Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 102

Dr. Blofeld

 * [Not an article-a redirect.]
 * [Not an article-a redirect.]
 * [Not an article-a redirect.]

has been involved in the creation and/or subsequent major expansion of the above articles. All of the above article are about businesses and business executives, some of which are of questionable encyclopedic value and are written in manner that promotes the subject. Blofeld's alleged COI has also been discussed in the press and subsequently on Jimbo's talkpage, during the discussion Blofeld denied any involvement. I request that someone takes a look the articles in question.--Catlemur (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

LOL. I'm sure you could also find several hundred more articles which could fall within this "questionable" field. I've created over 100,000 articles on this site on virtually every topic imaginable. To select a tiny percentage of articles which might fall within this rather broad field of businesses and people is really looking to attack me more than anything. Why not add Nesskip, Atlantsskip and thousands of others too? The biggest insult on this is alleging that I would tamper with neutrality. One thing I would never do is "advocate" or misrepresent a subject to promote something. Nothing I've written on wikipedia would ever abuse wikipedia guidelines, if it did seriously, I wouldn't do it. I've often defended business exec and company articles at AFD as I think it's an area which is dealt with terribly on wikipedia and ends up making a complete hash of the situation. And in the process some quite notable articles get blindly deleted by ignorant anti paid editing warriors who don't give subjects a fair chance. Amazes me that you think somebody living on the coast of south Wales would be employed by some of the corporate fat cats in Silicon Valley or Wall Street LOL. Have you even checked my overall editing history? If I got paid to write even a tiny percentage of what I've written I'd be an extremely well off person!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dr. Blofeld has created more articles than any other English Wikipedia user, and it is not difficult to find a dozen of articles on similar topics. It does not prove a COI in any way.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If Dr B has a COI with any of those articles (or any he's started), then I'm a Frenchman (no disrespect to the French). He happens to have started (from this short list) articles about an American businessman, a Belgian electrical engineer and a French digitial library. So what?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Anybody who edits a businessman or business article could potentially be attacked here. It's a fact that most articles on businesses and CEOs are piss poor in quality and have been hijacked by PR firms doing a poor job and adding horrible lists of achievements and puffery. But because there's a COI they get very poorly treated and as a result we often get articles swiftly deleted on some subjects which actually meet guidelines and can be written reasonably neutrally. I think it's time an essay on how to write a business related article should be put up on here and something set up to deal with the situation. Trying to paint me in the same brush as people who "advocate" and tamper with wikipedia is one of the biggest insults I could receive given what I've contributed here overall through the years. If I've ever done work on businesses or CEOs I'm darned sure I'd have done it far better and far more neutrally than any of the people who do actually have a "COI". Wikipedia should count itself lucky in fact that somebody like me has written a few half decent articles on businesses/CEOs which would otherwise resemble crufty lists with crap sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No idea what brought on the WP Witch Hunt because I doubt there are many editors who haven't done at least minor edits-adding a ref link, etc.-to a business-related article. The links used for "evidence" are over 6 months old-the news about the accusation is quite stale by now; no one brought it to COI when it was current. So with 6 articles and 2 redirects along with old news, it's time to get out the pitchforks and torches? Further-the instructions for the use of this board state "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." I don't see any discussions initiated by the editor bringing this to COI on any of the talk pages. We hope (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

PMSL. I don't think I've ever seen anything more laughable than this. I remember I got a COI accusation against me just for reviewing a GAN! JAG UAR   20:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I solemnly declare a conflict of interest in Sofana R. Dahlan! Turns out her mother is married to my uncle's best friend's zoo keeping wife in South Africa who said that Dahlan pays the zoo an annual fee to keep it running. As a big thankyou the zoo keeping wife contacted my uncle who gave me money to start a POV article on her, highlighting her superior CEO qualities.;-) ♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Catlemur, this was a very silly COI report. The domainincite.com page has the gravitas of something published by my 8 year old nephew.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Catlemur, this is possibly the stupidest COI allegation I've ever seen; if you're taking "pages created" as your criterion, I could make a considerably better case for him being a secret infiltrator from the Papua New Guinea tourist board, the Church of Wales, or the Argentine film industry. As far as I'm concerned he'd be quite within his rights to report you for harassment. &#8209; Iridescent 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Robin Sharma


User Sharmaleadership, and as of last night the 5.104 IP, continue to reintroduce wholly non-neutral, aggressively promotional content to this article. Users had previously actually complained on the article talk page that the article seemed "like an advertisement."

Sharmaleadership's first revision of the article, before I started looking at it:

I reverted to loremberagema's version, and Sharmaleadership promptly reverted to Sharmaleadership's version. So, I tried excising the promotional content, with help from another user:

And then the 5.104 IP reverted to the promotional content:

I have left messages on the article talk page and Sharmaleadership's talk page and received no response. I have just left a message on the IP's talk page but wouldn't expect that enough time has elapsed to get a response. Thanks for any guidance. - Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And now the latest change by Sharmaleadership: -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sharmaleadership has tacitly admitted COI with this edit which is commented: "(Corrected information based on facts from Robin Sharma himself)". LaMona (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a username violation; i left them a note about that and another one asking them to talk to us. Am watching the article. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, Sharmaleadership has been INDEF blocked as of May 7. However, there is evidence of block evasion using IP 5.104.90.33 which has SPA'd on the Robin Sharma page. The article has been protected. (Jytdog and Bishonen on it - I'm just reporting what I see. Thanks.) LaMona (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology
The editor who created Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT) has admitted on the article talk page to be a PR employee of the organization. This person keeps adding promotional and problematic material, including, in some cases, copyrighted material. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Added the article and the user above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Diff admitting that they are from the KRICT PR team. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the article and tagged for revision deletion. A certain section was blatantly copied from the official website. The user seems to have been warned previously and has not replied on the user talk page. Nevertheless, I have left another message. Let's see if the user replies this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Diannaa has indef'd the user for repeated copyright violations. --Drm310 (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. I've watchlisted the page and will keep monitoring it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reopening this as another possibly linked account has started editing the page again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

London College of Contemporary Arts (LCCA)


Hi all – I have recently posted on the talk page of the London College of Contemporary Arts article. I would like to declare my COI as I am a communications professional representing the school here on Wikipedia. There are a number of issues with the article in its current form and I am hoping to work with the community to ensure the article is accurate and neutral. Anyone is welcome to contact me directly on my talk page. Many thanks! - BrandDude (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for declaring your COI. I will make a note here shortly. According to our COI guidelines, editors who have a COI should request edits on the talk page instead of editing the page directly. The request edit template can be used for this purpose. You can post here if you need any further clarifications. Thank you for your cooperation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll make sure I'll follow the COI editing guidelines. Thank you for your help. - BrandDude (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that this is only one of a whole suite of problematic promotional articles on institutions in the LSBF Group, of which London College of Contemporary Arts is a part. They all need eyes. See my comments at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In a city with some of the world's best art schools, this one standso out as very sketchy group/school (based on ref searches). There's an interesting Guardian article here that could be included in a criticisms section of the "group" page if appropriate. Voceditenore, should the talk page for LCCA be deleted now that the page is gone, or is that maintained as a document of the overall sketchiness factor?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi HappyValleyEditor. While the London College of Contemporary Arts article is merged and redirected to the new article LSBF Group, Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts contains considerable discussion as to why the merge took place and it has multiple links to other discussions . It should be preserved. The Guardian article you cited is already a reference in LSBF Group. Any discussion about that article's content should take place at Talk:LSBF Group, not here. I'll just say here that as a general rule, separate "Criticism/Controversy" sections rather than working *significant* issues with a *long-term* effect into History or Academics sections are largely deprecated. They lead to nothing but trouble, edit-warring and ultimately an out-of-date incoherent mess of advertorial and controversy, claim and counter-claim, etc. etc.. If you want see what I'm talking about, I suggest you take a good look at the history, protection logs, and talk page of London School of Business and Finance. I have completely re-written that article in the last two days as it was a hopelessly out-of-date, inaccurate, advertorial mess—the product not only of multiple COI editors but also the unhelpful "Wikipedia as a vehicle of exposé" reaction, which their ministrations had provoked. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC).

