Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 63

Daan Roosegaarde


Users stated above appear to be representatives of Studio Roosegaarde/Daan Roosegaarde according to their associated website. That implies a conflict of interest as it can be found in NOPR. Editing an article on Wikipedia with the intent to derive monetary or other benefits may undermine the ability to remain neutral. Mcczech (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I'm watching. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is a really egregious case of promotion. I've trimmed it way back, redirected the associated article (which was pure duplicative spam), and have tagged this for notability and COI.  Someone should take this to AfD. Qworty (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Tina Dekkers" account is now warring to add unsourced, promotional material. We definitely need more eyes on this one. Qworty (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And now the "Meilof1" account is getting into the act. These are some pernicious and committed spammers.  A sock investigation is probably in order. Qworty (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Brill


User:Eddiecomic is repeatedly reverting well-sourced and cited information from the Eddie Brill article. Because the effect of these edits is to remove public yet negative information, and based on the user name, I believe this to be a conflict of interest -- Brill appears to be editing the article himself to remove material he is not happy with. Most of the rest of the article as written is uncited and written in a POV style. 208.120.1.55 (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The content is well sourced and undoubtedly belongs in the article in some form. I've reworded it slightly and added another source to try and make it more neutral. SmartSE (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I left a uw-autobiography notice on his talk page. Assuming he is the same person, hopefully he will refrain from editing his own article directly. --Drm310 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Jean Holden
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the procedures here, but I came across Jean Holden and it seems to be almost completely written by the article's subject. Notability isn't established and there aren't really any good sources. Not sure what, if anything, to do with it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bringing the issue to our attention here was the right move. I issued a notice to the editor in question on her talk page.  Do you believe that there are NPOV issues in the article?  Andrew327 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

J. D. Byrider


First editor's only contributions have been to attempt to turn this article into yet another billboard for this low-income car dealership chain by removing content against the company and adding promotional information about the chain's latest dealership openings and NASCAR team accomplishments that reads like a Facebook post. Others have the same trademarks but ducked and covered once they hit the fourth warning. The last should have obviously been a promotional block on sight, but in 2006 we hadn't built our guidelines up to where they are today.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first three are so stale they aren't even worth looking into. The last one is probably a company employee of some sort, but prior to you starting this discussion you have made zero attempts to resolve the issue with a polite conversation on BethMillett's user talk page.  I suggest you use that method first, by being as courteous and polite about asking them what they are doing and explaining Wikipedia's policies in plain, custom made, well thought out text.  That should happen first.  Otherwise, I don't see anything that requires further attention until after that has been attempted and given time to bear fruit.  -- Jayron  32  03:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that others had done it already, but I see that isn't the case, or they just assumed it was pointless to talk to a corporate-connected account that persisted to add the same information multiple times despite warnings in summaries not to do so. I will let them know, but I'm sure I'll be back here whenever they decide to promote more store openings.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The first editor appears to be employed by a PR company, so I have left her a note asking her to disclose her affiliation. --Drm310 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lars Lindberg Christensen


The article has multiple edits from the IP subnets 134.171 and 200.72 which belongs to ESO, the employer of the person. All other anonymous edits are from IP addresses used by M-net, an ISP located in Munich the city nearest to ESO. No edits coming from the M-net adresses have contributions to the German Wikipedia. This is an indication that those edits are made by a non-German. There are many non-Germans at ESO. The small remainder of contributions to this article are from named wikipedia accounts, mostly bots, in one case from an account matching the name of the article. The article is basically a CV, with activities which are not so unusual for an astronomer/PR-person. Is the person actually notable ? Smerenda (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

California Lutheran University


This editor (who I've introduced to Wikipedia a bit because I volunteer with the education program) is interested in becoming a campus volunteer. They would like input at Talk:California_Lutheran_University. Biosthmors (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ExxonMobil


This article states:

Looking at Talk:ExxonMobil, and the 2 archives: 1 and 2, I don't see anyone explicitly identified. Also, there is no Connected contributor on the talk page. Am I missing something, or is the article wrong?Smallman12q (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toh Aik Choon


Not necessarily an autobiography, but a conflict of interest may be in place, especially considering the username involved. hmssolent \Let's convene My patrols 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am the employee of ACT Holdings Pte Ltd, a company founded by Mr Toh Aik Choon himself. I've been tasked to do a wikipedia input from Mr AC Toh's son, who is now the owner and managing director of the group. We will be most appreciative if you can allow the article which is by no means any conflict with anybody. All materials have not been plagiarized or is fictitious. For clarifications, we can be contacted via details on the website www.act-holdings.com.sg. Thank you - C.Y Lim Toh Aik Choon (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, the proposed article in question is on OP's talk page.  little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 01:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeking assistance with MicroStrategy, Michael J. Saylor
Last fall, User:Dreamyshade identified problems with several articles related to the company MicroStrategy and posted about it on this noticeboard (see here). As she correctly noted, someone from the company was editing directly, and the resulting articles were well outside of Wikipedia guidelines. Since then I've agreed to work with the company on a consulting basis, and I've prepared written replacements for two: one about the company MicroStrategy ( | proposed version | Talk proposal) and another about CEO co-founder, Michael J. Saylor ( | proposed version | Talk proposal).

It's always my goal to follow Jimbo's "bright line" and not edit directly, however I need a bit more assistance than I've been able to find so far. Since first posting my drafts two weeks back, I've had positive responses from Dreamyshade, User:FurrySings and a mixed take on the company article from User:Qwyrxian, but I'm afraid I haven't been able to get a follow-up response from any. FurrySings thought the Saylor article was ready to go and suggested I move it, but I won't for reasons stated. Perhaps that's a good place to start: is anyone willing to review the Saylor article and draft and comment on whether it's ready to move? I'm happy to continue this conversation here or on one of the article Talk pages, just let me know. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * would you be willing to put a tag on that page? I've brought up my concern about WP:MIRRORs on the conflict of interest policy talk page, and feel it is a best practice. Personally I think the draft you have here is a significant improvement over the current page. -- [  UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  17:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello UseTheCommandLine, I'm perfectly happy adding, and I've just done so on both drafts. Your concern about them  appearing on mirrors without the proper disclaimer makes sense to me. (And I'll do the same with other drafts as well.) About the draft being an improvement: is it the Saylor draft you looked at, and whichever the case, any more specific feedback? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mad Men commentary from Kritic


COI-spamming on numerous Mad Men articles by the above IPs. Comments left on the article talk page suggest that the IPs are associated with the links in question unitcritic.blogspot.com SFK2 (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Chuck DeVore


These edits:, , , , , seem kinda problematic. See also this and, especially, this prior warning. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that those edits are problematic. User:Qworty has already tidied up the article, Chuckdevore replaced a lot of it sourcing it to http://chuckdevore.com/aboutchuck.html. As a community we are fairly in agreement that subjects shouldn't write their own articles and therefore I reverted these edits. Some of the content could probably belong in the article, but it should reference secondary sources and be added by someone else. SmartSE (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fondation Carmignac


Very obvious COI, username is the same name as the article. User has been warned of his username on his talk page. User has also removed the COI tag once. ToastyMallows (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what is more, this seems to be a sockpuppet account, evading a block on User:Fondation Carmignac, so I have indefinitely blocked the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing with a twist
Folks, a recent e-mail to OTRS brought this to our attention. In an e-mail exchange between this individual and the e-mailer, he claims to "have a Wikiepdia Admin on staff who can get your pages up and keep them up. He is also very good at fixing client's pages who have gotten slandered online. Get in touch for more details. Our price is $2,500."

Not sure there is much we can do without further data, so I am just bringing this here for wider attention.--ukexpat (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on a search for that guy's name, I think I'll call bullshit on the fact that he has an admin on staff. I just hope that the person who emailed hasn't handed anything over. User:Joseph Chinnock was created last week though and is spammy. SmartSE (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the chap who e-mailed OTRS was just letting us know.--ukexpat (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, the lulz. Like having an admin "on staff" would help with anything. I know 200 and none of them listen to me § FreeRangeFrog  croak 22:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins? Aren't those the guys that take 18 months to get back to you about a problem? Qworty (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Marc Hauser


Relevant diffs here and  here. Summary: person claiming to be subject of article (apparent from username, as well as message on my talk page ) is removing mention of findings of academic misconduct from the lead. I don't wish to get into an edit war on the subject, but I think the declared COI is rather blatant, and would rather an administrator or somebody more experienced in handling COI issues on biographies deal with this editor. Ray Talk 21:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Analog Pussy


"Jiga" is the name used by one of the three members of this obscure band. The only edits by that account were to this article. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The user sent an email to me after I warned them about their username which was apologetic and asked what they had done wrong and how they should improve their editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the two original founders, "Jiga" and "Jinno" have split up. There are now two different "official Analog Pussy websites" and Jiga is tussling with an IP account (presumably Jinno or one of his partisans) about control of the article. Naturally, I have reverted to the wrong version (the Jinno version), which arguably is punishing Jiga for her openness in this matter. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple religious articles related to Eastern Orthodoxy


Yeoberry is edit-warring to add a paper by "John B. Carpenter" to the above articles. When Doug Weller asked the editor if he has any connection to John B. Carpenter the editor, via an IP, reverted his message: User talk:Yeoberry: Difference between revisions Revision as of 16:38, 18 March 2013 174.53.88.54. Specifically Doug had asked him: and

In addition the paper he is edit-warring to add across many articles is non-existent in Google Scholar. He is also engaging in personal attacks against me in his edit-summaries, accusing me of COI and for not "having enough expertise", and on his messages on my talk. Please see also Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church: Challenge to Claim to Continuity with the Early Church. He also created another article on his church which was also deleted. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not "edit-warring." There is a recent article, just published, entitled, "Icons and the Eastern Orthodox Claim to Continuity with the Early Church," Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013. It's an academic article from a peer-reviewed journal. Properly cited information from it was added to a few relevant wikipedia articles, such as about icons. Dr. K removed that information for no appropriate reason. He didn't try to edit or condense or reach a consensus with other editors. He simply deleted it.

