Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:
  • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi}}.
2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven days.
  • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives
Help answer requested edits
Category:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:

Sugar Mountain Farm[edit]

Pubwvj is the self-declared owner/operator of the business described by this article. After apparently authoring and editing the article for a period of years he did declare his ownership of the business a few days ago. Has ignored efforts to get him to stop directly editing the article. Has disruptively and repeatedly asked/demanded that only editors he approves edit the article. Bruceki (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bruceki:, when you report someone here, you must inform them that you've done so. I've informed them now, but if you report people here again, you must notify them ASAP- the easiest way is to add {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I've came to Sugar Mountain Farm via WP:3O and suggested these two users come here. Bruceki did notify Pubwvj (Albeit not on their talk page) when he posted the notice on the article talk page and pinged Pubwvj [1]. As to the case I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of it but I do believe both of these editors are way to close to the subject to be neutral. Although I do believe they are both have good intentions. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I looked on the user talkpage and couldn't find it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm gives good examples of the issues here. These two users seem not to get along at all and know each other in real life. Pubwvj has been using edit requests since I told him about them but wants Bruceki to be required to do the same. There are also a lot of accusations going back and forth loaded with a lot of off-wiki baggage that I have no real clue about. Jbh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that neither Pubwvj or Bruceki should be editing the article. They appear to have been involved in a real-world dispute for years (see for example this 2009 blog post by Bruceki who outs themselves on their userpage). Pubwvj is right to be agrieved by Bruceki's harrassment here and it needs to stop now. Hopefully now that there are more eyes on the article, they can both sit back and let us edit it instead. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that talkpage, I strongly agree that neither should edit- one has a massive positive COI towards the company, and one a massive negative COI towards the company. I've added @Bruceki: to the COI editors list above because of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
aren't you supposed to put something on my user talk page @Joseph2302:? Per this discussion I will restrict my input on that article to the talk page. Thank you all for your time. Bruceki (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite clear from the start of who I am and my relationship to my farm. Bruceki on the other hand has hidden that he has a massive negative COI which he fails to mention which stems from his years of attacking me. Examples of his behavior are widely available on the web should references be necessary. Contrary to what Bruceki misstates above, I have been working with JBH and OhNoItsJamie on the talk page and they have been making the edits to the article. Bruceki has a history of being warned against doing WP:SYNTH and of attacking other farms. Additionally, Bruceki lacks knowledge about the topic and has been repeatedly written false statements in to the discussion and page be it that these falsities arrive from his purposeful choices or simply he doesn't know what he is talking about is moot. Bruceki should stick to talk at most and not be making edits. The page in question is long supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I have received guidance from people over the years to improve the page and I look forward to the help that people can give to further improve it to make it be a better part of Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have never disclosed your connection to the farm on the sugar mountain farm wiki entry. I did that. You did not change your user page entry to disclose your connection to the farm until april 19th 2015.[1], 6 days ago. When you created your account in 2008 you were explicitly warned about COI issues[2] but chose to ignore that and edited the entry for the next 7 years. During that time you were repeatedly warned about adding links to your blog and various content issues but continued to edit it despite a fairly clear COI; which has been supported by the comments here. I'm glad that you now recognize that you have a COI and hope that you agree with the conclusion here that you should not be editing that page from here on. Bruceki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagree wtih a statement or content and a person. Some of your statements about farm operations appear to be exceptional (as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL , and I've pointed that out where you've made them. That has nothing to do with you as a person; you are probably a fine fellow who kisses your wife and doesn't kick puppies every often. Bruceki (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Break: Notability[edit]

I've culled through the article's sources (all 30 or so) and found almost none that were acceptable. Most of them were blogs, primary sources, advertisements, brief mentions, did not mention the article-subject, or did not actually directly support the article text. Some were from credible news outlets, but just linked to the front page of the news site, not to an actual news article about the farm. What was left after my culling were local sources and Voice of America, which RSN archives suggest is a questionable source. Typically we expect at least one strong national level source to verify notability.