Digipas Usa

 * - currently at AfD

The article Digipas Usa was created by (formerly known as "Jing jsb" ). The former username as well as the editing habits indicate a conflict of interest. JSB Tech is a Singapore based manufacturer for Digipas instruments. The user has repeatedly tried to publish the draft at AfC but it was not accepted. provided a COI notice to the user but the user later blanked the talk page. The user also removed all comments about COI from the draft and promoted it to mainspace. I provided another notice followed by a reminder, but have yet to receive a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ah they have responded here and has disclosed on their userpage here. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Great! I have just replied to them and briefly explained the recommended procedures. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

GoDigital Media Group

 * - no COI declared but unexplained reverts (see here and here)
 * - may need trimming for slight coatrack content
 * - WP:SPA active July 2014 - Oct 2014. Amplify and their films.
 * likely sock with Qohen Leth above.
 * - WP:SPA active March 2013 - April 2014; active on GoDigital and Logan Mulvey ; created Amplify (distributor)
 * - WP:SPA active March 2013; created GoDigital
 * - WP:SPA active July 2014 - Oct 2014. Amplify and their films.
 * likely sock with Qohen Leth above.
 * - WP:SPA active March 2013 - April 2014; active on GoDigital and Logan Mulvey ; created Amplify (distributor)
 * - WP:SPA active March 2013; created GoDigital

The 2 articles above have been edited by who has made proper COI disclosures in accordance with policy. I personally found the article GoDigital Media Group a tad too promotional, (with a lot of stuff sourced to press releases and WP:SPS) and certain parts having undue weight. I then trimmed off a part of the article (and multiple infoboxes in the article) to which disagreed. I would like someone else to have a look at the articles and judge it for themselves. For reference, here is the version before trimming and the version after I trimmed --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I have never seen 4 infoboxes being used in the same article. But if it is OK, I have no objection if someone from COIN restores the deleted content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not constructive at all. It would be helpful if stuff like this is not done. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just now installed Twinkle, never used it before, wasn't intentional, I was reviewing your contributions just afterword, must have done an errant click somehow -- I'm sure you reverted.009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So somehow, we wind up here just 20 minutes after discussion was opened on the talk page? Template Advert was added to the article, without opening a discussion on the active talk page and without reading the guidance, which states: Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features. So am I to be sanctioned for a partial revert made by a tendentious editor?  Good grief. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Relax, you are not being sanctioned. I posted this here so that others can also look at this situation, judge whether the content is worth including, and all of us can then proceed with consensus. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please cease your disruptive tactics. This and this are not productive. Neither are your responses at this AfD. You accused me of stalking your edits, when in fact you waded in this AfD first. Just because I shaved off a bunch of promotional coatrack from the page you get paid to edit, you got angry. You know per our policy you should actually not be editing those articles where you have a COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you have a look at this. This editor is taking it personally. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I found the AfD lacking and voluntarily opposed your nomination after I tried to read it through a brand new installation of TW. As I explained above, I must have clicked something I should not have and I'm sure the diff will show it was my first TW edit ever. This is quite different from your stalking of my volunteer efforts (edit summary) and your absolute disdain for WP:STEWARDSHIP (Policy) barging in to articles where there are interested and better informed editors, with your subjective edits. What you did (discussed here) was obviously retaliatory disruptive editing and stalking in the article space. In the Postmodern Jukebox article I am a complete volunteer, have no COI, and I'm not allowed to have a separate account to avoid these unfortunate stalking incidents. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you are trying to do here is a potential invitation to WP:TAGTEAM. So your wading into the AfD, !voting Keep and casting aspersions on me during the discussion was not stalking, but me removing a bunch of undue stuff from an article is stalking. You seriously have double standards. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record: No aspersions were cast upon you in the AfD discussion, you placed the COI tag,diff on the article you nominated and you also mentioned the AfC (where the article had languished in for six months) on the article's talk page.perm I merely mentioned those contributing facts in the AfD, and somehow that is casting aspersions? Upon the evaluation of the article, I voted Keep with an explanation and then you engaged me, citing your interpretation of he guidelines. Already having experience with your misuse of the Advert template, and now understanding that you are a WP:NOOB, I responded to your logic.  The public facing areas of the Wikipedia are quite different from AfD and other internal areas, article space edits require immediate inspection and sometimes immediate action. While you go around playing un-elected administrator, your actions have real-life and immediate consequences.  You would do very well to maintain decorum and not edit in the article space when the subjects come from edit summaries where you have already opened administrative actions -- it reeks of retaliatory disruptive, bad faith editing and stalking -- no matter how benign your edit is. Enlisting other contributing editors (specific to the subject) to combat the tactic is perfectly reasonable IMHO. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 05:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * added some things to the listing above. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we please remove (or at least strike) the PostModern Jukebox article from this thread?Diff I am a disclosed paid editor, where I have a COI I disclose. Thank you! 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 23:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I second this claim for Postmodern Jukebox's removal from this thread. There is no paid editor for the page, just interested volunteers. Rcul4u998 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit

 * Here is a working copy of what I'd like to end up with User:009o9/Draft_GDMG. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 10:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if someone else can evaluate the article and the requested edit. Personally I found it a tad promotional. Since this is subjective, I would urge others to look at it and evaluate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look after I get to know 009o9 a bit more. Jytdog (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * struck post modern jukebox. that is non-COI stuff. Jytdog (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Fabio Mancini


Irene000 started editing Fabio Mancini, an article about an Italian male model, 10 days after Francescomaida100 stopped editing it. Francescomaida created the article. Both accounts are SPA, and I was suspicious about a new user's (Irene's) first requests to be translations of an otherwise new article. I therefore filed an SPI. The response Irene000 gave to that on her talk page is that she represents the model and that she took over the other user's job (meaning Francescomaida), and I would note the latter comment was changed in this diff. From that, I assume that both of them work for one of Mancini's agencies, and thus neither of them should be writing an article on him. MSJapan (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks MSJapan. I've opened a discussion with them. Let's hope they are amenable to talking. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Irene000 Is not a sockpuppet or a COI. I have had a discussion with her on her talk page, she seems to be a very new and inexperienced user in need of mentorship. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, some WP:COMPETENCE issues. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Coca-Cola FEMSA


New (apparent) SPI ClauLata is repeatedly re-adding first-person content in the voice of this company, regarding "Our Sustainability Strategy" among other subjects (see, e.g., ), despite entreaties on the article talk page and the user's own talk page to desist. Not only is the content non-neutral and absolutely meaningless from jargonese, it's unreferenced and probably a copyvio. I don't want to hit 3RR here and am thus stepping away from the keyboard and turning this over to other sets of eyes. Thanks much. Julietdeltalima  (talk)  16:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to deletion of promotional content. This is an issue, I will monitor the page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, duly noted re: 3RR. Thanks, and thanks for looking at this.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  16:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:ThePlatypusofDoom that is completely wrong. 3RR is 3RR and if you violate it deleting content you believe is promotional, you will be subject to blocking. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You could make a case for promotion being vandalism, though. WP:3RRNO. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That was the interpretive point I was caught up on, and as a relative newcomer thought it best to err on the side of caution (as I'll continue to do; "if you see something, say something" is apparently the best course of action). Interesting. - Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you can make that case but it is weak and if you do that a lot it will bring the general work of trying to manage COI better into disrepute for the admins who work at 3RR. So don't rely on it.  And what you wrote above was nothing like "you could make a case" - you wrote a flat statement of fact: "3RR doesn't apply to deletion of promotional content."  Be careful working on COI issues. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was not only pure advertising, it was pure copyvio. I have left a notice to that effect at Talk:Coca-Cola FEMSA with the two URLs from which it was pasted. Unlike removing adverts or even vandalism, removing copyvio is 3RR exempt. If the material is re-added in that wording, it can be summarily removed. I've also put the page on my watchlist. Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

General question
No links or users yet, just a general question. Let's say you are a retired priest and you are creating dozens, perhaps hundreds of thinly sourced articles on organizations with mediocre notabiity, all of which are related to your religion. All of the articles have the particular religion's Christogram icon at the top right. Promotional editing or not? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Might be promotional. Might just be comprehensive coverage of an area of interest. Difficult to say more without you pointing us at some examples. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably. However we should be careful not to discourage participation by experts, which your hypothetical person may be. The focus should be on identifying the articles where a potential COI exists, and managing the conflict by engaging the community review process over content. The process of an editor raising his or her hand and saying "hey, I have a potential conflict here, do you want to help me manage it?" shouldn't be a big deal. - Brianhe (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's that thin line between COI and advocacy. In this case the person is probably not a member of all those organizations so I would probably come down on the advocacy side of things.  Sounds like violations of WP:PROMO and WP:VERIFY (maybe NPOV but can't know without looking), which are the same content problems that arise with conflicted editors. Sometimes religious folk are conflicted, in my view, when their commitment - their devotion - to X is their primary interest to the extent that it is conflicting with - overriding - their interest as WP editors in the policies and guidelines and our mission.Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, and see below. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Chassis Brakes International


Persistent and repeated SPA editing, more eyes requested. One of the editors,, has admitted a COI with : "j'ai ajouté des infos concernant la qualité de nos produits" – roughly, "I've added info about the quality of our products". There seems to be at least a possibility there's socking here, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Cheryl Fernandez-Versini


Copied from Wikipedia talk:COI

Celeb articles

These are obviously full of COI.

One of the most glaringly prominent is Cheryl Cole's.