The article is not non-existent: it is newly published by the International Society for Christian Apologetics, edited by Norman Geisler (a well-known scholar), available for purchase here: http://www.isca-apologetics.org/jisca.Yeoberry (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dougweller has apparently become obsessed with stalking me and preventing any of my additions after he blocked me from adding anything to the SPLC article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center). He then went to an article I created and made a series of false statements about it: including putting up a "notability" tag on March 9 and then five days later claiming that the tag had been up for two months and so the article should be deleted. He frequently put unwanted material on my "talk" page and then I finally had to threaten to report him for stalking me until he stopped. His interest here is nothing less, I believe, that to frustrate me.Yeoberry (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I stopped posting to your talk page because it was obviously pointless. This is not about me, this is about you (and perhaps for another board questions about the journal). You came back on my radar when were warned for edit-warring (for which you've been blocked once). It seems very likely that you have some sort of relationship with John Carpenter - virtually all of your edits recently have added material sources to him, you created an article on the church where Carpenter is pastor (deleted by AfD) and one on Carpenter himself with the edit summary "curriculum vita of Dr. John B. Carpenter". That one was speedy deleted (twice). Here's your chance to either be honest about it or ignore the issue again. As the old adage goes, my momma didn't raise no stupid children". Ironic that you suggested Dr K might have a COI when it's so clear that you do. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article in question is being discussed at RSN - Yeoberry correctly brought it up there but without mentioning the COI issue. Yeoberry, I'm wondering if after all of this you still don't understand what edit-warring is. You've been told there that you've been edit-warring. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Got sucked into this because of a question posted at WP:RSN. In another article, Family integrated church, User:Yeoberry posted a statement attributed to the same author, John B. Carpenter, who he identified as "pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church,. If you go to the website for which which Yeoberry posted the link, the "About Us", "View CRBC Leadership" links take you to this page about Mr. Carpenter: . Fladrif (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note the email address for Dr. Carpenter on that page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Fladrif (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Riight! "John Carpenter (M.Div., Ph.D.) Preaching Elder was converted at age 15, studied for the ministry at Samford University and Fuller Theological Seminary. He has taught in Bible colleges in Singapore and Ethiopia where he also helped lead a ministry to street kids. He earned a Th.M. in Systematic Theology, writing a thesis on Confucianism, and a Ph.D. in Church History, studying the Puritans. As a Puritan scholar, he shares their vision for Biblically "pure" churches." - not much of a background for writing about the Greek church 200-800, and indeed as summarized in the additions he is just recycling the objections of Byzantine Iconoclasm (not that they drew his conclusions about the "continuity" of the church), as revived by Calvin etc at the Reformation, & evangelicals ever since. Such polemic has no place in these articles. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Johnbod, It's difficult to suppress the sarcasm: having a Ph.D. in church history is, indeed, a good back ground for writing an academic article about . . . church history. And the article is not recycled polemics of Calvin (whom I don't even know if he had any polemics against the Eastern Orthodox Church); and, even if it was, I doubt you've read the article nor do you have the expertise to evaluate it, which is why you are not an editor of an academic journal, such as those who published the article you are trying to suppress.Yeoberry (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: One of Yeoberry's edits to Family integrated church was reverted here for being a COI addition, quite correctly I think. There is a slightly more difficult situation with Fourth Great Awakening. That quotes an article by John Carpenter from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, which is a reputable journal, but it still would seem to be a COI addition. The same JETS article is in the "Further Reading" section of the Second Great Awakening article, added by Yeoberry here. StAnselm (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper has very low academic value. It has only been cited once and only in a PhD dissertation according to Google Scholar. This is in the domain of self-advertising. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the additions. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That was a prudent action. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully between what's been said here and at RSN this is the end of the matter. He's been busier promoting Carpenter than I realised. He added material (removed with an edit summary calling it fringe) to Second Great Awakening, Fourth Great Awakening (removed), Robert Fogel (he was a teaching assistant for Fogel), Parable of the talents or minas, A Model of Christian Charity, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need and even Globalization. Plus the other articles we've been discussing. A lot if not all of it should be removed IMHO, if only on WP:UNDUE and RS grounds let alone promotionalism. If Yeoberry continues to try to insert material by John Carpenter I will suggest a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Has a COI been admitted, by the way? I am also of the opinion that everything should go, even though for the Robert Fogel article the material is obviously relevant. And this is exactly why we discourage COI editing - it isn't fair on the readers, and it isn't fair on other editors. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In real encyclopedia's, scholars and people with expertise in their field are allowed to contribute without being accused of a "COI" by people without such. But this is precisely why many universities do not allow wikipedia to be used as a reference.Yeoberry (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, he simply deletes or ignores any requests about this - presumably because it is something he can't actually deny as it is so obvious(see posts above). Which is perhaps a reason why he should be topic banned now from posting material authored by Carpenter. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the above edits, the topic ban would have to be very broad indeed, and extend to all essentially religious topics. But I am by no means convinced that this is a hopeless situation, or that a topic ban is needed right now, unless he continues to self-promote, in which case a community ban may be the more reasonable option.
 * What I'm seeing is a preacher using WP as a platform to preach, and to publicize himself and those intimately connected to him. Looks like a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE to me, probably because he does not yet understand the nature of the project. He may genuinely not have realized that self-promotion and proselytizing are big no-nos here on WP.
 * Perhaps if someone of a more diplomatic nature than me can try explaining to him what WP is for, and not for, he may see the light and actually become a productive editor. He apparently has some scholarly familiarity with certain areas of Christian theology, and, if convinced to avoid bias and self-promotion, might actually end up contributing positively to the project. Care to take a stab at that, St. Anselm? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw Cluebot reverted the removal of his bit at Fourth Great Awakening, so it remains. Johnbod (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You sure? I don't see anything in the article history. StAnselm (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant Robert Fogel . Johnbod (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was never removed from the Fogel BLP. ClueBot restored something else. I have removed it just now, with the following note on the talk page. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean a topic ban from Christian articles, just one banning him from promoting Carpenter. That's the problem being discussed here. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be the minimum required under the circumstances. I would like to point out however that this is not the only issue with this editor. He has deleted messages from Doug and accused him of having "become obsessed with stalking him". He also left a message on my talk : saying:  where he uses my information to accuse me of COI. I find the behaviour of this user quite disturbing. He seems not to understand basic principles of what constitutes a reliable source and does not hesitate to promote his COI by attacking other editors based on their personal identifiers, as he has done in my case, or for no reason at all, as in Doug's case. Let us just hope that these are all a bunch of newbie mistakes, for if they are not, there will be more problems down the line with this editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  11:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Eastern_Orthodoxy, Yeoberry was adding the same text on icons to the same range of articles last Summer, without attribution to a secondary source (just primary sources). This was several months before the Carpenter article now under discussion had been published. Either Carpenter had just finished his article and Yeoberry was adding the text prior to publication, or alternatively, being unsuccessful at inserting this text to Wikipedia because of WP:OR objections from other editors, Carpenter hurried up and wrote and article, and had it published. Fladrif (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In an impressive display of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Yeoberry re-added the material yet again at Iconography. I left a warning on his talk page (which I'm sure he will delete). I suggest this go to AN/I, as WP:COIN doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism.  Fladrif (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it wouldn't be appropriate/sensible for me to do it. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll do it if there is another insertion of the same material again. I've had no involvement other than what spun out of the WP:RSN query. Yeoberry has one last clear chance to avoid going to AN/I. Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * These actions just verify what I wrote just above. It is very difficult for anyone exhibiting this level of planned longterm aggressive actions to suddenly start cooperating with other editors in a collegial manner. I agree that this should now be escalated to ANI if there is no compliance. As far as cooking up the paper to game the Wikipedia system, I am not surprised. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  15:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen. Fladrif (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you joking? You delete factual information from an academic, peer-reviewed journal -- you delete is repeatedly with no consultation or seeking to be cooperative, and you accuse me of not acting in a "collegial manner"? Why don't you try to get a paper published in an academic journal?Yeoberry (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * AN/I discussion on Yeoberry started here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm stepping away now. Editors with previous involvement with him are on their own from here on out.Fladrif (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fladrif. I'll have a look. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And now he's indef blocked. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Parasoft, Parasoft products, and Parasoft CEO


The user has made most of his edits to the pages of the Parasoft company, that company products, that company CEO (Adam Kolawa), listed the company products and papers on pages about what the products are meant to do, and listing them on the page of prizes the software received. This has been over a few years. The user has been questioned on his talk page a few times, but never replied.

In addition, the user also attempted twice to add Parasoft products to disambiguation (Soatest for EDI, and Parasoft C/C++test for CWE).

In October 2010 the user was warned with UW:SPAM3 and the following extra message Stop spamming wikipedia with your parasoft website which he blanked with the edit message incorrect warning - not adding spam links; adding references to papers authored by a recognized industry expert. I have no way to confirm this since the link on the edit being mentioned requires an account on the parasoft website, but the "paper" seems to have been published by parasoft itself.

I recently unblanked this warning, and left another comment asking if he was connected with Parasoft. His reply was blanking his whole talk page which I reverted. He then blanked it one more time and I got an edit on my own talk page from saying that users are free to blank their pages and making reference to WP:BLANKING.

While this user (AliveFreeHappy) has made plenty of edits, a few of them are also related to Parasoft, including updating Parasoft board member list, and suggesting Articles_for_deletion/Integrity_(software). While I do not have access to the deleted page content (and googling for integrity software returns nothing useful), the comments on the discussion say that Integrity is software to help people make software, the same use of Parasoft products, possibly making Integrity a competitor of Parasoft products.

