Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59

Satellite Spies
Uninvolved eyes would be welcome at this band article, which has been the subject of extended edit warring by parties involved in a real-life dispute. The article was protected for a week, but involved editing started again, so I have re-protected for two weeks. I also archived the talk page, which had become a TL;DR mess of accusations and counter-accusations.

So far as I can make the story out, a band called Satellite Spies was formed in 1984 by Deane Sutherland, Mark Loveys and others. In 1987 they split up, and each of them considers that the other left the band, so that he retains the rights to the name, and at times there have been two bands claiming to be Satellite Spies. Twenty-five years later this disagreement is still being fought about all over the internet, and for the last few years WP has been part of the battlefield.

Notability seems to be marginal: the only definite fact meeting WP:BAND is that a single called It must be Love was in the NZ top 40 charts for some weeks in 1999. This seems to have been from the Sutherland "branch" of the band. From the pre-split band a single called Destiny in Motion is claimed (unsourced) to have been "a hit" and "very successful".

I am tempted to suggest that with marginal notability and no prospect of consensus from the feuding parties this article is more trouble than it is worth and we should delete it, but maybe we should try to save a stub based on what few RS there are: it would say only that the band was formed, had some success, the principals split up and both considered that they owned the name, the Sutherland band had a hit single in 1999 and (so far as I can tell) both branches are now defunct. It might very well need long-term protection.

If anyone has time to spare to see what can be saved from this mess, see the article history and the interminable rants at Talk:Satellite Spies/Archive 1. JohnCD (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I came across six fairly solid sources in the New Zealand media (see talk page). Perhaps a revamp, based on the sources only, would work, keeping the discography? Let me know if I can revamp it or whether it is still blocked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you try a revamp in a sandbox? One of the warring parties has apologised on my talk page, but I don't want to unprotect yet. There's not a lot in those sources, which are mostly about their later careers. all they really confirm is that Sutherland and Loveys were in the band in the 80s and had a song called Destiny in Motion. The other well-document fact is It Must be Love which was actually in the NZ charts in 1999. I think it's going to be a very short article. JohnCD (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Hay (publicist)


Concerns have been raised at Talk:Jonathan_Hay_(publicist) concerning this editors spammy edits (I'm paraphrasing) to seemingly promote Jonathan Hay. The editor has been dismissive of such concerns, to date. In reviewing his edit and article creation history, I've found that every article he's created or edited has been linked in some way to this one Jonathan Hay or his company Hoopla. Something is going on here, I believe.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In fairness to causeandeffect and everyone, "''every article" has not been associated with Hay. This was a big overstatement. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created 3 pages on Wikipedia (Audio Stepchild, Sabrina (Pop Singer), Hoopla Worldwide) and yes all are related to eachother and very notable (with major releases) and have been up for a year without any incident. Nothing is wrong with that. Shawn in Montreal is assuming something and saying "something is going on here, I believe" which is reckless. Nothing is wrong with the 3 pages I've created and yes they are related to Jonathan Hay, but nothing is wrong with that and they are all notable.  I've made hundereds of edits on Wikipedia and made donations to the site because I love working on the pages as a hobby. I've never had one incident with Wikipedia until this guy.  I've asked him several times to just let me build the page before commenting on it.  He's been extremely difficult and borderline harassing.Causeandedit (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I should add that this editor has already stated here that he knows Hay personally, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong in knowing Jonathan Hay. He is a well known publicist and I'm very passionate about one of his groups "Audio Stepchild".  No conflict there.  And like I've said I created the Audio Stepchild page, the Sabrina (Pop Singer) page and Hoopla Worldpage and they are all professionally connecting to eachother.  If you look back at how this all came about, someone else created a "Jonathan Hay Publicity" wikipedia page that was incorrect and I didn't think it met wiki standards, so I created a "Jonathan Hay (Publicist)" page that did.  The whole time I've been creating this article, Shawn in Montreal has continued to harass me even though I've asked him to just let me finish editing the page.  Everything he's pointed out during the creation, he's been proven wrong.  It seems to me like he has a personal problem with the subject.Causeandedit (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to fix these spacing issues, so I apologize in advance. "Shawn in Montreal" has most of his edits having to do with "Canada" so does that make something wrong with what he does?Causeandedit (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you may be quite right. I still have a big problem with a lot of your edits on Jonathan Hay and the way notability is being asserted, but in going over your edit history back to 2011 more carefully, I can't prove anything more than an interest in Hay, which is quite fine. We all have our areas. I'm leaning towards withdrawing this, with my apologies, but I'd like to wait for one outside comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Big problem with many of the Hay-articles is references -- dubious ones (websites). I did come across an acceptable one; but people should not have to hunt for acceptable references. My advice is for contributors to read reliable sources and only include information which is sourced. The articles are much too long. Trim them substantially and they'll have a better chance of withstanding critical onslaught.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but as I just stated on the article talk page, spam≠coi. This noticeboard should only be used to discuss my COI accusation -- which I'd like to withdraw -- and not matters such as referencing or article length. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

that sounds very reasonable of you - if nobody objects in the next little while then I think we can probably mark this as resolved. Fayedizard (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With all this said, is this issue now resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Causeandedit  (talk • contribs)   14:23, 14 August 2012

Fulanito


I need additional eyes on this. Looking at the usernames involved, this isn't just an edit war from independent parties: the editors hold themselves out as parties affiliated with the subject. It looks like there's some disagreement about the status of the band, and two factions—Verdugo27 on one side, Fulanitoreal and 740boyz on the other—are disputing about something. The edits are some hard to follow, I can't quite tell exactly what about the formation of the band is at dispute. However, this edit war isn't helping the situation any.

I also need assistance here because I've blocked Fulanitoreal in the past for edit warring at this article, and I've given 740boyz repeated warnings for talk page vandalism for deleting comments left by Verdugo27. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked Fulanitoreal indef since he got caught in 740boyz' autoblock. Too sleepy to look deeper into it/reblock 740boyz/whatever, would appreciate more eyeballs to this matter. Max Semenik (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Urantia Book


The book is a religious text, which believers think was written by angels in Chicago, Illinois in the 1930s as a revelation, the last "epochal" revelation having been Jesus' life.

Sooooo... not entirely surprisingly, with there being adherents for it, the article over time attracts its fair share of editors who come by with a (sometimes strongly) religious POV, typically also with little experience in editing, and since it's not an especially well known topic, the article has a tendency to drift toward WP:PROMOTION. Critical and skeptical POVs are very regularly cut back or eliminated. It hasn't been especially a big deal, discussion about wikipedia policies takes place on the talk page, it gets worked out.

I'd just go to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard about the more recent changes (past few months) that have been pushed, but in this case unlike earlier ones, the editor, Jaworski, has an apparent almost 15 year association with the publisher of the book, Urantia Foundation, working for them and promoting their book, according to readily available articles on the publisher's website praising his activities. His only wikipedia activity is as a WP:SPA regarding this book's article. I don't know if he has a financial interest, but the "close relationship" criteria seems to me like it's being met, both toward the book and the book's publisher. Less firm (but I can't help but notice): The publisher apparently setup an account User:UrantiaFoundation, which was indef blocked after a few edits, and in a later newsletter in early 2011, they wrote to their believers "There are other sites important to the study of The Urantia Book including Wikipedia. A team is being formed to review this site and improve its quality, not only in English, but also in other languages." Presumably they learned from the indef block, and the publisher and their "team" know not to edit using a WP:GROUPNAME again. This happens to also be right about the time Jaworski resumed activity. (In all the nearly 5 years prior, his only account activity was to insert an external link in the article pointing to his website a couple times.)

I've known about the apparent conflict of interest of the editor's close relationship to the book and its publisher for a while and have spent a lot of time on the talk page going over wikipedia basics. The reason I bring it up now on COIN (which I was hoping to avoid and be a last resort) is because in recent interactions, I've even set aside neutrality and WP:UNDUE issues that have been introduced to the article, just to focus on the simple fundamental of reliable sourcing being needed, and the response has gone into WP:TENDENTIOUS territory in my view with even this not being accepted. (Of note, this has even been at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard already, see here. Hats off to him for taking that step. But not liking their understandable assessments, the response from Jaworski was four attempts to delete the topic and the responses: here, here, here, and here.) I'd appreciate input, advice, recommendations. Thanks. I've notified Jaworski of this discussion as well. Wazronk (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The earliest references I found on The Urantia Book was from 1986, not the 1930s, and that reference indicates that the book was the outcome of a 1934 study group that discussed religion and philosophy whose writings (I'm assuming) were published in the URANTIA Book in the 1950s. After that, there's a 1989 aticle that says "One can read truly glowing passages of God's love for each of us (he is no respecter of persons), check out The Urantia Book at the library." and a 1990 article that reads "Anyone who fears total annihilation of life on Earth will be comforted by the certainty of man's physical survival, as stated in The Urantia Book, page 582." There's a 1992 article that notes how the book On the Wild Side devotes two chapers to debunking Urantia: "Two of the most fascinating chapters in this book deal with the bizarre Urantia ("I AM") cult, headquartered here in Chicago. At 4.3 pounds and 2,097 pages, The Urantia Book is a kind of Book of Mormon written by superhumans and channeled to disenchanted latter-day Adventists. It "supposedly contains the earth's fifth revelation from God. . . . it may be the largest, most fantastic chunk of channeled moonshine ever to be bound in one volume." " There was a 1992 play that dealt with the topic. The Urantia Book topic didn't really catch on until 1997. In particular, it was the June 12, 1997 federal appeals court ruling giving copyright protection to celestial beings (as the media spun it) in the Urantia Book that brought the book to national attention,After that, there's plenty of info. That June 12, 1997 court ruling is a very significant reliable source event in the books' history, but isn't even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on the book. (i) First, we need to establish that Jaworski has a COI with the topic. Then, (ii) we can figure out whether Jaworski is editing in a way that does not comply with Conflict of interest and, if so, (iii) what to do about it. As the first step, please post diffs that establish that Jaworski has an association with Urantia Foundation, the publisher of The Urantia Book. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed research and reply. The editor Jaworski initially registered in Feb 2006 and proceeded to have only one edit on wikipedia, the addition of the URL http://members.optusnet.com.au/ ~pjaworski/ to The Urantia Book article in its external links section. Diff. The link was later removed by someone else. In 2008, Jaworski returned, and again had only the one same edit to wikipedia, the addition of the same link. Diff.


 * The connection I've known regarding a person "Jaworski" with a website " http://members.optusnet.com.au/ ~pjaworski/" being in association with the Urantia Foundation is a detailed article published by the Urantia Foundation on their website, about a husband and wife team the "Jaworskis" (I won't say the first names, the husband's first name begins with "P" though), who in the article are identified as the creators and operators of the website " http://members.optusnet.com.au/ ~pjaworski/". The article is about a very large decade-long piece of work they did for the publisher, Urantia Foundation, and about the Jaworskis association with the foundation since 1998, praising them for their work. I haven't encountered an WP:COI issue before or posted to COIN, and I'm mindful about respecting the privacy of the editor(s), I don't know about it being appropriate to provide the link so I won't, but this isn't a hidden article, and the name of the user is what it is (I came across the article actually while researching about the translations the publisher has). Can summarize at least that everything is consistent between Jaworski the wikipedia editor and Jaworski the husband-wife team who has worked with Urantia Foundation since 1998: the name, the website, the same opinions in the article vs on the Urantia talk page, the mannerisms of speech as non-native English speakers.


 * I'm also aware that as of November 2010 the president of the Urantia Foundation, Mo Siegel, was evidently personally upset about the wikipedia article, see second comment here. (Their assessment from this: "Someone who is not a believer in the revelation has rewritten what was once an informative article. The Urantia Wikipedia article should be under the watchcare of the Fellowship and the Foundation and they've not been minding the store." Yikes!) Starting in December 2010 then, just one month later, lo and behold an editor with the same name as a person with a long-term association with the foundation begins making edits to remove criticisms, and in early 2011 and onward goes on to add original research, emphasizing "prophetic science" in the book. At just this same time in March 2011 the publisher Urantia Foundation is acknowledging a "team" being formed to "improve" the article (newsletter I linked to in my first post above).