I'd encourage that in circumstances like this, notability needs to be considered before other issues; otherwise editors waste a lot of time, energy and emotional investment into an article ultimately headed for the trash bin. In a large number of articles where a COI is involved, this is the first thing we should look at. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda. (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock[edit]

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No COI in Draft space?[edit]

I was surprised at the advice given in response to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links? Is there some sort of unwritten agreement that our guidelines do not apply there? And what happens to those COI pages when they hit mainspace? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

COI is COI, but part of meeting our guidelines is to go through draft for review. If and when they hit article space then any edits should conceivably be done via edit requests, not directly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know how things away back at AfC. Joseph2302 works a lot there and picks up COI there - I don't know how he handles thing. For my part, my wish would be that if it seems pretty clear that the person creating has a COI, that folks working with them, would:
a) call their attention to WP:COI and the Terms of Use, nicely, and ask them to disclose any relationship they have with the subject of the article.
b) put the connected contributor tag on the Talk page and a COI tag on the article itself, with a section on the talk page noting the COI and tagging.
(pause) it is pretty clear to me that the part of WP:COI that says you should not create or edit if you have a COI gets blown off at AfC - as far as I know, nobody just stops conflicted editors cold and tells them they can only work via the talk page. right? so we should probably change that part of WP:COI since it is ignored in practice. But it would be very good if folks working at AfC would:
c) inform the conflicted creator (that could be a useful term if we do amend) needs to be ready to step away from the article once it goes live
d) move the article to mainspace only after it has been carefully reviewed for NPOV and decent sourcing (per the COI tag). the tag should be taken off and a note put on the Talk page in the COI section, that the article was reviewed by whoever took the tag off and moved it to mainspace.
that seems workable - it manages the COI but allows new article creation.... what do you all think?
i wonder if we should somehow have a chat with the folks who work at AfC and see what we can agree on. (i have no idea how much of a community those folks have) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not an expert, I've only been doing AfC 2 days, and so far, I've seen 1 or 2 COI articles only, and they were way short of being accepted- massive POV/advert issues (so won't get accepted until NPOV). If there's a clear COI, then I've left the COI notice on their user talk, and tagged the draft talkpage. Suggestions c) and d) seems sensible though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, giving my own personal view, Draft space is exactly the way a COI editor should proceed. It is the advice I have always given, and the advice I have always seen given by volunteers at OTRS. As long as the COI is clearly declared accourding to our Terms of Use, there will no confusion about the nature of the edits. Draft space is not indexed in the googles. It does not work for publicity purposes until it is moved to mainspace.
Obviously, the reviewers moving it to mainspace have the responsibility for ensuring the article complies with the basic requirements. Many of them have not done so in the past, but that's another problem. These reviews do not I think bypass NPP (at least, they certainly should not), and all articles actually submitted get scrutiny by the same standards. When a page is moved, it should carry the possible COI tag, and I think it should continue to carry it, whether or not it is judged that the article is currently actually npov. I have no hesitation listing a page moved from draft space for speedy or prod or afd as appropriate.
As I personally understand it, there is no policy that people with COI in general are forbidden to contribute to the encyclopedia, and there is no policy that paid editors or those with a financial conflict of interest are forbidden to contribute. Whether or not there should be is another question, but proposals to that effect have never attained consensus.
I think the only practical solution at this time is to actively follow individual articles and to actively participate in afd discussions , to prevent items brought there being closed as no-consensus or even keep because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No part of WP:COI says "you should not create or edit if you have a COI". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing - please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_your_work, the very first sentence of which says "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends.". Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I find {{Connected contributor}} to be very helpful in flagging COI on a draft's talk page. I am also usually easily able to suggest that the COI editor self identifies and deploys it themselves.
What I would like to see is a formal policy statement that sets out the difference between Draft: and main namespaces and the different ways COI editors may/should behave in each.
I should state that I am in favour of good quality paid and COI editing, via the WP:AFC route, and am wholly opposed to bad editing from whatever source. I most assuredly feel that COI editors must disclose. It annoys me to discover one masquerading as a bona fide unpaid/non COI editor. IN this I do not include those who genuinely do not know we deprecate main name space COI edits. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to paid COI editing, partly because the 2013 BP controversy shows that it can turn out bad for the subject, and bad for PR professionals, even if it takes place, disclosed, away from main article space (that is in Talk and Draft pages.) Yet, there is no overwhelming clamour to ban it, so I think it says for now.
  • Our current possible COI tag for articles is intended to be removed when editors agree that the article is neutral again.
  • Since we won't ban COI contributions making their way into articles, I think we need to disclose where this text from in the article itself. Most readers don't read talk pages. I think we need a new banner, topnote or form of words that remains for the life of the article, so the reader knows where (part of) the article came from. I think the form of words can be similar to the talk page {{Connected contributor}} template.
  • I suggest

Someone personally or professionally connected to the subject has contributed to this article.

I don't know if I have that wording quite right, as I wouldn't want the text to be shown if a physician or an acupuncturist ever edited the Acupuncture article. That would devalue the idea.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • note - I provided a notice of this at the AfC project and asked folks there to comment here (see here) Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Which is the least worse option considering the alternatives (AfC, draft, userspace, or articlespace)? Personally AfC. Currently, the wording of the COI guideline uses "should not" (and I'm assuming that technically that applies mainly to articlespace). Clearly if the common practice is to advise AfC (or draft) per DGG, then the guideline should reflect that - so why not be explicit about it in COI? The two need squaring one way or another. A draft is similar to a requested edit, so a minor change. As DGG points out, COI editors are not forbidden, so there must be a clear explicit simple way to contribute for what is often a new WP:SPA. That minor change will be very useful! The question of under what circumstances any COI tag must be removed from such an article is important. No 'badge of shame'/'tags are for maintenance only' specifies removal as soon as the issue is resolved. Surely when AfC moves to articlespace the guideline should state the {{Connected contributor}} is placed and must remain, but the COI tag should go when the issue is resolved. That moment may be more subjective. Widefox; talk 11:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Widefox, COI should be allowed to use AfC, since it's much better than them using userspace or articlespace. If I notice a COI at AfC, I usually add the generic Twinkle COI notice to their userpage, but apart from that, there doesn't seem to be anything else to do. Wikipedia allows COI editors, and the best place for them to write articles is AfC. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agree about userpage notification. Also, if appropriate at AfC, placing the {{Connected contributor}} on the talk as soon as possible would be most desirable. Widefox; talk 18:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju[edit]

Came across this article, which contains unusually flowery prose ("pre-eminent computer scientist" etc.). Did some digging, and it reeks strongly of COI (self-promotion).

The primary user Suo motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA created just for editing this article. The other user who edited the article, Esobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of the department to which this person belongs: see here. This is not an "outing", just obvious information from the Internet.

If the IP addresses of the users are analyzed, you will most likely see that they belong to the University of Buffalo (IP address range: 128.205.*.* ; see the line here). In short, it appears that persons affiliated with the subject of this article and/or the University of Buffalo are editing this article, which is a violation of the TOS of Wikipedia.

ADrakken (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind[edit]

Had multiple discussion with editors, especially @NeilN: about how they must be right because their edits are "what Kent wants" or "Kent says this correct", although they don't seem to have given a proper explanation of their COI. Multiple edit wars on that page too. Tagged the article as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What Kent wants and discussion on my talk page --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be better dealt with at WP:BLPN if the subject has concerns about the article. The use of primary court-related sources suggests that they might at least have some point (not that I've spent an hour listening to that video). SmartSE (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Most of the primary sources are backed by secondary sources, no? --NeilN talk to me 14:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Gračanica, Kosovo[edit]

not a matter for COIN Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Maurice Flesier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding Turkish language to the introduction of settlements in Kosovo which have no Turkish community, on the conclusion that "Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Kosovo like Albanian and Serbian!!", however, Turkish is not the only regional language, so are Bosniak, Romani, and others — adding any regional language to articles of settlements which have less than 0.1% of said community is extremely redundant and unconstructive, which I have commented in edit summaries, as well as on his talk page. Btw, the user is Turkish (hence his POV-pushing). Zoupan 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for move Zoupan. Turkish language officially recognized regional language for Municipalities of Republic of Kosovo and include their official websites with Albanian and Serbian See. And there is also other cities Ferizaj, Orahovac, Pristina. The presence or absence of the Turkish population must not be considered as a reference point. Well, why give place to Armenian pronunciations in Turkish cities such as Erzurum, Bitlis, Sivas? Armenian is not even recognized as an official language and Armenian population does not live here! I see it as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Maurice Flesier (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this actually a COI issue? What is their conflict of interest, other than "They're Turkish"? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It is extremely redundant — a Turkish community does not exist in Gračanica, and furthermore, the Turkish spelling is only a transliteration of the actual name (the toponym did not originate in Turkish — also in this respect, redundant). The definition of "reference point" is "a fact forming the basis of an evaluation or assessment" — no connection to this case. Turkish should without a doubt be used in the introduction of Mamuša, inhabited by 93% Turks, and other Turkish-inhabited settlements. Gračanica is inhabited by Serbs, and 0% of the population is Turks — redundant. I fail to see your connection with Armenian place names (though your comment again shows your Turkish POV).--Zoupan 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I think Maurice has a point, Turkish is a recognized minority language in Kosovo so there is no obstacle to add Turkish name of these cities. If Turkish wasn't offiially recognized, then i would be supporting you Zoupan. kazekagetr 06:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a COI case. It appears that Maurice Flesier is an advocate with regard to things Turkish (see the political userboxes on his User page) but I see no COI as that is defined in WP, in this issue. This is not a matter for COIN, but rather for WP:NPOVN or WP:ANI Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with the user boxes, my personal opinion or Turkish origin!! Well, lets we judging for the contributions of User:Zoupan to be related to Serbia? I don't even think that this is a controversial case for ANI. Nevertheless, no obstacle for moving the case. Thanks for your thoughts, Jytdog. Maurice Flesier (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2015 (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.

UndisclosedQuietly disclosed industrial marketing[edit]

Djhuff has not disclosed a financial connection to writing any articles but the pattern of editing strongly suggests she has done so since 2011. I invited her to disclose, today. There is persuasive off-wiki evidence that connects a certain industrial marketing concern to this editor, who wrote in a 2012 advertisement "I’ve had the opportunity to write a few more Wikipedia pages". Brianhe (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor acknowledged paid status and claims that this out-of-order unsigned comment on her talkpage posted in 2014 suffices as disclosure. I leave it up to this noticeboard to reply. — Brianhe (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks Brianhe. I put a COI warning on djhuff's talk page and he/she has started to go through and make declarations on the relevant pages. I've tagged the articles and their talk pages. Thanks again - nice looking out. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added a Disclosure notice to all pages listed above. Thank you. Djhuff (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be deleting all of their edits before this disclosure, when they were an undisclosed paid editor, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on paid editing? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Tweak. Great news Djhuff. Please add the following code to the talk page banners you added: |editedhere=yes --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── So I did some copyediting on these articles, removed puffery/unsourced claims etc, put a couple up for deletion. Still don't think the COI tags should come off though, all the articles seem to have been written almost exclusively be this COI editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302 i put the COI tag on, if I don't have time to review the article, so that others know it needs reviewing. an article shouldn't be deleted only because of its creator's COI or lack thereof - it needs to be on the merits. paid editors sometimes create acceptable articles (sometimes); sometimes partly acceptable articles (more common), and sometimes, yes, complete garbage. But each needs to be judged on its own merits. yes? Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they've all had at least a bit that needed removing but I've been removing/copyediting text based on Wikipedia guidelines, not assuming they're all rubbish. But a couple of them only needed about 10 lines removed, whilst others needed about 80% of the text removed, and ended up at AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
great - and about your comment above about deleting all their edits prior to disclosure due to ToU violations... that is problematic in my view. I don't do that. The edits need to stand or fall on NPOV/VERIFY/OR (the content policies). Arbcom has said that they do not view ToU as policy so I believe (but I could be wrong) that removing edits due to ToU violations would - if you did that on issues that came before Arbcom - be viewed as disruptive behavior on your part. I think. Or, if the editor is a sock of a blocked user, you can revert based on WP:REVERTBAN. that's all we can do, i think. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
fair enough, I didn't do that, although I think we should have been allowed to. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


  • I don't think that is the only way to view policy+guidelines+ToU. Here is my contrasting suggestion. Arbcom doesn't arbitrate content, so if there was a consensus to blank 100% of an article, that would be ok, regardless of whether it meets NPOV/VERIFY/OR. Arbcom has said that they won't take Terms of Use into account when arbitrating - AFAIK it didn't comment on whether we should encourage or assist other editors in complying with ToU. Finally, since we are very clear that it is almost impossible for a paid editor to write for the enemy (because of human nature) if we find say 50% of an editor's contributions require deletion : then it is sensible damage limitation and efficient use of resources to delete/blank 100% of that editor's work. We have consensus that paid advocacy is "very strongly discouraged" and 100% revert would be one way to provide that discouragement. takes a damage limitation approach for copyvio, and there is no concern of disruption.
  • IMHO we are far too gentle with paid advocacy editors, because such editors have been helping us write policy + guidelines, and we should treat them as firmly as we treat other editors who don't have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. (It is not just my opinion, the wider Wikimedia community, and the wider world, have told us so on many occasions. When newspapers get caught doing things like this, people get fired. Yet at English Wikipedia, some people want to say: we'll fix your articles for free when we get round to it, and meanwhile carry on editing.)
  • Joseph2302, was there any particular work prior to the Feb 2014 disclosure that should be cause for concern?
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning[edit]

Hi all, I've suggested a few additions to Dow Corning on the article's talk page, here. I have a COI - I work for a communications firm that represents Dow Corning - so I would tremendously appreciate any feedback or assistance anyone here can offer. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Nature[edit]

User:Onjohn is a declared COI of this page (on their userpage), but continues to edit.
User:Jghassell is a new account that has been removing maintenance templates from the article, despite the fact they still apply. The edit summary here says "Issues we address: references provided, information verified, meets Wikipedia criteria of impartial content"- implying that they have a COI too. Now declared here. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I've also tagged the article talkpage as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence L. Langer[edit]

User:Britnbecca created Lawrence L. Langer. Now they are blanking the page and here there are requesting deletion as "Lawrence L. Langer emailed us and wants to make his own change before putting the page back up", same message in the talkpage here. They have a clear, undisclosed COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • While Britnbecca may or may not receive pay from a party involved with the article, there has been clear promotion in the article, such as the awards list and the "extensive teaching background" phrase that sounds like a resume or a faculty CV. Also this part makes no sense: "he realized that there was no literature written at the time about concentration camp experiences" (yet he began to study such literature.) I suggest that the original text be blanked (apart from the bibliography) and the article restarted by less involved editors. Hopefully Britnbecca has now read the COI guideline, and will propose changes in the talk page, apart from deleting defamation and correcting serious errors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ketel One[edit]

Hi, I wondered if anyone could help.

I'm a communications professional working with Ketel One Vodka, which is a COI, and I'd like to suggest some changes to our Wikipedia page to add more insight and information.

Following the feedback and recommendations I received above, which was much appreciated, I'd like to suggest some revised changes to our Wikipedia page, which are now sourced. The following changes I wish to be made are:


I hope are suggested amends are suffice. Please do let me know if you require anything else. Thank you! AdamF Grayling (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Karim Abouelnaga[edit]

Both users are adding very similar promotional content to Karim Abouelnaga. User:Karmisassistant's name implies COI, as confirmed here, and almost straight after I removed the promotional text they had added, User:KarlaP.Uassist starts adding similar material. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've put the article up for deletion, as non-notable person, and adding COI tag to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, here, User:KarlaP.Uassist says they aren't working on behalf of Karim Abouelnaga. I've struck their name from the list. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I believe that. I count four different accounts that appear to exist soleley to edit this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Like I'm not sure either, but for now I'm going to assume good faith that they aren't lying. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Ty Cox[edit]

Paid editor to create the page, declared here. Article is probably getting deleted, but might get recreated multiple times. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


Tzjones works for Saving Seafood (see the editor's user page), a fishing industry trade organization, and recently joined WP and has been directly editing the articles listed above. I've handled some of them, and tagged the rest for COI on the article page, and listed connected contributor on the talk page of all, and placed the COI edit notice on the talk page of all. I gave the user the COI user warning and asked them not to directly edit going forward. Some cleanup to do. I think this is the first trade organization rep I have seen on Wikipedia. I think the determination of COI/paid editing is pretty clear (especially after reviewing edits). Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Resolved: blocked for making a legal threat. pages have been cleaned. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The user is claiming to be Sannie Carlson's management is removing sourced content, trying to remove all links between Carlson and Ann Lee. Disclosure here and here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

articles have been cleaned up and COI editor blocked for making a legal threat. Jytdog (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Americord Registry[edit]

Resolved: cleaned Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Bunch of IP addresses have been editing this. page has been protected; I have tagged it for COI; needs to be reviewed for NPOV etc. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to cleanup the page and removed a promotional claim pulled from a self-publsihed press release. Other than that, the page looks neutral. Meatsgains (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
great. i did some cleanup too. Jytdog (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


This has to do with all of this user's edits, mainly on Google Glass, but one on Asperger's Syndrome as well. Given the focus of the edits on one researcher, and an uploaded photo credited that researcher, coupled with no other edit focus whatsoever, I think it's a pretty good assumption that the editor is the researcher publicizing himself and his company. I have notified the editor, but the edits are stale, and I don't expect the editor to return. I'd like someone simply to police the edits, because no one else seems to consider his work notable. MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. There are a range of technologies being used in autism, and Google Glass is simply one of them. Please feel free to check all my references. They include Autism Speaks, the worlds most prominent autism charity, and TechCrunch, one of the most prominent technology reporting websites. Also, I would have liked to have been messaged directly about your concerns, as recommended by Wiki guidelines. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Senpion (talkcontribs) 06:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

note - i just dearchived this. i noticed that it MSJapan went to ANI (here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unresolved_COI) when we took no action here. Sorry about that to both you and Senpion. I'll comment there and leaving this open here for now. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nest of COI editing[edit]

Other solely MSKCC editors

  • brought to my Talk page by Formerly 98. Thanks for that. We have some cleanup work to do. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Clearanne of MSK was trying to recruit editors to write articles back in 2013 here. so this was intentional. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I worked over all the articles. roughly clean. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

David B. Samadi[edit]

Article is / was fairly spammish. Others thoughts Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd take a real close look at user: TEAMSAMADI, who is currently active and editing the article. I'd say the list of publications could go as well. Doesn't add much as it mainly reproduces what can be generated with a pubmed search. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI Statement 09:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. boatloads of COI editing on that article. i worked it over. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


Cleanup follow on to blocked (indef for adv/promo, NOTHERE, TOU), background Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Karlhard and User_talk:Karlhard#March 2015.

These articles (all now deleted apart from the draft) were edited by these editors:

All accounts are promo only, and linked with those (now deleted) spam articles. Widefox; talk 16:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Widefox: Looks like the user was indefinitely blocked on 17 April. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my first line. The other accounts haven't and due to article deletion SPI isn't possible for non-admins. Widefox; talk 16:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I read all of the list as articles, when some are users. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(refactor - that may be easier) Widefox; talk 16:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)