The list of parasoft products that the user has been involved in writing (even completely written by him) are:


 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO
 * this is the company CEO

In addition, he added references to Parasoft products on pages about the type of service provided:


 * including link to Parasoft page and referencing a paper by the company CEO
 * link for a blog post written by a Parasoft employer (see disclaimer at the end of post)
 * link to blog post about a parasoft product
 * a company product got this award
 * including link to Parasoft page and referencing a paper by the company CEO
 * link for a blog post written by a Parasoft employer (see disclaimer at the end of post)
 * link to blog post about a parasoft product
 * a company product got this award

Note that this is not a complete list of his edits, I got tired after going through a couple of them. Also, I did not look at the other user (AliveFreeHappy) but his edits appear very often next to Swtechwr edits.

--Carandraug (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked at the above articles with an eye at listing them at AfD. Most of the topics are well covered in press releases, but the Wikipedia articles seem to have been written mostly without the use of those. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This caught my eye, because I have some familiarity with the buzzwords here, software development publications, the JOLT awards, etc. I did some of the cleanup. Adam's article is now "good enough" I'd say and Parasoft needs the product section re-written, but the other articles on individual products should probably just be deleted.


 * The JOLT awards are significant, but after seeing the Network Products Guide award in this article, I'm working on removing any reference to it from Wikipedia. This is a paid award and should not be used anywhere. They sell nominations to hundreds of categories that virtually guarantee a win and even let you "create a category" (which will have only your nomination in it) for an extra fee. If anyone notices this award anywhere, I would encourage to delete on-site. CorporateM (Talk) 02:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

C-Murder
User names and edit histories suggest that these users may be related in some way to the subject of the article:

Edits marked as minor, new username apparently created after talk feedback to the first, and so on... -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Both accounts are now blocked for username violations. --Drm310 (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Subject removing cited birth date from article
I have noticed in the article about Bob Brinker that a dynamic IP from Henderson, Nevada (the city where the person lives) has been removing the birth date from the article despite the date cited to the Who's Who in America directory. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, you should go read WP:DOB. 'Sourced' isn't the only consideration for the inclusion of information that is important to identity thieves.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Rappaport


User is clearly editing his own article. Finkellium (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Left a uw-autobiography notice on his talk page. --Drm310 (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to have worked - no edits since. --Drm310 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Guthy-Renker


This article was originally poorly-sourced, off-topic and promotional due to COI editing. In January, I requested a quick cleanup of the article on their behalf to reduce it to the salvageable elements, while I work with them on an improved article. Late last month, I offered a revised draft here, which I think is a huge improvement. The content includes their legal dispute with National Media Corp, the creation of failed subsidiaries and the down-scaling of operations during the Gulf War.

I've waited a couple weeks and pinged all the appropriate editors I could think of, so I wanted to advertise my request here for Wikipedians to consider the proposed content at: Talk:Guthy-Renker. If I'm being impatient, just let me know! Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "Draft Guthy-Renker article" looks good to me. I suggest putting a source at the end of the sentence reading "Guthy-Renker wasn't able to manufacture enough product to meet National's demand" confirming that as a true fact. I'd also revisit calling something a "failed subsidiary." (subsidiary lost money and was closed would seem more NPOV if that is supported by the sources). Other than that, go ahead and post "Draft Guthy-Renker article" over the existing article (since it is your work). -- Jreferee (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I toned down "failed" to "didn't perform well". I swore the source said "failed" but when I double-checked, it did not. I found a link for the source, so it will be easier for others to improve if they want to word it differently. I also changed that Guthy-Renker didn't provide enough Fitness Flyers to something more along the lines of "allegedly." There are a lot of contradictions between the Advertising Age and WSJ source. Advertising Age positions it as a fact, while WSJ says these are the claims made in court. I figured WSJ was more reliable.


 * I would prefer if someone at least gave me a to give the me the go-ahead on an official basis, but I'll at least wait a couple days for any other comments for good measure. CorporateM (Talk) 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added the . Your proposal advanced the aims of Wikipedia over your outside interest, so I don't think there is any reason to wait, particularly given the poor state of the current article. The sooner we move that article out of one that has been fighting trouble since July 2007 to one that can be improved, the better. -- Jreferee (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Anyone is welcome to reverse it if they feel the article was not improved and I will have it on my Watchlist if anyone has questions or concerns I can help address. I didn't realize the article has had trouble for so long Jreferee. Happy to be involved in solving the problem for Guthy and for Wikipedia. I think the article may be too small for GA, but I still want to donate some images for it if I can get them from Guthy later on. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 16:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Air Berlin


The username suggests an affiliation with the airline, and indeed the edits seem to be of a non-neutral, promotional nature. --FoxyOrange (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reported user to WP:UAA for promotional username. --Drm310 (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

John Mackey (American football)
Recently, I posted a request on the Talk page of the article linked in the header, aiming to point out some false information within the article and propose a replacement section correcting this, along with a few other issues. So far, I haven't had any luck getting help from an independent editor, hence my follow-up here. And myy COI is with the NFLPA, of which Mackey was formerly president. I'll be watching this page or the Mackey Talk page for replies, thanks! WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I couldn't see any reason why not. The logic was sound, the sourcing was better and the text was less POV and more compliant with WP:BLP, in my view. Stalwart 111  07:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Stalwart, very much appreciated. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Article Sagarika Ghose
Anon IP claiming to be subject of the article is editing the article. Subject is frequently complaining on Talk:Sagarika Ghose and removing or adding contents. Recent edit by anon IP, same IP which claimed to be subject, has blanked 'controversy' section. I had removed controversial text which is not directly related to the article. But it appears that subject don't want to allow slightest controversy. Also anon IP claiming to be subject is using threatning tone on talkpage of the article. neo (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything on the article's talk page that suggested a threatening tone, but at any rate, I added a uw-auto template to the IP's talk page.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean anon IP/subject has talked about 'defamation case against wikipedia' here and 'sexual harassment, crime against women, new anti-rape law, punishable etc' here. Such language is enough to frighten users like me. So I refrained from reverting recent edit. neo (talk) 07:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that at first. I posted a warning on that IP's talk page too (it's interesting that users who do such things never actually create an account).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 17:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clout Communications


In my opinion the offending article should not have been approved for creation in the first place. The banners were added warning that the article did not meet notablity criteria, read like an advertisement, was an orphan article and had no footnotes. Some of these issues have now been cleared up, however the banners were repeatedly removed without these issues being cleared up. All edits to the page have been by Picknick99 Going to Picknick99's talk page you can see they have also attempted to create a page for Greg Day, who is managing director of the company. See: http://www.cloutcom.co.uk/about-clout/ It seems obvious that there is some conflict of interest going on and that the page is being used in contravention to wikipedia's policies, for promotion and advertising.

Rushton2010 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Further discussion with the individual make me think any breaches of the policy are inadvertent due to "newbie-ism" or ignorance of the rules, rather than deliberate disregard of the rules. Rushton2010 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

COI Notice for draft article “GNU C-Graph”
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.

Please see my talkpage for the remainder of this notice.72.252.229.15 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Visionat (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Visionat, you're in the wrong place. The WP:PSCOI document you refer to says that you should request feedback on your userspace draft "through Feedback, the live help channel, or Articles for creation."  (Alternatively, if you want the original version of your article to be restored, you need to "[s]ubmit a request for undeletion for uncontroversial deletions. For controversial deletions use Deletion Review.")  That said, if I may be frank your draft doesn't have any chance of being accepted as an article in its current form.  None of the references it contains are independent sources which cover the subject of the article in any depth. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Psychonaut thanks for the feedback, but if you visited my talkpage you should be aware that my COI declaration (which needs to be posted here) includes a complaint. The WP:PSCOI doc also suggests that one can ask for help, here, at the COI Noticeboard. You don't seem to be an engineer, though. Best to leave the technical evaluation of the article and its sources to the experts.

I've posted the full article below as users/admins may find this more convenient.Visionat (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One does NOT need to be an "engineer" to determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. There is no reason to be condesending or snarky towards trusted, high-volume editors. Regardless of you declaring a conflict of interest, it is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption from compliance with Wikipedias policies. Such as;
 * Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates)
 * No original research
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * Self-published sources
 * Advertisements masquerading as articles
 * Wikipedia is not a Web host
 * Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
 * Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
 * BLOCK
 * accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.
 * I've also added your other accounts to the list above ( and ).--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oooh! Talk about bias!! This looks like an attack. I did not intend to be "condescending or snarky". All reasonably educated people recognise the importance of "competence".


 * Note that, as I pointed out on my talk page, I created User:AdrienneGT when I was unable to log in to my User:Visionat account, and discontinued the former once I was able to log in as Visionat again. The defendants in the criminal matter, to which I referred in the deleted article, hack into my computer on an ongoing basis - I assumed that was the reason for my inability to log in (I tried several times without success). I honestly don't know what the other account User:72.252.229.15 is and don't recall ever creating it. Please go ahead and delete both User:AdrienneGT and User:72.252.229.15 as I don't use them and was unaware that creating an alternative account just to be able to edit the article was against Wikipedia's policies.Visionat (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Full COI Notice for draft article “GNU C-Graph”
This is to declare a conflict of interest under Wikipedia's Conflicts of Interest Policy in accordance with your Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, section 3(3), and to request reinstatement of the deleted article “GNU C-Graph” amended and uploaded to my user sandbox.

I argue that:
 * 1) The summary deletion was contrary to Wikipedia's policy on deletion;
 * 2) The deletion was motivated by bias; and
 * 3) The amended article complying with Wikipedia's policies should be reinstated.