 * Whether "Jaworski" is editing on behalf of the organization or for a "team" put together by UF is more circumstantial to say, and I'm just mentioning it since I've noticed these pieces of information and it's added to my wariness. On the basics of a "close relationship" WP:COI between the editor and the book and its publisher, that's what is more clearly and solidly evident to me. Wazronk (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about the gaps in the article. One aspect of the Urantia book that is discussed in some of the sources used but not in the article is channeling. Another is possible Seventh Day Adventist influence, and a third is a splinter group called The Teaching Mission composed of believers who think they are in touch with "unseen friends". This is probably because Urantia supporters don't want to add it, and most editors don't know much about Urantia. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The work I did for the Urantia Foundation was the translation of The Urantia Book into Polish. The Polish translation was published in 2009. I am not a member of their board, permanent or voluntary staff, nor am I a member of any of their committee or special task groups. I don’t even live in USA where they have their office. Editing the TUB article is my own initiative. I began editing the Wikipedia article about The Urantia Book about a year ago when I found that it was based mostly on one biased source. As a beginner to Wikipedia I made many mistakes (original research, asking wrong formulated question, later deleting it, inserting links to my own webpage). As translator I have very good knowledge of the text of this book and also many issues and sources related to it. My main goal is to achieve the NPOV not to promote this book or any of its ideas. A few years ago Wazronk main activity on Wikipedia was The Urantia Book and related articles WP:SPA. . After some time he began the editing of other non TUB related articles and this is also my intention. Wazronk was and still is the most active editor of the TUB article.  Maybe some discussion from the year 2008 will shed new light on this issue. True about the true believers, and thankfully I was here to prevent them from repeatedly stripping out criticisms and constantly inserting their non-NPOV language. Wazronk (talk) 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC) The issue is that single purpose accounts such as your own should not be dictating Wikipedia content. You do not own the content nor the article and need to work with others. The first order of business is improving this article. After it is clear that this article needs to be content forked, we'll do so. Not before. The previous archived discussions did not address this fundamental point. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I am not dictating the content. I am a person who happens to have read a large number of the secondary sources and the book itself and edit according to those sources. I do not in any way own the content, I make it match the sources and I back up my edits with citations. Wazronk (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In the year 2005 Wazronk apparently created The Urantia Papers article (TUP) which now redirects to the TUB article. He is very personally involved in this subject for a reason unknown to me. On the support of his editing he always quotes many Wikipedia rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:RS when in fact he actively prevents the inclusion into this article any POV representing adherents beliefs by deleting all such entries as not based on reliable sources as in his edit from the 21st of July 2012, contrary to Wikipedia rule: "Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. WP:RSEX" I present followers beliefs without removing the critical section from this article which was created by Wazronk and is rather extended. I think that at the moment this article basically presents NPOV and all it needs is maybe some stylistic corrections. I have read the extensive talk archives of the TUB article and my impression is that Wazronk tried to prevent the inclusion into this article of anything which presents this book in a positive light. Wazronk edits are based mainly on Martin Gardner book Urantia – The Great Cult Mystery in which I found many inaccuracies in the description of the statements of TUB and also misquotations. In another words Gardner writes that TUB states something, when in fact the exact statement doesn’t exists in the text of this book. Gardner research is rather poor which confirms Sarah Lewis of the Univ. of Wales School of Theology, Religious Studies, who also conducted research in these matters: “Martin Gardner is one of the few people outside the Urantia Foundation who has undertaken research into the movement. His research is worth noting, although his position as a great skeptic does not allow his conclusions much academic credibility”. Sandra Collins, SLIS, Univ. of Pittsburg, wrote about Gardner book in Library Journal April 15, 1995: "Given the lack of scholary distance from the subject, the patronizing tone and the gross editorializing, it would be difficult to recommend this book to any library". I regard Martin Gardner book as a reliable source however every one of Martin’s sentences has to be checked for accuracy. When I found, that Martin Gardner book is the source most extensively used in TUB article I began my editing to achieve NPOV. When editing this I didn’t delete anything without comments as Wazronk often does. I believe more light on the problem of this article editing will bring a talk section of the TUB particularly the latest entries.  I am ready to answer any additional questions. Jaworski (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarah Lewis is a reliable source (which is why I added the article to the UFO religions category. I don't know who Sandra Collins is or why we should be using her to criticise Gardner's book. The article still lacks the sections I mention above on channeling, possible Seventh Day Adventist influence, and the Teaching Mission to reach NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of COIN is to establish if there is a conflict of interest. As Jaworski has said above, he's worked for the publisher Urantia Foundation and has a close relationship to the book, having translated its 2,097 pages into another language. (According to the publisher's article, after this large task he then assigned the copyright to the publisher.)


 * All the other side topics really are for other venues like the article talk page and conflict resolution channels. I've already gone the route of the talk page personally, and would have next gone on to conflict resolution or WP:FRINGE noticeboard, but I've found that the COI is clearly making for edits not with the intent of an encyclopedia article but for promotion/advocacy, and for interpreting other editors' actions with a degree of paranoia about them being for or against believers, when they are just basic edits to add to the article based on reliable sources and delete from the article what isn't. There hasn't seemed like much point in going forward with other options prior to the issue of COI being addressed. Wazronk (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think that offending other editors and people religious beliefs by calling them paranoia is the best way to resolve a dispute. I hope Wazronk will soon provide definite evidence for this diagnosis.

Recently I spent some time reading various religious articles on Wikipedia; what kind of reliable sources are they using. I have a question to Wikipedia administrators: are the quoted below rules and opinions apply to the The Urantia Book article too?

"Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view. WP:RSEX" "“For some religions there is a wealth of academic sources, arising from a long history of theological study. If there is only a website, then that is what should be used.”" "“So much depends on exactly what the source is being used to support. For a statement as to the religious beliefs of the authors, the source is reliable. It might be reliable for a statement as to the beliefs of a specific group of people. It would not be reliable for a statement as to scientific fact, or to 'counter' a statement of scientific fact.”"

Jaworski (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want a way out of these constant challenges to the article content, I suggest limiting The Urantia Book article to books, magazine articles, and newspapers - print media - that is not connected to The Urantia Book. Electronic media such as websites can be easily changed and using sources that are not independent of The Urantia Book subject will never reach a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature that is reflective of what others not connected with The Urantia Book say about the book. If you use websites and sources connected to the topic, other editors will constantly challenge the article content and assert bias. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines that can be Wikilawyered into supporting what evey you want to assert. So you can either spend your time using websites and sources conneted with the topic and fend off bias and other challenges via Wikilawyering or spend your time using books, magazine articles, and newspapers - print media - that is not connected to The Urantia Book (of which there is plenty) to write a The Urantia Book Wikipedia article that meets Core content policies. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The sourcing of edits should only be according to print media and core content policies. As essays like WP:RSEX say at top: "Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies."


 * For claims, opinions, speculations of WP:FRINGE groups this is especially important, and when the claims (with a heavy leaning toward promotion/advocacy and WP:REDFLAG) are being added into the article by editor(s) with a long-term close relationship to those same groups and no other activity on wikipedia, pretty much essential. Wazronk (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Websites of religious organizations are widely used in Wikipedia religious articles as the sources of people religious beliefs. I have checked many of such articles. I don't understand why The Urantia Book article should be an exception. Every day more information is published on electronic media.

Wikilawyering Please see Wazronk comments above, how he has changed the personal advice into a rule for this article. Jaworski (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Caiden Cowger
User: Caidencowgerprogram has been extensively editing the article on Caiden Cowger, inserting promotional links and adding a very favorable POV to the article. Seems like a COI, and because of the username I hear very loud quacking.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this might be a duck... Zaldax (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sidestepping the questions relating to usernames, may I point out firstly that I deleted the article as speedy A7, and secondly, that category, in my opinion, would apply equally both to the version created by LonelyBoy2012 and that by Caidencowgerprogram. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 12:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Rrashmissingh, User:Love's Journey


In the process of going through the AfC board, I discovered a series of articles by the two users, all of which surround the author Singh Rashmi. I ended up declining all of them because they suffered from multiple issues, ranging from promotional phrasing, lack of reliable sources, editing errors, among others. There was also a case of conflict of interest going on here, as it's very clear that the user is the author, as is stated on her user profile.

My reason for bringing this here is because the user is only here to promote herself and her books, none of which have any notability. She's also taken it upon herself to add herself to Notre Dame Academy, Patna as a "notable alumni" and to add her book to the bottom of the page. Considering that her user page has nothing but links to places you can purchase her book only further drives in this point. I chose to bring this here rather than the admin board because so far she's limited herself to the AfC pages. Where this becomes a big issue is that this is blatant self-promotion and advertising, plus when you figure that the AfC pages are almost always backlogged, it's a waste of editor time to review her pages when there's just no sources on her article to show notability and a search doesn't bring up enough sources that are both reliable and independent of the author to show otherwise. I've left her some warnings and some notes on her pages, which the editor has ignored. None of the issues with the articles have been fixed and like I said, I just view it a waste of time to have editor after editor constantly refuse the articles for the same reasons. Rather than constantly do this (I try to avoid reviewing the same articles for AfC twice so they get a fresh pair of eyes the second go round), I'm bringing it up here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are other articles submitted, but it essentially boils down to these two articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks to be a case of sockpuppetry as well; a review of the contributions show near-identical editing habits, all concerning this author. Furthermore, since this COI notice was posted, the user in question has continued her editing habits, including the aforementioned addition of herself and her books to the Notre Dame Academy, Patna article.

This account appears also to be the subject in question: Probably editing while logged out, given the editing pattern.

Notwithstanding the COI, there's also a clear case for Sockpuppetry as well. I'd take it there, but I don't want to waste SPI's time before this is resolved. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Datt

 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Julia Datt

A persistent attempt at apparent self-publicity. Her talk page testifies to numerous attempts at edification including one COI notice. Perhaps a bigger clue-bat needs to be applied; at any rate people at AFC are understandably running out of patience. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quack! I think some sort of action definitely needs to be taken. This looks pretty open-and-shut to me. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams


For over six years the Stephanie Adams article, has been abused by prolific sockpuppet User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day, whom despite being banned continues to try and WP:OWN the article. Usually this was attempted by ip and newly created SPA accounts. Over the past month the sockpuppet switched tactics and started using proxies, but those efforts were easily quashed by the SPI team.

However, recently the above named editors, all of whom have established accounts, have joined the article and talk page parroting positions of those taken by the sock. For an article that rarely sees new editors to get four of them in such a short period raises concerns that the sockpuppet has switched tactics again and has started to WP:CANVASS. A few brief searches yielded the following possible canvass attempts:


 * This screenshot from an elance ad
 * And this project description from a job posting on freelancer (saved via WebCite).

From the freelancer site a message from the client "Archangelseven" reads ''The prior assistant was fired and we are now handling this project so we apologize for the delay. We would like to offer you more than the $20 you were due. We only ask that you make one or two comments, if needed, in the talkpage the next coming days. It might not be necessary, but if you can add in the talk page that you feel your edit and addition about the NJ guardianship should remain, that would suffice. Consensus thus far is that it be added, as long as you include that you agree. For the additional[sic] $10, that is all we need. Thank you for your professionalism and we hope to keep you on board for future projects.'' Fbell74 is being solicited not just to edit, but being paid to offer opinion.

User:Bilby confirms that users User:Editorkabaap & User:عباد ديرانية have also been solicited to edit and post comments, though he is unable to provide evidence on-wiki due to privacy concerns.