It reads like a fan page presented by her agents. Nothing negative is allowed; the section on her conviction for drunken assault is called "legal issues". 78.149.214.235 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course you're right that there are lots of fan-cruft or PR-cruft celeb articles and we should do something about it. At 104,698 bytes this article seems to be about 5 times too long IMHO.  After skimming the article I don't see anything obviously wrong other than the length and to some degree the tone.  Please post this type of complaint at WP:COIN where people go to try to deal with these problems.  I'll copy this one over there.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 11:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if the username (and any relevant diffs) are specified --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to add, maybe I'm missing the point but to me this looks like a very mature article with plenty of diverse editors and solid sourcing. Is there really a COI problem here? - Brianhe (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a COI I'm completely missing it. The article is perfectly referenced etc.--5 albert square (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I observed, it seems there were attempts to insert information about a speculated divorce. This was repeatedly reverted by multiple editors. In my opinion, the reverts were valid per BLP and I don't really see a COI case here. Nevertheless, I have left a message on the IP's talk page asking for the username and relevant diffs indicating COI. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The Cole article is one of many "celebs" who have their articles puffed; but Cole's article significantly stands out as overwhelmingly a fan page. The Cole article, in its present form and huge size, has no business being in an encyclopaedia. It is unguently fawning, grovelling and sycophantic. 78.149.214.235 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you need to substantiate whatever you are saying with diffs. In addition, this is a conflict of interest noticeboard. You need to tell where exactly is the conflict of interest and point out the users having a COI --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. But there's still COI there. Big time and by commercial interests. Which is unconscionable. 78.149.214.235 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's what user Ef80 had to say on the Cole talk page: "This article has always suffered from NPOV and COI problems. It isn't just the PR promotion, it's the editing by deluded fans. All reality TV BLPs tend to be like this and I don't have a solution." 78.149.214.235 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What strikes me about the article is the size. At 104,698 bytes it's a bit bigger than the article on Jeb Bush, about the same as the article on Grover Cleveland, and a bit smaller than the article on Marco Rubio (please forgive the political comparisons, I've just been listening to the news). I'd never heard of her before and doubt that there is anything to say about her that compares to a president or these presidential candidates.  PR-cruft, fan-cruft, or just weight - it is something we ought to do something about.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Cheryl Cole article is huge. Too big by far; so big it defeats the object of those trying to promote her on there (it's so full of trivia even a hardcore fan would be bored to read it).

The talk page on there is locked at the moment. This because a protest was made that the article was too sycophantic and unencyclopaedic. This protest was deleted as vandalism by Davey2010 (among many others, & I would venture to say they are working together, if not sockpuppets). The accusation of vandalism was downgraded to disruptive editing; it patently was not vandalism. Something will have to be done about this article's size and blatant NPOV and COI issues. 78.149.214.235 (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, you've still shown zero evidence of COI editing. Random talk about "Big time and by commercial interests" achieves nothing. There could be COI editing but we need evidence. And I think far more likely, if there is a problem with the article it's because of what you hinted at near the end of your earlier post. Fans. Fans can cause problems and even be blocked for it, but they don't find the normal definition of having a COI on wikipedia. (Well not counting things like the owner of a fansite promoting their fansite for example.) As for the talk page, I don't personally think the comment about this generation being fucked beyond all hope was helpful, but regardless it's clearly not helpful to say that about a specific LP per BLP [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheryl_Fernandez-Versini&diff=709210816&oldid=709183782]. It's not that severe a BLP violation, but there's no justifable reason to edit war to keep it in so it's no wonder the talk page was protected. It's interesting that an IP belonging to the same ISP and also geolocating to Manchester the same as you is one of the ones which kept adding back that BLP vio [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheryl_Fernandez-Versini&diff=717492957&oldid=717460420]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW I don't see you've provided any evidence of the named editors working together let alone of sockpuppetry so I suggest you withdraw that accusation. In fact looking at the names of some of the people you've accused, your accusation just seems dumb. If you want your concerns over the article to be taken seriously, you need to be far more careful how you present them. In other words, don't claim COI when you don't appear to have any evidence. Let alone accuse people of inappropriately working together when they are established edits who've edited many different unrelated parts of the encyclopaedia for years and part of what they were doing was reverting a BLP vio which an IP very similar to yours kept adding back. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking even more closely, it's worse then that. The editors you said are working together and are possibly sockpuppets include editors who in the article proper are disagreeing over which content to include, and at least some of them have expressed concerns about fancruft in the article themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your input and investigation. I agree with you about my accusations of sockpuppetry; I have deleted my reference to the user concerned and I apologise to him. 78.149.214.235 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for perhaps being abit slow here but who's this supposed COI editor ? ... Looking through the history I don't see anything out of the ordinary ? .... – Davey 2010 Talk 16:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ronald Galope Barniso
Has created and edited the page Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus, and lists himself as a notable student / alumnus. the article, while likely worthy of creation, is in a very poor state, and this is likely due to the proximity the major contributor has to his subject. His TP too suggests he has issues of WP:OWNership.Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  11:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems there is already an article about Father Saturnino Urios University. I'm not sure if creating articles for each campus is even required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * AfD started, go to Articles for deletion/Father Saturnino Urios University - Arbp. Carmelo D.F. Morelos Campus ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There are some issues here with the user. WP:COMPENTENCE issues, violation of WP:OWN, really shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, needs to learn the rules first. I'm not that great with new editors, can someone else help? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Albrecht Behmel

 * SPAs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * SPAs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * SPAs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * SPAs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * SPAs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * see esp. global contribs
 * see esp. global contribs

This article and the numerous spin-offs look like paid editing to me, but I have no time to investigate this myself. Perhaps somebody here can take an interest to this stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if paid editing, but surely lots of SPAs. I will start listing down the article here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Started listing some SPAs above. Brianhe (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Kailash29792


User:Kailash29792 can you please speak to your edit note here and your extensive (!) editing of that article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I confess that I and Hiphop Tamizha co-member Jeeva were classmates. But I am trying hard not to maintain COI by editing the article as per WP guidelines and adding only reliably sourced statements, regardless of how much they praise/deride the subject. I am not paid by the subject to write the article, and never will be. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but you realize that COI is explicit that you shouldn't write people you know about, right? Will you please agree to follow the COI guideline going forward and offer suggestions on the Talk page instead of editing directly? Jytdog (talk) 07:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will follow your suggestion and see that the entire article is rewritten by any other editor who does not know the subject, but does not deviate from the existing sources. Is this message fine? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if needs to be rewritten; it does need to be reviewed by independent editors, and once it is, those tags can come off. Thanks for agreeing not to edit directly going forward. I would close this but I want to leave it open as it might attract attention of independent editors to review it.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Imrust


This user is a manager of Varun Parandhaman and has edited that article excessively in favour of the subject (very much a COI) through various IP addresses, and keeps (futilely) trying to deny that by removing the COI tag. He also removes reliable sources from the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * COI disclosed here. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added standard links. Provided notice of this discussion (User:Kailash29792 thanks for bringing this but per the instructions at the top of this page, you must notify the person you are discussing).  Have tried to open a discussion with the person. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You may want to monitor Imrust and his activity since he does not usually respond to messages, and occasionally edits through IP addresses. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is on my watchlist. I suggest you disengage and unwatch that article, fwiw.  You did great posting here. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "That article"? Hiphop Tamizha or Varun Parandhaman? I don't know the latter in person and have never seen him live. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Only this article. You are in a situation where you and Imrust are trading charges of COI (and both apparently correct, in different ways) and this interpersonal dispute is getting tangled up in content.  When that happens  - when behavioral, content, and interpersonal issues get entangled, things get ugly and people end up blocked.  You seem to be a good egg and that would be a shame.  So let this one go, feel free to comment on the Talk page of the HipHop one where you have a COI, and enjoy greener pastures in the wider Wikipedia.  That is my advice. :) Jytdog (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Simon Lederman


WP:SPA accounts, promo editing the BLP. long-term editor N0user0 has not disclosed or denied a connection. There's some discussion at User talk:N0user0. I'm not getting the impression that the editor is taking COI guideline seriously and the BLP is better but has issues, which are flagged by maintenance tags. They were removed by the editor with no indication of stopping to WP:OWN the article. Widefox ; talk 13:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Left a note at the user's talk page asking about any COI. Let's see if they reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lemongirl942. Compliments on your account name, very fresh.
 * The obvious next unanswered question is are all those accounts WP:SOCKs / meats? Widefox ; talk 14:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Those may well be socks/meats. Unfortunately since they have been inactive for such a long time, I doubt pursuing a sockpuppet investigation will be helpful. At the moment, I think it is best to let N0user0 clarify the situation. Let's wait for a reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article's citations do not support many of the facts. I have tagged it as of now, but I will work on the content after the COI issue is resolved. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion


Two new users has appeared with subtly different usernames nearly the same as an article title, and seem to be behaving like they own the content (note these edit summaries: (0) (1) and (2). Lots of edits, at least one reverted so far. Mostly jamming tons of YouTube links into the article. Wasn't sure how to proceed, never seen a username the same as an article where the article wasn't a BLP. Krelnik (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - Request semi-protection of the article. They are not auto-confirmed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Fake account is fake - The edit summaries lead me to conclude that both accounts are the same guy. (Instructions given instead of links to demonstrate that this information was made public by the user in question): Opening the Youtube link one of the accounts added, going to the uploader's "about" page, then going to the FB page that that uploader says is his, and looking through the friends list and groups and seeing mostly high schoolers, younger college kids,, and "D. B. Cooper" -- I have to conclude this is not the original Max Headroom hijacker.  I don't even believe he was alive during the Reagan administration.  If he really is, he should come forward to Vice or some other professional publication that would cover the story.
 * Oh, and that FB page also shares some rather unconvincing proof (e.g. a "photo" of the glove used in the video that is clearly a stock photo). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And comparing the "authentic" video with the reconstruction from the newscast, it's clear that the impostor just copied the reconstruction. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsolimani (talk • contribs) 01:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You restored the link added by the Maxheadroom accounts listed above, saying they were "important," when they're really just plain rip-offs of the copies that are already circulating around the net, uploaded by an obvious imposter. The uploader of the videos you linked to lists their Facebook page, and in their friends list and in their groups, we find you.  Either this is a friend of yours, or a sockpuppet account.  At any rate, I'm highly tempted to block all accounts under WP:NOTHERE.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support that. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Between this and this, I believe is really a sockpuppet account of . Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All of them are WP:NOTHERE, I support you blocking them. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, blocked. The sockmaster had a few intermittent good faith edits (or they would be if they weren't tied to this), so I'll be more open to unblocking (at least for WP:ROPE), but I guess we're finished here. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