COI and Deletion
I am the author of the software package "GNU C-Graph" and the author of the draft article of the same name. While Wikipedia discourages the creation and editing of articles by authors closely connected with the subject, doing so is not prohibited; nor was I aware of the relevance of the COI policy until 3 April 2013, when the newly created article was “speedily deleted” (see message from [[User:Gold Standard]]. The purported criterion for deletion stated that the article appeared “to be written like an advertisement” serving “only to promote an entity, person or product”.

The Administrators' Breach of Policy was Motivated by Bias
An objective reading of the deleted GNU C-Graph article would reveal that its content sought not to advertise, but to present verifiable factual information and evidence substantiating assertions that define the history of the software (typical software articles in Wikipedia devote a section to history). Rather than being promotional, the description of the software seeks to underscore its technical significance in the field as recommended in NSOFTWARE. As I pointed out in the ensuing deletion discussion, Wikipedia's articles on software are all inherently promotional. Accordingly, the stated deletion criterion of promotion/advertising gives the appearance of bias.

The conduct of the administrators, which demonstrated (among other things) a lack of competence in matters of law, gave priority to responses comporting with bias: threats to block me for “a good long time”, disparaging remarks such as “soapboxing” and “boogeyman” claims. They failed to articulate what I have identified as the only breach of policy in the article – that although information likely to be challenged cited documents distributed by public authorities and public officials, the definition of “published” within the meaning of Wikipedia policy on verifiability pertains to sources distributed and accessible by the general public, not just individuals (see Wikipedia's definition of published in Wikipedia:Published, section 1.1.

It is evident from the amended draft article that under Wikipedia's Policy on Deletion, the administrators were obliged to first consider alternatives to deletion, and could simply have edited the article to remove proscribed content: “If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.”

I submit that the administrators' breach of policy was motivated by a root contention that the evidence of racial discrimination exposed in the deleted article (particularly under the section “Theft Apartheid and Obstruction of Justice”) publicized the theft of rights in respect of software authored by a black woman. The summary deletion of the article for reasons pertaining only to ancillary background content corroborates the showing of bias already made apparent by the criterion noted for speedy deletion.

The Amended draft article
I've now had an opportunity to peruse Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, conflict of interest, and neutral point of view, with which I believe the amended draft article complies:


 * Notability
 * GNU C-Graph is part of Fedora 18.
 * C-Graph was designed for purposes of instruction in universities and colleges. As noted in the article, statistics from ftp.gnu.org point to a growing worldwide user base in the tens of thousands. See the guideline on notability, section 3:
 * ”Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article”.


 * Verifiability and No Original Research
 * The engineering theory illustrated in the article is verified by the 6 independent, third party secondary, reliable sources listed under "References". There is consensus that the majority of these academic and text book sources are among the best in the field. See the guideline on verifiability section 2.1.
 * WP:V section 1, “Burden of Evidence”: ”[A]ny material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source ...” Accordingly, all material citing secondary sources falling outside Wikipedia's definition of “published” has been removed.
 * With regard to any primary source material included in the draft article, I have noted the following policy elements:
 * WP:PRIMARY:”A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge”.
 * IS:”Material available from sources that are self-published, or primary sources, or biased because of a conflict of interest can play a role in writing an article ...”

I look forward to your comments - and action.

Sincerely Adrienne Gaye Thompson Visionat (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note from Bishonen about a WP:ANI discussion of this issue
Well, as Psychonaut told Visionat above, this is not the right place. But in case anybody here wants to know, there was a pretty short and clear discussion of the deletions of GNU C-Graph on WP:ANI in early April. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC).

Copy of Deletion Discussion
Obviously, it is the deletion discussion that is the subject of my complaint. The conduct of the administrators involved suggests that they have their own conflict of interest.Visionat (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Neil Patel


I added a "citation needed" tag to this article. It said "Neil Patel is an award-winning scenic designer...." This user has repeatedly removed the citation needed tag, and I have reverted it twice already and explained that there needs to be a reference. There are no references in the article at all, so there is no reference verifying that he is "award-winning". Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the external links (holy smokes) and moved the COI tag to the talk page. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! For the "award winning" (citation needed) issue, do you have a recommendation? I've already reverted twice. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks fine that way. I don't doubt that it would be difficult to source, but it did sound a bit puffy. BTW, I converted it to a dab page because we already had three people with the same name. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article looks like it meets the criteria for deletion. Maybe that would be a more appropriate solution if someone wants to submit it for deletion? I mean there's no reason trying to "fix" things if the page will end up deleted sooner or later anyway. Rushton2010 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In digging, I found two journal articles about Patel, so I don't think notability is a concern. - Bilby (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's notable alright. It's just the article is badly sourced. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the lead will usually summarize the body of the article, editors should avoid redundant citations in the lead. That also would include adding a "citation needed" tag in the lead as in here. The "citation needed" tag first should have been placed after "Patel has received the Helen Hayes Award, numerous Drama Desk Award nominations and is the recipient of two Obie Awards for Sustained Excellence in Set Design." Placing the "citation needed" tag in the lead carried an aggressiveness with it and there did not seem to be a need to be aggressive at that point. (1) Renner, Pamela. (2000). "Neil Patel: Real Places", American Theatre. 17:7. pp 80–81. and this along with other sources likely would make the topic meet wp:GNG. I removed the COI tag since no evidence of COI presented at COIN. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanco Caine


Theurbanlink is a promotional website based around Jdobypr, Doby Public Relations, www.jdobypr.com/. see User:Jdobypr. Like User:Jdobypr they are trying to promote Edubb and are now promoting Blanco Caine. See for Blanco Caine and  For Edubb. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've indef blocked Theurbanlink as a promo-only account. Jdobypr is a sock and has already been blocked as a promo-only account. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Saam


The username suggests that the user is be the person who is the subject of the article. It is also written like an autobiography and is self-promotive. Besides the conflict of interest of issues, the article is not notable and can be directed back to the original Sām article. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User warned (twice) on User_talk:SamVermeer for inserting his DJ name into Techno and Tech house (warning#1), after having created unsourced, self-promo article about himself (warning #2).  Captain Screebo Parley! 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille


I created this article about an adult film actress a week or so ago, and then when I looked at it later, I noticed that it looked like this, and the problem with that is that not only was much of that information either unsourced or unreliably sourced, but the addition was done by User:Stewiedv, which sounds a lot like the name of Vanilla DeVille's husband (Stewie). I told Stewiedv about the possible COI as well telling him(?) the problem with most of the new info, but he not only put everything back, he even added more information backed up by more unreliable sources (a forum on an adult video store's website, for example). Basically, Stewiedv doesn't seem to understand about WP:RS or WP:COI; can someone help out, please? (And as I stated in this edit summary, I am not trying to violate WP:OWN.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the summary above. I took his comments into consideration, and removed several things in my last edit due to his response. However, User:Erpert deleted every word added in each edit, even if it came from the same sources he cited himself. In fact, a good portion of the information added came from the very same sites and sources he used to create the original article, and several of the sources I added verified the same information. Plus, the example given (a forum on an adult video store's website) was not from a forum, but from a DVD database, which is not user generated, showing that he did not even read the sources cited. However, the interview he used for a large portion of his article was actually a copy that came from a forum interview. It seems like an issue of WP:OWN. Stewiedv (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I clearly stated that I am not trying to own the article (especially since I explained my reasoning), so you're the one that isn't paying attention. And I didn't delete every word; if I had, I would be trying to own it. Speaking of that though, you claim I deleted information you gave from the sources I added? Where in those sources does it state "DeVille" is Stewie's last name? Where does it state what year they got married in? (Most porn stars don't use their real names, you know.) It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources.
 * One other thing, I notice that you didn't even try to dispute the notion of this being a conflict of interest.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you're sounding possessive and grasping at straws. Of course you would say you're not trying to own a document in an official complaint here, but the fact is you changed even minor word and grammatical changes. For example: I changed your two short sentences of "DeVille was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. . She was raised by her mother and stepfather" to one proper sentence as "DeVille was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan by her mother and stepfather." - You changed that back, even though there was no difference in information, but you felt it was against the rules and not sourced properly. Another example: You removed "She entered the adult film industry in 1999 at the age of 28." from the opening intro paragraph, yet you had similar data, from your original source, in the "Adult film career" section, which was verified with additional sources I posted.  I also fixed incorrect data that you had paraphrased in your original writings, such as she only worked for only one corporation in HR, and that she "used webcam profits to create a porn site" (both are incorrect).  I changed them to match the actual responses from the source you cited, as well as backed them up with additional interview sources, but again, you changed them back. Plus, since most of your research was from 2005 and 2009, I added more current data from this decade, many from articles published by the same news sources that you cited originally, but you claim none of my sources are credible.  As for your 1989 issue, if you actually read the interview you cited, she stated that they were a young military family starting back in 1989, and the additional interview question that I cited showed her stating that she had been married for over 22 years as of last year (which 2012-23=1989).  The same goes with "DeVille" - If you Google "Stewie DeVille" you will find several sources that show the full name, including her official affiliate program/business site (Plus, I know how pseudonyms work - please tell me where I posted that either name was real or fake).  I don't see any of this being a conflict of interest, but more of someone who wrote a sub-standard article and is upset that someone else corrected it. Stewiedv (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, "Stewie DeVille" comes up with several Ghits; I'm talking about reliable sources. Everything Google returns isn't necessarily a reliable source; in fact, most Ghits probably aren't (not by Wikipedia standards, anyway). For example, you included an article from reddit.com. That is not a reliable source because that website is based almost entirely (if not entirely) on user-submitted content. And the age Vanilla supposedly was on different occasions are approximations on your part; the sources don't explicitly state the ages at those times. But the more important thing here is the conflict of interest: Stewie Deville. User:Stewiedv. Do you really not see the problem here? (In other words, are you Stewie?)
 * And I'm sounding possessive again? Please explain how. (The person that created the article isn't automatically possessive of it.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 10:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you're just starting to sound desperate. You continue to ignore valid points made against your original article, as well as your possessive editing practices, but instead keep trying to nit-pick over made-up conspiracies. I never claimed that everything on Google is a reliable source, but the example I gave of Vanilla's official affiliate/business site is just as valid as the two other Vanilla DeVille websites you cited originally. The reddit example is another poor choice for you to attack, as it was not a user post but a live interview on the site with Vanilla, and she answered the question herself (Which is the exact same situation with the Ambush interview you cited for most of your information originally - You may link to a static summary page with the questions, but the original interview was done live on the gfy.com adult message board). As far as your age issue, there is this thing called math:  You posted and cited her birth date as December 12, 1970, and she has stated previously (and you included it in the article yourself) that her start was with a girlfriend on a webcam site in 1999 shortly before launching her original domain vanillacam.com, also in 1999. Based on her interview answers, it is improbable that she did all of those things in the last 19 days of December 1999, but if that's not enough, the original registration date of vanillacam.com per any whois you choose is December 8, 1999, which means she was 28 for both her first adult appearance and her site creation (The registration date of a domain is not user generated, and by the way, the same public domain records also show Stewie DeVille as the domain contact). You can wave the COI flag all you want, but the fact is your arguments are invalid, and you're trying to abuse the COIN system to justify your WP:OWN issues. Stewiedv (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I'm abusing the system? This is going nowhere because you're policy shopping in order to dance around a simple yes-or-no question: Are you Stewie? (The fact that you present different ways to interpret your same argument instead of actually answering my question is highly suspect.)  Erpert  Who is this guy? 09:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone is blatantly dancing around and policy shopping, it's you. You continue to ignore numerous valid points about your original article, your inaccurate attacks and your suspect editing practices. Plus, you've been citing multiple policies in just about every post and talk section related to this article, while avoiding any critiques about your own suspect actions. I've only cited one policy, WP:OWN, because it's abundantly clear that is the issue here.  I will cite a second policy now, as this is also beginning to  look like a case of harassment to me. A look at your various talk pages and contributions shows that this is not the first time you've been involved in confrontations with other contributors.  As for my identity, I know you think you're a world-class detective, but I've never hidden or denied who I am.  If the consensus deems this as a COI, I will respectfully stand by their decision (as well as petition to have unbiased editors review the article and have you blocked as an editor for it).  However, I refuse to let you hide behind COI and abuse it in order to bully other posters and justify your own inaccurate articles and unacceptable practices. Stewiedv (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Petition to have unbiased editors review the article and have [me] blocked as an editor for it"? I'm sorry; that is not how Wikipedia works. And for the record, past disagreements with other users (which have nothing to do with this disagreement, btw) do not automatically make me a problem user. And how am I hiding behing COI? You full-on admitted that you are the subject's husband; with all due respect, do you not understand what a conflict of interest is? Also, how am I being a bully? The only person getting all riled up here is you. Speaking of that, I just requested assistance from an admin because you're going a little crazy.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's funny how you keep policy shopping, citing all these various rules, when you're the one who is breaking them. Nothing in my statements in response to your attacks falls under canvassing, but your continued actions and posts certainly do. I also stand by my statement that you are hiding behind COI, because it doesn't justify your removal of non-controversial edits allowed under COI, or excuse your tactics used on the various pages where you've posted during this disagreement. You continue to ignore any points made against you, your article and your actions that have noting to do with COI.  As soon as I debunk one of your claims, you ignore it and search for another policy to falsely accuse me of abusing. I welcome admin assistance, because no matter how many facts are listed, or how many of your arguments are invalidated, you continue to hide behind all the various policies that you yourself are breaking.  Being able to list a dozen polices does not make you right, or excuse you from following them. Stewiedv (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me Stewiedv, but I believe you should read WP:REALNAME and follow the instructions to confirm your identity with the Volunteer Response Team. You may be subject to blocking under the WP:USERNAME policy to prevent impersonators. The matter of the WP:COI should most likely be handled after your identity is confirmed. This policy exists to protect subjects of articles. This is not personal and is standard procedure for spouses and close relatives of a subject, as well as the subject themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information ChrisGualtieri. I will review the article you cited and respond accordingly. Stewiedv (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I didn't break any rules, including WP:OWN; in fact, I haven't even edited the article since starting this thread. And it doesn't seem to be a matter of my arguments being invalidated; it seems more like you are downright enraged that we have a difference of opinion. Now, granted, being accused of a COI might not be the nicest thing to happen to a user (even though you admitted to it), but why are you so mad?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 04:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Enraged? Actually, I find you and your antics somewhat amusing.  I don't see anything in my comments that shows anger, but looking back at this entire event, you seem to be the one who is extremely upset: We had two short interactions on a talk page, and when I didn't immediately agree with your assessments, you refused to discuss things with me further and took it to COIN, and when that didn't work, you took it to the Admin board. Now that you're not getting your way there either, you're suddenly trying to play it cool, distancing yourself from your obvious Owner attitude and trying to bait me into an argument.  Seems like you've been very frustrated with me from the beginning for editing your original article and now you're running out of tricks.  As for my posts in defense of your attacks, maybe what what you're seeing is resolve.  I don't know how things transpired in your past confrontations with other contributors, but I won't be frightened away by your abuse of the rules.  I could restate all the ways you've done so again, but you'll just ignore it and try another tactic, so why bother (feel free to re-read all of my previous posts if you want clarification).  As I've said before, you can try to hide behind COI all you want, but it doesn't change or justify your inappropriate actions (In fact, in your initial revert comments, you were more concerned with my edits overall, only citing COI as a final afterthought). I've already addressed all of your inaccurate accusations, so what policy are you going to try next? Stewiedv (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When are you going to get it through your head that this isn't about my trying to own the article; it's about your admitting to a conflict of interest? (And if I were trying to own the article, how come you're the one who keeps referring to it as "your article"?). And it's perfectly fine for me to bring up different policies when you're violating each one I brought up (canvassing, COI, etc). Also, if I'm abusing the rules, how come you're the only one who says so? (Not to mention your very long responses compared to my own simple responses.) If you're going to continually try to bait me, I'll let you know right now that I'm not giving in to your battle, but I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Wikipedia.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 22:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * When are you going to realize that no matter the COI situation, it doesn't excuse how you're hiding behind it and every other policy you've quoted to justify your inappropriate actions, or how you've broken just about every rule you've cited to try and influence the outcome of this debate. All of your bluster just validates my points, especially about your ownership and policy-shopping issues  (congratulations on finding even more policies to link to this time).  Never mind that I have already admitted who I am, had my identity verified, and asked for feedback from any unbiased contributors on my edits...  What exactly have you done to correct the situation, other than policy shop and continue to post in more and more locations when you don't get your way? As for "your article" (I actually said "your original article" most of the time), you've stated that you authored the article. So, I used those terms to describe the first version of the poorly-written article that you created. Since it is not an edit, and you wrote the article, how would you describe it? In regard to the length of my replies, let me apologize for providing thought-out, logical responses that invalidate each and every one of your bogus accusations.  I imagine that your responses are shorter as they lack any real substance, except attempted insults and links to every policy you can find.  You are welcome to question my maturity, but I don't need to resort to cheap shots to prove my point. Stewiedv (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Frank


The article Joshua Frank was deleted with a WP:SNOW 6 months ago: Articles_for_deletion/Joshua_Frank_%284th_nomination%29 Article reappears with an editor who appears to be closely related to the subject of the article PeterWesco (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fatimah Jackson


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Fatimahj (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Someone with the identification of 69.250.254.199 is posting incorrect personal information about me on my web page. Each time I try to delete this they come back and reassert this false information. It is a form of harassment. Please stop this individual form having the ability to edit my web page.
 * They only edited twice this month, so we could try to go without semi-protecting the article. I added it to my watchlist, and will semi-protect the article in case of recurring vandalism and BLP violations. If you have more concerns, pls post them at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Floppy disk hardware emulator


There's a COI between reported user/IP and the article because of an explicit advertising of a specific floppy disk hardware emulator product obviously manufactured by user/IP.
 * User:Rei 66 adding a DATEX picture  that explicitely references the product.
 * User:83.112.194.173 adding a DATEX link reference to the article. 137.204.1.40 (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. A while back we had a COI editor who was one of DATEX's competitors removing information on DATEX. Competitive business, floppy disk hardware emulators... --Guy Macon (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Left notices on userpages regarding promotional edits; also reported Datex DSM to UAA. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Alexandria,_Indiana


Cluebot reverted [| this] incorrectly as vandalim (by 98.222.148.20), it is poorly written but is not vandalsim. But it was replaced by [| this]( a retype of the previous edits) of the user in question. The page is written like a ad for the city, i.e. unencyclopedic. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The copy that was added by the user in question isn't too bad, as far as promotional text goes, but I see two problems. The first is that the addition was completely unsourced, so it was rightfully removed.  The second issue is that the user has a name that implies that he or she is part of the city's Chamber of Commerce, which violates Wikipedia username policy.  I reported the user to the proper administrative noticeboard.  Andrew327 18:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Puma Energy
Hi - I've drafted an expanded and more detailed article for Puma Energy, located in my user space.

It is currently being reviewed by Beagel, and we've agreed that a notification should be posted here. I work for Bell Pottinger and Puma Energy/Trafigura is my client.

Our exchange is taking place on the Puma Energy talk page, and Beagel will begin editing the draft in my user space. Please feel free to chip in on either page.