User:Pkeets has so far not been definitively connected to any canvassing, but the timing the type of edits by this user are too circumstantial, and WP:DUCK applies. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Users have been notified. Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fasttimes68, please advise whether you yourself have been involved in any off-wiki disputes with or concerning the subject of this article. If you would prefer not to answer here for privacy or other reasons, please submit your response via e-mail to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Admin ErrantX made the following request at the Stephanie Adams AfD started by Fasttimes68 a few days ago "Afd is another step in an harassment campaign against the subject. Unfortunately I am away from my computer for th week; but if someone could block fasttimes under BLP sanctions that would be great. If you do block please inform ARBCOM as they are looking into the matter more widely". I assume that ErrantX thought that someone would follow through on that block request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I dispute ErrantX's contention that the AfD was made in bad faith. I explained my concerns of notability on the talk page earlier.  And some editors seem to agree.  You and Errant recreating the article overrode the standing consensus.  Your objection is not that the AfD was raised, but it was raised by me. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely not involved with the subject. I've never had any off-wiki disputes. There have been many unsubstantiated accusations in the past that I "ran an attack site", which I explained at least once (I don't have the diff handy, sorry). I will elaborate on that here. I used a blog entry to copy verbatim the text from a few blogs which had discussed the subject. Why did I do this? Because a) that information was not considered to a RS to be used on wikipedia and b) one of those sites was constantly going up/down and one month would be available and another not. Why didn't I use another tool to store this information, like the sandbox? I didn't care for wikipedia editing tools (like the sandbox) at the time. Someone commented why I didn't just store it on a hard drive. In retropsect I probably should have done that, but I was "in the cloud" at that moment and storing things online. And the final question of why I wanted to save any these blogs, is I wanted to see if some of the information could be corroborated by an RS. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add something, I came to find the Stephanie Adams AfD after noticing a suspicious editing action by PKeets. They created the User page for Fbell74 on 5 August (Fbell74 had been on my 'watch list' because I had declined an article of theirs at AfC). I don't understand why an editor would create the user page for a new user, other than maybe (by removing the redlink) to make a contributer look more established than they actually were. Fbell74 had contributed to a consensus discussion about Adams the day beforehand and also returned a couple of hours later to enter the AfD discussion. Make of that what you will, there may be an innocent explanation! Sionk (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sionk - Just to clarify, my userpage is my own and was not created by anyone else. Re the other article you mentioned, obviously I would have liked this to be published (or I wouldn't have written it), but I accept your reasoning in deeming it not acceptable.Fbell74 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe you can explain this. Are you declaring you are PKeets? Sionk (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it Fbell. You have to save the user page separate from the talk page. If you want, you can now add content to it like pictures, a bio, etc. However, I don't know why it's considered a "suspicious" edit. The red link was just annoying me. Pkeets (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I don't know who Pkeets is, but they have edited my User page. I'm not sure why they have done this, although they said it was for the reason above. I've never edited my own User page. Probably because, as I'm not an editor I figured no-one would be likely to visit it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbell74 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fasttimes68, a one point you had a post on your blog entitled "Stephanie Adams is a twat". Is your claim now that you did not write the material in that post? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It has always been my claim that I never wrote anything, but it was a cut and paste job. And as far as I can remember the blogging site took the title from the first sentance.  It was several years ago, so I don't remember the particulars.  Perhaps if you had asked politely instead of taking the accusations of others as fact and then making them your own I would have explained this in detail.  But being agreeable is clearly not your style.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just leave this ANI link here so that people can see what you actually said in the past. I cannot recall you ever saying that you did not write that blog post, but feel free to prove me wrong by posting links to where you said that. Would it help if you had a copy of the blog post in question to refresh your memory? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have ended your first sentance after the word "leave". You seem to know how to use the search functions here better than I do, don't let me keep you from it.Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(To Fasttimes68) Based on the entire history here, I think it would be highly desirable for you to disengage from further editing concerning this particular individual. Whatever the background might be, there is a reasonable perception that you are actively hostile to this individual, such that issues concerning the content of her biography, and whether she is sufficiently notable to have a biography on Wikipedia, should be left to others. Please advise whether you are willing to step away voluntarily at this point or whether I shall have to pursue a more formal sanction. I repeat that you may contact the Arbitration Committee (of which I am a member) via e-mail if there are aspects of the subject you do not wish to explore on-wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not a problem with stepping away from the article and talk page. In the unlikely event that if I feel the absolute need to edit either, I'll notify you personally via email and discuss the matter first.  The puppetry cases are a different matter.  I can't control stalkers.  If you want to discuss those in further detail, you may email me from my user page.  Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * عباد ديرانية / aad_Dira has confirmed that they have been paid to edit . IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to bring it back to the initial concern for a bit, while I don't know anything about Fasttimes68 and the article, it is worth addressing that at least five editors in recent weeks, and possibly as many as seven, were hired to post comments and edit war on behalf of a third party, who is assumed to be a banned editor. In addition, at least two of those editors were also hired (as confirmed by عباد ديرانية and pointed to by IRWolfie) to organise to have Fasttimes68 banned. This isn't the usual concern of paid editors being asked to edit an article on behalf of a client, but something a lot more problematic. - Bilby (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please identify these users, blocked or not? Has Arbcom or CU been provided the evidence you cant provide on wiki? Fasttimes68 (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The five I can confirm are mostly the ones you know: عباد ديرانية (who has made a statement and apology), Fbell74, and Editorkabaap. The two blocked as socks were Glassoftamarindo and Numbgnome, although based on a later comment by Archangelseven on Freelancer I was led to belive that they were acting for the client. Of the other two, I have no particular knowledge about Pkeets, but the timing and one of the editor's comments raised concerns. I won't name the last editor here, because I have no evidence that he was paid directly, but I think that there are reasonable suspicions as the editor was one of the people who applied for the original job posted by Archangelseven, and subsequently posted in the AfD, but I wasn't aware of him being employed as such and he made no comments in the interveneing time.
 * I did write a piece for ArbCom, but I wasn't aware that this was being looked into by them, so I haven't sent it. Plus it is a bit tl;dr. :)
 * My major concern, other than that the contract was to post on behalf of someone I now assume to be a banned editor, was that the original job also asked them to organise for you to be banned. Fbell74 didn't apply under that contract, but عباد ديرانية and Editorkabaap did, as did the editor I'm not currently comfortable naming (as he wasn't given the job). عباد ديرانية has stated that he refused that part of the contract, but I think it was a serious concern that it was included. - Bilby (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, I've posted what I have to ArbCom. I've no idea if it is of any value. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

With regard to my contribution, I'm happy to confirm that a person hired me to write on the article. I don't know who the person was, because they used a handle (Archangelseven). However, this name doesn't appear in any of the discussions on this article. The section I wrote related to the New York guardianship case, which I submitted but this was deemed as not being acceptable. I felt that it was, for the reasons mentioned in my posted comments. I also came across mentions of Stephanie Adams in relation to LGBT and believed that these are worthy of inclusion in the piece, as I mentioned. The person who contacted me about working on the article asked me to mention Fasttimes68 as they felt s/he had a personal motivation against Stephanie Adams, which wasn't related to the merits of the Wikipedia piece. When they brought this up I looked into the history of the comments and contributions on the article and I felt this was fair comment. I didn't ask for the user to be banned because I don't think it's my place to do this. However, I stand by my opinion that it appears as if there is a personal motivation to the user's contributions. Fbell74 (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking in a little late on this - I've not been paid to edit the article. I followed a link from Joan Jett's talk page and thought it was in need of revision and improvement. There are enough other references available for decent expansion, and I was thinking of putting it in for a DYK nomination. However, I gather that a suitable revision won't be accomplished within five days. Right? Pkeets (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it may worthes noting that Archangelseven (The employer of all editors) have deleted his/her account on freelancer along with all related projects few days ago, for unclear reasons --aad_Dira (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

Morning everybody... so I'm pretty new to this board myself, but I'd like to ask some obvious questions, in a way that advances the plot discussion. So if editors are being paid to edit an article in a particular way that seems to me to be a strightforward and obvious COI - yes? So we'd normally do things like put an informational banner on the talk page, then have some uninvolved editors a) bring the target page within wikipedia's normal form and b) attempt to talk a COI editor into a direction where they were contributing as positively as possible to WP. That's roughly my understanding. I suspect, in this case, that the article is now on enough watchlists that a) is taken care of, and that the problem has gone far enough that b) is not really possible? (Normally with articles that are at AfD I understand that we would generally wait out the AfD first - mainly (I understand) for effeciency reasons - but in this case the AfD looks fairly likely to be keep' so that's not really a factor, right? )

So the questions I have remaining are these: Fayedizard (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bilby's point "In addition, at least two of those editors were also hired (as confirmed by عباد ديرانية and pointed to by IRWolfie) to organise to have Fasttimes68 banned. This isn't the usual concern of paid editors being asked to edit an article on behalf of a client, but something a lot more problematic" I think is important - should this instance of the problem be escalated to yet another suitable board for to see if blocks/ect are required?
 * Following on from the above - should the COI guidelines make it more clear that undeclared COIs can be as harmful outside of the article space?
 * If any blocks are necessary passing admins can decide. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As it was not reported here, it appears from his portfolio (available on Freelancer.com and on Rentacoder) that User:Fbell74 has created some articles, such as Newhall Publications and Besso Limited, using sockpuppets. Furthermore some of his paid articles, as the two mentioned above, appears to be lacking SIGCOV and having some serious notability concerns. His work needs to be closely watched. Cavarrone (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cavarrone - Just to clarify, I provided written content for the two articles you mentioned Newhall Publications and Besso Limited. However, the articles were submitted to Wikipedia by someone else. If you look at the history of the contributions on Besso you will see an edit that I did separately regarding source material. I'm happy to confirm that I don't have any other user accounts. Fbell74 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer but, with respect, I still have a lot of doubts. Your "official" contribution to the Besso article is absolutely minimal and you have NEVER edited the Newhall Publications article. In your portfolios instead you result as the creator of these articles. Coincidence, the official creators of these articles are SPA that "evaporated" just before you created this account. Cavarrone (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you raise a fair point. Based on the contributors listed on the article histories there isn't a lot to go on in terms of my contribution. This is a link to the original Besso assignment that the client placed (http://www.freelancer.com/projects/WIKI/Wikipedia-Page-Insurance-Business.html). It doesn't mention the company name but it's about the best I can do. I also still have the original article that I wrote on this, which I would be happy to forward. It's written without Wiki coding because I didn't know how to do this at the time. The Newhall piece was written in a similar way. Re my portfolios, I can see how this is misleading so I have amended the description on my website. In terms of other users, I can't speak about the creators of the article because I don't know who they are. I opened my own account after working on the Besso article for the purposes of working on Wikipedia articles. The ones that I worked on after this (either writing or editing) appear under my username.Fbell74 (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have had this article on my watchlist for some time now, originally because it was part of push by a few editors to redirect individual playmate articles to annual playmate list articles. In August 2011, per Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Adams_(2nd_nomination), the article was redirected.  But the history of odd edits both pro and anti the subject go back for years.  In April 2012, Delicious carbuncle strenuously worked to get the article recreated, I think any investigation should look into that.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Milowent, if you are implying that I was paid to recreate the article, let me again state that I was not. The article's recreation is discussed in some detail at Talk:Stephanie_Adams. If there are any questions, drop a note on my talk page, but otherwise I am stepping away from the article and related discussions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Never posted here before, but just thought I'd point out, with regards to canvassing, that there was a message posted about the Stephanie Adams deletion discussion here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Stephanie_Adams  Not sure if that's relevant. AgnosticAphid talk 18:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This type posting is recommended by Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution to notify other possibly interested parties. See WP:DR.Pkeets (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests to wikiprojects should be made in a neutral way. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments about the subject of an article should also be made in a neutral way. Pkeets (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigma Omega Phi


Looks like a conflict of interest between the user and Sigma Omega Phi sorority. (Note that the sorority was created in 1990).GrapedApe (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks fairly open and shut from COI point of view - given that the article is under AfD is it best to wait out the deletion discussion? Fayedizard (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to let any AfD continue as normal. bobrayner (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User name SOPHI1990 (SOPhi = Sigma Omega Phi; 1990 = year organized) might be just a WP:ORGNAME issue rather than a COI. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's almost certainly a COI issue. The name suggests some relationship with the organization. That said, it may also be a username issue. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I've !voted on the deletion discussion so I'm not going to do any more commenting on this thread, unless the article is deleted Fayedizard (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The AFD is now closed. Username issue raised at Usernames for administrator attention.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article has been deleted and the username passed to UAA, there is very little else we could achieve on this thread now. It's already been deleted twice via AfD and three times by speedy, so if problematic content came back in future it's likely to be speedy deleted (G4 or G11). If something else happens in future, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. Shall we close this thread? bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Grace Assembly of God
Article Editors

1. The first editor himself he is the "maintainer" of the article. 2. The second ip he is the "owner" of the Grace Assembly of God sites, church, domain, and that they reserve all the rights to publish information as they deem fit. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   12:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have reported the first username to WP:UAA.--ukexpat (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * GraceAG is now blocked per username policy. --Drm310 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As it turns out now, 2nd IP was telling me the truth, the IP is registered to Grace Assembly of God, does it matter? Mrt3366   (Talk?)   19:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They still have ownership issues and a COI.--ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Creators Syndicate authors