These look concerning



 * This User:Jsvaidya is adding links to themselves which I removed here


 * Here they add their own papers which is a commentary
 * And here they add themselves
 * And they continues  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry that we allowed this to be archived without acting on this. I will try to open a discussion with them; I'll not engage with content so as not to complicate things but I encourage others on this board to watchlist the article.. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ski Famille


At the website of a publicity company (here), they state, "Ski Famille asked us to ramp up their rankings for some of the most competitive keywords in the industry." Both 217.137.227.84 and Nickstuartmiller have been adding links to skifamille.co.uk. Deli nk (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I did make a reference in place of this page because it seemed more commercial than the one from Ski Famille. Have taken note and will not persist with referencing. Thank you. (Nickstuartmiller (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickstuartmiller (talk • contribs)


 * Could you let us know if you are in any way linked to seedpublicity.co.uk? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes but I didn't think my revision was in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines, I actually thought it was more relevant. Either way, lesson learnt! Nickstuartmiller (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I got a Google Alert which showed some edits from 217.137.227.84 - I don't know who this is. So I was just editing the references. More than happy to leave them off. Nickstuartmiller (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There are 2 different issues - content and COI. Let's take it one at a time. At the moment, let's talk about the COI. If you are paid by seedpublicity.co.uk, then the proper way to go about is to simply make a disclosure on your user page. (See WP:PCD). You can simply mention on your userpage that you are paid by so and so. Would you be willing to do this? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, I don't mind doing that. I have done that now. Can we remove this COI thread now? Nickstuartmiller (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Per our guideline WP:PCD, you actually need to mention your clients as well. You can do that and in the meantime I will remove the COI tags. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have done this now. Nickstuartmiller (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, it seems there are no COI tags (as in no tagging was done in the first place). Or have I missed anything? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks. I don't really know. I haven't had to do any of this before. I know I was editing a reference for my client (i found out via a Google Alert) which I now know was made by 217.137.227.84, then this thread thing appeared and I found all this information linking me to my client, which is accurate. I'd just like this thread removed if possible? Nickstuartmiller (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I just saw now. It was "thread" not "tag". Sorry for my oversight, I was sleepy. Unfortunately, this thread is not supposed to be removed as this is a noticeboard. In due course of time though it will be archived automatically. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. How long does that usually take? Nickstuartmiller (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interject here, since Lemongirl942 is taking care of things, but I have to say to Nickstuartmiller that it sounds like you are hoping that the information about your COI will fade away. In fact, the process exists to insure the opposite: the purpose of the COI declaration is transparency, and the goal is that COI editing will be visible to the community as long as the COI exists. In other words, you should be linked to your client for as long as you are editing for your client. You can, of course, do unrelated edits on articles throughout Wikipedia without be "branded" with a COI -- it only pertains to those very articles on which you have an interest. It hasn't yet been said here, but there are limitations on editing of articles on which you have a COI. In particular, you are asked not to do any creation of or direct editing of articles in main space on which you have a COI. Instead, you may request edits through the talk page of the article. See Paid-contribution_disclosure for more details on how to declare paid editing. This (Conflict_of_interest) explains how to request edits on articles that you should not edit directly. You may create new articles through the Articles for Creation process, because those are reviewed before going into the main wiki. You do lose your ability to directly edit them once they have been accepted, however. If you have questions, this is the place to ask them. There are others here that know much more than I do and who can help you navigate this. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * p.s. My observation here is that resolved COI notices are removed after a few days. The archive, of course, is searchable, as almost nothing ever really "goes away" here on WP. There's a search box on this page. However, note that COI incidents are not declared resolved until it is clear that policies are being followed. That time is more variable. Unresolved COI discussions are slated to be removed 14 days after the last post on the discussion. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that all makes sense now. Nickstuartmiller (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Related spammed sites
These don't appear related to these users, but they mention removing these links which appear to have been introduced by a competitor: SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)



stockbrokers.com

 * 
 * ...many others per this accounts edit history...
 * 5 years of REFSPAM / EXTspam stockbrokers.com!
 * Promo only account
 * Intermittent editing, so stale for action at AIV. Given last warning.
 * Listing here as:
 * We've seen promo editing on Interactive Brokers recently
 * There's at least one locked account editor on one of these articles so may need more scrutiny.
 * The REFSPAM may only be an obvious part of the promo editing here which has been ongoing for five years
 * AIV unable to act due to being long-term not recent.
 * Suggest stockbrokers.com is blacklisted to stop this as it's across many articles. Widefox ; talk 18:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * posted at the blacklist here 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 03:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * AIV unable to act due to being long-term not recent.
 * Suggest stockbrokers.com is blacklisted to stop this as it's across many articles. Widefox ; talk 18:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * posted at the blacklist here 15:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked. MER-C 03:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard Davis (astronomer)


Hi all. I'm reporting myself (again) as I've just started the article about Richard Davis (astronomer), who passed away recently. He is clearly notable as he was awarded an OBE, and there are multiple reliable references that I've included in the article. I'm reporting myself here as I knew him, and I've been working with him for the last few years. I've assembled the article entirely based on the cited references, with the aim of being as neutral as possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm endorsing this article as neutral/non-promotional. Geogene (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 from my side as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice workHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

PreEmptive Solutions


Three overlapping single purpose accounts dedicated to the promotion of PreEmptive Solutions and their products. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All three articles now at AfD. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC).

Spier Wine Farm


Anyone interested? User:DGG Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added SPA users. Will put COI template on talk pages. LaMona (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking more carefully, the SPA's haven't edited since 2013. I think the article should just be deleted as promotional, unless someone wants to go through the effort to "do the right thing." Another option would be turning it into a stub, but again there isn't much reason to do this unless we think that it is likely to be completed. LaMona (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I chopped it down to stub size, from 15K to 1.4K. Seems like a good PROD or AfD candidate.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion. The house itself has marginal notability. John Nagle (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Navarro W. Gray

 * (deleted via AfD already here
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)
 * (job here was getting tags removed after 1st paid editor did a bad job)


 * (prior SPA on Yue Xu, possible sock or prior paid editor
 * prior SPA on Ebuzztoday, possible sock or prior paid editor
 * SPA for Siavash Arani, possible sock or paid editor...
 * SPA for Siavash Arani, possible sock or paid editor...

I just took this article to AfD, but other articles created by the same editor ( may also merit a second look. This looks suspiciously like the paid editing we regularly see (an overabundance of insignificant sources, impeccably formatted, etc). More eyes needed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Listed articles above. this and this are pretty clear signs of trying to get an article created on behalf of a client, and
 * this and
 * this and
 * this and
 * this and
 * this
 * cannot be their "own work".
 * User: Tokyogirl79 gave them very clear notice that they had to disclose paid editing here. I just left them another note here.  If they don't stop editing and start disclosing, I'll recommend they be indeffed for PROMO and violation of WP:PAID.  Let's see what they do. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just listed Adam Afara for CSD; and listed UYue Xu for AfD. If've suggest a merge for Vertex into the parent company.   DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahara McKay


For those with permission, see. The account BlofeldZurich is run by Blofeld Communication, a PR firm based in Switzerland. The aforementioned OTRS ticket is an email stating that the account is shared and being used to edit the pages of their clients on behalf of said clients, indicating a major conflict of interest. The account has significantly edited Mahara McKay and Nomi Fernandes. An earlier account, BlofeldComm, was blocked for similar promotional edits. clpo13(talk) 21:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the non-RS from Mahara McKay- lots of Youtubes of her music, photos, her facebook page, etc. I did the obvious ones, but there are some blog-like sources that probably should also come out if someone has time to look at them. At least what is left appears to be mostly published material. LaMona (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Jesuit-branded pages

 * - currently at AfD
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * - currently at AfD
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ proposed speedy Brianhe (talk)
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * ✔️ Proposed deletion Brianhe (talk)
 * category
 * category



