Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 32.218.41.143 (talk) at 00:57, 5 November 2015 (→Verona Area School District / Verona Area High School: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:AvePoint
    Talk:Cofra Holding
    Talk:Commvault
    Talk:Chris Daniels (musician)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Grammarly
    Talk:Group-IB
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:JLL (company)
    Talk:Daymond John
    Talk:Ontario Nurses' Association
    Talk:Operation Santa Claus
    Talk:Sittingbourne
    Talk:Sophia Genetics
    Talk:Mitchell L.R. Walker


    D0kkaebi

    Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

    (last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

    D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

    To sum it up:

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Signature copied here by Brianhe for clarity [reply]

    Discussion of problem by Azurfrog and Oliv0, 11 September 2015–13 September 2015
    • Reasons for this suspicion:
    • Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources.

    I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions.

    Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries.
    However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist.
    I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Amplification by Francis Le français, 14 September 2015
    Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong.
    Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics.
    1. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare.
    2. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
    1. [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
    2. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything !
    3. [4] he protects bad sources
    4. [5] WP:OR
    5. [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
    6. [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
    7. [10] removes a critical source
    8. [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
    9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
    All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.

    --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    rebuttal by D0kkaebi, rebuttal to rebuttal by Francis Le français, 15 September 2015
    Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one:
    1. Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page.
    2. Same change, same revert.
    3. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here
    4. Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left)
    5. Same changes as above, no justification
    6. Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification
    7. For that, I opened a new section in the talk page
    8. Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert.
    9. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN.

    D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications.
    1. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any
    2. you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page !
    3. a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond.
    4. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ?
    5. lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject..
    6. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times.
    7. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism...
    8. The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie.
    9. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ?

    --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More information and request for action by Oliv0, 18 September 2015–9 October 2015 – part 1

     Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now

    • Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable.
    • His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence for COI

    by Oliv0 – part 2

    Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI:

    • "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait;
    • The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00;
    • "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these;
    • Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP.

    Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence for bias

    by Oliv0 – part 3

    I can see nothing will happen here if I do not follow Huon's advice on my talk page, so it seems I am forced by COI/N rules to show the actual bias, though I am sorry to worsen tensions this way and I thought the evidence for COI would be enough as explained in WP:COIBIAS.

    • 21 February 2011: "patriotism", a positive word without a source
    • 6 March 2011: making "Popular Republican Union" a disambiguation page with Popular Republican Union (2007) instead of keeping the name for the "dominant party in Alsace during the Interwar era"
    • 9 March 2011: in the source added (now on archive.org) no mention of "the second highest honors"
    • 27 March 2011: "patriotism" again for PRU though not in the source given (at the time this text on archive.org), which is the PRU website
    • 9 March 2012: Asselineau in the ENA article among "famous alumni", all much more famous
    • 25 March 2012: hiding the poor result (17 signatures out of the 500 needed) behind the need for secondary sources, the source removed is a video of Asselineau himself giving this number in his official declaration, a correct source since he cannot be suspected of giving a worse result
    • 4 April 2012: same thing, now unsourced after he removed the source
    • 9 April 2012: PRU in list of French parties with political position "gaul[l]ism, euroscepticism", gaullism is a positive word without a source
    • 29 October 2013: Asselineau's thoughts on vocabulary in article Euroscepticism are hardly relevant
    • 2 November 2013: "Gaullism" added (would need an independent source) and at the same time removal of PRU website source about not claiming to be gaullist and still being most gaullist of all
    • 30 March 2014: removing as "vandalism" several good changes: the poor result of 17 signatures whose source he previously removed, the removal of "the second highest honors" not present in the source, the removal of "thoughtful" as a bad translation of the source sérieux ("serious" candidates, as opposed here to fantaisistes "fanciful, strange ones")
    • 2 October 2014: removing as "no connection with political platform" a passage with a source (Le Plus, collaborative but here edited by a journalist Louise Pothier) about Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/Front National, Bush and Marianne
    • 12 October 2014: undoing as "ultra bias" (and trying to control through "expose your changes one by one" on talk page) a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style
    • 20 February 2015: reintroducing "neither right nor left" without an independent source (only the party PRU says so) and membership figures quoted from the party (though maybe all parties do so) - many similar changes follow in an episodic edit war with IPs and then with User:Francis Le français
    • 8 July 2015: removing newspaper Sud-Ouest showing doubts about membership figures (which also says Asselineau is "anchored at the right of the right")
    • 24 July 2015: insisting with a ref ("the last sentence of the article") on "centrist", a bad translation of the source where Asselineau says (primary source, insufficient here) "we are beyond (transcendons) right and left"
    • 30 July 2015: "Gaullism" back, and moderating PRU's claim they are "the most visited French political party website" by "one of" not present in the source (le plus consulté) - many similar changes follow in an edit war with User:Francis Le français
    • 9 September 2015: undoing my changes, though I explained them and then checked about the COI with Lawren00 and warned about it on the talk page, which brought me to WP:AN/I for "personal attack" and "outing", and then here.

    Oliv0 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Restart

    Pardon me for folding the big discussion above, but this needs a restart. It seems reasonable for an uninvolved editor to ask D0kkaebi if he is a PRU party official, given that his former username on Wikipedia is the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing by giving the full name of the real-world person involved. The COIN process can go from there. – Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a new template, based on Jytdog's way of handling COI questions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Question (includes documentation). This has been posted to User talk:D0kkaebi which seems to be as much as needs to be done at the moment. He hasn't edited since a month ago. - Brianhe (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO we should let sleeping dogs lie... Vrac (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Answers by Oliv0 to calls for inaction, all off-topic of whether D0kkaebi has a COI
    Some of them never sleep. Oliv0 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, so could a francophone tell me, is this Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme an active group/force on the French Wikipedia? Maybe what we've seen here is essentially spillover from a wider issue. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen the (most recent) ANI thread? This battle has been going on for about 5 years and has spilled over into most of the wikiverse. There is a lot of history here. Vrac (talk)
    Also see my conclusion after your analysis there: "after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch", meaning that your suggestion to "bury the hatchet" (WP:DEADHORSE) cannot solve the problem.
    And to answer Brianhe's question: that "PRU wiki group" was only an ad-hoc group reporting on how Wikipedia is unfair and biased about Asselineau, I was hinting at their "national manager for Internet activism" (last sentence says Internet helps against Asselineau's "ban from the media", no details but WP is not the primary goal). Oliv0 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You (collectively, the frwiki editors) have been on this crusade for years (absurd, absurder, absurdest) so I'm not likely to dissuade you. I'll leave you with a sentence from the German AFD as food for thought: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber (translation: Instructive case of "Cross-Wiki Anti-Spam Spamming". Wiki witch-hunt fever.) Vrac (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something I mentioned above (beginning of the closed box "part 1"), the article about Asselineau once in 102 Wikipedias, now 20 after a cross-wiki action warned about the French AfD, which may have been spam against spam but was helpful to the 82 (!) WPs that deleted it. Anyway, anything else than the COI report is off topic here. Oliv0 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure it is off-topic. Perhaps the COIN case is just another angle to continue the same crusade. Vrac (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoever reports it, it is useful to determine whether there is a COI because of WP:COI "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Oliv0 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (off-topic part folded) No answer yet, @Jytdog and Brianhe: what is next in this way of handling COI? Note that D0kkaebi has frequently been absent for 3 or 4 months in a row, last time in Nov-Dec-Jan 2014/2015. And as I suggested Azurfrog on AN/I, the only thing I request here on COI/N is some community approval to use COI-related templates.

    I think what I would use would only be {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1 (maybe also the AfDs for François Asselineau, but this template is probably not intended for AfD pages). These are the talk pages where user D0kkaebi/Lawren00 has a predominant role and generally directs discussions, telling others about the rules. The aim is that unsuspecting editors reading them would not be fooled by his pretended neutrality, and could use talk pages normally without the influence of the COI. Oliv0 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a question for Vrac too isn't it? Anyway I'm not in a hurry to get into this. What's the rush? – Brianhe (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did it so now my question is clear, no rush to answer, there can be implicit approval. If D0kkaebi does not come back within 3 months (limit for RCU data, at least on the French WP), it may also help remembering he may use a new account. Oliv0 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oliv0: Let's assume good faith and not jump to the conclusion that he will be back socking. However, I'm realistic and know that sometimes COI editors do this. We have ways of taking care of that if it becomes necessary. Can I have your permission to archive this case now? – Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I have at least some approval by experienced COI/N contributors like you for my two diffs I give above, that is the template {{Connected contributor}} on the talk pages of the two articles involved, so that in its "|U1-otherlinks=" parameter the link to this COI/N case could be a reasonable justification for it and could avoid its removal? So far the closest I have seen is your mention of "the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing", and your allusion to "sometimes COI editors" just above. All opinions are welcome. Oliv0 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been asked by @Oliv0 (talk · contribs) to weight in. Based on reading links posted here by OlivO, I came to the conclusion that, on one hand, accused user (D0kkaebi) is most probably a follower of UPR party (enthusiast, member or whatever) but also, on the other hand, that he has been both civil and trying to reach consensus. His interest is certainly a fuel for his writing and editing. It is no surprise people giving hard work on a small page like this will be either followers or opponents. In choosing to talk and find consensus he has proven he was willing to avoid conflict of interest from his part. On the other hand, his opponents also have interest (whatever it may be) in this page and hope to hide it... which in the end, sorry, didn't work with me. Nobody can hide behind neutrality. Nobody is neutral. Neutrality is to be reached together. Witch-hunting is also a conflict of interest. Now it is easy to judge. On one side an alleged follower on the other side alleged witch hunters. One tried to reach consensus together with opposing party. The others retorted to cheap tactics, deleting and calling themselves authority. What matters is less the "possible conflict of interest" of one side than the "conflict of interest at work" of the other. Now, I think it would be better people burry the hatchet... Or leave it to new contributors (english-speaking ones if it is not too much to ask). Tl;dr : not guilty. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On the talk pages I mentioned I do see he directs discussions so as to reach in the articles what is #Evidence for COI, finding rules to oppose all other contributions even with correct sources, and his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus". It makes a sharp difference with people like Azurfrog and me who are really neutral (Francis Le français is less experienced on WP and may have done things in haste). As I said above, my {{Connected contributor}} on these talk pages means he only pretends to be neutral and nobody should be fooled, and approving this template or not is the only thing I am requesting here: do you mean it should not be there? What do others think? (@Brianhe, Vrac, and Jytdog:) (Note: the IP is French but I feel the command of English is far above all French users so far including me.) Oliv0 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You said: "his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus"." I honestly have to disagree. He was indeed calm and civil at least until Azurfrog came in. And, I am sorry, but there is no way I could defend Azurfrog's behavior on that one. As much as I can agree there is a sharp difference between them two I rather saw benevolence on the accusee's side than on Azur's side. This said, he also seems a far less experienced user, as is also shown in his attachment to his contributions, which might have contributed to the situation. Finally, I rather separate Azurfrog's contribution from yours, as I noticed you at least have been correct with me, though I didn't side with you. I hope it is a sign you are not afraid of consensus yourself. P.S.: I indeed live in France and I begin to think this Asselineau page better be edited by people far from here. 80.215.170.172 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Azurfrog came in" here, doing as I said in #Evidence for bias "a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style" one year ago (trying to use only the best secondary sources found in the ongoing French AfD), D0kkaebi tried to stay in control of François Asselineau ("expose your changes one by one") but failed and stopped editing it, so D0kkaebi's patronising style and control of that talk page is not after but before Azurfrog came in. Oliv0 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing in a patronizing style while trying to find common ground is still civil (however unpleasant the patronizing might feel to some). Attempting to block articles and deleting other's work together with lack of communication is not, whatever write-style is used. Just my two cents... Anyway, I can't comprehend how this debate moved here. This is not French Wikipedia. Anyway, about the {{Connected contributor}}, if it is indeed necessary, I think it should come from him, not us. For me, at this point it is both unproven and useless. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what this page COI/N is for: determination of the COI coming from us, not him. #Evidence for COI is above. Oliv0 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What are we talking about? A global corporation? An all mighty lobby (like pharmaceutical, weapons or GMOs)? Is a small party like this even able to pay anybody? What is at stake? That a party that small, that broke and with so little means of expression be labelled leftist, rightist or neither? It would have to be very important for me to support violating someone's privacy and anomimity on the net just for that. I think it's not and I stand by these values. It's the usual question of security against freedom. Respect for privacy and anomimity on the net are precious tokens of freedom. Let's not retort to fascistic methods. Let's try to find a better idea. And once again, it is clear some people who wrote about this party are in a COI from an opposing source (not to mention anybody here out of courtesy, but Rudy Reichsdadt, seriously???) and these sources are both able and willing to pay for it (e.g. the French socialist party has a notorious history of doing just this). Neutrality in politics is a fragile thing. The accusee would maybe better admit his links (if any) on the condition he would be protected from consequences. History taught us finding the common good is key. P.S. Aren't we all blowing this thing out of proportion? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Implausible non-paid-editing for Mr RD

    Mr RD has been an editor here since April 2013. In late 2014, he disclosed that he's a paid editor at least some of the time. There don't seem to be paid disclosures from him for any of the articles above, each of which was created by him. When I asked about one of them he said it was personal interest [19]. This seems implausible for the entire set. It's worth noting in this context that several of the articles created by this editor have significant known COI problems that have been discussed here before. – Brianhe (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have any WP:COI with Kunal Shah (entrepreneur) page. I came to know about the person over [20], a YouTube channel, for which I also created a Wikipedia page. I'm a regular viewer of their content and that's how I thought of creating a page for them and many of their performers like Jitendra Kumar, Biswapati Sarkar. Mr RD 18:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: However, I did contacted Kunal afterwards seeking an image for his Wikipedia page but I NEVER INTENDED TO OR RECEIVED ANY MONETARY OR COMPENSATION IN ANY MANNER. Mr RD 18:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have a personal interest in plywood companies too? How about this. Have you been compensated for editing any of the articles listed above? Please answer with a simple yes or no. — Brianhe (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    NO. If I had, I would have disclosed so. Century Plyboards comes under Wikiproject India and Companies, both among my field of interest. I de-prodded PolicyBazaar as I found enough citations to support its notability. I'm associated with Wikiproject:India and better understand if an Indian company is notable or not. Not everything you see is black & white. Mr RD 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr RD, this isn't my first rodeo. Your claims are implausible. It would go better for you if you just said that you had forgotten to tag some articles. I'm now going to restate some words that I used when having this conversation with another editor who ended up getting blocked because they persisted in the same sorts of claims.
    Your editing history is singularly focused on attention-seeking people, whose own careers benefit from the attention you provide them. It looked indistinguishable from paid COI to me (see User:Brianhe/COIbox2 and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 87#EBY3221 for clearly parallel cases) and we investigate this sort of stuff day after day, as is appropriate. One additional thing: I write sometimes about authors who probably benefit from attention, and I write sometimes about rocks that don't care if they get attention (my history is also transparently documented at my userpage). But if all I wrote about was attention-seeking people, and never about rocks, it wouldn't be surprising to me if some other editor confronted me about it and at least asked the question "why"? Brianhe (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from a suspicious mind I'd say there is nothing else going on. I help those who are notable according to me but lack technical know-how of how to create a Wikipedia page. I disclose the relation with them both on my user page and on the talk page of the subject as per Wikimedia guidelines. Moreover, to improve Wikipedia further, I create Wikipedia pages over subjects which are googled often, are notable also but do not have any Wikipedia page. Is it too hard to believe? You are free to review all my contributions and I believe I have revealed all of them to my knowledge (I removed some of them as when they got deleted or redirected to some other pages). In many of the pages you've mentioned, like Archana Kochhar which you mentioned specifically in your last comment, I have already disclosed my COI. As far as argument of rock goes, there are 7 billion people on earth, not everyone is same. Mr RD 19:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Full contribution surveyor results are at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor and in addition to the creations listed above, include such things as an in-depth look at the various acquisitions of Irish Car Rentals [21], refspam for pet sitters [22], the notable advertising campaigns of the Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau [23], and so on. – Brianhe (talk) 20:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please give me some time to analyze these. I do not have access to such tool and will happily include all where I have any COI. Thank you. Mr RD 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually you do, http://tools.wmflabs.org/contributionsurveyor which created the results I posted at User:Brianhe/COIbox27#Contribution surveyor when given your account name as input. But I don't see why you need to analyze your own editing??? By the way when another COI editor dragged things out for over a month and claimed the dog ate his email, things didn't go well for him. – Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr RD: I see you added to your disclosures: [24]. Is that all? I'd also remind you that the client must be disclosed for TOS compliance. What does "wherever information available" mean? Why would you not know who you were working for? Brianhe (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SpacemanSpiff, Smartse, and DGG: Requesting a temporary block at this time, as the editor resumed editing at Policybazaar India prior to resolution of the disclosure issue. - Brianhe (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've disclosed all my paid edits. Mr RD 16:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I'm not connected with PolicyBazaar in any manner. I got to know about it through your activity itself (When you mentioned it beside Oriental Insurance Page). Mr RD 16:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mr RD: I see that Century Plyboards has been recreated. Is this or is this not paid editing? – Brianhe (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unpaid. Mr RD 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Raju Kapuria and others

    User has not responded to two editors asking on his talkpage whether he is a paid editor. Editing history suggests the answer is positive. In fact user has never posted to his own talkpage, any other user's talkpage, or an article talkpage. – Brianhe (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Added Dabbu Ghosal, apparent associate and creator of probable autobio at Dabbu. Brianhe (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Raju Kapuria has not responded to the templated request to stop editing and confirm or deny his paid status. He has edited several India TV related articles since the request was posted on 13 October. - Brianhe (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Raju Kapuria replied with a six-word denial of being a paid editor on my talkpage [26]. He also has recreated Dag Creative Media after it was prodded. The article is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Creative Media. Brianhe (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian television production and actors PR

    Too many COI articles to list here; this is his top 10 creations listed by the contribution surveyor tool (output here).

    other


    Kunalforyou seems to have a singular interest in Indian television production and actors. His edits include the following:

    The editor's article-space contributions are almost entirely centered around actors and production companies related to the following:

    Note that every single one of the top 10 articles listed above is either related to Sony, Star or Zee.

    This body of work and the specifics shown above strongly at undisclosed paid editing. There is additional off-wiki evidence that ties this account's original username to an amalgam of two PR executives at indiantelevision.com.

    Other editors strongly suspected of working with this one include the following.

    The editor interaction results are instructive.

    And a plethora of other one-time SPA and anon editors can be found as well, but a deeper look will be required to sort the wheat from the chaff. - Brianhe (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I will say that in this particular case it appears to be more of fan editing than paid editing. The other sockfarm that I keep blocking on this (and for which I've done protections) -- Jaswanthvijay could be paid editing (but not a very high probability). It's extremely unlikely for a paid editing group to overlap across Viacom 18, Sony Entertainment Television (India), Star India, and Zee Entertainment Enterprises as the competition is severe and agencies do not overlap. Agencies will also not subcontract to individuals with conflicting clients, the agencies involved in this are from the big league. I only do some random admin work in the area, but TheRedPenOfDoom and Dharmadhyaksha do editing in this area and may be able to offer more insight.—SpacemanSpiff 03:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP might be a fan but I'm really not so sure about either registered account, especially Kunalforyou. Several counter-indications exist. 1) I found the off-wiki evidence to be a pretty strong indication of linkage to a PR firm to at least one of these accounts. Smartse has seen it too, so I hope we get to hear his opinion as well. The evidence is related to a prior name the person/persons edited under. 2) Fans usually write about actors and shows, not production companies, and I can't see any fan writing what he said about Dillagi, quoted in my opening round. 3) Certain technical evidence I'd rather not discuss in public, but is available to non-admins, indicates a very structured editing pattern unusual for amateurs. 4) Innocent editors usually show up at COIN to discuss what's going on. 5) The editor's use of sources looks more like an insider's industry view, not a fan's. A random example, three sources at ZeeQ, none of which is consumer oriented, all discussing a channel that hadn't even launched at the time of writing. 6) The connection to Everymedia is just too much to take as a coincidence with everything else going on. – Brianhe (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let me take a deeper look at this. Could be a mix of COI and other editing then. —SpacemanSpiff 06:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    it could be a case of the PR firm contracting out "get this client in Wikipedia" which would account for the cross -company nature of the edits, but fan obsession seems more likely. has there been any check in the other language wikipedias like Hindi and Tamil? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we see Kunalforyou reverting the other registered account [29] which makes collusion sort of unlikely. However his sudden change of behavior in June, 2015 is still of concern. This creation also looks highly unusual for a typical fan. Have you ever heard of a fan of a home shopping channel and its two creators?
    Kunalforyou has made just one edit on hi.wikipedia [30] and I found none on any other language. Brianhe (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick update, Kunalforyou replied on my talkpage a moment ago that he is a student and not a paid editor. Brianhe (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Why mentioned me here? coz i'm just working on indian articles??? Sukriti3 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Charter School Growth Fund

    It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

    Granger Smith

    SirMoney11 (talk · contribs) appears to have COI with Granger Smith as many of their edits are in severe violation of WP:NPOV and add what appears to be WP:COPYVIO. Their last batch came right after I scrubbed the article of fan-bloat, see here. Can anyone keep an eye on this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, Granger Smith is supposedly an artist who records with Broken Bow Records, but there's no cite for that, only an uncited mention of a possible future album. SirMoney11 added material about this artist supposedly signing with BBR Music Group. However, the most notable album by the artist (peaked #6 on in Country Music per Billboard, which means the article passes WP:MUSIC) was on Pioneer Music. Unclear who Pioneer Music is. Probably not the British heavy metal booking agency [32] or the US dealer for Japan's Pioneer Electronics.[33]. Not finding them in Google.
    The article for Broken Bow Records was created by TenPoundHammer in 2007[34], and TenPoundHammer appears to continue to maintain the list of artists associated with Broken Bow Records.[35]. SirMoney11 edits only Granger Smith. The article 4x4 (Granger Smith album), apparently the most notable album from this artist and on Pioneer Records, has its own article, created by an editor with a long history of country music articles.
    Is this some kind of edit war between reps for competing labels? It may be appropriate to remove all mentions of future labels on which a release might be made, per WP:CRYSTAL. John Nagle (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nagle: I do not work for a label. I created the Broken Bow Records article because it is a notable label (it has released several albums by Jason Aldean, to name just one). There are already citations in the Granger Smith article mentioning that the artist is signed with Broken Bow, and this source confirms that "Backroad Song" was released via BBR's "Wheelhouse" label. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. The article, then, should reflect that there's been a release by Broken Bow Records. Mentioning future albums/products is generally undesirable; that's too much like marketing and raises WP:CRYSTAL issues. (See Talk:Better Place for a case when that got completely out of hand.) John Nagle (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing is WP:CRYSTAL as far as I can see. "Backroad Song" is on the charts right now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "In 2015, Granger ... will record his first full-length album with the label." is forward-looking and uncited. John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Imaginationcolors sockfarm cleanup

    Extensive article creation by socks of Imaginationcolors (see 2013 SPI) or a lookalike user; never cleaned up. The IPs took over right after or even before he was blocked (e.g. [36]).

    Noormohammed satya was blocked previously for socking, then unblocked. However the extensive and recent involvement of static IPs related to his name seems to indicate something is still going on here. – Brianhe (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is probably intimately related to #Indian television production and actors PR since these awards are a creature of indiantelevision.com, which is the nexus of that discussion. -- Brianhe (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force which might be able to help out here. I started a discussion there at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#IndianTelevision.com awards - significant or not?. They may be able to advise on whether all the IndianTelevision articles should be deleted. John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, and it looks like an active user talkpage conversation on awards notability, or notability conferred through awards, will also be moved to Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards). – Brianhe (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The conversation has been moved here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards)#Revival of this guideline – Brianhe (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Hume-Bennett_Lumber_Company

    Came upon this at AfC and placed a COI warning on user's talk page. User removed warning. [37] Could be a serial paid editor, IMO. LaMona (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a COI

    LaMona, I'm not a paid editor. It's my understanding that it is permissible to archive content on my user talk page. I moved the COI messages from my talk page to the archive page and included a link to our conversation for transparency. Please let me know if I'm out of line here.

    I am aware of a COI on the Draft:Cartography (board game) page and I've called it out on the talk page Draft talk:Cartography (board game).

    Please let me know if there are any other issues. I've really enjoyed writing the Draft:Hume-Bennett Lumber Company article among others and would like to see it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon.opus (talk • contribs) 17:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The company went out of business in 1935. It is unlikely that they are employing a Wikipedia editor at this time. John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sorry. I was concerned about the creation of numerous pages for commercial entities, which is generally a sign of COI and I see all too many of them at AfC. I didn't read the whole draft, obviously, so mea culpa. But Jon.opus, one usually replies to messages on the talk page, not disappears them quickly, so that rang bells since some COIs try to cover-up queries about their editing. If you'd replied to my notice I would not have brought this here. LaMona (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is our advice to this editor about directly editing board game articles, since they have said they published a board game themselves? Example, Draft:Cartography (board game) and List of board game crowdfunding projects. – Brianhe (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you can see I am trying my best to be transparent. Obviously I'm new to this and apparently not terribly good at it yet. As far as other game related pages I truly only have a COI with my game that I'm aware of. Aside from that I'm not a part of the industry. I only created my game as a hobby. Please do let me know if there is anything else I should know. I'm not trying to cause problems. I'm trying to play by the rules. – Jon Adams (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kitchen remodeling companies

    This whole area is just full of problematic articles, with clear signs of hit-and-run paid editing. It doesn't seem to be related to a specific editor, but just endemic to the category. One article PRODded for starters.

    A recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be related.

    More input is invited. Brianhe (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've speedied Johnny Grey (designer) as unambiguous advertising or promotion, and prodded Kitchen & Bath Industry Show, Binns (company), Dahlia Mahmood and Danny Seo. I left Peter Ross Salerno alone, because he seems to be perhaps notable (the references tend to be dead links, though). Home improvement is indeed a honeypot for linkspam — not a candidate for deletion, of course. Bishonen | talk 19:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    It should be noted that the recently posted anonymous Rewards Board posting for a $2 job might be unrelated, as well. - 2601:42:C100:9D83:D139:E3C0:4FBC:7F82 (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IP editor, in reply to your question on my talkpage "I'm curious what you think might be the connection between the recent Reward Board offering ($2) and the home remodeling COI epidemic?". Cash rewards for editing were controversial to start with, and their outright elimination has been discussed. Now you come as an anon editor offering a cash reward to contribute to an area with extensive documented conflicts of interest. Obvious issue to me. You really don't see the problem? - Brianhe (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How would posting a "before and after" photo (with no branding mentioned at all) of a home improvement project possibly yield some sort of conflict of interest? - 2601:42:C100:9D83:20B4:1DBF:A120:2522 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rewritten National Kitchen & Bath Association, which I believe to be notable. I have no actual COI on the topic although I have attended a few of their events. Opinions of other editors are welcomed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: the IP posting the reward (User:2001:558:1400:4E:1599:26AF:B1BB:CE4A) was found to be a sock of a blocked editor formerly named MyWikiBiz; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thekohser. Brianhe (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ThunderCats

    ThunderCats.Org SEO invited on Elance here: [47]. Looks like they might have already had the Wikipedia articles done September [48][49]. Brianhe (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    They actually look pretty high-quality and not promotional in tone. — Cirt (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier edits to spam thundercats.org [50][51] and even ensuring their link comes before Warner Brothers' official site [52] suggest something's going on here. Brianhe (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The movie was cancelled, so it's probably not studio-driven PR. I fixed the duplicate ref tag name problem. This looks like Wikia-level fan enthusiasm, not COI. Anything else? John Nagle (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Antony Coia

    Suspected autobiography from editor and Italian IP. Editor has replaced IP's sig with his own [53]. Editor and IP have both been involved at AfD for subject's website. Brianhe (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the problem? There is no COI. I was not logged in. But there isn't any autobiography. Pizzole (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The pertinent query is whether you have any personal or business connection with any topic on which you have edited? Collect (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There were a couple of odd things in the AfD that suggested the site's operators were following along, if not directly involved: the site dropped the affiliate "tag=" portion of its Amazon links around the same time that this was questioned in the AfD (archive.org shows that the tags were dropped between October 6 and October 12; the links were questioned on the 12th), and many of the various blog sources presented by Pizzole were created while the AfD was in progress, a matter of hours before Pizzole presented them.

    Assuming good faith: Coia or an employee was following the AfD, editing out potential problems on the site and posting press releases and calling in favours to get writeups in different horror blogs, and Pizzole is just a fan who happened to be searching every day for new sources and finding the blog entries as they appeared. But User:Pizzole did seem oddly certain about the nature of the site's affiliate scheme, saying "No affiliation between the two site. Nothing." and assuring us that they were able to "give you the proofs" that the website neither sold movies nor was affiliated to Amazon. If Pizzole has no connection to Coia's website, I'm not sure how they could be so sure about this, or so confident that they would be able to get their hands on "proof". (I'm a fan of plenty of sites that seem to just use plain Amazon links, but I couldn't tell you with any certainty that they didn't monetise them in certain contexts.) --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not hard to see that a website without affiliate code is not an affiliate to Amazon. If you really are interested in, you can contact Amazon and ask them. The only way to know the truth is this one. Try it and after that, talk us about the truth. Pizzole (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think that if a commercial website has business with Amazon, it remove tags and lost money for a stupid debat on Wikipedia? Really? Please, talk about what you know certainly. I'm afraid of assumptions and bad faith behavior.Pizzole (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, in the debat you talked about press kit and advertising. Do you think that websites are willing to advertise competitors? Really?Pizzole (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite likely that a website that appears to have removed clearly pre-existing affiliate links from its website may restore them at any time, or may only be showing them to logged-out users, or readers in certain countries, or only on certain pages, or might even be missing them due to a temporary bug. (And yes, it seems entirely plausible that if Coia had misunderstood Wikipedia policy and thought the article was at risk of being deleted because of the Amazon affiliacy, he might decide that losing affiliate income was a small price for permanently establishing a promotional Wikipedia entry and increasing overall traffic. Perhaps he'd just add the affiliate tags back after the AfD had closed and editors had forgotten about it.)
    I don't understand how you can claim to know the site's affiliate policy with such confidence if you're just a fan of the website and have no professional connection to it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't claim anything. This debat is sterile. The AfD was closed so there are no reason to talk about it. Am I wrong?Pizzole (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are wrong in thinking that this is just about the AfD. This page is "for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article", and we are trying to establish whether you have any possible conflict of interest with regard to the Antony Coia article you have written. --McGeddon (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pizzole: Here's some friendly, free advice. If you have a COI and own it, there's no problem. There may be some extra steps you go through to get edits made properly on certain articles, which is kind of a pain, but keeps everybody happy. However if you waffle like this and act like we're going through an empty legalistic process, then things won't go so well. Please understand the purpose of this venue: it's not a court of law, and we're not out to get you or even asking you to tell us who you are in the real world. We're trying to create conditions where a diverse community of workers are able to perform together, and that requires transparency and honesty about when we may not be completely impartial on what we're writing about. That's all. – Brianhe (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Odinist Community of Spain – Ásatrú

    This article could use additional watchlisting. It's been largely authored by representatives of the organization. I did a lot of cleanup work on it, and (notwithstanding a question open on its talk page about whether a claim, which pre-dated me, of an organizational name change is accurate) it's in much better shape now. Much of it looked to have been machine translated from the Spanish Wikipedia's version when I arrived at it. At any rate, there seems to be an unwillingness to recognize that previous posters on the talk page have raised concerns that it was overly promotional, plus a suggestion that even mentioning the WP:COI guideline is an accusation of bad faith. The article is not worded promotionally at present, but the overall tenor on the talk page suggests it might turn that way again over time. A new religious movement this small, and from a non-English-speaking country, is on its own unlikely to garner many watchlisters if attention is not drawn to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sépage

    New content mentioning Sépage

    User Milstan, with apparent close connection to Sépage (see founder name) and FullSIX, is inserting content to articles such as Travel Website and E-Commerce as spam vehicles for mentioning Sépage. Vrac (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The coverage of the Online Marketing and Recommender systems is extremely poor on Wikipedia, and does not integrate common knowledge available in respectable (online) sources. Yet the Online marketing field is important as it is a growing industry providing more and more jobs. I contributed to pages such as Recommender system, Travel Website, E-Commerce, Ourbrain, Sépage, RichRelevance.... in order to improve wikipedia coverage on this topic. If you don't welcome such content, and consider it biased in any way, then remove it. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and the possibility for people to contribute their (verifiable) knowledge to Wikipedia is weakened considerably which results in such surprisingly poor coverage of important topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milstan (talk • contribs) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Milstan: You didn't address the question raised about your apparent close connection to Sépage other than saying you contribute to various topics. Could you clarify for us whether you do in fact have a close connection, and if you intend to make TOS disclosures? — Brianhe (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Milstan I have reverted your recent additions to these articles, thank you for your permission. I have also created a deletion discussion for Sépage. While it looks like an interesting concept and may be promising, a company whose product is still in beta and had 50,000 euros in Q1 revenue may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article. Vrac (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Brianhe: and @Vrac:, I have no conflict of interest to declare, and contribute to topics of my knowledge. If you don't like the content that is unbiased and informative, you can remove it; as you did. This is a point in my case that Wikipedia is no longer a quality source for people to learn about encyclopedic topics - many of important ones remain without proper coverage. You seem to have criteria, under which nobody is good enough to write for Wikipedia any longer, and no topic is worthy enough, although it is worthy for high-tirage press. Deletion instead of correction seems to be a rule of thumb. There is no point of me contributing to Wikipedia any longer. Goodbye. --Milstan (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear @Vrac:, please justify where in WP:TOOSOON could be found a notability revenue threshold for companies? This page seems to only establish particular rules for Actors and Films, and requires notable and trustworthy sources to establish notability of other concept types. Since your arguments are not properly sourced, I would prefer if another wikipedia member took further decisions on this issue.--Milstan (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Milstan, are you part of this community or not? Don't think you can just flick a booger on someone on your way out the door. – Brianhe (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There is an ongoing discussion on WP:AN concerning an editor, one aspect of which is in regard to his possible COI. Since there are other aspects as well, I suggest the discussion be kept centralized there, but the denizens of this board might like to bring their experience with COI to the discussion, which is here. BMK (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Three distinct groups of SPAs with possible cross-connections. Very likely undisclosed paid editing in some or all of the groups.

    group1

    This looks like a little walled garden of companies belonging to the investment group Lightbox Ventures, and matching SPAs. One of the Lightbox corps was Furlenco which was just deleted subsequent to AfD.

    There is a hint of a link to the Mushroom9 sockfarm via InfernalH through Redbus.in. Strong off-wiki evidence that Sanjit.mca works for Redbus as SEO specialist. Left edit summary "Please feel free to contact us for anything you may feel out of place." – Brianhe (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    group 2

    MagicBricks/HealthKart SPAs

    group 3

    This group may be related or may just be opportunistic cross-spammer, not part of their group.

    Reworked layout slightly since this was initially posted. Brianhe (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Internshala was not a work for hire although I indeed had WP:COI with this page for which I created it through WP:AFC. I've already mentioned it on my talk page. Regarding the connection with Lightbox Ventures, I do not have any knowledge whether Internshala is connected or not. Also I do not have any other SPA which you may even verify. Hope this helps. Mr RD 09:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The website My Big Plunge is the creature of a company called 10minutesto1, based in Guragon [57]. They advertise themselves as a full-service PR/digital marketing/social media/SEO/crisis communications company. They list My Big Plunge on their own client list/portfolio, so some ethical questions arise. It looks pretty clear from Saptarishi12345's contribs that they've expanded to Wikipedia as a marketing platform. – Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Electronic ticket

    Resolved: Involved users blocked, got extra help with watching the article.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Users are always trying to promote the patent US 5724520, and Joel R. Goheen as the inventor. I've explained in my edit summary that WP:PATENTS and WP:USERGENERATED content are not reliable sources, but received no communication from these editors. SecurXX is a company founded by Joel R. Goheen [58].

    I think this just needs a bit of banhammer doctoring. -- intgr [talk] 08:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    intgr, have you considered opening an SPI? I think they would probably do a checkuser given this stuff. – Brianhe (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Securxx. -- intgr [talk] 15:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, strikeout again. Just goes to show I don't really understand SPI, but I thought I did this time. - Brianhe (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I just looked into the underlying content dispute, which involves attempts to add the following to the article:

    "A patent application for Electronic Ticketing and Reservation System and Method was filed on Nov 21, 1994, and a Publication Number was issued on March 3, 1998 (US5724520) recognizing Joel R. Goheen as the Inventor."

    While researching this, I ran across [ http://www.delawareiplaw.com/files/2014/06/07-575.pdf ], which says in part:

    "A review of the prosecution history further confirms that Plaintiff's proposed construction is inappropriate. During prosecution, the examiner focused on two pieces of prior art: u.s. Patent No. 6,067,532 issued to Lucas Gebb ("Gebb") and u.s. Patent No. 5,724,520 issued to Joel R. Goheen ("Goheen"). Both Gebb and Goheen pertain to ticketing systems. Gebb discloses that the ticket buyer "can use a ticketless entry into the event, such as, for example, by an e-token on a smart card." (0.1. 51, Exh. B at 7:12-13.) Goheen discloses that airline passengers can access an airplane using "an identification plastic card" that has a "card number encoded onto a magnetic strip at the back" and that, if the card is lost, passengers can gain access to the airplane using identification 'such as a driver's license or the like'"

    This calls into question the claim that Joel R. Goheen is the inventor of the electronic ticket. Certainly we need a better source than a patent, which is simply Joel R. Goheen claiming that he invented something.

    Joel R. Goheen himself may be notable enough for a BLP article, based on sources like this.[59] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    COI

    Andi Stafuka editing his/her own article might be a COI TypingInTheSky (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Diego Grez-Cañete

    User
    Other accounts

    A conflict of interest has already been established and admitted between Diego Grez Cañete and his website El Marino. El Marino (online newspaper) was a redirect that he recently turned into an article that is a REFBOMB of self-published, self-written, and hyper-local sources. The user has stated that this is ok because COI editing "is discouraged, but not prohibited". It could use some more eyes. Vrac (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A similar concern was already up in 2014 when Diego's site Memoria Pichilemina was discussed. There must be much more conflicts of interest related to this user but since he has moved around 5 different usernames since 2008 or so it is difficult to track all activity. There also reason to believe most Pichilemu people and newspapers/radio stations he wrties about have some relation to him since the town has only 13,000 inhabitants and Diego is very interested in journalism. Sietecolores (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of that history; in light of recent developments I would say that AndyTheGrump's analysis at the time was spot-on: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. Vrac (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with Diego is that he tries to promote himself or subjects very close to himself (his newspaper, his school, or his schoolmates?). He has tried to do so over a long period of time. He should by now know the rules, otherwise he is just gaming the system. Another problem is that Diego tries persistently to cover Pichilemu with such a depth that is not compatible with WP:GNG. Do not mistake me. Diego is good editor, who can if he wants create really good content. He just need to stop editing about topics too close to himself and way to local to be relevant. Sietecolores (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Doctors and surgeons

    Consumers' Research Council

    This looks like a fake consumer interest group often referenced in promo doctors bios on WP. External links search: [60]. I'm listing here all articles & drafts that use this source without further comment at this time. Brianhe (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at its criteria page, [61] it seems to evaluate by adding up the years of experience and number of professional association memberships. Neither correlates well with notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: There's some unusually aggressive addition in 2014–2015 of what looks like COI material at Sudip Bose from anon editor/s; you have removed some recently with the edit summary "scam per http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.ca/2015/07/how-to-pick-leading-physicians-of-world.html". Could you cast any light on what's going on here?
    To all, these IPs are odd in that they're all static IPs from the same provider apparently geolocating to Hyderabad. Static IPs aren't supposed to rotate like this. - Brianhe (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Your speedy of Sudip Bose was quickly contested by 182.156.70.120 and Sitaray calling himself "we". – Brianhe (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Sitaray and the IPs have now reintroduced the same fake source "Leading Physicians of the World" identified by Doc James, at least three times over Doc, me and DGG [62][63][64][65]. Anyone else want to take a swing? – Brianhe (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianhe: Why "Leading Physicians of the World" is a fake source? See Here. Sitaray (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitaray: You pinged the wrong person. It's Doc James' source that says so. He's a real doctor, by the way. While we are here, do you need to disclose paid editing for this article? Brianhe (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a few light searches and lots of refs that they are a scam appear [66]
    Yes you can pay people to write good stuff about you on the internet and to tell you how great you are.
    Likely efforts to pick up others who are working on this would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    International Association of Healthcare Professionals
    Added SPAs on Devi Nampiaparampil – the article smells like a glorified press release. Note the NYT article is basically a wedding announcement. – Brianhe (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Other
    I have just made a first pass at editing most of the articles; I think I've removed every use of this source. The very inclusion of it in an article indicates writing by an inexperienced editor here who does not realize what is significant and reliable, or by a press agent or other coi editor adding whatever is available in an attempt to show importance. Most of the physicians in this group actually are notable, as proven by references or positions or citations to their work. Not all of the articles are from the same source--the one on Devi Nampiaparampil is clearly different from the others. But there is in my opinion at least one paid editor or group specializing in physicians. I am currently trying to look critically at all articles in this field, and would appreciate being notified of additional ones that partcularly need checking. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    European Graduate School

    While reading the WP article on the European Graduate School I noticed that a previously-existing paragraph on this institution's lack of academic accreditation in the United States had been deleted with very little explanation. I restored the paragraph in question, which is thoroughly sourced to several government websites indicating that this university lacks accreditation. While reviewing the history of the article and its talk page I discovered that this is not the first time this paragraph or similar lines of text have been deleted. They go back as several years in what seems to be a long-running but slow-moving battle between various editors who add lines about the school's lack of accreditation, followed by mass deletions with what strike me as specious or insufficient explanations. For example, they keep deleting sourced references to this school's inclusion on multiple US government-published lists of unaccredited institutions and replace them with a generic claim about European Union accreditation, which does not automatically transfer over to the US.

    It appears that somebody connected to this school is periodically "scrubbing" the article of all information about its lack of academic accreditation in the United States as if to hide what could be potentially unflattering information about its degrees from prospective students. It's a very slow pattern of what appears to be every couple of months, but as you can see on the talk page and in the edit logs it has been going on since at least 2007. I'm flagging it here as one that WP administrators should probably keep an eye on. Kizezs (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Saint Mary's College of California

    Hi, Saint Mary's College of California appears to be mostly/somewhat maintained by User:SMCOCC (contribs). Check that acronym :). I left a message on their talk page but I thought it'd be best to inform here as well. Advice/assistance welcome (it's my first time helping with COI issues really). Thanks! Greg G (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimmed some of the brocure-like material. The part about being near a Safeway was a bit much. John Nagle (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Carmody and others

    Looks like a paid editor or a team who's been flying under the radar for a year. Most of the article titles speak for themselves but this one's particularly noteworthy: Bill Carmody (Digital Marketer) is a bio for an SEO consultant. Not sure where even basic bio facts like his birthplace and date came from; appears clairvoyant since the bio sourcing is incredibly weak with stuff like entrepreneurwiki.com. This one's just less than a month old so efforts to remediate maybe should start here. Brianhe (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Abe Issa

    Two SPAs+one company+one CEO=smells like undisclosed paid editing. Compare to this Elance job which is probably not this one but looks really similar, we should be on the lookout for it too.

    Was also sourced to entrepreneurwiki.com. Meaningful? – Brianhe (talk) 06:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi There Brianhe (talk), I am still very new to Wikipedia so I actually don't know if this is how I respond. I can assure you that I am not an ELance or other pay to play type job. Again, really new to wiki and definitely thought EntrepreneurWiki was affiliated with actual Wikipedia. If that is indeed suspect I would be more than happy to delete it and anything else that seems suspect. Really just looking for guidance. Thanks!

    Vinny009 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Serban Ghenea

    For a long time, I have been trying to fix this article which is presented as nothing more than PR fluff for a music artist. The article is very poor - there is no neutral tone, and many edits are made by unregistered users and a SPA account. One particularly bad issue is the format of the selected discography. There is no consistency to it and it just has splattering of various different accolades to present the subject in an inappropriately positive light (e.g. whichever Billboard chart makes the achievement look most favourable). The editor above makes no other contributions to wikipedia and refuses to engage with any policies about SPA and COI. The wikipedia page is used for self-promotion here: http://www.aaminc.com/clients/detail/serban_gheneaRayman60 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cavalino's edits are indeed problematic and it is always worrying to see people linking to Wikipedia articles from their website. I'll need to look at it further, but at first glance it looks like a candidate for AFD since there don't appear to be any sources discussing the subject in detail. SmartSE (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serban Ghenea. SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding this article and user. Hannahgracevc stated they work for AAM here. SmartSE (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shane Stevens (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Hannahgracevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Looking through a random selection of their other clients there are also a large number of SPAs over the years with similar editing habits e.g:
    I'll try to get some input from WT:MUSIC. SmartSE (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. There's severe ownership going on here and a new user who's admitted a COI is reverting our attempts to clean up: Johnhanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Anyone care to assist? @SpacemanSpiff: SmartSE (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Taken from my post at the sockpuppet investigation, I've been informed it's more appropriate here:

    With regards to the third editor Hannahgracevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), they have declared that they work for the management company. You can google the company and see the list of artists - she has made some edits on other artists' page in what is clearly a paid advocacy role. You can google her and the company's name to get her role (presently Director of Communications at said management company). There is a serious COI issue with her edits too, and I also believe she was alerted and entered this debate by the same person who recruited the new editor John Hanes. If you look at her past edits - Shane Stevens is a client of AAM. The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories etc. Andros Rodriguez and Mozella are also clients. The only other edits are to insert Trion (another client of theirs) into the credits of other pages. This editor has not made a single edit that isn't related to clients of her employer. There is no doubt in my mind that this person has flagrantly, knowingly and willingly breached several serious rules on COI and paid advocacy over the course of 2015 and has no intention of making any positive contributions to the project other than those that result in direct financial benefit to themselves and/or their paymasters. I fully support extending the ban to this person and warning them not to attempt to edit related articles in the future.Rayman60 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Rayman60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I was not aware of the strict COI policy, but I can assure you I only added factual information. I did not knowingly and willing breach these rules. That is your opinion, however, that is my error for not doing further research.
    Regarding Shane Stevens account, everything was factual and cited, so no need for your harsh opinions. I put it up for review and it was approved. It was not a PR move, just simply to create a Wikipedia page for a notable person. If you don't think a songwriter for Selena Gomez is notable, then you are ridiculous.
    Your opinion is spewed all over anything you touch and this is a prime example: "The article is terrible, just a poorly written press release with unreferenced sentimental backstories." All of this information was factual, so your opinion is irrelevant.
    To go as far as look at my LinkedIn page and report about this is completely uncalled for and makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. You already knew I worked for the management company, no need for your further "investigation" and report my job title. My job title was never discussed on Wikipedia therefore is a violation of my privacy. According to WP:OUTING, "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes... job title and work organisation..."
    By the way, I was not instigated by anyone to comment on Serban Ghenea's page. I did that on my own free will. So again your "opinion" is incorrect.
    I apologize for being unclear of the guidelines but I can assure you I only put out factual information. For me violating these rules without proper knowledge, I'm going to back down. Please, do not write information you have found about me outside of Wikipedia ever again.
    You have made me lose all faith in Wikipedia. Try saying your opinion less, constructive edits more, and stop harassing editors. No need to waste anyone's time with this issue and no need to comment back as I will never be using Wikipedia ever again. --Hannahgracevc (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lucas Secon

    The subject of this article uses this page as their personal vanity page. I have tried to wikify it many times in the past - i.e. introduce a neutral tone, focus on referenced and encyclopaedic facts, have some structure and format to the article, including aesthetic presentation and so on. These changes have been constantly resisted in a variety of ways (mainly unregistered IPs or SPAs with no other edits reverting my edits). I have posted on here about 2.5 years ago and they rode out the storm then. I raised the concern of lack of references, and they've just added a blanket, cover-all link to a page they control. Statements such as 'is a Grammy Award, MTV Award and Emmy Award-nominated record producer, songwriter, Golden Poets Award winner, DJ, rapper, singer and artist/conceptualist.' is straight off a press release and not a valid introduction for wiki once you understand the person's true achievements (there is too much fluff to give the illusion of grandeur, and the very fact that it exists here gives it some false credibility). 'countless multi-platinum, platinum and gold singles and albums' is not a wiki style statement. The thumbnail violates copyright issues. The discography is excessively long, relies on a single reference from the subject's website (one controlled by a party close to them), is of a poor format, does not accurately detail subject's involvement, and includes statements like 'Alex Newell upcoming single Deep Well Music/Atlantic Records US & The Gabriellas upcoming single "Lookalike" RE:A:CH Records 2015' as though this website is a cheeky radio plug for someone's future releases. This subject is in the habit of jumping on any computer (i.e. diverse IP contributors) but only ever interested in this article and entering their involvement in the corresponding article (e.g. if they produced a britney song, they'd add it to their personal discography, then add themselves to the britney page, the album page and the single page). Whilst some of these edits may be factually correct, away from the COI issue, there is an issue with the manner in which they're done - often not following formatting guidance so the overall look of the articles doesn't look up to standard. Most of the info comes from this source https://milocostudios.com/client/lucas-secon/ as you can see, subject is a client of theirs and is therefore able to manipulate the content of that page. This page is the predominant source of info for the wiki page (9 out of 10 references used link back to this page). This page appeared and was referenced to after the last challenge to this page in early 2013. Subject also uses their wiki page for self-promotion by linking to it on their twitter bio https://twitter.com/lucasproduction Rayman60 (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As with the above, I share your concerns and am unable to find any sources providing substantial coverage. I'm not so familiar with the ins and outs of WP:NMUSIC for producers and songwriters, but this also looks like an AFD candidate to me. SmartSE (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    He did have a song which charted on the Billboard Top 100, which is notable per WP:MUSIC. I took out much of the peacocking and the list of projects with which he was associated in an unspecified capacity. John Nagle (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's also had a top 5 album in the US, so there is definitely enough notability to make this article a keep. It does need better referencing though, most of the text is lifted wholesale from a biography on the website of a recording studio, not the best RS. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm now satisfied the article content is suitable. In my past experience, the subject or their lackey has returned at various intervals and resisted change/reverted edits stubbornly. *hopefully* this won't be the case this time, however I'll continue to monitor the article if it does happen.Rayman60 (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirtida Gautam

    Series of promotional edits by single-purpose accounts, on behalf of the eponymous author and her new book. Articles on both the writer and the publication have been nominated for deletion via AfD process. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The first two articles are at AFD and heading for deletion. The other edits have been reverted and the accounts were all blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kirtidagautam. Thanks for posting, but I don't think there's anything left to do. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    dogfoodselector.com

    Dora Mancha Vet is repeatedly adding links to dogfoodselector.com. All content added is referenced to blog-like posts on this website. The website appears to be a self-published site and all articles are written by "Dora Mancha". This appears to be a case of editing Wikipedia to promote one's own external website. The edits to Dog have been reverted, but all others remain. TimBuck2 (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm adding well founded information to Wikipedia. I'm a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and I write to the Dog Food Selector page, but I don't own the web page. I always add other valid references to my contributions to Wikipedia. I even wrote a complete article about dog food allergies and my intention is to complete it in a near future. I add references from Dog Food Selector because I write the articles and they are reliable and contain scientific information that can help people. If Wikipedia decides this is a conflict of interest, please tell me what shall I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora Mancha Vet (talk • contribs) 17:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dora Mancha Vet Yes, adding links to blogs that you yourself have written is a conflict of interest, such links are considered spam. The relevant Wikipedia policies are WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. See also WP:RS, I don't see how dogfoodselector.com could qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes, although if you feel strongly that it should be considered a reliable source you can take it to WP:RSN which will offer an opinion. What you should do is stop adding such links to Wikipedia articles. Regards, Vrac (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically I just came across this quote from Wikipedia's founder last night:

    Wikipedia for a lot of people hearkens back to what we all thought the Internet was for in the first place which is, you know, when most people first started the Internet they thought oh, this is fantastic, people can communicate from all over the world and build knowledge and share information. And then we went through the whole dot-com boom and bust and the Internet seemed to be about pop-up ads, and spam, and porn and selling dog food over the Internet.

    — Jimmy Wales on C-Span, 2005
    I guess now you don't have to choose between the two. - Brianhe (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Some things (like dog food and porn) are just too important to let speed bumps like ideals or ethics get in the way... Vrac (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dora Mancha Vet, if you have a science background, then you'll know that if you are writing scientific articles your references need to be from publications considered to be reliable and trustworthy, such as peer-reviewed scientific journals... you wouldn't reference a blog in your PhD thesis, would you? Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:cdrtools

    Came across this while dealing with an administrative matter around this article. Everybody is accusing everybody of COI and bias. Could use some fresh eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Batteriser

    LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser clearly wants us to believe that the account has a conflict of interest given the username. I don't think this new editor is aware of WP:COI or the messages about it on the editor's talk page.

    The edits from this editor look like cut-and-paste from some marketing copy, violating WP:SOAP. Ronz (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Ronz that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is (thankfully honestly) representing themselves as a COI account. A quick search on Google for Lakshmi Narasimhan batteriser will verify. I believe that LakshmiNarasimhan batteriser is not here to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked permanently. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing

    Fashion model articles - possible conflict of interest and socking ongoing:

    Please see sock investigation, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT.

    Any help with article cleanup and/or sock investigation would be most appreciated.

    Thank you,

    — Cirt (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Popping in from my wikibreak—checkuser confirmed, listed above. Interesting personas they created, reminiscent of a past case; one described self as "Soccer mom with a Fashion Merchandising degree." Also performing "good hand" edits at Zaqistan, displaying more sophistication than usual. This, plus high degree of English proficiency, plus geolocation of User:108.195.157.94 may be useful clues to the nature of the COI here. — Brianhe (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    More Checkuser confirmed: Checkuser confirmed socking at this page: David Gandy (likely many other articles) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LauraLeeT and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walterlan Papetti/Archive. Likely related to promotional / paid editing. Result is violations of WP:NPOV. — Cirt (talk) 07:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding more to above list, all confirmed by Checkuser as socks of LauraLeeT (talk · contribs), the sockmaster account which has a self-disclosed conflict of interest per DIFF, thus, they all do. — Cirt (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Above are a handful of the articles created and/or maintained by the above Checkuser confirmed socks. — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian fashion models and contests

    I came across some apparent promo stuff related to beauty pageants and contestants and suspected some sort of collusion and COI editing and filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove as I also expected some sort of socking related to the PR agency for the contests. I did not expect such a huge set of socks and associated articles. Not being fashionable, I haven't a clue about this industry and don't know what's what, I hope somebody else can take a look at this -- maybe The Banner?. I am only notifying one of the sock accounts as they are all blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I know there are multiple sockfarms active in the pageant world. There are also a multitude of meat puppets and SPAs active. But what it makes difficult: there are also genuine editors active. I guess the only to clean out that polluted pond is by fishing with help of the check users. Unfortunately, that is not allowed. So in effect I have no clue how to solve this expect running behind them and file SPI after SPI. But you will always be five steps behind. The Banner talk 20:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    See for instance Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riza1234/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcchard/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dosmil2011/Archive, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cesaro2012/Archive. The Banner talk 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Investor Application

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 204.148.13.62 (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am the owner of a business that would like to be listed along with other similar businesses in a section of Wikipedia called Investor Application. I will not be promoting our compnay, rather just adding its name and description, similar to how the other businesses are presented.

    Is this possible? Am I keeping inside th COI boundries set by Wikipedia?

    Regards

    Chris Muldoon ShareholderApp

    Verona Area School District / Verona Area High School

    Based on edit summaries and wording of edits, Kkloepping / Kelly.kloepping appears to be affiliated with the Verona Area School District. Edit summaries and edits have included wording such as: "adding our mission and supporting action goals", "added two programs we are offering", and "69% of our population is white/caucasion" (sic).

    After Kkloepping's first two edits, (adding an inappropriate mission statement to Verona Area School District), the editor was warned about conflict of interest and the need to disclose any paid affiliation with the school district. The editor simply opened a new account (Kelly.kloepping) and reverted the removal of the inappropriate mission statement. The user was warned again, this time about sockpuppetry. An additional talk page message stressed the importance of following WikiProject Schools guidelines, of heeding policies regarding conflict of interest and disclosure when doing paid editing, and of sockpuppetry. The editor continues unabated, adding unsourced and inappropriate content to Verona schools' articles.

    Please help in dealing with this. 32.218.41.143 (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=689115161"