There have been insertions on a number of pages (e.g. on Linda Chavez) on biographies of columnists distributed by Creators Syndicate. These insertions are the only contributions by this editor, whose name suggests to me that they may be an employee of the syndicate. I was of mixed opinion about this and therefore did not revert, but a little checking shows that there seems to be widespread objection to these edits, and that the user in question is unresponsive to multiple messages on their talk page. I am raising the issue here for lack of a better forum as to the appropriateness of these edits. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My primary objections have been lack of sourcing and placement of information about the syndicator in the lead of bio articles. If this user is somehow affiliated with Creators Syndicate, he/she should suggest such edits on talk pages rather than placing them in articles because of obvious COI. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am associated with the company. We are trying to link each of our writers' and cartoonists' to our Wikipedia page and vice versa. Our Wikipedia page already states that all of these people are syndicated by us. I'm not adding any new information, just trying to link the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreate91 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is link spamming, pure and simple. Please stop it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Creators Syndicate is widely WP:GNG notable - there's hundreds of news article on the topic. You would be better off incorporating material from reliable sources into the Creators Syndicate's article than going around violating Wikipedia's policies and procedures to implement your own personal views of how Wikipedia articles should be written or what they should contain. I would be surprised to learn that Creators Syndicate approved your Wikipedia efforts. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The editor is adding cited material indicating that a syndicated columnist is, indeed, syndicated (by CS, one of the big syndicates). There really isn't any policy violation here.  It might produce less-than-stellar writing, but there's no serious violation, and the new editor is making an honest effort to help.  Syndication is a big deal.  It is, in some cases, the only reason these people became famous/notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place.  I wouldn't always place that information in the lead, but it is not an unreasonable starting point for a typical syndicated columnist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There may not be a policy violation in a technical sense, but your comment that it is cited material (your italics) is irrelevant. There's a lot more to making reasonable edits than providing a source. When a single purpose account who acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest adds numerous references to the organization that he represents, sometimes placing them inappropriately in the lead, that editor has stepped over the line and is linkspamming. There's a reason we have the information found at WP:COI. That editor should make requests on article talk pages rather than spamming articles. Cresix (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding accurate, relevant, and important information to the text of articles is not "linkspamming". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I second WhatamIdoing's opinion. The linkspamming policy, in it's very first line, says that the policy applies to "adding external links."  The user in question has not added external links.  They have added an internal wikilink to the syndicate's wikipedia page.  They have then referenced the data to an outside website which confirms the relationship.  While there is certainly issue to be taken with readability, this doesn't seem to meet the definition of linkspamming at all.  I've noticed that the Linda Chavez lede also mentions that she is not only an "analyst," but is specifically a "Fox News analyst."  Fox News is, of course, wikilinked.  Why should we mention specifically who employs her as an analyst, but not who specifically syndicates her? Sperril (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is officially linkspamming, it clearly is a conflict of interest. Let's try to remember that this is the "Conflict of interest noticeboard". That is the issue. Cresix (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The syndicate is not an employer; it's more of an agent, for however that may matter. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point here. I don't think you really believe that Creators has no employees. The syndicate is an agent for its writers. It is an employer of its staff. stated that he/she is "associated with the company" and added links to articles for dozens of the writers represented by the syndicate. That is the conflict of interest. It's one thing if I myself am a writer, have a Wikipedia article, and add to that article that I am syndicated by Creators; that's not much of a problem. On the other hand, if I work for Creators (whether as CEO, publicity agent, or secretary) and my sole activity on Wikipedia is to add links to Creators in numerous articles, that is a conflict of interest. If we find such behavior acceptable, we may as well give editorial control of every article on a company to its employees. Imagine allowing Donald Trump and his minions to have their way with his biography as well as Trump Mortgage, The Trump Organization, Trump Entertainment Resorts, and the various other companies that he owns or controls. As I said, there are very good reasons we have the information at WP:COI. Cresix (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we agree that the editor has a conflict of interest. What I'm trying to figure out is what is so objectionable about the edits themselves.  We need to find a solution.  Would it be okay if they added the info (as long as it's accurate of course,) and kept it out of the lede to the maximum extent possible?  Is it the edits you are objecting to, or just who is making them?  Would it be better if they gave me a list and I did it? Sperril (talk) 03:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like I'm repeating myself, I am. That's because (and no offense Sperril) the same question is being asked again and again, and I continue to give the same answer: When a single purpose account who acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest adds numerous references to the organization that he represents, sometimes placing them inappropriately in the lead, per WP:COI that editor should make requests for edits on article talk pages rather than making them himself. Then let the Wikipedia community decide what is appropriate. That's usually the way it's done on Wikipedia. To use my analogy above, we don't let Donald Trump's employees edit articles related to his empire (at least if we are aware of it). There are numerous incidents in the history of Wikipedia when representative of an organization have attempted to edit articles about their own organizations, and it usually is a problem because of conflict of interest. I don't think anyone should blindly follow a "list" provided by the organization, but I don't have a problem with other editors making edits about Creators Syndicate, as long as they are done responsibly and according to standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines, with all due consideration to issues of notability and undue weight. Cresix (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said I was going to blindly follow the list. Try to assume some good faith.  It appeared to me that the edits were undone because they were classified as linkspam.  Myself and another editor took issue with that classification.  It appears that you have agreed with us that the edits are not necessarily linkspam.  Since the COI editor is in no way prohibited from making edits to articles they have the COI in as long as the edits abide by our policies, and since no other policies seem to have been violated, the logical conclusion seems to be to allow the editor to continue in some way.  I am simply trying to find the best way to proceed.  If nobody has any further objections to the edits, I would say let them proceed to make them.  From the WP:COI policy: "The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles."  In my opinion, the material added seems to be sound.  It does not appear to be overly promotional at all.  It appears to be simple, factual, and verifiable.  We don't ban people from editing articles simply because they have a COI.  And yes, Donald Trump's employees are quite free to edit any article they want related to his empire as long as they follow all applicable policies and do so in a neutral tone.  A COI means we should watch the edits carefully, not simply reject them outright. Sperril (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said you would blindly follow the list. I said no one should. Try to assume good faith. No, the logical conclusion is not to let the editor "continue in the same way." Other editors (myself included) are entitled to challenge edits added by a single purpose account who acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest. I think some, not all, but many of the COI edits were inappropriate in terms of frequency of placement in articles and in where they were placed; and I am not alone in that opinion. (By the way, take a look at the edit history of this page; you'll see that the COI editor removed a comment someone made in this section in opposition to his edits. And look at the COI editor's edit history; you'll see that he ignored several warnings and continued adding the COI edits until the warnings were escalated. Those are not signs of an editor who is placing Wikipedia's interest over those of his organization.) That editor is entitled to request edits on the articles' talk page. You are entitled to respond to that COI-editor's requests, as long as you consider the issues of notability and undue weight (and please, I am not accusing you of not considering those policies). There is a gray area, and we seem to be there. That is why we are having this discussion. And if you think Wikipedia editors would allow Trump's people to edit as they wish on Trump-related articles even if the edits are properly sourced, I have some land in the Florida Everglades I'd like to sell you. Do you honestly think there haven't been serious disputes when representatives of companies, organizations, governments, even monarchies tried to edit articles related to themselves? They are well-documented, not only at Wikipedia but in the press in general. For another opinion from someone you may have heard of about allowing organizations' paid employees to edit their articles, see WP:Paid operatives. Again, that's why we have WP:COI and, in fact, is why this very page came into existence. Because Wikipedia has no paid editors who have editorial control over articles to prevent conflict of interest from contaminating articles, we use this process that we are using right now. Cresix (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I will proceed with replacing the information that was reverted while keeping in mind your concerns about frequency of placement. In no case will I place a link to the Creators Syndicate article into any article that already has such a link.  I will not add any additional mentions of Creators Syndicate to articles in which the relationship is already mentioned.  In all cases I will use the Creators Syndicate website as the source of who they represent.  Sound good?  Sperril (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that the syndicator for some writers is not worthy of mention. If the writer was notable before being syndicated by Creators (i.e., this writer would be notable regardless of syndicator), that issue is more important. One example that comes to mind is Pat Buchanan, who would be quite notable with or without Creators Syndicate. If the writer's notability is strongly linked to Creators Syndicate (e.g., Creators Syndicate was instrumental in bringing the writer to notability), then commenting on that in the article may be important. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, so it can be discussed on article talk pages. I would encourage you (or anyone) to not add comments about Creators simply because Wikicreate91 did so; that's why we are having this discussion. Wikicreate91's only purpose was to promote Creators Syndicate, regardless of whether some of his edits were acceptable. We need to be more selective. Cresix (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So should we not mention Fox News by name in his article because he was quite notable before he ever appeared there? I don't understand why we should not name who syndicates his columns nationally, but should mention by name the cable news channel that he periodically appears on.  Sperril (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To resolve this, let me suggest (to anyone, not just you) that you search around for writers who are syndicated by Creators (perhaps at Creators' website), then add to articles as you see fit. That's the way things are usually done on Wikipedia. What I suggest not doing is looking at Wikicreate91's edits, reverting any removals, and then walking away. The second action basically is functioning as Wikicreate91's surrogate. But I see no need to split hairs about whose article should mention Creators and whose shouldn't. Anyone is entitled to add any sourced information to an article if it does not violate policy, and it's up to the rest of the Wikipedia community to decide whether to challenge it. I personally don't have time to follow any editor around trying to find something to challenge (nor would I even if I did have time). But I will be keeping an eye on the articles that Wikicreate91 edited; if I see that those and only those have information about Creators placed in them, I would find that questionable editing. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already started to go through his edits from the bottom up. I am not taking the time to search the website and do this work for all of their clients.  I am going to use the COI editors work as a baseline.  You are free to find my editing as questionable as you want.  I have absolutely no COI involving Creators Syndicate in any way.  I am not simply restoring their edits and am not directly reverting your removals.  If you want to question my edits, please feel free.  But since I don't have a COI on this subject, this is really no longer the proper venue for it. Sperril (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right that you have no known connection to Creators Syndicate, and it's your choice if you wish to be Wikicreate91's surrogate and leave it at that. I've made my points about this, but you are free to edit as you see fit. I assume by "baseline" that you mean that you will use only Wikicreate91's edits to determine which articles should mention Creators Syndicate. Cresix (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Those edits will, however, be the ones I will look at.  Already I've found one that was unduly in the lede (Pat Buchanan) and moved it to the body.  I've found another that shouldn't have mentioned Creators Syndicate at all and removed it completely.  I'm also making sure that the association with Creators is current by cross-checking the references they used, and making sure the link is to a biographical page and not to an actual Creators Syndicate distributed column.  I am also weighting the prominence of the article subjects writing when compared to what else they are notable for. Sperril (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see if you add Creators to any article besides those that Wikicreate91 edited. Cresix (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't. Sperril (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I had already anticipated. Maybe we should just email Wikicreate91 and tell him to resume his edits. That would save you a lot of trouble. Cresix (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would improve the situation. I am finding his edits to have been of low quality.  He was definitely going for mass instead of class. Sperril (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I think it would be easier if Wikicreate91 resumed his edits and you simply follow him around cleaning up his edits. Cresix (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He can feel free if he wants. I doubt he'll be back though.  We bit him pretty hard.  Hopefully, if he does come back, he'll be more careful in the future though.  Or at least, as you suggested, stick to talk pages for a while. Sperril (talk) 03:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it's not a good idea to bite SPA/COIs by issuing multiple warnings after they ignore them and revert dissenting opinions on a noticeboard. Heck, why don't we just get rid of WP:COI, then we wouldn't have to worry about those bothersome warnings and wasting our time on this noticeboard. But you never know, he might be back if he takes a look and sees that someone is willing to cheer for him. Cresix (talk) 04:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are talking about the 4 warnings you gave him in the space of a whole 2 minutes? How unreasonable of me to think that maybe 2 minutes wasn't long enough to actually see the warnings considering he had exactly 0 edits between the 1st one and the 4th one.  Here's how warnings are supposed to work.  You give him one.  He then makes an edit in violation of the warning.  Then you give him the next one.  And so on... Sperril (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the humanity!!! I should have just ignored it when Wikicreate91 removed a comment on this noticeboard that was in opposition to his edits. I shouldn't have hurt someone's feelings whose sole purpose was to promote a business without regard to what is best for Wikipedia. I should have assumed that, even though he can write complete sentences in English, he might not be able to read and comprehend a warning before he makes his next edit. I don't know if I can live with the guilt. Thank you for rescuing this poor, innocent soul. I think the only way to repair this injustice is to invite him to revise any and all articles as he pleases. While we're at it, let's invite Trump's organization in to edit Trump-related articles, since that is OK with you. Will you help me with that noble cause? (And by the way, thanks for tell me how warnings work. Here's how to criticize someone about warnings: You actually look at the times the warnings were issued compared that the times the warned person makes the edits. That way, you don't have to tell someone how to issue warnings when they already know how. Simple.) Cresix (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Great job jamming him with another warning for what appears to be an accidental deletion of someone's comment while he was trying to properly sign his post after it was autosigned by Sinebot. Without you around to accuse new editors of being purposefully disruptive when they make a good faith mistake this place would become uncontrollable.  You are such a wikihero.  And I did exactly what you suggested.  You gave him 4 consecutive warnings without him having made a single edit between them.  That is absolutely the wrong way to escalate warnings.  Here are the 4 edits you warned him for:


 * 23:38, 2 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . Thomas Sowell ‎
 * 23:33, 2 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+54)‎ . . David Sirota ‎
 * 23:31, 2 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+31)‎ . . Connie Schultz ‎
 * 23:30, 2 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . Phyllis Schlafly


 * Here are the 4 warnings:


 * 01:34, 3 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+352)‎ . . User talk:Wikicreate91 ‎ (Final warning notice on Thomas Sowell. (TW))
 * 01:33, 3 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+439)‎ . . User talk:Wikicreate91 ‎ (Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly :::::cited material on David Sirota. (TW))
 * 01:32, 3 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+479)‎ . . User talk:Wikicreate91 ‎ (Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Connie Schultz. (TW))
 * 01:32, 3 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+590)‎ . . N User talk:Wikicreate91 ‎ (General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Phyllis Schlafly. (TW))


 * So show me what exactly he edited after the first warning and before the second that justified the second one... Sperril (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course you conveniently left out that he placed more than 15 more COI edits after the last warning above. Accidentally deleted another user's comment here?? Now I know I have some land in the Florida Everglades to sell you really, really cheap. How many acres do you need? Or are you far too busy looking for more COI editors to defend? 21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To add, I am finished reviewing his edits. If anyone has concerns please feel free to raise them on my talk page.  On articles I found to be near-stub, I didn't add the info at all because of the concerns about WP:UNDUE.  To make it easier to review my work, here is a list of all of the edits I made to articles he had previously edited.  Be aware that some diffs may encompass more than one edit due to me correcting my own screwups and such.