One user, a retired jesuit priest, creating many articles (as in dozens) on Jesuit-related centres, educational institutes, missions, peace clubs, social welfare institutes-- you name it. The list above contains page creations since April 7 February, 2016-- there are about 170 page creations in their edit history. As a whole I see this as advocacy and/or promotion, leaning towards promotion. The addition of the Christogram at the top right of each article is a kind of "branding" that really bothers me, as it serves as a "Jesuit stamp of approval" more or less. (What does that symbol mean anyway? It's like a secret code for believers I guess. Seems very 18th C and very un-wiki-like.) This editor often pipes links to link to misleading Jesuit easter-egg text, as in the use of the word "development" here to lead to a list of Jesuit development centres. This editor often uses the weakest of sources to get the page published: self-published, wordpress, blogpsot, and often any old jesuit essay is used to support some claim about something else. Finally, The notability of these places is marginal. I have nominated four for deletion. Two were deleted and the other two are in process. Overall I am disturbed that one editor has been able to create so many marginally notable pages around a particular religious subject, and that they brand them each with the Christogram. I see it as an abuse of the objectivity secular nature of the Wiki. This is not just adding to the knowledge pool- at a couple pages a week, it's a crusade. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OH, a member of a religious order is more like the devotee i mentioned before.  This is much more like a COI, yes.  He should be following the COI guideline and putting these thought AfC to get them peer reviewed.... I think.  Boy this is tough.  Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * and yes that is the jesuit seal or emblem. see here and here: "The Society of Jesus uses as its seal the IHS surmounted by a cross, three nails below, and the whole often surrounded by sunburst. " So they are "branded". Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * here are all the pages that are so branded. Jytdog (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so the logo you link above is also half of the Jesuits official logo. Seems to be an immediate identifier for Jesuits, if you are in the reilgious "know", which I am definitely not. Here also is a specimen used in the 1998 trademark filing by the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) at the US Patent and Trademark Office. So, the image at the upper right of each page is a brand-identifying trademark, albeit for a religion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of the "hits" in jytdog's search are from this one template, which shouldn't be considered too strongly as evidence of tagging or whatever: Jesuit educational institutions in the Philippines - Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that image is mostly used in proper fashion on those pages. However if you look at the end of the file use list, which contains the most recent uses, you'll see that the last 75 or so uses are for the branding purpose mentioned above. I did not check them all but the 75 appear to be by Jzsj, branded in upper right corner. That would be... brand advocacy? HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think using the image/logo as part of a template is fine. But the usage in the articles (mentioned at the top of the report) is clearly improper. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the gist of what you are saying, and that this kind of branding is inappropriate. Just pointing out that the same image does have some legitimate uses. Brianhe (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The user in question apparently has 500 such articles planned out, according to the category "Jesuit development centres". I updated the list of articles to give a better idea of the scope. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking through these, some of them should not be standalone articles. Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service is a unit of Georgetown University. Twomey Center for Peace Through Justice is a unit of Loyola University. Center for Faith and Public Life is a unit of Fairfield University. There are more like that, and they should be deleted or merged out. John Nagle (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue that many of the ones I looked at had only primary sources. If these met GNG then this would be less of a stand-out case. But many do not, and this is a large project. That means that if there is an issue, then it is also a large cleanup project. That is unrelated to COIN, so on that topic, I, too, find the branding to be inappropriate. The categories are what we use to bring together like articles, and to indicate that they are part of a larger organization. The image as it is being used here is quite promotional, IMO. LaMona (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a priori convinced that the articles should be folded into their parents. Taking Center for Social Justice Research, Teaching, & Service (CSJ), for instance, I see many comparable articles in Category:Georgetown University and child cats. I tend to think the notability of each needs to be assessed and that a broad-brush rejection of them is not the way to go. Still taking CSJ as an example, having googled it I think a case can be made for general notability. I do accept the probability that we are dealing with an editor who has a COI, but I'm not very upset by the numerous article upshot based on the CSJ example. I support Jytdog's suggestion below - more discussion including WPs interested in the area, with possible remedies ranging from 'do nothing' to COI templates on talk pages, to testing notability through AfD. I suspect the middle of these - marking COI on talk pages - will be the outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are more or less right, with the proviso that the IHS image has to go from the upper corner of articles.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK here is what this feels like to me. We had a guy taking all the entries in an open access protein database and creating articles out of them, sometimes overwriting existing articles.  Big project, ambitious, very cool in many ways, but he was doing it lone ranger style, not getting consensus from the relevant communities.   And upset some people.  This is a bit the same, perhaps?  Would it be worthwhile asking him to pause and get consensus for his plans from WP:RELIG and maybe WP:UNIV?  Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I've had no direct connection during my life with hardly any of these works, and have tried to write very objective articles, which I think should be the criterion for judgment rather than whether I am one of the c.16,000 Jesuits in the world. I suggest that many people who write Wikipedia articles about large organizations are members of those organizations, doing their best to be objective. My whole background is in scientific objectivity (MS in math, physics minor) and I believe I am writing very objective articles: where an editor has disagreed I have never reverted the edit. I have always responded to requests by rechecking articles labeled "promotional material" but there's a thin line between presenting the vision or mission of an organization and promoting it, which at times has led me to omit entirely any section on these topics. I find no personal gain in writing these articles, just adding notable organizations to build up Wikipedia. If consensus is reached I will move the logo to the infobox, or remove it if required, but one editor who had first asked me to move it to the infobox later conceded my point that it becomes a huge space in the infobox but is just a small space outside the infobox. I use it only where there is no picture or identifying logo available for the institution, and this is the general logo for the Society of Jesus and all its works. Some Catholics are getting up their own Catholic Commons website but I find Wikipedia a very helpful resource and wish to continue to contribute to it in a way respectful of Wikipeidia's guidelines for notability and non-promotional articles. I wish the guideline for social development organizations was as clear as that for schools, but such can't be and so I'm trying to deal with the more nebulous criteria for notability.Jzsj (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In fairness, if there are 16,000 Jesuits, how many Jesuit priests and retired priests are there? Your interest and involvement in the religion is life-long and was your career, so I don't think it is fair to say you are just one of 16,000. Also, the bit about you never having reverted someone who disagrees with your edits is baloney-- you've done that to me a number of times when I have removed your easter-egg piped links, and the bogus reference on Jesuit policy that you use in almost every article. I disagreed with those edits and you reverted, so please stick to the truth here... HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please point out to me one example where I simply reverted your change without trying to respond to what I understood as the point you were making. The latter occurred once, with you, when I changed what you found as an "ëaster-egg" reference and I thought in moving it to another spot it would satisfy the criterion. I have since read up on ëaster-eggs and am determined to avoid them in the future: thanks for pointing them out to me! As to my involvement in the religion, the whole purpose of the religion is to do good: I would have no interest in the Society of Jesus if it didn't hold promise of being a part of works of charity and justice into the future, and not just Jesuits but mostly lay men and women who are the majority as collaborators in these works which I find significant for the freeing up and development of marginalized peoples.Jzsj (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jzsj, the revert I mentioned was on one of your articles that went to AfD and is now deleted. I do see that you are in some ways trying to play by the rules. However, if you read above, you will see that everyone agrees that the IHS image is inappropriate. So, question one is: could you leave this out of future articles unless it is appropriate? WP:LOGO specifically calls for a logo only where approproate and only within the infobox. Much of the discussion above is a result of you playing by your own rules vis-a-vis article creation. You've decided you are goign to create 500 articles(!) on everything under the sun that is Jesuit. Now some of the comments above question whether you might be biased or not in that regard-- that it might be promotional. There was an article recently in the NY Times abotu how Jesuit priests sold slaves to pay for a university debt at Georgetown university. That article in turn led to other reporting. There's probably neough material there for its own article. Now a true Wikipedian who was devoted to Jesuit issues would see that article and be expanding the content that Wikipedia has on it. Is that something you would do, or are you exclusively committed to promoting the positive aspects of Jesuit missions and work? If you are editing solely to promote the religion's work, then you are editing promotionally, and this is not desired. I think you answered that you think you are not editing promotionally, so I will leave you with the question about the slave sale. Question two: Can you slow down on the article creation and please just create articles for those institutions that are notable? YOu've created many articles that do not deserve to be articles in themsleves, as mentioned above. The majority of the time, these are often filled with self-published references and other weak refs. I just deleted a Prezi.com reference, and I have deleted many blogspot, blogger and other poor quality references from your articles. You do not seem to understand WP:RS. I hope you can see from what I am saying here that the overall impression that an impartial editor gets from your rapid-fire Jesuit article creation is that you're trying to get thease articles into Wikipedia no matter what. What I would like, and I am guessing many editors above would like, is if you used your excellent skills to create articles that are a) not rife with bad references and self-published sources, b) not branded with the IHS Symbol, c) not promotional and d) for subjects that are truly notable as established by sources. You see, we are actually a kind of team here. You're a good editor but you are not playing by some of the team rules (i.e. reliable sources, notability, promotional editing). What do you think about playing by the rules a bit more closely?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jzsj, I'm not sure whether this is policy (someone will correct me if it is not, I hope), but 'logos' on religious articles are usually reserved for pages about the belief ITSELF, (fundamental beliefs and concepts, core institutions etc). Pages about subjects 'affiliated' (an Anglican project, a Jewish school, even probably, a Buddhist temple), would not use the religion's 'logo', but would prefer either the logo of the individual place, or, often better, a captioned photo. I'm sure you would agree that information about what is happening in these places is more important than the 'brand symbol' of who is doing it, even though that might be what has motivated you initially. Pincrete (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not determined to keep using these. As I discussed on my talk page, I moved them outside the infobox because they became too large there, I wanted a smaller version of a logo for Jesuit works that had no logo or picture in Wiki Commons. All the articles I added where independently reviewed, and it's not easy to get a definitive interpretation of what's tolerated in Wikipedia, so I'll let this play itself out.Jzsj (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jzsj, I think everyone agreed that the use of the logo outside of the inffobox, and on pages that were not directly about the Jesuits (i.e. on subsidiary institutions) was inappropriate, so I went throguh and removed the logo on all of the pages where you used it. I mentioned on your talk page as well that WP:LOGO, under "placement", specifically says a logo should only be used on a page in the infobox, and should not be used on subsidiary organizations. So that is dealth with, I believe. Now, in regards to the promotional editing, you did not answer any of my quesitons above. I just removed another of your easter-egg edits. Would you be willing to go throguh and fix your easter-egg edits? They have the effect of misleading the reader andtaking them to a list of Jesuit pages, which is in effect promotional editing. Thanks!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Southerngospelvideos


