Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 78

High-Frequency Trading and User:Sophie.grothendieck
This editor is extremely involved in topics related to high-frequency trading such as IEX, which is evidenced by the fact that he made six reverts within 17 hours, each time re-inserting the same criticism section:
 * 02:21, 7 September 2014
 * 15:01, 7 September 2014
 * 17:03, 7 September 2014
 * 17:59, 7 September 2014
 * 18:13, 7 September 2014
 * 19:14, 7 September 2014

The main issues here are however that this editor
 * 1) has a conflict of interest with respect to topics related to high-frequency trading
 * 2) made controversial edits in violation of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest policy
 * 3) and finally, he has lied repeatedly about his conflict of interest.

Let's start with the first point. Using the information this editor disclosed himself, it is easy to find a video presentation about the trading firm that this editor himself called "his firm" and "his employer". In this recorded presentation at time index 04:25, a slide is shown with the following content:

I replaced the name of the firm with XXX for privacy reasons. If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that this editor did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves as "a high-frequency trading hedge fund" during a public presentation, which proves the first point.

The second point is obvious from the edit warring pointed out above and to add a bit of background, IEX is a financial trading venue that spoke out against certain predatory strategies employed by high-frequency traders.

The third point is proven by these quotes:

I think it is very unfair to sincere editors who properly disclose their conflict of interest and go through the process of requested edits and the like, when this guy can just lie his way through and gets a pass on it. Kristina451 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Not an admin). I've given a 3RR warning on Sophie.grothendieck's talk since there doesn't seem to be one already. Stickee (talk)  06:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If somebody is called "Sophie" maybe we should call them "she", not "he" Spumuq (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Or how about "they" until they self declare? &#32;SPACKlick (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes! Spumuq (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just an arbitrarily chosen alias and I know who he is with certainty. May an admin advise if I can say what role he executes at his high-frequency trading hedge fund? It is a very prominent one and relevant for the fact that he has lied so blatantly about his conflict of interest.
 * He also knows full well about policy and it would be naive to assume he was not familiar with 3RR. After all, it was him who eloquently requested the semi-protection of that HFT-related topic at 02:23, 7 September 2014 before he went on to violate 3RR by making another five reverts.
 * But the main issue here is really this guy's excessive abuse to push his vested interest in high-frequency trading, and that he has lied about it. His hedge fund takes other people's money and the public image of HFT affects his fund raising. Kristina451 (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Kristina451, it's always been difficult for us to write policies for COI and disclosure that don't punish the honest while rewarding the dishonest. Have faith that generally in the long run it'll all sort out. This post is better suited for WP:COI/N than here though. Gigs (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. As per your suggestion, I will move the discussion to this noticeboard. Kristina451 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Jewelry Television


For years this article has been a major source of COI's, with IPs and editors with a close connection to the network editing the article to make it overly promotional and not meeting the basic guidelines of WP:TV; it got to the point where (which leads to the network's headquarters city) had to be permanently blocked for making tenuous edits to the article and those of the network's competitors.

The named user has resumed this same behavior, and I came upon the article last night to remove claims that the network is on every cable system in the United States (considering The Weather Channel and C-SPAN with near 100 million homes outrank this network's 80 million, this is impossible), updated the broadcast affiliate list to remove stations that no longer carry it, and removed claims which led to 404 pages. Above editor then restored everything, claiming viewers searching for the network would not find anything about the network based on my removals of promotional items and trying to redirect to the network's channel guide, which is inappropriate via WP:ELNO. The user then made claims on my talkpage that I was holding back viewers from finding their channel number and claimed I was hurting people by removing promotional content (hardly the case at all; I was just updating and neutralizing the article). The username makes it clear their COI and I'm asking for some kind of action to restore neutrality to the article. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. I made some minor fixes, but didn't change much. The big Jewelry Channel flap was a 2008 lawsuit over them selling cheap artificially treated stones as valuable. That's in there, and it was settled (which isn't in the article and should be.) There's a channel guide, which I'm tempted to delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. What's the right way to handle that?  Other than that, the SPA needs to stop edit warring.  John Nagle (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The channel guide can be converted to an affiliate list format or prose easily; I did check and make sure that those stations do air it (I tried to make it less specific to not run into the NTVG buzzsaw to mention which stations use the network to fill their entire day or just the overnights, which is somewhat important for these shopping networks for disclaiming purposes). Everything looks good; I didn't have any issues with the text outside of the 'every cable system' claim which is impossible to attain, the Roku channel not being so prominent since it's a niche service, and the other stuff which 404'ed out.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A question you may have seen for the nth time


Hello. I work in the capacity of a clinical faculty at CMH, a non-profit teaching hospital. I do not get paid by CMH to edit on WP. I only edit on WP for fun. Is there a COI with someone like me editing on CMH's article? Let's even say that my edits do end up somehow promoting CMH (e.g. our hospital went up in the US News & World Report rankings, and I added the news and link), are things still not OK as long as I stay within the bounds of NPOV? The WP:NOPAY doesnt exactly seem clear on what is meant and what is not. Thanks.Nightryder84 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you stick to information that is obviously true and obviously relevant, and for which you have an undeniably reliable source, there is no problem; for anything that you have any doubt about, suggest it on the article's talk page., and let others decide whether to include it.  What you havedone so far seems OK to me. And for what it is worth, I consider the present state of the article a little promotional: I have removed the charity fundraisers section, which is just an excuse for namedropping. I am in addition not sure that USNews rankings for hospitals are considered a reliable measure of quality, but if they are given, they should at least be correct. The present emphasis on ratings  on articles on colleges I consider excessive, and a POV disgrace, and I wouldn't want to see it spread.  DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible COI, problematic maps from User:Unocha.visual


I would like to point out a possible problem with User:Unocha.visual and their locator maps on various country articles. The user adds maps against WP:WATERMARK, clearly trying to promote the OCHA (f.e. File:Tuvalu - Location Map (2013) - TUV - UNOCHA.svg on Tuvalu. A polite request to stop and get community consensus first ([]) was ignored, more maps have been added since then. The user has also added slightly promotional content to the original OCHA article (which i have reverted here []). (1) As the user seems unwilling to search for consensus, what can/should be done? (2) Do we have a bot to mass-revert such changes? GermanJoe (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can say the warning was ignored. As far as I can tell, the editor's last contribution anywhere on WP was about two hours before the warning was placed on his talk page. Have I mis-read this? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Arnoutf posted a detailed comment with tips and arguments against such maps on 3 September 20.44 (see first link above). 20+ more maps (Mauritius ... Uganda) have been added since then. But my main concern is more about handling the possible COI-content and avoiding future additions of more maps from this source. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was caught in a timezone warp between the edit histories, which are in my local time, and the talk page signatures, which are in UTC. Still, I would wait to see if the problematic editing stops before bringing the issue here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Agree, it's not very urgent (just annoying). For now i'll revert those additions manually (as clearly against WP:WATERMARK and WP:COI). Would be great, if anyone would know a bot for such a task. GermanJoe (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Academy of Art University


Academy of Art University has had a good deal of trouble with less-than-neutral editing in the past, by employees as well as critics. A new editor,, has recently appeared, and is determinedly adding material to the article. Some of the edits are OK, others are rank promotion. On one edit, AdamNisbet left the summary "This is a minor edit to include Tom Bertino with 3 citations and linking to his wikipedia page which already links to us", which prompted me to ask if he/she was connected to the school in any way, and whether he/she is editing here for financial reward. Those questions elicited no reply, but the editor continues to make changes. I'm concerned that the Terms of Use are perhaps being ignored. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That article is very favorable to Academy of Art, which is a sketchy operation. It doesn't mention that they have a 100% admit rate. There's no criticism section. This article needs more editors looking at it. John Nagle (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Rob Hegel
The article was created and is almost exclusively edited by. Robhegel has only edited this article; nothing on talk pages nor other articles. This strongly suggests an autobiography which is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia policy. The article contains much poorly referenced material including puffery and peacock terms. The few attempts to discuss the issues seem to be ignored. Tags have been repeatedly removed, though in some cases with good cause. I have done minor copy/editing but much more needs to be done. Jim1138 (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Phineas Gage
It is apparent that EEng has an apparent COI, specifically under WP:EXTERNALREL, due to great personal and academic involvement in the Phineas Gage article. EEng is not related by blood or working on behalf of Phineas Gage, but he is personally and academically involved in the page and has used the article as a soap box and as an extension of his work with Macmillan. Note that EEng self-discloses his identity as [redacted -- see below. EEng has worked with Macmillan - co-authoring this paper, updating Macmillan's site and even acknowledged as a colleague by Macmillan.. EEng edit wars nearly every edit made to the article, even minor ones, and his personal attacks recently got him blocked. He then decided to re-title the block header to "Admin blocks for criticism of himself" just "for the record". EEng has effectively made improving the page akin to Sisyphus and the boulder. An example of the extremely convoluted state of EEng's page can be seen from this diff and entering the edit window. The article was over 50% markup. Of 104,829 characters about 27,000 characters were in text body and some 21,500 characters comprised foot notes. Recently, EEng added some 5000+ characters to reference bomb the text and make it effectively unreadable. EEngs 1300+ edits to the article has improved it, but it seems that EEng's WP:OWNership of the article is a persistent problem. Make no mistake, this is not a content or formatting dispute, these are mere symptoms of EEng using Wikipedia markup and claims of "stewardship" to maintain a preferential state. I feel EEng has a COI under WP:EXTERNALREL. It may not be paid editing, but it is extremely difficult to deal with an editor who has self-cited and displays a strong and selective bias for (his co-author) Macmillan. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG. There has just recently been a now-archived wall-of-text at WP:ANI about EEng and the Gage page, and it petered out after ChrisGaultieri conspicuously began to play nice with EEng. I cannot begin to spell out how disappointed I was to log on today and see a note at my talk about this COIN thread. And I've looked at the Gage talk page, and the only incivility to come from there has been from Chris, with nothing happening in the past day to justify the opening of this COIN complaint. There has previously been a COIN complaint about exactly the same things, and it ended without a clear consensus. Chris' opening of this complaint is sufficiently disruptive that it may justify a block. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll discuss this on your talk page to prevent from derailment. The question being asked is simple: Is there or is there not a conflict of interest in editing a page dominated by references to materials co-authored by yourself and your colleague? If yes, EEng has one. If no, please explain it to me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends on the degree to which the editor edits the page so as to promote the possible COI. And in this case, there has been absolutely no issue of concealment of the possible COI. Recently, EEng has been increasingly cooperative about toning down the references to Macmillan, and there has been nothing recent to indicate that the situation is getting worse with respect to COI. The effect of a decision here that there is a COI would be tantamount to topic banning EEng from editing the page, and restricting him to the talk page. I believe that you very recently expressed an opinion on that at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ChrisGualtieri, I have asked you repeatedly  not to spell out my IRL identity explicitly in posts, yet here you've done it again. (I've redacted it above.) I imply my identity on my user page in such a way that those who want to know can easily figure it out -- specifically in the context of Gage  -- but my employer and clients will not tolerate my name popping up in web searches, particularly in conjunction with reckless accusations such as yours. This is serious business, and way over the line. You're much better at urging probity than practicing it. Don't ever do that again.
 * I am an engineer and computer scientish with no career or financial interest of any kind in any of this -- Gage is strictly a hobby for me, and I just want the article as complete and up-to-date as possible. As for Macmillan, I've never met him and have spoken to him on the phone maybe four times, the last time many years ago; I doubt we've even exchanged emails in the past six months. That you think I've put up with all your crap for a year just to inflate Macmillan's Wikipedia citation count underscores your ignorance of research, relationships among researchers, and scientific publishing. You've been told all of this several times -- can you get a clue at long last?
 * Two of your recent conversations with other editors are worth linking here for the record: . One very useful comment is an evaluation of sources by editor, a research librarian:
 * I conclude from this that Macmillan's book is the most important secondary modern principal source, unless there are reliable review sources to be found that consider it inadequate.
 * What, then, do the reviews say? Well...:

