Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 70

Leslie Cornfeld


Users have repeatedly added WP:SOAP material to page. Page itself reads like a resume and is considered for deletion anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's definitely promotional behavior going on here. At the very least, WP:EL is being broken regularly.  I would also agree that there's soap boxing and WP:NPOV editing.
 * I don't see any evidence of a close connection. MRB in the name presumably refers to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and NYC is obviously the city that he's the mayor of.  Leslie is apparently his public policy advisor.  That doesn't scream close connection but that may be a moot point.
 * The article is currently at AFD so rather than keep looking for a connection or passing this off to WP:NPOVN, let's see how it goes. Specifically, let's watch out for WP:SPAs showing up to the AFD or ballot stuffing.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  05:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Foxit


This article appears to be a PR release, not anything that should be on Wikipedia... doesn't seem too neutral, almost all promotional.216.31.187.250 (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC) - Thomas
 * Thanks for the report.
 * Typically cases like this would be redirected to WP:NPOVN but I'm not going to split hairs with so little going on at COIN right now.
 * It looks like has been the one adding promotional and copyrighted material taken direction from the company's website.  I don't see any clear relationship between that IP address and the company, though.
 * I reverted the article to a previous version that doesn't look like an advert. This has been done twice in the past.
 * The article is currently at AfD. I'll wait until that concludes to do much else.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  01:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed the username and article link templates so that they aren't generic.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  01:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark B. Cohen

 * (currently a redirect)
 * (currently a redirect)
 * (currently a redirect)

While an extensive and well-sourced article, it's largely a pro-Cohen fluff-piece. This article has come to my attention because of a post on the Wikipediocracy forum linking to this Philadelphia PA newspaper article from last week "Philly politician's lengthy Wikipedia page keeps on growing" that draws some suspicious links between Zulitz and that user's editing on subjects connected to Cohen and Cohen's family. Please review.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

* Userlink template corrected 220  of  Borg 02:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems a certainty. The subject has publicly admitted being in contact with the editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Off-Wiki proof of close connections often makes me a bit squirmish but this article, which I feel is from a reliable source, clearly states that Cohen "passed along a message" to Zulitz. That's clearly a connection.  It may even be paid advocacy but that's probably moot point.  Also, while Zulitz may be Cohen, I don't see any evidence that specifically supports that or even a reason to make distinguish whether or not Zulitz is Cohen.
 * Neither articles currently have a COI tag and the talk pages don't have connected editor tags. It also looks like POV tags were removed by Zulitz due to a lack of action from other editors.  Does anyone have a link to any other COI/POV investigations?  This was all I found in a short search.  It looks like it was basically ignored.


 * I don't normally suggest cross-posting but based on the fact that the article is large, I think it would be beneficial to also report this to WP:NPOVN.
 * , before we get much further, would you like to declare you connection? That there is a connection has already been established but I think it would be beneficial for you to make your connection clear to other editors.  If you don't, based on how severe the alleged POV editing has been on your part, you may be banned from editing Cohen related articles in the future.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  05:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you guys actually discuss this on the actual article before bringing it here? There have been a number of unsubstantiated claims of NPOV on this article that are simply not true, don't hold up, and don't get any follow up commentary from anybody making the claims.  Is Zulitz OCD in editing the Mark Cohen article? Yes, I would say he is, however, he has been editing on wikipedia a long time, edited a number of other philadelphia and pennsylvania articles, edited other political related articles, and a number of others. While his edits are a little obsessive on the subject, I would say they are within Wikipedia policies. Might he know Mark Cohen? Yes, he might, but so might any other of the million+ people that live in the Philadelphia area or participate in the online Philadelphia forums and communities that Mark has been active on.  Zulitz has already addressed some of these issues on the talk page. Centerone (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You realize that this is the conflict of interest noticeboard, right? A place for investigating conflicts of interest.
 * Evidence was presented that there's a close connection and we're starting to process of investigating whether or not the NPOV claims can be substantiated. There's no witch hunt here.  There will be no witch hunt for the exact reasons you outline - because even if he has a close connection, that doesn't imply problematic behavior.  Even if there is problematic behavior, the editor can and most likely is still a net positive for Wikipedia.
 * Personally, I'm approaching this situation like I do all reports brought here. The conflict of interest is much less important than the possible affect that it's had on Wikipedia.  That affect can be negative or positive.  After all, COI editors can be the biggest expert on a subject and why would we push experts away simply because of a connection?  We can ensure that their affect is positive but if it has been negative, we can try to coach the editor so that the affect is positive.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  13:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , further evidence that I'm not out for a Witchhunt by proposing an investigation, I gave my assessment of the article (that it's a fluff piece) that two external sources have seen fit to comment on it (the goons at Wikipediocracy, and a journalist noticing suspicious behavior). All I asked for was that it be reviewed. If there's proven malfeasance, there might be a ban. If there's no malfeasance, the worst is that the article has POV problems that really need to be repaired.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well put.
 * We haven't heard from Zulitz so I'll go ahead and start investigating. I really wish we could have heard from both sides.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Zulitz replies: Despite the length of the article, almost all the material in it is footnoted from reputable publicly available sources. No one has said that any fact is erroneous or misleading. The length of the article shows a consistent attempt to be precise and to avoid fluff. I do not say that Cohen has a great record on this or that; I say what the record is and heavily footnote whatever it is I say so there can be no doubt of its accuracy. There are no attacks here on any person living or dead. Cohen's record of service over the near-record amount of time he has served in the PA legislature is well documented in many places. The problem is that state legislators are rather obscure; one cannot refer to this or that book written about Cohen or virtually every state legislator. Each fact has to be documented separately. Cohen's record has consistently been one of doing things; that is why I have followed his record over a long period of time. Some people like the things he does, while others do not. The fact that he has won 21 terms in the PA House indicates that there have been more people who like what he does than dislike what he does. The fact that there is not unanimous consent that he "deserves" the amount of space in Wikipedia that he has received does not mean that any fact cited is wrong, or that I have a conflict of interest, or anything else. I find it interesting to see what elected officials do over time, and like the idea of following the record of useful people who are not well-known to see what they do over time. If I had more time, I would follow the record of more people with the depth I have followed Cohen's record. Accusatory exercises like this--towards me and countless others--over the years have reduced my participation in Wikipedia and limited my editing of articles generally, as it has done for many other Wikipedia contributors. The fact is that anyone can edit--and always has been able to edit-- the Mark B. Cohen page, or any other page of Wikipedia, at any time; in fact many people have made contributions to this article over the years as the history shows. The article is not my property and it is not Mark B. Cohen's property. It is the Wikipedia's property. Wikipedia, if it desires, can set forth limits of length to articles, or the number of footnotes, or the number of facts, or anything else, based on the prominence of the subject or any other criteria. The problem with length limits is they inevitably convert specifics into generalities and make assertions more difficult to document because have less of a factual base. (User_talk: Zulitz, 10 January 2014 (UTC) ]])

Laurent Schwartz (oncologist)