Username identical to company representing musicians behind the above articles. Your basic promotional editing. Take it from me, it's the gospel! Username reported. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I represent no company as my username is just the fact that I like southern gospel music videos. It is a hobby of mine to collect videos of southern gospel music. Your alleged "company representing musicians behind above articles" is misrepresentation and unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You're giving us an assurance that there's absolutely no connection between, who writes well on the Nelons, and www.southerngospelvideos.com which seems to concentrate on, err, the Nelons? Just one of those fluke coincidences of life? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So if someone used the username ebay, does that make me a representative of ebay.com I think not. There lies your answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a good example. If someone had "ebay" as a username, they'd likely be blocked according to WP:CORPNAME and asked to change their username. clpo13(talk) 16:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Clpo13. It's possible that, who likes listening to the Nelons, was so taken with the circa 1997 chic of the www.southerngospelvideos.com website that s/he adopted the website's name as their own, as per the ebay example. Still. I'd like to hear more from about the startling coincidence of naming and interest. More seriously - since we do at this point suspect a COI despite the denial - there is the question of what to do. I suspect merely mark the talk pages with an appropriate template as the articles, albeit unreferenced, seem relatively neutral in tone and the subjects appear from the most casual read to meet WP:GNG. (IIRC one of the articles is more problematic than the other two, and copyright checks are yet to be done.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * So I have southerngospelvideos as my username, southern gospel and videos can be associated with many other things as well. I stand by my claim that it isn't a conflict of interest as others have alluded to.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 17:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * southern gospel and videos! --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * dig a little further and you'll see that they have videos of many other artists in the southern gospel music genre. I am not on trial here.  Yawn  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southerngospelvideos (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You appear to have a generalised contempt for the rules of wikipedia - WP:COI - as well as the norms of civilised conversation. That's unfortunate and regrettable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you be adverse to a name change? It would solve the problem. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Appropriation of Wikipedia logo
Not sure where to report this... here is an ad from "Elite SEO" offering Wikipedia SEO services, including use of a derivative of the Wikipedia logo. From what I understand this is protected by WMF but I'm not sure what to do with this discovery. Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose we each ask them for a quote on an article, and then post their replies here.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We actually site banned the guy from that agency.  See here.  This is the kind of thing to bring to WMF legal; they would be the ones to send a cease-and-desist order.  btw WMF trademark policy is here.  Stephen La Porte has been responsive on these issues in the past, pinging him: User:Slaporte (WMF). Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I would email him, as he probably won't respond to anything on his page. His email is slaporte@wikimedia.org, as it says on his user page. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * i've done that too. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We're looking into it now. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks for moving this forward. - Brianhe (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising it! Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Markaz

 * - Islamic university
 * - another Islamic university
 * - sock
 * -sock
 * - sock
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/ArtsRescuer
 * SPAs
 * - Made legal threats here and here
 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/ArtsRescuer
 * SPAs
 * - Made legal threats here and here
 * - Made legal threats here and here

The user seems to be affiliated to this entity called Markaz. I spotted them a few days ago when I found a bunch of AfD nominations with single word justifications. Looks like cleanup is required. If the SPI is true, this has been happening for a long time. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Multiple socks were confirmed by SPI. I've added couple of them to the user list above. Additionally, this is something I've seen more of lately ... socks barnstaring the master's account. I suppose it's an attempt to confer increased credibility on the master. - Brianhe (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, user seems to have some kind of COI (not necessarily financial) and POV. Constantly trying to whitewash content on Sheikh Aboobacker Ahmed and edit warring. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Gabor Lukacs


This editor is here editing under their real name. I noticed their editing when they add BLP-violating content about a government bureaucrat and former lobbyist to the article above here. In the ensuing discussion they cited two articles here and here about their litigation against the the Canadian Transport Agency and Canadian airlines. See also here.

In my view this user has a clear COI per WP:COILEGAL and I asked them to declare that COI and to follow the peer review process, and they have argued that COILEGAL is only about litigation against other people, see here.

I am bringing this to the community for input. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Happily they just did this, so maybe they are not disagreeing after all. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Jytdog is misquoting my position, which is as follows:
 * undoubtedly, one should not edit on ongoing litigation that one is involved in, simply as a matter of ethical standard;
 * WP:COILEGAL speaks about disputes between individuals and not between organizations;
 * WP:COILEGAL is phrased in present tense, as such it refers to ongoing litigation and not past ones;
 * I never had any litigation or individual conflict with the bureaucrat and former lobbyist in question;
 * the edits in question were not referring to ongoing litigation, and as such there is no COI. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, bless. COILEGAL is a red herring. WP:COI is not. It is barely conceivable that someone described as a passenger rights advocate who has been involved in litigation against the CTA has no COI w.r.t. inserts about the CTA or its staff on an article such as Regulatory capture. Straining at gnats won't help when there's a mote in the way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Such a broad interpretation of WP:COI penalizes those who do not hide behind pseudonyms, but edit under their real names; however, it provides no protection against those who advance an agenda using a false or hidden identity. In the context of litigation, WP:COI embodies something similar to the principle of Sub_judice. Once the litigation is over, so is the WP:COI. The real test is, anyway, the reliability of the sources and not who brings the sources. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does penalise those who do not hide behind pseydonyms. It also penalises those who do. Its *intent* is to prevent COI editing. While litigation might no longer be ongoing, COI still exists. Unless you have stopped being a passenger rights advocate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This argument appears to be circular about the meaning of COI. It also fails to distinguish disputes between non-governmental and governmental parties. There are a noteworthy number citizens in any country who have had, at some point in their lives, some kind of dispute with their government, whether it is about their tax assessment, or a parking or speeding ticket, or anything else. To preclude all these individuals from making edits relating to the government of their state, on the basis of COI, would result in overbreadth.

In order to establish COI, one has to have some kind of stake (e.g., financial or other gain to be made, or expectation of same). Where is the "stake" with respect to a concluded litigation, which is no longer subject to any appeal? What will I stand to gain or lose by making the edits? I am a volunteer, not a paid advocate or lawyer. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I understand the difficulty here Gabor. You are conflating your understanding of Conflict of Interest in the real world with WP:COI in wikipedia. They are not the same, and you have one in wikipedia. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Roxy the dog™ thank you for your response, which I found very informative. Can you help me to better understand the differences between the "real world" notion of COI and the Wikipedia one? The wording of WP:COI is similar to the "real world" notion, but it appears that the community has some additional unwritten rules or interpretation of what this means, and I would like to understand that. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabor, as I explained to you Wikipedia works by consensus. You have had four different, much more experienced Wikipedians tell you that in Wikipedia you have a COI with regard to the airlines and the government agency regulating them. Others may weigh in here but I will be surprised if their conclusions are different; the way we think about COI in Wikipedia, your COI is glaring.  There is little new under the sun here in Wikipedia and like many editors with  a COI you are more busy arguing than listening.   If you want to be part of the community you should become interested in actually understanding how this place works, but that is of course your decision. (your questions above are clearly rhetorical)  Jytdog (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog while I am sure you do not mean it to be so, some of your comments come across as bordering on ad hominem, criticizing me for what you perceive as my poor attitude ("more busy arguing than listening"), instead of focusing on the question of COI. I am open to listen, and I would be grateful for further explanation from Roxy the dog™ or anyone else who can help me answer the question that I asked: what is the difference between the "real world COI" and the "Wikipedia COI"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabor Lukacs (talk • contribs) 12:42, 23 May 2016
 * More busy arguing than listening is an apt description of your behavior. I have said nothing about your character, nothing ad hominem. You have argued about this since the moment I brought it up and you have not stopped arguing long enough to listen; even your question (which is almost authentic) to Roxy above is immediately chased by an argument.Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And why are you saying that your litigation is finished when here you are proposing that content about your ongoing appeal be added to an article? Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You are conflating several separate legal cases. With respect to the ongoing proceeding, I put in an edit request (see Talk:NewLeaf), and made no edits on my own, as you have previously acknowledged. My actual edits (which you reversed) were either about items unrelated to any litigation or about matters that have already been decided by the court.
 * My understanding is that this board is for discussing COI, and not for attacking my behaviour, which has been civil and polite throughout. While I am open to be educated about the meaning of COI on Wikipedia, your unfortunate choice of words creates the appearance of repeated personal attacks on me. WP:PA
 * I remain of the view that the approach of Roxy the dog™ is the most productive: I would appreciate hearing from editors their views on how the "real world COI" differs from the "Wikipedia CEO". Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And you continue to argue and WP:WIKILAWYER. A personal attack would be if I said "You are an arrogant son of a bitch who writes stupid shit". That is what we mean by PA.  I have not written anything like that. Describing your behavior on a notice board where your behavior is under discussion, is not a personal attack.  In any case I have no desire to continue this.  Everyone who has weighed in here has said you have a COI in WP with regard to the airlines and the CTA.  Please disclose this on your Userpage and please continue to offer suggestions on the Talk page instead of editing directly.  That now has consensus behind it more than just me.  If you ever do want to actually understand how this works in WP, I would be happy to explain but I am not going to argue with you.  Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog You continue to attack me instead of focusing on the issue of COI, which has been discussed only very briefly so far. While I hope that it is not your intention, I do inform you that I am feeling harassed by your choice of words and conduct.