(Sources at -- and these are all different reviews. Yes, this list is from Macmillan's Phineas Gage website, but you're free to go look for others inconsistent with these.)
 * "the definitive history ....the first and only comprehensive study of Gage’s injury and its influence on the history of medicine, neuroscience and psychology. ... remarkable piece of historical research .... cleared up much misinformation ... will be recognized as an authoritative and valuable resource for many years to come."
 * "almost certainly knows more about Phineas Gage than anybody else"
 * "painstaking research"
 * "The definitive account. One of those rare occasions on which one can truly say that further research is not necessary."
 * "scoured all the sources and commentaries ... this must be a definitive work"
 * "explored every related area ... to shed new light and provide an authentic account"
 * "meticulous research"
 * "knowledge of detail is prodigious"
 * "comprehensive and scholarly account"
 * "remarkable work of scholarship ... first rate example of carefully done historical work"
 * "ingenuity and energy in tracking down sources are truly awesome"
 * "painstakingly thorough and accurate"
 * "fantastic reference source ... a great deal of overlooked early literature ..."
 * "fine piece of research clarifying precisely what we do and do not know about Gage’s story ... far more detail than you require..."
 * "enormously detailed book (sometimes too detailed...)"
 * "shows convincingly that all other reports either derive from Harlow, or are inaccurate to the extent that they do not ... invalidates all retrospective attempts at the precise localization ... yeoman's job"
 * "extraordinarily well-referenced"
 * "at times excessive details of Gage’s accident, recovery, later life, and death"
 * "After Macmillan’s exhaustive account one wonders if there is anything left to be uncovered ... immensely detailed ... time will tell that this is the definitive work on Phineas Gage."
 * "fastidious archaeological removal of the layers of legend"
 * "absolutely exhaustive interrogation of the historical bases of Gage’s story, his treatment, and its subsequent scientific reconstructions. As a piece of historical detective work it demonstrates a scholarly commitment which borders on the obsessional."
 * "exquisitely detailed re-examination"
 * "stunningly researched, ordered, and written history."
 * "unprecedented detective work ... Macmillan collected practically every piece of information about Gage ... Moreover, he analyzed all that material almost on a word-by-word basis."
 * "obstinately searched all possible sources. It seems very unlikely that anyone else could find a relevant piece not considered. ... sober and meticulous inquiry"


 * This -- not the fealty you fantisize I owe Macmillan -- is the reason the article has more cites to Macmillan than to pop books, children's book, authors giving unsourced paragraph-length fables of Gage, and other sources you've championed. EEng (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've requested oversight to redact it from the record. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking that trouble, though actually it's not necessary. My IRL identity is not a secret -- I just don't want it popping up in web searches . Editing it out from the live version of this page, as I've already done, takes care of that, and it really doesn't matter if it's in the revision history. So if any doubt is expressed about oversight or revdel, don't worry about it. EEng (talk) 06:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess I got a second message to send - close this COIN. I'm done dealing with EEng on the Phineas Gage page entirely. No page is worth this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what I dearly wish, Chris? I wish that six months from now all of this is forgotten, and we're great pals. I really mean than, and it's really possible -- sometimes former "adversaries" (maybe not the right word) become the best of friends, because the intense shared experience begets mutual understanding. But that can't happen so long as you spend more time talking about my motives than about the sources and their relative reliability. EEng (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Mitnick


Suspect that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dvannamers is in fact the subject of the eponymous article. Single-purpose account is engaging in namecalling, 3RR violations, blanking vandalism, and threats on the user pages of other editors, and has adopted a very personal approach to the article's edits. Friendly attempts to gently guide the individual's efforts through talk page feedback has been met with threats and aggression. Boorsours (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You are also a single-purpose account, no? --SubSeven (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Unusual eBay listings


User:Officialmichaelgreen edited the article Unusual eBay listings to include their own self-promotional entry beginning with this edit added the story of Michael Green attempting to sell a GIF for $5800 (...) and ending with small grammar error touched up.

The edits were then removed by 198.144.40.1 with the edit summary "Let's just pretend this whole thing never happened....".--DrWho42 (talk) 22:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * COI aside, I've blocked the account per WP:ISU. The editor is welcome to request a rename or create another one if they so wish. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All that aside, the whole premise of that article seems dubious to me...--ukexpat (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Martine Rothblatt


This user, RothRep (as in Rothblatt representative), has a conflict of interest and has been negatively editing the Martine Rothblatt article and an associated article (BINA48, a robot project of Martine Rothblatt's). -12.30.109.2 (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Army Communications Information Systems Activity, Pacific


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 144.59.12.226 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A newly created page, which lists the organizations current commander as "USA Lt. Col. Lan T. Dalat, Director."

The user that has created the page, and every edit, is Landalat. This appears to be a COI as the head of the organization is the one that created the page and all information contained within.
 * I marked the article for a proposed merge. U.S. Army Communications Information Systems Activity, Pacific is part of the  1st Signal Brigade (United States) of the Eighth United States Army.  It can be merged up a level into its parent organization, which has a very short article.  It's a system administration group, part of a larger organization, and there's no indication of notability. John Nagle (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that. There wasn't a vestige of a reference in the whole thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael McGee, Jr.
I am working through Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and ran across what looks like COI in Michael McGee, Jr.. There were nine consecutive edits by on 13 September, none with any sourcing. The user has not made any other edits, so it's unlikely s/he would see anything put on her/his user talk page or the article talk page. I don't want to be diverted from working on the tracking category, and I lack experience addressing COI situations, but I thought perhaps someone here might wish to pursue this. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to undo edits back to where it was before became involved, simply because none of those edits adds a new reference to justify it. The talk page indicates that the issue of balance was raised in 2007, and the last comment is that "everything is cited". Nobody has offered any citations indicating otherwise.  Of course, we're probably bringing down the hammer on a reasonably well-intentioned new user who thinks they're doing the right thing. They didn't whitewash the article, but they probably added  original research. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Controversy


First thing's first, I'm a neutral party to the aforementioned controversy, and only visited this page to get more info on the thing. Yet, it seemed quite suspiciously biased, in the way of "Lie by Omission" (which I asked another wikipedian, also neutral, who's name will remain anonymous about, and they did say it was very possible that it was lie by omission) and showing a clear bias towards those against the supporters. I did some digging, and found this information concerning the page. The admin Gamaliel seems to have some stake in the "anti-gamergate" side. I know it looks suspicious that I haven't edited much, but that's only because I've been doing other things. I have little to no stake in this conflict, and am only bringing it up as possible COI violations. I request that either the entire page is deleted until further notice, or that the editors with stakes in the conflict are not allowed to edit. Wikipedia must remain objective, since we are not for the creation of opinions, but rather the documentation of information. Thank you for your time. -- The Defender of Light   > Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory    15:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything in that link that would suggest any possible COI on the part of Gamaliel. Most don't even mention the editor, or simply list Gamaliel as having edits on the pages. - Bilby (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to inform Gamaliel that you have started this process. See the red box at the top of the page. - X201 (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A Twitter post that says "I have been sent something" is not actual evidence of anything. Do you have any actual evidence of anything here, DungeonSiegeAddict, or is this just a continuation of evidence-free attacks on anyone who can be viewed as opposing the GamerGate POV? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the other links? -- The Defender of Light   > Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory    16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We'd not consider anything from wikipediocracy here; and a user showing a strong interest in a topic and editing it heavily is not necessarily a conflict of interest (in which we are talking financial or professional gain from editing the page). None of this evidence is usable to show a COI of concern.  --M ASEM  (t) 16:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will agree that money is probably not involved. However both sides should be presented fairly to maintain objectivity. -- The Defender of Light   > Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing<SPAN STYLE="color: brown; font-size: smaller; font-family:'Impact'"> Inventory </SPAN>   16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , it seems to me that you misunderstand the purpose of this noticeboard. This is a formal process to review whether a user is directly involved with the topic that is being covered in Wikipedia. In this case, you are implying that Gamaliel works as a professional in the gaming industry at one of the news sources connected to the GamerGate; none of the links above shows evidence of that. If you believe that some editor is pushing a particular point of view, that's something to discuss at the article's talk page regarding neutrality policy, not the "conflict of interest" one. If you agree this is what you were trying to do, you should close this thread and move it elsewhere. Diego (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that was what I was trying to do, but it can be dropped. -- <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'times new roman'; color: gray; background-color: blue; font-size: small">The Defender of Light   </SPAN>> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'times new roman'; color: Red">Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color: brown; font-size: smaller; font-family:'Impact'"> Inventory </SPAN>   17:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish I got paid for this hassle. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What about them? How does anything you linked add up to a conflict of interest? Please explain your direct claim in understandable terminology, because a list of random things on the Internet does not constitute an argument. If you can't make a coherent argument about this issue, this thread should be closed forthwith. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Milo Yiannopoulos? Yay, I'm going to be in Breitbart soon!  Thanks, GamerGate!  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above link pointing to a list of various links appears to me to be a fishing expedition, a nasty attempt to tar Gamaliel by association. Nothing solid, nothing to do here except trout the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really care what happens, I just wanted the community opinion. -- <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'times new roman'; color: gray; background-color: blue; font-size: small">The Defender of Light   </SPAN>> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'times new roman'; color: Red">Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="color: brown; font-size: smaller; font-family:'Impact'"> Inventory </SPAN>   16:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Cortes Wesley Randell