Pat Buchanan

Steve Chapman

Michael Barone (pundit)

Joe Conason

Diane Dimond

Susan Estrich

Joseph Farah

Jim Hightower

Oliver North

Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)

Connie Schultz

David Sirota

John Stossel

Randy Glasbergen

Sperril (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

... ... ... Good evening all. Can I make a quick effort to sum up here? The COI editor in question edited on the 2nd/3rd of August and hasn't edited since. In that time they amassed 65 edits, that have now been reviewed by a non-COI editor. This appears to be a lovely case of wikipedia absorbing the input and becoming stronger as a result. From this I'm getting the impression that the COI issue has effectively been dealt with and the conversation is wandering off course - would anyone object if it was closed? The thread is at 48 edits already...Fayedizard (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No objection. Sperril (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay here's the deal. I'm interning for Creators and I've never added anything to Wikipedia before. The president of the company asked me to fix the page because some of our cartoonists and writers were linked, some were not, and some of the links went to the wrong pages. I tried to make everything uniform and now not only did all of that get deleted, now the whole Creators page is gone even though I made no changes to the actual content of the page. Now my boss is asking me what happened to the page when all he wanted were a few minor changes and I have no idea how to fix this. Can someone please help me or advise me on what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreate91 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Illegal posting of phot


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 76.31.222.250 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC) My copyrighted photograph on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg#filehistory was illegally posted also illegally giving all rights to anyone. I need it removed and individual's posts reviewed for other illegal posts.


 * I believe you are in the wrong place. Try Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Elekebia (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean Media copyright questions? It was first uploaded to English Wikipedia by User:Shinoda21807 as "self-made" on 22 March 2008, at 20:47. It was moved to Commons, so it is now at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RitaHoustonEvacuation.jpg on Wikimedia Commons. Go there and click "Report copyright violation" in the Toolbox. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting that. Pasted the wrong thing from clipboard, apologies. Elekebia (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Neumont University


The article "Neumont University" has repeatedly been edited by the IP "69.27.21.250", which RDNSes to "neumontuniversity.slkc.firstdigital.com.". The page looks rather like an advertisement at this point, and it appears to me to be linked to the editing that that IP has been doing. The last entry on the talk page is from 2007, so it seems likely to me that the page has not been under scrutiny from regular editors recently. They appear to me to have deleted the page tags added by the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neumont_University&diff=next&oldid=494974571 but appear to have primarily "fixed" the issues that edit raised by citing their own website. --lahwran (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has continued making edits, adding external links in the body and deleting maintenance tags. I've reverted their latest edits and left additional warnings on their talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I went over and removed a certain amount of the fluff... Fayedizard (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, California


This morning we have one, two, and three attempts to insert a link to newly launched advertising magazine Beverly Hills Resident. The first two by IPs, the third by a newly registered user called DelamarcaCA. Well, isn't it interesting to see on the magazine's website that it's published by delamarca communications? &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I notified both editors, by the way.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This morning I'm adding another account to the story, User:Delamarca90210, who is another SPA who's added that magazine's URL to the Beverly Hills article here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Iooks fairly straightforward - but I suspect that there is little extra we can add- you already appear to be giving the article a thorough overhaul :) looks great! Fayedizard (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Citadel


Editor Buffs needs to be removed from editing of article on The Citadel. He is a graduate of Texas A/M and has repeatedly challenged information that conflicts with that claimed by his alma mater, particularly regarding the number of military officers commissioned. He claims TAMU commissions more officers than The Citadel but provides no verifiable sources.

He deleted a statement saying that The Citadel Corps of Cadets is "one of the largest in the nation", this was identicle to that on the TAMU article and I included a source that verifies that fact. He removed it claiming there was not enough information to prove it yet says that same statement should be allowed to remain on the TAMU article without reference. Despite the very clear information stated in the source he actually accuses me of "weaseling" and also threatened to have my editing privileges frozen claiming I violated a 3 edit rule in a 24 hour period.

A review of the activity on the talk page of the article will show that he has clearly subjected the article to excessive scrutiny and questionable deletions. He has a clear conflict of interest since he is apparently trying to delete information that challenges claims made by his school. Editor Ocala has also been editing the article and seems to have a reasonable and neutral view of the information that has been posted, I have no objection if he continues to edit but Buffs needs to be removed immediately.Bob80q (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good morning - other than the fact the editor in question is a graduate of the school, do we have an comments that suggest he might have a conflict of interest? (Conflict of interest turns out to be quite narrowly defined, it's entirely possible that this is a case of just bias and as such we would deal with it somewhat differently... Fayedizard (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was not informed of this discussion, as is required (it's in red at the top of the page, Bob). This should not be held against Bob, though, in any meaningful way other than a simple "please don't let it happen again". He's a relative noob and I'm not going to hold it against him. I ask others not to hold it against him either
 * There are several foci of this dispute. As to the meat of the discussion. I initially removed the phrasing because it consisted of WP:WEASEL words. The Citadel, by the sources Bob provided, is #2 in the quantity of cadets, but by less than a 3% difference between it and Texas A&M. It is #2 and should be clearly listed as such. I have no objection with specific numbers being added or a comparison with Texas A&M either
 * The second issue is that of Bob's claim that The Citadel "currently commissions more than any other ROTC school" . The only source Bob showed was that of The Citadel, which showed their spring commissioning numbers. There was no claim of them being #1, only the total commissionees. Now while this number is certainly higher than Texas A&M's 80+, it should be noted that the Citadel (like the service academies) commissions virtually all of its cadets in the Spring. Texas A&M commissions at the end of each semester and its annual totals are more than the citadel. Additionally, Texas A&M's claim is not merely backed by a single self-published source (as required by WP:RS), but also by a former President of the United States who is not affiliated with the University.
 * Moreover, the claim is simply too vague and smacks of boosterism. "Currently" means what exactly? Today? That's basically meaningless because Texas A&M commissions more than any other school in the Summer semesters (including the service academies). If they mean this current year? sure. But that needs to be specified. How about a 5 year average (which A&M wins hands down)? 10 year average? Since 1940? Since 1970? Since 2001? The point is: the claim isn't so simple. So without specifics the claim is meaningless boosterism. Without a reliable source, as defined in WP:RS, the claim should be deleted.
 * Lastly, and this really is the most important point: while Bob is the only one who is supporting his viewpoint, there are 2 others involved in this dispute as well, which, despite a few minor differences, support my viewpoint and have edited accordingly (see edit history).
 * In conclusion, there is no COI here by anyone except maybe Bob, but even then, I don't think it really balloons to that level. This is just a case of someone getting used to WP and how it runs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we are lucky to have Bob as a contributor and I hope that The Citadel rises to the pinnacle as a FA candidate in the near future. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DotConnectAfrica


The major contributor to the article Tkamanzi has stated that they are a member of DotConnectAfrica's press team. There are a number of quality issues with the article (tagged), but scant editorial content (none of note) from any other editor. I am trying to improve the situation through dialogue on the talk page but the editor in question is obstructive and reverts anything he/she does not like, to include the tags added to encourage collaboration in improving the quality of the article. Elekebia (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I should add the the article is predominantly self promotional and that the majority of the references cited either point to DotconnectAfrica's website or to archives of their own press releases. Elekebia (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The user has now removed the 'Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion' from their talk page that I placed according to Wikipedia policy. Should I replace it? Elekebia (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The user is hostile and angry as well, and is obviously not in a mood to discuss admitted COI edits on the talk page: &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to replace anything on their talk page - they've seen it and that's what counts - I just took a swing at the article, taking away some obvious copy-paste and combining some references - it's about two-thirds the size it was. But it needs someone else to take another swing and bring it more into line.Fayedizard (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear All- I have no problem with the COI posting. Because I have already declared myself transparently as per Wikipedia policy. The reason I am removing the tag is because of disclosure. Did you not Elekebia say that one can remove the tags as it is resolved? What I have a problem is who and why Elekebia has assigned her/himself on this article as editor and never does anything constructive, but just criticize the article and tag it. Therefore, her/his motives of involvement is questionable. I have now went outside to request other Wiki editors to assist to ensure it is more independent.

I appreciated for eg. the professional input provided by Fayed, as I know some of the references are repeated many places and there must be a way to combine those. Please help us on those aspects and bring it to standard. The rest of the personal comments made by laylah is unnecessary and wrongly placed. You should have more sympathy for us. There was a lot of Vandalism on this site the same time that Elekebia took interest, that is why I contacted Sr. people at Wikepedia to report and so to protect it. They were writing all sorts of things which has nothing to do with the article. I certainly will express my thoughts about someone who just comes to pick on an article without making the effort to contribute to it and be curious what their interest is and ask questions. You need to make a behavioral analysis of both sides reported before making a comment such as you did yourself Laylah. Now I appreciate everyone's effort to get it done constructively. I also hope to hear from others who I have contacted. Thank you all for your attention.Tkamanzi (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC) ..it is my job to do so like you said I am the PR department. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, please consider mentioning changes on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is using copies of documents stored at places such as Google.docs and www.constantcontact.com? Those aren't acceptable as they aren't on official sites. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell Tkamanzi. Of additional concern some of these references are attributed to ICANN but the links direct to the sites you have mentioned as well as www.slideshare.com. Elekebia (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging the article has resulted in positive input from other editors and the article is being improved. I tried to establish dialogue with you Tkamanzi, but got out of my depth and requested help from other editors as we were unable to agree and a revert war was starting. The article is being improved which, and I stand to be corrected, is a good thing as an article is for the benefit of Wikipedia's audience which includes DotConnectAfrica, but not exclusively for the benefit of DotConnectAfrica.

If I have a fault it is that I was not bold or am not experienced enough to perform the editing that is currently being performed. As the structure of the article improves I will be better placed to contribute. Elekebia (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added a user and an article to the scope of this thread - Sophia Bekele is the founder of DotConnectAfrica and is the other article edited by. The user I've added is 'Lashford' - who, several years ago now was a SPA only editing these two articles, 'Lark Ashford is mentioned here 'https://www.registration123.com/reports/saved.cfm?r=%24*%40L%26V0%20%20%0A' in such a way as it looks duck like. My view is that the COI is clear, and that both pages need the template on the *talk* page. alf laylah wa laylah has done some more work bringing DotConnectAfrica into an improved state, although I suspect there is much more to be done. What would be really good now is if there was someone who could give Sophia Bekele a good going over - only COI editors, bots and IPs have >1 edit so it could be a minefield (I would, but I'm just about to leave the house for the evening) - are people happy that this fair summary? Fayedizard (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would note that the editor Lashford did engage for a period of time with Elonka on the Sophia Bekele talk page, so there has been positive engagement; Notwithstanding the article appears to me to share the same style and problems as DotConnectAfrica so I would agree that yes you have made a fair summary. Elekebia (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I opened this can of worms, so have started doing some rewriting and removal of invalid references flagged by Dougweller. As such I am an SPA and would invite scrutiny on the neutrality of my edits. This article requires a lot of work and I would rather focus on getting this done that spread myself thinly across Wikipedia. Elekebia (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As Sophia Bekele has been added to the scope of this thread, I have reapplied the tags to the article and had a first swing at removing the unofficial references (Google Docs, Google Cache, Scribd etc.). To use Fayedizard's words I'll give it a 'going over' tomorrow, but agree that this could be a minefield. Elekebia (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Simplified English


Advice is sought in addressing a long-term issue with spam links at Simplified English. The users listed above are the three who have most recently participated in this activity. See the page's history for complete information. Suggestions for addressing this pattern are desired. Does anyone believe that blacklisting the domain is advised? NTox · talk 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 to Advice needed. At least 2 years of slow edit-warring. That article has been protected 5 times due to this spam. The editors adding the links never respond to talkpage messages or warnings. And it's not just that article; anytime links to shufra-consultancy get removed, someone reverts, eg1, eg2. Having tried hard to be helpful to them, I now believe it's time to consider blacklisting the domain. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for chiming in, Quiddity. After seeing your comment, I see that you have long been involved with this unfortunate issue. It is disappointing that discussion has been unsuccessful. I have just done my last revert for the day - but as you mention, the only course of action at this point seems to be to blacklist the domain, which is regrettable, as there may be constructive uses for it. I am willing to file a report at WP:WPSPAM if there is rough consensus for doing so. NTox · talk 01:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Boy, they revert within minutes, too. I can't help thinking that there might be a bot involved, or something. NTox · talk 01:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably just Watchlist. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More Accounts
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More Accounts
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More Accounts
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More Accounts
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Long term persistent multi-account spamming. I've these to the Blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, Hu12. Also see this SPI case that was opened yesterday. NTox · talk 17:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1 correction needed. Shufra is associated with asd-ste100. net (per that site linking directly to them, and this edit), but asd-ste100. org appears to be a neutral and non-affiliated parent organisation (with confusingly-amateur webdesign) (per the "[we] do not endorse any trainer" and similar remarks, on their /training.htm page). Please swap org with net, in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Quiddity, I've made the correction from org to net. --Hu12 (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The links should have been black listed long ago. The article should be stubbed to only what is in reliable sources and moved to a title such as Simplified English (technical documents). The phrase "simplified English" is a widely used term with many meaning and the title of the article implies that all s implified English uses mean " S implified English." It isn't and " S implified English" usage is minor in reliable sources when compared to s implified English. The article should be moved to a title that reflects the topic. The Simplified English topic of the article merely relates to "writing technical documents allows non-English speakers to understand the documents". Simplified English was a system created and used by the European aerospace industry in the 1980s and there was a software, Simplified English Analyzer, that went along with Simplified English. In response to the investigation of the January 2003 crash of an Air Midwest Beech 1900D, the United States FAA required the rewriting of an advisory circular because, "to the consternation" of the FAA advisory committee members, the advisory circular was written in a Simplified English format that was very awkward to read, more difficult to find what you want, and required the reader to second guess the real meaning of the guidance material. The only information I found on Simplified Technical English is in press releases, so any mention of Simplified Technical English in the Simplified English (technical documents) article is not supported by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Terry D. Scheerer


Masterofmyth2000 has created all of the four articles mentioned here beginning last year. MythWurks Corporation is the parent corporation, which owns the magazine, the production studios, and employees Mr. Scheerer. The username, combined with their edit history of touching only articles related to Mythwurks, is pretty damning. Also, they tried to create a page on New Blood Films (which was speedied) - that page currently redirects to darkmythproductions.com. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On Vernon's page the user states that they're just a fan, although there's a file in the Commons that gives an image of the cover as the user's own work. I've given a bit of caution on Vernon's article about claiming copyright over images that you don't actually own and I want to note that they didn't state ownership on the images placed on Wikipedia. I also let them know that it's not actually against the rules to have a COI and edit on Wikipedia. You just have to be extra cautious and use good sourcing. I'm going to assume good faith and believe the user isn't Scheerer, but I do want to give a warning that if by some chance the user denied being part of the company in fear that they'd be blocked or banned, it's actually worse to deny it and then have it come up later that someone has discovered that they are actually associated with the company. Just throwing that out there because I know that one of the first impulses can be to deny.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hanlong Group


COI User appears to be whitewashing article, removing criticism. Some of the criticism is UNDUE, but not sure how much. Advice would be appreciated. Thank you Jim1138 (talk)


 * I have reverted the article back to an earlier version and reported the user name to WP:UAA.--ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Hanlongmining has been blocked.--ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hassal Sharif


The article is about a temple in Pakistan. The author not only credited himself by posting his phone number at the top of the article, which I removed, but keeps posting links to primary sources that promote the website www.hassalsharif.com and related, probably personal, facebook and youtube pages in the external links section of the article as if they were relaible sources. He removed the tags I placed on the article without improving it and is trying to enter an editing war. The promotional material is also posted as a reliable external source in the article Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari which himself created; he also removed the proposed for deletion tag without improving it first. -- Itemirus  Message me!  09:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So the COI looks straightforward and acknowledged by the user - I've put the relevant note on the talk page. Let's see if Hassalsharif pops along on one of the talk pages for a chat - would be nice to engage him/her. Otherwise I couldn't find much in the way of sources from a news search - it might be worth AfDing it... Fayedizard (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes both his articles appear just to be there for religious propaganda. I tagged Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari for deletion but he immediately removed the tag.-- Itemirus  Message me!  10:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and my understanding is that, in that particular case, the editor was quite within their rights to do so - any editor can remove a PROD (and more to the point "An article may not be proposed for deletion ("PRODed") if it has been PRODed before" - I strongly suspect that before this issue is settled that one or both of the articles will go to Articles_for_deletion, but I think it would be nice to give the COI editor at least a day to enguage, there may be a bunch of much better sources that they can point us towards... (In any case I've removed the PROD that you re-added after hassalsharif removed the one you put in the first place) Fayedizard (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt he will provide us with better sources, if any. Yes, it was his right to remove the PROD, but he didn't bother to reply to me when I wrote in his talk page to remove those links, which I consider spam, and provide reliable sources. Let alone the other article, which points to the same spammy links. May science one day save us from religious fanatism.-- Itemirus  Message me!  11:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have sent Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari to Afd.--ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Independently I've done the same with Hassal Sharif, as a result, I'm going to withdraw from this conversation - should hassalsharif pop along he/she should probably have the right to chat to an uninvolved editor :) Fayedizard (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dellamarie Parrilli


The IP is removing content that is apparently undesirable to Dellamarie Parrilli by Parrilli's request. Some of the recent removed material may be WP:UNDUE, but some of it appears to be whitewashing. Should the IP be allowed to continue editing this?

COI rational: from the IP's edit summaries including these two diff, I surmise that 75.30.105.14 is performing work for Dellamarie Parrilli.

Editing summary: The edits were fairly significant at first 1: 31kB removed 2: 31kB removed 3: 11kB removed. My comment on the IP's talk page diff "The "author" does not get to dictate what goes in the article. Before removing any content, discuss in talk:Dellamarie Parrilli.  Thank you"  No additions by the IP have been added to the talk page, my talk page, nor the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

job listing
http://dailyorange.campusave.com/jobs/wikipedia-edito-36941397.htm

Syracuse Orange football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.18 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Reposting here from where it was erroneously posted at the Paid Editing noticeboard. Silver  seren C 01:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

TripAdvisor


A new editor User:Angus Macdon has been posting criticisms as well as statements about potential legal cases regarding TripAdvisor. I found some of posts questionable, e.g., some were just contemplated legal actions and did not fit due to WP:CRYSTAL. I noticed that a lawyer mentioned in one of the editor's references has a similar name, Angus Macdonald. I have no idea whether the editor is the same person as the lawyer or a different person. But it seems odd to have a WP:SPA pop up with a similar name as someone involved in a lawsuit against the subject of the article. (According to the reference, Angus Macdonald represents TripAdvisor.) Unclear to me whether this is a COI and/or username issue, so comments are welcomed. I have notified the editor of this posting but otherwise have not raised the issue on his Talk page, because it is unclear to me what to make of this one. Note: cross-posted to WP:Usernames for administrator attention. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Chitkara University


These articles about a privately-owned university have been heavily edited by closely connected editors. Would appreciate advice if this more appropriate for WP:SPI. --Drm310 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) ChitkaraU - Copied and pasted copyrighted material from university website (edits  ; originals, , ). Removed maintenance templates . Self-confessed COI and subtle claim of ownership . Now blocked for username violation.
 * 2) Eduinform - Editing pattern similar to first editor, adding copyrighted material and inappropriate external links in the article body (edits ; originals  ).
 * 3) 182.71.23.206 - Editing pattern similar to the first two, adding copyrighted material (edits ; originals        ). Denied that their edits were copyright violations, despite evidence. Also claimed ownership of the article . Identical behaviour observed on second article (edits ; original ).
 * Straightforward view is that if the COI is self-admitted we template the talkpage and go from there. (ringing a university in question has worked wonders for me in the past) I think in this case it might be reasonable to stub the article... :( Fayedizard (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a big swing at the article today (and templated the talk on the way past) - still needs work but it's got more of a starting point. Fayedizard (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Suetonius on Christians

 * Actually as you said in the edit summary Fayedizard, "you called it early", but I did not acknowledge agreement on the talk page. But that I was not going to debate with you. I have not changed my mind. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Kluger Agency

 * (active)
 * (attempt to recreate deleted promotional bio)
 * (twice deleted)
 * (redirected)


 * (August 2012) is attempting to re-create the deleted Adam Kluger promotional article through WP:AFC in August 2012 and add a non-free logo to The Kluger Agency by uploading it to commons:
 * (not currently active) was the original WP:SPA creator of the three promotional pages.


 * removal of content on August 8 and 13, 2012 from The Kluger Agency
 * section blanking of content on August 8, 2012 from The Kluger Agency, various edits to individual musicians.
 * removal of content on August 16, 2012 from The Kluger Agency
 * removing validly-sourced content from The Kluger Agency at 17:10, 20 August 2012‎. One minute later, 17:11, 20 August 2012 Shahs227 created a user account, WP:SPA to request creation of Adam Kluger, a twice-deleted promotional article.
 * (not currently in use) was removing content in the past.
 * (not currently in use) was removing content in the past, claims to be "the head of press relations for the kluger agency".
 * (not currently in use) was removing talk page content in the past.
 * (not currently in use) was removing talk page content in the past.
 * (not currently in use) was inserting links to Adam Kluger self-promotional bio into secondary school articles in the past.

Repeated removal of The Kluger Agency and creation of self-promotional advertising at Adam Kluger, Kluger Agency and The Kluger Agency. Many of these also edit individual musicians pages, the Musicians Institute or individual non-notable high schools which Adam Kluger claims to have once attended; The Kluger Agency is the biggest target (to add self-promotion and remove sourced facts critical of the firm); Product placement is hit occasionally to remove facts or add self-promotion.

The subject of this article is a product placement firm. Their business model is to pay musicians to pass commercial advertising off as content in music videos without disclosing this as paid advertising to viewers. This has led to musicians such as Britney Spears and Lady Gaga being blasted in 2010 and 2011 by mainstream reviewers, including the Washington Post and Vanity Fair, for the excessive number of advertised products appearing onscreen.

It is not surprising that a firm of this nature would attempt to manipulate coverage in Wikipedia, possibly even in a dishonest manner to replace facts with self-promotion, but this is not what the encyclopaedia is here for. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to the board. Looks like it's been quite an amount of work!  To my eye the current state of the article is fine (mainly due to User:66.102.83.61 efforts) and just by posting here it will end up on a few more watchlists, so that might secure it a little more.  The next step is, of course, to enguage a little with the editor in question and see if there is a COI, or if there is just a bit of POV going on  - so we'll have to wait a little while and see if that happens :) Fayedizard (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It does certainly look like COI editing. However, there also appears to have been a valid point to some of the edits - the material in question is poorly sourced and somewhat suspicious, so I can see why the editors found it contentious. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the user talk page but these IP's seem to be a moving target. 72.254.146.87 belongs to iBAHN.com, a provider of Internet connections for transient guests in hotel rooms. I haven't checked the others. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (the account attempting to re-create the deleted Adam Kluger promotional article through WP:AFC) is now section-blanking The Kluger Agency and was warned and reverted by another user.
 * is now inserting questionable, unsourced material which may be WP:COI.