 * I suggest that we both sit back, listen, and give other editors an opportunity to respond to an important and broad question, which is: how the "real world COI" differs from the "Wikipedia CEO". Gabor Lukacs (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Real world COI vs. Wikipedia COI

 * The answer to that is easy but up until now you have been unwilling to listen. Here it is:  In the real world, people are constrained by real world institutions around them.  A professor who has financial interests in her research is obligated by policy (which she has agreed to follow in her employment contract) to disclose that conflict to people in her institution under confidentiality, and those people put in place an actual plan to manage her actual COI.   We don't have the benefit of that kind of real world verification or disclosure or personalized management in WP.  Instead, WP editors are obligated to disclose to the community only if they have a COI (we really don't care why) and to follow the simple peer review process.  We think about COI in the context of the larger problem of advocacy (that is an essay you should read).  People who are say vegetarians come to WP all the time to add content about how awesome vegetarianism is and how evil eating meat is. (you can replace "vegetarian" with all kinds of things - sports fan (or hater), fans or haters of some celeb, blah blah)  That is advocacy.  COI is a subset of that - COI arises where there is some RW "interest" that an editor has, that will very likely lead them to edit like an advocate, adding unsourced or badly sourced content that is not neutral, and wikilawyering things to death to get their content into WP, to serve their external interest.  It is really, really easy to see advocacy (driven by passion or a COI) in editors' behavior and in the content they generate.  Really easy.   In your case, you have dedicated a boatload of your time and treasure and energy to your campaign against the CTA and the airlines.  You have been and currently are involved in litigation on this set of issues.  It absolutely serves your external interest to come to WP and use it to promote your campaign, and to try to use WP as a vehicle to influence the public and juries and judges. To use Wikipedia to right the great wrongs you are battling in the RW.  People come to WP to do this sort of thing, exactly because WP is a widely used reference work.  Whether they should or not, the public trusts WP.    It is the editing community's job to honor that trust and preserve the integrity of WP against people who would abuse it in this way.  (We actually have a policy about this - see WP:PROMO).   What we ask people with a COI to do is to disclose it, and submit content proposals on the Talk page of the relevant article, so that editors who have no ax to grind - no COI - can review them for sourcing and neutrality in light of the editor's COI.  That is the best we can do in this context.
 * One last thing. There is a learning curve to editing Wikipedia.  What we find over and over and over, is that advocates (including editors with a COI) are too busy arguing and trying to push their content into WP to stop and listen and learn about how this place works.  Why?  Their external interest and their drive to push that into WP is way more important to them then learning how to be a Wikipedian.  They are, as we say, not here to build an encyclopedia but are rather here to serve their external interest.
 * That is how COI in WP is different than the world, and how we think about COI in WP. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (EC - What he said)In the real world - conflict of interest is almost exclusively used where there is either a monetary or influence/power benefit to the subject. In wikipedia which is often the subject of advocacy-related individuals, COI is also used with regards to editors whose interests may result in their editing in a particular subject area being compromised. Over a number of years the COI policy has come to reflect that and clearly indicates the process for declaring it as per Jytdog above. An advocate who may have no potential direct financial or power benefit to editing in a subject area, will still be considered to have an inherant conflict - best practice as per the COI policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * COI has been defined more narrowly here: diff, and the focus was financial interest. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In short, because that was the accusation of COI at that time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabor you are a litigator aren't you. My goodness. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're seriously putting one diff up against all the above mentioned carefully crafted essays, guidelines, and policies – not to mention the individual attention you've gotten here? Please, please reconsider what you are doing and start showing us you really are here to build an encyclopedia. Our experience at COIN is more of the "doth protest too much" type. Less protesting, more building. OK? - Brianhe (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog I am not a litigator. I have been trained as a mathematician. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Brianhe Part of the problem seems to be that there seems to be no consensus within the Wikipedia community as to how to distinguish COI from advocacy and from stewardship. Advocacy Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The only one with a lack of clarity here is you, Gabor. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an argument that has been made by many who, because of wikipedia's COI guidelines (the relevant part would be WP:EXTERNALREL) are judged to have a conflict they need to declare. It has generally been rejected. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't_cry_COI represents a different consensus, though. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesnt. Its just an essay that states 'dont attack editors with a COI'. It is not relevant to a discussion determining if someone has a COI. Only how they are treated once identified. Also - essay. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabor, "consensus" means something very different here than what you seem to think. The existence of one user essay does not demonstrate it.
 * I'm very committed to establishing a framework where we can all make the best 'pedia possible and am a frequent contributor to COI discussions here, and meta-discussions at my talkpage, the talkpage of an essay I wrote and elsewhere. Would you like to participate at one of those places? We can start with more rigorous and objective ways to define COI, if you wish. – Brianhe (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Brianhe Absolutely! Thank you for the invitation. Which of these places might be the best for me to join the discussion? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention the talkpage of the COI guideline, the "mother" of this noticeboard. But maybe start with my talkpage first and see where people want to go from there (the first step in building a new consensus). I have over 70 talkpage watchers and you're likely to get noticed. – Brianhe (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 71. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Brianhe, I started a new section here, but so far I have not seen any discussion from you (nor from anyone else). Am I at the right place? Gabor Lukacs (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, it takes a little time and your introduction was a bit thin. I added some comments there. - Brianhe (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Andrea Mura


I've noticed an editor who is apparently just adding references to somebody called Andrea Mura. I figure someone at this noticeboard should look into it.  S ławomir Biały  12:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like an attempt to promote Andra Mura. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the references seem to be legit though and have been inserted long before. Would be glad if others could help evaluate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at library holdings and G-scholar cites, this does not appear to be a book that has been (yet) accepted in academia as significant. (<60 library holdings, one cite on scholar.) At this point, though, it might be best to bring this up on the talk pages since this needs subject expertise, IMO. LaMona (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, can we be careful here. The IP has also made useful edits to the articles, especially removing a huge chunk of copyright gobbledygook from Transmodernity (I've now removed the rest) and adding some actually useful content. The book was only published a year ago by two highly reputable academic publishers—the 2015 edition by Ashgate and the 2016 by Routledge. Google scholar citations and library holdings are not necessarily indicative of the value of a work in terms of enhancing the article's content, especially for ones that have been published within the last year. I do agree with LaMona in the sense that you should bring these references and/or further reading suggestions to the article's talk page rather than summarily removing them, especially if you don't know the subject area. Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be pointing out the obvious here, but that IP geolocates to Exeter, Devon UK which is the location of Exeter University, where Dr Andrea Mura is employed. --Krelnik (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I just got reverted by User:. See diff. The user has a very interesting edit history which is relevant here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sesamo12 has been adding Andrea Mura to various articles. See diff here, diff here and diff here, although there are others. Every edit is adding Mura's works, and the topics are quite varied: Osama Bin Laden, Frontier, Topology, Austerity. Also note the change in the user page that took place as this COIN began here. LaMona (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh dear! I had thought they'd have enough sense not to do this, or at least not to "push" it, and this edit is really pushing it to get himself in there—a totally useless addition, restating the obvious. Voceditenore (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Lemongirl942 and LaMona, I've left the user some lengthy guidance on his talk page . I've asked him to stop making any further edits which include adding links to or mentions of Andrea Mura and his publications, until he has come here to discuss these issues. From tomorrow, I'll abroad without regular internet access for a week. I'll leave it to you two to carry on the discussion if he comes here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Update. After my message on his talk page, the user emailed me to say that he has now read and understood WP:SELFCITE and WP:CITESPAM and why his additions had crossed the line. He promised he will not add any further references to Mura's work. He also offered to remove any of the ones that are still "live", but I suggested that he leave them and either the editors helping here will remove any which may be inappropriate (some are not inappropriate) or I can go through them myself when I get back next week. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Aravind R Menon
States they work for the organization they write about. Is copying in material from their webpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted one of their edits and left a note on their talk page.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Article has had some pretty serious copyvio. I cleaned it up some but more may be lurking. Brianhe (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that there's no-to-very-slight COI, and that the copyviolations is the main issue. Aravind R Menon had permission to use the copyrighted material, hence the wording ("Authorized", etc.). I left a message in a response to a helpme template. -- I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They would need to verification that there was release under a CC BY SA license through OTRS or get them to change there webpage to state it is under a CC BY SA license. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen
There's currently a bit of a... brawl going on at Talk:Richard J. Jensen, where the subject of the article is engaged in a rather lengthy argument over neutrality and notability tags, but my main concern is the fact that Mr. Jensen has been actively engaging in an edit war to remove the tags, and has been showing bad faith by accusing other editors of making up rules and making personal attacks. All of this has culminated in him actually starting a discussion about the situation on the BLP noticeboard.