This was never a great article to begin with, but over the past few months it has been heavily edited by either the person who is the subject or someone closely associated with them. This has been done to remove or whitewash negative information about Mr Randell's past. I believe that the accounts in use are sockpuppets. I think it needs a great deal of reverting or rewriting, and something to be done about these sockpuppets PredatorsFan (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did a big revert to before the anon edits. See Talk:Cortes Wesley Randell. Bogus info was being inserted; for example, the article said he had published three books. One of the three is a real book, but he didn't write or publish it. (It's a paperback version of public domain testimony before Congress, anyway.) The other two I can't find in Amazon, Bookfinders, or the Library of Congress catalog.  LC does not show him as having authored anything. Please watch this article for further bogus additions. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Hype Magazine


Chastized is here to promote, mainly around The Hype Magazine. "His photography work is celebrated globally". " a plethora of testimonials". Admins can see the promotional material added to Rahim Hirji

Claims to "have not connection to Jerry Doby" but activity shows otherwise. Primary edits have been around The Hype Magazine
 * Editor In Chief is Jerry Doby.


 * File uploaded by Chastized. "Evidence: The license statement can be found online at: http://www.fiverr.com/users/jerrydoby/manage_orders/FO424FB6EB83". User Jerry Doby.


 * Uploaded by Chastized. From Flickr which shows a request from Jerry Doby, "Can you make this photo available for use on Wikipedia?"


 * Claims to be the copyright holder of a proclamation given to Just Jay of The Hype Magazine.


 * File uploaded by Chastized. "This file is directly from the magazine's archive and placed on it's Wikipedia page with permission from the publisher." The publisher being The Hype Magazine. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a pending AfD for this article: Articles for deletion/The Hype Magazine. It needs some additional opinions. John Nagle (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Result of AfD was "Delete". John Nagle (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Related COI. Paid editing clean up, Blanco Caine/TheUrbanLink, Edubb/Jdobypr duffbeerforme (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the editors who were involved in the Walterlan Papetti article (now deleted, but edited by Chastized among others, see the first diff above) and its AfD discussion have now clustered to another AfD where they argue to have that article deleted - I'm not sure whether this is merely POINTY or what, but it is frankly a bit puzzling. People with more experience of the modus operandi of this group would be welcome to take a look. --bonadea contributions talk 11:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That was deleted, too. We seem to be done here. John Nagle (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Integris and the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen
It appears that articles related to the company Integris Health are the subject of highly promotional editing by the advertising agency Ackerman McQueen.

Articles affected:
 * INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center
 * INTEGRIS Cancer Institute of Oklahoma
 * INTEGRIS Health Edmond
 * INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center
 * INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center
 * INTEGRIS Orthopedics
 * INTEGRIS Health
 * Draft:INTEGRIS
 * USBWA National Freshman of the Year (award sponsored by Integris)
 * Ackerman McQueen
 * List of hospitals in Oklahoma
 * User:Marlowpuck/sandbox

External link:
 * - inserted into many articles

Editors:

These editors are all essentially single-purpose accounts creating the Integris articles, adding promotional content to them and the related articles, and/or adding external links to integrisok.com across multiple articles. The user Ackermanmcqueen has an obvious username connection to the agency. Ajoseph213 said, "I'm the Digital Marketing Specialist for INTEGRIS Health". WhitleyOConnor started the article Ackerman McQueen. Deli nk (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * USBWA National Freshman of the Year and Ackerman McQueen turn out to be relatively decent articles at present. The first one doesn't even mention Integris, and there are lots of news references to players winning that award, so that's probably OK. The Ackerman McQueen article is just a stub, it says they're the ad agency behind the NRA, and has a good reference to a non-flattering Washington Post article about it. So we're left with the hospital articles. John Nagle (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The hospital articles have too much advertising-like prose. I've been taking out lines like "Each of these facilities uses state-of-the-art technology in its battle against illness and is led by highly skilled, experienced and caring individuals who are committed to staying at the forefront of medical technology to give patients from across Oklahoma the best care available." That's ad copy, unsuitable for Wikipedia. See WP:PEACOCK. John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are only four hospitals, but there were seven articles, some of which were about subunits of the hospitals. We're now down to five articles, and if the merge for the cancer center is approved, we'll be down to four. John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed some more peacocking and brochure-like language from the hospital articles. They could use more information from reliable sources, and less from in-house sources. These are reasonably large hospitals; they should be covered well in Wikipedia. As paid editing goes, this wasn't too bad.John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look and fixing/improving the articles. Deli nk (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Gustavo Ferraro


I have come across the entry for Gustavo Ferraro. The editor DaltonCastle has blatantly disregarded all the removed information and reasoning behind it. This editor has taken their crusade against anyone they perceives has a connection to Néstor Kirchner or Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and created entries that are set up solely to include a section filled with quotes and theories by editors of publications to attack. The list includes Carlos Zannini, Miguel Ángel Pires, Carlos Molinari, Enrique Omar Suárez, César Guido Forcieri, Juan Pablo Schiavi and Federico Elaskar. And those are just the new ones the editor created. This editor allegedly used LinkedIn to create the background before the accusations against Gustavo Ferraro but that source doesn't exist. I will request speedy deletion of this entry but wanted to note the obvious non-neutral and conflicted agenda of the editor that should be examined. Wikipedia is not meant to be a venting blog for theorists.--SimpleStitch (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This gets complicated. The article needs someone who's up to speed on the Argentine debt restructuring to straighten it out. It's going to take more sources to resolve where this person fits into that crisis. Mentioning this on the debt restructuring talk page. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings. I have addressed this issue on the Talk page for Gustavo Ferraro but will make a quick note here. I have a long history of working on pages related to political corruption. I have many interests on Wikipedia but this is certainly one of them. I apologize if SimpleStitch feels offended, but I can assure anyone taking note of this that my work is based solely on personal interest and research. I do my best to use many sources and cover many viewpoints, although that can be difficult with controversial characters who have a great deal of negative press.DaltonCastle (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * John Nagle the problem with this entry is it has no source for the background of the individual claimed. The editor used a dishonest practice to avoid an orphan tag, which was removed. The copy presented is opinions and theories of editors of the publications. This is not Occupy Wall Street and Wikipedia is not meant for individuals to slight anyone. It's not an opposing view or fringe theories, the point is Wiki has no views, it's facts.--SimpleStitch (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion one way or the other on this. My point was merely that dealing with this problem requires knowledge about the Argentine debt crisis. So I put a note on the talk page for Argentine debt restructuring to ask for help. John Nagle (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

RealPlayer


I have a conflict of interest and would like to advertise the discussion I started "poorly sourced contentious material" primarily regarding the second half of the "Controversy" section, which relies heavily on blog posts and forums, as well as the section on RealAlternative, which seems to rely on equally poor sources like personal blogs and download.com.

I didn't think it would be appropriate to remove poorly-sourced criticisms myself, so I have used the Talk page and asked that a disinterested editor take a quick look. If someone has a few minutes to make whatever edits seem appropriate, I'd appreciate it. CorporateM (Talk) 15:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's better to add cites than to remove criticisms. I added an additional cite to the Washington Post in the Controversies section.  Added "cite needed" on one remark. The download link to FileHippo was removed, but the link to CBS's Download.com, as a more reliable source, was left. See Talk:RealPlayer. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone want to put in some time on this? It looks like  is going to take a lot of attention. John Nagle (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New Covenant Ministries International and Sigeng

 * New Covenant Ministries International

Please see my talk page for my declaration of relationship with New Covenant Ministries International (NCMI)

I am concerned about a possible COI by the editor Sineng. I have had a very protracted discussion with Sigeng about numerous violations of content policy. (See the NCMI talk page and Sigeng's talk page)

I am concerned with a systemic pattern of editing that Sigeng has demonstrated in choosing quotes and placing interpretations in the article that are misleading and have "unqualified" inflammatory terminology. By “unqualified” I mean that when quotes like these are given in isolation, without context and without qualifying them (that is, without being clear what they refer to and how they are applied) they are misleading and in many cases pejorative. I chose a grouping of quotes below that illustrate this, because they together demonstrate a pattern of choosing quotes with terms and wording that stigmatize and subject those so labeled to pillory, scandal and defamation. They are provocative. They stir up indignation and contempt. They incite antagonism.

My concern is that Sigeng has taken the position of majority editor of the NCMI page because he has a personal agenda. Sigeng is a smart person who knows that using these quotes the way he is will disparage the group the article is about. As his own words indicate he is doing this on the NCMI page and other pages because he believes that it is his “public service duty” to “warn users” about groups that he personally believes are “dangerous groups” or that he believes “hurt people”. I have addressed him regarding what appeared to be a bias, a COI and a non-NPOV almost right from the beginning of my being an editor. A few days ago I stumbled onto the following post (below) from Sigeng in which he expresses the reason why he has involved himself in editing the NCMI page and others. I believe that his objectives, as he has stated them, are in violation of WP:COI, particularly, "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have included some examples of edits below that illustrate this bias. There are many more that are more subtle than these.

I can show that every one of these quotes and numbers of other edits to this article made by Sigeng are either completely incorrect, not applicable to NCMI, or a misappropriation or wrong interpretation of source material. I have also expressed a major concern regarding the use of minority opinion to weight the article. I can address that as well. One problem I am finding is that there are so many items of inaccurate or derogatory information that hard to address them all. Sigeng's statement of personal interests in editing are as follows:


 * I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12 -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I had not worked on the NCMI article two months (except a minor fix or two) prior to making that statement. The SPLC designated hate group I had in mind when writing that statement was the Chalcedon Foundation and some related articles. NCMI is not a hate group, SPLC designated or otherwise. -Sigeng (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The article that Sigeng has mainly worked on up to that April 23rd 2014 post is the NCMI page. Almost half of the edits up until that time were on the NCMI page, all the rest were divided among a number of other articles. I have been addressing Sigeng on his talk page and the NCMI talk page about this apparent WP:BIAS, WP:COI and WP:NPOV since the middle of August. I am leaving the decision regarding this with administration.