Many thanks, HOgilvy (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon a first review, it seems to be a significant improvement over the existing article. There is still a good deal of copyediting to be done, and it seems like it might be a bit out of balance. But overall, I think it would be fine to move over to the existing article and continue working on it from there. It certainly is better than the existing article. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your input - I assume you've seen the most recent version following the discussion between Beagel and me on the talk page: are you happy to replace the existing article with this latest version and do you want to ask another editor to do this or are you happy to do it yourself? I'll notify Beagel of our exchange here. Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi - Beagel's just got back to me to say he's asked Anthony Appleyard to move the draft into the article space. HOgilvy (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with "Credit rating agency"
I am seeking a volunteer editor to help update a section of the article Credit rating agency. I work with Moody's Investors Service, a firm which is discussed in this article, so I would very strongly prefer to find an editor without a conflict-of-interest to look at my suggestion. On the discussion page of this article (here) I have recently made the case for replacing the current section about CRA business models with one I have prepared which includes proper citations and, I believe, a better treatment of the subject. Any help or feedback would be great. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I reviewed the suggestions and I believe that they are written from a neutral point of view and are an improvement to the article, so I made the edit. Note: I have zero prior involvement with this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your help, Guy Macon! Mysidae (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dumping Ground‎


User had added "Ibrahim Yunus has confirmed that he will be playing a new character Sam who will appear in the second series. It was confirmed at a CBBC London studio office whilst on air and on Twitter", I then reverted and placed a COI warning on his talkpage, he then added "It was also confirmed through a CBBC London stduio office that Ibrahim Yunus will be playing a new character in Series 2 called Sam. He also confirmed this in an interview and on Twitter", – →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  21:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what makes you think that this is a COI instead of simply just adding information without proper citation. Is there some connection that I am missing? Tiggerjay (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it could be a coincidence but out of all the usernames in the world he picks Ibrahim and then his first edit is to add information about a Ibrahim ... I apologize If Im wrong. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→   11:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see that now, I must have overlooked that part, since I am not familiar with this show. I have added another notice on his talk page, clarifying that twitter is specifically not a reliable source. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiya :), So would you say it's COI? Me being new with this I suppose I've assumed & probably got it wrong, Suppose we all make mistakes .. Anyway Thanks for your help. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  13:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It still many not be direct COI, because it could just be a fan... For example my username is Tiggerjay (Tigger-jay) yet I edit articles on Dineyland who has a character named Tigger. All that to day, there is good probably cause for WP:POV, but not necessarily WP:COI. Also, because of the nature of the edits, referencing Twitter, its a bit less likely that they are working on behalf of The Dumping Ground directly, but rather just a fan. Nevertheless, its okay to bring it here and we can help keep an eye on this, and this disruptive editor. Tiggerjay (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's very true, I just assumed the worst I think, Anyway thanks ever so much for your help :) →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  13:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

2D to 3D conversion


Posting on behalf of who requested assistance at the HELPDESK and  assisted him by posting over at WP:UAA but he was referred to COIN. This user is apparently making bias, promotional edits, such as statements such as "Rocket Science 3D is the leader in autostereo conversion" on 2D to 3D conversion. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a member of both HD and COIN, I have already placed a friendly notice on the users talk page, and I believe that should be sufficient for the moment. The purpose of creating this COIN is for tracking purposes, and to help have extra eyes on the target article. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * User continues to submit spam-ish content in spite of the notices, for example this one. Contains peacock language and non-NPOV language about competitors: "Rocket Science 3D is the only "Top Tier" Hollywood Conversion Studio that is converting for both Autostereo (multi view) and Stereo."  "Prime Focus and Stereo D use 'licensed software'."  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I also just sent them an e-mail since sometimes new users don't view their own talk pages... Otherwise, lets just move forward with escalated warning until they are blocked... still holding out for good faith... Tiggerjay (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (note minor difference in name) appears to be the same user, making familiar promotional changes and removing competition. LethargicParasite (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be concerning if they were recent, but there isn't much we can do since those edits were about a year ago, and it really looks like perhaps the had 3dconversion and then started to use 3dconversion3d and there is about a two edit overlap, and since this other account is effectively inactive, there isn't a problem. However if they start making the same edits recently then there might be a problem to resolve. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. LethargicParasite (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a note: I deleted the 'Conversion studios software' section after I handled an OTRS ticket with a complaint (from one of them) about their information being removed (by some other one). It's fairly obvious that this was a spam magnet being used in place of an article by companies that would otherwise not be able to rate one. I would suggest reporting these two accounts to WP:UAA if they're here only to continually insert information about their respective businesses (I didn't check their contributions). On the other hand, it's entirely possible that including information like this is valid for this type of niche topic, but I'm not familiar enough with it to make a call. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder to put the subst:coin-notice on the contributor's talk page so that he/she can participate in the discussion. --Drm310 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Operation Ocean Shield


COI is self-admitted. I'm wondering if the additions constitute copyright violations, since they're taken verbatim from NATO reports, or whether such content is exempted from normal copyright restrictions. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed all of the content as a precaution. Appears inappropriate anyway. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I read your initial note at the user's talk page, and thought this required further attention. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User name reported to WP:UAA as a WP:CORPNAME.--ukexpat (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Centre for Tribal and Customary Law


I discovered that most of the article was a copyvio and tagged it for speedy deletion. The page creator contested the speedy on the talk page and identified himself as being associated with the article's subject. Andrew327 16:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC) An administrator speedily deleted this article upon my request. Andrew327 23:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express


This editor removed a bunch of material and good-faith edits with the change message of 'undo vandalism'. He has done this before (see his last set of edits on same page). Additionally, he's citing a URL from the bus company website that seems to exist for no other purpose than wikipedia references - it's not linked from anywhere else that I could find. This leads me to believe he might be an employee of the company, or otherwise COI.

I, myself, have a COI (The company once threatened to sue me over comments on Reddit), so I don't wish to make these changes myself. NegatedVoid (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I searched ARIN for their IP address, and it appears to trace to an ISP based in Virginia. However, some of the edits that have been made by this IP are obvious POV violations, as seen here. Paid editing, maybe? --Mathnerd 101 (What I have done) (What have I done?) 23:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mickey Fitzgerald


User has had a couple notices and is still editing and no response to notices. Mlpearc ( powwow ) 18:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed all the unsourced info per WP:BLP and the spammy content per WP:PROMO and will keep a watch on it. SmartSE (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 22:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

COI at Mark B. Cohen?
Concerned that an new (but prolific) editor at this article may be closely tied to the subject (a politician). For example, he/she has cited documents that are not generally available to the public and I have to wonder how he/she obtained them. No proof... just a concern. Some extra eyes would be appreciated. Blueboar (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rocket Records