This account's editing has been confined to these three articles. The account created an image at Wikimedia Commons, the logo of Biorébus, with a description of the logo as "own work." Based on that description, I added a "connected contributor" tag to the talk page of Laurent Schwartz (oncologist) because Schwartz is a principal of that company. However, the template documentation is unclear as to whether this is sufficient basis for the tag, and guidance on this would be welcome. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, as Commons is not an "on-Wikipedia" discussion, and I think that the connected contributor tag needs to be confined to that circumstance. I agree that it is a close question, and certainly won't object if someone reverts. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly curious about Commons not being considers on-Wiki. Is there a guideline about that?  I've never seen this come up so I'm interested.
 * Usernames are global, aren't they? I thought that, for instance, my username couldn't be used by anyone else but me across all WMF projects.  If that's the case, I don't see a reason to not consider other WMF content to be on-Wiki but I admittedly haven't put much thought into the situation.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  05:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point. What's your view of the "connected contributor" tag in light of that? Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, unless I'm mistaken about accounts being global, a user's activity on any WMF website would be consider on-Wiki. If they out themselves or show a clear and close connection to a subject on any WMF website, that would be grounds for adding the close connection template.  The COI template could also be added, assuming the article is showing a POV slant as a result of the COI editor's edits.
 * Asking about accounts being global and the definition of "on-Wiki" at WP:ANI might be beneficial. I've never dealt with this situation before and I'm not finding any clear answers in any guidelines or policies.
 * For this specific case, "own work" is often used by people trying to upload files to Commons without the proper licensing. They click "own work" because it gets them through the upload wizard.  I personally do not believe that "own work" alone is enough to assume a connection unless it's paired with their own name in the author field.  Furthermore, unless there's an error, which seems possible these days, the listed editor has no non-deleted edits.  Unless there are other editors to list with evidence of their own of a close connection, I don't see a clear issue here.
 * At any rate, the article is currently at AfD. I'll keep an eye out of SPAs popping up.  If it fails (result is not delete), we can go from there.  No need to waste the energy if the article will just be deleted, in my opinion.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  05:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You better watchlist it. It seems to be headed toward a "no consensus" at best. I took off the "connected contributor" notice but I won't bother putting it back on at the moment.Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Watchlisting and taking a look at the AfD.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I !voted and checked out the AfD. My opinion regarding notability aside, I doubt the article will be deleted.
 * Moving on from there, I'm concerned about the Schwartz article and the weight it puts into the Biorébus section compared to the weight put into his other, seemingly large contributions to his field. It would be like two thirds of Eddie George's article being about his restaurant while the remaining third lightly mentions his achievements as a football player.  It seems like WP:UNDUE weight to me.
 * redirected the Biorébus article so unless someone wants it to come back, I don't see any reason to spend any energy on discussing it at the moment.
 * As for editor issues, it looks like hasn't edited for almost two years.  I don't see any other suspicious accounts either.
 * I support paring down the Biorébus section or expanding the rest of Schwartz's bio. Either way, the weight given to Biorébus in the article seems high and could use leveling.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you take out the Biorebus promotion, original resarch and the hype, I'm not sure what's left, apart from primary sources that we are not really supposed to interpret. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see original research hype, outside the company listing. Creating a list of accomplishments could be considered OR, sure, but there's a fine line between summarizing and original research with regards to what to include.  I would support changing the title of the accomplishments list and/or turning that into prose.  I typically focus more on the COI editor than getting deep into NPOV content discussions here, though.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  19:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But you see, that's my point. The list of "major achievements" looks to me like areas in which he engaged in research. Are we qualified to say whether these are achievements, "major" or otherwise? What reliable third party secondary source says that? What reliable third party secondary source says anything about him? The original research would be pretty much everything in the lead, such as his birth date and place of birth. We have a doctor (I'm not sure anything in the sources even confirms he's an oncologist) who has conducted primary research about which we really can only say zip. A formula may or may not point to his notability. I don't want to reargue the AfD here, but without secondary sources, I really don't see what we can say about this person. Coretheapple (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns. We can use primary sources to create content though, right? We just can't use them to establish notability. I'd generally say that an article can't be written without secondary sources, even if notability is established. I'll copy this message over to the talk page so that we can continue.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  19:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the article is kept, the list of accomplishments can be turned into a section called current research interests or the like; what a primary source says a person;'s interests are can be accepted, and we normally copy the information rom the person's website. We always accept a person;s CV for their date of birth, and similar details in the absence of contrary information. tho now it is often possible to document date of birth with VIAF, Given the rather dubious nature of at least some of the items listed, it wouldn't be compatible with our policy on FRINGE to call them accomplishments. A physician or other investigator who publishes papers on cancer is an oncologist. It doesn't imply certification. If challenged, the discussion belongs elsewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I created a discussion here, on the talk page of the article.  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  19:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I think that this topic can be hatted now. The initiator's question has been more or less addressed, and I assume it is agreed that the tag should stay. Coretheapple (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Antonia Gerstacker


The Antonia Gerstacker was added July 3, 2008 by User:Artofantonia. The article had been tagged several times for WP:COI and WP:Notability to address what is likely WP:Original research. I did a major clean-up of the article and posted conversation about that on the talk page (snapshot before it was deleted by Artofantonia). This work was done to address the notability concerns of works of women artists. The article has been [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker nominated for deletion]. CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Harassing threats to be concidered by contributing user. See also: Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. artofantonia  ( talk ) 17:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeswider (talk • contribs) User contribution being added in neutral point of view and in good faith in efforts to save the Antonia Gerstacker article from deletion.(janeswider (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)) (Janeswider (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeswider (talk • contribs) (Janeswider (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC))


 * The two named accounts are now blocked. I'm not sure if User:Dogfoodpeppermint (red link because no user page was established) is another sockpuppet or not. It wouldn't seem so by the types of edits, but some of them are things I added myself from cited sources.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 23:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

CK Morgan


This user has been making fairly disruptive, promotional-looking edits to the CK Morgan article for quite a while. Originally, I suspected no relation, but today, I came across the artist's Facebook page here, which lists a Barbara Johnson as his publicity person. I suspect promotional editing on this user's part.

I should also note the SPI investigation I created a few days ago about this same user. I also notice that the same user has been making uploads of pictures of artists over at Commons with what probably is improper attribution. Joe SchmedleyT* 03:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The connection looks clear. Have any diffs for the POV edits?  Also, is there any evidence that  (from your SPI) is connected and making POV edits?  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  13:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I revisited the edits, and most of the disruptive ones from this particular user seem to actually be centred around removing maintenance tags without explanation (such as here) and adding the subject's birthday without citation (example).
 * Maybe the SPI isn't totally correct and it's some other user adding the promotional material. These actions are definitely becoming disruptive, though, and I wonder if we should move discussion to another forum. Joe SchmedleyT* 16:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The tone of the article is inappropriate, and the notability of the subject is questionable at best. Glad you raised the issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a COI. Removing maintenance tags is particularly common for COI editors with little understanding of our policies and guidelines.  I'll try to get their attention today so that I can try and help them understand the issues they're causing.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  15:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPI evidence clearly shows a connection (I don't think anyone said it didn't - just stating my opinion). I agree that their edit summaries really give it away.  I think the SPI clerk, when they said that there's no overlap, meant that they don't see evidence of subversive socking, just the use of two accounts.  I can agree with that.  Sometimes people just lose their login info and create another account.
 * I left a message on their talk page. At this point, I don't see any blatantly POV content in the article, besides some unsourced but uncontroversial opinions the subject of the article allegedly has (who his influences are and how he describes his album).  I think there's enough eyes on the article at this point to keep it from going south again.  I'll focus on the editor(s) in question if others want to focus on determining notability in the AfD.  Unless there's any socking going that starts up, I think we've got this situation covered.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  16:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice that removal of maintenance and AfD tags is continuing, as is non-logged-in editing, despite the requests that he or she stop doing so. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Since two different IPs have removed the AfD banner I've imposed ten days of semiprotection on CK Morgan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What an ugly situation. I think the article will be deleted soon which in my experience, means that the likely-COI IPs and the COI user will disappear for the time being.  We've got enough people watching the article now that they won't be able to take control of it.  A block on the person claiming to be his publicist also seems imminent but that probably won't accomplish too much.
 * With no article, they won't have anything to damage because they obviously don't care about anything else here. If the subject becomes notable, which seems possible, we can deal with the content issues in the future.  I doubt they'll continue to be a problem after the AfD is closed but we can escalate blocks if they continue to be problematic.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  18:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority
Hello. I represent the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority and noticed some inaccuracies on the organization's article. I've previously outlined the suggested edits on the main Talk Page, but have not had any response. Hoping someone here can review it and make the changes. Thank you. Kellyhancock (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Please watch Whisper (app). Thanks.


Please watch Whisper (app). It was created by an SPA, there were paid editing accusations on AN/I, and most of the editors involved are SPAs. I made the article more encyclopedic, turned the hype level down from 11, and generally made it an article rather than an ad. Now an anon has been making big deletions and trying to add the names of some people to the article. John Nagle (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Updates and corrections for BP article
Hello, as I have introduced myself here before, I am a BP employee and the company's representative on Wikipedia working to update articles related to BP. I have suggested several edits to the BP article and I was hoping editors here might be able to review them. They are fairly small requests related to the company's ranking by revenue, correcting inaccuracies in the "History" section, and updating the "Operations" section. All the requests are listed out in detail on the Corrections and resources sub page of the BP Talk page but to simplify things, below are details of the specific edits that I suggest:

BP's Global 500 ranking:
 * Current text in Article introduction: the fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues,
 * Suggested text and citation: the sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues


 * Current text in "Corporate affairs": fifth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues
 * Suggested text (current citations are already updated, just the text here needs amending): sixth-largest company in the world measured by 2012 revenues

Inaccurate information in "History":
 * Current text in "1979 to 2000": Prior to the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher initiated the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.
 * Suggested text and citations: Following the worldwide stock market crash in October 1987 Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher authorized the sale of an additional GBP7.5 billion ($12.2 billion) of BP shares at 333 pence, representing the government's remaining 31% stake in the company.

Updates to "Operations":
 * Current text in "Operations": As of December 2012, the company had a total of 79,700 employees.
 * Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company had a total of 85,000 employees.


 * Current text in "United States": As of March 2013, the company employs approximately 21,000 people in the US,
 * Suggested text and citation: As of October 2013, the company employs approximately 20,000 people in the US,


 * Current text in "Oil refining and marketing": As of February 2013, BP owned or held a share in 15 refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and four were in the US.
 * Suggested text and citation: As of June 2013, BP owned or held a share in 14 refineries worldwide, of which seven were located in Europe and three were in the US.

I requested help from editors on the article's main Talk page, but while the editors who have replied there do not have any issues with these edits, I have yet to find anyone willing to make the changes. I would appreciate any help that editors here can provide. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ All of the requests have now been completed. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please watch Aam Aadmi Party. Thanks.


Please watch Aam Aadmi Party. It is being controversial article after so frequent, severe and repeatidtly changes are being made to the article. By looking on article and inspecting the edit history, it is concluded that there were possible paid editing or biased editing in promoting of Subject, and most of the editors like are either Party's members or Sypathetical users to the party. Article looked like full adverstisement of article Aam Aadmi Party at encyclopedia. I had tried to make the article more encyclopedic, neutral and justified, and generally made it an article rather than an ad. We were succesful in getting Article semi-protection status to prevent it from vandalising. Now some users like rayabhari are distorting the neutrality of the article by editing in unjustified comments, which they claims is right according to their opinion and which is in strong contradiction to the facts we found. They have been making big deletions and trying to justify his doing by his own opinion. KLS 13:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Kuldeep Singh (talk)

Asia World
Hi, I have just proposed some additional content on the talk page for Asia World. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Asia World is my client. Please see my user space for more details and feel free to get in touch either on the Asia World page or on my talk page. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Little Kids Rock

 * }
 * }
 * }

The editor has made such edits to around 50 other articles of musicians, adding the same content, "X has shown support for Little Kids Rock". Seems to be coatracking and promotional. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've rolled back all the edits I could, and will give an "only warning" for spamming--perhaps an indefinite block is already warranted, but I don't (yet) want to deny them the chance of responding here, or at the AfD for the organization. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Peptide
I have started a discussion at Talk:Peptide. I would like another editor to review the contribution. It is a translation of a contribution to French Wikipedia diff, that was contributed simultaneously by the same new user. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

BBC Voice project
Hi, I'm writing to declare an interest. I have been working with the BBC on a project on which they have been releasing clips of their broadcast radio programmes, under open licence. We held an event last Saturday, in which volunteers identified suitable clips and they and I added some of them to Wikipedia articles. We ran out of time, and the BBC continue to upload the material to Commons. They have asked me to add the remaining clips to0 articles. A few of the clips are of BBC personnel. I don't foresee any issues (the material is not promotional, and no text content is being changed - though I'll do small fixes as I go), but thought it best too mention the work here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also creating stubs for some of the notable programmes from which the audio is extracted, for instance The Film Programme. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem here, in fact it looks like a great addition to Wikipedia/Commons. I don't see any problem with the volunteers or even the BBC directly, uploading the clips to Commons. I don't see any possible problems with volunteers including the clips into articles.  The only question that might come up (and people might disagree on this) is your statement "I have been working with the BBC"  - does that mean that you are working "for the BBC", i.e. being paid by the BBC (beyond them paying for lunch or other minor expenses).  My guess is that it doesn't mean that, but you might want to be clearer.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikipedian-in-Residence type paid role, hence the disclosure here. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have the info on your user page, which is all the disclosure we ask for any editor. But it's also not a bad idea to have it here too. If anyone dings you about your COI and not being transparent about it, remind them of your user page and be sure to link to this discussion (here or on in the archives later) and if you get too much flak about it, leave a message on my talk page and I'll chime in. --  At am a  頭 22:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cee-Jay


The user who created the Cee-Jay article has 'ceejay' in their username. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That does NOT make it promotional. Just being it has "ceejay" in the username.  That's irrelevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trceejay (talk • contribs) 15:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the text on this page, "A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics." 331dot (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any time there is a match between an article and the name of a user, it brings up a suspicion that there might be a conflict of interest. Sometimes that's a good thing, because an editor who discloses their conflict of interest is generally given more of a benefit of the doubt than someone who tries to conceal it and reveals it by their behavior or some other slip. As long as the user name isn't itself promotional and thus a violation of our username policy. In any case, the original article has been deleted per speedy deletion because the article did not assert the person's importance in its text. --  At am a  頭 22:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Li Yu (professor)


No real notability, seemingly copying and pasting his own CV. Timmyshin (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should probably be speedily deleted under WP:G11 or WP:A7 CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The article credibly asserts the subject's importance by stating the the subject is an associate professor involved in research that could have a major impact, so it's not eligible for speedy deletion under either criteria. At the same time, the article does a terrible job of actually proving any of that (the only reference included links to his college's page, which does not demonstrate any coverage from independent reliable sources). I think AfD is the right place for this article to be handled. --  At am a  頭 22:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the speedy deletion already got shot down. It was my mistake to suggest it. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a common mistake, there's sometimes a fine line between what is and isn't A7 eligible. The confusion usually comes from the difference between asserting and proving notability, and what is and isn't a credible assertion. Unfortunately, it's one of those areas that's pretty subjective by necessity. Most of the CSD tags that I've declined have been of that nature. --  At am a  頭 23:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cranial electrotherapy stimulation


New account making problematic edits, some of which are about Sleep Genie Inc. Alexbrn talk 15:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Parted Magic


Subject of the article was unfortunately blanking COI template and edit warring (he's entangled with open-source pricing dispute). 3 other WP:SPA accounts have appeared with same pattern after main account was warned. (sock request filed). Widefox ; talk 03:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Request check: User:Densign01 and BLPs for Jarrod Bernstein and Hildy Kuryk


I suspect a possible COI with User:Densign01 because of a suspicious contribution pattern. User has only has edited the Bernstein article and one recent edit to create the Kuryk article (Bernstein's wife).. I suspect, based on this editing pattern, that the user is either Bernstein, Kuryk, or someone associated with them or contributing on their behalf. Please review. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want a simple price list!
I just want a simple price list for paid editing here. The companies are quoting different prices, and I think that is wrong! I've looked everywhere and can't find any prices here on the wikipedia. I was told to do everything inside wikipedia with you all. Please help. What's the price? Is it per hour? per project? Please help! Thweeder (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thweeder. I'd be happy to help you with an article for the low, low, i'm-going-out-of-not-being-in-business-price of free.
 * I'll leave a message on your talk page so that we can discuss what you're looking for but I feel that I should mention that your aims may constitute a conflict of interest. You should read up about it here.
 * To drastically sum it up, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the content here needs to be neutral and fact-based. It can't be an advertisement for you or your organization.
 * See you on your talk page.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  14:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Creation of Preston Long

 * (attempted renaming of user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D.)
 * (attempted renaming of user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D.)
 * (attempted renaming of user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D.)
 * (attempted renaming of user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D.)
 * (attempted renaming of user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D.)


 * Regarding user Preston H. Long, D.C., Ph.D:, user created article Preston Long which is was seen as an obvious autobiographical article that fails to meet the notability test, another editor tagged it as autobiographical, I gave it a proposed deletion tag. User reached out to me on my talk page with a whisperback template where on her talk page introduced herself by saying she wasn't Long, but was Long's publicist and this was her first article. . User sought a name change at Changing username/Simple to HueHunter23 which was done moments ago..
 * Regarding user Caiteileen16: - user account created after being accused for this publicist.
 * Regarding user Mariemarielong: User Mariemarielong's only two edits were to remove the prod-deletion tags claiming article was "written by his publicist" and not autobiographical. See:

I would assert that it would be appropriate to block this user (or these users), and that the COI is admitted, obvious, and likely to continue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's too soon to lower the boom just yet - it would be a bit WP:BITE-y. This might just be a case of several editors being unaware that Wikipedia is not meant for publicity. Remember that COI editing is discouraged but not prohibited, and the user (eventually) did provide disclosure. I'd give them a chance to become educated on policy first. After that, if their behaviour strays into WP:TE or WP:OWN territory, then I'd say it's appropriate to take further action.
 * Let's allow the AfD discussion to run its course and see how things go. --Drm310 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. This looks like a newbie mistake that might be fixable. They have received good warnings, and now the article should be left for wikipedians to fix. If that can be done, okay. If not, then delete it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy


Additional eyes on this newly created article, please. It has major issues with style and tone, and is mostly the work of a single editor.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is problematic and smacks of advertising. The "other" editor, an IP, just removed the advert tag I had placed on the article. I have no evidence yet of a COI, but there is definitely promoting going on. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am the creator of the article, This was my first article, my Wikipedia experience isn't all that great that explains why the article isn't perfect. Can someone fix the article so it doesn't sound like advertisement? Thank you 50.162.190.150 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem I'm seeing right off the bat is undue weight. It looks like there's coverage that's rather insignificant but instead of not being mentioned or having a sentence or two in a larger section, the subject gets an entire section.  I'm not normally one who suggests we get rid of content but it's overkill.  The "Brian's Announcement" Hoax section was an advertising campaign (for what, I'm still not sure) and the section has 49 different references.  There's also several attempts to quantify the size of the campaign with the number of retweets and webpage hits but there's no indication from a secondary source that 1000 retweets is impressive.
 * Personally, I have no desire to comb through all this but anyone else is welcome. I think a better plan would be to nuke the article back to a stub and start over.    I probably would have nominated it for G11 because I think it did and still does need a fundamental rewrite.  The information in the article's current form will be saved in the article's history for reference.
 * On a side note, is there any indication of a close connection. I skimmed the talk page and edit history but didn't see anything explicit.  There's definitely advocacy going on here, though.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  18:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "Brian's Announcement" was a viral hoax campaign to promote a petition to bring the character from the show back. The report and facts are backed up on rolling stone, huffington post, metro uk, Europa press links. There's tons of information regarding each of those campaigns that I can sit and write about 30 paragraphs and tons of news sources that extend to over a week for each one but I researched the subject and only picked out the best source links and information. Each campaign could be possibly significant enough to get their own article due to the mass number of news sources and severity of the hoaxes. But, to keep things short I didn't add too much details. But I will very shortly add photos and more info on each campaign as there's a lot of important info that is not in the article. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that each event qualifies for its own article. The references provided are mere mentions of the website and were only even mentioned because they were mislead by Swenzy.  At any rate, none of those hoaxes garnered significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.  That you're presenting the situation any any different light really makes me question your neutrality.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , do you have a close connection to Swenzy? Please keep in mind that having a close connection doesn't bar you from editing the article.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I put an "Advertising" tag on the article, and on another article recently created by the same editor. I also removed the "list of hoaxes". After a few searches, it's not even clear that "Swenzy" is a company.  Their own site uses the name "Swenzy LLC", but that's not coming up in Dun and Bradstreet. Their own site's "About" page links back to Wikipedia.  The Daily Dot article about them indicates that attempts to locate the "company" were not successful. This may be an attempt to use Wikipedia to make a scam look legitimate. John Nagle (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Swenzy is an unusual case, because their stated business is promotional hoaxes, along with fake "likes", "views", and other black hat SEO. Some of the info about them is fake, and it's not clear how much. WP:RS sources are hard to find. Some of the press sources may reflect repetition of fake info generated by Swenzy. So we have fake info and COI editing to deal with. John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One particular concern is that at http://www.swenzy.com/, clicking on "About Swenzy" at the top of the page leads to the Wikipedia article Swenzy. This may give a casual visitor the impression that Wikipedia has checked and endorsed this material. It has not, and there are doubts about whether Swenzy is a real company or trademark.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Related problem article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jacob Povolotski This proposed article, from the same editor, appears to be a promotional piece for the claimed CEO of Swensy. --John Nagle (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ever get the feeling you are being punk'd? 131.137.245.207 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-promotion on Wikipedia is an ongoing problem, and it's routinely dealt with. It used to be mostly from non-notable bands, but lately it's more of a problem with company articles. One editor wants to send the article to AfD unless someone can find some reliable source that "Swenzy LLC" has an actual corporate existence. I disagreed, since they have some notability, but if the organization is fake, it probably shouldn't get an article of its own. What's the consensus? Send to AfD, or try to fix the article? John Nagle (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The most important facet of any article is verifiability, not notability. Most articles that are notable are kept, and most articles that are deleted are done so for lack of notability. But any article that can't be reliably verified should not be kept under any circumstances. If all that we can offer about the subject is speculation, even well-sourced speculation, does it belong in an encyclopedia? I think it doesn't. --  At am a  頭 22:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm coming around to the "send to AfD" position. If anyone wants to start an AfD, go for it. I'll probably vote "weak delete". John Nagle (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Swenzy is notable enough, try chopping the article down to a verifiable stub before sending to AfD. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Previously, I wanted to fix and keep it. I tried fixing the article. We can't even verify that the business exists. No business address, anonymous domain registration, fake registered trademark, not in Dun and Bradstreet.  So technically it fails WP:CORP. In reality, the article is spam generated by a business whose business is generating spam. Sent to AfD. John Nagle (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the AfD rationale, then Anonymous_(group) faces the same sort of issue, as well as every article we have on street gangs. Swenzy, by its "rogue" and somewhat shady nature is going to not have the traditional sort of sources.  It's still drawn quite a bit of coverage. Gigs (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories


I thought this was just a bit of clueless corporate puffery, but it turns out that the article is mostly the work of a series of WP:SPAs. It's a mess. Please have a look at it for me. I was alerted to this by an OTRS ticket requesting a move to Gensys, which is not happening any time soon. Guy (Help!) 16:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the lede a bit. Others had already removed much of the blatent PR. Bloomberg Business Week has basic corporate data for the company (when founded, CEO, ownership, number of employees, product lines, etc.) so I rewrote the lede on that basis.  I also took out the list of rather non-notable "awards". Now it's a basic company article.  They've been involved in some interesting patent litigation over call center software.  That's the most significant item I can find about them that isn't PR-generated. (I miss Google News Archives.)  John Nagle (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gift certificate from Turnitin webinar speech


Hey folks. I regularly give public talks about Wikipedia without any compensation except travel funding. I also have been involved in a collaboration with Turnitin where they donated free use of their plagiarism/copyright detection software for use in our copyvio bots. Turnitin offered to check as many articles as we wanted for copyvios, all 4 million of them even, for no cost, with no mention of Turnitin on article pages ever, with no contract, and no exclusivity. WMF legal gave us the ok to take that offer to the community. For the past 12 months two bot coders have been playing around with the software and seeing how they can integrate it. In any case, back to the talks... I was recently invited to give a talk at Turnitin's educational webinar series. I presented The Future of Wikipedia in Education to an online audience of over 700 attendees. It was a really nice speech which got great feedback. About a week after the talk I received a thank you letter from Turnitin with an Amazon giftcard for $350, which totally shocked me. Now, I have always been clear that Turnitin has never compensated me in any way for working on the WP:TURNITIN collaboration, and that I wouldn't stand to benefit from it. So this gift falls into a gray area. The talk was about Wikipedia in education, and Turnitin received only passing mention. So, is it appropriate to keep this? Is disclosing the gift sufficient? If not, I will donate it to WP:RX, but I want to have a discussion about it first. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 16:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

James_R._Fouts


Campaign finance reports filed with the Macomb County Clerk's Office (Michigan), Election Division, http://campaignfinance.macombcountymi.gov/IndexedDocs/469094215.PDF, on page 7 of the expenditures, shows a payment of $600.00 on August 6, 2013, for "Internet research," from the Committee to Elect Jim Fouts to "Edward Vielmeti,".

Considering that Vielmetti has made dozens of edits and wholesale replacement of contributions to the "James R. Fouts" article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Fouts, TheMichiganGroup believes he needs to explain the nature of payments made to him from the Committee to Elect James R. Fouts (Warren, Michigan). If he cannot show that there is no potential conflict of interest, TheMichiganGroup believes some of his edits and contributions should be removed as well as curtailing editing access to this article.

Notice has been provided to Edward_Vielmetti. TheMichiganGroup (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User:TheMichiganGroup has posted my home address in an attempt to intimidate me. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Cleaver. But home address not disclosed. Noted that Vielmetti's address now a matter of public record and filed with election officials for taking money from a political campaign. The same campaign that is controlled by the subject of the favorable edits. TheMichiganGroup (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * What a mess. In addition to the above, there are at least two more WP:SPA editors: and . Plus at least three anons making rather strong edits. There's even edit warring over to what party Fouts belongs. I'm going to put a note on ANI. John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, what a mess. While you're at ANI, can you help me deal with the WP:OUTING? I've deleted it from my talk page, but of course it's in the edit history. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, for legal reasons our policy on articles about living persons trumps any COI issues. To quote that policy: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Anyone, including the actual subject of the article, should feel free to remove unsourced contentious content about a living person. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Aljezur_International_School


Looks pretty obvious, Algarve101 admitted to being at the school | here, the other two just have very suspicous names and contributions. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Chernigov Refinery


is a creator and main editor of the Chernigov Refinery article. Also their user name is an acronym of that company name in Russian, so the COI linkage seems to be clear (e.g. the company website is chnpz.ru). That user has removed several times a tag asking for reliable sources as so far all most of sources have been primary sources. Beagel (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Lynx (transportation)


Fairly obvious WP:SPA CombatWombat42 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

CBRE Group


This appears to be a very clear and obvious case of conflict of interest. is a near-monothematic WP:SPA; the article is grossly promotional in tone. There are probably other COI/SPA editors involved here too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And, it turns out, confirmed by the editor on his talk page: "I am part of CBRE's Corporate Communications group". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As if that wasn't enough, the company appears to have two pages, CBRE Group and Coldwell Banker Commercial (they are the same company, aren't they?). And the cherry on top is that Coldwell Banker Commercial also has its own dedicated WP:SPA maintainer. I wonder if they know each other? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That article needs balance. They are a big company, but every source given links to their own site. There's news from reliable sources available for CBRE; search for "CBRE Fraud" "CBRE lawsuit", and "CBRE rigged bidding" for stories. They even had to pay out on a lawsuit for fax spamming, --John Nagle (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Coldwell Banker Commercial and CBRE Group seem to have parted company in 1989, when the former went private in a leveraged buyout that didn't go well.. So they should be separate articles. John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I was having doubts after writing that they were the same (which I did after reading on the CBRE page that "In 1989, employees and others acquired the company's commercial operations to form CB Commercial"). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Coldwell Banker Commercial is now part of Realogy, so it doesn't need its own article. Realogy seems to have bought up a number of real estate brokers that were in trouble, including Coldwell Banker Commercial. The Realogy article isn't too bad; it's basically a bare history of their creation as a spinoff, going private, going public, and acquiring the losers of the 2008 real estate bubble collapse. Try trimming CBRE down to something similar, preferably with sources other than CBRE's own web site. Then we can work up from there. John Nagle (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

S. Ballesh




While Wikipedia needs more articles on underrepresented topics, these editors are intent on promoting their cause. Potential COI and autobiography issues; good-faith attempts to keep the article neutral and free from errors are being reverted and editing is borderline disruptive. Attempts to reach out to the editors through talk pages has not stopped them from continuing to make COI edits. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems likely that there's a language problem here, and that perhaps invitations to participate in talk have been ignored for that reason. However, even after making generous allowances for that, for the acknowledged relative difficulty of finding reliable sources on India-related topics, and for general systematic bias, I agree with that the edit pattern is bordering on being WP:Disruptive. More eyes would be welcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

i cant understand you report sir... help me to edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaballesh (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Several of the edits by the two accounts have been identical, and this appears to be the work of one editor editing under two accounts. Rather than take this to an SPI for blocking, I would advise Mr. Ballesh to have a read of Sock puppetry. Ruby   Murray  13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob Leaf
I am self-declaring an interest. I have cleaned up this article at the request of a mutual acquaintance of the subject, with whom I have a business relationship. I invite other editors to review my edits. I have also made this declaration on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This highly controversial assertion: "Credited as "the father of public relations"..." is backed up only with a dead link. That needs to be rectified or removed. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just replied to your near-identical comment on my talk page: That seems to be a temporary glitch; the link was working fine yesterday, and loaded for me just now, on the second refresh. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:JLohrWines/J._Lohr_Vineyards_and_Wines


We are trying to update and expand our company page on Wikipedia. We have created a draft page for 3rd party review to hopefully implement these changes. All sources are cited throughout and all statements are public fact/knowledge. Thanks!

Draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JLohrWines/J._Lohr_Vineyards_and_Wines JLohrWines (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User:JLohrWines, this page doesn't look half bad, but before attempting to post it I would revise the style of writing to be as neutral as possible. Right now there are some promotional words and phrasings that could prevent the page from settling as is into Wikipedia, so I would go through it with a fine-toothed comb to remove anything you can see that is intended to show the company in a promotionally positive light. Such as the word "acclaimed". If you can do that, then I could see this piece as a decent addition to Wikipedia. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! We have gone through and updated. We have been trying to keep this article neutral throughout the process. How would you recommend getting the article (or next round if needed) posted?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLohrWines (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pattern Recognition in Physics


The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics was published from March 2013 until it was terminated this past January by the publisher, Copernicus Publications. It seems the reasons for this include that the editors (both of whom were climate change "skeptics") appointed other editors in a "nepotistic" manner, and that one paper in the journal argued that their results "shed serious doubt on the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project." The journal's editor-in-chief was Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, who works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute. Now we have an account with the username "Ouadfeul" editing this page in a manner that is clearly biased against Copernicus's managing director, Martin Rasmussen:  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: the article has been fully protected by . While I'm not sure if this was necessary, it seems to have succeeded in driving Ouadfeul away from the page, or for that matter, its talk page. Jinkinson   talk to me  04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Alli Sports


This company may be attempting to promote their various products again. To summarize, MTV/NBC owns a company that promotes a large collection of sporting events/competitions. The company previously added lots of copyrighted and advertorial content to Wikipedia under accounts that mirrored the company's name.

As a reminder, they previously attempted to do this and 18 articles, 2 categories, 2 templates, and at least 5 files were deleted per A7, G11, and G12. You can find the whole investigation here, the WP:COIN report here, and the WP:ANI discussion here (for some reason, it seems to have been deleted instead of archived).

Articles that were deleted have been recreated with slightly different names (Winter Dew Tour 2008-09 to 2008-2009 Winter Dew Tour).

The IP editor has been adding Winter Dew Tour links to every article that has anything to do with sports related to the Winter Dew Tour. Essentially everything they've added to Wikipedia and edited has to do with the Dew Tours. created the new articles with slightly different names and added text to the articles he created that's taken verbatim from the standard press release for these events. I thought I'd mention this here because the pattern is similar enough to previous issues to warrant a look and I'm sure they can explain whether or not they have a close connection.

I'll look more closely at this situation when I have more time.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added another IP address. They added the same copyrighted material to Dew Tour.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2009–2010 Winter Dew Tour is up for deletion for a copyright violation. Two other articles were deleted for the same reason.  I think COIN regulars are looking for other articles but it's hard to be certain.  I'm going to look for more problematic articles but the IP editor(s) are jumping around a lot in that IP range so it's been difficult to find everything they've been working on.
 * If you find article or editors that are adding promotional or copyrighted material related to this subject, please list them here.  Ol Yeller21 <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Venus Project
I'm not sure if it's a good place, but I have a problem. Basically I don't understand the situation. I'd like to keep material presenting purposes of this organization sourced from its website, but some user claims that it mustn't be self-sourced and reverts me. I disagree with it, self-source in case of subject's purposes is OK. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a board for issues with conflicts of interest. For fringe theories related issues there is WP:FTN, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also try the reliable sources noticeboard which is where you can discuss whether or not a source is worth including in an article. Just be certain that whichever board you take this issue to, that you notify the other person involved because you're supposed to notify any person you're discussing on a noticeboard. --  At am a  頭 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Monster Monpiece


User with suspicious username is making edits to Monster Monpiece, an article about a Japanese videogame developed by Compile Heart. Nippon Ichi Software is another Japanese videogame developer, and editing of articles by "competitors" (regardless of whether the user is genuinely an employee or not) qualifies as COI. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User was banned (WP:USERNAME violation). Edits were reverted.  I think plenty of people have it watchlisted now.  Ol Yeller21  <sup style="color:#827839;">Talktome  20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Qigong


CJrhoads identifies her real-world name on her Userpage. Her bio, linked at her Userpage, says that: "Rhoads is one of the founding members of the Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization, a worldwide virtual organization of health and martial arts players which advocates spreading the health benefits of integrative health practices such as Qigong and Taijiquan to everyone." (emphasis added) The bio also notes that she was the "Martial Arts Promoter of the Year" in 2010. The bio also explains how qigong practice helped her recover (remarkably!) from a terrible accident. Her userpage states that she is employed by a university and that she has a consulting business. I am not saying that she has a financial interest - that she makes money from qigong. Her Userpage does establish a strong personal interest in the health benefits of qigong, and a professional interest as founder of a nonprofit that advocates for spreading the health benefits of qigong.

After edit warring a bit (no violation) with MEDRS-experienced editor WP:Yobol back on January 9th, about changing a summary sentence in the lead about health benefits of qigong, she opened a discussion on the Talk page (dif) to try to make the Lead make a more "positive" statement about the health benefits of qigong. In her words: "But if you read the entire article (NB by jytdog: referring to a source), it is much more "positive" about the likelihood that there actually is a positive health benefit to daily Qigong practice, there just hasn't (yet) been enough well designed large-scale placebo-controlled randomized studies to make that conclusion." (dif) and later... "I agree we should maintain a neutral tone - but the current tone is not neutral, but leans toward the negative." (dif) and yet later.. "The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi." (dif). And this is the stance (that the current Lead is negatively biased) she has taken since.

This content dispute has been difficult and it is not my intention to go into detail here (and there are other, peripheral issues). But in a nutshell, CJ is inexperienced in writing about health information in Wikipedia, and has not been engaging with our efforts to educate her about how we generate health-related content and what sources we use, as described in MEDRS, which I and others have taken a great deal of time and effort to explain. She has not heeded or responded to arguments based on MEDRS, nor has she been making arguments grounded in MEDRS. And so we are failing to reach consensus even after a lot of time and work. I eventually warned her that she was approaching WP:IDHT territory and I finally checked out her userpage and found the content described above. I then placed a note on her Talk page (dif) explaining the COI issue that I saw - namely that her outside interest in promoting health benefits of qigong were conflicting with her obligations as a Wikipedian to learn and follow our guidelines and policies. I urged her to read the various COI guidelines and essays and to come here for guidance. (I do want to say that folks who run this board may see this as more of an WP:ADVOCACY issue - as you know better than I, they are closely related.)

CJ has reacted negatively. She stated that she has tried not to advocate. (dif) And she stated that she does not have a COI, as she defines COI as purely financial (dif).

I explained more, but when she resisting taking my concerns into consideration, I added a note to the Qigong Talk page about my concern (dif) and CJ reacted more negatively, again denying she has a COI since she defines that as financial, and accusing me of trying to silence her. (difs)

In any case, this seems to me a situation where there is a content dispute that is being complicated in that: a) CJ's outside interests and advocacy are conflicting with her obligation to learn (nobody knows everything, but everybody has to learn and eventually know) and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and b) CJ herself seems to be unaware of how the COI/advocacy is driving her to make the article more "positive."

What I am seeking is for COIN to weigh in on this and advise a) if CJ has a COI/Advocate issue and b) if so, how she should proceed. I am not seeking any kind of block or ban at this time - and as the activity has been mostly limited to Talk it is not clear to me that there is any blockable or topic-bannable offense. Given her knowledge of qigong she could become a valuable contributor. But I believe that she has a COI/advocate issue at least around qigong, and should be behaving differently; the key thing I want is education as demonstrated by change in behavior - that she see that has an issue as Wikipedia defines those issues (not as she defines them) and declare it, and that going forward she be especially careful to learn and follow our sourcing policies and guidelines, and in general follow the guidances provided to editors with a COI. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read the entire section on conflict of interest, and in my opinion, I have demonstrated only behavior that is in keeping with the guidance of that section. It seems to me that the real issue is that I believe that what Jytdog calls neutral, I call negatively biased.  And what I call neutral, he calls positive and advocating.  But if you actually look at the page, you will see that I am simply looking for an alternative to what I consider to be negatively biased text, which I believe I have a right to do.  I have made no edits to the article since starting the discussion.  As a group we have been discussing 6 different options of wording that would make the text more neutral in my opinion.  Jytdog appears to be unhappy with me for continuing the discussion, and this appears to be one of his strategies for trying to force me to stop.  Please do come on the talk page, review the information, and assess whether or not I have done anything improper.  I enthusiastically support many different points of view and encouraged an organized method for many people to come on the talk page and add their opinion.  CJ (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * CJ I am not making an "accusation"; I am stating a concern under Wikipedia's guidelines. You have said that you have no COI, so when you say your behavior is in keeping with "that section" (and I am not sure which you mean), do you mean that you have done nothing differently since it does not apply to you?  Your accusation, repeated here, that I am acting to silence you, violates WP:AGF and is, sadly, a too typical reaction.  The COI concern is not about the content dispute, it is a separate issue that is exacerbating it - your trying to focus the discussion on the content dispute is also sadly a typical reaction.   Acknowledging a COI and acting accordingly would not in any way silence you - certainly not on the Talk page.  There is a role for editors with a COI on Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct that a COI does not have to be financial. Someone promoting a non-profit that they run isn't doing it for money but clearly has a conflict of interest, as does someone who is trying to whitewash a biography of their father. But I'm not sure that there is a clear COI here, although there may be a POV issue.


 * The issue would be different if CJ had promoted her consulting business, her university, or any of the organizations she is involved with. She has a direct connection to all of those entities, and when trying to promote them (either by speaking of them positively in the article or just mentioning them, or removing negative information about them) she has a conflict of interest. But for the entire Qigong discipline itself, no, there is no COI. That would be the equivalent of stating that a psychologist has a COI at psychology-related articles. Even if the psychologist is a known promoter of the discipline it's not a COI, because any benefit the editor receives is indirect. The COI guideline suggests using common sense to decide how close an editor needs to be to the subject for a COI to be determined, and points out that "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise". I think that's what applies here.


 * But the POV still may be a concern, if CJ personally has an interest in promoting Qigong as a practice and her edits skew the article in a positive manner unduly, then the WP:NPOV policy needs to be considered. A pro-Qigong POV isn't necessarily a bad thing to have if you are earnestly trying to improve the article; while we should all try to edit without a bias it's sometimes impossible not to edit from a particular perspective. If an editor with a positive POV helps keep unwarranted negative information out of the article, while an editor with a negative POV helps keep the article from being too promotional, and they can collaborate constructively it's possible to have a balanced end product.


 * My question to CJ is this... I do suggest you don't have a COI as we generally define it. But given your past experience with Qigong (and its positive effects on your life) and as someone who tries to promote the benefits of Qigong and related practices, don't you feel that your perspective may be a positive one? Doing so does not invalidate your input at the article, nor does it mandate that you no longer edit the article. But if you acknowledge that your personal viewpoint is positive toward the discipline, perhaps it can help you consciously avoid trying to be too promotional of the practice in the article (and you do already insist that you're trying to be neutral) and it may help understand skepticism other editors may have to your suggestions. This isn't a COI in the strictest sense, but the consequences of this POV are about the same. --  At am a  頭 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for weighing in. I struggle with your interpretation; to me being a founder of an organization based on spreading the positive effects of qigong and then coming here to edit and specifically aiming to increase the "positive content" about qigong in Wikipedia is about as conflicted as you can get; CJ has demonstrated (until today) no effort to engage in the guidelines and polices that govern how Wikipedia generates content.  How the encyclopedia operates has been 2nd banana to promoting the health benefits of qigong. And really - zero engagement (again, until today) with discussions about appropriate sources. Hm.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's murky. I'd say that this is probably the closest I've ever seen to an indirect benefit turning into a COI. I've used the comparison many times about a Star Wars fan not having a COI at Star Wars articles (despite their enthusiasm for the subject which may border on the obsessed). Having an interest and a conflict of interest isn't the same thing. If our COI guideline discouraged people from editing articles about subjects they felt passionate about we'd probably have a sharp decrease in article contributions. Even in my case, I've probably provided the most edits to subjects I have a personal interest in (a video game I played for years, a phone I've used for years, etc.). So in general, in cases like this one we judge that a person doesn't have a COI to avoid setting a bad precedent, and because our COI guideline is intended to cover people with a closer connection to a subject. But I admit that you're really skirting the line when an editor is an actual advocate of the subject. --  At am a  頭 19:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me add, too, that between the two concerns, POV is a much bigger deal that a COI. When a conflict of interest is identified, we at best warn an editor and may give them additional scrutiny, and if there's a consensus of editors there might be a topic ban or page ban instituted to prevent the editor from editing the article directly (though that's very rare). But an editor who repeatedly and flagrantly violates our POV policy can and will be blocked for it. There's a reason why we only have a guideline for conflicts of interest, and we have a policy for maintaining a neutral point of view in an article. The latter is far more serious because it represents a tangible form of disruption that will harm the quality of articles. So please don't take my suggestion that there is no solid COI as an endorsement of CJ's actions. --  At am a  頭 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That is so interesting. Thank you for explaining. I guess I went for COI over Advocacy because CJ's nonprofit "advocates spreading the health benefits of ... Qigong".  And I guess, to me, having the COI flag over qigong for CJ makes it more clear that the standards are extra important to hew to. Anyway I don't want to mess with how you all do things here!  I work at a university and we think about COI differently.  The acknowledgement and disclosure are primary; it lets others, and the one with the conflict, all know that more care and rigor is needed in the arena of conflict. I think that is a super useful structure to have. But thanks again, really.  I will leave this for the two of you to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me add, looking over the talk page for the Qigong article, I see a persistent and nearly relentless attempt to put something positive into the article, something that tries to make a more definitive declaration that Qigong can bring a positive benefit to a patient/practitioner. I have no doubt that this stems directly from CJ's personal (and perhaps life-changing) experience and advocacy. To be fair, CJ has been non-confrontational and willing to take matters to discussion rather than forcing the issue too strongly. And far be it from me to criticize someone for trying to promote something that they felt has given them a better quality of life. But I still think that this feels like a "throw everything against the wall until something sticks" approach, almost to the point of a polite tendentiousness. You may consider going to WP:NPOVN with this problem, that is the noticeboard that deals with attempts to skew articles toward a particular POV, and may help you get more independent opinions on the subject. Finally, this is a case where I can't argue too strongly if someone says that CJ does have a COI, in this case the circumstances are such that it may as well be one (the result is the same), I just can't bring myself to objectively say that a COI is the issue (not as I understand COI here on Wikipedia). --  At am a  頭 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Am interested to have User:Cjrhoads engage with you here, as I think she could benefit from discussion with an admin experienced in these issues like you. As I said if she can turn the corner she could become a valued contributor. I will get out of the way and will keep the NPOVN board in mind. thanks again, a LOT, for your time and thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Atami, for saying exactly what I said - having a passion for a topic should not disqualify someone from editing articles. There Is no conflict of interest. Our attempts (I am but one of many) to make the POV of the Qigong article more neutral (not positive, neutral) have been hampered by an overly negative and biased POV from some of the more experienced editors. The unrelenting harassment and unwillingness to compromise or be open to more recent research findings is problematic -not to me, but to the accuracy of the article. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to try and get the POV to be more neutral and accurate anymore. I have deleted most of the sections with my discussions and will not be volunteering any more of my valuable time to Wikipedia. My talents and skills can be put to better use than to be endlessly accused of wrongdoing or to argue with narrowmindedness. Thanks for you time. CJ (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate way to end things. And you missed the pretty significant warnings that Atama had for you.  I am sorry to see you go; if you had taken the time to learn how we do things you could have become a valuable contributor.  But I think maybe you assumed Wikipedia was more like a blog than the rigorous place of scholarship that it is, complete with a framework that the community has built over years for creating good articles collaboratively.  There is a lot to learn - you cannot just sweep in and do what you want. And the mass deletions you made on the Talk page were a major violation of our policies, since you also deleted a bunch of other editors' comments.  But this is also kind of a perfect echo of your time here.Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Taking CJ at her word, I reckon that this COIN posting can be closed and archived. Thanks again Atama for your time. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Arco

 * Arco Limited
 * ArcoMarketing

Hi, I work for Arco and would like to create a Wiki page for the company. I have written a first draft of the page, which is neutral to us as a company and is written from an external perspective. Would I be able to submit the content for consideration to be created into a Wiki page please?

Thanks

Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcoMarketing (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you seen Articles for creation ? "If you...have a conflict of interest, but have an idea for a new article and some references, you can create one here and it will be reviewed and considered for publication." <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sean's advice is a good one. In addition, I just wanted to thank you personally for taking a conscientious approach, being open about your affiliation, and trying to work within the rules to get the article created. I wish you luck here. --  At am a  頭 18:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, however, your user name is in breach of our user name policy and has been blocked accordingly. Please create a new user name that represents you as an individual.--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have an article for ARCO. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Atlantic Richfield ARCO is the only Arco I've heard of personally but I guess Anna's Arco is perhaps the safety equipment company...or not. I see someone has added an Arco (company) red link to the Arco disambiguation page, although that name probably needs to be more precise. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are lots of small and medium sized companies called "Arco" in some form. "Arco Ltd." is a UK retailer of "safety equipment, workwear, safety boots and shoes, gloves and maintenance supplies". "Arco Marketing PTE" in Singapore is a source for seasoned eel, boiled octopus, and fresh whole squid. "Arco Marketing" in Italy supplies fancy beach umbrellas. (Their teak umbrella is a bit strange.) "Arco Marketing Group" in Texas is a corporation that had their registration cancelled for tax reasons but was reinstated. "Arco Marketing LLC" is a gas station at the corner of Purdy and Blueberry in Monroe, CT. None of these are standing out as particularly notable. John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

A self-confirmed advocate (lawyer or publicist) has wiped out his client's page- one that was diligently edited and reviewed over a period of a year and a half
Jimmy Henchman is a claimed client (although it is unclear what type) for this person  user 67.81.205.59 (talk). This person has partially blanked and completely changed the substance the page that many people worked on for a year and a half. .

The diff is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238

There were some attempts to restore it. Then user 67.81.205.59 (talk) next complained: here and here explaining that Jimmy Henchman was his client without providing citations to support his objections to the extensively litigated version he blanked.

History: In August through September of 2012 many of the issues were litigated and decided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman with a resulting Keep decision based on WP:HEY and my work. Since then, the article has been diligently worked on by these editors: STATicVapor TheHerald Jfmantis Turgan Rmhermen RonJohn and Yamado Taro and myself.

I feel that the blanking of the page by 67.81.205.59 who has a stated financial COI, his/her later complaint and the subsequent attempt to censor the page has had a chilling effect on all the diligent editors I've mentioned above. Moreover, none of 67.81.205.59's objections were mentioned on the Jimmy Henchman talk page but his cause apparently taken up a few editors working in concert to blank the page and all its references. I'd greatly appreciate a ruling here and an attempt to restore and protect the article to the pre https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 state. As Jimmy Henchman is currently serving a life sentence +5 for multiple crimes and is now on trial for murder, the BLP1 issues do not seem ripe to re-examine. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And the forum shopping has started. Please see User_talk:NeilN and Talk:James_Rosemond. There is no COI issue with the active editors. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, you brought the COI to my attention: *The reason why the article is receiving more attention is because it was mentioned here and here. -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  05:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's how it's supposed to work. Someone who has a COI posts to a talk page or noticeboard and uninvolved editors take a look at the claim and edit the article according to their judgment. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no COI issue that I can see here. The initial removal of information from a biographical article from an IP claiming to represent the article subject may be subject to scrutiny due to COI concerns. However, from what I can tell the person who edited the article did so once back in January. There have been about 100 edits done since then to the page by other editors not affiliated by the subject. Since the IP editor you are concerned about has not edited since January 23, and your content dispute is with editors other than that IP, there is nothing else that is appropriate for this noticeboard.


 * I will reinforce what NeilN has said. You seem to grossly misconstrue the purpose of a deletion discussion. The AfD that you are referencing as an example of consensus being reached that is being violated is only a consensus for keeping the article in the encyclopedia, not a consensus for the content that is in the article. Even if there was a consensus reached, that AfD was more than a year ago, and even a recent consensus reached on an article doesn't lock the article's content in stone.


 * This article is a biography of a living person, and the content of such articles has the potential to harm the article subject. Therefore, negative information is given extra scrutiny and great care is taken to ensure its relevance and verifiability. That doesn't mean that biographies aren't allowed to have negative information, but concerns about that negative information need to be taken seriously.


 * Not that it should matter, but I saw that you had questioned whether NeilN is an administrator. Being an administrator doesn't give anyone special authority, nor does it mean that what they say is of more importance than anyone else. But if it's important to you, I'm an administrator. --  At am a  頭 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just asked because of a particular template he placed on my page. Not to challenge, just to understand a bit more about the situation. I do know that this is a biography of a living person. But the particular content in questions was discussed previously regarding BLP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. I'm not questioning NeilN COI but this persons 67.81.205.59 and the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 since Jimmy Henchman is his client. It wasn't stated on the talk page why the issue was coming up a year later. But since the last discussion the subject has been sentenced to life plus 5 and went on trial for murder so I don't see BLP1 as a particular issue especially given the multiple instances of criminal activity. I can understand someone wanting to raise the issue again. But if so shouldn't the persons lawyer do this on a talk page rather than simply blanking the page?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP did not blank the page (why do you persist in these types of misrepresentations?). The changes were undone forty minutes later . -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In my view that was a good thing. Why not leave it there (with the prompt revert) and start a discussion about the particular points that haven't been discussed from that point? I noticed editors asked the person to talk on the Jimmy Henchman page. S/he did not.  Without doing so, it's hard to get a picture of what was going on. Apparently some editors took it on themselves to address the persons issues without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page. Not to put to fine a point on it but a lot of folks with a lot of expertise spent quite a bit of time on it that it took a week or two to wipe out completely. I would have commented but these changes happened quite quickly. For months before there had been vandalism from unknown ID address that were quickly fixed and I assumed this was the same thing.  How could those editors have read all the underlying hundreds of articles required to make those kinds of changes? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "...without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page." See this? And scroll down? And down? I don't know about you, but I call that discussion. It's up to you to join in (or not) in the discussion that focused on the reliability of the sources. It also sounds as if you have some ownership issues here. Do you at least understand there's no COI problems? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * and we "dont leave it there" while we discuss because WP:BLP is very plain: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emph in original). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think part of the confusion was that there was apparently a complaint by an agent of Jimmy Henchman of which people on the talk page were unaware. (At about the time that person, the agent, changed the page). At that point, BLP was discussed but not in the context of the claims raised by Henchman's agent. Since the complaint was not posted to the Jimmy Henchman talk page I and others didn't know about or understand why the issues were coming up again since it's been a long process with careful scrutiny from the beginning. I realize I'm somewhat new and hope my attempt to understand the process isn't offending anyone here. I know sometimes it can be hard to read tone over the Internet. Apparently, I offended NeilN when I asked a questioned that was just an attempt to clarify things, apparently in an awkward manner, so sorry for that.  I'd like to explain my reasoning now that I have a better understanding of the issues and also say that I think it fair to post the original complaint of Henchman's agent on the Jimmy Henchman talk page where we can discuss it point by point.


 * Since I've been following this from close to the beginning, I'd like to add my 2 cents. From viewing the talk page it seems, that people are unaware that not only has Henchman been indicted for murder but is currently standing trial (in addition to his standing  life sentence+5 for multiple crimes.) The fact that he is currently on trial is not there and if you look at the watchers chart there was a huge bump when he was sentenced and a lot of folks are following. The issues surrounding his involvement with PAC have been also discussed and reviewed here and since they are raised again and again in multiple sources they were decided to be appropriate for inclusion.


 * The various points that Henchman's agent makes (I'll refer to him as an agent because I'm not sure what is meant when s/he writes "Henchman is my client") indict the integrity and or competence of the Judge - Judge Gleeson (sp?), the reporters, his last lawyer Shargel (sp?) and other people. The complaint alleges that Judge Gleeson didn't like Shargel and that's why Henchman was convicted. He also claims that Philips was the reason for his indictment. During the trial Henchman claimed that Philips (whom, by the way, Henchman publicly threatened with physical violence by press), was in a conspiracy with Allison Gender (another reporter) and that they both were responsible for Henchman's indictment. Both journalists' reports were entered into evidence during the 2012 criminal trial.


 * Henchman also claimed that he was being persecuted by "Jewish prosecutor," (I have know idea why his religion seemed relevant- just quoting) by whom I assume he meant Todd Kaminsky, the US prosecutor in the case. Most of these claims were litigated during the 2012 trial and a jury unanimously found Henchman guilty and the judge sentenced him to life plus five. Henchman asked to called by the name Rosemond during the trial as has his agent here. During the criminal trial Henchman was not granted his motion as he was known by the name Henchman. As for the new claims against Judge Gleeson (who has an impeccable reputation) and Henchman's former lawyer Shargel and others that Henchman's agent makes here on Wikipedia, these have not been litigated in a court of law. However, these people have WP pages here and I'm sure these charges Henchman's agent makes become problematic for the BLPs of their WP pages. The BLP issues regarding Henchman have  been raised repeatedly have been examined a year and a half ago and each new addition has been examined. I understand that it can be a continuing process. I'm not suggesting that something should be left unexamined since an AfD. Nevertheless WP:Hey seems to mean that although an article might have been incomplete at one point it was not by the time the AfD was closed. The sources at that point were called "rock solid" and it was determined there was no GNG or BLP1 (as per Dennis Brown's comments in that AfD). Also the VV article was discussed and resolved and the editor who found it problematic reversed herself.  I'm glad to dig up this reference but frankly I was told that since the very contentious vetting a year and a half ago everyone wanted to calm things down and forget about it. It was removed from many places, people reverted themselves etc. You can imagine that given the gravity and extremity of the crimes, many people would be squeamish about getting involved. However, whether or not BLP issues validly exist on Henchman's WP as it stood on Jan 23, they clearly exist in relation to the charges of Henchman's agent.


 * Given the multiple criminal activities, the life sentence, the indictment and trial of Henchman, I feel that the BLP issues involved with the various people Henchman's agent indict should be the focus at this point rather than a concern that someone has found a new way of persecuting him. I hope this clarifies things. All the bestScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved editor close this with the appropriate outcome? Thank you. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Tayyab Ghalija
Please monitor the long term contributions of this user, whose edits appear to be only self-promotional editing. TeleComNasSprVen (talk &bull; contribs) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a COI problem, just petty vandalism. Reverted once by ClueBot, once by another editor.  Put second warning on talk page. John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Road marking machine


Adding advertiments for a company's products, and claiming "own work" on images that contain watermark for company that makes machines. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The main problem here is that possibly non-free images have been uploaded to Commons. Ad links to the company are not being inserted. Can this problem be turned over to the non-free image gnomes? (If so, how, on Commons?)  They're reasonable images of useful but boring equipment, something we'll have a hard time getting someone to photograph.  (I've been trying to get someone to photograph a modern medium-sized 3-phase AC synchronous motor, common in industrial plants but rare outside them, because that article has photos only of 1910 and 1935 designs, and there's been some progress since then.) Someone may need to hand-hold this new editor through the ORTS process and get him to resubmit images without watermarks. I'm inclined to assume good faith here. It's not like we have a major spam problem in the asphalt processing, road marking, and dust removal articles in Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

John Parr


This user self-identifies as a representative of the subject e.g.  - some of the problematic edits include deletion of maintenance templates  , ignoring talk page warnings, article talk page tampering , and in the user contribs, multiple cases of "factual addition" without referencing, and clear symptoms of WP:OWN. Dl2000 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an Admin so know authority here to actually do anything. But FWIW this does look like a pretty clear case of COI and persistent disruptive editing. I suggest that user:JPMLTD be blocked from further editing on the article in question if that is in fact possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have blocked JPMLTD for three days as they have continued removing maintenance tags after being blocked for that previously. I'll leave some advice on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sameera Weerasinghe‎


Autobiography, with persistent copyright violations and promotional intent. JNW (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sending it to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Paracetamol (asthma section)


Multiple deletes of accurate and properly referenced content on Paracetamol (asthma section). All information suggesting paracetamol’s epidemiological link to asthma is a valid link deleted (content referenced by many peer reviewed medical journal articles), while every bit of evidence suggesting link not valid left in (referenced by significantly fewer sources). Not neutral. Significantly slanted toward view that favors pharmaceutical manufacturer.

Additionally, these edits appear to involve paid conflict of interest editing by individual with ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The content repeatedly deleted does not represent “undue weight”, as it's referenced by numerous peer reviewed medical journal articles. The repeatedly deleted content includes detailed and specific factors which link paracetamol use to asthma.

Paid conflict of interested edits suspected in this instance by user   He has attempted multiple tactics to censor this information, including misrepresentation of this information as undue weight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596143963&oldid=596137886

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596570621&oldid=596563551

Review of Formerly 98's edit history includes multiple and frequent edits of medication side effects, which involve censoring or downplaying adverse events, suggesting paid conflict of interest editing involving ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Possible conflict of interest by moderator Jmh649 was contacted directly by  Formerly 98 and responded by deleting the above mentioned content. He claimed to have originally deleted it because a concise summary of the information was very similar to a concise summary found in one of the review articles referenced. He cited “copyright violation” as reason for the deletion. However, the true reason for the edit apparently was not copyright violation, because once the wording was changed to remove any hint of copyright violation, he stated it was now proper to delete it because it was now not concise enough, claiming the asthma section of the paracetamol page is somehow clearer with every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma true deleted (referenced by many sources) while every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma not true left in (referenced by far fewer sources) Extreme lack of neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596341712&oldid=596341479


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 22 February 2014 ‎


 * I suggest you start by reading WP:MEDRS. As for supposed 'conflicts of interest', you have yet to provide the slightest evidence to back your assertions up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No basis. User:BoboMeowCat is an WP:SPA who is new and doesn't understand how we operate. Editor is engaging in tendentious editing on this issue, as evidenced by the user's contribs.  Suggest an admin warning to User:BoboMeowCat followed by a block if the behavior persists. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Bob copy and pasted nearly a paragraph of text from one of the sources he was using and than tried to edit war it into place. He has now paraphrased it a bit but it is still a little to close to the source in question IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My editor page clearly discloses that I am a former pharmaceutical industry employee. I probably have biases just like everyone else, but no COIs. In order to minimize the influence of any personal biases, I've actively sought input and review of my work from senior editors and admins, as User:jmh649, User:Jfdwolff, and User:Anypodetos can attest. In the present case, recognizing that I was arguing an adverse event issue from the "industry" point of view, I sought input from Jmh649 at a very early stage in the disagreement in order to avoid even the appearance of pushing a NNPOV. I am more than happy to discuss my overall contributions here as well as any specific edits that anyone is concerned about.


 * As an example of my interactions with other users that I disagree with, I'd like to offer the discussion currently at the bottom of the Finasteride Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finasteride. It is open-minded and respectful. I'm also responsible for about 90% of the current content of the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin articles.


 * As a parenthetical comment, I'd like to protest the fact that I was not given the courtesy of being notified of this posting. I learned of it just now by accident. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Formerly 98, If no COI, what is your current rationale for repeated deletion of accurate and properly referenced content? Link to most recent deletion:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596789453&oldid=596780661


 * Multiple references from both primary and secondary sources indicate the deleted content does not represent “undue weight”. The deleted content not from "isolated studies" but rather repeatedly demonstrated in many studies.  On the asthma section of the paracetamol page, all evidence which suggests link to asthma valid repeatedly deleted, while all content suggesting link may not be valid, left in place.  This is not balanced or neutral.


 * PS- I mentioned my conflict of interest concerns multiple times in talk:Paracetamol. Also, it was my understanding that when I previously listed your user name above in this format , you would be notified.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am surprised that felt compelled to assume bad faith on behalf of . Last time I checked, paracetamol was sold generically for about 1p/tablet and a microscopic profit margin.
 * If the "conflict of interest" is simply a matter of how to present the evidence, this is a content dispute that should be discussed on Talk:Paracetamol and this should be a snowball close. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Debate South Africa


Admitted COI account creating and editing article on his tv show and autobiography. Have requested intervention re: username. More eyes on these will be helpful. JNW (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like Cashdan's page has quite a bit of imbedded external links. While he likely qualifies for a page, I'm going to remove those at the very least. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate the feedback, which I have read very carefully and considered very carefully, about the potential conflict of interest in my contributions on Wikipedia. I want to make clear that I have not been paid to edit anything on Wikipedia, and the company I work with is a non-profit entity. However it is fair to raise this issue with me as I am very close to the subject matter of the pages I created and edited. Hence I have done everything I can to edit my contributions very very carefully, stating fairly all sides of the subject matter. I note that my contributions have been referred to WikiProject South Africa, which is great - I look forward to seeing the input from the participants in that group. Despite my closeness to the subject, I think that my contributions to date are balanced and conform to Wikipedia editorial guidelines.  From this point onwards I will refrain from directly editing the content which has a potential COI. Instead I will raise any issues I have on the talk page, as advised. I will also apply for a name change, since my current wikipedia username is too close to the name of an entity . This has been a learning curve and I appreciate all the feedback!  Incidentally - what are imbedded external links?  I guess that those are urls from outside wikipedia embedded in the article?  I guess those should be in the external links section, and links inside the article should be restricted to other wikipedia pages?  I continue to learn!  BroaddaylightSA (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was where you put the single brackets and url surrounding certain terms. In the future, the best practice is to use these links as references if there is good content to pull from them and to only link words or phrases to other Wikipedia pages. This helps us avoid indirect spamming of the site. Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Meyers


Editor has been adding and restoring promotional statements, BLP content not in listed sources, and deleting CN and COI tags, among others. Editor (whose only edits have related to a current company, two of its founders, and a previous company they were involved in) has a verifiable WP:COI, and has avoided discussion of that COI on talk pages. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the editor has a verifiable COI, easily verified at least if we assume WP:REALNAME here. And the editor's actions seem to violate almost every suggestion made in our COI guideline. --  At am a  頭 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And now that we've launched a COI investigation, suddenly another editor has popped up making the same edits to the same articles, also with no statement of COI. What a coinkydink! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit is problematic... not sure which is right. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that's more of a "success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan" matter; a campaign that large clearly involves more than one person. However, the sourcing on the Meyers assertion is problematic, as you've noted elsewhere. NOTE: I have added the new user name to this COI properly now. Should I start a simultaneous WP:SPI on them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To AGF here a bit, it's possible that Nick created a new account not including his real-life name in an attempt to get privacy. If the old account no longer edits, then there should be no violation of WP:SOCK. I like to give editors a bit of wiggle-room and err on the side of privacy (realizing that WP:OUTING trumps WP:COI until someone is clearly abusing the former to support the latter). My suggestion is to wait on that SPI until the Nickroady account edits again; if so, then file the SPI. Behaviorally speaking, as someone who has participated in many SPIs in the past, it looks like they're the same person (notice the similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts). But we allow someone to abandon one account and start using a different one if the old account is never used again, especially if the old account included identifying information. --  At am a  頭 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair 'nuff. I will hold off on any SPI, barring further compelling occurences. However, I would like to see practical motion on the COI (in addition to Smartse's very useful help with edits.) Nick's COI is clear; the new account, even if it is not Nick, is editing in the exact style of someone with a COI, and so passes the duck test. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)