 * Special:Diff/578376866 "NCMI discourages churches from making decisions through democratic processes,[19] since they do not believe this is biblical."


 * Special:Diff/578376866 "the NCMI team effectively exerts hierarchical control over local churches leaders tend to make unilateral decisions”


 * Special:Diff/594288781 "Allan Anderson quote  - NCMI churches are "highly patriarchal in leadership;"


 * Special:Diff/580973983 “"leadership structure of distinct hierarchies"


 * Special:Diff/594288781 “"dominated by white South Africans, who lead many local churches and church plants around the world, preside over NCMI conferences, and predominate the membership of the apostolic team". Speaking of South African Pentecostalism in general and explicitly mentioning NCMI, Anderson contrasts the rise of expensive megachurches and "jet-set" apostolic networks in white, middle-class South Africa to the poverty of majority black Pentecostals.


 * Special:Diff/580978115 “Raoul Tuul, former NCMI pastor, calls NCMI "fiercely patriarchal". He writes that "subservience of women is practiced" and that "members are driven to exhaustion to prove their godliness and 'leadership potential'". He expresses his opinion that NCMI churches do not welcome disagreement nor "questioning of the system".”


 * Special:Diff/621721251 “A former NCMI pastor wrote a brief account of his experiences for Cult Information and Family Support (CIFS), an Australian support network. The anonymous pastor wrote,(Ref: ) "I gave almost a quarter of a century of my life to NCMI's 'vision and values' and have not one [...] friend left to speak of.... The leaders are generally all uneducated, and know of little else except the manuals and 'NCMI speak'." CIFS notes in their disclaimer that "an account from one person must be read as that" and they encourage "readers to research widely before forming an opinion."

Note on Special:Diff/621721251 & 621721251  Please see the NCMI Talk page item for discussion on WP:SOURCES, WP:QS, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS WP:RS "Question for administrator Regarding CIFS quote violation of multiple Wiki content guidelines."

Please also see the "Question for administrator regarding the overall tenor of the New Covenant Ministries International Wiki Article" on the NCMI Talk page. I wrote both of those administrator requests before I stumbled onto the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12 quote. MuzickMaker (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks more like a content dispute than a COI problem. MuzickMaker is affiliated with the organization, but he's the complaining party. I'd suggest mediation. John Nagle (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems quite obvious to me that MuzickMaker has a blatant conflict of interest, and should not be actively editing the article. Without reading the (huge) essays written by him on the article's talk page, but merely reading the article itself, I would judge that it is in no way an encyclopedic discussion of the subject... it instead mainly uses self-published sources to go into intricate detail about what the organization says about itself, with very little external analysis. The inclusion by Sigeng of 'anonymized' criticism after it was removed by MusickMaker also shows a gross misunderstanding of content policies by both parties.... you cannot include unsourced 'anonymous' criticism of a subject in an article. Ever. Period. It is a gross violation of both NPOV and verifiability.
 * Honestly, my impression of the whole thing is that WP:TNT applies, and that regardless of what is decided about Sigeng, that MusickMaker should be prohibited by the community from making any direct edits to the article, but instead restricted to making edit requests due to his self-declared conflict of interest. I also suggest, quite strongly, that he read WP:What adminship is not, and stop hounding our poor admins to act as 'content arbitrators'. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 09:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * FWIW that quotation came from a person who did give his full name and later retracted it from the website that published it, the only reason it was included at first, and its publisher appears credible. I had very nearly agreed to remove it but decided to wait for the opinion of someone outside NCMI. In retrospect, I should have acted faster rather than wait. I will remove it. -Sigeng (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I already killed it on the grounds that I stated, but thanks for letting me know the background. I wasn't saying that the group that published it didn't appear 'reputable', but that it wasn't reliable or verifiable since a reader would be unable to determine the actual source of the statements... I was assuming (apparently a mistake) that the name originally included was based on 'other information'. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Revent. It is helpful.


 * First of all, I am a new Editor as of the middle of August 2014. I am still learning the best or right ways to bring attention to issues with an article.  If the best thing was to escalate the problems on the NCMI page to someone other than Administrators, then I am very open to instruction on this.


 * Revent, I think you must have missed the amount of editing I have done in all of Wikipedia. I have only made one single edit, and that was to the NCMI page, and that was back in August.  When Sigeng pointed out the COI policy to me, which does not forbid me from editing, it advises against it, I immediately brought all of my further suggestions to either Sigeng's talk page or the NCMI talk page, according to the suggestion of the COI policy.


 * Coincidentally, that one edit I did, was to remove only the exact quote that you just removed, which I did for the same reasons you did, and it was reverted back into the page by Sigeng. I had a long discussion with Sigeng about that quote explaining why the quote should be removed.  Did you read that, Revent?


 * I agree completely that the NCMI article has all of the problems listed at the beginning of the NCMI article:


 * "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. (October 2014)"
 * "This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (October 2014)"
 * "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints."


 * I have addressed some of these problems with Sigeng, but have not been able to go beyond the most obvious ones, to deal with the rest because just dealing with the most controversial content has resulted in protracted long discussions regarding single edits.


 * I mentioned on the NCMI talk page that:
 * "I am at the place now where it is clear that there are so many errors and problems with the NCMI article that I think it either needs a complete revamp or it should be removed from Wikipedia. In the state it is in it does not come close to representing the high quality or accuracy that Wikipedia strives for, nor does it meet the high standard of the content guidelines and principles and it is largely inaccurate regarding NCMI."


 * Along with my potential COI because of my relationship with NCMI I have made very clear on my user page what my absolute first and foremost commitment is beyond any personal interest and beyong my COI. My talk page stated:


 * My knowledge of NCMI is current and I have accurate knowledge of NCMI that will be of help to editors who wish to see the NCMI page become a high quality article meeting all of encyclopedic goals of Wikipedia including the content policies and guidelines.


 * I am 100% committed to submit the policies and administration of the Wikiepedia.


 * My motive and personal interest in being involved as an editor of the NCMI Wiki page is NOT to promote NCMI in any way or to seek any personal agenda but solely to to improve the encyclopedic quality of the NCMI Wiki page and work toward the content of the NCMI Wiki page conforming to the Wiki content policies and guidelines, including the WP:NPOV, WP:VER and the WP:REL policies.


 * Again, I invite the scrutiny of the Wiki editors and administration to insure that I am operating in good faith to fulfill the goals and policies of Wikipedia.


 * I have expressed my willingness to work with editors fix all the problems on this page.
 * MuzickMaker (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * My statement was not intended as an 'attack' towards you, and I am aware that you have only edited the page once. I just was trying to make it quite clear that, in my opinion at least, you do not have a 'potential' COI, but as a person associated with the organization (without going into the details of their structure) that you have an 'actual' COI, despite any conscious intent on your part to avoid the effects of it. While your desire to be neutral in regards to Wikipedia are appreciated, and I think you are being honest, that doesn't change the point that you do have pre-existing opinions, and your evaluation of the information provided by sources is going to be affected by what you 'know'. I would maintain that you should continue to hold yourself at 'arms-length' regarding actual edits, and that the 'solution' here is for you both to seek additional input through content dispute resolution procedures, as mentioned on the article's talk page, rather than trying to treat this as a 'user issue'. It is effectively impossible for two people to achieve a 'consensus' about what is appropriate when they hold vastly different opinions.
 * At the same time, I think you are correct about the issues with the existing article... you might notice that I was the one you added those tags. Unfortunately, I don't have access to those particular sources, but I think the solution to fixing the article is again input from a wider range of editors, who will hopefully be able to dig up more 'broad-based' information about the subject. Revent <b style="font-family:comic sans ms;color:#006400">talk</b> 09:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't take your statement as an attack. I really do appreciate your levelheadedness in approaching this issue at hand and your understanding of the guidelines.  I just wanted to make sure that you saw that I had already disengaged myself and have been doing my very best to do what the COI policy requires.  I do have a couple questions that you may know the answers to regarding procedures and how to go about improving this page, but since it has nothing to do with this COI discussion I will ask it on your talk page.  But one I will ask here.  This COI notice is about Sigeng's alleged COI that is alleged to have affected his editings. Note: what he said, "I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC) Should he just continue editing until his alleged COI is worked out?  Or should he refrain?  Since this COI discussion was posted Signig continues editing and has added one more link to writer like Tull who is writing about her personal experiences (The Diana Jeffery book) I read the book, it is an auto-biography.  And he is engaging me yet again on another go around on minority view sources.   Should   MuzickMaker (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As several editors have now told you, you (MuzickMaker) need to go to dispute resolution, probably starting with mediation, to resolve this issue. Long rants here are not helping and are disruptive. Editing something else for a while may be helpful to gain experience with Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you have suggested I will follow through on the content disagreements on the dispute resolution channels.
 * Before I leave this notice board, the one item in question, which is the reason I opened this COI post on the COI noticeboard, which no one has even commented on, is Sigeng's potential COI based on this post by Sigeng saying why s/he is editing pages like the NCMI page. Please respond to the quote below or make a recommendation as to who should respond to this:
 * I mainly work on articles that involve hate and fringe groups, many of which have self-promotional or friendly POV articles on Wikipedia...The hate group designation means that these are dangerous groups, and they hurt people. They are dangerous actors. SPLC is a reliable source and they do not give out this designation lightly. It is important to warn users about dangerous groups, and I think the public service duty here outweighs other concerns. -Sigeng (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the information to substantiate this is in my first post at the beginning of these thread. Did you read that? MuzickMaker (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've all read that. You've posted it several times. It doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. Sigeng is not associated with the organization that is the subject of the article. You are. This is a routine content dispute. You have a neutral point of view issue. These come up all the time.  See Neutral point of view. The subsection on "Religion" there may be helpful. Content dispute resolution focuses on the content of the article.  Again, I suggest mediation, where a mediator can guide all the parties line by line through the problems in the article. Both parties have to agree to mediation, after which things are informal.  Here, at WP:COIN, it's usually about removing blatant PR, or applying sanctions to an editor. In other words, you need help from the "friendly resolving of differences" group, and you're in the "apply big hammer" department. This doesn't seem to be a problem that needs the big hammer. Thanks.  John Nagle (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I will seek to follow your advice regarding the way this is to be handled. It is very good advice, and I appreciate it very much. I know that I have a COI. I have done my very best to declare that and to seek the interests of Wikipedia above my own. I wish I could say differently, but I am not convinced that Sigeng is not working toward his stated interests in editing this page. However, what I am convinced of is that I need to react to him far less, to treat him with much more kindness and honor, and wherever possible, to assume good faith. I don't want to be the one swinging a "big hammer" at Sigeng or anyone, for that matter. Nagle, thank you for removing the hammer from my trembling hands and turning my attention where it should have been.MuzickMaker (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Somaliland


Hi. I recently edited this article by removing the Coat of Arms image as it already appears in its infobox and replaced it by a high resolution image of the Hargeisa War Memorial - that I had just uploaded from Flickr. I was surprised to note that this image hadn't yet been included in this article given the fact that it is a well known resistance landmark associated with this breakaway state.