SPA whose sole purpose is to promote subjects related to Rocket Records. Over the top defense of Tim Coons at Articles for deletion/Tim Coons. Coons is a cofounder of Rocket Records. Christopher Pasquin is a former member of Diverse and a cofounder of Rocket Records. Ryan Prescott is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. Eric Veenstra is a former member of Diverse. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Zachtron. I messed up who was a co founder of ROcket Records as pointed out below. I have now fixed it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a productive editor and well-respected member of WikiProject Record Labels, I take great offense to the statements made above. I have made over thousands of productive edits on many different music-related and other topics, and have never once been flagged for any SPA, promotion, vandalism, or anything else of that nature. My "over the top defense of Tim Coons" was simply because he is a notable 2-time Grammy-nominated music producer, and we were having a heated yet productive discussion on the topic until community consensus was reached. As for Diverse, Veenstra (Veenstra was NEVER once listed as a co-founder of Rocket Records, he merely had association), and Prescott, those articles were legitimately written and were about notable (community consensus will ultimately decide) music figures from the late-90's. They have no SPA purpose, promotion initiative, or direct association with Rocket Records. They were also all written with full neutrality, with absolutely no false claims or promotion elements to them. I (along with other WikiProject Record Labels team members) was just merely trying to show the indirect connection to the founders of the American record label Rocket Records in order to enhance reader experience. If the community feels that the articles for Diverse, Prescott and/or Veenstra should be deleted (AFD requests were made for them already), they will be deleted if that is the consensus reached. The Coons and Pasquin articles were written to enhance and provide further factual information to Wikipedia community, and do indeed meet WP:MUSIC, BLP, and Notability guidelines for continued inclusion in Wikipedia, but again, the community will continue to provide opinion on any future fate of those articles. The article for Coons has already been set as a redirect after community consensus about it was reached, to which I did not take offense or challenge in any way at all afterwards because I FULLY respect community consensus even when I disagree with it. However, as an honest editor and productive contributor to Wikipedia, I must fully defend myself here against any type of false SPA, promotion, or "agenda" ridden accusations levied against me. On a final note, the article for Rocket Records is a legitimate community contributed article about a notable existing American record label, and any contributions that I personally made drawing the indirect connection to Rocket Records in order to enhance reader experience should not be mistakenly taken as SPA or promotion for that record label. I contribute to many articles on a variety of different music topics, and do not appreciate being negatively "outed" in a public forum with reckless claims of SPA or promotion editing because of indirect connections made to Rocket Records with a few of the articles that I have contributed to. I honestly feel that this is a clear violation of unfounded public harassment against me, as my Wikipedia track record is 110% honest and my history clearly demonstrates that fact.
 * Zachtron (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I question the unsourced representations made on Wikipedia and the representations made on its own website.  Simple searches at the Secretary of State in Florida clearly show that the company's listed mailing address is a residential address and that filing was updated today 5/1/2013.   The article, and all associated articles, are WP:PROMO and most likely WP:COI.   No offense to the "well-respected member of WikiProject Record Labels" or the "honest editor and productive contributor to Wikipedia" but it is clear these are puff pieces. PeterWesco (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect about many of your unverified claims, but that is neither here nor there, and a healthy discussion is going on about it at the AFD debates which you started. These articles do not fall under WP:PROMO and WP:COI, and they are not "puff pieces" contrary to your personal opinion. There is no bias or form of advertising/promotion, and the majority of the articles were about HISTORICAL music figures that are not even active within the music industry today, as clearly stated in the articles themselves. Also, they are fully neutral in tone, mentioning positives as well as negatives. I take your above comments above to be a personal attack on me and also a violation of Wikipedia's public harassment guidelines, but I am no longer going to engage in a public "battle" with you over this. You are entitled to your own opinions, even if they are incorrect, but do not "out" me for your own agenda's sake and flirt with violating Wikipedia's public harassment policy (which takes precedence over all else) in the process. I have made thousands of productive contributions to Wikipedia and have never once violated Wikipedia rules, so your claims are both harassing and unfounded. I respect your OPINIONS, but that is exactly what they are, your OPINIONS PeterWesco. I contribute productively and honestly for the betterment of Wikipedia, and I fully respect all consensus decisions made by the community on any of the contributions which I make to Wikipedia, even when I disagree with them. Kind regards to you PeterWesco.    Zachtron (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I question the claim of "thousands of productive edits on many different music-related and other topics". I see this account was created on April 5 and a quick count shows a total of 383 total edits, mainly to the articles mentioned above and discussions related to said articles. Can you elaborate on that, please? -- Kinu  t/c 03:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I have contributed to many different articles, with a lot of my edits being music based. I have worked a lot recently on some of the articles in question, mainly because I contributed some of them in good faith. I'm not the greatest editor in the world, but I certainly would never purposely break Wikipedia guidelines or do anything to contribute in an unproductive manner. I feel that I was unfairly and "publicly outed" by PeterWesco over his personal agenda based opinions, which he is certainly entitled to accept for going too far and possibly violating Wikipedia's public harassment policy. I have never spoken with you (Kinu) before (although I saw your recent comments on my Talk page lately), but I understood the points you raised about edits that I recently made and also bettering reliable references, which I'm trying to do per your directive. I have even supported deletion of articles that I contributed after consensus was to delete them because I fully respect community consensus even when I disagree with it. However, I do feel the need to defend myself right now because I feel that PeterWesco is purposely going a bit too far in harassing me publicly. That is just my honest opinion, not an attack on PeterWesco. I try to contribute in an honest and meaningful way, which I would hope would come through in the overall quality of my contributions, even the ones other editors may object to for some reason, and I only ask to be treated in both a fair and respectful manner. Thank you.    Zachtron (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be frank, that didn't answer my question. Why do you claim to have made "thousands" of edits to articles outside of the scope of those mentioned above when your contributions don't support this? Likewise, any and all contributions are open to scrutiny from any and all members of the community. That is being treated fairly and respectfully, as an equal member of this community. Given that most of your edits are related to the topics stated above, PeterWesco's concern is not without merit. From my perspective as an editor, I see zero evidence of harassment and, from my perspective as an administrator, I see no offense that would warrant sanctions, and I see no purpose in continuing to express that opinion. -- Kinu  t/c 04:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I meant to say hundreds first off. I honestly do slightly disagree with some (not all) of your assessments, but since you are an experienced administrator, I will gladly yield to your directive. However, I fully agree with you that all of my contributions are open to scrutiny by the entire Wikipedia community. Anyway, I honestly do not wish to get further involved in any more public disputes that waste everybody's time (except for the valid points raised), and even though I know for an absolute fact that I did not purposely do what PeterWesco is claiming (even if your own personal opinion is that his claims somehow are with merit), I will yield to your administrative directive and make sure that my future contributions do not mistakenly cause this issue again. I sincerely hope that this clarifies the matter on my end, and I will make doubly sure to productively "keep an eye on" the valid points you made for the overall betterment of my contributions going forward. I will also do my best to add better reliable references to the articles that you commented on and made valid points about on my Talk page the other day. Thank you.    Zachtron (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show me, in your contributions, any substantive edits that do not have to do with Rocket Records in any way? Perhaps now you can understand why these concerns have been raised. -- Kinu  t/c 13:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice to see that Zachtron's "Wikipedia track record is 110% honest". Someone else is also into 110% . duffbeerforme (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Evan Mandery
I only want to request that a conflicted-of-interest (COI-affected) article, Evan Mandery, be reviewed for whether it has been sufficiently cleaned up of effects of the COI or COIs to justify deleting the COI template. Another editor has made efforts at editing the article for neutrality.

An editor with an apparent but undisclosed COI edited the article; I notified the editor. I also have a COI for that article; I disclosed my COI. My only edit to the article was to insert the COI template on a blank line. I've also posted to the talk page, including tagging that there is a Connected contributor. Another editor has since edited. That last editor has apparently addressed every issue I identified except one, and I'm assuming good faith and have reposted that issue where that (or any) editor will likely see it for reconsideration. (Some copyediting is probably in order but I consider that as outside the scope of this issue.) A question has been raised about whether that editor has a COI (I can link to that if you wish) but has not been raised formally or, to my knowledge, to that editor, and so I think that editor should be considered innocent of a COI until shown otherwise.

While the COI template normally may be removed by any editor, this is an unusual case that I think should be resolved by someone likely to be assuredly neutral of a COI. Thank you for your assistance.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. Sourov0000 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, please someone check the Article, Evan Mandery. I made all the recent edits to the Article. At first the Article was not neutral and didn't have enough references. So, I did my work to the article and tried to be as much neutral as possible. Although I don't have any conflict of interest with the Article, it will be lot better if someone have a review at the Article and see whether it is neutral or not. And if not, then kindly do the necessary editing to make it neutral (I tried my best from every point of view to remain Neutral). So, fellow editors are requested to see if the Article is neutral or not and if not then make it neutral and remove the COI template.
 * Please advise on what should be done so the COI template can be removed from the article or if it can be removed as the article already stands. Since this noticeboard closes topics/sections after 7 days, it's unlikely there'll be action on this article after the 7th day, so, if there's no reply or action in about a week after the original post, I will consider invoking another procedure or acting myself, although I prefer to leave this to editors with no known or alleged COI. Thank you very much for your assistance. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Admin comment - It has been alleged to me (via off-wiki communication) that an editor is being paid to edit this article in a positive light. While this allegation remains unverified, it was enough to make me review the article quite closely from an NPOV stance. On the whole it was not overly promotional, although I have tightened it up somewhat. The subject is clearly notable, so that is not an issue. I have since removed the COI tag - even if the (alleged) COI is occurring, the article is sufficiently neutral now to not be a concern. I will continue to monitor the article. Manning (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol M. Highsmith
Crossposted from WP:AN/I (by Hoary at 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)): Carol M. Highsmith eminently merits an article; but as has been pointed out on that article's talk page, the article she's got has been promotional and undersourced. SPA Tedland (contributions) has been adding material, some good, some so-so; some sourced well, some not. Nothing much out of the ordinary so far, but he's been repeatedly removing the odd "citation needed" flag, with no explanation. (To his credit, most of these flags he either leaves alone or replaces with sources.) He doesn't show any sign of having read any of the commentary on and requests for his edits. At this point, I think I'd be justified in addressing him rather more forcefully, but I hold back for two reasons. First, having attempted to ameliorate the article, I might be seen as an "involved" editor. (I'd deny this, but I want to keep this message short.) Secondly, I'm not even certain that he's noticing the existence of the messages directed to him. (The old "You have new messages" thingie was so easy to notice and understand.....) He certainly hasn't done anything calling for a block, but I'd appreciate comments to him by some admin who can't possibly be called "involved". -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll suggest sending it to WP:COIN where they are used to dealing with stuff much worse than this. I'd also like to ask Hoary to let somebody else handle it: you seem to be getting frustrated with a newby and be on the point of biting.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd instead say: frustrated with the repeated ignoring of polite requests and warnings. But anyway, over to others. And I'll stay away from the article for three days. -- Hoary (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-specific, general comments about COI, V and NPOV posted. There is no reason to stay away from the article, it is in dire need of NPOV editing. Just don't get hot and bothered, and message me if you need a referee on anything. Manning (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Geer


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Jim09 (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) This user is clearly a single purpose account that was created solely to update the company's own page. Numerous edits have been made to the page, and the user is practically the only contributor to the page. The user is also clearly using a shared company account in breach of the username policy, however they have not been active for some time so it is frivolous to follow that up. The content of the page is worthy of review, as is the page's entire existence. There is only one page that links to it, being the building where it does business from.

Reem Acra
Reem Acra is unquestionably notable, but the article reads mostly like an advertisement. --B (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tagged with db-g11. You could have also done so. :) Cheers, &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

London Eye


Article has a lengthy history over many years of problematic edits concerning the naming of the architects. Edit summaries provided by the three most recent IPs involved clearly indicate conflict of interest. This is by no means a comprehensive list of the IPs involved. Previous IPs have included some assigned to Marks Barfield. See also, ,. 92.40.118.151 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia International
Article is being used as a battleground between representatives of various internet dating agencies. The account User:Mcbrooks and User:Iri2101 are reps of this website. They are trying to put a positive spin on it, others are trying to do the opposite. I have stubbed the article back to basics and would appreciate more eyes on it, please. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Related users User:Coquee and User:Scintella seem also to be focused on the positive side, as well as linking to onlinepersonalswatch and socialnetworkingwatch, which are a closely held company of Anastasia management. Likely related. Entyre (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Sagarika Ghose, again
I had reported this problem to this forum on 17 April 2013. Subject again made edit through anon IP (and posted so on article's talk page) and it looks admin User:Smartse is supporting this COI by giving ref. Earlier same Admin had removed controversial content citing no refs or trivial. Subject has taken complete control over the article.

But my main complaint is that subject has issued serious threats to influence the contents of the article. I seek info if there is any wikipedia policy which clarify this situation. neo (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * None of her edits have been particularly problematic - WP:COI doesn't forbid subjects from editing articles about themselves. The WP:BLP problems are far worse than the COI problems which was why I removed the content that I did. The only 'serious threats' I can see are where she complained that unsourced libellous and defamatory material was being included in the article - this seems fair enough to me. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Her edits can't be problematic to herself. She is advancing her aim, not aim of wikipedia. Almost 100% article is written by her (I had just searched and given most of refs). The article represent ONLY her POV and she is major contributor. I think article must have POV and COI tags to make aware the readers that article does not represent general and NPOV. neo (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant problematic to us - as in not NPOV. This content could do with some tidying up, mainly for OR issues, but it's not overly promotional. If you can find some high-quality sources about her then by all means add them. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That "us" means she and you? Well, I am here to report gross COI and you want me to find refs. I had given refs when I was not sure about identity of anon IP. After that I read article's talk page and subsequent POV edits made clear identity of anon IP. Now as I am sure, I will not support COI of the subject. I repeat, article is written by the subject and she is pushing POV by not allowing any controversial content from other users and by threats of sexual harrassment, anti-rape law etc. Article must have POV and COI tag. neo (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No 'us' as in the community. I've removed some stuff that about what she is most known for as there weren't (aren't?) secondary sources to support it. The article could certainly do with more work, but I'm not sure what you think will happen by posting here - if you think that content isn't neutral or it is unsourced then remove it yourself. Editing the article doesn't mean that you are supporting them, just making the article more policy-compliant and better for readers. SmartSE (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have tagged article with POV and COI as major contents are from the subject and because of consistent threats or warnings or complaints by the subject on article's talk page which has potential to keep users away from the article and which harm neutrality of the article and aim of the wikipedia. neo (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am curious, as to how neo knows that that the anon editor is indeed Ghose, ther than by the editor claiming that he/she is Ghose on Talk, which could be a lie. Neo can you please explain.  Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Member of X, edit Wikipedia in my spare time
Hello, I created a 2nd account for this question so as to keep the discussion general and not get into the specific organization. I am a member of X organization (it is a voluntary religious organization (part of Y world religion that is big enough to have it's own WikiProject) with thousands but not a million members a few thousand of who like myself are full time). I edit Wikipedia in my spare time: I have never been asked, been told, been paid, or received any compensation for doing so (actually I have received some hassle from other members when I mentioned I did). I announce on top of my user page that am a member of X organization and Y religion but edit Wikipedia in my free time and try to be objective in my edits to Wikipedia (plus I have userboxes - one for X organization and a number for Y religion).

I do live edits on articles and I have never been accused on pages about X organization of being biased (only twice have issues of bias come up regarding Y religion and both times I admitted that I may be biased - once was over the use of a certain honorific and once over the relevance of claim that I thought was WP:FRINGE; the result being I admitted consensus against me in the honorific issue and the other theory was restated less prominently as opinion not fact). I have over 1,000 edits on a variety of topics but given my interest the majority are on pages related to Y religion and a number on pages related to X organization.

I think this is acceptable. Right?

I had thought so until the following incident. A new leader has recently been named for X organization and I happened to be at an event with him and took photos. Afterwards, I sent him a brief e-mail asking if I could use these photos for the article about him on Wikipedia and mentioned I had written a decent part of it (this article has no WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues since the there is no controversy and I all wrote was a summary of the various positions he had held prior to becoming the top dog citing news stories about being named the top dog and 2 press releases of organization X). (This e-mail was informal, I was going to follow up with the forms to approve the use of these photos for Wikipedia use since the event was borderline as far as public or private.) Anyways, he forwarded this to a secretary who responded to me that he is worried I am breaking WP:COI.

Anyways, I want to know if I am involved in a conflict of interest and what I need to do if I am. Sorry for all my parentheses and detail, I am trying to be complete.MyHiddenLife (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I made one slight error. Once I was asked to delete page N about a sub-group of organization X by someone inside organization X who knew I edited because the material was outdated. I told the person that 1. that was a stupid idea since it's notable (and gave him examples of less notable similar groups with pages), 2. he could just add the new information himself, and 3. I could not edit Wikipedia properly if told to.MyHiddenLife (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand their concern given the issues some other religious organizations have caused (see Scientology's ban from Wikipedia). As WP:COI points out, it can cause serious issues with the image of your organization, justly or unjustly.
 * It's important to note that WP:COI specifically states that editing with a conflict is not, in itself, a violation of any policy or guideline. COI itself is more of a warning about what editing topics with which you have a close connection than anything else.  If an editor with a COI is causing issues that would cause them to be blocked or banned from editing a topic, it's due to violating other policies and guidelines (usually WP:NPOV but sometimes WP:OR, WP:V, or WP:RS).
 * In short, if you're working with others and willing to admit that your connection may make it difficult for you to see the bigger picture, you should be fine. I usually see editors with a COI run into trouble when they think that there's a good reason to ignore all rules in response to a policy or guideline being used against them.
 * If you'd like, I can go over your edits privately and give you my interpretation of your editing habits and if your COI causes any real problems. Also, I can speak with the new leader about WP:COI but he may just need to read it again since it's fairly clear that while editing with a COI is "strongly discouraged", it doesn't, in itself, break and policies or guidelines.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  16:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have read about the Scientology ban on Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. My edits are far from that, they are more along the lines of adding/improving sources and information such as history. I think I have had 5 edits undone - 2 of which involved the best way to organize a section in an article on a politician that I had added a few lines about him meeting with a certain religious leader but put them in the wrong spot because the organization was so confusing.
 * I think in a certain way there are two levels of WP:COI. For instance, many pages are done by people like me who happen to be a member of X organization, have a day job with Y company and edit at night (similar to my situation), or a fan of Z band / sports team; most of this is a minor COI that is often not problematic since a large number of editors want to write about what they like. I'm sure that Beliebers wrote some of the the article Boyfriend (Justin Bieber song); I mean it wouldn't get to 104 references without them (more than Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia). You won't find me editing Justin Beiber because (1) I don't know that much, and (2) I really don't care to know more or to put more on Wikipedia.
 * It would be something different if someone was paid to or told to edit by the same organization; that's seems like a clear issue where WP:COI is "strongly discouraged." As noted above, I have explicitly avoided this kind of WP:COI as I believe it would compromise my integrity as an editor.
 * I mention this distinction between levels of COI as it is implicitly in WP:COI section on categories but maybe we could make it clearer.
 * Basically, as long as I admit my connection (on my user page and when relevant in a talk discussion) and follow the other rules, I'm not breaking Wikipedia rules regarding WP:COI, right?MyHiddenLife (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On a tangential point, I think you should mention your COI on article talk pages even if you're only editing the article itself and not the talk page. I can't remember if that's in the actual guidelines, though. I don't see that you are violating Wikipedia policy.


 * The issue here is between you and your employer. Many employers are frightened lest the existence of employee editing somehow damages their reputation. The editor employed by BP to edit articles about them, for example, has followed Wikipedia policy to the letter, but still various publications tried to imply that he (or his employer) was doing something wrong. One of my employers had a training session where it was made clear that editing Wikipedia on articles related to my employer (even if just correcting obviously wrong information) was not permitted. Thinking about it from the employer's perspective, one can understand this.


 * You might want to try to find out; are your employer trying to forbid you from contributing to articles about their organisation, or are they just concerned at some level? If the former, you have the choice of either flatly refusing their instructions (which some editors have done, but it may not be very wise), or following them. (Hopefully, with regard only to the organisational articles, not the religion articles as well.) If the latter, you may merely need to explain to them that you are not violating Wikipedia's rules on Conflict of Interest, that you have sought advice in the appropriate places, and that you fully intend to continue to follow Wikipedia's rules. And hopefully this will reassure them :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. I will double check it with the secretary. I think it was more a general concern (since he also worried I had a single purpose account which someone looking at my contributions would see was not the case). I will copy a link to this discussion in my note to him pointing out that I am fine. If he wants to insist I don't edit pages about X organization, I agree it's prudent to listen.MyHiddenLife (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Suburban_Express


This article has a lengthy history of being edited in ways favorably to the company by various IP Editors, including much edit warring and bad-faith edits.

The editor in question has removed good-faith edits by User:CorporateM and restored old, promotional sounding content (CorporateM is often a paid editor, but I don't believe he was in this case).

The mentioned user is probably someone employed by the company. (I have a COI myself on this article). There has been extensive discussion on the Talk page (which this editor is aware of), and yet he choose to ignore it and whitewash the page. NegatedVoid (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User NegatedVoid has a COI yet has posted numerous self-promoting edits to article. NegatedVoid is the blogger who the section added by NegatedVoid refers to. Self-promoting section added by NegatedVoid fails to contribute to article in any sort of productive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.246.227 (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where did I add any section? Show me a "self-promoting edit" or me adding a section about myself. Your personal attacks are irritating and unwelcome. NegatedVoid (talk)

This discussion can probably be closed in favor of a related Sockpuppet Investigation. I'll leave that up to someone more experienced. NegatedVoid (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Dennis Toeppen (the company's founder) says he created the earlier promotional version of the article at http://toeppen.com/, "before it was vandalized by sad, lonely bloggers" but appears to have refrained from editing the article again. NegativeVoid disclosed his COI on his user page as I presume the Reddit moderator that was threatened with a lawsuit by the company, and AlmostGrad has disclosed a COI as a student that was sued by Suburban Express. I haven't seen any evidence of sockuppeting - just a lot of editors with strong views and conflicting motives. I don't remember how I got involved in the article, but hopefully everyone will learn a little bit about Wikipedia in the process and continue to contribute in other areas. CorporateM (Talk) 20:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - The sockpuppet allegation has been proved, and 4 editors editing in favour of the commpany have been blocked, among three indef-blocks.