I've raised the question of whether user:shahs227 is Adam Kluger on as that image was uploaded with tags claiming an OTRS ticket exists releasing the company's proprietary logo to the public domain... something that only Kluger (as the original author) would have authority to do. It should be interesting to see if the ticket actually exists - if it does, we have a WP:COI problem given that this same user is section-blanking The Kluger Agency, if it does not the logo is a copyvio. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a core issue, but it isn't clear that the logo would be a copyvio, as it seems to fall beneath the threshold of originality. - Bilby (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The logo was uploaded with OTRS and PD-user tags claiming that Adam Kluger released the company's logo to the public domain, citing an OTRS ticket which simply does not exist. The original poster is not claiming PD based on "threshold of originality"... you are. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong as threshold of originality is a fine judgement call in these cases, but I do suspect that the original poster's position of "author releases this as PD" is only valid if the original poster *is* Adam Kluger... which would be a huge WP:COI and does look fishy. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * is now removing info on the "Double Happiness Jeans" controversy and adding unsourced commentary and opinion attacking Kluger's critics or defending the agency. Only edits are to The Kluger Agency and that article's talk page. The pattern of section-blanking all of The Kluger Agency is recurring so I presume this is the same person under yet another IP. (Whois indicates BellSouth as ISP, which says little.) Reverting as WP:COI and WP:DUCK... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Evening everyone,

I've just taken a swing at the article, reverted the recent section blanking but also taken out a lot of fluff that shouldn't have been there in the first place. I've opened a thread on the talk page to pick over the Double happiness issue. Fayedizard (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like the page is now semi-protected and blocked for now after blanking the entire page and refusing to comply with repeated warnings from multiple users about section blanking. The IP is now disputing his 48-hour block for page blanking. The blocking admin indicated "(rm dealt with, but complicated cases like this should go to COIN or ANI)" here. I presume, then, that the question of how much info belongs (or doesn't belong) in the article will need to be addressed before the blocks expire and the circus begins anew? 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:6F5 (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As a summary for the board, we could do with a few more editors on this article - we have at least one very pro editor and at least one very anti editor both editing from a range of IPs, in particular I think quite a lot of the last paragraph is tenuous at best in relation to the subject of the article :( Fayedizard (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The article and the associated logo are now both nominated for deletion, see:
 * Articles for deletion/The Kluger Agency
 * Commons:project:Deletion requests/File:The Kluger Agency Logo.png 66.102.83.61 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A WP:SOCK investigation is now open at Sockpuppet investigations/keywordrenewals. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Dah Yu Cheng and related articles
A series of highly promotional articles on a Chinese/American inventor by a SPA. The Cheng cycle is plainly notable, as a quick literature series attests; the other devices perhaps not so, and many of the articles listed are up for deletion, including the biography. Images in these articles are full of OTRS tags, suggesting that the company is supplying them. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also see on this user's talk page a series of speedy deletion notices on other obviously related articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * linkedin identifies Sheena Mundra as "Director of Business Development at Cheng Fluid Systems, Inc." so I think we have a definite hit here. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edita Tahiri


Having difficulty with NPOV and peacock terms on this page. User has been warned a couple of times on talk page about NPOV and COI and continues to add problematic edits. EricEnfermero Howdy! 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment&mdash; The account's first edit was to the help desk claiming the article to be the editor's curriculum vitae.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment User hasn't replied to their talk page or anywhere outside the article, since the first edits. The "problematic edits" seem to consist of blanking and replacing the body with unformatted text of her CV. She may not be aware of the reason they keep getting reverted, or that there ARE procedures for dispute resolution that all Wiki contributors are expected to follow. Other users have sought (and some continue) use of WP as a "resume server", so its not unreasonable for Sh1956vlpo to think that she can do the same. --Robert Keiden (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Shivendra Singh Dungarpur
14.139.128.15 (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User: Mrt3366
Hello, I am User: Jayemd. I have heard on Talk: Kashmir conflict that Mrt3366 is reverting other users' edits 'at the sound of a heartbeat'. He probably wants to keep his own edits alive over other users' edits (he wants to make his edits look more important than other users' edits.) --Jayemd (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I take no position on the content dispute, is there some kind of question as to whether Mrt3366 is actually involved in that conflict, or is employed by someone who is taking part in the conflict? It looks to me like you are simply questioning whether he is pushing a specific point of view.  If that's the case, you may want to take it up at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Sperril (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Jayemd (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Rat_rod


Ronniepe appears to be the site owner of oldtinrods.com, and keeps adding links to and images from his site to the rat rod article. His business has no notability in the field - not the first, not the largest, not the most prominent, etc. I've tried discussing this on the article talk page, but he either won't or doesn't know how to discuss there. Trying to get a reasonable resolution to this without an edit war, which is what it's turning into. 69.174.58.132 (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The user doesn't look like he's ever gotten a welcome message, which I just left him. I've also warned him about edit warring and invited him to discuss his edits at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Be advised that the username of the editor in question matches the name of the person who signed the welcome message on the front page of the website they are using as a reference. Unless there is something funny going on, it looks like a COI exists.  I also gave him a level 1 warning for advertising/promotion, and some advice. Sperril (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I noticed that with the username. uw-coi is probably in order. However, I don't think sanctions are needed for the COI or username; anything that needs dealt with will come from spam or 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Sperril (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And to note, the editor in question is now using the article talk page. Sperril (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Users: "Woovie" and "Blokker 1999"

 * Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (SA:MP)
 * User:Woovie

The page in question is this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (SA:MP) User Woovie: Special:Contributions/Woovie Contributor to rival project. has COI in promoting San Andreas Multiplayer page for deletion User:Woovie has a conflict of interest in deletion of this page. Even his profile page is advertising "Multi Theft Auto - Great MP mod for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" - The person nominated gta san andreas page for deletion is directly involved in article of a rival project. User:Blokker 1999 Special:Contributions/Blokker_1999

Has also contributed to rival MTA project and their wikipedia site. Owner of the rival mta website, his comments there are promoting San Andreas Multiplayer page for deletion and has influenced others decision later that commented in the AFD talk. The timings of them both posting in deletion while they are both connected to a rival project shows a clear COI and coordinated attack to get the San Andreas Multiplayer page deleted again. Additionally here's Blokker 1999 viciously defending his project page against deletion, this should clearly show COI in this case.: Articles for deletion/Multi Theft Auto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jernejl (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I am pretty sure that a mod with over 40000 simultaneous players daily (number can be checked and verified with player counter on http://sa-mp.com/ and independantly on game-monitor.com ) should clarify as notable and keep it's page on wikipedia. http://gta.wikia.com/San_Andreas_Multiplayer I am asking for restoration of San Andreas Multiplayer page on wikipedia and protection against these coordinated AFD attacks. Jernejl (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Deletion restoration goes through DRV, not here. A wikia link here will not help anything.  Defending one AfD does not create a COI in another.  You don't seem to understand GNG given your popularity argument.  The number of players does not impart notability.  Be sure you are logged in when you post.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

One can certainly see the point that nominating a rival mod for deletion is a bit of 'maneuver' - but we appear to be settling on a verdict of 'well it wouldn't have made any difference overall', which doesn't really appear to one's sense of fair play. :( On the other hand I can't think of much that would make a difference. Any ideas?Fayedizard (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm here to clarify. I have no direct involvment with MTA. I am not a developer, nor do I have any control of MTA via forums, wiki, or otherwise. I am merely a GTA fan and MTA fan. At the same time, I have played SAMP, had a SAMP server, etc. I have never had a biased opinion of either mod and I know people who play both. I look at all articles related to GTA. |How about linking to the SAMP in the 'See Also' for the MTA page, but you didn't link back to the MTA page ? Your attacks to me are ridiculous. The article was bad and appeared as an advertisement. I felt it should be deleted. The past history of SAMP articles doesn't help. Woovie (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

| My personal user page is now being attacked as well, as you can see from this edit. Woovie (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

my last and only contribution to the MTA project was made in it's first year. I have never contributed since. And while I did manage hosting for a time, I currently no longer have any bonds with the project. About the timing? Yes we talked before actually putting it up for deletion, see what was the best way to move forward. I did not write any lies, i stated the facts, something Woovie neglected. Had he written out our objections I would not have made that edit. And yes, I may have made an error in judgement 6 years ago when I mentioned SAMP, but the rest of my defence was not vicious, it was to the point. The article back then was nominated due to lack of notability, an issue that was adressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the person who put it up for deletion in the first place. Did you actually see the article before it got deleted? Have you seen it's contents? And do you know why I simply commented on the deletion page instead of actually putting up a big bold delete? Because yes, that would be a COI. However, even with a COI I still have the right to tell the world the facts the way I see them. Oh, and euhm, thanks for putting me and woovie up here without notifying us while that is requested in big red on top of this page ... Oh, and euhm talking of COI, the COI identifies a COI as someone who makes an edit to promote himself, group, ... how do we promote ourselfs by putting the article up for deletion. On the other hand, Jacob30, who created the deleted page, linked to the SAMP article from both the GTA and MTA articles without linking back from the SAMP article. Wouldnt you consider that a COI as well? Blokker 1999 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead


Despite a recent editing block, user Stellabystarlight is persisting with edits to this article which appear to reflect a conflict of interest (she appears to be connected with the artist's estate and is involved in a dispute regarding different editions of the album released by different labels). feline1 (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the first step in COI threads is generally to establish if there is a admitted conflict of interest - is there any strong evidence? (Diffs are great) - after that, I can see that the article itself does have problems and it would be great to address those...Fayedizard (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * On article's talk page, Stellabystarlight writes (16:03,17 August 2012) How do I, as a member of the family and therefore privy to private information, keep a bootlegger from writing what they like on this page? There is correspondence from solicitors but this is not available online. If it's not available online as a "citation", does this allow someone to write what is to their benefit on this page? Harket has been a source of frustration and sorrow to the Stanshall family for years and now we can't even get rid of them on a wiki page... - which is a fairly clear statement of being an interested party in a commerical/family dispute. Also, notably, it contradicts her initial claim on her own user talk page [] that she is not a family member but "just a Bonzo's fan". --feline1 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That works - I've templated the talk page, as per standard. The next thing we can do now is see if we can find some of the articles fundamental problems and leave stella happy at the process - I've put some effort in on the talk page. Fayedizard (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the Ki_Longfellow article also be considered in this case. Stellabystarlight has a history of adding commercial links to that page, and other editors have questioned on here talkpage [] whether she actually is "Ki Longfellow" herself (she denied this, but she also denied being a member of the Stanshall family, which clearly was a lie).--feline1 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

libertarian perspectives on abortion


CarolMooreDC is the founder of Pro-choice Libertarians. He/She is also a frequent editor of Libertarian perspectives on abortion, and (to my knowledge) she never openly professed her affiliation before I called her on it. She placed a link to her own group's site and inserted their point of view into the article. It is my opinion that she has also changed the structure of the article to reflect her group's view that abortion is best tackled with a legal vs illegal dichotomy. This is a dichotomy I disagree with but discussion has not swayed her revert her changes. I have attempted to come to an agreement with her on these issues, but this has not been successful. She now claims that I am the one with a COI because I have a personal view on the subject. I discovered her affiliation when I emailed her group with a question. I was surprised when she emailed me back in reference to Wikipedia, rather than her advocacy group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion&diff=prev&oldid=148041614

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion&diff=prev&oldid=511115800Dude6935 (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You didn't "call her on it", you connected the dots by way of a years-ago post she made. Then and now she has been extremely objective in her work on that topic, WP:Writing for the opposition. I see no actionable problem here. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you have a plain old content dispute here. I can't imagine that editing this article is going to make the accused editor rich or famous.  What's her interest?  To have an article that, as best she understands it, fairly reflects all sides of the topic. What's your interest?  The same.  What's our interest?  The same.  When we all have the same interest, there is no "conflict" of interests.  There are just differing points of view.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for comments above which I think pretty much confirm what I write below. All relevant discussions are at the article talk page under two sections started by User:Dude6935 - "Rothbard is evictionist" and "Harry Browne's non-postion on abortion." To make the points I made there, and a few others:
 * I added the quote from the Pro-Choice Libertarian page in July 2007 within my first 150 edits, before I was aware of COI issues. At the time I noticed that Libertarians for Life had some quotes, so I thought it was OK to include a quote from Pro-Choice Libertarians on the reasons various libertarians are pro-choice and put in a link. I also put in an external link. I can’t remember any complaints about that paragraph or link over the years.  I hadn't thought about it in COI terms until User:Dude6935 brought up the issue. However, I don’t think that’s overt promotion of the group.
 * Obviously I have a POV about the issue, but a POV is not a COI, although it can become problematic like a COI if it leads to systematic violations of policy. And I don’t think I've done that.  Off hand, I don’t remember any complaints about my edits being overly POV from other editors.
 * I told User:Dude6935 I’m not paid by the loose and farily inactive Pro-choice libertarians network and don’t work professionally in this area. I asked him to explain how this five year old edit was a violation of Conflict_of_interest and still do not see an explanation.
 * We did have the beginning of a discussion on the structure issue, but he never explained his view clearly despite my asking him to deal with the content dispute. And I pointed out that User:Dude6935's original writing on the “evictionist” view was WP:OR and later that his using non-WP:RS sources (a nonexpert on an advocacy page and a nonexpert Facebook posting) to support his views was the kind of thing that is problematic POV wise. Rather than discuss, he went straight to the alleged conflict of interest issue.
 * I did point out to User:Dude6935 how what seems to be his POV can become like a COIs, thinking of the sentence in “What is a conflict of interest”: “If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously...”
 * So that’s all I have to say. Thanks for listening. CarolMooreDC 00:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC's activities clearly include self promoting and campaigning. She linked to her own obscure group and devoted a good deal of text to its ideas. Her outside link was recently changed to a red link by another editor, a welcome move that reduces the problem. I will quote Wikipedia on a campaigning COI, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations or political campaigns that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." This is obviously the case here since Pro-choice libertarians is an abortion advocacy group and CarolMooreDC edited an abortion page while being an active member of that organization. She responded my my contact email to the group and admits that she maintains the website. The domain is registered in her name. http://whois.domaintools.com/pro-choicelibertarians.net Regardless of the content of those abortion edits, those edits could be a COI. Now, any edit I question to show evidence of her COI could be called a content dispute, so I don't think they should be waived off as such. Her group clearly preferred the legal vs illegal dichotomy in viewing abortion. They state on their front page that moral arguments are irrelevant to their goals and are they are open to both pro-chioce and pro-life libertarians who oppose government involvement in the issue. Her title changes and consolidation of all text between the pro-legalization and anti-legalization is clear evidence that her group's paradigm is reflected in the article. While I might agree with that paradigm in politics, I disagree with that paradigm in the article because it totally ignores the questions of morality and philosophy of abortion. Her "interest" here does not have to be financial to be a conflict. There are 8 listed conflicts on the COI page, and only one of them is financial. It is her promotion of her group (and her site) and the injection of her group's paradigm that are at conflict with the goals of Wikipedia. I think it reflects poorly on the article, and on Wikipedia, if the paradigm of an outside advocacy group is embodied the article's structure. And especially so, if that group's founder is responsible for the content of the article. Dude6935 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It also just occurred to me that citing Pro-choice libertarians is also referencing a self-published, non-expert source. And given the distinct possibility that the founder wrote the cited text, it might also be original research. Not that this is the place to raise this issue other than to show that CarolMooreDC might not be following her own advice for proper editing. Dude6935 (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Pro-Choice Libertarians text used here was passed by the group members who are involved in these discussions and members have in the past suggested content to the web page and to petitions and leaflets we circulated, so this is really an irrelevant comment. Our group has been as active in the Libertarian Party and there are probably at least as many WP:RS sources as Libertarians for Life. However, the fact there is NO Pro-Choice Libertarians article shows that we/I am not promoting it! Maybe I should put the factoids on my talk page and let the Feminist Wikiproject know and someone there can write the article if they so choose! I don't think that would be a COI, would it??
 * User:Dude6935 wrote: Her title changes and consolidation of all text between the pro-legalization and anti-legalization is clear evidence that her group's paradigm is reflected in the article. As I clearly stated to you, there was a long community discussion which resulted in changing the title Pro-choice to Support for the legalization of abortion and Pro-life to Opposition to legal abortion. You haven't bothered to discuss that with me on the talk page. Instead you come here. I respond more on the talk page. CarolMooreDC 19:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Evening all... My inclination is that being a founder member of an organisation and editing an article on that talks directly about the organisation is probably the sort of thing that the average wikipedian would expect to consider a COI (I don't necessarily agree, but I think that's a fair reading of the community. That being said, I also don't think that the particular COI that would exist is relevant to the content dispute that you guys are having.  Given that any article with the title `abortion' in it is likely to be a minefield at one time or other - my suggestion would be to put a note (not necessarily the template) on the top of the talk page along the lines of "Editor carol discloses she was a founder member of the Pro-choice libertarians network, which is mentioned in this article." Would that be a solution that would be amenable to everyone? Fayedizard (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, there was a real long RfC discussion of COI issues in the spring - Requests_for_comment/COI that brought up a lot more criticism of COI policy than I was aware of previously, including how COI issue abused in content disputes. I think a general note about my organizational affiliation on a talk page is inappropriate. However, I do think it's definitely relevant if I make any article edit or talk page comment relevant specifically to either group, and then I could mention in the edit summary. Otherwise it's just POV issues which everyone has on that topic. CarolMooreDC 21:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

First and foremost, the conflict of interest guideline was put in place on Wikipedia to help deal with certain violations of the foundational WP:Neutral point of view policy. What I see with Carolmooredc is that her contributions are generally fair, balanced, and very closely aligned with high quality sources. She is neutral in her editing work here. For instance, taking one single edit as an example, three years ago Carol performed this change to the Libertarian perspectives on abortion article, correcting a poorly interpreted summary of Libertarian positions relative to Mary Ruwart's pro-life views. Carol brought in a handful of good book sources and nailed down the primarily no-government-interference position of Libertarianism which, when applied to abortion, usually determines a pro-choice political position. At the end of all that, she gave what I consider the proper weight to the pro-life minority view, writing "However, some libertarians oppose abortion based on their views of the non-aggression principle and individual rights." This kind of excellent article work is not a violation of neutral point of view, hence my reluctance to prominently brand Carol with the red letters COI. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be entirely clear - my suggestion was that there be a general note on the article talk page - not on Carol's (I think you got this, but for all the lurkers) Fayedizard (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I consider this to be in the same category as "A Democrat edited Barack Obama's article". Sure, she's a member of a group.  So what?  Incorporating a group like that takes a couple hundred dollars and a few hours to fill out all the paperwork.  Any of you could create a new one every week of the year if you wanted to waste your time.  Being a founder isn't a big deal.
 * The first diff uses WP:INTEXT attribution to the group to introduce a direct quotation, which is how you're supposed to handle direct quotations, per Wikipedia policy. It might be better to re-write it so that the information is not a direct quotation, but given that approach, naming the group was actually required.  Carol therefore did nothing wrong except the improper formatting of the URL, which should have been set up as a proper citation, not as an WP:External link.
 * The other diff has no COI connection, and in fact the only complaint is that it causes the article to adequately describe the "wrong" group's POV. That's properly a matter for WP:NPOVN, but I suspect that moving the complaint there would be an exercise in Dude learning WP:How to lose.  When someone cites that many different sources, their POV probably was underrepresented on the page.
 * I'm not inclined to bother with the Notable Wikipedian tag that Fayedizard may have initially had in mind; it doesn't really seem appropriate. If there is any mention of Carol's role on the talk page, then that's probably enough (or too much, if it encourages POV pushers to blow it up out of proportion). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this would appear to be a consensus against - thank you all involved :) - would anyone object if we closed the conversation? Fayedizard (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC should not have kept her connection to pro-choice libertarians a secret. If she had openly stated her affiliation, we wouldn't even be talking about a possible COI today. This problem would have been resolved before it started. Her secrecy is further evidence that she knew what she was doing was questionable. I think Fayedizard's suggestion of a note stating CarolMooreDC's affiliation (in whatever form is appropriate) would erase the secrecy. Wikipedia encourages openness in most cases of possible COI. I am not seeking to bar CarolMooreDC from editing any page. It is clear that her account is not solely devoted to pushing her group. I just don't think she should be totally reorganizing the article in question to align with her POV (or even some other abortion article) without discussion beforehand, like she did. When there is a question of COI, adequate discussion should always precede edits. That is all I am asking of CarolMooreDC. Thanks everyone for hearing my objections. Dude6935 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mjbinfo


User Mjbinfo appears to be Marcia Bates. Recently this editor began adding a reference to the IT-related articles listed above referencing a book that was edited by Ms. Bates. See, , , etc. We feel that this is a conflict of interest because of the editor's involvement with these books.

We discussed the COI issues on User talk:SudoGhost and the editor in question feels that these links add value to the article, and does not agree that this is a case of COI. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My Conflict of Interest Issue:

I now understand the paranoid world view of Wikipedia much better, and will not waste your time and mine arguing for what you consider to be "self-promotion" in the above cases.

However, there is one thing that matters very much to me, and which I hope you will respect, just as you ask me to respect your community values. You have now posted a statement at the top of the entry for my life's work, "Marcia J. Bates," which says publicly that I have committed the sin of "self-promotion." I keep thinking of Hester Prynne in the Scarlet Letter. She committed adultery; apparently, I've committed self-promotion. This is a public embarrassment to me, and damages my professional reputation. What will I have to do in order for you to remove that banner? I will happily take down the whole entry if you wish. It is listed as "Low Importance" anyway (thanks), so you presumably won't mind if it disappears. Alternatively, I will remove parts of it if you wish. As I explained in the discussion under SudoGhost, I added material to the entry because a professional opponent's contributions distorted and misrepresented my work. For that reason, I really would prefer to take the whole thing down, rather than remove what I contributed and leave only his view of my work. (He, because he is not me, evidently has no self-interest.)

Anyway, I repeat: What will it take for you to take down the banner on my Wikipedia entry that publicly brands me as a self-interested, self-promoting egotist? I don't think I deserve that branding, by the way, and I would far rather that the entry disappear altogether than that this characterization continue. For the community of academics/researchers, reputation is very, very important. That's the value from my world that I am asking you to respect. I made a mistake in the world view of Wikipedia; are you going to leave me publicly branded for this one-time error for the rest of my life? Surely, the world according to Wikipedia isn't that cruel?

24.130.121.229 (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo


 * As your contributions don't seem overly excessive, I've changed the tag at the top (at least for now). At a glance, there may in fact be significant issues with the article.  I would suggest you put any edits you want on the talk page with the request edit tag instead of editing the article directly.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a big swing at the editor's bio for now and it's in much better shape (I've added the COI template to the talk page as per usual) - I also reverted the adverty additions to Robert_M._Hayes. Fayedizard (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I get it. You discovered I (unwittingly) did something you don't like, and now you have come down on me like a hammer. My great "crime" has been to be interested in my own work, which is something scholars tend to do. But now you are hounding me throughout the encyclopedia--anywhere I contributed anything has be extirpated. Zapping the Robert Hayes contributions really puzzles and angers me. That's not self-interest, is it? Isn't that writing about someone I happen to have some expertise on? But I guess nothing I do now is acceptable.

The Bates entry is nice and clean and crisp and your writer has done a good job with it. I'm troubled by the fact that my theory of information gets just one sentence of less than a line, and someone else's theory gets four and a half lines--which theory isn't even the subject of the entry. But, no matter, I suppose that's part of my punishment. In addition, I am no longer allowed to make contributions directly, but must plead instead for inclusion. Don't worry. I do get the message, and I won't have anything more to do with Wikipedia in the future. Please stop hounding me now.

I do thank you for using a less harsh banner at the top of the entry. I'm very grateful for that.

A final comment: The attitude within the Wikipedia community seems to be that everyone outside the in-group is evil and out for no good. I can't recall when I have dealt with such punitive attitudes, especially when it seems to be your default assumption. I heard recently that Wikipedians wanted more contributions from women, and that was part of my impulse to do more here. BELIEVE ME, you are not going to draw most women with this knives-out culture.

I think maybe the time has come for you to write the encyclopedia yourselves. I'm serious. If outsiders are mostly just harming it, then write it yourselves. You have a lot of expertise and maybe it is now time to just take it over completely from start to finish. Then you can get public recognition for your hard work. Stop trying to get other people to do it the way you want. Instead, do it the way you want yourselves. Mjbinfo (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)mjbinfo


 * Is everyone here remembering that WP:CITESELF permits this editor to cite her own publications, within reasonable limits? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume so - my interest was in the editing of her own page on wiki - would you mind having a look into this thread in general? and seeing if it's sensible to close ect?  I would - but I suspect that Mjbinfo would no longer consider me an uninvolved editor... Fayedizard (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked through a handful of her changes, and while it wasn't all perfect (who is, especially when we were relatively new editors?) it honestly didn't look that bad. It's not really an "autobiography" issue, since someone else started the page years ago.
 * The bigger question in my mind is whether we should even have such a page. All but one of the sources are by the subject or part of an academic conversation about the subject's publications.  The remaining one doesn't seem to be about her, e.g., her education, employment, achievements, hobbies, etc.  That does not indicate that this person qualifies for a separate, stand-along article on Wikipedia.  If there have been no such publications (hometown newspaper, maybe?), then I'd be inclined not to have such an article at all, especially since without such sources it's very hard to protect the article against bias and criticism from people who don't really understand what the academics are talking about.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that she has inherent notability by virtue of being a full prof? Fayedizard (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's really no such thing as "inherent notability". If we can't find enough third-party sources to comply with WP:V's requirement that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", then we shouldn't have the article, especially for a living person.  A lack of independent sources makes it hard to be fair to the subject.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting AfD? I've been reading Notability_(academics) and I'll admit to not being up to speed on current practice about what 'equivalent' to a named chair is in the US.... Fayedizard (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even want to guess what counts. You might consider leaving a note at that guideline's talk page.  For me, though, it's the basic failure to meet WP:V (which is mandatory).  WP:ACADEMIC addresses that problem at General note #1.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Cameron Sanders


Vanity article created and edited by account with a username that implies that this has been done by that person. Hu12 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Neptune Orient Lines


User joined in August with a clearly promotional username, proceeding to add promotional and/or poorly sourced content to NOL's company articles (NB NOL merged with APL). Sionk (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I templated the talk page based on the username - I've also had a very quick dust of the article - I suspect it just needs 20 minutes with someone prepared to get the sources out. I've posted at the user's talk page in an effort to get them involved... Fayedizard (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Scott Mathews


This article is a horrible piece of autobiographical hagiography and has been this way for many years despite the multitude of tags. I've gone through and knocked out some of the most egregious examples of puffery I could find, but it is still a serious mess. More help and eyes would be appreciated. -- Daniel 05:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)