I'm not explicitly asking for administrator action, but a few eyes on this would be appreciated and it would do a lot to diffuse the situation if an uninvolved admin were to step in and break it up, so to speak.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's currently an open noticeboard discussion about this at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Unless the BLP aspect and the COI aspect need different treatment, I'd recommend to keep the discussion there for the time being. As identification of the Wikipedia editor and the subject of the BLP article are self-disclosed by the subject, the COI is also maybe the less poignant point here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, COIN is for discussion about potential COI's and how to deal with them. There is no real discussion about the COI of the subject of a BLP article other than 'you have one, dont edit the article directly'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See User:Rjensen's response below. The subject is blatantly pushing themselves.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule that I have been following is explicit: Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.  wp:blpedit I have discovered that some editors refuse to accept this explicit rule.  Furthermore the rule states emphatically The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.  Editors who do not abide these rules are troublemakers. Rjensen (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a content/notability dispute. Best to keep the discussion on the talk page itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is an acute issue right now which is being discussed at ANI and BLPN and at the article talk page. There is a longer term issue of rjensen's conflicted editing.
 * To deal with the acute disruption, at ANI I have called for a block of Wikieditor101 per BLPCOI and on their talk page I have advised WIkieditor to step away from the biography article, and said that could probably save them a block. At Rjensen' talk page I have asked him to step away from the article for now, including its talk page, so the community can deal with the acute issues. If Rjensen persists in being involved and edit warring that should be handled via EWN, and a block will be a no brainer.  I hope Rjensen takes the wiser path here, and hope that Wikieditor does too.
 * To deal with the longer term COI issues, I have asked Rjensen at their talk page if they would discuss that with me, after this acute issue has been dealt with. There is no hurry to deal with that and things are just too hot right now content-wise and that doesn't facilitate careful discussion.
 * Thanks for posting this here Francis IP editor . Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)_
 * Who is Francis?
 * Anyway, I posted this here mainly to get more level heads into the situation and also to make a record of it should the COI part get out of hand more out of hand than it already is142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assented to Jytdog's suggestion and will discuss coi with him later. Let me add here that I see a deep conflict between the coi guidelines  and the rules imposed for BLP by the Wikimendia Foundation. Rjensen (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjensen. Sorry IP, redacted above. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal

 * - deleted at AfD
 * - deleted at AfD

There is probably some kind of COI editing (and sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) going on with the intention to promote Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific / Rohit Sahgal. Today I found a redirect (titled "Rohit Sahgal") and tagged it for Speedy Deletion as it seemed an unlikely typo for "Sehgal". This was originally created by. My speedy tag was removed by   with the edit summary  (This is a useful redirect. ) . A couple of minutes later, the IP added this. I noticed that both the user accounts were previously heavily involved in discussions at an AfD about the company. I am reasonably certain that COI editing (along with sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry) is taking place. Can someone else have a look and confirm? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI. I don't think you were here when Ogilvy came up last time: Archive 89 and before that, Archive 87. – Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the pointer . This is weird. Why are there two different groups both trying to edit the Ogilvy article? One from Washington DC and another from Singapore? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they (Ogilvy) have a Singapore office and a DC office. When this came up before it appeared that someone in Singa was acting kind of on their own, at least that was my conclusion and what an Ogilvy rep stated (see archive 87). Brianhe (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * seems to be a sockpuppet of and . It is interesting that the IP geolocates to Singapore and specifically to United World College of South East Asia. More interesting is that both users have edited United World College of South East Asia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The users were confirmed sockpuppets. Have been blocked now. See Sockpuppet investigations/Hendrick 99/Archive --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Bet-David
This promotional article was created by a CMO working for Bet-David (as acknowledged here by another Bet-David publicist), and was moved to mainspace by the somewhat notorious in July 2013. That was just a month before Arctic Kangaroo was indefblocked (now back with a new name, older and wiser, I don't want to ping him here). I would suppose this article is some of the fallout of Arctic Kangaroo's career at Articles for creation; it should certainly never have been moved to mainspace in that condition. I've been talking with new user AGVT, the more recent publicist I mentioned, who had a rocky start, trying to remove criticism and add praise at the article. Of course it's very common that new users, especially those in the business of marketing, misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia in this way; what's unusual about AGVT is that he caught on very quickly when I warned him, is apologetic, and is perfectly frank about his COI, as seen here. It's really nice to see somebody in the business act like that — somewhat restores my faith in humanity. But what can be done about the article? The section "Career" obviously needs to have it's flowers of rhetoric shorn — I can easily do that — but is Patrick Bet-David notable at all? The numerous references are very weak, imo, they mostly merely show that he has active and competent marketing staff, not so much that any real third-party source has mentioned him in a way that supports notability. AGVT has suggested perhaps he could write an article about PBD's organisation "People Helping People", otherwise "PHP Agency", instead — but is that notable? There are a lot of complaints on the web about a pyramid scam, for instance here, and very little else. (Of course there are other organisations with the same catchy name — we do have a People Helping People article, which is about a radio program.) The article is quite short at the moment, and the discussion on AGVT's page too, so might some of you experienced people have time to take a look? I'd really like some advice. Should it go to AfD? Bishonen &#124; talk 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for posting here, Bish. yes it is so refreshing when paid/conflicted editors "get it".  I'l have a look at the article and I am sure that others here will too.  Will also stop in at the conflicted editors talk page. Thanks again Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have gone through the article and cleaned it up. I think it is ~marginally~ notable but others here may differ and may want to AfD it, to test that. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think you are right that he is barely notable. I was about to add a ref from Fortune, but then I noticed he is the author. How do you get your own article published in Fortune, but with a third-party sounding title?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I came across that ref too. This guy is ~kind of~ like The Syndicate (business group) people.  Lots of in-bubble hype. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Eric Womack


Unreferenced autobiography, maybe? Brianhe (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I put a PROD on the article, as it is an autobiography with no good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Deprodded by an anon IP editor. I did some article cleanup. Brianhe (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did a little cleaning and tagged it for notability and BLPsources. My take is that the notability is pretty weak-- I could not find any published articles. On the other hand he was in an actual film that played at Cannes. It seems like Emack has not edited for a few days. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ansif Ashraf
Seems to be a walled garden of non-notable/barely notable stuff around Ansif Ashraf. Here claims to be Ashraf himself. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - sent to AfD
 * - sent to AfD
 * - sent to AfD
 * Sent one of the articles Kerala State Business Excellence Awards, to AfD. It is interesting that this advertorial was being used as a reference. Wonder why the Wikipedia page in mentioned in the advertorial itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've chimed in at the AfD. We have too much patience imo with "editors" who do nothing on Wikipedia except promote themselves, their associates, and their business. Agi wiki systematically removes speedy deletion templates and other deletion and maintenance templates and has ignored all warnings, with the exception of one rather threatening reply here (so he does know he has a talkpage). Next time he removes a deletion template, I'll indef per WP:NOTHERE. Thanks for taking it here, Randykitty. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC).

Draft:Jusjoose


Notified of COI, autobiog and username policies on Feb. 27, 2016. Has continued editing draft. Re-notified May 17. Would someone else like to try to get this person's attention? Thanks, LaMona (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I should mention that I have ~100 COI notifications that I have done through my AfC work; the majority of them cease editing, which tells me that they didn't know that WP was not a "create your own page" service. (My guess: rarely are we missing important contributions when this happens.) A few own up and agree to comply. Some have misunderstood what a username is. Very few continue to edit, ignoring the warnings. I'll try to do a recap of my extensive list, because I think it is informative. LaMona (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just left a note here. Let's see if they reply. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No response so far, but person has also not made edits. Are there other steps we should take? Or let this one expire? LaMona (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

H S Ranka


User with same name as article inserting autobiographical material as here. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be Mr. Ranka, but rather someone with a bone to pick with him. Note the content is the same as that of the edit that IP user and Ashokmalik123 made here. indef blocked Ashokmalik123 yesterday for being WP:NOTHERE; HARI SINGH RANKA is an apparent sock of Ashokmalik123 by duck test. MisterRandomized (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by CU. MisterR, I tweaked your capitals. The real question is how did they get to edit through protection? Drmies (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By being autoconfirmed, Drmies. Check out their deleted contribs. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Aha--thanks. I hadn't checked those. So a bit of messing around on a user page gets you in. Maybe we should petition ArbCom for 30/500 or 50/300 or whatever. :) Drmies (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, four days and ten edits of whatever nature gets you in. When I had my very own vandal, she used to create sleepers, leave them for four days, and then post on her own page and revert herself nine times, all in the space of two-three minutes. Then tra-la! she was able to edit my semiprotected userpage. Very dedicated. Eventually I full-protected my page in the hope that she'd start working to become an admin. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC).