Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 72

MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general


Hi all. I am in the midst of a dispute with Jeremy112233 an article he's edited. I would like your opinion whether or not we may assume he's done paid advocacy on the MobiCart article he created.

I shall divide my accusations into three parts.

Part 1: Novaseminary has already asked him if he has any COI, and he ignored the question.


 * In 2013, User:Novaseminary wrote some words on Jeremy's talk page. They have been revised by an oversighter, but some are left. The remaining words read: "You have an interesting edit history. How do you choose which new articles to write? Do you always follow WP:COI? I ask because some of your editing strikes me as being a bit promotional. And, for instance, you've uploaded professional looking images with emailed-in permission indicating you have at least the permission of the subject (if not a business, agent, or other relationship) and then went on to write about the subject. And you have claimed to be a ghostwriter in the past. Do you still ghostwrite? Are you still A professional author and entreprenuer?"


 * Jeremy deleted Novaseminary's words from his talk page (his custom is to remove all negative words from his talk page). Jeremy replied that he emails article subjects to request photos.


 * Jeremy ignored all Novaseminary's other questions.

Part 2: Let's look at one of Jeremy's articles.


 * Let's not look at an article to which Jeremy's made complex edits &mdash; such as the RH article, in which he's added, removed, and restructured content, all in one edit. A simpler way to determine whether or not Jeremy is a paid advocate is to look at a article he's created. Let's look at MobiCart.


 * MobiCart is a 12-person operation. (CrunchBase) It started in the UK, but after its founder left the company, it was moved to Singapore. (Steve O'Hear, TechCrunch) Before the move, Jeremy wrote an article about it. The article said only good things about the company. The article's "Awards" section made up about a quarter of the article's text. Even after the founder left, nobody cared enough about the company to update the article to say so.


 * I think the MobiCart article is one of Jeremy's more promotional articles.

Part 3: Let's look at a few other articles of Jeremy's.


 * Jeremy has created quite a few articles about companies; a small proportion have been deleted. One deleted article is "Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.", a poorly-sourced article about a non-notable law firm. It cited several sources which were republished copies of PRWeb press releases. (user:cmadler)


 * I looked briefly through some of Jeremy's sandbox articles. I found User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107, perhaps one of Jeremy's most promotional creations.

It is true that, on half a dozen separate occasions, Jeremy has contributed to COIN discussions. But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs.

Dear COIN participants: May we safely assume that Jeremy has a COI for the MobiCart article?

I thank you for your time. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say that Unforgettable has been stalking me at this point, as after a brief interaction at Restoration Hardware, where I tried to engage with him multiple times on his own talk page, the user decided to instead accuse my of having a COI. He then began editing pages I had created in the past (looking as if he was looking through all my past contributions), see here, one of which was a good edit, and now he is discussing MobiCart. I would appreciate it if the user could engage over the content at the Restoration Hardware page, instead of attacking me. Always like comments on my sandboxes, but I don't really have time to respond to everything. I have created well over 400 articles, and to stalk and attack the few articles that were deleted is a little bizarre. And yes, I remove obsolete things from my talk page. I have been vandalized in the past (my userspace is semi-protected) and don't enjoy viewing past negative interactions every time I open my account :) The user also leaves out my responses regarding the King article and offer to teach the editor how to get free images for his pages--and that he has deleted my multiple entreaties to him on his talk page to discuss the content issue from which this posting originated. I've been stalked before, but this is a little out there. Lastly, if you find fault with the Mobicart article, please do edit it. I really don't care if it stays or goes, it was an hour's work at most and feel free to take to AFD. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that the editor saw this board in my contributions history and decided it was the best place to continue his personal attacks against me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally don't like to bother engaging in talk-page debate with any user if I suspect that the user is a paid advocate. Debate with paid advocates can be an exercise in frustration, and I feel it's sometimes unnecessary. I looked at some of Jeremy's contributions for a number of reasons, but I think the main reason is that I wanted to know whether or not he is a paid advocate. Indeed I edited the Xconomy article he created while doing so. Indeed I left out Jeremy's full response regarding the King article, and his kind offer to User:Novaseminary; he is welcome to repost them here. Indeed I have deleted Jeremy's words from my talk page. Jeremy twice told me that COIN is the best place for discussions like this before I started this discussion here. He is right: COIN is indeed the best place for discussions like this. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, COIN is a better place to take an accusation of COI, however probably not the best place to take a content dispute. Though I am glad you are now willing to discuss issues, rather than levying edit comment epithets. I'd be happy to reengage with you about the Restoration page any time. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For now, I just want for COIN to determine whether or not you have a likely COI at MobiCart. We can leave the RH article alone for the moment. You are right that some of the edit comment epithets I have made are quite severe. The most recent one on your user talk page is for the benefit of future Wikipedians who are searching through its history using "Find in Page". —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just like to point out that you first started attacking me on the Restoration page, then carried it elsewhere, and you've just admitted to this as well as hunting through my past contributions in reaction to our interaction on the Restoration page. It would be nice if we could be constructive here :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If I hadn't suspected you of paid advocacy, I wouldn't have accused you of paid advocacy on the Restoration talk page, nor would I have looked through your past contributions for paid advocacy, nor would I have accused you of paid advocacy here. I admit, as we agree, to having hurled severe edit-summary epithets. (The severest was probably "I suspect Jeremy112233 of having a conflict of interest (COI), advertising/promotional editing, and/or adding vanispamcruftisement to Wikipedia. + ." The other was probably "Reverted to revision 589920219 by BiH: Jeremy112233 seems to be a paid editor: see, e.g., User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107. I am restoring list of competitors, sourced Consumers Union criticism, and more". I think the problem, in both cases, was that I failed to make clear enough that these are only my personal suspicions and could be wrong.) I, too, hope that the conversation here will be constructive. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking over the evidence presented at the beginning of this thread... No. I see no reason to suspect Jeremy112233 has a COI with MobiCart. And suggesting paid advocacy is an even bigger leap. I'm a bit concerned about one line that you said, Unforfettableid: "But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs." Jeremy112233 or anyone else does not have to "prove" that he has no COIs, nor can anyone, and asking people to prove a negative is an effort in futility. The burden of proof is on youto show evidence that he has a conflict of interest, and you've failed to do so at this point. I'd also like to point out that if MobiCart is "one of Jeremy's more promotional articles", then he's doing a pretty good job. While I can see how it could be seen as promotional, it's pretty minor and just needs a bit of a rewrite. If you have a dispute with him, I suggest that you deal with the dispute directly and not try to attack the other person's credibility. --  At am a  頭 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Atama, you made a number of excellent points. Two of your strongest points are:


 * That defendants are innocent until proven guilty.


 * That it's up to me to find sufficient evidence to convict, and that if I don't, then the defendant shall be considered innocent.


 * And you made other important points. Thank you for all the feedback.


 * One of your points was that my evidence is wholly insufficient to convict Jeremy. Fine.


 * Please take a look at the list of articles Jeremy has created. Mostly BLPs: some tiny stubs about judges, and some longer and much more promotional BLPs about other individuals. Also a fair number of articles about corporations and products. And finally, some other articles. Would it be fair to say the following?: That, considering all the evidence presented, it is very possible that he makes a living as a paid advocate &mdash; but that the evidence is wholly insufficient to convict him, and that I shouldn't have accused him based on such flimsy evidence.


 * Or was it foolish of me to even have considered the idea that he is a professional paid advocate?


 * Cheers,


 * —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, to start with this isn't a court, and we don't convict or have defendants and plaintiffs. By "evidence" I didn't mean to imply any such thing, and I apologize if I did. When I asked for "evidence" I was only suggesting that drawing conclusions about a person's conflict of interest requires a solid indication that they have a relationship that would cause a conflict of interest. I just wanted to make that clear.


 * Now, when we make such a declaration (whether stating that a person has a COI or is a paid advocate), it's based on very clear indicators. Generally, this is by the admission of the person involved. If you want to establish that Jeremy is a paid editor, what you'd need to find is an instance where Jeremy has stated that he is working on an article for a client. Or perhaps where he has a list of articles that he has been paid to edit. We can't determine such things based solely on what kinds of articles a person has edited or created, there isn't enough there. Practically every COI case is determined by something that an editor has admitted to, whether they openly declare their connection to an article subject, or they sign their real life name which happens to be the name of an article subject's relative, or is mentioned as the owner of a business or author of a piece of literature that an article is written about, or some other disclosure along those lines. Absent anything like that we really can't draw any conclusions.


 * I'm appreciative that you've been so cordial in this discussion, as others who bring an issue to a noticeboard (whether this one or another one) are more accusatory, prone to hyperbole, or tendentious in their accusations. But I still don't see any reason why we should even suspect, let alone declare that Jeremy is a paid advocate or has some other COI. I hope that my explanation was clear enough, but if not I'd be glad to help clarify the issue further if needed. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It just occurred to me, for examples of how COIs are determined, you can look in other threads on this noticeboard, where a COI is determined and then editors discuss how to handle the issue. --  At am a  頭 03:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK; thank you for the explanation and the compliment. I guess no COI declaration shall be forthcoming unless User:Novaseminary knows of some smoking gun. I still suspect that Jeremy is here to make money through paid advocacy instead of to build an encyclopedia. I am sad that WP:AGF may require us to give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt anyway.


 * Dear Atama and dear all: Even if no COI declaration is forthcoming, many of Jeremy's creations are problematic. He's created over 400 Wikipedia articles. The majority are about living people, corporations, or products. About his articles in these three topic areas: they to be about subjects of questionable notability, to be somewhat promotional, and to mention only good things about the subjects. What can we do to help dissuade him from writing such articles in the future?


 * And dear Novaseminary: Could any of the oversighted words at &lt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeremy112233&diff=549448481&oldid=548762808&gt; lead us to any evidence that Jeremy112233 has a likely COI?


 * Cheers,


 * —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what words were oversighted. It does look like Jeremy112233 notes on his user page that he formerly edited as User:In_fusion_productions until that user name was "retired". (oddly, Jeremy112233 claims User:In fusion productions was created in December 29, 2010, but the log shows it was created in 2006, though there was a page move on December 29, 2010.) I don't doubt this claim as they have similar editing styles. User:In fusion productions was blocked for having a username giving "the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website" (User_talk:In_fusion_productions) and Jeremy112233 was created around that time and they also overlapped as editors. Anyway, by using the user name "In fusion productions", it's not clear whether Jeremy112233 means to note he is associated with In Fusion Productions the company or organization or just liked the name. I can't find any discussion of that. There seems to be some sort of connection between In Fusion Productions the company and WikiExperts, though. I didn't know what to make of it, so I asked. Has Jeremy112233 denied being a paid editor? Novaseminary (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I've never been paid for anything :) When I first started out a long while back I used a bad username and had to change it; however I have made that clear on my userpage. I'll be going back through some of those other early pages I wrote to remove the kind of material Unforget has pointed out as well. I had been focusing more on trying to bring articles up to good status and creating judicial stubs lately. I actually had no idea that there was a userpage that dates back to 2006! Can you give me the link to where I can see the page move? Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see it now in your text. Not sure why that would have happened, as I never made an edit before 2010. I checked out that old user page as well and it appears no edits were made that far back either. Strange. Also, I did like the name, after a dance I saw back in the early 2000s called "In Fusion"--I'll try to find a link to it for my userpage as well. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have anything to do with the ghostwriting company/organization "In Fusion Productions" or Wikiexperts? What a funny coincidence that you have noted you are a ghostwriter and originally used a user name the same as a ghostwriting company that also happens to have some connection to or commonality with Wikiexperts (whose employees have been banned). I'm sure you could forgive one for having thought otherwise a la WP:QUACK. Maybe the founder(s) of In Fusion Productions were inspired by the same "In Fusion" dance back in the early 2000s. Novaseminary (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did used to ghostwrite a long time ago, as previously noted. However, I have never worked for In Fusion Productions and actually didn't notice it until you brought it up. Obviously I should have actually as apparently the name was already taken. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also never worked for this In Fusion Productions either here. Or this PR firm here. I'm starting to scare myself a bit here with how many others have had the same name... (found another one here and here). Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So just to clarify, you're not employed by Wikiexperts now, or in the past, in any capacity? Nor have you owned a company called In Fusion Productions? --  At am a  頭 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have never owned a company by that name, or owned a company by any name, nor have I had any contact or employment with WikiExperts. I did take some interest in the debates around the Wiki-PR and WikiExperts debates a while back, but outside of sharing some opinions with the community about the best way to deal with the socking issues that was the extent of my interest there. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the issue that has been raised regarding the style on the MobiCart page, I was thinking about doing a rewrite of the page but wasn't sure whether that would be appropriate while this conversation is ongoing. I'll probably wait until it is over, however I am definitely open to a recommendation on how to fix the issues there and will ensure that the perceived mess is cleaned up. I also will not remove the improvement tag there unless somebody else verifies that the issues have been fixed just to play it safe. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like a very bizarre coincidence, then, that the owner of In Fusion Productions, and COO (former or current) of Wikiexperts is also ghostwriter, but I'm going to take you at your word, I suppose stranger things have happened. Just note that per our COI guideline it should be fine for you to at least participate at the discussion page of the article even if others still consider you to have a COI for whatever reason, as doing so is considered uncontroversial (and even encouraged). If you already have a draft, or are working on one, just link to it and ask the other editors what objections there are to it, or make suggestions for fixes on the article talk page. --  At am a  頭 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Good advice, I may simply leave the page to others in order not to inflame the situation. It has inspired me at the very least to take a wikibreak from page creating and revisit some of the more gnome-ish things there are to do here on the site. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is bizarre indeed. Jeremy112233, you linked to many fusion-named companies and said you had not worked for them. But you did not link to the ghostwriting company, actually called "In Fusion Productions" when the company's guru.com site is the first to appear on google with a search for "In Fusion Productions", your former user name. From what you've written, you have no affiliation with this organization, either. I wonder if this would justify a CheckUser request? Novaseminary (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't go through the entire Internet looking for every significant company under the name, I cut out after the first two Google pages. There are a tremendous amount of fusion/production/s/inc aren't there for some reason... Anyhow, no that too is foreign to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * - A checkuser is going to want more than a suspicion. Specifically, you'll need diffs showing behavior between Jeremy112233 and other account(s) that are close enough to be suspected of sockpuppetry, but not close enough to conclude sockpuppetry. CU is specifically restrained in usage to protect editors' privacy, per the WP:OUTING policy, which is another reason why I'm suggesting that we take him at his word for now. COI concerns can only be pursued so far before they are considered harassment, and privacy concerns generally outweigh COI concerns. This may change somewhat if the Terms of Use for Wikimedia get changed (which may affect disclosure of paid editing, see here) but for now try not to get too aggressive about this issue. --  At am a  頭 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay. Changes made to non-WP sites since my first post here lead me to believe something very "coincidental" is going on. But to avoid outing, I won't mention them here. If those terms do change, maybe this should be reviewed again. Novaseminary (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Novaseminary, when you find evidence, archive a copy. If you go to web.archive.org/save/some_URL, the Internet Archive Wayback Machine will archive a copy for you. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * In another coincidence, it looks like Jeremy112233 created and has regularly edited the article covering the COO of Wikiexperts that Atama mentioned above. Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did create that page for that name, around the time it came into the news. I found some particularly bad reviews for his work in the past and made sure it was up on the site. I also recommended they delete the WikiExperts page on their talk page, as I don't think it is notable. Still don't. I think we should have something closer to the Wiki-PR page (at the most; my personal feeling is that we should AFD it), which covers the editing of the company that led to the ban and not the company itself but I was overruled. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me??? Attack pages are against the rules. Looks like another block is coming your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.109.63 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 March 2014


 * Accusations without evidence are also against the rules, would you care to substantiate your claims? If you're referring to sourced criticism, that's how neutrality is achieved in articles, by including positives and negatives about subjects (based on what we can verify). --  At am a  頭 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that the James_Cummins_(author) article (about an individual who is president of In Fusion Productions, and was at least recently, if not still is, the COO or WikiExperts) created and primarily edited by Jeremy112233 (formerly editing under the user name "In fusion productions") is too negative. It is quite an extensive article for an author whose major work (according to the article) is published by Clark-Nova Books which "publishes exclusively fiction and nonfiction by Canadian authors under thirty." Quite the contrary; I tagged it because I don't think the sources in the article now establish it meets the notability guidelines for authors, and should possibly be considered for deletion based on my quick review of it. (Before actually nominating it for deletion, I would do a more extensive review.) Anyway, one wouldn't bring this to COIN arguing there was a negative conflict of interest. In fact, the language noting the "particularly bad review" was already in the article by the time the subject of the article, or someone who took a photo of him as a tourist, released the snapshot Jeremy112233 uploaded into the public domain as confirmed by OTRS. A bit of misdirection by the IP perhaps--that is, the IP seeming to take on Jeremy112233 as being too hard on James Cummins in the article? Novaseminary (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Finding a photo online and releasing it is what I do for most of my pages if I can find a public domain one. Photos I add are nearly always registered under my account, unless it is a 3.0 upload where the original author keeps certain rights (for example, see here for a photo I recently uploaded, which was taken by someone else but the upload name still has my username there). Up until early 2013 I would often just do it under my account name and not worry how OTRS assigned them, however I've since changed that practice as a lot of my photos started getting deleted and I needed to be more careful. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Jeremy:


 * Look at what Novaseminary wrote above. You didn't just create an article about WikiExperts COO James Cummins. You also seem to maintain the article. In fact, of all the articles you have touched, this is the article where your editcount is highest. You've made an incredible 235 edits to this one article: a couple hundred edits in 2012, a few dozen more in 2013, plus a couple dozen additional edits this year. You seem to have a special interest in this COO.


 * And, in the fall of 2013, you made a few dozen comments or so arguing that WikiExperts should be allowed to edit Wikipedia.


 * Like Atama and Novaseminary have said &mdash; if the apparent connections between you and WikiExperts are coincidental, they are bizarre coincidences indeed. Plus:


 * Don't forget your promotional editing and your image-uploading habits.


 * And, a couple of days ago, it hit me that both you and the WikiExperts COO share a strong interest in the McGill Law Journal.


 * It also hit that you seem to have been granted login credentials for &lt;http://proxy1.library.mcgill.ca&gt;, a machine located in the same city where that COO lives.


 * These additional factors just make the situation even more bizarre.


 * —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I definitely did create that article, as I took an interest in that company a while back when it first became an issue (as many people did), and have over time changed my mind on how it should be best represented--first by using an online resume and articles, and over time adding or removing things. I'm not sure why posting someone else's personal profile here is relevant, however or trying to prove where someone lives is (I am Canadian and use university computers often but do not live in Quebec), but yes I edit articles that are relevant to others I have posted. Generally that would include the books someone wrote, the institutions they belong to, people who work for them, photographs I can find that are relevant to them, and so forth. It's not usually just a one off thing when I commit to an article, I like to integrate myself into subject areas. I do definitely have a special interest in certain people and companies, however I feel that I am thoughtful about my views about them, and that you're cherry-picking certain information while ignoring the rest. This would include my labeling the WE page as non-notable and questioning some of its content and place on the site when I saw it being used as a promotional tool, while yes also being thoughtful about the actual arguments surrounding banning these kinds of companies (both things I mentioned before), looking into the editing histories of certain users I thought were suspicious and watching their online contributions (as around a hundred other people were), thinking about the best way of dealing with individuals, discussing the differences between WE and WikiPR in order to come to a good solution for them, but to be honest, I'm a bit of an ogre when it comes to that particular project of mine. At this point though, the best thing would definitely be for me to step away from anything regarding that issue here as my contributions are not being viewed as helpful. I would also, at this point, ask if we can find some mutual ground here regarding how you might see you and I moving forward--even if you do not ever see us working in the same article spaces. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dissuading Jeremy from promotional editing
Dear all: As I mentioned before, many of Jeremy's creations are problematic. He's created over 400 articles. The majority are about living people, corporations, or products. About his articles in these three topic areas: except for the stubs, they tend to be about subjects of questionable notability, to be somewhat promotional, and to mention only good things about the subjects. What can we do to help dissuade him from writing such articles in the future? And if he ignores us, what can we do next? &mdash;Unforgettableid (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not in any way intend to ignore you, and am very happy to work with you as to your concerns about my style of creation. Lets start with the Restoration article, where we can work together in terms of how to improve the article, which is where we first came upon each other in the first place. Hopefully, this project will alleviate any concerns you may have, and I can see through that process what you see as writing that differs from your view of NPOV. I appreciate this dialogue, and considering this began at that article, perhaps the best method of moving forward would be to talk out the content issues there at the article's talkpage together. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As compared to most of the other people who have been suggested (or proven) here to do promotional editing, Jeremy's working has two rather unusual characteristics: most of the subjects about which he writes have some rational claim to notability, and the articles have a reasonable attempt at decent sourcing. the ordinary run of paid coi editing we have been dealing with is of a considerably lower quality. This to me implies one of two things: either Jeremy is a good ordinary editor who happens to pick the same sorts of companies and people that many promotional editors do, or that he is a relatively skilled coi editor.  Two years ago I would have argued that there is no relevant  difference between the two: good editing is good editing. But experience has shown me  (along with all of us) that in fact even the best coi editing, and paid editing in particular, is apt to degenerate into the selection of topics and the reliance upon sources and the inclusion of content of writing that uninvolved editors would not normally do, and the a priori approach to such editing is a certain usually justified degree of suspicion. If paid editing is involved, I strongly under Jeremy to simply come right out and say so at the talk pages of the relevant articles. Paid editing is not prohibited, but the current position is that undeclared editing is de facto against our expectations. It may not yet me completely against our formal rules, but if the current situation continues, it soon will be (the basic reason why is should be and will be, is that it is increasingly recognized as being intrinsically deceptive. I and others are examining in detail the articles and drafts involved, and to be perfectly frank, we are looking for indications of lack of objectivity. If enough of the articles prove to be unjustified--either unjustified altogether or unjustified in the details of content and sourcing, I and I suppose others would probably support a ban from wikipedia for promotional editing. The best way forward   for Jeremy is for him to carefully review his work, and ask for the deletion of articles which he thinks cannot properly stand. And, if there is anything to admit, to admit it. Whatever the situation, concealment gives the worst of all possible impressions.  DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can agree to those terms; I will review my work and CSD anything I feel fits into your category. I do not believe I have a COI on the articles I have selected, but I will review to see if there is anything I can post in that regard as well (if only explanatory notes as to how I picked various topics to edit, such as lawyers/law firms or various mobile apps). Thank you for the direction. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have started with old abandoned drafts, CSDing those that I don't likely intend on finishing or those where I reached an impasse on finding good enough sources. Please let me know if you see any others that might not be worth the trouble of continuing. I have now also gone through some of my earlier less well written/researched contributions later and begun to CSD or PROD as per your instructions. I am very open to suggestions as well. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate your efforts in this Jeremy. --  At am a  頭 18:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeremy, thank you for this. Meanwhile, I have done a detailed review of one of the newest mainspace articles you created: eMoney Advisor. You created it on 17 February 2014, about a week before I started the thread about you and MobiCart above. Here is my review.


 * The article is about a subsidiary of one of the top five banks in Canada.


 * The article is structured nicely and formatted nicely, and makes good use of citation templates.


 * I suspect that eMoney Advisor, on its own, may be a non-notable subsidiary. I skimmed through the first twenty Google search results for [ eMoney Advisor ] and was unimpressed. The article's sources appear to be nothing but mere "media of limited interest and circulation". The article could be merged, though &mdash; except that it fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. The article reads like a puff piece created by a paid editor. It's full of marketing speak. Let me explain:


 * You wrote that, by 2004, the company had more than $5M in revenues and more than 2,200 clients. By 2007, over 20K advisors used the company's software, with more than $110B of assets "running through the system". (What does "running through" even mean?) All italics are mine.


 * In fact, it appears that there are eight numbers and figures in the article in all, and that six of them include a modifier such as "more than" or "over". Perhaps, in a past career, you were an ad copywriter. Myself, when writing Wikipedia articles, I try never to use "more than" or "over". The term "about" is a much better term to use.


 * You wrote that the company was named one of the "top" companies to work for in Pennsylvania, but I doubt that your source (Best Companies Group) is a reliable source. Worse yet, at, it appears that at least some companies in that ranking have paid money to Best Companies Group. Well, Deuteronomy 16:19 reads in part: "A bribe blinds the eyes of the wise". Perhaps we can apply those words both to Best Companies Group and to paid Wikipedia editors.

Given the results of my review, I have tagged the article with news release and COI. I have also AfDed it per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

From this review, you can learn some of the things which made that article sound promotional, and some of the things you might want to avoid in the future.

Perhaps you can still salvage the article by editing it before the AfD ends. Though, since I still suspect paid editing, I may argue strongly against such a thing on the AfD page.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there; I have left a comment at the AFD but will allow the community to decide about the article. The software is used in financial advisor circles, which is how I came across it of course. A lot of my articles center on my interest there, however while there is no COI, I will not argue with your tagging and allow the AFD to move forward without my participation. I will take a crack at improving the article as you have suggested though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me also add that I appreciate the above outline of your thoughts, it is very helpful. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As an update, I do see that there are some language issues if you were approaching the article from the view it could be promotional, and have alleviated some of this. The issue with the words "over" or "more than" is something I try to catch myself on, however apparently I missed that one in this particular article--I've altered that too. In terms of the workplace sources, I've removed them as you feel the source is not RS. As per the financials numbers, most third party articles on finance subject matter largely have to do with these types of numbers. I do see your point as them perhaps not appearing relevant from the perspective of the average reader. Thank you again for providing your thoughts! Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Smartse
I hadn't noticed this thread until today, but I had independently become concerned about Jeremy's edits to a few articles where I know that there have been COI/paid editing issues. Take for example, this version of Darren Cullen which Jeremy started, which was poorly sourced and whilst not exactly promotional, certainly edging that way. As you'll see from the recent edits there and the diffs at Sockpuppet_investigations/TimeQueen32 it's very likely that there are paid editors involved there now, which makes me concerned that Jeremy112233 was also paid to create the article in the first place. In January he made substantial changes to Daniel Amen (an article that has had COI problems for many years, see here for example) which massively changed the tone of the article, making it much more supportive of Amen's theories and again, using poor quality sources. Amen's work has been heavily criticised by neurologists (see the high-quality sources present in the current article) and it is concerning that Jeremy's edits did not reflect this. As well all know, paid editing in itself is not prohibited, but cherry-picking poor quality sources to support a particular POV is a problem, regardless of whether the editor is being paid or not. In that sense, I've come to a similar conclusion to - Jeremy's content isn't as problematic as some paid editors is, but his contributions do have the air of a paid editor about them - being nearly exclusively BLPs or company pages. I would conclude that Jeremy's contributions deserve closer scrutiny to ensure that relevant policies are being followed, and that he is accurately representing all the sources available about the subject he writes about. SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much welcome scrutiny now that I have been made to see my faults, and want to provide full disclosure. Darren Cullen was one of my very first articles. Full disclosure, I did contact him after I wrote the article to ask for a picture but never received one. No money was ever exchanged between I and this page subject, however I obviously do not want to hide anything. I did not make another edit on the page until about two years later when I reverted a promotional addition to the page that seemed to add marketing material around the sources as if the sources would support the material. After reviewing this, I reverted the addition and didn't give it much more thought as the next edit the user made appeared to add a source. I received a message on my talk page with an email address regarding the reversion which I responded to but didn't get much of a response after I explained how the edit had been promotional (it was related to my prior email to the page subject, but I would break WP:OUT if I said who it was). I will say that it was very soon after this exchange that a full campaign to readd the material began, the reversions of which I've seen is being handled by someone else now. This kind of contact has happened before, recently with an individual asking about his deceased father whose page I had recently edited (again I am careful of WP:OUT as to the individual who placed the message on my talk page).
 * As per Daniel Amen, I noticed his page had maintenance tags and took some time to resolve them. I do this a lot, as I've noticed that most maintenance tags added to pages are never resolved so I will often go to boards like WP:FTN to see where I can spend some time: where I saw this. It appears that about two months after I completed my edit someone began adding promotional material to the page--which I saw on my watchlist--but it was being steadily reverted so I didn't feel I needed to intervene as I had with the Cullen page. If I had seen it first, I would have likely reverted it myself though. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, I have an issue with searching for negative sources alongside positive ones. This is something I will have to remedy if I want to make any further pages moving forward. Thank you very much for your insight. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Venturi Seba


User is a scientist. He has made numerous edits which cite his own work. It may simply be that he is most familiar with his own research and area of expertise, however it still represents a conflict of interest. He is too intimately tied to his work and might not be the best one to determine if it is the most relevant to cite in a particular article.

Have given him a COI notice on his talk page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Have asked users from WikiProject Biology to review the edits: --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology

Paid editing clean up


This SPI lists a lot of accounts that are almost certainly paid editors. They've created a lot of articles that need attention and either clean up or deletion. I've taken care of some of it, but these contribs need more attention. SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Toned down Styalz Fuego, (edited by Boofa-Relli). Hip-hop artist in AU. Passes WP:MUSIC due to awards and multiple releases on major labels. --John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed merge of AA Cars (edited by 32inNumbers)) to The Automobile Association. AA Cars is just a web site the AA runs. The AA is quite notable; the web site, not so much. A brief mention in the main article is all it deserves. --John Nagle (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I've just listed more possible socks at the SPI. Most of the articles they edited also need work. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion of Brandon Mendelson. Minor references in major media were being used to claim notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR. John Nagle (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anon deleted Prod, but didn't improve the article. Sent to AfD. John Nagle (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AfD underway. He's the 97th most followed person on Twitter. Is that notable enough? John Nagle (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Brandon Mendelson has commented on his own AfD.. --John Nagle (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Miss Lovely, about a movie, seems to be a legit article from that source. Reasonable reviews in IMDB. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DJ JT, about a Singapore DJ who is notable enough that CNN in the US did an article on him, may need to be toned down a bit and checked but looks basically legit. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - CNN iReport is user-created so no use for notability. It was a favourite source of Morning277 et al.. Yahoo voices is the same. Might be one for AFD after all. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, that source is written by his PR agency. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right re DJ JT. Claims nominated for Radio Music Awards in 2011, but those were discontinued around 2006. AllMusic's entry for "DJ JT" has one entry. No sign of his supposed releases on Columbia or Def Jam. So he fails WP:MUSIC. Will put up a Prod. John Nagle (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Darnell Bing


User appears to be brushing up his football resume by removing sourced material about practice roster time. I was Bold and reverted his edits as essentially they were vandalism by removing sourced material. As the user only seems to be editing the same page as their username, I would think this is a Conflict of Interest. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick correction... Vandalism does not include "removing sourced material", be a bit careful about using that word on Wikipedia. Many times sourced material is removed for legitimate purposes, for example the source may be unreliable, or the information may not be an accurate reflection of what the references say, or maybe the information is well-sourced but it's irrelevant to the article. Even if something does belong and is good content, well-sourced, and so on, as long as the editor is removing it in good faith (even if what they're doing is wrong) it's not vandalism. I don't mean to sound like I'm nit-picking, but calling someone a vandal without proper justification can be considered a personal attack.


 * All that aside, yes if the editor removing the material is the article subject (and it's reasonable to assume that they're at least trying to portray themselves as the article subject) then the COI concern is a very obvious one. You were right to revert, as long as you stand by the validity of the information that was removed. The editor removed the information in one incident (over three consecutive edits) and hasn't edited before or since, so there shouldn't be a problem unless the editor repeats the behavior. It's a common problem when an article subject assumes that they can own their biography. We do take an article subject's wishes sincerely, but they also can't control what's in the article. --  At am a  頭 22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

nuclear disarmament movement


i requested an article be created. i supplied many sources to support the article i requested i do not have an account and do not have the computer skills to make an article. in talk the message back is "i did not make my request clear." this makes me believe no one read my request. i clearly requested that an article be created naming the WORLD PEACE MARCH or it be added to the history of the disarmament movement.

i will supply text and references to someone who can make the article. martin smith
 * Just to clarify this, the editor in question (174.91.156.200) made a to add information about Nichidatsu Fujii to Wikipedia. After doing so, the editor added the information directly to the  and  articles. Their edits were reverted at both articles, and they actually had an edit war at the latter article (being reverted 3 times by 3 different editors). They  on the talk page of the Nuclear disarmament article, then made a requested edit there. They've also made a request to create an article both here (seen above) and at the . This does not seem to have anything to do with conflicts of interest, it's just a (more-or-less) random form of forum shopping from an editor who doesn't grasp how to use Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭  22:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Isabel Gomez-Bassols article created and currently edited by her talent manager
See this edit with the edit summary *I am Doctor Isabel's talent manager*. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't going well. There may be a language problem. --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, look at his talk page. But can some other Admin please delete Talk:Doctora Isabel Gomez Bassols- Univision and explain why (it's the talk page of a deleted page). He really doesn't like me and I don't want him to use me as an excuse. He says he isn't paid, but he is her son after all. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a possibility that we should make allowances for in good faith. However, if has the language skills to write "added reference to her information as per a suggestion by a wiki editor. I have not been paid nor asked to edit this page. I am doing it on my own volition", he probably also has the skills to understand "you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject". As I see it, the principal problem with the article as it stands is that it is almost entirely unreferenced. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted that talk page for now (it's a simple G8 speedy deletion). --  At am a  頭 22:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I support blocking this editor for repeated WP:COI, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:BATTLEGROUND violations. --Ronz (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Readyforlara on Shangri-La articles

 * among others...
 * User
 * among others...
 * User

PR-style editing and heavily promotional language on articles related to Shangri-La hotel the associated hotel chains. That along with the user's stated profession suggests that there may indeed be some COI issues. -SFK2 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear SFK2. I'm currently working to improve and add pages for WikiProjects Hotels as I have a good understanding of the major hotels in the region, as you noticed due to my previous professional work as a writer in the area. I feel my expertise can assist in this area. Am starting with the Shangri-La's due to their being an Asian-based group who in many cities bought or built landmark buildings, contributing significantly to the local economy and the development of some of their locations. I'm constantly striving to ensure what I include is relevant and not PR-style (see Edsa Shangri-La talk page). I do come against very different opinions from experienced wikipedia editors, some which seem to prefer not to have any hotels on wikipedia and place them under speedy deletion, while others welcome them and give me advice. I try to ensure everything is fully referenced and matches the many similar pages that are already part of the Wikipedia. Do let me know if you have any concerns, or indeed, advice, on how I can continue to assist with WikiProjects Hotels. Readyforlara (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Readyforlara, are you being paid or otherwise rewarded for creating and writing articles about these various hotels? The reason I ask is that, in addition to the promotional tone, I have noticed that the articles invariably include high-resolution official promotional photographs which are presumably being provided by the hotel owners. I think you will need to be more transparent about your connections with the subjects about which you are writing. --DAJF (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * DAJF, thanks for the feedback. No, I am not being rewarded, but as mentioned I have an extensive previous experience as a travel writer in the region, hence my desire to improve the Wikihotels Project. I had noticed a lack of many significant hotels on there. I understand the concern though, so to ensure there is no suggestion of bias, will halt my initial strategy of editing one hotel chain first, and instead do so by city or country, including their competitors (so long as they are noteworthy enough for being listed). Regarding images, yes I have contacted the hotels to obtain them, I thought it would be best to find clear images of the hotels for their entries, and some official images used in the past have been deleted on account of copyright infringement. Thus, I thought the best approach is to request the hotels PR teams to upload them on wikicommons with full permissions, which I find most are happy to do. If you feel it best not to use images from the source of the articles, let me know and I'll try to find other appropriate images, or use none. Let me know if you have any other questions.Readyforlara (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As stated above by DAJF, I too noticed the pattern of photos. But I am not sure given Readyforlara's explanation of contacting the Hotels for their own photos could make sense.  However, Readyforlara, Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  It doesnt seem very encyclopedic to be writing up promotional sounding articles with very nice photos of hotels and restaurants.
 * There is also a possible timing pattern here. When several articles were created by Readyforlara, separate usernames joined to upload the pictures for the article.  The users created claim to be from the hotel or company.  The timing of these things happening appears convenient. Perhaps a CheckUser can investigate User:EdsaShangriLaCommunications (blocked for using a company name), User:Kikuchi_dai (AKA Hoshino Resorts), and compare to the COI discussion user Readyforlara.  These accounts for the images seem to have been created right around the same time the related article was published.
 * User:Kikuchi_dai was created 10:06, 14 May 2013, and the related page Hoshino_Resorts was created 11:21, 14 May 2013‎
 * User:EdsaShangriLaCommunications was created (approx) February 2014‎, and the related page Edsa_Shangri-La,_Manila was created  06:57, 8 February 2014‎
 * was created 00:51, 26 February 2013‎, and the related page Shangri-La_Hotel,_Tokyo was created 12:06, 20 February 2013.  Note the initials SLTY correspond to the company Shangri-La_Hotel,_Tokyo
 * There are a few edits by an IP coming from Shangri-La_Hotel,_Tokyo within the first month of article creation. Not sure if this has much significance.
 * Readyforlara created all 3 pages
 * Hoshino_Resorts photos related perfectly to the article content which looked like it took awhile to put together. Specifically a historical photo was added an hour before the article was first published, and the first section is about the history.


 * I remain undecided though as most of the evidence of COI is open for interpretation or may have legit explanations. Nevertheless there is an appearance of COI here due to the content not being very encyclopedic. If Readyforlara can improve the articles by making them less promotional that might help.  I would suggest removing anything that looks like it belongs in a magazine rather than an encyclopedia to start  Beakermeep (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

InternetQ
Above added by JzG

Dear fellow wikipedians, I am in completely over my head :(. I began editing the Wikipedia article on InternetQ on March 12th, after receiving spam from them on github.  Surprised that a publicly traded company was so brash in their spamming techniques, I researched them farther.  Beyond their own copy, there is almost nothing online about them.  However, I did learn of a court case in Poland in which they were convicted of scamming people by tricking them into sending paid SMS messages.  I updated the article, carefully citing my sources, and then sat back to watch.  Obviously, no company wants to have the word SPAM in the first sentence of their wikipedia article, but given how I learned that the company even exists, I think it is quite appropriate.  My claims are cited by independent third party sources. It was not long before a user named User_talk:Zebrasil reverted my edits accusing me of vandalism. Zebrasil used to be named IPSkaltas and you may learn, if you google his old user name, that he is a project manager at InternetQ. I hope it's not harassment to google someones nick. Anyways, I posted a note about COI to the InternetQ talk page and reverted his revert. He reverted my revert without responding on the talk page. He was warned on HIS talk page by another user User_talk:JzG. I reverted his revert, and added a note to my revert message asking him to see the talk page. Today I woke up, with edits by a new user User:Timothy.dougrow. This account was created very shortly before making the edits. And also an essay on my own talk page. I cannot discuss this issue with three employees of InternetQ at once. I do not have the time or the energy. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 09:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to work on the tone of the content you're adding (e.g. the sources you cite do not actually call them a spam company in those words). You're right about the COI. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that I'm harsh against them. I received spam from them myself, so I don't really feel this "loving compassion and desire to present their company in a neutral way".  Perhaps that makes me COI too ;) (but we shouldn't prevent "victims" from editing wikipedia, then there couldn't be a page on Stalin).  The Polish article http://prawo.vagla.pl/node/9325 that I referenced actually does use the word spam.  Though the following is not a good source, you can see that they have been blacklisted as a spam server by others as well: http://www.scconsult.com/blacklist.shtml .  The problem, is not that they aren't a spam company in the very harshest sense of the word, the problem is that internet spam is so non-notable as to make it not worth reporting about, so I cannot find many reliable sources using the word ;) .  However if someone not COI wants to edit the page(in such a way that they don't remove information about the Polish case!) I promise to do my best not to throw a temper tantrum :D Tim.thelion (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my tone would be improved by staying closer to the Polish sources that I cite and calling them a "lottery scam company"? Tim.thelion (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, stick wiht what the sources say. Even better, attribute it: "described by X as 'a lottery scam company'" for example. I am a former mail admin, I doubt if you hate spammers more tan I do ;-) Guy (Help!) 15:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another user has been created: User:CJGM. See here. Can someone semi-protect the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim.thelion (talk • contribs) 12:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Tim.thelion, I have contacted you on your user talk page here but seem to ignore me. Can you explain how is possible to not have the "time and energy" to reply to my post but you have the time and energy to make multiple, as I can see, changes in the article on InternetQ here? It's quite surprising. I notice that there are several users involved in the latest edits of the article and I do not understand what or why this is happening. Should a Wikipedia article be a playground to play around phrases and words? The company is legitimate, it's not spam. Also, on April 4th, 2012, there was court proceeding during which InternetQ successfully appealed the civil case for the claim of 60,000PL (14,000 euros or 20,000 US dollars) and won the case in first instance (case VI C 143/11). The appeal case was V Ca 448/12. But I can't find any reference in the edits to the InternetQ article saying that. You only refer to the 2011 case but you give no update. So yes you should stay closer to the Polish sources as you mention above and restore the truth about this case. I have not proceeded with any edits on the actual article thus far but hope the someone can indeed protect the article!! Thanks Mark.int (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark, if you have sourced content about the court case you may edit the article and add that information, however, you may not simply delete the relevant section. Tim.thelion (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mark is discouraged from editing the article directly as he has a clear conflict of interest, but he is encouraged to raise his concerns on the article's talk page. That, and not your user talk page nor this page, is the most appropriate place to raise the company's concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. We will not whitewash the article, we will fix errors of fact or content that is not properly supported by the sources. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jasondcrane
Whirlwind is a record company and the other articles are all albums issued by them. Jasondcrane's Twitter page makes clear that he was paid by Whirlwind and is looking for further paid business. He has been so open about this that I am willing to believe that he did not realise that it would be a problem, but this is high-volume spamming - all these were produced in the last two days. I have told him to make no more paid edits without complying with WP:PSCOI.