 * It seems this didn't go well with AcidSnow and s/he reverted my edit within 5 minutes without giving any explanation whatsoever. I restored my addition and asked for a reason and also took the liberty to inform them that Wikipedia is not censored


 * The user undid my addition for the 2nd time informing me that "Wikipedia also does not accept sockpuppetry". I boldly restored my addition for the second time as no cogent reason had been cited by the aggrieved user.


 * AcidSnow reverted my addition for the third time alluding to an erstwhile consensus that appears to have been achieved and also initiated a discussion at the article's talkpage. I believe the consensus the user was referring to was concerning the discussion at Talk:Hargeisa - which has been going on since February this year and the discussion hasn't yet been officially closed. I decided not to engage in any further edit wars and instead submitted my request here.

This disruptive act(s) of this user has led me to believe that s/he is not at all pleased with the addition of the image and has thus decided to enforce censorship. I'd like to ask why? Is it because they do not want an NPOV on the article? The image is well known landmark and has appeared in a number of international news reports. It is associated with its capital city and the state itself. I therefore believe this user has a potential COI with this article as they do not want that monument to appear and they haven't bothered to explain why. Please help me to ensure WIkipedia is not censored at the whims of this user.

Thank you for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your whole message here was entirely a character assassination. You even made a personal attack against me by called me "the aggrieved user". This is far from what I am since all I did was inform you that your previous actions are not accepted. You choose to sock and tried to get me and Midday banned; which entirely backfired on you and got you blocked for 2 weeks. Your also accuse me of censorship which I have yet to do on here, let alone on anything on Wikipedia. I will respond to the rest of nonsense tomorrow since I am currently busy with other matters. AcidSnow (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I look forward to reading your detailed response tomorrow. Please care to explain in detail as to how and where I assassinated your character. Yes, you did inform me but did'nt say WHY.. [why is it not accepted? - do elaborate on this point]. Yes, I did use a second multiple account and initiated an SPI against you both; but i never used that account in the article's talkpage or to by-pass an edit on the article. I only used it for discussion on its talkpage and the SPI.. At the time, I wasn't aware of the multiple account policy. I did learn my lesson. That act of mine was out of frustration as the discussion had been going on since February. Might I suggest that you instead consider explaining your revert actions. I saw it as an undeniable act of censorship.. Why then did you undo my edits without giving a cogent rationale in the edit summary? All the best in whatever it is that you're doing. Ali Fazal (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. It is, however, edited, and edited by consensus. As far as I can tell, your only source for a claim that this editor has a conflict of interest is that they disagree with your addition, and did not back down to your trying to edit war the image into an article, rather than seeking to gain consensus. It is quite possible for someone to disagree with you and not have any conflict of interest. May I suggest that you read over BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and recognize that repeatedly reinserting the material is not actually being bold, but merely stubborn. The user you accuse of having done a disruptive act was being at most no more disruptive to yourself; reverting questionable additions (and this addition was questionable; at the very least, the text you were putting in looked POVy, and the source page you point to -- actually, apparently, a back cover, says nothing about innocent civilians or indiscriminate bombardment) is part of the process, not a disruption to it. If you want to discuss the content and whether it belongs on the article, please take it to the article's talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe the onus is on the editor that removed the content without giving an explanation. The reason I believe a COI exists is because of the user's action. The monument's article does contain further sources. I shall update it soon. Ali Fazal (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the board to come to because you're not happy with having your edits reverted. This is a board to come to when you have actual evidence of a conflict of interest problem. You have none. Please take discussion of content to the Talk page of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did respond on the talkpage after AcidSnow initiated the vague discussion and apparent consensus that I have yet to read. Thank you once again for your time. Ali Fazal (talk) 05:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Hawke
The user reversed all changes to the EidosMethode page, which was originally created by a company contractor who repeatedly blocked any efforts by independent editors to edit the page. John Hawke deleted both innocuous changes as well as any and all criticism of the company's products. (cur | prev) 16:58, 5 October 2014‎ Jeff Hawke (talk | contribs)‎. . (8,327 bytes) (+5,190)‎. . (Restored original version) (undo | thank)

In a post, he suggested he is friends with people at the company. "I can tell you that the company exists and a lot of good people is working there: that’s the reason why I think it’s a nonsense to have their page reduced to a list of negative comments." 

Another user, Spike Wilbury, also noticed that it seemed odd that the account was dormant for seven years and only reactivated to reverse the changes after the EidosMedia contractor was barred from further editing the page. 

I invited the Jeff Hawke to make substantive changes to improve the page or participate in the talk page, but he insisted on simply reverting to the version created by the company employee that was flagged as advertising. He has refused to participate in the talk section of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckrkr (talk • contribs) 10:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Muckrkr (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)muckrkr


 * Muckrkr, to be clear, DSeeB was blocked for edit warring, not for having a COI. COI editing on its own is not reason to block someone, but it is usually an aggravating factor when they have other behavior problems, such as edit warring. You should also be aware that posting about these issues on noticeboards is going to bring your own account under scrutiny as well. You have edited only this topic since you registered. May I ask what your particular interest is in EidosMedia? Please review Single-purpose account carefully as you proceed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I’m surprised to be listed in this noticeboard: in my opinion, I explained clearly my action to User:Spike Wilbury and my view to user:Muckrkr on their respective talk pages. I have also asked user:Muckrkr “Why do you think EidosMedia deserves to be represented on Wikipedia only with negative points?” referring to the original edit I reverted. I think now it’s important for user:Muckrkr to clarify his position and the reason for his resentment (on a side note, the page is now a complete mess, with wrong reference numbers in the revised text). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Hawke (talk • contribs) 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe EidosMedia deserves to be represented only by negative comments. I think it deserves an encyclopedic entry with a neutral point of view (including criticism as well as an achievements). I think it would be great if Wikieditors could expand the entry with more information on acquisitions, patents, company management, revenue etc. I'm just annoyed to spend work trying to clean up an advertisement created by a company contractor, only to see all the work instantly erased by the company contractor and his/her friends who won't allow any edits. [I do not have any relationship with either EidosMedia or any of its competitors, except as a user.] — Preceding unsigned  Muckrkr (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Biozentrum University of Basel




I'm concerned about a potential COI here. It appears that most of the page was written by Indlekoferw, who, according to his user page, is an employee in the web office of the Biozentrum. The tone and detail of the page do make it seem a bit like a brochure for the university. I'm also highlighting the "Notable people" subsection of that page, since it appears to just be a list of most of the faculty at the Biozentrum, and the biography pages linked to there were also mostly written by Indlekoferw. I'm not sure how many of them are actually notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.148.188 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yep, definitely a paid editor based on his User page disclosure. There is no "potential" COI - there is one.  I went through and tagged all the articles Werner has worked on with the connected contributor tag and asked him to limit himself to making suggestions on the Talk pages.  Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Spammy behavior by two likely related editors


has been creating a slew of stub articles about lesser-known athletes, based largely on some questionable sources. (See Special:Contributions/Thammondthuzio for a complete list of the articles in question, as well as User talk:Thammondthuzio for a record of the discussions about this problem.) The underlying problem is that almost all of these athletes have profiles on the website thuzio.com (clearly associated with this editor), a service providing "unique experiences" with former and current athletes (play a round of golf with your favorite retired basketball player, have your favorite ex-water skier phone you for a 10-minute conversation, etc.) which leads to the impression that these Wikipedia articles are being created specifically for the purpose of giving these clients more "heft." I have specifically asked about this issue, but have received no response.

As of 10/6/2014, has begun in the same pattern: stub articles about minor athletes, most of whom are Thuzio clients. (Perhaps the fact that not all of the article creations are clients is intended to legitimize their edits, or perhaps the articles about non-clients just reflect clients they haven't yet signed.)

The articles themselves are not exceptionally promotional, but they are terribly sourced for the most part and the pattern is disturbing.

I had originally posted this note at WP:ANI, but was told that this is probably a more appropriate venue. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Bumping this thread, as it seems to be going completely ignored. I was informed at WP:ANI that this was the appropriate forum for this topic, but if no one is willing to take up the matter, I'll bring it back to WP:ANI. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Revived thread at WP:ANI. The spammy nature of this behavior requires more immediate admin attention than this board will generate. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I put a comment on WP:ANI. Neither of the editors in question has ever replied to any warning or request on their talk page. If they won't even talk to anybody, it's tough to resolve the issue on the COI board. So I suggested a short block to stop the flood of stub generation and get their attention. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Both editors have stopped editing since October 7th. No urgent action seems necessary.  John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

COI and biographical article creation question


I'm current a post-doc in a prestigious lab, but the professor does not have a WP biographical article (not surprising - the coverage of academics is very, very spotty). I'm quite sure they meet notability guidelines, however, we're obviously worried about COI issues, since I am, after all, an employee/advisee under this researcher. Is this sort of thing acceptable, or should a faculty's bio page be off-limits to their lab members? If unacceptable, am I allowed to somehow nominate the page for creation, so long as I'm totally hands-off after that (easiest way to write articles ever)? HCA (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be a COI issue. See WP:COS for guidance. In general, it is inadvisable to create an article for your employer. Also bear in mind that once the article is created, others will edit it, and if they add well-cited unfavorable material, it will stay in the article. It could be unwise to place yourself in a position where you could be pressured to make the article more favorable. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I figured as much, but at least this way I have confirmation. Thanks! HCA (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * HCA, if you tell me the name of the professor (at my Wikipedia talk page) and provide at least one source that mentions his works, I'll try starting a short article, if I feel the person passes WP:NACADEMICS. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 15:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As an alternative, it might be worth leaving a little info on your subject at WP:RA. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 01:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Vic Mignogna


Bkmyers declares COI on talk page, and her web page.  She modified her son's article  to say he grew up in Greensburg which is a town in the Pittsburgh area, although the news article  says he grew up in Pittsburgh. Another user has reverted with comments that Bkmyers's information is correct. I don't have a problem with her correcting information, but the article should be monitored so that it doesn't become overly dependent on primary sources as it gets another overhaul. -AngusWOOF (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding to the COI list. Runs Vic's online store and has personal knowledge about Vic and Michele Specht. Informed about using secondary sources and how to avoid original research   -AngusWOOF (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC), updated 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Envision Media
Today, Stiki showed me an edit by User:Envision Media removing some information from the article Shaynna Blaze. I initially suspected it to be some agency, but didn't bother, just let Stiki leave a warning and moved on. Later on, when going thru my contribs, I noticed that the user had responded to my message, or rather put up a line on the top of their talk page stating that they work with Ms Blaze and she has asked that the information I deleted stay removed.. This can either be classified as Conflict of Interest or as Paid Editing, both of which AFAIK are frowned upon as non neutral. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You were right. But I could not find anything that mentions "1963" as her birth-year in this reference. If they may remove it if that is not in source. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 15:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This looks like one of those cases where a PR firm with no clue about Wikipedia tried to edit an article about one of their clients. Try to educate them, please, rather than biting them. I asked on their talk page why they wanted that reference deleted, since it seems to be a rather favorable article containing nothing embarrassing.  No answer yet. John Nagle (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, obviously I have no clue how to use Wikipedia, and I'm not even sure how to use the talk section... but I am not a PR firm and I've never used Wikipedia before the other day. However, Ms Blaze asked that her former name be removed, and the alleged birth year - the reference to the URL #1 was accidentally removed. Try to cut me some slack please, as a first timer. I work with her doing videos, and I was not paid to edit the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envision Media (talk • contribs) 05:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a Wikipedia policy on this: WP:BLPPRIVACY: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Right now, there's no date of birth in the article, and the original name is not given, even though Wikipedia normally lists the original name and stage name of actors. The link to the Herald Sun article remains. Is that OK? John Nagle (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Great news, thank you very much Envision Media (talk — Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

is right in all he says, including about not biting. But there's more than one policy that's relevant here,. I'd like to draw your attention to WP:PE, and especially to where it says "Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT". I mention it because I see on the website of a company named Envision Media this text: I don't imagine your company has done 6 years work without financial reward? I believe that you have a conflict of interest at that article, and should refrain from editing it; you are of course always welcome to make suggestions for changes on the talk page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That user has now been blocked for a violation of the user name policy. That's entirely correct, and they do have a COI problem as well. However, the editor behind Envision Media can create a new account, if they wish, and request edits on the article talk page. That's allowed, and encouraged. However, they should not edit the article directly. The editor does not seem to have deliberately done anything wrong. As COI problems go, this is minor. John Nagle (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Nagale and Justlettersandnumbers, I didn't mean to bite the user. I merely creates this discussion and invited the user to join in the discussion. Isn't that the way things are done here? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Lissa Lauria


User has acknowledged a conflict of interest, (on a drive-by IP editor's talk page, for some reason), and has been promotionally owning Lissa Lauria, an article about an obscure actress/musician which the editor refers to as "our client". Looking at the article's history, there's also clear signs of naive sockpuppetry, too. I tried to start a discussion about this on the editor's talk page, but no response, except for this at the helpdesk, which is obnoxious, since the editor never even bothered to try and discus this with me. Somebody else want to take a crack at this? Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the article for COI, and the talk page with a "connected contributor" warning about him. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Nigel Cayzer
Hi – I have prepared a userspace draft for Nigel Cayzer, a British businessman and chairman of two London-listed funds. My COI, as stated on my user page and on the draft's talk page, is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Nigel Cayzer is my client. There are a number of offline news articles referenced, which I have included on the talk page. Please feel free to have a look and leave comments, and ping me or post on my talk page. Thanks very much. HOgilvy (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tony Cragg


Four SPAs: Andrewplissongallery unambiguously declares a COI : "I am editing this article on behalf of Lisson Gallery at the request of Richard Deacon. Should any of the information provided needs to be verified, please contact info@lissongallery.com"; the information turned out to be copied directly from the website of that gallery. The other three editors have curiously similar names, and a very similar editing style, but have not made similar declarations. Not everything they've added to the article is necessarily bad (unfortunately our coverage of this really rather famous sculptor is embarrassingly weak, so removing all of it would leave essentially nothing at all).

One IP: has edited three other articles: Lisson Gallery, Matt O'dell (who has shown at that gallery), and Tim Flach (at first glance unconnected). WHOIS for this address gives. This appears to be undeclared paid editing. Going back now to check for more copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Tony Cragg is now listed at WP:Copyright Problems. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some cleanup on the article, which looked like a textbook example of keyword spam. Looking up the gallery in Google, the entire first page of Google results is from their own self-promotion on social media. There were more artists listed there than in articles for major museums. I took out much of that. I found two reviews of shows at the gallery in major publications and put in references to them. It's a known, legitimate gallery, but the article needs more press references and fewer uncited lists of artists. There's potential for a good article here. COI editors from the gallery: if you want better coverage, take some pictures of your better works, get all the rights to release them under Wikipedia's license, upload them to Wikipedia, and put a note on the article talk page. Someone will link them into the article.  John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice work, . Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please can someone confirm that the article is being worked on? I will happily add more press references but there is currently an error message on the article that reads 'Do not restore or edit the blanked content of this page until the issue is resolved.' I am keen to improve Gragg's article but at the moment I am not sure how to go about doing so. Please advise.AndrewViolaBowen (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , the article will be at WP:CP for several days, and should not be edited in that time; but you are free to post on the talk page, as I suggested . It would also be helpful if you would clarify the connections, if any, between yourself, Cragg, the Lisson Gallery and the other editors, particularly those also called Andrew. This is optional unless you are a paid employee of either the artist or the gallery, in which case it would become obligatory. I repeat here what I said at my talk: I am willing to help write a page on Cragg. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * has anyone emailed info@lissongallery.com to inform them of our Terms of Use and ensure that their employees and interns declare their COI? i am willing to do that if no one else has. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am an employee of Lisson but I can assure you that improving Tony Cragg’s Wikipedia article is not one of my duties or responsibilities at the gallery. I want to develop his article because I have a critical interest in his work; he is an important British artist (not to mention a Turner Prize winner) with, as you have quite rightly pointed out, embarrassingly weak coverage on Wikipedia - coverage that does not reflect his extraordinary artistic career. If there is anything that I can do to help from hereon, please let me know on this talk page.AndrewViolaBowen (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting here! Good to hear from you.   Three things.  First, please per the Terms of Use please disclose your relationship with the gallery on your user Talk page here.   This is essential.  Second, because your gallery represents him, you have a COI regardless of your intentions.  So please follow the WP:COI guideline and limit yourself to provide suggested content (with sources) on the relevant article Talk pages.  Those article Talk pages are where you should look for interaction - this Board is just to get attention on COI issues, like yours, and this posting will soon be archived.  Third - do you know the users behind the other accounts, and if so would you please bring their attention to the COI issues being raised here?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Shabbos App


On October 1, User:Petertrd created this article. This was the user's first edit on Wikipedia, and all of the user's subsequent edits have been to this article. User:Yossigoldstein and User:Yehudalevi2 have also edited the article substantially. Both are also single purpose accounts, all created at around the same time, and all with edits solely on this article (except for one edit to another article about the subject of this one). In addition, Yossi Goldstein and Yehuda Levi are two of the developers working on the app which is the subject of the article. Although warned, Yossi Goldstein continues to edit the article.

All of the edits in question have been promotional. I'd like to have these three users barred from editing the article, and if possible, I'd like to have them IP checked to ensure that they are not the same user, sockpuppeting, and if they are, I'd like to have the IP banned as well. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * you need to bring the sock puppet concerns to WP:SPI - the folks there have the tools to check for sockpuppeting and no one else does. So am ignoring that.
 * and, please read WP:COI:
 * under the Terms of Use of Wikipedia, if editing Wikipedia is part of your job (and at startup, everybody does everything), you must declare your relationship to the subject of the article. must.  I am placing a notice of this on your Talk pages and will be watching to see if you comply.  If you do not, we will need to escalate this, which will likely lead to a block or ban from Wikipedia. This is very serious.
 * additionally, per the WP:COI guideline, you should not directly edit the article, but instead should request edits on the talk page.
 * there is insufficient evidence to say much here about Petertrd, at least for now. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is an article about a future product from a vendor with no track record, WP:CRYSTAL applies. The product is supposed to ship December 1. Deleting the article now would be appropriate.  We can revisit this if and when the thing ships. John Nagle (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * How, for example, is this promotional? There may well be an issue here. But I'm distracted by the exaggerations above by nom ("All of the edits in question have been promotional.").

Furthermore, clearly having an editor whose username matches that of a developer of the product that is the topic is cause for close scrutiny and concern. But it is also, just as clearly, not conclusive. Consider this article both created and edited by an editor with the same user name of the topic of the article. Under Lisa's approach we would block/ban User Raphael Ankawa for creating the Raphael Ankawa article. Because clearly they are the same person. Except ... the subject of the article died in 1935. So much for that.

Beyond that, some important points to note. First, COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over Shabbos App article content. Second, if these editors edit in a way that leads you to believe that they might have a conflict of interest, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether their use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines. If you have concerns about sock-puppetry, as mentioned above the proper place to raise that concern is not here, but rather at WP:SPI.

Third, when investigating COI editing, our policy against harassment takes precedence and requires that we take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior, and refer to Checkuser.

Finally, please avoid making disparaging comments about these editors' motives. Such comments should be avoided, since they may be forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the editors from making future valuable contributions. Remember not to bite the newcomers. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, when an editor arrives, creates an account, then creates a single article, does nothing else but edit that article, and then vanishes, and does it all on the same day, it is reasonable to assume they created that account for the sole purpose of creating that article. If two more accounts arrive, and again only ever edit one article, that very same article, and have account names that match the names of persons involved with the subject of that article, it is far more than reasonable to assume they are thick with coi. Especially since one of those spa editors actually arrived on the same day as the article's creator/creation! There is no "might" there at all. A COI exists regardless of the intentions of the editors. However, to me, it is further proof of the AfD argument that this article is, until the app is released and talked about in neutral sources, nothing more than a piece of self-promotion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite a few good WP articles have been written by people coming to write one article that interests them, and not editing further. Sometimes it's promotion and commercial coi, and I think it clearly is here, but that is not always the case.  DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Marder


An ip address appears to be rolling back any attempts to make the article Michael Marder look less like a CV. They are now declaring my edits to have been vandalism although they demonstrably improve the entry. They ignore every attempt at communication. Concerns where previously raised on the article talk page about COI writing. Second Quantization (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice another account, Hh892, possibly the same person, which appears to make promotion accounts on that BLP but also in other articles, such as this: and other edits with a specific Marder focus:  including this rather strange substitution: . It seems highly likely that there is a COI from this SPA editing pattern, Second Quantization (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I put some "cite needed" tags on the subject's various academic affiliations. The subject claims to have had faculty-level positions at 12 different academic institutions since he received his PhD in 2007. That seems unlikely. Better sources than the subject's own web page are needed. John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP and Hh892 account are continuing to add all kinds of detailed information (e.g. every University he has ever guest-lectured at) with links to Marder's profile pages on a number of websites as sources. I have tried to engage in discussion, but neither editor appears willing to discuss their edits at all. Melcous (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Widefox ; talk 08:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Widefox ; talk 08:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Theodore Shulman


GS has mentioned Shulman repeatedly on other talk pages and seems to know a lot about him. In editing the biography, GS has access to information about Shulman that does not seem to be public knowledge. GS is also the driving force behind the currently open Shulman AfD. I asked GS if he has any connection to the subject, he denied any knowledge of Shulman but something just doesn't smell right here. Juno (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * please provide difs for your evidence of a close connection. Nobody can consider this seriously without more to work with. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Knows the class of felony that Shulman got, which is not public record and which no one can verify. Has an odd story about how he knows.
 * Starts a discussion on the subject on a related page, seems to be well versed in the subject's legal history.
 * continues to know a lot about the particular's of Shulman's legal history which I am having a hard time verifying on a related page, seems to be interested in representing him.
 * In the AfD, continues a pattern of insisting that Shulman never threatened anyone with harm, merely that he "predicted" that people would be harmed, a turn of phrase that seems exclusive to the Shulman camp. Juno (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * in your first bullet point, you provide no dif that is not common knowledge nor of the "odd story"
 * second bullet has no special knowledge that I can see.
 * third bullet is very discrediting for you. GS added "first" ("first prochoice terrorist") to the content, and the title of the source that was already there includes the phrase "First prochoice terrorist". absolutely zero special knowledge there. about supposed secret knowledge of the plea deal.  The comment linked-to is from Oct 2014.  Plea happened two years ago. there are sources the Shulman article that describe the plea deal in detail. that link was to the FBI press release; the motherjones article has the rest.  nothing secret here.
 * fourth bullet also has nothing about a COI in it.
 * bottom line, GS is clearly passionate here but you demonstrated zero "insider knowledge" from which one could infer a COI or other connection. Some of the posts you linked to were soapboxy but the abortion debate brings that out in most everybody involved in it. Possibly WP:ADVOCACY issues is all I can say, but your bringing a really empty COI case points to the same issues for you. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC) (amended, looked at the wrong dif somehow)
 * Third bullet point doesn't refer to the term "first", but to the fact that he knew the language on the plea deal which was not in the source. Juno (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for pointing that out. i amended the statement above. still no leg to stand on for you - no evidence of "insider knowledge".  Please be aware, and self-aware, that people are passionate about these issues. WP:ADVOCACY (please do read that!) is one of our biggest problems at Wikipedia - really hard to manage.  Each person choosing to work on controversial articles needs to stay calm, not lose the assumption of good faith (so hard!!), and bring the most excellent sources they can, and really strive to write NPOV content.  articles like that demand our best.  filing a COIN thread on such a thin basis is not reaching for your best.  hang in there.  (read WP:Controversial articles too!) Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * RE: "Knows the class of felony that Shulman got". The FBI press release clearly details the name of the crime to which Shulman pled guilty ("interstate threat to injure another person"); anyone with access to the Federal Penal Code can look up the class of felony that crime is.  No insider knowledge here!  Goblinshark17 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * no need to pile on GS. you are being pretty advocate-y yourself and you should also hold yourself to a higher standard of sourcing and writing NPOV content when editing and civility in edit notes and comments on Talk.  I think this thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

note, Juno noticed that GS's edits were very similar to a banned editor's and opened a case at SPI, which found that GS was a sock, and blocked him. Case is Sockpuppet investigations/SingingZombie. This can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor sourcing their own books.
This is meant as more of a question for continuing forward at soybean after we've already established a COI, so just a heads up as to where this is being framed. Basically, BillShurts has been adding content referencing books by William Shurtleff over some time now. After some conversation on AndyTheGrump's talk page and on BillShurt's talk page, BillShurts has mentioned that he is the author of these books, and is now aware that an editor should not be citing their own books, etc. under WP:COI. This editor does seem new to our sourcing guidelines and policies, and is open to guidance, so I don't see any issues with the editor from this point on.

Everything appears to be well intentioned on Billshurt's part, but my question is what to do with the content that was added already? Terms like "extensively annotated bibliographic references" and "7,730 references; 372 photos and illustrations. Free online" have been used as descriptions or references that can appear promotional. Right now we have 16 references with Shurtleff as the author, and another 4 from Soyinfocenter.net, of which Shurtleff is a founder. We've also had users adding a bunch of these books to the external links, followed by another user who added some very passionate content to the article about Shurtleff and adding 23 books for further reading. This has made trying to figure out how to handle these sources and added content currently in the article within the context of a COI difficult, but I have also been trying to figure out how we gauge the reliability of these sources since they are technically all self-published. We do have the allowance were, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." but I'm not finding a lot of independent sources to establish expertise. I'll admit some of that difficulty for me has been from the the intertwining of establishing reliability and weight from one author in the form of multiple sources with balancing COI concerns that leaves me wondering where to go next. I realize that this isn't the place for reliability of sources or determining weight, but since this is all framed in the context of dealing with a COI, does anyone have advice on how to move forward at this point? Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * i've reviewed a bunch of it. all that WP:PROMO information needs to go.  And I don't think the books and websites he has added are generally reliable sources - some seem better than others. The unacceptable ones have no references themselves.  I recognize the huge labor of love he has created, but from what I have seen, a bunch of his work is not WP:RS.  That they are WP:SPS is enough to exclude some of them. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ouch, I didn't realize there was that much unferenced material being used. That simplifies my confusion on what to do at least. Definitely a tough case when someone genuinely means well, but I agree now that I've dug a little deeper that there are definitely unreliable sources in the mix now. I'd say this development settled my concerns for the purposes my this notice board at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

elton mayo


iss246 psyc12

In the article Elton Mayo the two close friends outside of Wikipedia psyc12 & iss246 worked in unison to remove a solid long term edit regarding the occupation of elton mayo. They removed the edit with no less than 5 reliable sources attached.

Two editors Psyc12 & his close friend outside of Wikipedia iss246 and corrupt friends like Bilby who is also connected to these editors outside of Wikipedia, are vandalising articles and removing long term edits with solid reliable sources attached!

This was done because it is not consistent with their society of OHP that they are both strongly promoting on wikipedia. In fact all they ever edit are the occupational health psychology articles as administrator atama noted on this noticeboard.

They have previously been identified as holding very strong conflict of interest. Using Wikipedia to push their biased agenda for their society of occupational health psychology.Truthbringer1 (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I emplore any honest, decent editor to look at the deletion made by iss246 and his close colleague outside of Wikipedia, psyc12. on the elton mayo article. They are deleting, and re-writing very specific articles as administrator Atama noted at great length on his talk page this year. Alerting any honest decent editors to please again scrutinise these 2 editors and their strong conflicts of interest and rampant, BLATANT promotion of their society of OHP and their real life connection as friends in the outside world to their society for occupational health psychology and working as a tag team on Wikipedia to push their agenda.

For instance on Elton Mayo first psyc12 removed the first five reliable sources and then later on his friend iss246 came along as a tag team and removed the remaining source. This is but one example of the form of vandalism iss246 and psyc12 are doing and working as a tag team and violating Wikipedia!!!

They may try to silence me, but they are using Wikipedia asa promotional tool and spreading propoganda through specific Wikipedia articles. Alert out to any decent Wikipedian who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia. These 2 friends with a massive COI and agenda are using Wikipedia as a tool to promotre their Society for Occupational Health PsychologyTruthbringer1 (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * oh dear. the "truthbringer" account (unfortunate name; rings of the WP:THETRUTH which is never a good thing) is an WP:SPA. And this account walks and talks exactly like, who was indeffed for socking. oy. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * no, not mrm7171, just another concerned editor that clearly understands how psyc12 & iss246 are doctoring psychological articles on Wikipedia to promote their own society.Truthbringer1 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In the article Elton Mayo the two close friends outside of Wikipedia psyc12 & iss246 worked in unison to remove a solid long term edit regarding the established occupation of elton mayo in all of the major published reliable sources. It is a well known fact. Psyc12 & his friend iss246 are going around to select articles and removing very specific references which relate to their OHP society they are trying to promote through Wikipedia. They removed this edit edit with no less than 5 reliable sources attached.Truthbringer1 (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That edit was factual and many psychologists understand it to be a fact around the world. Readers coming to this article should have factual articles to read not articles that have been doctored by iss246 & his friend outside of Wikipedia psyc12.Truthbringer1 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Just as a quick comment - there's no evidence of a COI here. The two editors concerned work within the field of Occupational health Psychology and edit within that framework, and they could be reasonably seen as having a COI in regard to the professional societies of which they are members. However, we don't argue that a neuroscientist has a COI in regard to neuroscience articles, and similarly we'd be hard pressed to argue that an Occupational Health Psychologist has a COI in regard to psychology articles. Truthbringer1 has also raised the issues regarding Elton Mayo on the reliable sources and NOR noticeboards, which seem like far more appropriate places to work out the concerns.
 * Because it was raised, I guess I also need to clarify that I do not know iss246 or psyc12 outside of Wikipedia, and that I have never edited Elton Mayo or the associated talk page. - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * note - i have filed an SPI case regarding truthbringer: Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171 Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Marc Bell (entrepreneur) etc


If in fact (I don't know) the user name reflects the real name of the user, then there would appear to be a conflict of interest, which would accord with the fact that most of the user's entries appear to relate to Marc Bell's accomplishments. Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * quack. nice catch!  let's see if he responds to the notice... Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He has now protested the recent deletion of the Marc Bell (entrepreneur) article. I'm not sure he really should be posting his email address, as he did there. Epeefleche (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure what was wrong with the page. I tried to find the page where I posted my email address but I can't find it now to remove. I thought the guy said to post a link to an email so I did. I tried to make sure everything was referenced properly. If you could help point me in the right direction I would appreciate it. Thank you. Marcbell (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Notices were left with you both in 2008 and yesterday about conflicts of interest.Epeefleche (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I see that even after those notices to you, and even after the opening of this thread, you have just now created an article on Marc Bell. Epeefleche (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, Marc Bell is definitely notable. It's just that the article about him doesn't mention the more notable stuff.  How FriendFinder tanked while he was in charge. How Penthouse tanked..  That the big money-maker was Adult FriendFinder.. There's more. This isn't a notability problem; it's a NPOV problem.  John Nagle (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , the purpose of this noticeboard discussion is that it appeared that edits by your account might violate our conflicts of interest guideline.  Now that you have disclosed that you are indeed Marc Bell, it is clear that you are editing in violation of our WP:COI guideline.  Please read and follow what is there.  Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Vern Hughes
A recent edit on the talk page indicates that a lot of the editing of the article has been effected by friends of the subject, including the removal of past political persuasions. It is noted that Vern himself appears to have edited the article. Also, there has been some suspicious behavior on both of the deletion discussions - especially the first one which ended up so badly diverted it was shut as no consensus. I believe that this was deliberate in order to make sure the article stayed. The current discussion seems okay so far but the bad faith behavior is bubbling below the surface again and it needs to be arrested before it goes down that track a second time - which I believe is the intent as before. I'd almost recommend a speedy delete of the article for these reasons, but that's not a reason for a speedy under the relevant rules. I request a thorough investigation. 124.180.167.56 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * i reviewed the article and its sourcing and cleaned it up. i added a "connected contributor" tag to the Talk page.  article seems OK to me now. Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez


James B Watson and “Jytdog” - By blocking contributors, refusing to hear what they say and attaching libellous tags you are making a travesty of Wikipedia and its mission. I know Heidi (identified as a major contributor to this article under alias Hayde Blinky), and judging from the Wikipedia picture, she doesn’t look at all like AF!! You can’t assume that everybody that writes about AF is either AF or a puppet of AF and block them. That’s not Wikipedia. This type of censorship is out, has been out for a long long time! I read the article on AF and it is pretty anemic. You talk about promoting AF, but all I see mentioned is employment, a book, papers and few accolades. Most notable people, including porn stars, get more thorough coverage. And there is nothing funny about this. I am sorry Jytdog, but I don’t think that your harassment of Heidi (I just got to read it) while hiding behind that name is funny. I really don’t. I see nothing funny about harassing Wikipedia contributors. Liping Laura Meng 201.254.127.32 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what this is about but you seem to want to address comments toward both Jytdog and JamesBWatson so I will ping them both.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * the issue has been resolved per Talk:Ariel_Fernandez. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BBC composer template
Please see Template talk:BBC composer page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

92.236.96.38 and BJP
(basically all things Hindu or India)

My attention was called to this user (who I will call 92') by a comment on Talk:Ayurveda in this edit this diff, where 92' wrote "The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page of the product used in the american studies, they wish to know what you mean by "Ayurvedic products" as this is too vague."

I asked 92' what his/her relation to the BJP is on 92's Talk page, and 92' replied on my talk page here, with a denial of any connection to the BJP ("1. I am Not the Bjp 2. I do not represent the Bjp 3. I have no affiliation with the Bjp 4. I am not paid by the bjp or any other person") but didn't explain the comment. When I asked for an explanation of the comment, 92' answered: "A indian News channel spoke about how the Bjp of india is looking into controlling the safty of Ayurvedic products by finding out the products which are seen as hazardous, hence why i put "The bjp Of india asks If you can write the details on this page""

This made little sense to me, and led me to go look at 92's contribs, and I found many Talk comments and edits promoting India/Hinduism (like this and this).

But most disturbingly for this Board, '92 made two suggestions to editors to post requests for help with Wikipedia editing disputes on something called "local circles", here and here in violation of WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. What 92' promised these editors they would get through local circles, was: "As the group is a non paid organisation by the people of indian, anything which you feel troubled about can be given to the page and it will be handed to Mr Modi within one or two weeks, after that the issue will be raised and writers will be sent to help you out with full backing of refs and publishes. " The local circles page is a vehicle of the BJP, per this. "Modi" is, I reckon, Narendra Modi, prime minister of india and a leader of the BJP.

Despite 92's statement of denial quoted above, it is somewhat hard to believe that this person is not at least affiliated with the BJP. It could just be an issue with WP:ADVOCACY but I wanted to raise the issue here first. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2014 (corrected diff, per note below. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC))


 * Jytdog at what point did i say i was a member BJP? what point did i say i was a paid member of the BJP? what point does my interest of indian culture and history link me to be a affiliated member of the BJP?


 * You cannot go around accussing people with Your own hidden agendas!


 * First of all I am NOT a member of that group, nor have i ever stated to be a member of localcircles which is actully a Community group that acts just like facebook, the only difference is that you give your views on how to improve education and child safty and other areas lacking in nations across the globe, its OPEN TO THE PUBLIC and is unpaid.


 * Second why did you not place the information i wrote to you on Your talk page? surely you cannot be that low that you had to only show your own information to get a bias response?


 * So what else did you add to claim me as a BJP paid member?
 * "and I found many Talk comments and edits promoting India/Hinduism" yeah thats because i LOVEEEE indian history and it's culture! have i broken a wiki passionate crime of history?


 * "it is somewhat hard to believe that this person is not at least affiliated with the BJP"
 * the accsussed (ME) has stated that nothing in my write ups claim me as a paid or a member of the BJP, The best you got is a community group on childs education and safty of women via a open public page 92.236.96.38 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Caplock


 * I said that I had concerns. My reasons are stated above, with difs (including the link to what you wrote on my Talk page.  This is a noticeboard in which editors can raise concerns like this.  Others will decide if they have validity or not. Jytdog (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at this. First, I think may have intended to highlight  to the Ayurveda page rather than the one above. That, taken on its own, is to me merely curious. On the other hand the edits inviting users to "sign up to 'Transform India With Narendra Modi - LocalCircles' ", which I believe to be the social network of a political party, cannot in my view be acceptable here. I don't know if they belong on this board, or if they should be considered a kind of WP:SPAM, but I'm pretty sure they should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks JLAN, for pointing out the correct link. fixed that and noted it.  and for commenting on what you see as fishy.  can you see at least a general WP:ADVOCACY issue?   thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that those two posts constitute political canvassing or recruitment, and fall most closely under WP:SOAP: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national ...". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks. 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Not strictly COI, but since the discussion is here, I note that this user is now placing very bizarre allegations on the Talk:Swastika page, alleging conspiracies to create fake ancient artefacts in order to deprive the Indian people of their legitimate claim to have invented the Swastika. Apparently Ukraine has a "90 percent open far right population" and any sources from Ukraine cannot be used because the "nation has some of the worst corruption while being drenched in nazi ideology." Paul B (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * yes! kinda WP:NOTHERE, but definitely here for India. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Only just seen this. Gosh. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 17:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Archana Gupta


The abovementioned user has been changing the date of birth repeatedly and on asking to provide a source left lengthy messages saying a Year cannot be provided as it hurts an actors career and the types on their/my talk page. Repeated messages requesting to read WP:BLP and WP:RS have failed. User has also shown a clear conflict of interest. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I am changing the date of birth because the mentioned on wikipedia is incorrect and after asking that how can I provide the proof of her date of birth this user Rsrikanth05 is not responding and always reverting my correction. It is hampering wikipedia image of being reliable and provodibg correct information. Anyone third person who can resolve this issue is most welcome.I am wwholeheartedly ready to provide proof of my correction. As any one knows that there are lots of incorrect information in media especially in personal detail so compelety relying on that is not appropriate. I can provide legal document regarding her date of birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshprakash (talk • contribs) 07:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're 'wholeheartedly ready to provide proof' then why don't you do it? I have asked you so many times. Please note: I have removed the article from my watchlist. Some users are determined not to read RS and BLP policies and I'd rather spend my time more productively. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S: Full conversation between said user and me is available on my talk page under the section Archana Gupta. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * based on discussion on editors' talk pages (NOT on the article Talk page, where it should be) here and here, clearly has a COI with regard to the subject of the article and should follow the guideline, WP:COI and I have tagged the talk page with the connected contributor template.   That said, even the user him or herself has the right to change incorrect facts, per WP:BLP.  That said, I looked and found no reliable source for her birth date nor birth year, so I removed both kinds of content from the article.    Per WP:BLP nothing should be in the article that is not reliably sourced.  Both parties are wrong here and both parties should stop disrupting the article by edit warring over this.Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit it was my fault to engage in futile reversion of the edits. I have removed the article from my talk page and I am NOT going to bother. Future edits of this sort, if ever I come across any, I will merely ping the COIN and keep moving. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * there is no reason to leave the article - you did a good job catching the COI. just be sure to only include well-sourced content in BLP articles.  thanks for bringing this here so that others could help  - that was a good thing! Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot Jytdog to intervene in this issue. My concern was not to incorporate my information but to remove incorrect information. I have proof of my statement but I rarely do edit on Wikipedia so still I dont know how to convey it to you. By the way I am happy and my trust on Wikipedia became more strengthen.  I will try to learn how to provide documents in support of edit but if there is any easy or layman language then It would be very helpful for me. I tried to go through the definition of reliable sources but understood a bit only.  Regards  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshprakash (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that is a very unsatisfactory response. you have been pointed to policies many many times.  I have responded on your Talk page.  This thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Nitero


Jbalich has created the Nitero article, he claims to be a member of a PR Company representing Nitero. Avono♂ (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Private data (and COI) at help desk
Could an admin please look at Help_desk and remove the personal info? The same data is also displayed on the user's userpage. Some standard COI warning couldn't hurt aswell, I guess. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Most already covered (thanks). GermanJoe (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)