to his possible COI. Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest the discussion be kept centralized there, but the denizens of this board might like to bring their experience with COI to the discussion, which is here. BMK ( talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightbox Ventures

Three distinct groups of SPAs with possible cross-connections. Very likely undisclosed paid editing in some or all of the groups.

group1

This looks like a little walled garden of companies belonging to the investment group Lightbox Ventures, and matching SPAs. One of the Lightbox corps was Furlenco which was just deleted subsequent to AfD.

There is a hint of a link to the Mushroom9 sockfarm via InfernalH through Redbus.in. Strong off-wiki evidence that Sanjit.mca works for Redbus as SEO specialist. Left edit summary "Please feel free to contact us for anything you may feel out of place." – Brianhe ( talk) 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

group 2

MagicBricks/HealthKart SPAs

group 3

This group may be related or may just be opportunistic cross-spammer, not part of their group.

Reworked layout slightly since this was initially posted. Brianhe ( talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Internshala was not a work for hire although I indeed had WP:COI with this page for which I created it through WP:AFC. I've already mentioned it on my talk page. Regarding the connection with Lightbox Ventures, I do not have any knowledge whether Internshala is connected or not. Also I do not have any other SPA which you may even verify. Hope this helps. Mr RD 09:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The website My Big Plunge is the creature of a company called 10minutesto1, based in Guragon [50]. They advertise themselves as a full-service PR/digital marketing/social media/SEO/crisis communications company. They list My Big Plunge on their own client list/portfolio, so some ethical questions arise. It looks pretty clear from Saptarishi12345's contribs that they've expanded to Wikipedia as a marketing platform. – Brianhe ( talk) 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Antony Coia

Suspected autobiography from editor and Italian IP. Editor has replaced IP's sig with his own [51]. Editor and IP have both been involved at AfD for subject's website. Brianhe ( talk) 23:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem? There is no COI. I was not logged in. But there isn't any autobiography. Pizzole ( talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The pertinent query is whether you have any personal or business connection with any topic on which you have edited? Collect ( talk) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

There were a couple of odd things in the AfD that suggested the site's operators were following along, if not directly involved: the site dropped the affiliate "tag=" portion of its Amazon links around the same time that this was questioned in the AfD (archive.org shows that the tags were dropped between October 6 and October 12; the links were questioned on the 12th), and many of the various blog sources presented by Pizzole were created while the AfD was in progress, a matter of hours before Pizzole presented them.

Assuming good faith: Coia or an employee was following the AfD, editing out potential problems on the site and posting press releases and calling in favours to get writeups in different horror blogs, and Pizzole is just a fan who happened to be searching every day for new sources and finding the blog entries as they appeared. But User:Pizzole did seem oddly certain about the nature of the site's affiliate scheme, saying "No affiliation between the two site. Nothing." and assuring us that they were able to "give you the proofs" that the website neither sold movies nor was affiliated to Amazon. If Pizzole has no connection to Coia's website, I'm not sure how they could be so sure about this, or so confident that they would be able to get their hands on "proof". (I'm a fan of plenty of sites that seem to just use plain Amazon links, but I couldn't tell you with any certainty that they didn't monetise them in certain contexts.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to see that a website without affiliate code is not an affiliate to Amazon. If you really are interested in, you can contact Amazon and ask them. The only way to know the truth is this one. Try it and after that, talk us about the truth. Pizzole ( talk) 10:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that if a commercial website has business with Amazon, it remove tags and lost money for a stupid debat on Wikipedia? Really? Please, talk about what you know certainly. I'm afraid of assumptions and bad faith behavior. Pizzole ( talk) 10:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus, in the debat you talked about press kit and advertising. Do you think that websites are willing to advertise competitors? Really? Pizzole ( talk) 10:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's quite likely that a website that appears to have removed clearly pre-existing affiliate links from its website may restore them at any time, or may only be showing them to logged-out users, or readers in certain countries, or only on certain pages, or might even be missing them due to a temporary bug. (And yes, it seems entirely plausible that if Coia had misunderstood Wikipedia policy and thought the article was at risk of being deleted because of the Amazon affiliacy, he might decide that losing affiliate income was a small price for permanently establishing a promotional Wikipedia entry and increasing overall traffic. Perhaps he'd just add the affiliate tags back after the AfD had closed and editors had forgotten about it.)
I don't understand how you can claim to know the site's affiliate policy with such confidence if you're just a fan of the website and have no professional connection to it. -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't claim anything. This debat is sterile. The AfD was closed so there are no reason to talk about it. Am I wrong? Pizzole ( talk) 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong in thinking that this is just about the AfD. This page is "for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article", and we are trying to establish whether you have any possible conflict of interest with regard to the Antony Coia article you have written. -- McGeddon ( talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Pizzole: Here's some friendly, free advice. If you have a COI and own it, there's no problem. There may be some extra steps you go through to get edits made properly on certain articles, which is kind of a pain, but keeps everybody happy. However if you waffle like this and act like we're going through an empty legalistic process, then things won't go so well. Please understand the purpose of this venue: it's not a court of law, and we're not out to get you or even asking you to tell us who you are in the real world. We're trying to create conditions where a diverse community of workers are able to perform together, and that requires transparency and honesty about when we may not be completely impartial on what we're writing about. That's all. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

COI

Andi Stafuka editing his/her own article might be a COI TypingInTheSky ( talk) 01:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Electronic ticket

Resolved: Involved users blocked, got extra help with watching the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Users are always trying to promote the patent US 5724520, and Joel R. Goheen as the inventor. I've explained in my edit summary that WP:PATENTS and WP:USERGENERATED content are not reliable sources, but received no communication from these editors. SecurXX is a company founded by Joel R. Goheen [52].

I think this just needs a bit of banhammer doctoring. -- intgr  [talk] 08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

intgr, have you considered opening an SPI? I think they would probably do a checkuser given this stuff. – Brianhe ( talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianhe: I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Securxx. -- intgr  [talk] 15:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Huh, strikeout again. Just goes to show I don't really understand SPI, but I thought I did this time. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I just looked into the underlying content dispute, which involves attempts to add the following to the article:

"A patent application for Electronic Ticketing and Reservation System and Method was filed on Nov 21, 1994, and a Publication Number was issued on March 3, 1998 (US5724520) recognizing Joel R. Goheen as the Inventor."

While researching this, I ran across [ http://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2014/06/07-575.pdf ], which says in part:

"A review of the prosecution history further confirms that Plaintiff's proposed construction is inappropriate. During prosecution, the examiner focused on two pieces of prior art: u.s. Patent No. 6,067,532 issued to Lucas Gebb ("Gebb") and u.s. Patent No. 5,724,520 issued to Joel R. Goheen ("Goheen"). Both Gebb and Goheen pertain to ticketing systems. Gebb discloses that the ticket buyer "can use a ticketless entry into the event, such as, for example, by an e-token on a smart card." (0.1. 51, Exh. B at 7:12-13.) Goheen discloses that airline passengers can access an airplane using "an identification plastic card" that has a "card number encoded onto a magnetic strip at the back" and that, if the card is lost, passengers can gain access to the airplane using identification 'such as a driver's license or the like'"

This calls into question the claim that Joel R. Goheen is the inventor of the electronic ticket. Certainly we need a better source than a patent, which is simply Joel R. Goheen claiming that he invented something.

Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this. [53] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Maus

Issue currently being dealt with at ANI. Vrac ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

(I apologize if this is in the wrong place, this is my first report!).@ Curly Turkey: has insulted and threatened me several times and cursed like a sailor, all while violating many Wiki rules and being antithetical to the spirit of this site. I have attempted to defend my position with objective sourcing, but CT seems to prefer his own ownership of articles and logical fallacies and accusations over truth. All I tried to do was say that, much like Hakuna matata is clarified as not literally meaning "no worries" in Swahili, it is not "righting great wrongs" to put "ethnic groups" instead of "races" in the Maus article, and I already have three non-cherrypicked objective sources defending me. I have more, and he has nothing but being aggressive. I don't know why he's so stubborn when I have more defending me. Please help. I have cited some of the rules CT has violated on his talk page, he also seems to curse and be aggressive a lot to many other users on his talk page. Sığe |д=) 02:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigehelmus This appears to be a user conduct/content dispute, the thread ( WP:ANI#POV-pushing abuse of sourcing at Maus) at ANI is the appropriate place to deal with this. This COI noticeboard would be appropriate if you suspected that Curly Turkey was the author or publisher (for example) of Maus, that is what is meant by conflict of interest. You don't seem to be suggesting anything of the sort so I'm closing this thread for now in deference to the ANI thread (unless you think there is a COI of the type I mentioned, if so let me know). Vrac ( talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

European Graduate School

While reading the WP article on the European Graduate School I noticed that a previously-existing paragraph on this institution's lack of academic accreditation in the United States had been deleted with very little explanation. I restored the paragraph in question, which is thoroughly sourced to several government websites indicating that this university lacks accreditation. While reviewing the history of the article and its talk page I discovered that this is not the first time this paragraph or similar lines of text have been deleted. They go back as several years in what seems to be a long-running but slow-moving battle between various editors who add lines about the school's lack of accreditation, followed by mass deletions with what strike me as specious or insufficient explanations. For example, they keep deleting sourced references to this school's inclusion on multiple US government-published lists of unaccredited institutions and replace them with a generic claim about European Union accreditation, which does not automatically transfer over to the US.

It appears that somebody connected to this school is periodically "scrubbing" the article of all information about its lack of academic accreditation in the United States as if to hide what could be potentially unflattering information about its degrees from prospective students. It's a very slow pattern of what appears to be every couple of months, but as you can see on the talk page and in the edit logs it has been going on since at least 2007. I'm flagging it here as one that WP administrators should probably keep an eye on. Kizezs ( talk) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Doctors and surgeons

Consumers' Research Council

This looks like a fake consumer interest group often referenced in promo doctors bios on WP. External links search: [54]. I'm listing here all articles & drafts that use this source without further comment at this time. Brianhe ( talk) 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at its criteria page, [55] it seems to evaluate by adding up the years of experience and number of professional association memberships. Neither correlates well with notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Doc James: There's some unusually aggressive addition in 2014–2015 of what looks like COI material at Sudip Bose from anon editor/s; you have removed some recently with the edit summary "scam per http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.ca/2015/07/how-to-pick-leading-physicians-of-world.html". Could you cast any light on what's going on here?
To all, these IPs are odd in that they're all static IPs from the same provider apparently geolocating to Hyderabad. Static IPs aren't supposed to rotate like this. - Brianhe ( talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
@ DGG: Your speedy of Sudip Bose was quickly contested by 182.156.70.120 and Sitaray calling himself "we". – Brianhe ( talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well Sitaray and the IPs have now reintroduced the same fake source "Leading Physicians of the World" identified by Doc James, at least three times over Doc, me and DGG [56] [57] [58] [59]. Anyone else want to take a swing? – Brianhe ( talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Brianhe: Why "Leading Physicians of the World" is a fake source? See Here. Sitaray ( talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Sitaray: You pinged the wrong person. It's Doc James' source that says so. He's a real doctor, by the way. While we are here, do you need to disclose paid editing for this article? Brianhe ( talk) 07:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes a few light searches and lots of refs that they are a scam appear [60]
Yes you can pay people to write good stuff about you on the internet and to tell you how great you are.
Likely efforts to pick up others who are working on this would be useful. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
International Association of Healthcare Professionals
Added SPAs on Devi Nampiaparampil – the article smells like a glorified press release. Note the NYT article is basically a wedding announcement. – Brianhe ( talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Other
I have just made a first pass at editing most of the articles; I think I've removed every use of this source. The very inclusion of it in an article indicates writing by an inexperienced editor here who does not realize what is significant and reliable, or by a press agent or other coi editor adding whatever is available in an attempt to show importance. Most of the physicians in this group actually are notable, as proven by references or positions or citations to their work. Not all of the articles are from the same source--the one on Devi Nampiaparampil is clearly different from the others. But there is in my opinion at least one paid editor or group specializing in physicians. I am currently trying to look critically at all articles in this field, and would appreciate being notified of additional ones that partcularly need checking. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Carmody and others

Looks like a paid editor or a team who's been flying under the radar for a year. Most of the article titles speak for themselves but this one's particularly noteworthy: Bill Carmody (Digital Marketer) is a bio for an SEO consultant. Not sure where even basic bio facts like his birthplace and date came from; appears clairvoyant since the bio sourcing is incredibly weak with stuff like entrepreneurwiki.com. This one's just less than a month old so efforts to remediate maybe should start here. Brianhe ( talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Kitchen remodeling companies

This whole area is just full of problematic articles, with clear signs of hit-and-run paid editing. It doesn't seem to be related to a specific editor, but just endemic to the category. One article PRODded for starters.

A recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be related.

More input is invited. Brianhe ( talk) 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've speedied Johnny Grey (designer) as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and prodded Kitchen & Bath Industry Show, Binns (company), Dahlia Mahmood and Danny Seo. I left Peter Ross Salerno alone, because he seems to be perhaps notable (the references tend to be dead links, though). Home improvement is indeed a honeypot for linkspam — not a candidate for deletion, of course. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC).
It should be noted that the recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be unrelated, as well. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D139:E3C0:4FBC:7F82 ( talk) 16:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
IP editor, in reply to your question on my talkpage "I'm curious what you think might be the connection between the recent Reward Board offering ($2) and the home remodeling COI epidemic?". Cash rewards for editing were controversial to start with, and their outright elimination has been discussed. Now you come as an anon editor offering a cash reward to contribute to an area with extensive documented conflicts of interest. Obvious issue to me. You really don't see the problem? - Brianhe ( talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
How would posting a "before and after" photo (with no branding mentioned at all) of a home improvement project possibly yield some sort of conflict of interest? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:20B4:1DBF:A120:2522 ( talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I have rewritten National Kitchen & Bath Association, which I believe to be notable. I have no actual COI on the topic although I have attended a few of their events. Opinions of other editors are welcomed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: the IP posting the reward ( User:2001:558:1400:4E:1599:26AF:B1BB:CE4A) was found to be a sock of a blocked editor formerly named MyWikiBiz; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. Brianhe ( talk) 23:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Abe Issa

Two SPAs+one company+one CEO=smells like undisclosed paid editing. Compare to this Elance job which is probably not this one but looks really similar, we should be on the lookout for it too.

Was also sourced to entrepreneurwiki.com. Meaningful? – Brianhe ( talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi There Brianhe ( talk), I am still very new to Wikipedia so I actually don't know if this is how I respond. I can assure you that I am not an ELance or other pay to play type job. Again, really new to wiki and definitely thought EntrepreneurWiki was affiliated with actual Wikipedia. If that is indeed suspect I would be more than happy to delete it and anything else that seems suspect. Really just looking for guidance. Thanks!

Vinny009 ( talk) 15:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Saint Mary's College of California

Hi, Saint Mary's College of California appears to be mostly/somewhat maintained by User:SMCOCC ( contribs). Check that acronym :). I left a message on their talk page but I thought it'd be best to inform here as well. Advice/assistance welcome (it's my first time helping with COI issues really). Thanks! Greg G ( talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed some of the brocure-like material. The part about being near a Safeway was a bit much. John Nagle ( talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Kirtida Gautam

Series of promotional edits by single-purpose accounts, on behalf of the eponymous author and her new book. Articles on both the writer and the publication have been nominated for deletion via AfD process. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The first two articles are at AFD and heading for deletion. The other edits have been reverted and the accounts were all blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kirtidagautam. Thanks for posting, but I don't think there's anything left to do. SmartSE ( talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:cdrtools

Came across this while dealing with an administrative matter around this article. Everybody is accusing everybody of COI and bias. Could use some fresh eyes. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Batteriser

LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser clearly wants us to believe that the account has a conflict of interest given the username. I don't think this new editor is aware of WP:COI or the messages about it on the editor's talk page.

The edits from this editor look like cut-and-paste from some marketing copy, violating WP:SOAP. Ronz ( talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is (thankfully honestly) representing themselves as a COI account. A quick search on Google for Lakshmi Narasimhan batteriser will verify. I believe that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked permanently. SageGreenRider ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing

Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing:

Please see sock investigation, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT.

Any help with article cleanup and/or sock investigation would be most appreciated.

Thank you,

— Cirt ( talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Popping in from my wikibreak—checkuser confirmed, listed above. Interesting personas they created, reminiscent of a past case; one described self as "Soccer mom with a Fashion Merchandising degree." Also performing "good hand" edits at Zaqistan, displaying more sophistication than usual. This, plus high degree of English proficiency, plus geolocation of User:108.195.157.94 may be useful clues to the nature of the COI here. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
More Checkuser confirmed: Checkuser confirmed socking at this page: David Gandy (likely many other articles) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walterlan Papetti/Archive. Likely related to promotional / paid editing. Result is violations of WP:NPOV. — Cirt ( talk) 07:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Adding more to above list, all confirmed by Checkuser as socks of LauraLeeT ( talk · contribs), the sockmaster account which has a self-disclosed conflict of interest per DIFF, thus, they all do. — Cirt ( talk) 07:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Above are a handful of the articles created and/or maintained by the above Checkuser confirmed socks. — Cirt ( talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucas Secon

The subject of this article uses this page as their personal vanity page. I have tried to wikify it many times in the past - i.e. introduce a neutral tone, focus on referenced and encyclopaedic facts, have some structure and format to the article, including aesthetic presentation and so on. These changes have been constantly resisted in a variety of ways (mainly unregistered IPs or SPAs with no other edits reverting my edits). I have posted on here about 2.5 years ago and they rode out the storm then. I raised the concern of lack of references, and they've just added a blanket, cover-all link to a page they control. Statements such as 'is a Grammy Award, MTV Award and Emmy Award-nominated record producer, songwriter, Golden Poets Award winner, DJ, rapper, singer and artist/conceptualist.' is straight off a press release and not a valid introduction for wiki once you understand the person's true achievements (there is too much fluff to give the illusion of grandeur, and the very fact that it exists here gives it some false credibility). 'countless multi-platinum, platinum and gold singles and albums' is not a wiki style statement. The thumbnail violates copyright issues. The discography is excessively long, relies on a single reference from the subject's website (one controlled by a party close to them), is of a poor format, does not accurately detail subject's involvement, and includes statements like 'Alex Newell upcoming single Deep Well Music/Atlantic Records US & The Gabriellas upcoming single "Lookalike" RE:A:CH Records 2015' as though this website is a cheeky radio plug for someone's future releases. This subject is in the habit of jumping on any computer (i.e. diverse IP contributors) but only ever interested in this article and entering their involvement in the corresponding article (e.g. if they produced a britney song, they'd add it to their personal discography, then add themselves to the britney page, the album page and the single page). Whilst some of these edits may be factually correct, away from the COI issue, there is an issue with the manner in which they're done - often not following formatting guidance so the overall look of the articles doesn't look up to standard. Most of the info comes from this source https://milocostudios.com/client/lucas-secon/ as you can see, subject is a client of theirs and is therefore able to manipulate the content of that page. This page is the predominant source of info for the wiki page (9 out of 10 references used link back to this page). This page appeared and was referenced to after the last challenge to this page in early 2013. Subject also uses their wiki page for self-promotion by linking to it on their twitter bio https://twitter.com/lucasproduction Rayman60 ( talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As with the above, I share your concerns and am unable to find any sources providing substantial coverage. I'm not so familiar with the ins and outs of WP:NMUSIC for producers and songwriters, but this also looks like an AFD candidate to me. SmartSE ( talk) 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
He did have a song which charted on the Billboard Top 100, which is notable per WP:MUSIC. I took out much of the peacocking and the list of projects with which he was associated in an unspecified capacity. John Nagle ( talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, he's also had a top 5 album in the US, so there is definitely enough notability to make this article a keep. It does need better referencing though, most of the text is lifted wholesale from a biography on the website of a recording studio, not the best RS. Richard3120 ( talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm now satisfied the article content is suitable. In my past experience, the subject or their lackey has returned at various intervals and resisted change/reverted edits stubbornly. *hopefully* this won't be the case this time, however I'll continue to monitor the article if it does happen. Rayman60 ( talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Serban Ghenea

For a long time, I have been trying to fix this article which is presented as nothing more than PR fluff for a music artist. The article is very poor - there is no neutral tone, and many edits are made by unregistered users and a SPA account. One particularly bad issue is the format of the selected discography. There is no consistency to it and it just has splattering of various different accolades to present the subject in an inappropriately positive light (e.g. whichever Billboard chart makes the achievement look most favourable). The editor above makes no other contributions to wikipedia and refuses to engage with any policies about SPA and COI. The wikipedia page is used for self-promotion here: http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/serban_ghenea Rayman60 ( talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Cavalino's edits are indeed problematic and it is always worrying to see people linking to Wikipedia articles from their website. I'll need to look at it further, but at first glance it looks like a candidate for AFD since there don't appear to be any sources discussing the subject in detail. SmartSE ( talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serban Ghenea. SmartSE ( talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Also adding this article and user. Hannahgracevc stated they work for AAM here. SmartSE ( talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Shane Stevens (songwriter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hannahgracevc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Looking through a random selection of their other clients there are also a large number of SPAs over the years with similar editing habits e.g:
I'll try to get some input from WT:MUSIC. SmartSE ( talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. There's severe ownership going on here and a new user who's admitted a COI is reverting our attempts to clean up: Johnhanes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anyone care to assist? @ SpacemanSpiff: SmartSE ( talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Two accounts are blocked now. I think the corporate IP range is quite small, if anything further comes up an IP block is also an option. — Spaceman Spiff 02:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Taken from my post at the sockpuppet investigation, I've been informed it's more appropriate here:

With regards to the third editor Hannahgracevc ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have declared that they work for the management company. You can google the company and see the list of artists - she has made some edits on other artists' page in what is clearly a paid advocacy role. You can google her and the company's name to get her role (presently Director of Communications at said management company). There is a serious COI issue with her edits too, and I also believe she was alerted and entered this debate by the same person who recruited the new editor John Hanes. If you look at her past edits - Shane Stevens is a client of AAM. The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories etc. Andros Rodriguez and Mozella are also clients. The only other edits are to insert Trion (another client of theirs) into the credits of other pages. This editor has not made a single edit that isn't related to clients of her employer. There is no doubt in my mind that this person has flagrantly, knowingly and willingly breached several serious rules on COI and paid advocacy over the course of 2015 and has no intention of making any positive contributions to the project other than those that result in direct financial benefit to themselves and/or their paymasters. I fully support extending the ban to this person and warning them not to attempt to edit related articles in the future. Rayman60 ( talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Rayman60 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was not aware of the strict COI policy, but I can assure you I only added factual information. I did not knowingly and willing breach these rules. That is your opinion, however, that is my error for not doing further research.
Regarding Shane Stevens account, everything was factual and cited, so no need for your harsh opinions. I put it up for review and it was approved. It was not a PR move, just simply to create a Wikipedia page for a notable person. If you don't think a songwriter for Selena Gomez is notable, then you are ridiculous.
Your opinion is spewed all over anything you touch and this is a prime example: "The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories." All of this information was factual, so your opinion is irrelevant.
To go as far as look at my LinkedIn page and report about this is completely uncalled for and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. You already knew I worked for the management company, no need for your further "investigation" and report my job title. My job title was never discussed on Wikipedia therefore is a violation of my privacy. According to WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... job title and work organisation..."
By the way, I was not instigated by anyone to comment on Serban Ghenea's page. I did that on my own free will. So again your "opinion" is incorrect.
I apologize for being unclear of the guidelines but I can assure you I only put out factual information. For me violating these rules without proper knowledge, I'm going to back down. Please, do not write information you have found about me outside of Wikipedia ever again.
You have made me lose all faith in Wikipedia. Try saying your opinion less, constructive edits more, and stop harassing editors. No need to waste anyone's time with this issue and no need to comment back as I will never be using Wikipedia ever again. -- Hannahgracevc ( talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran

82.3.238.241 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit warring over the page Mudar Zahran for several months now. They have been repeatedly warned on their talk page, and the article in question was protected for one week at one point. Despite this, the user continues to edit the page by removing information about the subject, claiming that it is defamatory. Their latest revision was annotated with the following claim: "Legal Warning to Wikipedia: You are using an untrusted source to describe me as a Mossad agent which could get me killed. You are inciting against me and I am considering legal action." Given the pronoun usage, this editor is clearly violating WP:SELFPUB and should be blocked from editing this page. ♜♞ parrotz1461 ♞♜ 15:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

He has a potential sockpuppet account if anyone's interested InternetNavegadora -- Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Clear legal threats and should be reported to ANI. Ravensfire ( talk) 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This is really a biography of a living person WP:BLP issue. Moving this discussion to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mudar_Zahran. The biography noticeboard is better at dealing with defamation-type issues. John Nagle ( talk) 18:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Verona Area School District / Verona Area High School

Based on edit summaries and wording of edits, Kkloepping / Kelly.kloepping appears to be affiliated with the Verona Area School District. Edit summaries and edits have included wording such as: " adding our mission and supporting action goals", " added two programs we are offering", and " 69% of our population is white/caucasion" (sic).