COI is not directly a reason for deletion, but it means notability needs to be carefully checked. At least one of the albums is not yet released, and I have PRODded that one. More eyes on the others, and opinions on the Whirlwind article, would be welcome.

This is only the last two days' contributions - I have not looked further back in his editing history. JohnCD (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time on this, John. I've spent the past 20 years as an advocate for, and participant in, the jazz world. For the past seven years I've hosted The Jazz Session, a free podcast with more than 400 episodes and 2.5 million downloads. You can learn more about the show and my history here.


 * Yes, I've taken money to create these entries, but I also have an expert-level knowledge of this subject and a deep understanding of which labels and which artists are notable in the jazz world. The people commenting on these entries may also have that level of knowledge, and I'd very much like to know that. But this is such a niche music that the average Wikipedia editor can't be expected to bring an extensive knowledge of jazz to the table. That's not a criticism, just a reality.


 * I'm completely willing to disclose the paid nature of my contributions. I'm making Wikipedia a better place, and writing dispassionately and with extensive sourcing about music most people don't know much about. I think people like me, who have these skills, should be able to use them. And if someone who doesn't have the time or skills wants to hire me to do that, I think that's completely fine. If anything I've written is deemed questionable, then I'll happily hear the criticism, accept it where merited, and defend my writing when appropriate.


 * Thanks for the chance to discuss this. I care deeply about this music and its inclusion in the world's best information source. Jasondcrane (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's also worth pointing out some additional facts about the genesis of this conversation. JohnCD began to investigate my contributions after an anonymous user quoted tweets on my personal talk page from my account and the WWR account. The only other updates from this IP address are on the entry for "nut" in 2007. This makes this look more like harassment rather than concern for the integrity of Wikipedia. Integrity that is not in any way being degraded by my contributions.


 * According to this person's IP address, this critic is based in London. It could just be a coincidence that the anonymous person complaining about this page is based in the same city as the record label and follows one or both of us on Twitter, but that seems unlikely. Is it possible to know the identity of this critic so we can know whether her/his criticisms are based on dispassionate concern for Wikipedia or on a personal issue with the label in question? Wikipedia's own Conflict Of Interest policy contains this line: "Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline." Jasondcrane (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Accusations of harassment should be clear so they don't WP:BOOMERANG. This isn't at all clear. Please remove the accusation or supply details that clearly show and identify a Wikipedia editor harassing another. --Ronz (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What detail do you need beyond what I've provided? Did you read the linked materials? Can you specifically detail for me what you need? Jasondcrane (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If Whirlwind Recordings is any indication of the editing by Jasondcrane, then he needs to stop editing until he's can follow WP:COI much closer. Otherwise a block or ban is in order. This is blatant advertising. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ronz. In what way is this advertising? Could you please compare and contrast it with other record label pages? Could you also please detail the jazz experience that you're using to decide which artists in their discography are notable, and whether the label itself is worthy of a listing? Could you also take a moment to read the entry's Talk page? I hope it might shed some light on the page and my contribution. Thanks! Jasondcrane (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the article's talk page.
 * As far as comparisons go, you should look at the WP:FA and WP:GA article lists of examples. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've added text to that page, but you haven't responded. Not once in this discussion have you responded to the actual, detailed, factual questions I've asked. Jasondcrane (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This discussion board is about conflicts of interest. You have one. You don't seem able to grasp what that means. Most importantly, you don't appear interested in working with other editors to resolve the problems with your edits to date. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ronz, since have no intention of ever responding to a single question I've asked or dealing honestly and fairly with the content I've posted, I'm going to request a third party to help resolve this. Jasondcrane (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems that Jasondcrane has removed the conflict of interest notice from Whirlwind Recordings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.130.65 (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He did more than that with this edit; he turned the article into an ad not for Whirlwind, but for himself... and then when someone appropriately reverted it, he bonged it right back in. Any reasonable rubicon has been breached with this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to note that this discussion continued here, where it seems clear that the intention at Whirlwind Recordings was at least not solely for self-promotion, but an attempt to disclose his paid editing in a mistaken attempt to resolve the COI tag. Personally, I have to commend Jasondcrane for at least trying to follow our guidelines about self-disclosure as best he could despite making numerous mistakes. --  At am a  頭 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What concerns me the most is the high number of commercial store links, and new pages added by this user. Example: on an article he created on Capri Records ( diff ).  It's hard to give the benefit of good faith for someone adding a commercial link to almost every album on a list.  I think it should be noted this user has created a significant amount of work for other editors by creating promotional articles in need of cleanup.  He has created ~30 pages since October  2013 link With roughly 15 new pages around March 17-18.  I would like to know how many of those pages were paid for.   Beaker meep  (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Flaviohmg and possible COI


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Shritwod (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Editor Flaviohmg has been doing some valuable work, especially in the areas of Brazilian culture. However, looking at their edit history shows a number of articles that do no match this pattern. Upon close investigation, some of these articles (for example SpringPublisher, HandWallet, Lisa Song Sutton plus many others) look rather like puff pieces. A further investigate shows a person using the same handle advertising paid Wikipedia editing on Freelancer (http://www.freelancer.co.uk/u/flaviohmg.html). My conclusion is that some or all of these articles have been paid for and this may represent a COI under WP:PAY. I flagged most of the article that I could find that appeared non-notable for deletion, but this does seem to be a pattern of behaviour that has been going on for some time. Shritwod (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow - that's a lot of affected articles. They're not far off being a promotional-only account, but I'd like to know whether they realise the problems with their edits or not. You hadn't notified them of this discussion so I have left them a note. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is very disturbing that it's gone on so long. Hopefully his response will be to help clean up the mess. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you looked through all the page creations or are there more left to check? SmartSE (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It could possibly use some more eyes, but I've checked over the list several times. There are a lot of good edits there, the questionable ones seem to be only a small proportion. Shritwod (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

britishblackmusic.com
Could someone please advise with regard to possible COI? The BBM website is linked from his user page and he previously created an article of the same name. His past edits to MOBO Awards were potentially a COI issue as he was including his own writing for Billboard. His account name appears promotional, I leave that to someone else to review whether it complies with our username policy.

Though Kwaku has made very few edits to Wikipedia over the last ten months (ten remain in the contribution log), I am raising this notice at this time as he is publicly presenting on Wikipedia to the public in Ghana this weekend in an event officially supported by Wikimedia UK, so it may be appropriate to ensure that he understands that his edits have not all been best practice and he may need to seek advice and review policies himself before advising or training others on editing. See Eventbrite listing.

I am investigating the possible use of Wikimedia charitable monies, the registration status and background of funding for BBM, and an associated organization BTWSC, and so it would be currently inappropriate for me to offer Kwaku advice. I have notified Kwaku of this discussion. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a much of a COI problem. The username is fine (in fact what people are recommended to do) and the article he created was about BBM in general rather than the website. There are plenty of editors who link to their own websites on their userpages and it's hardly promotional at present. WP:SELFCITE is always a tricky one, but in those MOBO edits aren't that bad as they go. (Whether it is a good idea for someone who's made so few edits to be advising others how to edit, is another question altogether!). SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look, no longer being an admin I cannot review the deleted article. With regard to the workshop in Ghana on Saturday, questions are being followed up on email lists and on the WMUK wiki, informally it appears that there will be some more experienced local Wikimedians who have taken the initiative to attend, though their proto-chapter was not contacted about the event or to help deliver it. --Fæ (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Marsalis Music


I have come across this page and noticed immediately it is highly promotional in tone and is basically an advertisement for the label. One of the main contributors is named: Wilkinsmgmt (see history) and this is the exact name of Branford Marsalis' management. Branford Marsalis owns this record label. So, his management team have put this article up and it's an obvious COI. They probably have no idea that they shouldn't be doing this. There is another article that I have just edited for being highly promotional in nature and this person Miguel Zenon is also managed by the same company. I put COI and POV tags on that and deleted the biography which was literally copied and pasted from Miguels' website. I am wondering what to do to this article, because to me the article should be deleted as it's clearly COI and an advertisement and sales sheet by Marsalis Music's management. 80.176.158.190 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Brand.com
Not the Brand.com article. The company. "Brand.com" is now offering a Wikipedia "editing service".. "Brand.com has built an entire practice around creating, editing, managing, and monitoring Wikipedia." They even have "before" and "after" screenshots of a Wikipedia article on their web site. Looking at who put favorable material into their own article, it looks like their strategy may be to create throwaway accounts which edit one or two articles and disappear. --John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And yet that page has spelling errors ("instantaneos"?). Also, they're clearly not going to deliver with the statement, "Wikipedia pages that stand up to the scrutiny of the Wikipedia community." Their examples obviously violate WP:NPOV and would probably be flagged and reverted immediately. They're also claiming to violate WP:OWN by offering 24/7 monitoring which "Helps insulate your name/company from future attacks on Wikipedia". Any editor who exhibits that kind of behavior is going to run into problems even if they manage to conceal their status as paid editors.


 * Bottom line, they are promising something that they can't possibly deliver. They may as well be selling real estate on Mars. --  At am a  頭 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In case anyone's wondering, their "before" and "After" shots are based on the article Abercrombie & Fitch; quickly looking through samples from the past couple of years and then from the early days of that article, I don't see any cases where the controversies section would have been on the first screen, nor would have been labeled Corruption History, so this looks to be a totally fictional example concocted by them, rather than some edits that they've actually done. (And yes, their ad for this "practice" could use some good editing itself!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that they're ineffective. Their own first hit in Google is an article saying their service doesn't work followed shortly by a complaint on RipoffReport. They're probably not making significant unnoticed promotional Wikipedia edits. John Nagle (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, made edits to Brand.com and was blocked as part of Sockpuppet investigations/Aviation geek. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the poor ranking of "brand.com" in Google searches indicates that they might have been blacklisted by Google. Hmm. Shritwod (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm glad I saw this, because Brand.com was one of the rep management company articles in this plug I was going to cull-through, but now I think I won't. However currently an IP nominated Brand.com for deletion as an advert, which is rather silly. It is clearly notable and supported by an abundance of high-quality sources. I can't say whether the article is neutral without looking at the sources, but labeling as a spam article does't seem remotely reasonable. CorporateM (Talk) 04:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The other example from their website is a mock-up of an altered Evan Turner page. The page history at the Turner page does not support the diffs. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User Louise Goueffic
is adding material about her book to and  despite being told that she has a COI. She also edits as but I don't think this is an attempt at sockpuppetry. Her book Breaking the Patriarchal Code is self-published in its 2nd edtion (and see Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Patriarchal Code for its content) is not discussed in any academic sources I can find except one short comment criticizing it. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFCITE does permit editors to add references to their own work, but in this instance I don't think it is appropriate given that as far as I can tell it has not been heavily cited by other scholars. This brings up WP:UNDUE problems regardless of who is adding the content. I would ask to follow the advice in SELFCITE and refrain from adding references to her own work now that the community has raised concerns. SmartSE (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. She says the 2nd edition is not self-published but I'm not convinced, see . Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no, the president of Sapien Books is named Sapien Books; apparently, Mr. and Mrs. Books had unusual criteria when naming their kids. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply of Summichum allegations

 * According to what I read the it was the CJI who had communicated to Khuzaima after Mufaddal had staged the succession ceremony using the stroke ridden debilitated body of Burhanuddin and the secret was told not to be made public but it was known in the internal circles already as you can read from their dawoodi bohra forums. Khuzaima seems to have followed this edict of keeping this secret and informing only after death of Burhanuddin. And I think this stratagem by burhanuddin is farely common in such high profile cases when there is a fear of attack or damage. Summichum (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC) — Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 

what user summichum with his lengthy arguments forgets that this is the Biography article and not court room.I would request Admin to extend the block for 3 months and no edits be done untill all matters are resolved.All good faith editors time is consumed in endless discussion without any result. and it will definetly continue.&#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr.SUMCHUM, you are a third party, outside of community, how come you are so concerned and gave immediate reaction to only point which is pinching you most? How come CJI know and verified the documents Khuzaima has, and he is in position to make his personal opinion that claim of Khuzaima is principled unless Khuzaima has revealed it before the demise of late Syedna. How come material of Khuzaima got designed for a website and published just in a day after demise. I think Khuzaima seems to have followed many edict in addition to pretend for keeping secret. Please don't think that world is fool, except you few chunk of people. Media got a opportunity (but be clear that Wiki is not a platform which will an cash the opportunity, and try to reports the facts behind), which you fellow has given and making mockery of Fatimid principles. It is still time you fellow understand and accept reality, don't hammer your own feet. Only fellows who are calling themselves Qutbi Bohra (the youthi), will make use of you and then throw in dust bin. You just see the respect what Khuzaima used to get and even on the day of demise, when this fellow was running away from Saify Mahal( residence of late Moula), people were around his car with folded hands asking his blessings. Now see the change, he is self prison in his home, getting humiliated, and facing curse of millions, definitely not seems to be happy within, lost internal peace. And look at other side, enjoying respect of world together. Can't you see the difference, please don't be self centred. The youthi (so called progressive) who used to oppose late Moula, were with Dawoodi Bohra to mourn late Syedna, given condolence messages in paper, and almost closed their shop for 3days. They know what is right and what is wrong, there can always be differences but truth will prevail. Don't you think that Qauid Johar is not capable; he was involved in all the departments and a very able and successful administrator. He had first right for the post being most elder brother. But he abided his Moula's decision. Was he (like Khuzaima) not of his blood, whether Moula or Qauid was fearing Mufaddal, NO a big NO. We have seen Moula in public during last two/three year after the stroke; he used to get immediately furious if something is not done of his choice. We can't think that a person of his caliber can be moved an inch without his will, forget of hijacking. We can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here,  myself don't know, please understand.--Md iet (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rukn950 I think you should assume good faith of editors and I see that you two editors rukn and md.et have conflict of interest on this topic which is known by admin User:Crisco_1492and can be seen from your both userpages hence I request User:Anupmehra to continue with the edit request to remove the wrong information and the current status Mufaddal's court case. May I know why you changed your user name?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 04:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My Profile pic showed myself driving a car. user summichum is making mountain out of mole hill.&#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk)
 * User:Anupmehra The user after I pointed out his conflict of interest has removed his profile pic which shows that he belongs to the clergy of dawoodi bohra faith and also changed his username to conceal it.The other user is also of the dawoodi bohra faith. Hence you can assume consensus as these people seem to be highly biased towards their faith. Also the dawoodi bohra article seems to be severely skewed and personal POV have been pushedinto it. Hence I also request you to review that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr summichum is assuming bad faith. I have renamed and removed my profile pic. but that is to maintain my privacy. and it is according to wiki guidlines. futher I have not removed my other photos if that was my intention what summichum assumes. By profession I am an Architect.why dont user summichum identify himself? if he is so keen of identity. What are You Summichum?&#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum is getting personal. I have right as all other editors to protect myself from scrupulous persons. His constant badgering about his POV and flooding my talkpages with templates, I think is taking its toll on me.&#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith. &#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

and as user summichum doesnt know first hand about the issue,in his own word he says "I am in no way related to this community but when first stumbled on this article when the media was talking a lot about this person on the succession issue". He gets his information from media. I suggest that user summichum first take consent of other good faith editors before suggesting any change.&#39;&#39;Rukn950&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Involved editors are requested to bring their personal differences on some other page NOT this one. It is an article's talk page, meant to hold discussion related to the article not some other thing. As I see there's some allegations of conflict of interest. If there's no evidence, it'd be considered a personal attack and can be reported at Administrators noticeboard, if there's some evidence, then make a case at conflict of interest noticeboard. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Paul West (footballer)


Extensive edits (18 today so far) to this biography by an editor using an identical name Noyster   (talk),  15:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the COI is clear. Might be worth trying to talk to him on his talk page about how they are not supposed to edit pages about himself and possibly reverting his edits.  Also I fixed the user link.:)    Beaker meep  (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest a rollback to this revision:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beakermeep (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin


User summichum has clearl conflict of interest but he is not ready to discuss the matter on talk page and enter into disruptive edits. after being block. he is onto harassing by flooding Notice to my talk pages and personal attact.  Rukn 950   14:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments on Husain Haqqani
I have been helping User:Mansoor Ijaz with some issues in his biography, as well as the improvement of the "Memogate" section in the Husain Haqqani biography. The previous version of the section was messy at best, only partially sourced and lacking some NPOV. As Mr. Ijaz was obviously involved in this incident, we asked him to create a sourced draft so we could examine it. After reviewing the draft I just incorporated it into the article, salvaging some of the previous material as well. I'm posting here to give this some visibility, if anyone is interested in examining the changes, they can be found in these two diffs. Any concerns or comments are welcome. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Rick Shapiro
see below .WPPilot talk 03:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)



User claims to be subject of article (see ). User has edited said page. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on what the user has entered on the article page, I would suggest an immediate block as an imposter until the account can be verified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, as controversial as those edits appear, Rick Shapiro's own site makes claims just like what was put onto the page. I don't know that the editor above is really Mr. Shapiro himself, but they may be affiliated, possibly someone listed here. --  At am a  頭 23:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I placed a OTRS request requesting the account verification for the user on the users talk page and tried to give the user some tools to work with. Check the system to see if the user has created a ticket yet. If it turns out to be him, it would be helpful for the user to learn how to contribute.WPPilot talk 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User has posted OTRS [Ticket#2014022710015234] and IMHO is willing to take the time to learn ref: Therealrickshapiro Talk. I directed user to some more tools in the form of the Wiki Adventure to help him edit, and it looks like he is willing to work within the community.WPPilot talk 18:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Polytune
Username 'Polytune' is the same name as the Clockwork Radio band's 'own' record label as stated in the summary of many of the EP articles. This user's contribs I think are very clear. They have only edited their own band, and created at least 2 pages for their own albums. All content contributed by this user has been related to this band. The only reason I bring it up here is I wasn't sure if they should be tagged directly for spam or if some of the content is worth saving. Beaker meep (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits don't seem too promotional. Some of the language at Clockwork Radio (band) could be toned down a bit but it's not too terrible. My biggest concern with all of these articles is whether or not they meet WP:MUSIC. They are mostly unreferenced and don't seem to establish notability. --  At am a  頭 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a good point Atama, but creating new, non-notable pages is kinda promotional, no?. And I agree that some of it doesnt meet WP:MUSIC, but it is almost like the whole thing doesnt really fit neatly into any one particular WP policy/guideline, but it appears like unwanted behavior and content nonetheless. And a significant portion of this user's activity violates some policy or another. (Such as using and ORG nam and partially running afoul of COI and WP:MUSIC).  So any suggestions on moving forward?  Talk more with the user?  Mark the new articles as AfD? Revert some edits?  Thanks for your input.    Beaker meep  (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In a sense, yes, it's promotion because having entries on Wikipedia does effectively increase the visibility of the band and its albums by having free advertising on this site. That's why we have inclusion requirements (most importantly WP:N) to prevent that sort of thing. But it's not promotional in the WP:SPAM sense because the language as written in the articles is mostly neutral.


 * Orange Mike has already blocked the account indefinitely, which I don't object to. I do believe that the editor is probably here to promote the band (most likely on behalf of their label), and their username violates WP:ORGNAME. I don't think the articles above meet speedy deletion criteria (they aren't spammy enough for G11 and don't qualify for A7 because they credibly assert importance even if they don't prove it) but you might try using WP:PROD and see if anyone objects. I don't think anyone would, because again, notability doesn't seem to be established at any of the articles. --  At am a  頭 17:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Joe Queens / Reput
re Reput (app). SPA editor. 16 edits. All but one are either to Reput (app) or involve creating links to that article. Reput (app) was prodded, but wasn't quite blatant enough for speedy deletion. --John Nagle (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More info: Article in The Register about the app shows a sample page from the app's site. The sample page is for "Joe Queens". John Nagle (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly tempted to AFD it, as this is very borderline in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia contributor Joe Queens is not afiliated in any way to Reput. I was very surprised to have found that Reput marketeers were using my name (not my picture though) and that is why I decided to find out more about it and create an article. After that I saw the interesting relation in between all of those apps and I included such information that most people can agree to be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.123.71 (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone just speedy deleted it as advertising. This is the second time it's been deleted, now by two different admins. It probably should not be re-created. Problem solved.  --John Nagle (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hamleys


This user is keen to see that the article about Hamleys, a famous London toy store, has a large section about the history of its website and the companies and consultants who worked on it. The user seems to have a great interest in the work of the sales consultant Alan McKendry, who worked on the website and is quoted in the article. In his three short days at Wikipedia, User:44robby has created an article for Links of London (which McKendry works or worked for), started a draft article about McKendry Consulting, used McKendry's website as an example reference twice, linked to a McKendry press release and added a couple of odd references that mentioned McKendry, one where McKendry is credited as the reference's "work", and another where McKendry's name appears as a token in the URL.

When asked if he or she had a COI connection to McKendry, 44robby removed the name of the company from the talk page header and said that the "error has been amended". When asked again to clarify whether they had any conflict of interest, the editor replied "NO" and twice pointed out that "other users" were also trying to add the material. (The Hamleys content was originally added by User:178.248.249.98 on April 3, reverted back in by User:216.223.27.54 later that day, and reverted back again by User:44robby when he joined Wikipedia the next morning.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your issue? The Hamleys ecommerce topic is valid and highly relevant - especially now as per my recent edit which shows the bankruptcy in Denmark ! There is no conflict of interest and I have made multiple edits and created new posts on various topics. It is normal when making edits that one topic will lead to another and enable it to be updated to and tokens which i didn't notice come from linked searches where I got the info from so don't see the issue.

Yes I was looking at making a page for mckendry but also the other connected entities (most already have request articles) I just haven't got that far yet as haven't found good sources and to be honest think I have had enough of wikipedia as people like you make it too annoying

Your edits are getting a lot of complaints and you make edits on topics you know nothing about and instead of helping you hinder! For example User_talk:McGeddon User:Duxwing 2b8634f3@opayq.com (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "world's oldest toy store", founded in 1790, is notable, so no problem there. The article reads a bit more like advertising than an encyclopedia article, but it's more about style than content. Some sections have a cut and paste look; "yesterday's bankruptcy", about the bankruptcy in Denmark, needs to be fixed. The e-commerce section is amusing, because it's mostly about how bad the web site was. I removed a bit of hype about EQuire.  Since EQuire was acquired by a larger web hosting company, it no longer exists, so promoting it now seems pointless.  I don't see a major COI problem here, just a rather lame article. John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

BoneLands


Basically, I nominated the article BoneLands for deletion under speedy deletion criteria A7. About an hour or so after I did so and the page was deleted, I got a few messages from the person who created the article, asking why the article that they created was deleted. I respectfully answered their questions and pointed them to the relevant policies, as well as to articles for creation, where they could build their article and receive feedback from other editors so as to not get it speedily deleted once more. However, when they did leave a message on their talk page, they declared that they had a COI towards a website/game that they specifically created. I am assuming good faith, and did provide them to the correct policies towards it, and asked them to not edit articles that they personally are affiliated with. Diffs declaring the COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGing287&diff=602661763&oldid=602629322 | https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGing287&diff=602665664&oldid=602664647 | User_talk:Ging287 The link to the relevant section on my user talk. (Where the user left his concerns.) I don't suspect that this user did it out of malice, but out of ignorance of the WP:COI guideline, instead. Ging287 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good to note this here, however I think that unless the article is recreated this is settled at this point. The article was deleted, and the changes that Clarencecowan made to play-by-mail game were reverted. --  At am a  頭 16:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Two editors on Matthew Kelly (speaker)


Clearly the same user for both accounts. AGF that they are not trying to maliciously sockpuppet. DynamicCatholicInstitute posted Talk:Matthew_Kelly_(speaker) essentially declaring COI and SOAP intentions. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A few things right away, before looking deeply into the issue... For yourself, please be sure to leave notices on talk pages, not user pages. The notifications you left for both accounts were on the wrong page.


 * Secondly, I agree that they're probably the same person, and I agree that it's probably not being done maliciously. Both accounts are relatively new (the older one, "DynamicCatholic" registered in 2013 but it has only made 2 edits since then) and if they were trying to avoid scrutiny in the use of multiple accounts they wouldn't have given them almost the same name. But they need to stick with one, and only one account, so that we can track their edits. Actually, it's possible that these are two different people who both work at or for the institute, but that leads me to my last point...


 * Finally, both accounts are in violation of WP:ORGNAME. An account cannot be shared between multiple people (such as multiple people at an organization), and if it isn't actually being shared it should still not consist of the name of an organization which gives the impression that it is shared between multiple people. It can contain the name of an organization in it (and in cases like this, that is even preferable, so that their conflicts of interest are made transparent) but it should be done so in such a way that it makes it clear that it's an individual. A name like "Bob at Dynamic Catholic", or "DyamicCatholicEmployee" or something along those lines would be helpful. And using more distinctive names for these accounts would also help make clear that these accounts are not sockpuppets (if in fact they are being used by two different people).


 * So, to sum up, the accounts need to be renamed to comply with our naming policy. If both accounts are being run by the same person they need to stick with one. If they are two different people, the user names they change to should make it clear that they aren't the same person.


 * If the editor(s) in question aren't responsive to these requests (either they don't choose to participate on this noticeboard, or ignore messages left on their user talk pages which I can leave or someone else can leave) then they should be softblocked (which I can do) and they can create new account(s) that comply with our policy. Hopefully they will be responsive, the fact that they are using the article talk page is a positive sign. --  At am a  頭 22:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User names "DynamicCatholic" and "DynamicCatholicInstitute" are the same user. There is no "sock-puppeting" going on -but a simple error on my end - I completely forgot that I had already created a user name in 2013. I will either A) delete both accounts and start fresh with a user name that complies with Wikipedia's terms of use or B) delete one of the accounts and re-name the account to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use.DynamicCatholicInstitute (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Which option would be better to take? A) Request that both usernames DynamicCatholic and DynamicCatholicInstitute be deleted and create an entirely new user name that complies with Wikipedia usernames OR B) Request that one username be deleted and rename one user name to comply with Wikipedia usernames? I am happy to do either. DynamicCatholicInstitute (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing to do is make a new account. Changing your username requires asking a bureaucrat for help, which may take awhile and take up time for the bureaucrat. We're actually pretty open about what names are allowed (in my opinion at least), the main things to avoid are having a username that is offensive (which I doubt you would do) or a name that matches a real-life organization (though it can still refer to an organization). If you want the full policy on usernames you can read it here. I suggest at least mentioning a connection to the Dynamic Catholic Institute on your user page for transparency, though you can go further if you want (like including "DCI" in your username or something along those lines).


 * Just to clarify, nobody here thinks you've engaged in any intentional wrongdoing. EvergreenFir never suggested as much, and I definitely don't think so. I have to thank you both for your efforts to be open about your connection to the organization, and for your willingness to follow our policies and guidelines. It's always a pleasure to collaborate with people who do so and it's a refreshing change from a lot of people who come to Wikipedia who are affiliated in some way with the articles that they are involved with.


 * Finally, don't worry about "deleting" your existing accounts. We really don't have the ability to do so anyway. What I can do, after your create a new account, is block your two old accounts so that nobody can use them anymore. And that's it, it's really easy. Just let me know either here or on my talk page from your new account and I'll be more than happy to do that for you. Also, because of conflicts of interest we generally prefer that people in your situation avoid making substantial edits to article space if you're affiliated with a person or group that is the subject of the article, but your input on the talk page of articles is not only allowed but encouraged. Last, I do suggest that you at some point read our plain and simple guide to conflicts of interest which was created specifically to help people in your situation avoid friction on the encyclopedia. If you need any help or advice at any point feel free to let me know, thank you. --  At am a  頭 15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out my error on the notices. No idea why I did that.  Also I realize I jumped the gun here and should have talked with the users directly about their COI.  Thank you for your help. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard above does say: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. But this board isn't a place where issues brought here have a tendency to explode into drama and escalate quickly. It's often not very confrontational here, and any discussions here have a side benefit of making COI situations public. Unlike other noticeboards where discussions should only be brought as a last resort, it's not a bad idea to bring something here early on. And sometimes people will make posts here just to leave a note about a COI situation, and no immediate intervention is needed. So don't feel too bad about bringing the issue here, I think this will work out for the best in the long run. --  At am a  頭 18:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! This is Jenna at Dynamic Catholic, and this is the new account I will be using moving forward. Please do block the two old accounts when you have a moment - that would be appreciated.  I will read up on everything you shared for sure - thanks again. Jenna at DCI (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done, both accounts are blocked. Again, if you need advice or assistance with anything just leave me a message. --  At am a  頭 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

StatoatTBC


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Katieh5584 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the User Page of Torbay Borough Council, the user is removing content from various related articles.Katieh5584 (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're talking about User:StatoatTBC. You're right, on the user's own page they're declaring their connection to Torbay Borough Council (TBC). The editor states on their own that they "work for Torbay Council". (Now that I think of it, I believe the user name is saying "Stato at Torbay Borough Council".)


 * Their username seems in compliance with WP:ORGNAME, in that they are presenting themselves as a single person working for the organization, not representing the group as a whole. Though I think that referring to themselves in the first-person (as seen in the diff above) is odd behavior. I see that StatoatTBC has received a number of warnings and appeals to abide by verifiability policy without much success. My biggest concern is that the editor believes that as an employee of TBC that they should be allowed to add original research, even replacing properly-sourced information in the process. That, of course, is not how Wikipedia works. If the editor is unwilling to comply with those policies, they should probably be blocked, which is a shame because they could potentially provide a lot of help in those subject areas if they complied with WP:LUC.


 * I left the editor a notification that this discussion is here. Hopefully they will participate. --  At am a  頭 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin




This has been proven from that both of the above editors are die hard followers of the dawoodi bohra religion and Mufaddal, Khuzaima are the two rival leaders of the religion and they are not letting another non aligned editors like User:Anupmehra, admin User:Crisco 1492 and other users like User:Ftutocdg to make neutral changes as per the available  media reports of the people involved.

I had edited as per User:Anupmehra as he is also the one without any conflict of interest, the other two editors have clearly shown their conflict of interest as they have proclaimed that they are followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin whereas I am not even born into that community but when I saw the initial versions I was suprised how people were pushing their POV without any evidence on such a famous issue of succession controversy which is now appearing almost daily in many Indian media. I had MADE the edit request after modifications requested by Anup Mehra.

'Proof:'' ''' "And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith."

- Rukn950 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

".... can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here, myself don't know, please understand"

- --Md iet 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I also request User:Anupmehra to look into this matter as he is a trusted third party and is highly experienced in handling these issues on wikipedia and knows about what happened in talk page. Summichum (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Replies:

this is false allegation, Infact Myself and user Anupmehra were rewriting the article in neutral format. and please let the users whose name you are referring speak for themselves.Rukn950 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC) if User summichum is adamant in imposing his agenda and vandal the articles. as you can clearly see from history. I dont think this edit will ever end. you can clearly see his false claim of being not related to community by the new article he has created Mufaddal Saifuddin Succession Controversy. Has he maintained NPOV?. I dont think so.

If I am Dawoodi Bohra and I have concerns regarding vandalism of article related to Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. I wouldn't call a christen COI for article related Jesus christ not a hindu about lord Krishna. This is matter of faith and there should be no disrespect to any religion. That is what I have been trying to maintain in All the above related articles. and as per BLP guideline about article Mufaddal Saiduddin. I think my fellow editors would agree with me assuming good faith.Rukn950 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Rukn950 arguments. Wiki should not be used for promoting a partisan view. Summichum has joined Wiki for this purpose only; seems blocked twice; seems claiming false as third party; putting notices, warnings etc. wherever he wants.

This is a matter of faith and hundred of thousands Dawoodi Bohra can not sustain wrong propaganda created by chunk of hundreds people. Media is taking advantage of the issue, and as a sincere fan and volunteer of Wiki, I cannot sustain propaganda being encouraged in Wiki. Main page is to be reserved for primary information regarding the topic and all adverse/critisized well sourced reports/views to be just referred to related pages such that interested person can go further in details and no information is hided.

My sincere aim is how to bring out factual things in the manner in such a way that Wiki principles are also upheld. We are trying to reach consensus to bring the balance, but editor like Summichum don't want to bulge from his partisan agenda and trying to use whatever means to promote his POV. User:Anupmehra is making all sincere efforts to be a neutral empire, myself and Rukn950 are trying to help him out. I request all other editor including Summichum to cooperate. We should understand that truth will prevail and my all the personal opinions are only written on the talk page to get the fillings known to other editors of the truth, such that we can put up truth in Wiki standard and make Wiki a unique platform to have self corrected fair information in good faith manner. The articles on Dawoodi Bohras have now become very critical and good faith edit may not work. The articles information which was being sustained from last two three years has suddenly become talk of the day. New editors have emerged to pin point the law and somehow find the means to remove the fair information available. I would take extra care that no further editing is done without ample clear cut source available, good faith editing is avoided till matter get settled down, matter be discussed in length at talk page if there is direct impact on faith and that information to be immediately corrected with due consensus. I hope my fellow editors will cooperate in the mission.--Md iet (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My replies:
 * What you people do is just bring in personal opinions and emotions, which will not work at all for people who are not even born into this community like User:Anupmehra and myself , you both have filled the talk page with personal and emotional opinions on Mufaddal. But we can only judge by third party high quality authoritative news sources. And now since the matter itself has gone to courts I request you to maintain NPOV and please dont bring in your emotional stories on that talk page as most of it I dont even understand and sounds funny like what do  you mean by writing following and how is it relevant to the discussion? Also most of you both editors comments are emotional and personal stories:

"....front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula""

- Md_iet Summichum (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm tagged here somewhere above in any comment to provide my opinion. I'm partially agree with the allegations imposed by the, only partially. I've my opinion and few proves as diff. links that User:Md iet has a clear conflict of interest and he has been penetrating his POV to make all Bohras related topic biased towards his interests. For example only current discussion would provide much insight on this issue, Talk:Mufaddal_Saifuddin. See also this diff. link, where an editor urges User:Md iet to get involved in Bohra related articles on behalf of being a sincere follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. Hope it clarifies, if needed, I'm able to provide some more diff. links. However, much more can be retrieved from his contribution log. In fact, I was about to open a COI inquiry but chose to wait some more time. Thank you.  Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry to read this comment from editor like User:Anupmehra. If Summichum or User:Ftutocdg is making this comment, I would never have minded. My all contribution is on good faith for improving articles on Fatimid. I accept there can be original research or proper reliable sources are not made available, but you can take it for granted that all is done keeping Wiki prestige above, all considerations. I have never objected to points raised by other fellow editors on the basis of Wiki guidelines, as I am a big fan of Wiki. I don't want that Wiki is used as platform to encourage partisan view promoted by some editors who have joined this platform for this purpose only. Summichum  has joined Wiki in Feb,14 after demise of late Syedna. He now claim that he belongs to another society then it is quite interesting that he has generated special interest in this community after this incident and he is just trying to delete items selective to one claimant and adding items supporting other claimant from wherever he can. He is blocked twice still he is disrupting the edits as per his will. Now talk about User:Ftutocdg, he has lured me to get involved diff. link in Qutbi Bohra article. Can't you see my reply given there. It is very clear that qutbi Bohra article is not in interest of another claimant Khuzaima as if he is proven that he is behind formation of Qutbi Bohra, he can't  claim and get control over the properties of Dawoodi Bohra. He was branding me as sincere follower of Mufaddal and my reply was that I am sincere follower of Fatimid. Can't you see the difference Dear Anup, I want to upkeep Fatimid tradition and will follow the claimant who is as per Fatimid tradition. At present it is very clear and undoubtful that Mufaddal is real claimant. This I can say because I know the sequences and personal feeling of late Syedna depicted during live presentations of all big ceremony of his birthday/nass ceremony etc., which was there in last 2-3 years , where this second claimant was no where present. Pointing out all these personal opinions is not that I want to create sympathy or violate Wiki principles by putting these things in article. My sincere aim is Wiki should present things in fare manner showing what actual happening with due citation. It is duty of good faith editor like me that wiki should not become platform putting only material of media's story which makes them most popular and same things presented in such a manner giving priority here and actual facts get hidden. Now the case is in court, till the court settles the case, both parties will remain claimants. There is difference in the claimants, which also to be depicted somewhere, as Wiki is judging the facts through the eyes of thousand and millions viewer it haves ,  who are given unique authority of correcting themselves. Many do not know the rules, but they can't resist and correct themselves; they can’t wait till judgment come. This is case on faith, court can't decide Pope; similarly Dai cannot be decided by other individuals except the last Dai. It is very clear that Khuzaima was not having consent of last Dai and he has not approached to late Dai having all options open to him, through direct or via press/ legal authorities to clarify the case when he had 2-3 years with him and his opponent is already declared publicly.  The nass case was public and that was right time to correct Mufaddal if Khuzaima was right. He made things open to former chief justice of India; prepared a website to declare himself his heir in advance and simultaneously claiming that he was maintaining secrecy as asked by late Syedna. He has clearly defied himself the Fatimid principles and now making mockery of everything in public. It was very simple case when late Dai was present to decide who he has appointed. Things would be crystal clear in front of everybody. But there was something fishy, second claimant didn't want that truth to be made open and he wanted to somehow make claim. He waited for late Syedna's demise and made the claim next day, getting media's attention as who don’t want to en cash this opportunity. They are claiming of their progressive agenda to get attention of NGO's etc. In the press conference ,why along with brothers , other lady members not present in normal public attire, as this was a good platform of presentation of woman reforms, when their sister was giving all the statements and arguments on other platforms.

As I have accepted my deficiency in putting up proper citation and making statements looking like original research, and already pledged to take care further. The blatant allegation of my having of conflict of interest  is not at all true. I have declared myself, what I am and doing my best to keep Wiki above all.--Md iet (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Anupmehra the two users are thwarting even sincere attempts to format article in complete bad faith as you see on Mufadal talk page and controversy page, they clearly seem to have a deep conflict of interest. I would also request intervention of admin User:Crisco 1492 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Kings Monkton School


This page is being edited by the Principal of King's Monkton school.Katieh5584 (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reinforced what AllyD said about changing their username. It's in violation of WP:ISU. Also, their user page suggests that it is a shared account, even though the editor insists otherwise on their user talk page. If they don't agree to change their username, they should be softblocked until they do. After that their conflict of interest and the way they participate at that article should be examined. --  At am a  頭 22:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * PrincipalKMS is just not getting what we're trying to say. They continued to edit the article despite pleas from multiple people. They're basically ignoring everything being told to them, so I was forced to block them. They can request an unblock to change their name, or just create a new account. --  At am a  頭 15:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Victorville, California and Robert Larivee


And see also MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MTG OF THE CITY OF VICTORVILLE August 7, 2012 (search in page for "Award winning design for Robert Larivee")

This editor, despite a number of invitations to discuss things, both on the Victorville article talk page and on their own talk page, will insist on adding this stuff about Old Town Victorville despite the objections of two editors (me and ), evidently in an attempt to promote Robert Larivee's candidacy for the California State Assembly District 33 seat. Some eyes would be appreciated.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A COI can certainly be assumed in this situation. But there's nothing that's definitively establishing it. The account name is pretty generic and the editor hasn't made any communications of any kind (including edit summaries), let alone a statement that is suggesting a connection to the candidate. On the other hand, this person is (a) edit-warring, (b) refusing to communicate, (c) inserting unsourced information, and (d) promoting a politician in the process. I see no activity from this editor after Mlpearc's most recent warning. One more edit and I'll leave a formal "final" warning, and if they persist after that I'll indefinitely block them as an advertising-only account. --  At am a  頭 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Concerns on Deepak Chopra
A media representative has shown concern about the Deepak Chopra article. I believe they have approached the situation appropriately, and I'd like to make sure they are not accused of COI given their behavior so far but that their concerns are met in our best Wikipedia collaborative style. I had worked on the article in the past and have decided to withdraw from the discussion leaving it to fresh eyes. Thanks.Littleolive oil (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
 * I put the article on my watchlist. I'll point out that Guy's message to the person is very good, it's probably even better than what I'd have come up with. --  At am a  頭 16:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Atama.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
 * Thanks. I wrote the OTRS standard advice to biography subjects, so I have form :-) Guy (Help!) 16:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, that's not fair, you have the cool OTRS resources and stuff that I don't. :p --  At am a  頭 16:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are soooooo not cool. And no, not any more I don't. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)