Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[1] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Soura Pandey

Autobiography, with both accounts copying the article to their user pages; do we need multiple copies of a promotional feature? JNW (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Aristides de Sousa Mendes

Warned about COI, has continued to edit. Note User has requested a change of username. Mlpearc (powwow) 14:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lonnie Park

Lonniepark2 is related to Park somehow, maybe he is him, he works with him, he is a member of his family, or he is a fan. The problem is that for many months Lonniepark2 has tried to included content to Park biography. I don't remember how I found this, but it was written like this. Ignoring the status of the text (it requires a clean-up), the text was totally unsourced, and included trivial information only Park or people related to him would know ("His father’s first words when Lonnie was born were “He is going to play piano”.", "Lonnie attended Brooktondale Baptist School from Kindergarten through completion of tenth grade. This school, now closed, was a private Christian school in upstate New York with a Bible based curriculum and emphasized the conservative GARBC Baptist lifestyle", etc.), and the removal of important categories like Category:Living people, being replaced with irrelevant categories like Category:Grammy Awards. I restored the previous version and cleaned-up the page. Lonniepark2 returned the following day with the same unsourced addition, I reverted him and continued with the clean-up. By that time I left this notification about issues with conflict of interests and a more detailed message about the situation. Today Lonniepark2 returned to add almost the same content but this time with two references that have nothing to do with Park and they never mention him[2][3]. Also in September he uploaded the image File:Lonnie Park.jpg, which was copied from Park's official website [4], which includes the note "Copyright © 2013 Lonnie Park." It was deleted due to the lack of evidence of free-license re-release, and again Lonniepark2 uploaded it without evidence of permission. In four years I only had contact with two people that are related to the subject of the article (Little Boots and a worker of the MPAA), in those cases the editors have been productive and have understood how WP:COI works, but in this case Lonniepark2 is not being conscient that the addition of unsourced content to a biographical article (even when the account is related to the subject) is against our WP:BLP and other policies. I (or him) need guideance about this. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Money Management International

I have a conflict of interest in my usual role as a marketer.

The article appears to reflect a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's role as it is either mostly, or all, original reporting. The body of the article contains about 20 external links to IRS forms. I have not vetted all 68 citations, but the ones I have looked at were court documents, citations that did not mention the company, broken links, other Wikipedia articles, press releases, and other weak or primary sources. Reviewing the edit-history and Talk page, I believe the edits were made in good-faith by a mix of COI and volunteer contributors.

The article-subject appears to be borderline notable. I notice that they are frequently quoted in The New York Times and mentioned here as "one of the largest reverse mortgage counseling companies". Google Books also mentions them heavily as one of the places to go for free debt consulting. While a majority of their media coverage is for publishing surveys and providing advice on managing debt, there are some articles that cover them in depth.

If I were to stumble on this article in my regular role, I would either cut it down to a stub, or nominate it for deletion as WP:NOT. As I have a COI in this case, I defer to the community's judgement on the best first-steps to whip this article into shape. CorporateM (Talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeez what a notfest. Stub it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Quite apart from the properly declared COI of CorporateM, this article appears to have grave COI problems with editor TanishaWarner who either is or is pretending to be Tanisha Warner, communications manager at Money Management International. The edit history and talkpage history suggest both an intimate knowledge of the business and an intense desire to present it in a good light. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Even more reason to hack it back to a stub.--ukexpat (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Rezwan Khan

COI seems most likely for this recently created series of articles, each with NPOV and promotional issues. Speedy deletion has been requested for the biography, and I've copy edited the other two for the most blatant problems. Creator has ceased editing since I left a message at their talk page, but problems persist re: sources, especially for People v. Jovan Jackson, which is largely based on court documents. JNW (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I will address these concerns through further editing. Looking at other pages that discuss court cases, the actual opinion is always cited. People v. Jovan Jackson is the appellate court case that set forth the current law for medical marijuana dispensaries in California. The best way to cite caselaw created by a court is through the appellate opinion because it is the original source, and is hence most reliable. My understanding from reading Wikipedia's guideline is that Wikipedia wants sources that have gone through an editorial process, appellate opinions do meet that standard. Looking at the wiki page California Senate Bill 420, which People v. Jovan Jackson concerns, the actual statute and california appellate court cases concerning it are cited. For the other pages I have made thus far I have made sure to use sources that have gone through the editorial process, i.e. magazines, etc.

In regards to NPOV, perhaps there could be further elaboration as to what is or is not neutral in the addressed pages, so further edits may be made.

I made the other pages due to my research of People v. Jovan Jackson. If Rezwan Khan does not meet the wikipedia standards then obviously the page should be deleted, but based on my understanding of Wikipedia's requirements he is noteworthy enough to be included. Guyfawkes101 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Boldly closing this thread. We discussed various issues, and the boomerang swung back. Yes, there may be a conflict of interest. No, further prodding from either side is not going to benefit anyone here. Let's move on and improve some articles. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Hello, all!

I have been asked to bring this article to COIN via OTRS. I am in contact with Vivekachudamani, who has accused Alexbrn and Binksternet of having a COI via email. He has asked a group of third party editors to comment, so here we are.

According to Vivekachudamani, "Alexbrn’s aim as an individual editor is to defame and discredit the subject of the article by labeling the subject a pseudoscientist and creating a narrative that the subject’s views are fringe. This is the strategy the Guerrilla Skeptics are trained in to undermine the reputation of individuals they do not like such as Rupert Sheldrake. " He cites two sources for this claim: [5] and [6]. He also cites four comments as evidence:

  • We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE . Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff

Vivekachudamani has also accused Binksternet of being aligned with Alexbrn's views, due to the comments here, although no further evidence was provided.

Vivekachudamani claims that there is a nebulous group of editors intending to "smear" the article, although no other names have been mentioned at this time.

As the OTRS agent handling the case, I make no comment here as to the COI. I listed myself as a party because I am involved with the article, having made edits in the past and being accused of a COI myself (I brought it to BLPN) and cleared of the same.

Thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 19:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone here has OTRS access, I encourage they look at ticket:2013071510009944, as it may have additional information that I'm not allowed to post publicly. The copy-paste above was explicitly permitted by Vivekachudamani. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet's real-life intersection with Chopra
  • I have said before that I have no particular interest in Chopra, that I have no conflict of interest. I am a professional sound engineer for large events, and I see a great many people who are famous. On several occasions I have had the pleasure of Chopra being included on the agenda of the event I am working. The closest I have been to Chopra is to clip a small microphone to his lapel and hang a radio-transmitting beltpack unit on his belt, though in most cases someone else does that job, leaving me with the task of bringing his volume up for the crowd and assessing whether the sound is optimal. I have to say that I consider Chopra an engaging public speaker. I look forward to each time I have the chance to amplify his voice.
    That said, I am a skeptic by nature and I prefer to see Wikipedia expanded with hard science as the basis. I think Chopra's views are more metaphysical than physical, and observers in the general sciences agree. Furthermore, I don't like to see Wikipedia used as a platform for promotion of the topic, nor do I like to see it used for attacks. What I see from Vivekachudamani at the Chopra biography is that promotion of Chopra is the only goal. This COIN discussion should result in a boomerang pointing back to Vivekachudamani, whose actions should be analyzed for net effect, and whose motives and connections should be clarified. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
That hardly qualifies as COI. Binksternet should be removed from this investigation/discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement from Alexbrn
  • As I have stated before I have no COI. To be clear: no relationship with Chopra, Chopra's affiliates, or people or organizations connected to or interested in Chopra or Chopra-related things in any way. In order to clear this up I am happy to subject myself to scrutiny be a neutral third-party if necessary - but since I have chosen to make my real life identify completely discoverable from my User page it is tiresome that this accusation is being made by Vivekachudamani yet again.
  • Vivekachudamani's complaint looks a bit like forum shopping since this COI accusation has been incorrectly made before without effect [7] [8].
  • Chopra is currently waging a media campaign against what he calls 'militant skeptics' on Wikipedia (see here) and has recently contacted Wikipedia asking for criticism in his article to be removed (Matthewrbowker has the details). Is this in any way connected?
  • Since the glare of the COI splotlight is being turned on me, I hope it only seen as fair that a little reflects back on Vivekachudamani, who is a WP:SPA dedicated, in large part, to inserting puffery and watering-down criticism at the Chopra article: the edit history speaks for itself.
  • However this is resolved, it would be great to have the annoyance of continued unfounded accusations halted; quite apart from anything else, it is a huge waste of time. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (Add) I am not involved in the "Guerrilla Skepticism" effort; I don't have that honour. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment by vzaak
  • I had followed this earlier -- this is entirely frivolous, right? Vivekachudamani was asked to substantiate the COI claim,[9] and the response was that Alexbrn has "COI" in his signature.[10] Vivekachudamani saw the "COI" in the signature and thought it applied to the Deepak Chopra page, which it doesn't. vzaak (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • For context I should mention the earlier conspiracy theories spread by Rupert Sheldrake, who recently went on BBC World Service to announce that there is a "systematic attempt to distort hundreds of pages on Wikipedia"[11] @ time 8:02. vzaak (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment by LuckyLouie

This report looks completely spurious. To establish a COI, you'd have to show compelling evidence that Alexbrn and Binksternet are professionally engaged by or affiliated with an organization intending to "smear" the subject of the article. I don't see any evidence to support anything close to that, but I do see misplaced paranoia about "Guerrilla Skeptics". LuckyLouie (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Commment by Barney the barney barney (talk) 22
42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I don't think that Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) is here to build an encyclopedia, per PW:NOTHERE, and I also think WP:ARB/PS needs to be applied, such that the appropriate action is a topic ban from fringe articles, broadly construed, for Vivekachudamani (talk · contribs) Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by AndyTheGrump

I agree with LuckyLouie. There is nothing whatsoever in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy that makes vague and unsubstantiated claims about individuals being 'Guerrilla Skeptics' sufficient grounds to establish a COI. Yes, Alexbrn for example is a 'sceptic' regarding Chopra (and so am I for that matter) - but such scepticism (or at least, 'sceptical behaviour') is a requirement of Wikipedia policy when dealing with a controversial figure making claims entirely at odds with scientific consensus. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It presents scientific consensus to our readers. It is not within the remit of contributors to discard the necessary scepticism, and hand over editorial control of articles to uncritical supporters of fringe perspectives. Wikipedia is sceptical regarding Chopra's scientific claims because scientific consensus is likewise sceptical. That is our job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Vivekachudamani

This COI section is about Alexbrn. Binksternet was only cited in connection to the poor editing judgment in removing a Journal of Cosmology citation that he mistakenly claimed is not peer-reviewed. I am not claiming Alexbrn has a hidden connection to Chopra. I am taking the straightforward interpretation of conflict of interest from the WP:COI page. “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” Alexbrn’s aim as an individual editor is to defame and discredit the subject of the article by labeling the subject a pseudoscientist and creating a narrative that the subject’s views are fringe. The listed comments Alexbrn tell you his aims in his own words.

  • We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE . Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra's fringe view are identified as such by juxtaposing them with real science. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra's writings on quantum science are labelled by all experts on the topic as nonsense on toast;. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff
  • Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC) diff

These aims are incompatible with a neutral reliably sourced encyclopedia, therefore Alexbrn has an ideological conflict of interest and should not be allowed to make controversial edits on this page in the future.

Even though I'm sure Alexbrn appreciates the support from the skeptic gallery, I ask that only those who are not in that ideological camp bother to weigh in here. Merely moving the skeptic echo chamber from that page to this one does not address the bias at issue here. Would an outside observer looking a the page of a prominent and successful author and speaker such as Chopra, read Alexbrn's above comments on how he edits this page and say it is neutral or not? That is the only question here. All the other hand waving about "spurious" and "waste of time" is quite beside the point.Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that it would suit your interests well for only those supporting your 'ideological' position to comment here. That is not how this noticeboard works though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
@Vivekachudamani: conflict of interest is not simply bias, perceived or real. You have the wrong forum. WP:NPOVN is the forum for questions concerning NPOV. Or, if you feel Alexbrn is violating Wikipedia policies, the proper forum is WP:AN/I, however be advised that WP:BOOMERANG may apply. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, asking for neutral editors to comment is not asking for ideological support. I still am waiting for a neutral editor to explain how Alexbrn's above comments are neutral. Vivekachudamani (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have never edited the Deepak Chopra article; I have no connection to Deepak Chopra; I have never been paid to edit; and I'm not a member of this "militant skeptics" group.
Alexbrn's comments are quite reasonable, and even commendable. This encyclopædia takes the mainstream view and relies on reliable sources, rather than reporting every claim at face value and covering every person on their own terms, regardless of how far those terms stray from reality. When covering WP:FRINGE topics it can be hard to maintain neutrality, but reliable sources help. A brief look through some of Deepak Chopra's writings confirms to me that what little I've seen is very much WP:FRINGE. That must influence how competent editors deal with content about Chopra, not out of any kind of "bias", but because the encyclopædia's main purpose is to reflect what reliable sources say, not to reflect what Chopra says. bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Be specific. What writings out of all the books and articles are you referring to? And exactly in what respect are they fringe? I'm quite familiar with the body of Chopra's work in alternative medicine as well as quantum physics, so I would welcome an in depth discussion on why you believe that it is "commendable and reasonable" for all editors on this page is to approach this page with the point of view " Chopra is a pseud according to mainstram sources." and " We don't give Chopra's views weight here but instead follow the guidance in WP:FRINGE?" Especially since such personal comments about the article subject violate BLP Talk page policy. Your page says you are interested in "Cleanup of pseudoscience, alt-med, and other fringe articles." So it seems you do have an axe to grind. Apparently even this blatant bias can look "reasonable and commendable" to you as long as it reinforces your existing opinions. Vivekachudamani (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Vivekachudamani is apparently not saying that I am in violation of policy: at least the quotations he's produced from me illustrate that I am taking care to be (in WP terms) "neutral". The conclusion of Vivekachudamani's line of reasoning is this: editing BLPs on proponents of fringe topics according to WP policies, notably WP:PSCI, gives rise to a "conflict of interest". I am starting to wonder if WP:CIR applies here, since Vivekachudamani does not seem to have grasped some WP fundamentals, and this is causing a lot of noise. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Vivekachudamani, you would do well to actually read the guideline you are accusing editors of violating. "Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest." WP:COI also lists the types of relationships an editor may have that would constitute a conflict of interest. Simply put, you have presented absolutely no reason to suspect that any of the accused have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are expected to get along with other editors and work together toward building the encyclopedia. If your reaction to finding that someone disagrees with you is to try and have them forbidden from editing, this may be the wrong website for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) if we are going to apply Vivekachudamani's " I am taking the straightforward interpretation of conflict of interest from the WP:COI page. “A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” " then by the evidence given by Vivekachudamani, it is Vivekachudamani himself who has the COI in opposing Alexbrn's applications of policy and guidelines.
Vivekachudamani have you actually read WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

“A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.” Alexbrn's comments show his aims are to label Chopra as a pseudoscientist and "fringe." Those aims are incompatible with the aim of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia. Let's try to stay on topic.Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that it is a demonstrable fact that Chopra is a proponent of fringe/pseudoscientific theories, it would be incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It is quite clear that Vivekachudamani hasn't got a clue what COI means as it applies here. I shall therefore remove this page from my watchlist, and look forward to more of Alex's edits both on the Chopra page, and elsewhere. This has been a waste of time and effort for everybody concerned. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
again, Vivekachudamani, please read WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID. "Neutral point of view" does NOT mean that we give all points of view equal weight. We present the points of view based upon the representation that they are held by mainstream academics. If you keep promoting that we value them otherwise, YOU are the one who is editing with "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

There is no evidence that Alexbrn is editing outside of Wikipedia policies in a manner that shows any COI. There is growing evidence that Vivekachudamani is unwilling or unable to edit within Wikipedia policies without promoting a COI incompatible to WP:UNDUE , WP:BALASPS, WP:VALID. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely on the other hand that Vivekachudamani has some personal or professional connection with Chopra. To take a single example from that user's monothematic edit history: how exactly, Vivekachudamani, did you know that Chopra does not have a son named Adam when you made this edit in July 2009? What sources did you consult that persuaded you that Adam Chopra was "fictional"? Do you in fact have some connection to Chopra? If so, you have a WP:COI, and should refrain from making direct edits to that article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: this may be moot, as a COI may have just been declared here (Note the email came through OTRS - the only person with access was Vivekachudamani): http://www.choprafoundation.org/science-consciousness/my-open-letter-to-wikipedia/ ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoa - that's been taken down pretty quickly! I have a copy. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
So what's going on here? An editor (Vivekachudamani) with a history of trying to spin the Deepak Chopra article, and of repeatedly trying to have me sanctioned for COI while denying COI himself, suddenly has their email appearing on the Chopra Foundation web site in the midst of a campaign by Chopra against skepticism on Wikipedia. Something pretty rum is going on. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
You have a copy, Alex... who signed the letter that appeared for a short time on the Chopra Foundation website? Who wrote it? Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Well done on getting a copy. That was quick. What was in it? (If you are able to share a copy, I'd be very interested) bobrayner (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It's cached here. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced editor with only a vague awareness of OTRS, I assume that the copied email had extremely restricted access. In order for Chopra to write his letter someone who had access had to provide Chopra with a copy (or Chopra himself has access). Is this correct? --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Vivekachudamani Busy day. Here's the deal. In July 2013 I contacted Chopra's office to inform them of the what was happening to Chopra's WP page. I was asked what could be done about it and I told them about the help link. I was asked make that contact and that's how Ticket#2013071510009944 began. That day I wrote Mastcell and told him

"I've contacted the Chopra Center and told them the situation with the page and advised Dr. Chopra to have the page taken down immediately. He called me back today and said he didn't even know removal was possible, then said, "Okay, have them take it down right away." I've sent an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and I'm just waiting to hear back from them. Is there any other channel that is faster? Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As the ticket activity moved forward Chopra, his office, Matthew, and I were copied in on emails, And this contact is my hidden "connection" everyone is so intrigued about. My motivation on editing the page comes from my knowledge of the material. I kept Matthew informed of my WP activity and that was the email I sent Matthew that was for some bizarre reason put underneath Chopra's letter to Matthew. Honest to God, I only saw that when someone at WP informed me this morning. I was dumbfounded that my letter was there and that Matthew was named. I emailed the office to immediately remove it. I explained to them that regardless of their frustration over these months, that this did not help their case, and probably just burned me as an editor. So there it is. The "COI" is an email of the material from the discussion page sent to Matthew and copied into Chopra and his office. Here is the shiny diversion from the COI issue at hand, coming from a direction I could not have predicted. Vivekachudamani (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Vivekachudamani's letter allowed me to hunt around the interwebs to see if there was a stronger connection between him and Chopra. I found that there was: I saw a web page that described Vivekachudamani as having worked with Chopra for 15 years as a researcher and copy editor responsible for polishing Chopra's writings on the subjects of mind-body medicine and consciousness/spirituality development. That's a lot closer to Chopra than he lets on. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no 'COI issue at hand', other than possibly yours. You have utterly failed to demonstrate that anyone has done anything beyond ensure that an article on a purveyor of pseudoscientific fringe claims is accurately described as such in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

@Vivekachudamani: Yes, if you've been working closely with Chopra on his writings over the last 15 years (I'm hoping the web page that demonstrates this won't suddenly disappear, too) and came here to erroneously accuse another editor of COI, then I'd say this episode has definitely "burned" you as an editor. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I have reviewed the above and there is nothing in the complaint whatsoever—the quotes from Alexbrn are completely standard because fringe views are labeled as such at Wikipedia. I have also reviewed Vivekachudamani's contribs and cannot see anything unrelated to the topic of Deepak Chopra. An WP:SPA may not have sufficient experience to understand that enthusiasts like to promote hundreds of fringe topics, however there is nothing unusual about this case—no COI is required to understand that someone who invokes quantam mechanics to promote human health has WP:FRINGE views. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Have fun guys. That blurb was more fantasy than fact, and based on a school board interview that was sexed up. I actually index medical textbooks and other technical manuals. I once did some research that Chopra happened to use a long time ago, but he probably doesn't remember it. The time line and the nature of the Wikipedia contact is accurate. But hey, go crazy with this. You score double points for embarrassing me to Chopra as well for pretending involvement that wasn't there. And pat yourself on the back for ignoring the page notice at the top.Vivekachudamani (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Update:In last 24 hours I have been talking with and emailing Chopra's office and Dr. Chopra himself. In large part, trying to explain the "copy editor" comments.So after all that connecting, I can officially announce that I am now a Connected Editor. The good news is that he has a sense of humor and said this kind of thing happens quite often. He then offered a research project to me starting next week. Maybe because he felt bad for his part in inadvertently toasting me as an editor. Anyway, that means I really do have a COI with the subject now. Once I figure out how to stick the COI after my name It'll show up in my signature. This new status actually accords with my desire to step away from an active role on this page anyway. I'll wait for the decision on the Alexbrn case. Vivekachudamani (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

This diff looks like Deepak Chopra told you the correct information for the Wikipedia article. You did not dispute you have a connection with him for at least 15 years. QuackGuru (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Vivekachudamani, what you're saying is that because you fabricated details of your online bio or allowed the fabricated bio to remain online... Chopra offered you a research project. And he said this kind of thing happens quite often? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the spirituality movement :=( LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Any objections to closing this? --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Negative, captain! - I've been following this thread with interest, and I believe it accomplished its intended purpose (to determine COIs editing the article). Thank you everyone! ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 19:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

so if I am reading the discussion correctly the summary is: Conflict of interest at Deepak Chopra?

  • Alexbrn- no
  • Vivekachudamani- likely

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Before this is closed, I wanted to squeeze in and say this was the most amusing case of WP:BOOMERANG I've seen on COIN. The Greeks used to write plays out of stuff like this. Blackguard 09:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Matthew said:"I believe it accomplished its intended purpose (to determine COIs editing the article)." You asked me to provide evidence of COI on Alexbrn. I have with his statements to pursue the article with a blanket intent to frame it as fringe and pseudoscience. No one here has offered a reasonable defense of that bias who doesn't already hold it. So how exactly has the Alexbrn issue been concluded? My unfolding situation detailed above is an entirely separate issue. Having some research on Ayurveda, (which I wasn't paid for or had acknowledged) make it's way into a Chopra book 15 years ago is hardly evidence of a COI. We haven't begun to accomplish the stated purpose of this thread. But apparently the actual purpose was to attack my motives and avoid Alexbrn's. It's especially rich because Matthew thanked me for taking the COI issue to him, "through the appropriate channels." The joke's on me. Vivekachudamani (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes someone who is self-evidently a promoter of fringe pseudoscientific ideas as a promoter of fringe pseudoscientific ideas. That is not 'bias'. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enbridge editing Enbridge

This appears to be a clear conflict of interest. An anonymous IP 161.141.1.1 has done a significant number of edits to the Enbridge article since 8 October 2013, as far as I can see all with a pro-Enbridge bias and generally using the Enbridge website as reference material. I am not trying to out this editor, their talk page states that the IP is registered to the company.

I have discussed the POV nature of those edits with this editor on the article talk page and on the editor's talk page with no response from them. Other editors have also reverted this editor's edits stating that they were not NPOV and that the references used were not independent. I beleive this editor should be blocked from editing this article and their edits should be removed. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There's been no further edits since November 1st, and this is a shared IP, so my vote would be to wait and see if there's any further abusive edits. If this problem persists, then I support a one month {{anonblock}}. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 16:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with PCHS. Good work Djapa. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Does this IP deserve the usual consideration as a shared IP when it is shared only among Enbridge employees who would presumably all have a COI because of where they work? I think the current one week block is a good move. Djapa Owen (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that, although the majority of the edits are COI edits to the Enbridge article, there are also edits to other things, hence where shared IP comes into play. That said, if there's any further problems, I would support one week or one month to halt the troublesome behavior, as it seems that a block of that length would do more good than harm in this situation. I'm just saying we shouldn't be hasty when we block shared IPs that aren't vandalism only accounts, particularly ones that may represent 10,000+ adult users (going by the number of employees listed in the article); there's been no abuse for the last few days, so lets see if it stays that way. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jung Myung Seok

There are a few dozen international news articles from Reuters, AP, and East Asian sources describing Jung Myung Seok as a convicted serial rapist who used a cult to manipulate women into having sex with him. It is my opinion that these articles are reliable descriptions, which has started a very long-term dispute over this article. User:MrTownCar, another user involved, has just posted:

I have read many of his sermons and his proverbs. The man has a love for God that is unparalleled and is obvious to those who have witnessed his life. His greatest desire in this life is to please the heart of God and save spirits of human beings. Akin to Jesus, he loves those who persecute him and prays for their salvation. He underwent a sham trial and was accused by false witnesses. It is truly ironic and shameful that the very thing that he preaches against from the deepest part of his heart is that which the false witnesses accused him of and had him sent to prison for ten years.

Obviously this is a statement of faith. To me, this soapboxing on the talk page places doubt on his ability to withhold his bias in a way suitable for Wikipedia. However, I am involved in the dispute and do not want to slap him with a COI warning. What do people here think is the correct course of action? Shii (tock) 02:18, 7 November 2013

Since 99 percent of the article is contributed by Shii and only a few phrases by me I see no COI. AS LONG AS I PRESENT INDEPENDENT SOURCES THERE IS NO COI. ADDITIONALLY EDITORS SUCH AS richwales, harizotoh, ravensfire, sam sailor have all supervised the editing process and made sure everything is on the QT. If not they fix it.MrTownCar (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I've contributed about two sentences to the article total. What happened here is that you and another editor removed the contents of an article written several years ago, and I've restored it several times. Shii (tock) 03:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment from Sam Sailor

When the long term edit warring in Jung Myung Seok was last brought up on ANI,[12] I requested and got a 6 months semi protection, and I have since participated in editing the article.

User MrTownCar is an SPA only editing in Jung Myung Seok and the closely connected Providence (religious movement). He has a long history of flat out denying existing sources and deleting content he does not like, e.g.

resulting in white-washed versions of the article, e.g. Previous revision of Jung Myung Seok.

When that does not go down well with the community, he engages in filibustering on article and user talk pages, cf. [13].

I'm not afraid to say that when we have an editor who denies basic facts such as the validity of the 10 year jail sentence Jung Myung Seok is serving, and at the same time displays knowledge and opinions that hardly can be interpreted as anything else than a devoted follower of Jung, we are dealing with an editor whose external relations triggers a COI that makes it impossible for him to be a Wikipedian in these articles. Sam Sailor Sing 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

UrgentRx

This article on a marginally and probably not notable OTC pharmaceutical was created by an SPA, User:Copperider, and since then has been edited by, and is largely the product of, a succession of other SPAs, most recently User:RightNowRelief. I stumbled upon this article while doing some vandal-fighting with an automated tool. I see that at one point it was proposed for deletion, and I'm leaning now toward an AfD, but was curious to get a second opinion as to what to do with this obviously self-written or paid-for-edit article. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Four Corners (film)

Someone on behalf of the film adding their adverts and copying the plot/other text whosale from other websites. Thanks Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Lee Roy Parnell

Luvwomercy (talk · contribs) has been making copyvio edits to Lee Roy Parnell, including the removal of any description of him as a "country" artist. This edit in particular, in which the edit summary is "Edited Intro paragraph at artist's request - does not want to be described here as a country artist", suggests that the user is in cahoots with Parnell, as is the fact that their user name is based off one of his songs. Most of their additions have been pure copyvio straight from his site, further suggesting a high COI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Luvwomercy has declared here that he/she is an employee of Parnell, I've gone ahead and tagged the page and talkpage accordingly. Is there any copyvio that you are aware of other than the massive one added with this edit, which as far as I can see you have completely removed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suite of COI articles

  • Now a redirect. Article was hopelessly promotional and copied to boot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, guys.

I'm just dropping this off in case anybody has more time to look into this. I'm working from the copyright angle.

I've discovered what looks to be some pretty hefty COI in these four articles from at least one self-professed employee of the organization with which they are all closely affiliated. (In the case of one of the articles, the subject himself has clearly edited - the histories suggest other involved contributors as well).

I've tagged the articles, made a note on the talk page, and given a COI caution to two editors as well as a referral to the policy to a third, but I don't have time to really look at these and perhaps neutralize any issues. We've gotten the backlog at WP:CP down to where at least the page isn't broken anymore, but I have the ambitious dream that one day we may actually catch up. :)

IF anybody has time to look into these, it would be appreciated. A COI tag was removed from one of the articles previously. This has been evidently going on for years. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding Robert J. Wickenheiser to the same group.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting. Whether the articles are deleted or not, it does not diminish the importance of these people. Check the links to news articles and everything. My humble opinion is that the "democracy" of wiki might pull itself apart as Plato pointed out in his Republic regarding the nature of democracy.Truth is not determined by votes. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. There is just an article a difference between an encyclopedic article and an ad. And the difference is not so subtle.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reduced Terrance Lindall to verifiable content and would invite interested contributors to build it up in accordance with our site's policies.
It has nothing to do with your notability, User:Terrance Lindall, but merely our website's policies. Our articles are meant to be neutral summaries of what reliable sources say about notable subjects - very little content in an article should rely on what the subject says about itself directly or through connected entities.
The article about you as it was had some serious problems with our core policies. For instance, the article said:
"Lindall is mentioned in the book Museum Founders alongside such notables as Augustus Pitt Rivers, Hans Sloane, Peggy Guggenheim, Nelson Rockefeller, Elias Ashmole, and many other builders of outstanding institutions [14]."
First, we cannot reference this book on Wikipedia because it's taken from Wikipedia. The link says, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." Second, it may give an inadvertent impression that you and Nelson Rockefeller have something in common other than having founded a museum. Someone familiar with Wikipedia's policies is likely to understand that we would not include these names in your article just because of this tangential connection, since it may mislead our readers.
Further, some of the material seemed to be just plain wrong. The article made this claim about an event you hosted celebrating the work of Milton:
"However, The New Statesman [15] called it "The Devils Party..."
The New Statesman didn't say that. They said this:
"Music was provided by the JC Hopkins Biggish Swing Band, but surely a better choice would have been Philadelphia rockers Milton and the Devil’s Party. Formed by two English professors with a penchant for the Eagles, the Blake-inspired band are currently touring to promote their new album, How Wicked We’ve Become. They excitedly announce the poet’s birthday on their Myspace page: ‘Milton turns 400 this December! So, the rock band he incorporeally fronts is dedicating all its 2008 shows to everybody's favorite Puritan pariah!’"
It is clear in context that this passage is not documenting any controversy about the event, but instead noting the Milton-specific work of this band, the title of which includes "The Devil's Party".
The article as it currently stands is short and needs expansion with more properly sourced information about your work, but it is consistent with our policies and hopefully will be built up in accordance with those policies to content that meets our policies and purpose. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
You've done a ton of work on these articles but I have a serious question as to the notability of some if not all of them, as well as their tone. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable! How do you like that! Wikipedia is system of rules and you are trying to follow them. Best Regards,Terrance Lindall (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, is this intended to be sarcastic? I hope not. I'm seeing articles that appear to be self-written, and volunteer editors breaking their backs fixing them up. Frankly I have serious doubts they belong in Wikipedia at all. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

COI of User:Terrance Lindall

After reading the above and looking at various page histories, there is no doubt in my mind that Terrance Lindall has a conflict of interest at the following articles:

and probably also at Bienvenido “Bones” Banez, Jr. (again, see File:Robert j wickenheiser.jpg) Have I missed any, or drawn any false conclusions here? If not, I suggest tagging those articles accordingly as a first step. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Beyond My Ken appears to believe that no evidence has been presented for a COI at Kings County Savings Bank. Have I been over-hasty in reaching a conclusion here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Collarcard123

Collarcard123 appears connected to "Collarcard" company; created article on CEO. Contributions should be scrutinized. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the username suggests a connection. However, the editor has made only a few edits, and only about half of those to the Randall Kaplan article, the last of them almost 3 years ago. Might it perhaps now be more productive to focus on that article, which I see you have nominated for deletion, and where I have now made some edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi there. I'm currently in the middle of discussions with Jimbo Wales about a proposed draft I have written. We seem to be disagreeing on the neutrality of my proposed draft, so I am looking for editors to help.

If there are any editors here who can read the draft and weigh in on the discussion that would be great. The draft is for the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article, that link goes to the current version. My draft is here on my user page.

It seems that Jimbo and I both feel that the other is pushing a particular POV. I'm concerned about the sourcing and biased language in the current version, which is why I suggest you read it as well. Jimbo is concerned about my POV because of my Conflict of interest: I have been hired by Ramtha's School of Enlightenment to write and suggest this new draft.

The discussion with Jimbo is here on the article's discussion page. Calstarry (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're a new editor with no previous editing experience hired to work on an article that falls under ArbCom sanctions on pseudoscience? I'm sorry to say, but that doesn't sound like a good idea on the part of you or your employer.
So are there any specific coi-related concerns being brought up? --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I'm being obtuse here, but it seems that Calstarry wants to know if he/she has a COI at Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. My answer would be: if the editor is being paid to edit there, then of course there is a COI; Calstarry is strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and should instead suggest improvements to the article on the talkpage only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ronz and Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks for taking the time to respond here. First, I am aware that I have a conflict of interest. I have not made any edits to the article and I don't plan to. I have been suggesting improvements and pointing out my concerns with the current version on the article's discussion page. I left this message here because I am an editor with a COI looking for editors who can review the two versions (the current version and my suggested revision) of the article and help myself and Jimbo find a way forward.
I thought it might be helpful if I shared an example of one of the issues on the page that I'm trying to improve. One of my concerns with this current page is that information, both positive and negative, is not properly supported. In the current version you'll find the following:
The dialogues, and a lot of transcripts from Knight's Ramtha talks, have been compiled and published over the course of many years. Videotapes of various dialogue sessions have also been released. While some of the major themes around the school's teachings are covered in these publications, a more in-depth and systematic presentation of its philosophies and teachings are only accessible by attending a retreat in person.
No source is provided for this and it is overly promotional. I have rewritten this in my suggested revision as:
Additionally, the school's teachings are available through books, tapes, CDs and videos.
and I have provided this source as a reference.
Though I have a COI I am not asking to remove any well supported information, negative or positive, from the page. I am looking to update the current version so that it is current and so that all of the information included is well supported. If this is something you can help with the conversation between myself and Jimbo can be found on the discussion page. I do think it would be helpful for editors to read the two versions of the article first though.
One more thing: Ronz, I'm not sure what your comment about Arbcom sanctions on pseudoscience means. I'm not seeing anything on that page about Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, but as you seem familiar with the case and think it applies here, I'd particularly appreciate your thoughts on my draft. Calstarry (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor Johnmoor

Possibly related editor
Articles (lists are likely incomplete)
Deleted articles
Process

Johnmoor (talk · contribs) is a paid editor likely a paid editor. He appears unable to understand and follow WP:COI.

I'm not sure how much evidence we need to make it clear that he's a paid editor versus calling on WP:DUCK and being done with the situation.

Currently the deleted edits counter is not working, but it's pretty apparent that much of his editing is deleted because it's fit's speedy deletion criteria or is similarly poor.

The first encounter where I noticed his poor editing was when I came across Grammarly. It was little more than advertising though salvageable [18]. I've worked on the article since then (May), and have found Johnmoor to be an extremely inexperienced editor when it comes to working with others and understanding relevant policies and guidelines. His WP:OWN problems alone should be sufficient for a block. However, since I recently learned that he's a paid editor he may be a paid editor, I think it best to hold off on documenting the WP:OWN problems. Nevertheless, the problems found in Grammarly, the use of poor sources to create highly promotional content, appears typical of most if not all of Johnmoor's editing problems, and directly violate WP:NOT and WP:NPOV.

Recently I saw this discussion on the possibility he might be a paid editor. I noted that I'd not seen any evidence he was a paid editor, but his behavior is that of a paid editor. I followed up with the editor that started the discussion here, when I realized that there was indeed evidence he was a paid editor. As noted in that discussion, Johnmoor's ability to obtain images and permission to download images indicates he's been in very close contact with the people and organizations he has written articles for. I also noticed relationships between some of the individuals for which he's written.

Is there an easy way to get a list of articles he's created? His current edit count (with deleted edits currently not working) is 774, so there's not much to go through. That is, if we actually want further evidence... --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnmoor is not hiding his identity, as his user page links to Facebook pages with his name, which link back to his Wikipedia userpage. I don't see any links to the ODesk account under the exact same name. Someone with an ODesk account might have access to information linking this together better. Is this enough to say he has a clear COI here? --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The Facebook page doesn't appear to use his real name, or at least not the same name as on ODesk. So I'm not able to post a link to the ODesk account here because of the risk of outing. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, when I first went to the Facebook page it just said "Johnmoor", but looking again I realise that he provides his full name in the profile. As he has linked to that from his userpage, and the profile is public, I don't regard it as outing to link to the ODesk account, which is under the same name as the Facebook account. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm the one that started the discussion on his talk page. I think at this point it is clear that A) he's a paid editor (both from on and off Wikipedia evidence) and B) he's more disruptive than helpful. I'm also worried about the fact he apparently lied about being a paid editor on his talk page. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnmoor posted "No, I am not being paid to edit here."[19] @Johnmoor:, do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited? If so, please explain. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The addition of membership sections to articles on Cloud Security Alliance and Software and Information Industry Association in order to list the single company PerspecSys as a member is not reasonable editing, and as clear an example of COI as I have ever seen. The manner of defense of the article on Randy Gage at Del Rev. The recreation of the previously deleted article Pod Property, containing an section with the contents: "they arranged a co-ownership agreement for two friends who pooled their deposits to buy an apartment in Surry Hills, New South Wales in 2008. The company also assisted a brother and sister in 2008 to buy an apartment in Sydney's North Bondi and helped them to look for a second one too. In 2013, PodProperty drew up a co-ownership agreement for the sales of a five-bedroom house in Cottage Point, New South Wales waterfront on Sydney's Pittwater." The range of topics would seem more compatible with paid editing than COI, but for editing such as this, the distinction hardly matters. I think it justifies at the least a long block, but I have too much involvement to do it personally. FWIW, looking at the editor's many deleted articles, I notice some editing on articles also edited by Morning277 DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Johnmoor works through ODesk, and doesn't appear to be directly connected to Morning277. Morning277 may have subcontracted through ODesk, as there was evidence of another ODesk-based paid editor being subcontracted by Morning277 in the past, but I'd regard it as equally likely that a client tried ODesk after being unsuccessful with Morning277. The article Grammarly was originally created by Elance-based MooshiePorkFace, and my guess was that Johnmoor was hired by the same client, although it is also possible that Johnmoor was subcontracted. - Bilby (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I should add that it is very common to see crossovers between freelance paid editors on articles - the client doesn't have an ongoing relationship with the contractors, as they would if they were working through a firm, so they will often hire a different person to make updates or recreate the article, and sometimes two or three people are hired for the one job. It makes it difficult to tell if it is a case of collusion between two people, or if two people were hired independently by the one client. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
  • That the activity revolves around removal of concern tags in articles is interesting - we've received quite a few queries via OTRS in the past week from people asking if someone at Wikipedia is responsible for contacting them and offering to remove ugly tags from their articles, for a price. Seems the Morning277 monkeys are getting desperate since we've blocked them from creating new articles. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Morning277&co are also responsible for the placement of many of the concern tags in the first place. They uglify articles and then approach the subjects of the articles offering to de-uglify them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you have anything to support that? If not, I think that is too strong a claim to make. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The idea was originally suggested to me by one of their former clients. I was able to 100% confirm it via a chain of evidence that I can't post on-wiki without violating WP:OUTING and half a dozen other rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough - just being cautious. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Defence

We all have various reasons or aims and skills which determine how we contribute as Wikipedians. Mine is to write articles, particularly, to rescue articles that were poorly contributed or deleted. Once in awhile, I improve on existing articles, especially, those tagged—inappropriately or appropriately—for improvement.

As for this COI investigation, I will highlight the following:

  1. The title itself does not suggest an investigation into my activities, it has rather condemned me already.
  2. The initiator of this investigation, Ronz has a sole aim to stop me from further disputing the contents of Grammarly with him; see Talk:Grammarly.
  3. It is noteworthy that the dispute on Grammarly began with the tagging of the article by Ronz, and I am not the first contributor to dispute his tag.
  4. It is also noteworthy that this is not the first time that DGG would be suspecting me for sock-puppetry, no courtesy notice was given to me when he initiated an investigation on 04 November 2012 (see here), and I was aware of his suspicion when I asked him recently to remove protection from Randy Gage; see here and here
  5. My user page is linked to my Facebook page, which then links to my Facebook profile; I do not own the oDesk account being linked to me, and I believe that Bilby is not unaware that there are persons in the world and on the internet who bear exactly the same name—either fake or genuine.

I will like to repeat part of what I said to Hobit on my talk page, "I think you should judge the contents of my works and not the motive; after all, assuming good faith is a good virtue here. I save articles of notable subjects which have been in trouble due to poor work or un-encyclopaedic tone of previous contributors. I understand that many people would want to spam Wikipedia and many Wikipedia advanced users are often sceptical about the motive of articles concerning commercially inclined subjects, but I also believe that subjects which deserve a Wikipedia article should have one; after all, knowledge is golden, everyone should have it, and Wikipedia is a good knowledge resource." (see here). And I will conclude by borrowing the words of Jehochman as he response to Hobit's investigation of him for COI, "This is a free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Let's keep it loose and not subject people to inquests. Just look at the edits. The editors are all mysteries." (see here). Thank you.
—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

So you say you are not the ODesk editor. Fine. I've changed the title of this report from "Paid editor..." to "Editor...".
Could you please address the other evidence? --Ronz (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Could you also answer the question given previously, "do you have a connection external to Wikipedia to any of the topics of the article pages you have edited?" --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

oDesk

His "moorcoop" facebook page used to link to and quote the oDesk account in question. The entry is dated November 28, 2011 and titled, "Make Money Legally Online!" The information is still available in Google's cache. I think we're done here. Anyone think he shouldn't be blocked? --Ronz (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm assuming by the deleted facebook entries and his lack of any further editing, that Johnmoor has retired from Wikipedia. If he returns, he should be blocked. Meanwhile, all articles he's edited should be reviewed for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, WP:PSTS, etc problems. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep on assuming, Assumpta Ronz! —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Domus Academy

This is all pretty old history, I'm putting it here for the record. Domus Academy edited only Domus Academy, and was promptly blocked by Alexf. Alessandro Lombardo started editing 6 days later, and edited only the Domus Academy article. Master in Design created that article, and also Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti, which is the school that gives degrees to students at Domus, which is not authorised to award degrees. 93.50.123.14 edited Domus Academy and added links to it to a number of other articles. I hear a distinct quacking noise, but, as I said, it's old history so I won't be starting an SPI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

University of colorado boulder

I just want to put more eyes on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Colorado_Boulder&diff=550438543&oldid=545437102. Shold be self explaintory. May run afoul of "paid editing". CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious exactly why you are calling me out here. Yes, I work for CU-Boulder, but the changes I'm making (and/or requesting) are completely legit. What about my edits caused you to flag me as having a Conflict of Interest? Mtuckercu (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a clear answer on this. If you work for the university you almost certainly have a conflict of interest and are strongly advised not to edit the article directly, though of course your suggestions for improvement are always welcome on the talkpage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree. After the initial move of the University of Colorado at Boulder to University of Colorado Boulder, me fixing articles which incorrectly reference "at Boulder" should fall under "fix spelling and grammatical errors," of the COI Non-controversial edits clause: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits. For the initial change, I followed the exact process, handling the move request via the Talk page. Any other page moves I am also handling in this fashion. However, pages which incorrectly reference "at Boulder" I'm totally considering as a simple spelling or grammatical error. Despite having a COI, I believe the clause covers all the edits I have made. Mtuckercu (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bangladeshi martial arts

This user is trying to describe traditional unique Bangladeshi martial arts like Boli khela and Lathi khela as Indian martial arts. This highly reliable source clearly states that these games originated from Chittagong, Bangladesh. - Rahat | Message 08:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to "describe" anything as Indian. I proposed merging boli khela with the pehlwani article as they are, in my opinion, the same thing. I admit I have no sources which state this specifically, but I have given my arguments for it in the talk page. Merge proposals are not a violation of rules in any way, even if you do not agree with them. As for the lathi khela article, I never tried to claim it as Indian but I simply stated it is practiced in both Bangladesh and India. I have cited a reliable source to support this claim so it is not baseless. Donn Draeger wrote of lathi-fighting as being Indian with no mention of Bangladesh. I never even once removed any mention of Bangladesh from the article. I even kept lathi khela under Bangladesh in the List of martial arts without moving it. To claim that lathi khela is unique to Bangladesh is like saying Shaolinquan is unique to Taiwan. The term lathi khela is known in Hindi, Panjabi, Urdu, and various other languages. The art was and still is practiced in India. What's more, I never made any edits to the Bangladeshi martial arts article except for the notability tag which is always removed without discussion. Making edits that you don't agree with is not a conflict of interest, especially since I am not even from India. Morinae (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is the conflict of interest?
bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi,

I have recently discovered activities that could be potential conflict of interest (COI).

There is specifically one user named user:Middayexpress who have been engaged in various reverts of articles. The most obvious one is the country article of Eritrea. This user has too much influence on this page. The user Middayexpress is the user (active user) with most edits on the Eritrea page. [20]

It seems to me that contributions cannot be made on the “Eritrea” article without this users permission, it all depends on wheatear this user likes the contribution or not. I don’t know if this user has personal interest of this particular page. At first tried to edit the article without an account which I discovered to be problematic and almost impossible for a period of time.

There seems to exist a systematic approach from this user to revert contributions, not always talking about them in the articles talk page. The user Middayexpress also seem to neglect many contributors’ sources too primarily use own sources, in some cases also not using sources to his/her claims.

Users with no experience of Wikipedia fall in the trap of this kind of approach, since they try to change the article but being stopped at the door by this user. Experienced users can have a lot of power and use their advantage, by letting new users fall in the trap of the 3rr rule etc.

I have noticed that this user seems to have a relation to an administrator with username: CambridgeBayWeather. Recently this administrator semi-protected the Eritrea page, removing contributions, sources and reverted article to the version of Middayexpress by request from Middayexpress [21].

After a while users continued to contribute to the Eritrea article. But, Once again they where reverted by Middayexpress nor where they motivated by this user. On the 20 November Eritrea article was fully-protected by the same adminstrator "CambridgeBayWeather" and the article was once again reverted to a week old version of Middayexpress by the request of Middayexpress. Leading to all contributions being removed (-2,579)‎ bytes. [22] Here there seems to be exist a lack of neutrality with this both users behavior.


I would want to suggest to unlock the Eritrea article [23], and that more administrator with a neutral approach can be involved in securing to protect the page. I would also suggest that Wikipedia should try to come up with a mechanism to stop users becoming too powerful.

I have notified both users regarding this. I urge admins and experienced users to look at this matter, since this is not an ordinary page but a country page which affects a lot people.


Regards

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Skypernow1 (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not replying in two places to the same thing. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Eritrea- Possible conflict of interest for my reply. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Eritrea article is a priority page on WikiProject Eritrea. I'm a participant there [24], and project members are encouraged to build it. CambridgeBayWeather got involved after I asked him to have a look at the Eritrea page following some disruptive activity there by a new user/Skypernow1 [25]. Skypernow1/Hiyob346 has since been blocked for abusng multiple accounts [26]. Middayexpress (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Justin Nickels

Small town mayor or his meatpuppet appears to be editing article about himself. Repeatedly fails to provide sources, even after warnings. 69.183.117.167 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He has also begun vanity editing the Manitowoc, Wisconsin article, replacing an image of city hall with one of himself. 70.235.84.154 (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Certainly looks that way at first sight. I've added Manitowoc, Wisconsin to this, and also SPA editor Manitowoc54220. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
How do we know that this is actually Justin Nickels? I'm considering a celebrity block until he can provide evidence as to who he is. It probably is him, but if it's a supporter instead, then we have more problems. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Even if it's not Justin Nickels himself, based on the editing, it's someone with an obvious conflict of interest. 71.139.143.247 (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Dahabshiil: Barclays court case

Hi, I have left a proposed paragraph on the Dahabshiil talk page regarding the recent court hearing concerning Barclays's decision to close Dahabshiil's account, and the injunction that was granted to allow an extension of the existing arrangement between the two companies until the conclusion of a full court case next year. I have also posted on Geo Swan's talk page. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger and Dahabshiil is my client. Thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've handled this. Jehochman Talk 18:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

KWFM

Someone claiming to be close to the radio station owner of KWFM is erasing facts from the article and making legal threats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KWFM&diff=582391032&oldid=582233687

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KWFM&diff=582175901&oldid=581793987

Arbor to SJ (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

They've been blocked, and mediation was requested to resolve disputes around the article. Jehochman Talk 18:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Columbus College of Art and Design

Single purpose account with a conflict of interest Buster Seven Talk 23:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That might be considered an WP:ORGNAME violation.
It looks like the editor has added a number of (inappropriate) links to their programs, and unsourced information that's overly promotional, but it all looks rather minor. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
They should be welcomed to Wikipedia and then informed about the proper way to contribute or to request edits where they have a conflict of interest. Jehochman Talk 18:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done w/ Template:Welcome-COI and a note. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Sheh

I've already reported this article at the BLP noticeboard, as a long unsourced resume in need of major pruning. Another user suggested opening a parallel report here, given an IP's history of 1300 edits to the article over a lengthy period. JNW (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fermentation Lock

User:Vaz26hadiz has edited exclusively the Fermentation lock article, solely to add mentions and images of the Sterilock. This seems like undue weight, and I suspect said user may have a financial relationship to Sterilock. A few anonymous editors from IPs 2.10[23].*.* have also been adding Sterilock content, and may be the same person. This large diff shows the extent of the user's contributions to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermentation_lock&diff=582682658&oldid=563506452 .

I have not made much attempt to fix the content myself: shame on me. I don't want to see this commercial content, but given a choice between devoting my time and emotional energy to fighting with someone with a vested interest, and seeing this commercial content, I'll take the latter. Sorry. LWizard @ 04:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Paycom

Hello,

I am a new employee of Paycom, and have been tasked with fixing the problems with our previous article (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paycom). Can you help me replace our old article content with the draft I have created in my user space? (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User:82bangelo/draft) As I said, I work for Paycom (I’ve been here nigh on four weeks now). I don't want to get our page taken down again for writing something that is too promotional or for failing to be transparent about my position.

All I need is for an uninvolved editor to review it and help me get it submitted properly this time.

As I understand it, the problems with our previous entry boil down to:

1. It’s too promotional

2. Paycom is not notable

I’ve tried to fix both by stripping out promotional language and adding independent references wherever possible. People in our marketing department hate the new tone; I take that as a good sign. The only references to our own page are to required ISO certification documents we have posted there. I also included links from within those pdfs to verify our certifications on the ISO registrar’s site. ISO does not make a centralized list available or I would reference that instead.

Please help me get my submission in good shape so I can get it posted. Leave a message for me. Thanks.

Article to update: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Paycom

Draft of content for update: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User:82bangelo/draft

Best regards,

82bangelo (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the proper use of this noticeboard, but as long as it's here:
It looks much better. Good job!
The notability of the organization isn't very clear. It comes across that the company is barely notable if at all.
Most of the sources are primary or warmed-over press releases.
Can you find and incorporate more sources that are independent, secondary/tertiary, and reliable? The article should be written from such sources, highlighting what they identify as important. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ronz,

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to review it, especially with the backlog. What aren't we doing that similar companies like Paylocity are? 82bangelo (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the draft. Is anyone else willing to take a pass at it, and if it's good enough, post to article space? User:82bangelo/draft

Many thanks, 82bangelo (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

I posted on this page just a little bit ago looking for editors to help review a new draft of the Ramtha's School of Enlightenment article. The conversation has gotten very long and complicated so now, at the suggestion of several other editors, I would like to try and look at the article section by section.

I am looking for editors who can help review the page's current Research section and compare it to my suggested revision which I have named Research into Ramtha.

On the Ramtha's discussion page I've shared my concerns with the current section and some detailed notes that explain the changes I would like to make with my revision. If you can help you can see the message on the Ramtha's discussion page about this here. Calstarry (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Inverter Compressor article

I received this message few mounths ago -> "A lot of contents were added by Danfoss PR editor to promote the technology to make itself look good which does not promote objective exhibition of inverter driven compressor in encyclopedic manner. The whole page looks like a sell sheet." So I want to clarify this situation: Danfoss is a major contributor and has close connection with the subject which helps having experience, knowledge and credibility. Variable speed technology applied to compressors exists for several decades and nobody did the article before. That is why we made the decision to write this article and to spend days on this. Other manufacturer write articles in Wikipedia related to technology. The aim of this article is not to be promotionnal. We refer to several articles which have varied editors. We are open to remove and modify what Wiki wishes if it helps to lift the blocking points...

How can I do to convince wikipedia that our article is not promotional? A contributor removed all our pictures, deleted lots of paragraphs... So we have worked again on this article to improve the content... And now I am a little bit lost.. I don't know how to do to improve the article without seeing my article deleted again... I need help to do the right things on the right way...!

Thank you

C Capucine (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mary Elizabeth Lawson (actress)

hi there I am new to wiki and as it was about time to set right one of your article on Mary Elizabeth Lawson (actress) having there been a unknown why in the article after some time found all the answers to as I was looking into my family history ie Mary Elizabeth Lawson had a son my father out of wed lock with Francis Beaumont my father being Baden colin Beaumont and the affair started in late 1933 with francis and mary Lawson I more that anyone alive no the what where when and why on my Grandmother

so I edited Mary Lawson's page to have it undone by Catuswriter now I did offer him to help with adding Ref for me as I am new and its not easy to see how to add ref which will include birth cert ref Mary Lawson's registration of my father why mary kept my father a secret and so on

so need your help as one I believe there is a copy right at fringe ie I am the descendent of Mary Lawson where I believe you need my permission which I would have given if my work was not removed by catuswriter. due to I was unable to add ref in this will also include a larger amount of other articles of family members as well. to have proof of how I said I was you will need me to add ref to the articles.

so now need your help I want my work replaced on Mary Lawson's article and help with adding ref to or I will settle for the name and address of catuswriter passed on to a solicitor of my choice

thank you from mark

Pendragon007 (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Pendragon007, thank your for your message. There are three intertwining issues I want to address here.
  1. Claims in articles need to be backed up by reliable sources. This is especially true when the editor is a relative of the subject: first-hand accounts and family stories cannot be relied upon. Articles should be based on published sources, where any editor can verify the claims made. Looking at your edits to the article on Lawson, I don't see where you added any such source to support your claims about Beaumont. The addition cannot stand without a source. The birth certificate may be useful as a source if Beaumont is dead; birth certificates should not be used as sources in biographies of living people. (I know the guideline is a little perverse here, but you may need to prove that Beaumont is dead before you can prove that he was born.)
  2. Copyright infringement relates to sentences and paragraphs, not merely to facts. For your allegation of infringement to be true, you must show that the text in the article was copied wholesale from an article. It is not infringement to use facts learned from a source if they are then recast into original prose. It is also only infringement if the source being copied from is not under a free license. As a rule, that means that text from newspapers and biographical books is under copyright; however, depending on the age of the work, the copyright might have expired. Also, be advised that any text you write on Wikipedia, you agree to release under Creative Commons and GFDL free licenses, so text you have previously added to Mary Lawson (actress) is under a free license, and Wikipedia is free to use it as it sees fit without any further consent from you.
  3. Finally, Wikipedia does not allow legal threats. Threat of legal action has a chilling effect on discussion, and Wikipedia operates by consensus. We encourage you to work with us to make revisions to the article. However, if you persist in threatening to pursue off-Wiki legal action, then our policy requires that we block your account for our protection as well as yours.
Again, I hope you're willing to work with us, as you may be able to point us toward reliable sources, with which we can work together to improve Lawson's article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Notion Capital

Would someone be kind enough to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid editor help#Notion Capital, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Oklahoman

A new editor, OPUBCO, has shown up at the page and made extensive changes [27]. Since the editor's name is the name of the newspaper's publishing company, COI seems likely, but many of the editor's changes actually seem to be clarifications and improvements to the article, so I am reluctant to simply revert everything (though I am concerned about the very long, albeit apparently sourced, list of awards added to the end of the article). Additional opinions and eyes on the article would be beneficial. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

St. Johns River Water Management District

Single purpose account editing in favor of the Water District. ((Template Welcome-COI)) used to inform Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Input requested regarding coal in Canada

Any input you would be willing to provide at this request for help would be greatly appreciated. I want to make sure the edits I am considering making will not be against Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflict of interest. Neelix (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Arindamwebsite

I don't know if this is the right place/way to post this, as I'm a first-timer.

The above user appears to be slightly promotional by username (however no "arindamwebsite" found when searching) and is also a suspected sockpuppet. Has only made edits to the two pages they have created (Jenny Sarkar and Dipayan Mandal - both Indian film makers from the same industry). George8211what did I break now? 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, Arindamwebsite appears to be close enough to the two subjects to have taken photographs of them: Dipayam, Sarkar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Daniel J. Caron

Frelau is a new single purpose editor who, based on this comment on my talk page, appears to have a conflict interest and has attempted to remove any controversial material including references from the article ([28] [29] [30] [31] [32]). I have warned them about COI on their talk page and mine, tried to work with them to make the article neutral and now need some help with the situation. On finalizing my edits to the article as discussed with Frelau on the article talk page, I was accused of COI by Frelau and received an edit warring warning from a brand new user Leptiminus that doesn't make any sense to me. I have no personal connection to Caron or the LAC (Caron's previous employer) whatsoever. I welcome a review of both our edits. See article talk page and my talk page. HelenOnline 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:HelenOnline has been warned fo past behaviour of edit warring, and this unecesary escalation constitutes the beginning of a harassament behaviour. The post on the editors' talk page was a reminder to follow known processes to address edit warring in order to encourage a productive, congenial editing style within community norms. --Leptiminus (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it still doesn't make any sense to me. In line with WP:NPA, please provide evidence for your accusations (diffs). HelenOnline 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this. It seems to me very likely that Frelau has a conflict of interest at Daniel J. Caron. It also seems to me very unlikely that Leptiminus, whose first edit read "I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP", is a new editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
From that edit and their comment here, it seems Leptimus may be taking their cue from the previous discussion on my talk page, with a user who was blocked for edit warring and is now the subject of an Arbcom discussion. HelenOnline 06:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Europeana

An IP tagged this article for COI, and set forth his evidence on Jimbo Wales user page.[33] I'm not comfortable with the COI tag being added under these circumstances but wanted to see what other editors thought. Coretheapple (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

IP is right. No third party sources, reads like advert, it should be reverted far back to the start of January 2011.--Loomspicker (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
What about the COI tag? I removed it, pending further input from here. Coretheapple (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
First, to disclose, I was alerted by e-mail this morning to problems detected in the Europeana article, as my friend knows that I've long been interested in revenue waste by the European Commission and related bodies. Can I just say "Bravo!" to the IP editor who bravely pointed out the conflict of interest editing taking place on Europeana? I just discovered myself how European Commission IP addresses are editing subjects like Europe by Satellite, European Federalist Party, and Economy of the European Union. Some of their contributions, they are even going so far to attach copyright to the edits, which is not how Wikipedia works. Nothing about Template:COI says that its use here would be improper. In fact, I think it's highly necessary to warn readers when government workers are caretaking the supposedly "neutral" presentation of information about government agencies. I think you should add back the COI notice. Percolaytor (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

RE: User:88rockzmyworld

Can someone take a look here and see if "The Wikipedia Adventure!" represents any kind of COI, intentional and/or otherwise? Thanks. Quis separabit? 04:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: It's a community approved (some would say tolerated) initiative like the Teahouse to engage and help out new editors. --NeilN talk to me 20:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Didn't know. Quis separabit? 22:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Traditions of Louisiana Tech University, Spirit of '88

I was reading the section on the Spirit of '88 and noticed an obvious conflict of interest. It comes off as a story that promotes Louisiana Tech as a university. Somebody should take a look at the rest of the page to determine whether or not it is that lone section.

Thank you. 68.185.226.140 (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Diane Harkey / Jeff Gorell / Brian Dahle

Three politicians possibly editing their own pages. __ E L A Q U E A T E 11:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of America and Australia

It seems pretty clear that there is a connection here, given this statement. The text is obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia -

As a faithful Shepherd, Archbishop Dionysios guided the flock entrusted to him by Christ our Saviour of the narrow path of salvation. His Eminence was a true pillar of Orthodoxy and defended the faithful little flock and vigorously any Wolf that were around the sheep. Away off the modernists, and the pseudo-orthodox defenders of heresy.

I came upon this working copyright and flagged the COI, also notifying the editor, but I haven't got time to strip this down to usable content - copyright work beckons. I mention it here in case somebody else does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Fashion Net

Shousokutsuu is the creator and principal maintainer of Stig Harder, Fashion Net and {{Fashion Net}}, though various monothematic IPs have also contributed. Fashion Net is an internet search engine started by Stig Harder; the template is simply a vehicle for links to it, of which some dozens or perhaps hundreds have been added to various articles by Shousokutsuu, who nevertheless maintains that they are not spam - see User talk:SFK2#Fashion Net template and User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Fashion Net template. There are related discussions at WP:RSPAM#Fashion Net and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 19#Template:Fashion Net. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It is perhaps also worth noting that Shousokutsuu stated that he/she is a "senior independent fashion editor" [34]. -SFK2 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But I think the clincher is the diff from 2007 that you posted on Shousokutsuu's talkpage, where he clearly states his real world identity and also his connection with Fashion Net: "I, Stig Harder, am the author of this article. I'm the founder of http://www.fashion.net". I believe that decisively confirms that Shousokutsuu has a conflict of interest at the articles listed above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. After reviewing the external links on several fashion-related profiles on Wikipedia, I replaced several links to the Fashion Model Directory (such as http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/domenico-dolce--stefano-gabbana/) with links to Fashion Net (http://www.fashion.net/designers/dolce-gabbana/). To my knowledge now and then, and after lengthy discussions with Justlettersandnumbers and SFK2, these links can in no way be considered spam, but are rather useful links that do indeed "further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" as well as comply with Wikipedia's external links policies (https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=External_links). Moreover, Fashion Net's Domain Authority is 62 (http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links.html?site=www.fashion.net); it is the number one search result for "fashion" at DMOZ (http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=fashion) and near the top on major search engines such as Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=fashion) and Bing (http://www.bing.com/search?q=fashion). (Search rankings for "fashion" have varied somewhat after May 22nd, before which Fashion Net was number one on all.) All of this, to my understanding, and also considering Fashion Net is the world's first site related to fashion, establishes authority. Shousokutsuu (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Fashion Net -isn't- a search engine, as alleged by Justlettersandnumbers above -- it -has- a search engine and the pages linked to from Wikipedia aren't search results, they're hard coded pages that can be searched, just like those on Wikipedia: https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Chanel isn't a search result, although searching for "chanel" on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=chanel) will point directly to the hardcoded page at https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Chanel This, by nobody's definition of the term, makes Wikipedia a search engine. Fashion Net's search function may include external sites, but only sites listed on Fashion Net. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Given that this is a conflict of interest noticeboard, it might be a good idea to actually address the issue in your response. -SFK2 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest and I herewith rest my case. Shousokutsuu (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. There is a fairly conclusive COI case, given this comment. -SFK2 (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the COI is conclusively established, thanks to research by SFK2. Shousokutsuu says he is Stig Harder. He therefore has a COI at that article (obviously), at Fashion Net (started by Stig Harder) and at {{Fashion Net}}, at Lumière (magazine), started by Stig Harder, and at Stephen Todd (editor), editor of that magazine. I suggest tagging those articles accordingly. Are there others to be added? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Answering my own question: Hatice Güleryüz, wife of Stig Harder according to our article on him, should be added to this list. Shousokutsuu is the principal editor there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

While I do not wish to reveal my identity, I'm very well connected in the industry; my aim has been to document without bias the early days of online fashion. Shousokutsuu (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You are under no obligation to reveal your identity. But be aware that COI editing (i.e. editing articles which you are affiliated with) is strongly discouraged. -SFK2 (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tutorvista management editing own article

This whole debacle started when I was watching the abuse filters one night and found Subrata2011 was blanking the Tutorvista page [35]. I restored the content and went to notify him on his talk page, only to find that he had a warning from both ClueBot and Slazenger about unconstructive edits (though Slazenger redacted his warning after discussing it with him on his talk page), so I gave him a level 2 warning [36]. He then added in material that was in violation of WP:PEACOCK and was seemed to be advertising in nature due to the way it was written and the addition of non-notable people without references [37]. I undid his revision and warned him again [38]. He then blanked the page a second time [39] so I gave him a final warning [40]. He immediately quits editing the article and posts a message on Slazenger's talk page about how he was merely trying to edit the article and that I was stopping him from doing so, asking Slazenger to help him out [41]. I replied both on Slazenger's talk page and on own talk page to try and clarify Wikipedia's procedures and to try and help him edit the article positively. Instead, he ignores the message I put on his talk page and writes a lengthy rant, saying things like "Whatever reason your reviewer (myself) has put across to you is nothing but justifying his/her action", "i will have a serious doubt about the reviewers knowledge of things or wiki's checking methods itself." and "What your reviewer did yesterday was plain and simple knee jerk reaction to changes" [42]. Within the post, he mentions that "I am may be from Management of this company but i will definitely won't want the tags that we have now in our page" and earlier, when he's addressing Slazenger, he mentions that he is "Subrata Majumdar, Assistant Manager, Content Development, TutorVista, Pearson Education Service." [43]. I then post another lengthy reply, stating exactly what he's doing wrong and how to fix it [44], which I assume he doesn't read, as he disappears for several days. However, he seems to have completely ignored the post and has since resumed editing the Tutorvista page, continuing with adding in non-notable people, violating WP:PEACOCK and not sourcing his material [45]. While I think he could be a useful editor, I think his position as a manager and the fact that he continues to make comments like "our page" and "force to be reckoned with" are clear examples he isn't adhering to WP:NPOV. While Slazenger has been gracious enough to attempt being a mediator in the debacle, I believe it's time to seek higher help since Subrata isn't listening to our advice (as Slazenger has told him to reference his material and keep a neutral point of view [46]). Jns4eva (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and cleaned up a little of the COI phrasing and added sourcing. It looks like it used to be a sourced page, but all the back-and-forth stripped the links away in favor of company boosterism and unsourced hype. Subatra's edits are bald-faced promotion, and unfortunately there are thin sources for anything other than its acquisition by Pearson. It still needs work. It would be helpful if he could point to non-company references for this company, but the page doesn't need more of anything promotional, and I think he's been told this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the eyes and for cleaning up the article Elaqueate, it's much appreciated. I was planning on doing it myself but I was trying not to start an edit war with Subrata. I tried to discuss how to edit positively and neutrally with him, but the discussion went stagnant as he merely took our advice as an attack and returned to his previous behavior. Jns4eva (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I've added this page to my watchlist as well, so if nothing else, there are now more eyes on the article to keep an eye on things. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you C.Fred for your assistance and for keeping an eye on the page. Hopefully this will help improve the article and serve as a wake up call to Subrata. Jns4eva (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevron Open Vision

Hi.

This looks like a potential COI situation. An editor called Christo nevron is adding mention of "Nevron Open Vision" to the articles listed above. The added entry lacks source, lacks evidence of notability and goes against WP:NOTDIR. This user has had no other activity on Wikipedia since registration.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Trafigura

Hi – I have recently posted on the talk page of the article for Trafigura, a multinational commodities trader. My COI is that I work for Bell Pottinger, a London-based PR firm, and that Trafigura is my client. The current article lacks important information on the company's history, structure and business operations. I have submitted a draft Company History section to my user space here, and I invite editors here and on the article talk page to review it and offer feedback. Many thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Bob Huff

Billbird is Huff's head press agent ("Communications Director") and was previously in the same position for another State Senator. He has been making COI edits for years on behalf of his boss, and has been tossing the word "libelous" around lately because he doesn't like the fact that edits do not reflect Huff's own website (which Billbird controls). When after increasingly heated discussion on his part it became clear that other editors were not going to do what he demanded, he went ahead in spite of repeated warnings from multiple editors, and crossed the Bright Line with some very NPOV-violating edits. He was reverted by one experienced editor, and I have now blocked him briefly (72 hours). Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I have rarely come across an editor so clueless about how a conflict of interest should be handled. Most editors will try to deny the conflict or attempt to portray themselves as neutral. Some quotes from this editor: "It makes [me] a tad upset because it makes the Senator a tad upset. Since I do work for this person, and the way he is portrayed in public is important to him, I do my best to make him happy. I would hope that you would understand this." [47] and "These latest changes aren't going to make him happy..." [48] --NeilN talk to me 20:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This is my favorite Billbird quote so far (from NeilN's talk page): "Listing rankings from organizations that do not support Republicans or Republican policy and have clearly aligned themselves with one political point of view is not neutral, third party, editing. It's a blatant political attack. This is libelous. It is an attack." I am aghast with near-admiration at the utter, boundless depths of his cluelessness. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Given this editor's two-year history of promotional edits to the Bob Huff article, his blatant disregard of other editors, and his cluelessness about both COI and NPOV, a topic ban would seem in order. 71.139.157.123 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

We're asked to stay away from personal attacks on these pages, and keep arguments calm and concise, correct? Yet you have editors like Mark Miller (Redacted) Really? You call this calm and concise? Avoiding personal attacks? --Billbird2111 (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Retract that, apologize or back that accusation up sir.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Bill, what are you talking about? If this (Redacted), the last public (non-official) post on that page was on October 23. Dwpaul Talk 22:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. The proper thing to do when an editor appears to be clueless is to politely offer them a clue. On-wiki. If they either don't get get it, or continue on in an appropriate way, you educate them, with as much good faith as you can muster, while reverting their bad edits and escalating warnings. Eventually, an admin takes the action OrangeMike did and upwards from there. What you don't do is complain about it, off-wiki, to the person who appears to be his boss. Did I understand that this was a complaint to the subject of the BLP on(Redacted)? If true, that's a much worser thing to do than the original edits. We have ways, on-wiki, to deal with out-of-policy edits and editors who violate core rules. But as clear-cut as this might seem, there ARE other possibilities. The editor could be purposely impersonating the person we assume him to be, to make trouble for him. If so, the manipulation has worked. Now, I grant you, Occam's Razor seems to be in play here, and the editor is probably who he purports to be. But even so, posting to the BLP subject's (Redacted), to try to get him to rein in the editor, is bad business. Reverts, blocks, even bans might be appropriate reactions. But off-wiki contact with someone who may be (ok, who probably is) a guy's boss? That behavior is far more troubling than the initial, edits ever were. Those edits are garden variety misbehavior, committed by an editor who's either truly off-course or doing one helluva job of acting. They're just electrons, easily erased. The (Redacted), as described by User:Mark Miller himself, could have real-world consequences for the real life person, whether he is the editor called Billbird2111 or not. David in DC (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no complaint made, but a simple request that was outed here against our policy. If you want to discuss my off-Wiki activity, do so through my e-mail. WP:PRIVACY--Mark Miller (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
You announced what you did in your own post, right on this page. I see now that someone has redacted it. If you post what you did here, there's no policy based reason I shouldn't react in horror right under your announcement. What you said you did is reprehensible. It ought to win you a block. It has certainly won you my scorn. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you review our policy on privacy. I have told you point blank to stop linking to my off wiki private accounts and to use e-mail as our policy does indeed mention. Period. This has now become harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I've reviewed it. It does not require me to ignore self-disclosure. This is what User:Mark Miller posted. "Actually Dwpaul you have to (Redacted). I am also a Californian who lives just outside Sacramento. I then quoted the BLP policy on how to contact WMF if they are not satisfied with the content. That is all.(Redacted) I have screen captured it and can show exactly what was stated if needed." Except I responded to it before he self-redacted. I violated no policy by responding to User:Mark Miller's own post before he chose to self-bowdlerize. I resent the accusation that I did. I suppose it's foolish to hope for an apology. But hope springs eternal for fools like me.
Please do not misunderstand me. I think Billbird2111's edits violated WP:COI and that Orange Mike's block of him was well-waranted. But I stand by my assertion that the behavior that User:Mark Miller explicitly announced that he'd engaged in, right here in this very thread, is far worse, and reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians. David in DC (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I am a Californian and as I said and have not redacted or retracted. I have also stated that I live in Elk Grove California (something I have mentioned many times). You did, in fact, add other information after it was redacted. I find that harrassive and if you, as the fool you claim to be, are sanctioned...then you well deserve it. As for your freaking "scorn". I don't give a gosh darn rat's patootie about that. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Daniel J. Caron

Frelau is a new single purpose editor who, based on this comment on my talk page, appears to have a conflict interest and has attempted to remove any controversial material including references from the article ([49] [50] [51] [52] [53]). I have warned them about COI on their talk page and mine, tried to work with them to make the article neutral and now need some help with the situation. On finalizing my edits to the article as discussed with Frelau on the article talk page, I was accused of COI by Frelau and received an edit warring warning from a brand new user Leptiminus that doesn't make any sense to me. I have no personal connection to Caron or the LAC (Caron's previous employer) whatsoever. I welcome a review of both our edits. See article talk page and my talk page. HelenOnline 06:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:HelenOnline has been warned fo past behaviour of edit warring, and this unecesary escalation constitutes the beginning of a harassament behaviour. The post on the editors' talk page was a reminder to follow known processes to address edit warring in order to encourage a productive, congenial editing style within community norms. --Leptiminus (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it still doesn't make any sense to me. In line with WP:NPA, please provide evidence for your accusations (diffs). HelenOnline 13:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this. It seems to me very likely that Frelau has a conflict of interest at Daniel J. Caron. It also seems to me very unlikely that Leptiminus, whose first edit read "I suggest you both re-read WP:BRD and WP:BLP", is a new editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
From that edit and their comment here, it seems Leptiminus may be taking their cue from the previous discussion on my talk page, with a user who was blocked for edit warring and is now the subject of an Arbcom discussion. HelenOnline 06:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
This was the first time I posted here and except for one comment by JLAN I have been ignored and the case archived without resolution. Can someone please help me resolve this? HelenOnline 07:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriel's Sex/Gender

Not a COI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Currently, there is an ongoing dispute over the gender of the angel Gabriel. We’re currently at the RfC level, and so far no real consensus is being reached. Although the primary dispute is over article content, I’m concerned that Elizium23 may have a Conflict of Interest that’s preventing him from approaching the issue from a neutral point of view.

Elizium23’s user page clearly shows that he has interests in Christianity/Catholicism and I’m concerned that these views may be keeping him from representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on this topic.

For example, the original revision# 581868678 included the following statement in the introduction section of the article "Gabriel can be interpreted as either male, female, or androgynous. Historical evidence supporting Gabriel's female or androgynous gender can be found in both art and literature.” along with numerous in-text citations. I believe this statement not only met the NPOV requirements very well, but was also an excellent introductory statement for revision# 583698987 which moved Elizium23’s statement on Christian theology under its own heading in the Christianity section: "Mainstream Christian theology considers all angels to be asexual, and they are generally depicted in art with prepubescent features. Some recent popular works on angels consider Gabriel to be female or androgynous.”

I have no objections to Elizium23’s current statement that’s included under the section on christianity, assuming of course his statement can be properly referenced. The problem however is that he's still dead set on excluding my more general statement that’s in the introduction. Since all of the sources I provided supported the wording of that statement, I feel as though his reason for being against is likely related to a Conflict of Interest.

I realize the brunt of our dispute is essentially article content, however the overwhelming majority of the discussion on his part so far has largely consisted of accusations. I've done my best to respond in good faith, however I don't think he cares. I think he has his mind made up and no amount of additional sources or explanations would make much of a difference. It's about WP:NPOV, but due to a Conflict of Interest.

I’ve provided 19 sources that I believe meet the Wikipedia inclusion requirements for WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE, etc. At least 10 of these sources, if not 12, certainly meet the Wikipedia inclusion requirements without a doubt, yet Elizium23 refuses to even discuss the matter beyond emphatically stating that these sources aren’t reliable.

This is what has lead me to believe that there might be a very real Conflict of Interest.

I’m still sort of new to the role of being a Wikipedia contributor, so I apologize if this belongs more under the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, No Original Research Noticeboard, or Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I wasn’t sure if I was allowed to start a discussion on those notice boards before the initial 30-day RfC period is up. If this belongs in one or more of those noticeboards, please let me know and I’ll switch it.

Information on the 1st RfC involving discussion on the reliability of the sources is included here.
Information on the 2nd RfC involving discussion on the article content statements is included here.

Again, if this discussion belongs in one or more of the other noticeboards, please let me know and I’ll switch it. Right now I just don’t know really where else to turn for help. Crice88 (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...perhaps you don't understand what a conflict of interest means at Wikipedia....but OK, I'll play along. Now...prove or demonstrate how this editor ACTUALLY STANDS IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE ANGEL GABRIEL? Yes...you are correct...this belongs at another noticeboard. Being a Christian is not a conflict of interest in this manner. Take it from a pagan. This is ridiculous.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This actually belongs to ANI, for Crice88 to be topic-banned. May be at some point someone finds time to file a request.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark Miller, Thank you for your input. If the discussion is more NPOV than COI than I again apologize for the confusion. I've gone ahead and created discussions on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard and Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Crice88 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I would suggest you pick one and delete the rest.. You don't want to be accused of campaigning.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark Miller, thank you for the heads up--I didn't know I was opening myself up to anything like that. Can I just delete the entries like I would on any other page or does it require anything more. Crice88 (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_68&oldid=1091456256"