After Kkloepping's first two edits, (adding an inappropriate mission statement to Verona Area School District), the editor was warned about conflict of interest and the need to disclose any paid affiliation with the school district. The editor simply opened a new account ( Kelly.kloepping) and reverted the removal of the inappropriate mission statement. The user was warned again, this time about sockpuppetry. An additional talk page message stressed the importance of following WikiProject Schools guidelines, of heeding policies regarding conflict of interest and disclosure when doing paid editing, and of sockpuppetry. The editor continues unabated, adding unsourced and inappropriate content to Verona schools' articles.

Please help in dealing with this. 32.218.41.143 ( talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, most of their additions were copyvios from this. Vrac ( talk) 15:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice catch! Still, the edit summaries ("our mission", "we are offering") suggest a connection to the school district. 32.218.32.45 ( talk) 16:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt the connection. Copyvio is an easy angle to pursue if they keep it up though. Vrac ( talk) 19:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

dogfoodselector.com

Content cleaned, editor in question has not reappeared. Vrac ( talk) 15:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Dora Mancha Vet is repeatedly adding links to dogfoodselector.com. All content added is referenced to blog-like posts on this website. The website appears to be a self-published site and all articles are written by "Dora Mancha". This appears to be a case of editing Wikipedia to promote one's own external website. The edits to Dog have been reverted, but all others remain. TimBuck2 ( talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm adding well founded information to Wikipedia. I'm a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and I write to the Dog Food Selector page, but I don't own the web page. I always add other valid references to my contributions to Wikipedia. I even wrote a complete article about dog food allergies and my intention is to complete it in a near future. I add references from Dog Food Selector because I write the articles and they are reliable and contain scientific information that can help people. If Wikipedia decides this is a conflict of interest, please tell me what shall I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora Mancha Vet ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dora Mancha Vet Yes, adding links to blogs that you yourself have written is a conflict of interest, such links are considered spam. The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. See also WP:RS, I don't see how dogfoodselector.com could qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, although if you feel strongly that it should be considered a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN which will offer an opinion. What you should do is stop adding such links to Wikipedia articles. Regards, Vrac ( talk) 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Ironically I just came across this quote from Wikipedia's founder last night:

Wikipedia for a lot of people hearkens back to what we all thought the Internet was for in the first place which is, you know, when most people first started the Internet they thought oh, this is fantastic, people can communicate from all over the world and build knowledge and share information. And then we went through the whole dot-com boom and bust and the Internet seemed to be about pop-up ads, and spam, and porn and selling dog food over the Internet.

— Jimmy Wales on C-Span, 2005
I guess now you don't have to choose between the two. - Brianhe ( talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Some things (like dog food and porn) are just too important to let speed bumps like ideals or ethics get in the way... Vrac ( talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Dora Mancha Vet, if you have a science background, then you'll know that if you are writing scientific articles your references need to be from publications considered to be reliable and trustworthy, such as peer-reviewed scientific journals... you wouldn't reference a blog in your PhD thesis, would you? Richard3120 ( talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investor Application

Query answered, article cleaned by 1Wiki8... – Brianhe ( talk) 19:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 204.148.13.62 ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am the owner of a business that would like to be listed along with other similar businesses in a section of Wikipedia called Investor Application. I will not be promoting our compnay, rather just adding its name and description, similar to how the other businesses are presented.

Is this possible? Am I keeping inside th COI boundries set by Wikipedia?

Regards

Chris Muldoon ShareholderApp

Wow, I think the article Investor Application needs to be looked at urgently. I'm sure when it was created in 2012 it was with good intentions to explain the various types of applications, but it seems to have grown since into a list of every man and his dog adding essentially to long lists of companies who have iPhone or Android apps, which is effectively promotional content. I think all the lists should go and just leave the text. Richard3120 ( talk) 01:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Someone just deleted the list of apps. The article probably should stay that way, per WP:NOTCATALOG. John Nagle ( talk) 18:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_93&oldid=1136101220"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE